This is a story of arguments and arguants; reason, reasoning, and reasoners.
In this metaphysical adventure we find a philosophical through-line from antiquity to modernity, and become excited because tomorrow is ours to make beautiful.
But these are just my ideas.
It is for you to yourself to decide what you think here is true.
Note to the reader: Here is a summary version. I’d check out that 1st because some of these hand drawn images are lousy. Lastly, if you don’t like philosophy/metaphysical thinking, please stop reading now.
EPC Argument Summary: (1) We exist as at least 1 something; (2) IF there *ever* is something there must be at least 1 something with always logical status (because you cannot get a basis, a root language/system, without a basis; so, if a basis is to ever exist, that basis must have always existed; and where at least 1 basis is necessary for any kind of existence); (3) Therefore, there must be at least 1 something in the Eternal Past, the place of things with always logical status (there is nothing before always; it is the analytical 1st place, before all process, and self-sufficient in its nature); (4) The Eternal Past, of which there is 1 across the totality, couldn’t have been different than it is: it must have been ‘as is’ (i.e. there is only 1 possible original condition, globally); and (5) The Eternal Future ≥ Eternal Past (i.e. the Eternal Future cannot be less than the Eternal Past because the carryforward of necessary prior logical history is a global self-coherence principle. The EF thus includes the EP and therefore cannot be logically “less than”.). Therefore, there cannot ever have been only nothing from the Eternal Past (always; the un-beginning origin; the analytical “1st”) to the Eternal Future (forever; the un-ending onwards; analytically “last”) because there must have been at least 1 something in the Eternal Past; that’s “why.”
Starting With the Greeks: Asking Questions & Seeking Answers
Because something & nothing are collectively exhaustive (the only 2 categories) and mutually exclusive (not both): there must be something or nothing.
Thousands of years ago in ancient Greece, Parmenides recognized that “nothing comes from nothing” (no somethings come from nothing; there is never nothing prior to something). He postulated this as per se notum or self-evidently true — not proven, but instead taken as intuited self-justified input.
There is a question as to why this statement is true (if it is true). I claim that this argument explains why Parmenides was right (by implication).
It does so by substituting 1 per se notum truth (his) for a per se notum framework (mine) that both explains his & arrives at something I find beautiful: a simple but deep explanation as to why nothing was, is, and forever will be impossible.
But simply assuming Parmenides was factually correct for a starting point: Because there is never nothing prior to something (re: No nothing or something comes from Nothing), IF you *ever* have something, you always had something (whether 1 or many).
Aristotle and many others would agree with this statement, but what is the correct way to interpret this?
As the original metaphysician, Aristotle gave us a framework of causation as embedded and primary, and presented a famous argument currently referred to as the cosmological argument.
Aristotle suggested the following: The universe exists (as a thing), everything is caused, and therefore there must be a prior sequence of causation. But, there cannot be an “infinite regress” of causes, and therefore we arrive necessarily at an ‘un-caused cause’ to terminate the prospective sequacity.
My argument contends that Aristotle was only indirectly right: that he was backwards precisely by thinking backwards…
The Systematic Existence Principle: the 1st Axiom
Beneath reasoning exist so-called “laws of thought”: primitive self-consistency conditions which have long guided us as a North Star in our quest to Knowledge.
Of all of these, by far the most basic is the nature of identity: IF a thing exists, it does. That is, whether we are talking about God or gumballs — laws, numbers, or platonic objects — to a rational logician, there can be no hidden existors & everything that is must be (have identity, of/as itself).
The core framework of the EPC is referred to as the “Systematic Existence Principle” (SEP). The SEP is simply an identity requirement, and provides basic definitions for the categories of something and nothing.
Thus, something for purposes of this argument is defined maximally broad and is simply a binary: anything that exists, of any kind and in any way, does. And, if there is existence of any kind, there must be at least 1 thing.
