Something that has been on my mind

[Edwardo Piet]

When there is no matter left, there is still energy. Just as when some parts of the brain are considered immaterial, this doesn't make the brain at all non-physical.

Before matter formed there was still physicality.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, but why is it a paradox that it would be matterless yet active on a quantum level?

Indeed, exactly what my point was

Matterless does not mean inactive energy Immaterial does not = non-physical

[Alex K]

No. For example, an Electron and its antiparticle, a Positron, each have, via their mass, a rest energy of 511 keV. If they meet, they annihilate and the result of this process is two photons with 511 keV each. Energy is not lost.

When Protons and Antiprotons, Neutrons and Antineutrons meet as would be the case with proper Antimatter, much of their rest energy goes into Neutrinos as well, not just photons. This is discussed by the CERN website they created in the wake of the Dan Brown movie "Angels and Demons."

Photons have zero values for most conserved traits, though (charge, mass, etc.). When they're talking about "nothing," in this sense, I get the idea that they mean something that is physically close to nothing, maybe with a few photons whizzing around in it or something. Again, I'm a laymen, not a sophisticated physicist, and I've only been exposed to summaries of this idea.

True, I'm not sure what the significance of that is though. An electron-positron pair jointly also has the same property before the annihilation, and quantum mechanically the two cases can't really be sharply distinguished.
Krauss' argument about universes from nothing, iirc, is that while the universe contains energy in form of particles and radiation, if one assigns an energy to spacetime curvature to obtain a total conserved quantity (energy content alone is not conserved because of the redshift) one can argue that the sum of the two is zero. This suggests that it could all have sprung from a previous different, simpler zero energy state. He calls that nothing, but one can argue about whether that is truly a sensible notion of nothingness till the cows come home.

[dyresand]

Let's say the universe reaches it's equilibrium and finally nothing exists from a material standpoint wouldn't 
that state itself be a paradox itself being a matterless state yet be active on the quantum level. Even then entropy
i can flow in reverse and with a large time span eventually you would have second big bang and or even 
expansion flowing in reverse. So yeah that was pretty much on my mind.

Why can't you think about pussy like other guys?

I do

[Reforged]

The whole thing only makes sense to me if its part of a never ending perpetual cycle of universal death and rebirth that has neither beginning nor end.
This of course raises further questions however and merely illustrates how limited my mind is.

I of course do not assume it to be true but assuming that was true I would find it a very depressing prospect. It would mean an exact copy of me was doomed to repeat the same events every trillion years or so for the rest of time. The same mistakes, the same triumphs, the same conclusion. A cage none of us would ever escape from due to our material nature. Although what if thats how alternate universes played out? What if the next playthrough I made a different decision because of slight variations? What if the cat is both alive and dead because the different conclusions do not occur in a single moment but across eons?
This is just speculation. Still, what a sci-fi book it would make.