What's funny is when we believe that something is nothing.
We give nothing a name, thus turning that nothing into something, I mean , even nothing Is something because if it was nothing (or what we believe to be nothing) it wouldn't exist and so it wouldn't be nothing, it just wouldn't be, it would simply cease to exist.
The question posed is very selfexplanatory and it's a fool's errand answering it.
Nothing ceases to be nothing if we think nothing. Hegel dismisses the idea of nothing and calls the idea he begins with the Absolute. In an essay I wrote, recently published in the "Review of Metaphysics," I argue for what I call the A and B representations (following from the common sensed notion of nothing that I dismiss as irrelevant, where metaphysics is concerned):
A: The Absolute void as an infinite, unconditional, objective state, and this necessarily in relation to:
B: The finite, subjective idea that we have of A.
We cannot form an idea of nothing except by thinking B, and when we think B, we think A. These a priori ideas or representations are related, and one cannot be admitted without the other.
This is a critical redefinition of what our common sense would have us define as nothing.
It is interesting that Immanuel Kant also dismissed what he called the magic wand of so-called common sense when it comes to such metaphysical questions, as the one the began this thread. But this is my short answer to the question.
Nothing is the absent something. Pro cannot exist without a con, good -- bad, up -- down, etc
Why do you fools run a fool's errand in answering what should be very selfexplanatory?
It is well defined in various dictionaries, and therefore needs no further explenation.
Fools will be fools.