The natural next worry is: could there not have been nothing at all: no time, no space, no substance, no anything? How that question is answered matters as much as the answer itself. The target is not an empty room, a vacuum, darkness, silence, or a world containing no objects. It is the proposed absence of any world, state, fact, time, space, substance, or anything whatever.

The *having-a-nature* side of the chapter's central identity was settled at [§2.6](<2.6 Triconditionality of Nature.md>): wherever change is possible, Nature (the co-instantiation of Temporality, Spatiality, and Physicality) is what is the case. What it left standing was the *being* side: whether the absence of T, S, and Φ is a coherent alternative at all, or only the appearance of one.

The section leans only on the bare chapter-level result already in hand: □(T∧S∧Φ), fixed by the necessity of the forward conditional ([§2.4.9](<2.4.9 Forward Conditional Necessity.md>)) and the necessity of the modal constraint ([§2.3](<2.3 Necessary Possibility of Change.md>)), combined at [§2.5](<2.5 Triconditional Necessity.md>). It is fixed *before* the identification of that structure with Nature, so that what follows is non-circular. It neither re-proves that result nor declares the Necessity of Nature: that declaration belongs to [§2.8.5](<2.8.5 Necessity of Nature.md>).

Everything turns on a single distinction. Call the Null State **∅**: the putative condition in which nothing whatever is the case, with no being, no structure, no fact. One reading treats ∅ as a region of modal structure the argument must travel to and rule out; on that reading the conclusion is a strong claim about which worlds obtain. The other treats *outside T, S, and Φ* not as a region but as the **dissolution of modal structure as such**: the condition in which there is no world to speak of, and so no alternative to weigh. On the second reading the conclusion is stronger and quieter: not a verdict against a rival, but the recognition that the rival was never the kind of thing a verdict could be about. ∅ is incoherent (¬◇∅) and incoherent in the second way: there is no possibility there to foreclose.[^2-7-0-closure-scope]

So the worry answers itself, and without ruling anything out. "Nothing" was never a real option to begin with, so there is nothing on the far side of Nature left to rule out: there is, in the end, nothing to consider. The necessity established at [§2.5](<2.5 Triconditional Necessity.md>) and interpreted through [§2.6](<2.6 Triconditionality of Nature.md>) is therefore not idle. There is no empty state beneath it for the structure to fail against, and no neutral ground from which the existence of anything at all could have been the open question the tradition took it to be. The demand for a Sufficient Reason *why there is something rather than nothing* loses its contrast class: the old question only made sense if "nothing" were a live alternative, and it never was. (Whether a God could stand alongside Nature is a separate question, left for Chapters 5 and 6.)

*Scope.* What is earned here is exact, and narrower than it may look. It is earned that there cannot be nothing, that structured being necessarily obtains. It is *not* earned that Nature is the **sole** necessary ground, with no transcendent or supernatural remainder standing alongside it. That stronger preclusion is a further claim carrying its own burden: its modal form is taken up at [§2.8](<2.8 The Whole Line.md>), and its full form (against the theistic candidates for a necessary being outside the natural order) is the work of Chapters 5 and 6. The verdict that Reality is Nature *and nothing besides* is withheld until that engagement is complete. The line between what the incoherence of ∅ closes and what only Chapters 5 and 6 can close is drawn at [§2.7.4](<2.7.4 Preclusion Boundary.md>).

The argument stands complete within the chapter, then overdetermined beyond it. Chapter 3 re-establishes the incoherence of ∅ from Chapter-1 materials alone (without borrowing the modal machinery used here) through the construction Move *Something is the case* ([§3.2.1](<3. Convergence.md>)) and the Null-State Reductio backstop ([§3.2.6](<3. Convergence.md>)), alongside the full engagement with the literature.

One position resists the framing and earns a cross-reference note. The Madhyamaka tradition (Nāgārjuna) denies inherent existence (svabhāva) to all phenomena, the foundational structural conditions included; on those terms, that T∧S∧Φ is necessarily instantiated can read as attributing self-existence to the Conditions, where dependent origination offers a rival idiom. That engagement runs at [§5.3.4](<5.3.4 Madhyamaka Emptiness.md>).

[^2-7-0-closure-scope]: The closure here is at the level of real, metaphysical possibility: ∅ is not a region within modal structure, nor the absence of a feature within it, but the collapse of modal structure itself. Whether ∅ remains conceivable even where it is precluded from real modal structure is a separate, two-dimensional question that the secondary structural identity does not by itself settle; that burden is engaged at [§4.1.2](<4.1.2 Two-Dimensional Semantics.md>), with the conceivability-inversion line carried through at [§3.4](<3.4 Reality and Nature Are One.md>).


- [2.7.1 Null State (∅)](<2.7.1 Null State (∅).md>)
- [2.7.2 Incoherence of ∅](<2.7.2 Incoherence of ∅.md>)
- [2.7.3 PSR Regress](<2.7.3 PSR Regress.md>)
- [2.7.4 Preclusion Boundary](<2.7.4 Preclusion Boundary.md>)


---

← [2.6.12 Necessity's Nature](<2.6.12 Necessity's Nature.md>) | [2.7.1 Null State (∅)](<2.7.1 Null State (∅).md>) →
