Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Surgenator]

If it is not explicitly forbitten, then a possible situation will prevail eventually. That is what quantum mechanics tells us.

Logically prior to one of our propositions becoming true, both were false, and both were possible. Once one of them, namely (2), became true, the world it instantiated became imperishable and the other proposition, (1), became impossible.

No, both were not false. Because (1) was the exact opposite of (2), either you have nothing or you have something. There is no in between. So only one of them can be false at any given moment.

The requirement of a cause is unjustified. In fact, we know of plenty of things in nature that are uncaused. For example, nuclear decays are uncaussed. Nothing makes the nucleus decay; it decays on its own. Another example is an electron dropping to a lower energy state and releasing a photon. There is no force causing it. The electron just has another energy state it can be at, and it has some probability of ending up there.

Random or rather quasi-random events still require an environment in which to "choose." But in the interstices of our possible worlds, (1) and (2), (whatever that means) there was no such cradle to house random event-making.

Why do we need an environment? Why can't the choice be on the type of environment?

You clearly never spend time with a group of drunken mathematicians. There are certain axioms you must take to get to 2+2=4. However, you can create another set of axioms that give an internally consistent view.

Are you denying that there are such things as necessary propositions?

I'm sure there are some, but I don't think we agree on what these necessary propositions are.