Ok, let's set up a (false) dichotomy.

Whatever you can think up, in a darkened cave, through pure thought, we'll call 'philosophy'.

Whatever you can work out, through observation and experiment (plus some inspired math), we'll call 'science'.

In the OP we have words (and the concepts behind them) like 'paradox', 'exist', 'impossible', 'nothing', ...

We also have words like 'matter', 'energy', 'vacuum', 'space', ...

The former are 'philosophy'; the latter 'science'.

Science has delivered PCs, jetliners, vitamin supplements, ... and the three consistencies*

Science also served up the dish called 'quantum theory', with mind-bending weirdness and astonishing precision (the most accurate theory in science, to date).

Five thousand years (or more) of philosophy produced nothing even remotely as weird as quantum theory.

You want to go beyond what can be tested in the lab, or via observations (for example, into the Planck era), using philosophy? No problems, go right ahead! However, when experiments and observations finally get around to giving a handle on the realms you explore with philosophy, don't be surprised if "impossible!" in your philosophy turns out the be "once again, the universe is not only weirder than we can see, but weirder than we can possibly imagine" (with apologies to Haldane,for monkeying with his words).

*Internal consistency, consistency with other theories whose domains of applicability overlap, and consistency with (all) good observational and experimental results within the domain of applicability. Roughly, theories, the engine of science. Note the explicit self-limits.