We have no right to demand that the samen of reasons, the same kind of vocabulary, has any applicability at all to questions like, why is their universe? What happened at the big bang? Why are the laws of physics the way they are? There might be answers to those questions. I'm just saying we don't have the right to demand it. We have to be open minded. Let's see what happens when we dig into what those laws are. Ok? So that's my background about what does it mean to ask for a reason why, when we can and cannot actually do that. Now let's go to the question of, what does it mean to say something verse is nothing, right? What what do you mean to ask when you ask about why it does the universe exist? And here there's, again, two sort of sub questions that we're aiming at. One is the question of, if we look at the universe, we see, we can think of the universe as there's space. Space is arena where things happen, right? I'm here, someone else's over there. Thereare planets and stars up there. And there's stuff in the universe, me, planets, stars and so forth. And you can ask, why is there stuff? Right? You could define nothingness as not an absence of the universe, but as simply empty space in some sense, right? If we had space, but no stuff in it, that'll be a kind of nothingness. Would be like the vacuum in some sense, right? Maybe there's a question of why there is matter in the universe. This is kind of the question that willcheck was getting at when he said, maybe nothing is unstable. That's one kind of question. The second kind is, why is there a universe at all? Why is there space itself? Forget why there's stuff in space. Why are there three dimensionsof space, not just versus ten dimensions, but why arether dimensions of space at all? This is harder. This second question is probably what people have in mind when there, you know, leibnitz or hume or rustle or whatever, when they say this question about why the universe exists, why there's something rather than nothing? But it's harder, and therefore there is a common strategy among people who claim to have answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing, which is that really they are answering why there is stuff inside the universe, not why there is a universe at all. These are both interesting questions, so we can talk about them a little bit, but let's just be clear what's going on. We don't want to claim credit for answering one question when we're really addressing another one, though. Why is there stuff in space, versus, why is there space all? So what do we mean by space, right? Meanyo, if you're at this level of carefulness in asking these questions, some of the easiest, most obvious things that you think you familiar with need a little bit more careful consideration to make sure we know what we're talking about.