Review of “Everything From Nothing” by S.E. Elwell

Score: 91+/100 (9.1+ out of 10)

Everything from Nothing is an exploratory, though-provoking book by S.E. Elwell that delves into speculative philosophy and cosmology.

Perhaps the key concept in this book is that of Natural Causic Evolution. This theory suggests that, similar to biological evolution, universes undergo a process of growth, death, and reproduction. Universes that are able to produce black holes give rise to new universes (white holes being the reverse of black holes). Over time, universes that are more stable and have finely tuned physical constants are more likely to create black holes and thus continue the cycle of cosmic evolution.

This is brilliantly encapsulated in the passage: “Physics evolves into chemistry, which evolves into biology. The whole of nature is built around this evolution of interactivity. Without it, the universe would be dead.”

This meshes right in with multiverse theories like String Theory (or those often found in comics and sci-fi).

Most importantly, this theory helps to support the author's main arguments: that nature dictates that one thing begets another thing and that you can't have something come from nothing.

It confronts several of the biggest philosophical, existential, and cosmological debates:

What came first: the chicken or the egg?
If everything came from the Big Bang, then what was before the Big Bang?
What actually caused the Big Bang?
And where did all the stuff come from?

From a theological standpoint:
If there is a god, then who made god?
Did there have to be a big-big-big god who made the big-big god who made the big god who made the universe?

That's actually a dilemma that Dr. Ken Ham, one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design and Creationism, has confronted in lectures.

With that said, this book does have a much heavier philosophical bend or lean than a scientific one. Unlike similar cosmological books like Revelations Through Science by Governor James Martin and even Eye of God by Aeternus Costin, this book really doesn't provide much evidence that most would consider “scientific” or “scientifically sound.” In other words, a lot of it is speculative, philosophical, unproven, or—as the author admits at different times in the book—unprovable.

This book seems to have a lean toward Intelligent Design and Creationism, so your world view, especially if you're religious or not, will likely dictate a lot of how you feel about this book. It should also be noted that this book doesn't seem to have a Judeo-Christian leaning like many Intelligent Design and Creationist books do. In fact, the book actually refers more to Eastern traditions and belief systems like Daoism and Hinduism.

One of the book's core themes seems to be that everything exists in binary pairs akin to what you'd find in Daoist beliefs. In other words, you can't have light without darkness, you can't have up without down, and you can't having nothing without something.

This is restated numerous times and in numerous ways throughout the book, to the point where it really became redundant and a bit cloying.

However, there were a few passages about this concept that we enjoyed. For example:

“It was Stephen Hawking who famously pointed out that asking what caused the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the south pole. Just as there is nothing south of the southernmost point of the Earth, there was nothing around before the Big Bang. This analogy is an accepted argument and may be valid, but surely to have a south pole, doesn't there need to be an opposite north pole? If there was nothing for the universe to ascend from, then in my opinion, it must have descended from the polar opposite side.”

At the same time, this is a heavily philosophical and idealistic argument that actually falls apart when you consider simple counter-examples.

For instance (and to be a bit snarky):
You can have a football team that sucks without also having a football team that doesn't suck. One just might suck a little less. There could be a degree/level/variability of suckage.

Just because you have a right hand doesn't mean you also have a left hand. Your left hand may have been blown off by a frag grenade in combat.

You don't necessarily need a binary opposite 100% of the time. There are exceptions.
And because there are exceptions the argument becomes extra shaky.

As mentioned before, this book really becomes repetitive and redundant. It also features a bunch of word salads which we think are meant to be profound and impressive, but really aren't. For example:

- “It is not matter evolving to create awareness, it is awareness evolving as or through matter. From this perspective, awareness IS the universe or contains it, rather than the universe containing awareness — which is why the cosmos is more like a living organism than a machine.”

- “Only through this natural attraction to be quantifiable and determinable can the abstract potential of the infinite potential become an actual workable potential. This is why all nature self-arranges into the functioning system and synergies that is the creation of matter.”

- "The infinite side can only evolve by expressing its potential, and this expression is what we call existence. The interplay of the infinite with the void is the driving force behind everything we experience as reality."

With that aside, however, this is a worthwhile and rather brisk read.

Check out the book's official website for updates on its release HERE.