the block universe. very fascinating idea, and i think that the wave function of particles may actually suggest it to be true. we know that the particles are actually waves that just collapse, or peak into a particle when observed. we can only observe the wave function indirectly by experiements such as double-slit, while every time we try to observe it it appears indeed as a particle. the problem this causes is that when the universe is said to began, there was no observer - just the space-time and the fundamental particles. as the wave-particle dualism suggests the whole mass of particles must have been in a propability wave form, meaning only a potentially physical matter. how could this propability state of the universe ever have evolved into an actual physical world we see now, if there was no observer in the beginning? the widely accepted idea amongst the physicists is the quantum decoherence, but as far as i know it hasn't been ever proven - just accepted as a tool to overcome the otherwise decisive problem of the fundamental form of the matter. if we abandon the decoherence, doesn't it indeed suggest that the universe is a 4-dimensional block, where the causality we observe doesn't indicate the arrow of time, but rather just the order of the matter in the block?

block universe, meaning either a physical block where every possible moment, or possible form of the universe, exists (like a movie), or a potential block, where every possible outcome exists potentially (like a video game).

it opens another problem: if the universe is a block, it must be stagnant, meaning that there can be no evolution, no life, or any ongoing process. obivously the idea of eternal, stagnant matter spontaneoysly awakening into life, starting to experience the universe in 3+1 dimensions instead of the natural stagnant 4D wouldn't make any sense. and yet we are here in the internet discussing about the nature of the universe. so if we accept the block universe, wouldn't this then suggest that the consciousness must be something not created by the universe; that the universe acts as a receptor to the consciousness; that the universe exists to be experienced from somewhere beyond it?

just a thought, but the concept of us being spiritual beigns experiencing the universe for some purpose is the basis of every single known religion in the world, with thousands of years of written history. the same concept being strikingly common theme in near death experiences, regardless of if the person is religious or atheist.

gravity waves are a good notice. i'm not too familiar with the concept but they seem to be kind of direct observation of the space-time. maybe some who's educated in physics will tell us about the implications it'll make about the composition of the space-time.

if you define the 'nothing' as something that exists it must be something rather than nothing, because it at least has the property of existence. and if we assume that a pre-state to the universe existed, how can we define it to be something rather than something else?

a bit of an offroad, but can we define the space-time to consist of matter/energy? have we ever observed the space-time directly? from what i know we have observed the space-time only indirectly, by it's interaction with the matter and energy.

"no matter, no energy" no space, no time, no laws of physics, no nothing. Yet it is still something if you define it existent.

In my opinion either you define the 'nothing' as a pre-existing state to the universe which means its something existent (leading to guestion of why do you define it to be nothing rather than something), or you define it as non-existent which equals that the existence of the universe is non-causal.

Does the science have any reason to assume either of these options? I haven't heard of any. They both seem to imply this form of existence (the concept of the universe) to be the so called purpose, or peak of the existence, rather than just another layer in the existence which as a whole might be something greater than the human brain could ever understand.

How far do you have to stretch the guestion of the existence versus non-existence to make the existence in itself look rational? Or is it just that the non-existence cannot exist because if it would, it would be existent? Or is our thought of whats rational just plain wrong? And why ever would the existence take the form of physical universe where i am conscious and writing this comment right now? If they aim to a theory of everything the problem of the physical universe itself seems to be their smallest issue.