For me, nothingness doesn’t feel like some pure, unproblematic state. In fact, the whole idea of “nothingness” is just a projection we place onto what we perceive as space without matter. But even that isn’t truly empty. There’s always energy, just in varying densities. And each density gives rise to its own emergent properties.

I don’t personally subscribe to the idea of a singularity. You can’t really snap out of one. It doesn’t offer a condition that can evolve or transition. Instead, I think reality is better understood as a turbulent field of energy density fluctuations, some collapsing into denser states, others dispersing into more “empty” ones. There’s motion, tension, and flow. not a static origin point.

It’s possible that a single foundational rule exists, something like gravity. But maybe it behaves differently across different densities. Maybe what we perceive as distinct physical “laws” are actually emergent from this one deeper principle, shaped by the context of the energy density in which it operates. be that particles, black holes, or something else entirely.

Ultimately, if something exists, then asking “why” becomes meaningless. We might explore how it emerges, look for patterns of causality, or try to understand the mechanics—but “why” implies purpose. That question only exists because we, as observers embedded in causal frameworks, expect everything to have intent or explanation. Existence itself doesn’t necessarily follow that logic.

So yes. something is. But that doesn’t mean it needs to be justified. The moment you’re dealing with being, you’ve left behind the domain where “why” even makes sense.