> but it doesn't tell us why there is something to > observe (instead of nothing), and why the laws and > fundamental constants are the way they are.

I'm no physicist, but I simply cannot imagine candidate answers to such questions.

See above. My comment was in response to ansible's reply to themgt. themgt was asking why the universe looks the way it does, and ansible responded with the anthropic principle. The problem with ansible's line of thinking is that the anthropic principle tells me a great deal about me (why I can exist and observe), but not much about the universe, which was themgt's question.

In response to your broader objection that there are some basic questions in physics that can't be answered, let me point out that the entire project of physics is to seek material causes for the structure of the universe. So if nature is all that exists, and the universe itself only has material causes, what are those causes? The entire field of cosmology dedicated to answering exactly this question, and many believe it's capable of doing so.

As far as Leibniz's famous question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is concerned: admittedly this is a metaphysical question, not a physical question. Still, I think we owe it to ourselves to answer this question too, and not simply dismiss it out of hand.

> I'm no physicist, but I simply cannot imagine candidate answers to such questions.

Even if this is true, it tells us something about you but not about the universe. By analogy, somehow my body "knew" to put my liver in my torso, not in my neck. I cannot begin to imagine what physical processes led to the proper placement of my liver, but we certainly shouldn't take this to mean there are no reasons.

Moreover, we shouldn't sell ourselves short in these matters. Undoubtedly, given enough study I could discover what others have said about organ placement during embryonic development and have a fairly robust understanding of the best of our knowledge regarding the topic. The same is true of cosmology and philosophy.

That is the big, big question.

On the one hand, I can easily imaging that there is nothing, nowhere, ever.

But on the other hand, doesn't it necessarily seem the case that there should be something existing somewhere, for at least some time? How can nothing exist... ever?

Even after all this time, I still can't wrap my head around this question.

Funny you mention it, this was Leibniz's exact dilemma. He realized there must be two classes of existence: necessary (things that must exist), and contingent (things that don't have to exist). Not many things must exist, if you really think about it, and he came to the conclusion that God is the most reasonable explanation for why any contingent thing exists at all.

Worth your 5 minutes, if you're interested in this question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I

If you're interested enough to dedicate 100 minutes, here's a 3 part discussion with responses to objections.

https://youtu.be/EfpAqqadQVA?list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc...

https://youtu.be/NgXML-wI1tQ?list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc...

https://youtu.be/Y4J5vR3rgp4?list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc...

For example, all we know about distant stars is complete conjecture and approximation based on testing various ideas to see which one fits. We simply don't know if "gravity" is exactly the same for all of them. Small variations of G would still light them up.