A good question, but the answer to which requires some detours:
It is a question of perspective.Suppose we could live in a two-dimensional world, like stickmen on a sphere surface. Then we would probably strongly suspect that nothing exists outside our 2D universe. In reality, our cosmos is in a three-dimensional space. So there is nothing at all, but that is beyond the imagination of our brains. Now, if we move up another dimension, we represent three-dimensional beings that may be surrounded by a fourth dimension. And so it may go on and on. Note that in a four-dimensional world there can be many three-dimensional universes that exist in parallel but can only be reached by a higher fourth dimension. Or to return to the above 2D world. In three-dimensional space there are an unlimited number of two-dimensional surfaces or universes. A resident of a two-dimensional world would have to travel through the third dimension to reach another two-dimensional world.
All this is very complex to understand, because it simply eludes our horizon of experience.Example: The universe continues to expand, but where is it? Where does the additional space come from? What was there before, where the newly created space is now? As I said, if we look at the whole thing from a higher dimension, it suddenly makes sense. There was never anything, but we never could perceive it because of our dimensionally limited view.
Can there be nothing at all?If we use the hypothesis that there is neither a rebirth nor any other form of life after death, our self did not exist before our procreation/birth and after our death. We were not, or in other words, part of nothingness. Unless our self would have been woven into the DNA of the real existing universe from the outset as a possibility. In other words, it had to be inevitable, at least with some probability, because we were part of a grand plan. Ok, that with the plan is a very far-fetched hypothesis.
Anything that is not nothing can be modelled with the help of physics and described with the help of language.Conversely, however, we cannot model or describe nothingness. Nothing can describe anything.
This is also the problem, let us consider the Big Bang as a creative act with a singularity as a starting point.Where does the singularity come from? So can there have been nothing, and suddenly singularity arose out of this nothingness? Or are we part of an infinite sequence of Big Bang – Big Crunch cycles. So there was never anything and there will be nothing in the future.
Nothing like zero is an abstraction of something that does not exist.It is an auxiliary construct to describe the apparent absence of existence or the boundary of an existing entity. It is perfectly suitable for philosophizing, because then we can discuss something that we really do not know about. The most sensible thing is therefore to assume that there is nothing or that there is nothing. We use nothingness in our intellectual desperation only as an auxiliary construct. As the car advertising says so well, “Nothing is impossible”.
In fact, being is self-sufficient without having to resort to nothingness.So it makes no sense to draw a border fence for everything that exists. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of the time before the Big Bang. Time refers to an axis in the four-dimensional space-time continuum. However, this coordinate system only begins to exist with the Big Bang. Previously, therefore, there could be no reference to the timeline and therefore no time.
Moreover, if nothing really existed, nothing could come of it.But since we exist in an existing world, something must have existed “before” from which our world could arise in the first place. We can call this God or singularity or something else. And this must either have always existed – whatever “always” means – or it in turn was created from something else. But now I have to end my answer because these recursions can cause loops in the brain.