If science measures causes unknown then we are in a perpetual search for nothing. In the search for absolute zero, for example, it is necessary to create a vacuum. That is no easy task. There is so much of something it is really hard to create nothing to see if absolute zero really exists.
Let’s say you are a philosopher. You are looking for absolute zero. Physically, in the quest for nothing, the reduction always confirms something. It could be that a vacuum does not exist–it is nothing; it has no confirmed value. What you know, in the final reduction, is that absolute zero cannot be measured. It could be that the act of measuring it resists nothing. If so, then it can only be imagined, which is to create nothing from something, which is completely irrational.
Nihilism in all its forms is not rational.
Reducing moral intelligence to nothingness, like Objectivists do, for example, is irrational. In the final reduction, nothingness does not confirm; and to say that a corporate body, like Bank of America, can make markets and do harm (as an act of the gods, or fate) all they want with impunity because there is no credible measure of accountability (with causes being unknown) is as far from “objective reality” and “natural identity” as it gets. An irreducible, moral void is a hypothesis that does not, can not, will not verify physically or metaphysically.
It’s just a matter of time–and the time is always now (reduced to “being” on demand) in all the futures.