Which leads to the wonderful question: why are there any contingent things? And: why are the contingent things that there are as complex as they are?

I don't know of any plausible naturalist explanation besides Many-Worlds. And that supposes for the sake of discussion that Many-Worlds is in fact naturalist.

I've heard an amusing conjecture that I'm not sure how much to take seriously unless there's a mind underlying the universe (like in simulation theory).

The void in its infinite time and endless space (the same as neither existing) became bored with itself, and in its attempt to destroy itself, split and created the universe we have now. Full of endless wonders and anomalies and beauty and travesty. All for the amusement of itself as one that remembers the abyssal void.

Many-worlds doesn’t explain the complexity of the standard model at all. It merely gets rid of the arbitrariness and discontinuity implied by wave-function collapse.

I don't think many worlds is strong enough, since it still doesn't say anything about why anything exists to begin with. You need something like the principle of plenitude.

> Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist.

I think the unsatisfactory feeling I get from these answers is that nobody ever tries to model worlds with different physics or different physical parameters and try to make them work.

It's one thing to know that everything will break down if parameters of this universe change slightly, but I don't think anyone ever actually seriously tried to make alternatives work, and simply assumed that the only model we know that works is the only possibility.

Of course, I understand it's hard, and we might not have the compute to properly run the simulations to see how things actually work out (without quantum computers, apparently the problem is exponentially hard on classical computers). But philosophically it feels lazy and unimaginative.

> nobody ever tries to model worlds with different physics or different physical parameters and try to make them work.

Alternative models are being explored all the time. There is incentive to do so, because coming up with better explanations is likely to win Nobel prizes. What is now called the standard model, however, so far explains the existing observations the best, despite being more complex and having a higher amount of arbitrariness than most physicists would like.

You're talking about better models for our current physical reality.

I'm talking about consistent models that don't match our physical reality, but that can potentially simulated and which can give rise to intelligent life.

I'm curious how the field that allows vibration exists instead of just pure nothing that isn't a field that doesn't allow vibration or bending or virtual particles etc. Heisenberg's principle seems contingent on the void of nothing being a field that can wobble.

> Heisenberg's principle seems contingent on the void of nothing being a field that can wobble.

Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded, so now—depending on who you talk to—you can have the word pointing to different concepts. See "seven types/levels of nothing":

* https://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/Closer-to-Truth-Essays...

* https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-l...

A silly thought I had while reading that article: it presupposes that "nothing" is a noun. In doing so, it assumes that in the sentence "the <noun> <verbs>" you can substitute "nothing" and it would mean "<nothing> is an entity that does the <verbing>" instead of "<verbing> simply does not happen", and I feel that is a meaningful distinction.

> Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded

"Infinity" is another one of those things that used to be murky, but simple; after Cantor we now have different infinities ℵ0, ℵ1... an un-Ockhamian proliferation of terms, and we have to worry about the spaces between them. Science ruins everything!

The use of "literally" to mean figuratively has grown in popularity in recent years (as a form of emphasis); though it is not a new use:

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

Thats interesting, what are the chances of another big bang, after our(the current one) big bang?

Could it happen while this universe is here?

I recently came into the concept of the great attractor; the mysterious force that our galaxy is hurtling towards. It is thought to be some supermass of star material and other things.

What if that supermass is another(the next?) big bang forming; energy just slides around some universe space banging off here and there, forever?

I don't know much about this of this of course.

But it does feel like you might have a point here. If everything is moving away from each other, things must have a center some where, and thats where this new big bang is forming?

> If everything is moving away from each other, things must have a center some where

This is not correct: every object is getting further from every other object it's not gravitationally bound to, at a rate approximately proportional to the distance between them.