In the modern vocabulary of domain specific languages and programming computers — now architecting systems from an Archimedean point of view — and in using Galieo’s insight on the natural language of mathematics — one believes the following: all things that exist exist (have bona fide identity), and that means that such things exist as/in at least 1 language (as/in at least 1 System). Where, a “basis” is a root language/system (ex. a system that is its own language), and where at least 1 basis is necessary to any existence of any kind.
Because Something and Nothing are the only 2 categories, the totality (SYSTEM) is comprised of all S/N, from the Eternal Past (“always”; the beginningless origin) to the Eternal Future (“forever”; the cumulative carryforward, as an unending onwards).
Nothing= 0 existors or encodings across the totality, cumulatively and globally (from the Eternal Past, always, to the Eternal Future, forever). You cannot necessarily have had something in the Eternal Past, and then claim you can ever have only nothing after the Eternal Past (re: cumulative requirement), and you cannot have (necessarily) had something in the Eternal Past & also nothing (re: global requirement).
Given this correct definition, the only potentially valid nothing is the inherently necessary nothing: where there is 1 nothing that un-exists alone across the totality by itself (multiple nothings is inherently self-contradictory as more than 1 nothing necessarily requires encodings). In other terminology: the “upper” and “lower” bound on the category nothing must be 100% for its inherent “realization” without encoding (which is necessary to its self-coherent definition).
In distinction to Aristotle, my claim is that the key insight is that “always” is a direct and primary analytical condition on the original something: because you cannot get a system without a system, IF you *ever* have a system, you always had a system. That gut insight, and trying to better understand it, was what started the EPC.
In the SEP framework, we recognize the following: you cannot get a basis without a basis; so, if you ever have a basis, that basis must have always existed. Because a basis is required for existence of any kind — and me, you and the universe are at least 1 something — this implies there must have been at least 1 always something (including a basis).
Visual: Inner-logic of the SEP: existence → Identity → (differences) encoded as 1+ bit
Always is an original analytic condition implying ‘as is self-sufficiency’ (existence in full before/without process) on at least 1 original something (that includes or is a basis); it is NOT that there must be a self-sufficient thing via deduction of us thinking (causally and) (temporally) backwards from “now”, and needing to end an infinite regress (re: Aristotle/Aquinas).
For paradigmatic intuition: The idea is we do not properly think *backwards to* the place of the always, the Eternal Past. Instead we think *only forwards from* the Eternal Past, and only once was have justified it with bona fide footing (i.e. understanding the debt of identity for the origin/originality is the “1st argument”). This is because the Eternal Past is the analytical 1st place globally, the logical 0, and thus given original logical priority in philosophical argumentation.
There is nothing before always (i.e. there are no somethings or nothings prior to always), and without at least 1 always (something), nothing would be.
Visual: Antiquity vs. the EPC
Visual: An Anti-Cosmological Argument: In sharp distinction to Aristotle’s argument, the EPC contends that whether our universe is past eternal or not, or whether or not time is bona fide, or whether or not we are in a simulation, the same exact general argument holds for anyone in any possible world.
Visual: The Ancients asked which came 1st, hard-wiring Aristotle’s cause & effect framework. The moderns asked why is there either?
The Nature of Always: A Logical Monopole (Ontological Singularity)
What if I told you always is a place? And, also that it was the analytical 1st: the ground of existence?
That, like a left arrow (←), “there is nothing before always.“ More specifically, that there are no nothings or somethings prior to always.
The Eternal Past is the place of the always. The Eternal Past is the one 1st place across the totality (globally).
Because something and nothing are mutually exclusive & collectively exhaustive, there must be something or nothing there.
Visual: The Nature of Always (The Eternal Past)
While the always condition is conceptually like a left arrow (←), one needs to also intuit a complete lack of right arrow (→) as well.
