Perhaps think of it less as 'why should anything happen?' as 'why has anything happened?'. A kind of chaotic nothing could easily have happened if the initial (or at least the prior) set of circumstances were any different, but there is nothing about determinism though which could not in theory have resulted in our current state of affairs. It is a non-sequitur to conclude that determinism on its own should lead to a particular state (unless perhaps you refer to some ultimate collapse in which everything will 'return').

By "It is a non-sequitur to conclude that determinism on its own should lead to a particular state", I mean, determinism, given different sets of initial conditions, will lead to different states (as far as we know). Different universes following the same physical laws however might all be doomed to something like a Big Crunch or a Big Freeze.

Thank you. I think this is exactly where the flaw is. I assumed that the concept itself is kind of bounded, but it isn´t necessarily. Sorry it took a while to comprehend your reply. Did i get what you mean?

Determinism is the view as described in the question, I concur. Mathematically, the conclusion is astounding!

@MathNewbie. Please don't assume I'm correct. You will likely get many interesting comments yet.

to be honest i am sleep deprived questions like these hold me up allnight. lil brainy hurts. I m sure the agent is making fun of me.

@AgentSmith. Are you saying that determinism should lead to some eventual nothing, or are you saying that if determinism is true, we should not be here? (Or something else entirely)?

Let me see if I understand your question. You are asking, if there are rules for why things happen, why do things happen? Is that correct?

i think if there are rules why things happen and these rules are set with no randomness then there shouldn t be anything since it would mirror the starting condition

Aaahh. That might be the conclusion if we assume that there was once nothing, but we have no evidence to think this was the case (or perhaps even could be the case).

i think absolute nothing is impossible since itself would be a thing, but if there is something and given transformation rules the result is equivalent in a way to the input

thats most probably all nonsense thats why i asked =)

No. I think that fits with our understanding of the conservation of energy[([en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), doesn't it? So if the universe always contained some quantity of energy, that quantity persists, even though the distribution of that energy constantly changes.

@Futilitarian, as far as I can tell, the OP is trying to say that if determinism is true then, nothing should happen; in fact in the eyes of the OP, existence itself makes zero sense IF determinism is true. Somewhere along the chain of causation, something rather odd happens.

@AgentSmith yup

is that really a legit point of view? (I mean my post) I m really confused as i said i didnt sleep

This question could be improved if you explained your thinking behind your question, "Why would there be anything if nothing would be mutable in essence, wouldn´t that make existence itself obsolete?". If you explained why a lack of mutability results in obsolescence, you might provide more for people to delve into.

@Futilitarian, MathNewbie, do the math. :D

@Futilitarian, don't sleep (don't drive though) and revisit this page. :D

Back at it. Hoped that somebody would outright refute me. It´s quite a lot to digest since I really lack the formal eduction regarding philosophy. Some basic knowledge of propositional logic is all I have here.