Why there is not "nothing" is a very good question. All the answers I have seen, however, are strictly philosophic and do not answer the question. I consider this question from the viewpoint of physics and believe I have a good answer. But, not one that you might expect. First, it must be assumed that the existence of the universe (the opposite of nothing") is a natural effect and not dependent on a prior effect. So, the first thing is to formulate this mathematically. The idea of "nothing" is equivalent to no input or no source of energy in the space. The LaPlace equation represents this idea mathematically. A simple version of the LaPlace equation assuming it represents a potential energy is given by d^2P/d^2x + d^2P/d^2y + d^2P/d^2z = 0. Here, the d represents a partial differentiation. This equation has the simple solution P = 1/r which can be checked by substituting P = 1/(Sqr(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)) into the LaPlace equation. The math gets complicated with all the differentiation but it all works out in the end. So, something results from "no sources". Of course, sources would be like a charged particle or a mass particle which are not assumed present. The 1/r function shows that something, in this case energy, must be present. This result is equivalent to something from nothing. Also, the solutions of the LaPlace equation represent the smoothest possible harmonic (sin or cos) solutions with respect to any other function. This is proved in some books on partial differential equations. This is also a starting point for showing how the universe arises basically.from just this simple equation. Note that the potential associated with gravitation or electro-statics has the 1/r form. In fact, if you wish to characterize the universe in one sentence, it might be as follows: "The universe is just the solutions of the LaPlace equation." There are, of course, an infinite number of solutions for a partial differential equation depending on the boundary conditions. So, the LaPlace equation in theory can certainly represent the universe. However, it's a long way between this characterization and the present configuration of the universe. As stated in my introduction, I have spent the last 45 years in getting to the point where I have some understanding of the universe. I now have a very interesting model of the universe - very different from the current model with the big-bang possible origin or the string theory of basic physics. I'll have more to say on the model of the universe later. Right now, I am interested in any comments on what I have said. TomA