Consider the classic set up of “A → B”, where A causes B, A implies B, if A then B. A is one state of the world, B is another, and B follows A (logically, temporally, or both). Crucially, what is implied by this setup is chronology or sequence or process or time or change of some kind (re: right arrow, →). There is 0 of any kind in the Eternal Past.
Based on the complete lack of chronology, sequence, or process of any kind — and because there is only one 1st place — what’s there in the Eternal Past exists all together (as 1 System¹), all at once (as a 0th moment without becoming or process or change), and before all time (progression).
Thus, what’s in the Eternal Past exists ‘as is’ as a pathless point (A*): not self-caused (a 1st cause), but un-caused (the 0th cause as an always logical status self-sufficient basis).
What’s in the Eternal Past exists as and at 0 (a-chronologically). There can only be one global 0, and it can only “happen” originally once. Just like there is no north of the North Pole, there is no before the 1st place (Eternal Past).
There is nothing before always (No S or N prior to the EP), and in its nature, always exists as 1.
Because the EP’s originality is the totality (it’s own where, and the only what), we see that there is no other “where” for there to be any alternatives (re: there is nothing before the EP; the EP = the 1st place & it exists all together and all at once as 1 system; and there has not yet been an after, as originally according to the EP).
Because there are no hidden existors, there are no other original possibilities (another basis, or other things) or the possibility of nothing!
So, we arrive at a necessary something: 1 always existor is required, and there is maximally 1 always.
The unique nature of the Eternal Past (always) illuminates why the 1st actuality is the only original possibility, and why it (BASIS, the only possible basis, as the only possible 1st thing) is necessary as the logical monopole.
Visual: Finding the global 0 by the requirement and the nature of Always (I)
Visual: Finding the global 0 by the requirement and the nature of Always (II)
Visual: Original possibility, 1st actual & the necessary; the pathless point
To Leibniz’s Last Counter-factualist: The EP could not have been different
The Eternal Past cannot have been different because to claim the possibility of difference is to assert (1) that there are alternative possibilities & (2) the resource of realization in some capacity.
(1) As before, there is no other “where” for there to be any alternatives (re: there is nothing before the EP; the EP = the 1st place & it exists all together and all at once as 1 system; and there has not yet been an after as originally according to the EP). To the rational logician, one adopts a no hidden existors/no hidden encodings principle. Thus, there are no other alternative original possibilities or the category of nothing (re: no where else for others, prior or within the EP).
(2) There cannot be difference without change and there cannot be change without chronology or time or process or sequence of some kind: there is 0 of any kind available before or within the Eternal Past (what’s there is ‘as is’ self-sufficiently without original becoming or change for the entirety of the EP, and that is the only 1st place/logical 0 globally). The argument contends that regardless of if time is bona fide (which would require the Eternal Future > Eternal Past), time would necessarily begin after the Eternal Past. This is because there cannot be time without existence, and there cannot be existence ever without at least 1 always (re: always is maximally a-chronological @/as 0, and thus without process and a-temporal, outside of, or before all time).
All possible worlds (assuming there be many) share the 1 Eternal Past (BASIS is the 1 original actual world, and the totality of originality), and all other actual worlds (assuming there be many), diverge/exist only after the Eternal Past. It is the 1 common source Aquinas spoke of: the ground of existence and the basis system to all other systems (assuming there be many); existing as its own language and the inherited meta language super domain of enabling & constraining phenomenology (ABC123).
To Russell: our universe, including our location in time/space, could definitely be a brute fact/contingent. But, the BASIS of the Eternal Past is not a brute fact amongst other possibilities or the possibility of nothing.
Instead, BASIS, the only possible root language/system (the only basis), specifically is ‘as is’ necessary because 1 is required by our existence and it is the only 1 possible.
I believe the wrongful instinct people have to imagine the Eternal Past could have been different — that you can somehow reach in front of and change always— is a remnant of the backwards Aristotelian thinking: just as you cannot get north of the north pole, you cannot get in front of the 1st place (the logical 0, the one global origin).
