What is empty space? Is it nothingness? Is it actually possible to have true nothingness? Could empty space be to us what a block of glass is to a ray of light?
How big is the universe? Does it have a hard edge? What lies outside the edge? What would you see if you went close to the edge and tried to stick your neck outside? Most likely some einstein will come up with a law (or already has) something like:  ”the closer you get to the edge, the harder it will be to get to the edge” and so on, the way they all go.

If empty space inside the universe is nothingness, then what do we call whatever is outside the universe? Is “outside the universe” an oxymoron?

Just like we need bad people to know who the good people are, just like the word “up” would be meaningless if there were no “down”, similarly the word “inside” has no meaning if there were no “outside”. So, if there is something such as “inside” the universe, there has to be something “outside” it as well.

Now, maybe that “something” that is outside is actually “true nothingness”, to keep things congruent. Just like we use the number zero to represent the absence of a quantity, we could use the “true nothingness” of outside the universe as a cosmic zero, a cosmic null, a cosmic void.

But note, if the stuff that’s outside the edge is true nothingness, it means the stuff inside the edge cannot be. It means the “empty space” we see between the stars cannot be nothingness. It is something that we *perceive* as nothingness, because perhaps that empty space is the reference baseline upon which our universe is built..it is the true origin of our actual co-ordinate system.

Looking at this from another angle, if the universe consists of scattered bodies of matter, where the intervening space is true nothingness, then it means that there is no interaction between the bodies. Hence it makes no sense to aggregate the bodies into a “universe”. Rather each body ought to be treated as its own universe. But, because we know that there *is* interaction between the bodies, implies that there *is* something in the space between the bodies that allows for transmission of information, hence it cannot be nothingness. Leading us to a fundamental assumption I am making: That it is not possible to transmit information non-destructively through nothingness.

The moment a piece of information is injected into a blob of nothingness, the blob ceases to be nothingness. Why should the nothingness allow the information to be transmitted in a linear path from one edge to another? Why won’t it just eat up and absorb the energy comprising the information to satisfy its own hunger, to reduce its own vaccuum pressure? Therefore, to  transmit a bit of information across a distance in space, there *must* be a substrate which allows/enables that transmission.

There is a possible fundamental flaw in the entire approach, i.e considering the universe to be finite to start with. If the universe did have an edge and there were nothingness outside, then the propensity to expand to fill the void would always be greater than the propensity to contract back against the void’s will. Also, if the universe exists and is finite, and there is nothingness outside, then the net result is positive. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the universe were positive, and the stuff outside is negative, resulting in a net zero? Which would then mean that the area outside is just another universe with its polarity reversed. Maybe the edge between these two universes is consequently dynamic, oscillating back and forth causing a cyclical alternating change in the sizes of both positive and negative universes. To me this provides a more acceptable scenario where everything is “occupied”, rather than having to endorse the concept of “nothingness” existing on its own.

There is also another option. That our single universe is infinite. The scattered bodies of concentrated matter represent the positive, and the empty space in between is actually the negative, resulting in a net zero. Again, this argues that the empty space between the bodies is not actually nothingness, rather it is some kind of negative existence that we cannot see. But it does allow for transmission of information non-destructively.

So, either way, if  existence exists, it must be infinite. Nothingness cannot exist. If it were to exist, it cannot be nothingness.

Then comes our own role. Do we exist merely because we do? Because we must? Or are we a fluke? Is mankind’s existence having any effect on the path of the universe at all? If we were the goal of existence, why would the rest of the universe even exist outside the solar system? Does it really exist? Is it all my imagination? Should I even care?

All I know is, whenever I exit highway 280 on Wolfe Road and pass the TGI Fridays on the right, my cheeks begin to ache from the salivary projectiles shooting inside my mouth. And I just have to stop by and get myself a nice full rack of baby back ribs, glazed with jack daniels sauce and a mug of beer to go with. The universe may not be ready to spill its secrets yet, but it sure as hell makes one heavenly dish. How can I not exist?