why something instead of nothing?
consider for a moment eternity (eternity!) and then consider the possibility of what might happen inside eternity. if all were to exist (and all does exist if we label everything that is and happens as we know it, or imagine it, as all), if it were to exist cumulatively, dense, with no distance, there would then be no comparative point of reference and therefore everything, happening simultaneously and inside of itself, would be equally truly denoted as nothing. (imagine only one body in the universe and no other, no time nor space, nor even your imagination. you can not see that one body without seeing another to know what the first is. everything gathered together in the one body of possibility is invisible without a second to measure it.) but throughout the length of eternity, nothing? i imagine that for a great long part of eternity it is true, nothing exists, which is to say that everything exists for a great long time without distance.
but is it not common sense to imagine that inside of the vastness of eternity at some point something happens, some event, accidental or purposeful (or even outside of the meaning or implication of accidental or purposeful) that ruptures the wholeness of everything and inserts distance inside of it, thereby fracturing all into the multitudinous state of being that we witness, this something, these many somethings?
how long might something endure?
might it matter?
who can imagine the vastness of eternity?
driving down the grey empty road i asked myself why something instead of nothing.
and then the crow crossed my path
and i understood.