Why Romanticise Nothingness?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle : … This leads to the question of why the formation of matter after the Big Bang resulted in a universe consisting almost entirely of matter, rather than being a half-and-half mixture of matter and antimatter. The discovery of CP violation helped to shed light on this problem by showing that this symmetry, originally thought to be perfect, was only approximate… Particle-antiparticle pairs can annihilate each other, producing photons; since the charges of the particle and antiparticle are opposite, charge is conserved. For example, the antielectrons produced in natural radioactive decay quickly annihilate themselves with electrons, producing pairs of gamma rays.

Comments: As such, it is not true that the universe comprises of equal amount of positive and negative energy (matter and antimatter), that the universe arose from nothing, or that it will return to nothing. ‘Nothing’ is not special, such that it should be romanticised or attached to as a idea or ideal. The universe is not nothingness or everythingness but changing-ness. Also, there is energy (gamma rays) produced when matter meets anti-matter. The universe cannot arise from nothing or return to nothing – but is cyclical existence – as energy cannot be created or destroyed. As the Buddha taught on the truth of dependent origination, nothing can arise by itself.

Am writing this in response to a monastic’s talk on the nature of the universe, which presented the ideas on physics dissimilar to the above. He is also known for erroneously presenting Nirvana as a state of extinction, utter nothingness, when it is only the extinguishing of spiritual defilements, not enlightened activity. Alas! For he is a popular speaker and supposedly trained in physics. He seems very attached to both the universe and enlightenment being a zero sum game.