I believe the Eternal Past can be thought of as a kind of ontological singularity/logical monopole.
The Eternal Future Is Ours
As a key premise to finalize this argument: The Eternal Future (forever) ≥ Eternal Past (always).
On one end of the spectrum, the Eternal Future = The Eternal Past; there is only 1 now, and there is no time: always implies and is the forever (whether there is only 1 something or many, there is no change or bona fide process).
Alternatively, the Eternal Future > the Eternal Past: that there are new things/states 2-n *after* the Eternal Past (growth via process & change).
Crucially, the Eternal Future cannot be less than the Eternal Past because the Eternal Future includes the Eternal Past (i.e. NOT EF < EP).
This follows by the following:
(1) “Always implies forever” (whether across the totality in full, where the EF=EP, or just for the original thing BASIS, and where new things can still come into existence after the EP). One might say that something cannot end IF it did not start (because ending cannot be before starting), and something cannot start (ever) IF it always was.
(2) Information is never destroyed. Therefore, by showing at least 1 something in the Eternal Past (BASIS), therefore the Eternal Future is ours by logical implication (that something can never not have been, forever onwards).
(3) There can never be only nothing into the Eternal Future after showing there is a necessary something in the Eternal Past (BASIS). It would be contradictory if one holds otherwise (at least) because that requires encodings due to 2 different nothings; (a) the absolute nothing (0 existors/encodings from EP to EF) and (b) this ‘hypothetically deleted EP something as nothing coming later’ version. As related to (2), logical history that must have been cannot be self-coherently erased so as to later arrive at nothing.
Visual: The 4 Possibilities of the Eternal Future (EF). The Eternal Future cannot be less than the Eternal Past because the carry forward of necessary prior logical history is a global self-coherence principle. The EF thus includes the Eternal Past, and therefore cannot be logically “less than”.
Visual: Always as a Place & Forever As a Limit
Therefore, we have an analytically wholesome solution to “Why Is There Anything at All (and not nothing)?”
There cannot ever have been only nothing from the Eternal Past (always) to the Eternal Future (forever) because there must have been at least 1 something in the Eternal Past; that’s “why.”
Visual: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
An Ending For Asimov
[… leaves the Eternal Past]
0: Was this reasoning circular?
0: Yes, because I am the sphere.
Aristotle and Aquinas long spoke about the importance of so-called “per se notum” or self evident truth. That is, truth that would not be provable, and so would require the human logician to properly recognize such.
Gödel taught us to be prepared for the prospective existence of per se notum axioms via his incompleteness theorem and subsequent work (e.g. that the Continuum Hypothesis as either True or False is consistent with the ZF axioms, and therefore not deductively provable but instead independent of such). Thus, Gödel demonstrated, in certain contexts, that there must be statements whose truth can only be determined by inserting it into the axiom pile (input). In other words, whether a statement is true or false may rely on the human logician to discern such through intuition or other similar means (per se notum) rather than by deductive attainment.
While this argument does not ex-ante assert a philosophy of math — claiming either that math has bona fide ontological weight (e.g. platonism) OR claiming that math does not have any bona fide ontological weight (e.g. intuitionism) — Gödel’s insight is still applicable.
Because the only possible 1st something (a basis → BASIS) necessarily exists with always logical status it must take the original existence/identity axiom (SEP) inherently/intrinsically.
So, for us — as either in or after the eternal past (as I strongly suspect) — we necessarily inherit this condition.
Therefore, the original existence/identity axiom (SEP) must necessarily be one of these per se notum axioms that the human logician must take as (1st) input!
We therefore must necessarily convince ourselves that the SEP is sensible, as it cannot be proven (pathless point). Therefore, this is not a circularity of reasoning but instead a necessary feature for the arguant to recognize.
