David Pizzi's *The Impossibility of Nothingness: A Foundational Argument for Necessary Existence*(Pizzi, David, 2025) is the closest contemporary cousin of the impossibility-driven recovery this argument runs across the lines of [§3.2](<3.2 Triconditional Necessity Positive Account.md>)–[§3.3](<3.3 Triconditional Necessity Negative Account.md>) and the convergence tallied at [§3.5](<3.5 What the Convergence Shows.md>), and at [§5.1.1](<5.1.1 Rasmussen's Foundation Argument.md>). The dialectical situation is symmetric and instructive: Pizzi and the present account converge on the same modal floor (that absolute nothingness is impossible and that something must exist necessarily) by closely related performative and self-refutational machinery. They diverge on what sits at that floor. Pizzi concludes that something exists necessarily (□∃x x) and explicitly declines to arbitrate among the candidates that could occupy the necessary slot. The present account concludes that the structural Triconditions T ∧ S ∧ Φ exist necessarily (□(T ∧ S ∧ Φ)) and arbitrates among the candidates Pizzi leaves open. The same final move (closing modal space against ∅) yields a bare-existential conclusion in Pizzi and a determinate-content conclusion here.

Pizzi's argument runs three reductios against the metaphysical possibility of total absence and bridges them through a single theorem. The first reductio targets the truth-maker logic of *nothing exists*: given truthmaker maximalism, if that proposition were possibly true it would need a truth-maker; the proposed absence cannot stand in the truth-making relation without being something. The result therefore depends on the truthmaker requirement rather than following from the proposition alone. Quantification over absences therefore collapses. The second reductio targets representations of the proposition: actual assertion and formal modeling presuppose syntactic and semantic resources. That is a strong act-side or model-side result, though an opponent may deny that resources used to represent a scenario must exist inside the represented scenario. The third reductio targets empty-domain semantics. Whether actuality operators force non-emptiness depends on the quantified modal semantics adopted, so this line constrains particular formalisms rather than settling every empty-world model by definition. The bridging theorem assembles the three: since each path forecloses the possibility that nothing exists, by the modal duality ¬◇¬X ≡ □X it follows that something exists necessarily. The argument runs at the same logical strength as the convergence of lines catalogued at [§3.2](<3.2 Triconditional Necessity Positive Account.md>)–[§3.3](<3.3 Triconditional Necessity Negative Account.md>) and tallied at [§3.5](<3.5 What the Convergence Shows.md>): classical modal duality, no S5, no positive theology, no conceivability premise outside the structural-self-defeat asymmetry the conceivability-inversion line develops at [§3.3.4](<3. Convergence.md>).

A note on formalization for the Pizzi-mode reader. Pizzi's three reductios run in formal modal-logical mode and converge on □∃x x via classical modal duality. That result is significant but deliberately thin: it establishes necessary existence without identifying the necessary content.

The present argument reaches □(T∧S∧Φ) by a different line. It needs the fixed-domain modal theorem, the Cartesian witness of change, and the Structural Requirement that any change-permitting world realizes the Conditions. The move from □∃x x to □◇C is not licensed by modal duality alone, and the present account should not attribute such a T-completeness lemma to Pizzi's result. A nonempty world might contain abstract or otherwise thin content without thereby realizing genuine change. The structural conclusion therefore requires the independent role- and type-level arguments Chapters 2–3 develop.

The boundary is worth marking in the object language as well. The □ in □(T∧S∧Φ) ranges over worlds, while T is a within-world structural condition, so the box governs whether the Triconditions obtain at each world, not any temporal ordering internal to one of them.

The methodological convergence is close enough to require an account of what the present argument does that Pizzi does not. Two answers. First, Pizzi's three paths each target the assertion or modeling of ∅: what happens when one tries to *state* or *represent* the empty case. The negation line of [§3.3.2](<3. Convergence.md>) closes a parallel gap by targeting the *operation* that would produce ∅ from a populated case: stripping structure away. This line is not among Pizzi's three; he does not run an introduction-by-subtraction argument, since his framework treats ∅ as a candidate state whose semantics must be evaluated, not as a state that would have to be reached by subtracting structure from somewhere. The negation line therefore complements rather than duplicates Pizzi's three. Second, Pizzi's three reductios establish ¬◇∅ at the level of the bare-existential conclusion; the present argument runs that same closure across the convergent lines of [§3.2](<3.2 Triconditional Necessity Positive Account.md>)–[§3.3](<3.3 Triconditional Necessity Negative Account.md>) (tallied at [§3.5](<3.5 What the Convergence Shows.md>)) and then *names the necessary content*. The naming is what closes Pizzi's §7.

Pizzi's §7 surveys the candidates for the necessary existent his argument has established: abstracta (Platonism), substratum (priority monism), modal-realist plurality, theistic models, and Vedāntic Brahman. He notes that the argument is silent on which candidate occupies the slot, citing this silence as a virtue of the argument's neutrality. The present account agrees that the argument *to* □∃x x is silent on the slot's occupant, and disagrees that the silence is virtuous: there is a further argument to run, and §5 is where it runs.

