to combat this question i look at an empty box. whats inside it i ask myself? nothing because its empty. therefore i recognise the concept of nothingness and if i recognise it then it must exist. so the next logical question for me is what is nothing? well nothing must be something because it exists as a concept, so if i take a step back and look from a different angle i ask myself what is something: well everything is something. ergo nothing is something is everything (im a bit of a descartes fan
) however in most if not all things there is balance. balance means two sides: life and death, yin and yang, etc therefore it is only logical that things exist then things must not exist, yet they do due to the thought of them.
I think you are confusing the neuronal pattern that exists in people's brains and which they commonly refer to as the concept "nothing" and the "nothing" that the concept is attempting to represent. This neuronal pattern, of course, exists. But what it is attempting to imperfectly
(by definition) represent, logically, does not.
Nothing mean nothing. Which by definition, cannnot include the space that exists in an "empty" box