I've had the same thought about the starting from nothing rather than everything, but in an entirely different context.

Axiomatic Set Theory is taught starting with the empty set as an axiom and along with a small number of additional axioms, and from that you can build the integers and rationals and real numbers as well as an impressive hierarchy of different infinities. And one thing that's proved is there is no largest infinity, no set that contains all sets. There isn't an Everything set that's consistent with the Peano axioms.

However, you could build the entire system starting with the Everything set and similarly modify all the axioms to be analagously subtractive rather than additive, deriving in some sense every inverse theorem, including that there is no empty set, no Nothing.

When you do this you immediately at working with insane objects and intuition fails miserably in a way that building the other way doesn't.

I remember a mention somewhere of this kind of approach to inverse foundations for set theory, but lost track of the reference. IIRC, the approach didnt have problem with empty set, but would allow the existence as a default until some obstruction. So, 'large sets' (nowadays called proper classes) would exist.

I recently had a somewhat tangential conversation with someone, wherein the relationship between order and chaos in the universe (and specifically our case as the human race) is a function of increasing time. Humans attempt to create order from the chaotic environment, not creating more complex things in the process but simply refining what already exists (although there seem to be unavoidable patterns of "order" that recur in the universe regardless of us or any advanced organism).

This certainly fits with the idea that the universe is an attempted "ordering" bubble in a liquid of everything

This is a common theme many human societies and cultures have developed, and it makes a lot of sense when you really (really) think about it. When you take it further, you realize that also implies everything being connected fundamentally, which is an another interesting thought space to explore with a litany of deep implications, particularly around consciousness.

it doesn't obviously imply anything to do with consciousness

Parent Edit: I suppose I should've just used the convenient CMYK vs. RGB analogy instead of "holes." :)