Here is a sketch of two arguments for why there is anything (concrete) rather than nothing (concrete), which are based on, or at least inspired by, ideas found in Spinoza's Ethics and Leibniz's "On the Ultimate Origination of Things":
Spinozistic Argument: Essences are ideas. Judgements are part of the essence of ideas. Judgements assert the truth of coherent ideas, and assert the falsity of incoherent ideas. Ideas/essences are therefore active and powerful--they have the power to do things/make their referents obtain or fail to obtain. Therefore, if there is no inconsistency in the essence of an idea, its corresponding judgement will affirm its truth, and thereby bring it about/make the idea concrete. Therefore, all possible essences become concrete on their own. Therefore, the reason why there is anything concrete rather than nothing concrete is that abstract essences/ideas intrinsically actualize themselves/make themselves concrete.
Leibnizian Argument: Unactualized possibilities have a natural, innate tendency or striving to actualize themselves unless they are impeded by something external to them. Therefore, the reason why there is anything concrete rather than nothing is that some unactualized possibilities were not impeded in their innate, natural tendency to actualize themselves by things external to them.
I note that both arguments provide a rationale for Negative PSR, the latter of which we've discussed on other occasions.
