DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Nothingness is not zero, is not the null set, not a void, not empty space or pure vacuum even if there was one. Nothingness as is defined is not anything, be it abstract or concrete. Thus is logical to conclude that no properties of any sort can operate into nothingness. It is a complete mystery to me why is this so hard to get for most people. If you are referring to anything else you are not referring to nothingness. Zero for instance might be interpreted for practical purposes as the representation of perfect balance between opposing forces which it is obviously clearly distinct from nothingness.

This thread has become rather dull because it has fallen into a circular set of arguments from both sides without any sort of debate on how we can go about the problem, the possible arrangement of understandings on how nothingness can be addressed that to my view can be resumed to 2 possible alternatives only.
Either nothingness as classically defined is the a priori absence of anything in which case its close to meaningless and is not of much use as I have illustrated previously, or, for those who want a more creative more surprising take on the matter, it can be argued that nothingness as a concept only has validity if seen as an operating function from everything, something which you derive in relation to everything else, from the act of negation itself. Nothingness as a negating active function is then something, a balance for transformation, for change. At this light we can now recon that for this kind of definition the concept of a null set can now be satisfactory. But the null set can only be considered valid as a function of any other set.

I agree; without some agreement as to the definition and perception of words, the discussion is going to result in a merry-go-round.

Since you have provided your definition, it's up to the people who disagrees with your definition to provide their definition. Without settling the definition, any discussion is a round about.

I defined "nothing" early on...it is merely the absense of spacetime.

many people do not, i haven't seen a clear example of someone explaining or talking about 'nothingness' or what to do with it as an idea if any

I however have supplied a short linguistic proof that nothingness, ex nihilo rather, as a concept began in 1900, after the big bang, and I've only seen paradoxes of thought since then of men trying to explain what they mean, by ex nihilo, though bright, I don't see how anyone expects a message board thread to surpass books. This message board would be making history if it came up with something to do with nothing.

I though fixed the pronunciation; that it should be Nile.

That's another point that it appears to be popular book material.

I don't know, the concept (of zero) exists in ancient cultures.

The problem with your "ex nihilo" is the limited definition of "out of nothing" which can have many different concepts. It doesn't need to mean only about 'creation.' It can also mean something invented and brought into existence - that which never existed before. Just one hundred years ago, no one ever had any idea about three dimensional printers. That's a very good example of "something out of nothing." Long before then, the invention of aqueducts provided the transportation of water for long distances. They brought long term benefits for humans by their creation (something from nothing).

There's really no need nor benefit to restrict the meaning of words.

I will be cocky n state my own, even if vaguish, account on it surpasses the "books"/authority as far as I can tell...
(not that I am expecting it to be noticed)

1 - Nothingness with capital N is meaningless.
2 - nothingness look at as a function derived from when change is measured, when X is not X any more, is tangible.

...nothing in relation to what it was before is a better account on what the coinage is intended to mean.

...nothingness practically speaking, as negation of what it once was, is in the least one bit of information. You derive information from the process of change itself. So, when we speak of nothingness as a function on what changed for describing what isn't any more, we still produce information about it. When we state that X is not X any more, we are nonetheless producing something about X, information.

At this light the null set is an ideal never achieved, a progressive negation of a collection of things that exist ad infinitum.

The fundamental feature of this sort of nothingness is that it points towards constant processing. In the listing, the negation of X, then, Y, then Z, etc etc is an infinite non stoppable process. If you stop processing you are immediately stuck with something. Practical nothingness, as negation, is a function that produces information itself need further denying. As far as we can tell information needs be embodied information. Thus the denial is always circumstantial and never definite. You deny X by producing Y...

So far I provided a vision on the function of negating considering an infinite set.

If considering a finite set, the null set of negating all the elements of a set, which requires a loop, points to an interesting result that illustrates what I was conveying in my previous post. The processing of negation itself cannot itself ever be negated. In order to complete the set the process of change never stops. Even when a full finite set is negated one function remains unchanged along the way, that function is negation itself.

Space, and everything else.

So can we, absolutely, put to bed the non-existence of nothing?
I have - And, being that it is a fundamental base for the transition of reality (However perceived), commit closure thereupon.

Now, maybe, after 4 yrs, those inclined may venture into the consequences thereof?

If there is anyone left believing nothingness as classically defined means something they need a head check.

Agreed!

This is where our language begins to fumble, I think.

Nothing, as is the sense of the lack of something, exists in many ways, though in the most fundamental way, its definition implies it is not existing. Though this play on words is entertaining, the space between two somethings is nothing in the literal sense, but is something in the logical sense or in the sense of oneness.

If the universe is the existence of moving constants, then the space between those moving constants is nothing. If the universe is simply entirely nothing because for something to exist, so too must nothing exist, lest the concept of a something could never be.

Let's specify a more precise meaning of the word "Nothing".

In the sense that "Nothing" is the absence of something, then I think that there is a place where there are no somethings. So "Nothing" in this sense exists as the space between things.

In the sense that "Nothing" is the void of all things, to include concepts and existence, then I believe that it is a paradox and an infinite loop, immeasurably so.

In the first definition, this is a nothing that you can see and measure. It might be the space between planets, or the distance between atoms. This is a measurable nothing that is something. It is the something we call nothing.

In the second definition, nothing is paradoxical. Nothing, not even space, time, or reality resides here. This wouldn't be a place that anything could actually go, not because traveling there is too difficult, but because going there would innately undermine the condition of it being what it is. Though that doesn't disprove its existence. It would suffice to say that this nothing cannot truly be, because if it did, then it would no longer be. But by virtue of it not being, it is. And so this is a paradox.

"Nothing" is merely the absence of spacetime. So the nothing is acually something...where spacetimes does not exist.
Why is that so hard to undersatnd?

So what could possibly be the nothing that is actually something where there is no space time? I elect the quantum foam...where quite possibly our universe with space came from by way of a quntum fluctuation. I.E.; something from nothing.

That's 'nothing' I worry about.

be lonely and you will acheeive something

There is no space between 2 'somethings'. What are you talking about?
'Our' language (whatever that means) doesn't begin to fumble at any point - Your interpretation of transitional reality is alternate to mine, and you percieve from an alternate pov. "Nothing" does not, cannot nor ever will exist.

And - Where is this place that 'spacetime' does not exist?
"Nowhere", no doubt?