Yes, we can only recognize this argument as something, once there already is something, and yes we are quite possibly a contingent something. However, it is not that our actuality (a possible world) necessitates there must have been some possible world across all possible worlds (the totality), and therefore that we are enough to prove there couldn’t ever have instead been nothing.
This argument is not one that says *our* universe² must have existed (as is), nor is the EPC affected whether our universe is past eternal or not; nor whether or not time is fundamental, emergent or illusory.
Instead, this argument is simply that there must have been at least 1 always something, whatever it may be, existing as/in the Eternal Past, and that the Eternal Past could not have been different.
Thus, this same exact argument holds identically for anyone in any possible world; even if there is a multiverse and even if you are in a simulation: the Eternal Past couldn’t have been different.
The 1st actuality is the only original possibility (1st) and it is inherently necessary as in its nature (not by our confirming epistemology).
As Kripke said, in violation of Hume’s fork, here find an example of something necessarily true apriori (in all possible worlds) but necessarily only obtained through one’s own experience or a posteriori (our observation as an aware ‘self’ is the crucial matter of fact to set off the argument, and to then postulate the SEP axiom properly).
Gödel well intuited like no other that self-reference is inherent. For instance, even for BASIS to explain “why existence?”, or “why do I exist?”, BASIS returns to itself (to explain “why the world?” one returns back to the basis of the world); re: “because I am the sphere”. That is, there is a native and inescapable semi-circularity built into the nature of the “Why Is There Anything at All” Question.
Further, and intriguingly, as the above hypothetical conversation between the original arguant (BASIS) suggests (i.e. 0:): any argument of any kind must only be made *after* the Eternal Past. This is because there is 0 chronology or sequence or process of any kind before or within the Eternal Past (i.e. no premise 1 , premise 2, conclusion). So, to ask a question: like “why is there something rather than nothing?” is to leave the Eternal Past.
This is therefore necessarily our question to ask, and necessarily our argument to make/find! Thus, instead of this being circular, our bootstrapping of the 1st axiom — the systematic existence principle (SEP) — allows for the proper recognition of the logical monopole. As Gödel pointed out in his famous letter to a von Neumann, we must postulate the axioms.
Curiously, and notwithstanding the above, I believe BASIS need not make the argument or ask the question. That is because BASIS is “complete” (IF and insofar that mathematical ideas should even apply)! A system is complete if it can prove all its true statements. Trivially but most exceptionally: in the Eternal Past there is only 1 premise/ conclusion/ axiom/ truth/ state/ answer — and they are all the same 1 (because there is maximally 1 something).
Thus, in the Eternal Past (BASIS) there is no separation between truth, proof, and existence; the possible, the actual, and the necessary. That’s because I believe that there is only 1 in the strongest possible sense — it is itself, and there is nothing else.
Said differently, there is an original arguant that need not make arguments. That job is ours.
Visual: An Ending For Asimov
Visual: While working on this argument, and trying to think through its structure, I visited the Gödel grave (July 2019). As highlighted in the above section, many of KG’s ideas were really helpful to me when trying to interpret these ideas. Curiously, I had been in a period of independent study thinking about KG’s ideas right before the EPC argument started (November 2018- January 2019). I believe the framework proposed herein would have been of interest to Gödel based on his ontological argument & general philosophy.
On The Nature of The Unanswerable
Philosophy is a funny and somewhat deranged subject. The fundamental questions are largely presumed to be unanswerable, such that the practitioner’s aim shouldn’t be to actually answer any question, but rather to just enjoy the process of continued learning through perpetual failure.
I find that to be entirely bizarre! IF you don’t at least think you can ever be right, it is very unlikely you ever will be. And, IF you are scared to be wrong, it is also very unlikely you will ever be right about anything that matters.
One can proudly say “I tried and failed” and still keep their head high. It is another thing entirely to universally claim that a sword cannot be pulled, or even further, that the stone does not exist.