The candidates require different verdicts. Abstracta may be coherent as abstracta; the present argument does not infer from their atemporality that they are impossible. The relevant question is whether they can ground the global domain of real possibility or the concrete, change-realizing world. That requires an additional grounding relation, and the abstracta theorist must supply its content. Priority monism may identify the cosmos as a partless whole prior to its parts. The present account can grant that priority while asking whether the whole, insofar as it realizes change and grounds configurations, instantiates the structural roles. The verdict is not that every candidate simply collapses into T∧S∧Φ, but that none receives automatic entitlement to the grounding office merely from Pizzi's □∃x x conclusion.

Modal-realist plurality supplies concrete worlds subject to Lewis's worldmate criterion. Change-rich Lewis worlds realize the structural roles, while sparse or changeless candidates remain tests for the book's independent necessity and type-level arguments; and the fictionalism line in [§3.3.3](<3. Convergence.md>) picks this up against modal fictionalism's milder cousin. Theistic models split on the classical/temporal distinction taken up at [§5.2.1](<5.2.1 Divine Simplicity.md>) and [§5.3.3](<5.3.3 Process Theology.md>). A classical model that denies the loaded types may still posit determinate grounding or dependence roles; Chapter 5 must test whether those can remain wholly outside the structure rather than simply defining the model as ∅. Temporal, process, and open-theist models more directly instantiate the roles. Vedāntic Brahman likewise divides into nirguna and saguna readings at [§5.2.2](<5.2.2 Via Negativa.md>); the burden is to determine whether the former is genuinely contentless or instead carries thin determinacy, while the latter more openly carries structure. In each case the structural account adds a further question Pizzi's result leaves open: does the candidate realize, ground, or merely coexist with the structural roles required by a concrete change-realizing Reality? Some candidates may be compatible abstracta or metaphysical pictures; none is selected as the necessary ground by □∃x x alone. The Chapter 5 engagements supply differentiated verdicts rather than a simple reduction of every candidate to one option.

The closing chapter of *The Impossibility of Nothingness* ([§8.3](<8.3 Knowledge.md>)) places Pizzi's conclusion in a theist-friendly axiological frame, citing Adams(Robert Merrihew Adams, 1999) on the goodness of the existence of God as the contemporary anchor for the move from "something exists necessarily" to "the necessary existent is divine." Pizzi flags this as a gesture rather than an argument, and is explicit at [§8.2](<8.2 Feeling.md>) that the formal result of the book is silent on theism. The present account takes the disclaimer at face value. Already engaged at [§5.1.1](<5.1.1 Rasmussen's Foundation Argument.md>) is the contemporary necessary-existence cluster(Pruss, Alexander R., and Joshua L. Rasmussen, 2018); (Pizzi, David, 2025) as a methodologically continuous neighborhood that nonetheless does not reach this account's conclusion. The axiological gesture is a separate move from the modal-existence argument, and one this account does not run. T ∧ S ∧ Φ are not maximally great in the value-theoretic sense; they are necessary because nothing else is a *something*. The axiological closing is available to anyone who has reached □∃x x and wants to identify the necessary existent with a value-maximal being; the present account reaches the stronger and value-neutral □(T ∧ S ∧ Φ), and the axiological move does not gain traction on it.

*What is established.* Pizzi's dialectical placement is therefore distinctive. He sits here among the modal and semantic foundations rather than among the §5 engagements, because those sections take up positions that disagree with the present account about the *form* of the necessary ground: classical theism ([§5.2.1](<5.2.1 Divine Simplicity.md>)), Swinburne's personal-God theism ([§5.1.4](<5.1.4 Argument from Simplicity.md>)), Spinozism ([§5.3.1](<5.3.1 Spinozist Pantheism.md>)), Neoplatonism ([§5.3.2](<5.3.2 Neoplatonism.md>)), Plantinga's modal ontological argument ([§5.1.7](<5.1.7 Modal Ontological Argument.md>)), and so on. Pizzi disagrees with none of the formal commitments. He runs the same kind of argument to a strictly weaker conclusion and leaves the further work undone. The reply is correspondingly cooperative: this section catalogs the convergence, names where Pizzi stops, and points to the sections that pick up the work he sets down. *Necessary Existence*(Pruss, Alexander R., and Joshua L. Rasmussen, 2018) shares Pizzi's bare-existential terminus and runs by formal-modal apparatus. Rasmussen's *How Reason Can Lead to God*(Rasmussen, Joshua, 2019), engaged at [§5.1.1](<5.1.1 Rasmussen's Foundation Argument.md>), pushes past the bare-existential terminus by stage-by-stage construction toward a personal necessary being. The cluster is the closest the contemporary literature comes to the present argument, and the gap between □∃x x and □(T ∧ S ∧ Φ) is Chapter 5's central piece of work.


---

← [4.1.10 The Source of Possibility](<4.1.10 The Source of Possibility.md>) | [4.1.12 Dispositionalism about Modality](<4.1.12 Dispositionalism about Modality.md>) →