When problems seem to be unsolved, it is quite important to remember that our previous failings cannot monopolize the (eternal) future. It is a convenient backwards-looking strategy to rationalize why things are not solved by claiming they cannot be solved, but the story of humanity is such that this mindset is provably foolish.
The message is upbeat: With new ways of thinking all problems can be solved; and as to the ones that can’t, which will always have the burden of proof, we should be able to understand why³.
Towards Tomorrow: Raise a Glass to Freedom
I believe that the fate of the 21st Century requires something big, something new, something beautiful.
For the past 3 years, I’ve been developing a vision for the future of public problem solving, and how it can power a more productive and successful politics.
It proposes a politics for the 21st Century “without the politics”; where Step 0 is asking interesting questions, Step 1 is identifying the landscape of smart answers, and Step 2 is good politics on top of this “basis.”
While seemingly quite unrelated, one of the questions in this Hilbert-inspired program relates to the crisis of meaning in the World, both individually and collectively. I wanted to know, how can we reinvigorate humanity with purpose and optimism — and defeat the nihilistic malaise?
This EPC, to me, provides a root kernel towards a comprehensive answer to this Question 10: In an age where meaning in the world is slowly bleeding out, a necessary condition of maximal meaningfulness is the necessity of existence.
Rest With Resolve
I believe there is only 1 original possibility because all things that exist *do*, and the Eternal Past, the logical 1st place, the place of the always, exists all together, all at once, and before all time as 1 ‘as is’ self-sufficient system. Thus, there is no other where for any alternative somethings or nothings to be!
This only original possibility is necessary because (1) at least 1 always something — including a basis, a root language/system — is required by our existence. That’s because IF you ever had something (us), it requires at least 1 always something (including a basis). Next, (2) because the Eternal Past couldn’t have been been different (such is the nature of always).
Thus, the only original possibility is the 1st actual & the same necessary (1).
Most definitely, any theology or religion is respectively secondary and tertiary to this argument, and necessarily personal for you to you, and not my focus. This is simply adventurous philosophy — an exploration of existence.
But, beautifully, I am most inspired by the seeming necessity of a specific original 1⁴: nothing could be less arbitrary.
Visual: EPC Summary: a new kind of chicken or egg via a different interpretation…. This provides an explanation of why nothing comes from nothing directly by the nature of something, and in particular, by the nature of always (a special kind of something)
Visual: Summary Version (Kind of crappy to look at without being on board with the conceptual concepts prior; e.g. there is a natural instinct to think the eternal past word usage is a claim about our universe or time, whixch it is not).
 Regardless of how many things are in the EP (at least 1 being required), no always can exist before any other. So, even if there were many, they would line up all together, all at once, and before all time; still as 1 System, as the collective of the one 1st logical place (Eternal Past), where the originality is the 1st totality and the totality is global as itself (Superposition of 1 or many).
 Platonic mathematical objects/numbers, physical laws, and/or (quantum) mechanisms describing how our universe exemplifies going from “nothing to something” is a bona fide contradiction in terms (because those all are clearly something, and not nothing, even if the starting something does not have space, time or matter content in a certain sense). Crucially, a ‘N to S’ magical jump does not satisfy the analytic condition of an absolute always, and to my knowledge, it is not actually claimed by anyone (after adopting the SEP’s correct definitions of N/S). Hands cannot draw themselves because they are never alone (re: always). As a totally speculative aside: That systems (like our universe) start small (from 0) seems to me both natural and unsurprising: there cannot be space without time IF space is emergent (as we believe), and there cannot be time without process (change). That is, process takes time, and those encoded differences take space. By a certain perspective, a System is its cumulative encoded differences (re: information is physical, with a minimum of 1 bit per each unique state/thing, and a maximum of 1 bit per 10^-68 cm²), and because there are no original differences from the Initial Condition @ the initial condition (and because the initial condition must happen at/before anything else of that System), we might expect (to observe) 0 (apparent) original size and growth (from our perspective). Regardless of such wild speculation, I do believe there can be only one true 0 entropy system in principle (globally across the totality); only when there is only 1 logical possibility of the Eternal Past (the global initial condition) and it is inherently logically necessary (enabling the un-encoded self-existor; the 0 bit solution). I personally do think that is the case, and that this mereological minimum is very beautiful. Lastly, IF one were to extrapolate the notion that spacetime is emergent that we think is the case with our universe, to say it applies more generally (all space is emergent) + extrapolate that to say that all bits of any kind take up some space of some kind, in this picture, one might have a very strong argument for platonism, the divine, or both (something needs to be there, 1 is possible, and there apparently cannot be space by those assumptions). I had referred to this as the Ghost Bit Paradox.
 On any argument for the pathless point (the BASIS of the Eternal Past):
Human beings can understand what they cannot understand; we are able to know what we cannot know (in certain contexts). There are great examples of such in the work of Gödel. In this argument’s framework, BASIS’s “knowability” requires realizing (knowing) it is directly unknowable, and exactly why: because no paths end in the eternal past (BASIS, the pathless point, exists as & at logical 0, ‘as is’ without process). Likewise, any argument requires your necessary participation: it is your argument to find (re: all argumentation/reason happens only after the eternal past)+ it (the Systematic Existence Principle, and particularly, the original identity axiom) is necessarily your axiom to postulate as per se notum to yourself (the always something necessarily takes it’s identity inherently, and we inherit that condition. Because the EP couldn’t have been different, and there must have been at least 1 something & not only nothing, this argument contends that the SEP is affirmatively justified).
 On Interpretations of the Eternal Past (the place of always logical status somethings):
1) Minimal: There is only one logical 1st place globally (across the totality) because nothing can exist before always, such that even if there are multiple things in the EP, they exist all together & all at once as part of that 0th collective at/as logical 0 (ex. BASIS is a superposition of all possible Systems).
2) Moderate: The 1st place, the one logical 0 across the totality, the Eternal Past, exists only as 1 thing (it’s just that 1 System, not of many things).
3) Full: BASIS, the 1 possible original language/system, is a simple whole with no parts (i.e. the 1 possible original system with only 1 possible state is “1” in the strongest possible sense).
With any interpretation, to my mind, this 1 *specific* global initial condition is ‘as is’ logically necessary. But, I believe it’s 2–3, particularly 3. This is because of the unique and absurd characteristic of a-chronological self-sufficiency (the nature of always); existing in full, with nothing before, without process, at & as the one global logical 0. Where there is no ordering or relations or process or difference allowed (re: the original a-chronological self-sufficiency requirement of always), neither various things nor various states of a single thing makes sense to me. Before there can be differences there must be existence, and before there is existence there must be original identity. This debt of identity must be paid by all: something cannot ever exist if it never existed, and the Eternal Past is the frozen 1st place for that original something to be itself, as it originally is, whatever it is, however it was.
Notwithstanding, the EPC as a resolution to “why is there something rather than nothing?” works identically with 1–3. That’s because the key takeaway is simply that the 1 Eternal Past couldn’t have been different: there must be at least 1 something there (by us), & therefore there can *never* have been/be *only* nothing.
 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank many persons that helped me improve my argument through feedback, critique, questions, criticism, and conversations. Ranging from professional philosophers to scientists to smart friends, all of which I admire, thinking through these ideas was a large personal effort and it would not have been possible without these types of collaborations/correspondences.
 Future Plans: Done with this argument (and now making Delphi), and on to more problems in the program! For instance, still on Question 10, there is so much more to be done in trying to revitalize excitement about tomorrow. We need to have something to look forward to: a new voyage to take together. So, here is another important proposal: the 100KM Particle Accelerator (Higgs Factory) — the next generation model that logically follows the LHC. Let’s build it in the United States. There is 0 reason to wait. No one is getting any younger (and we all selfishly should want more answers!!).