What is "nothing"

Good points.

...lack of knowledge of physics is a problem for philosophers—as well as lack of philosophy being a problem for physicists.

It also seems that at a naive level of consciousness (my level)

"nothing" is the "absence" of "something".

And perhaps "some-thing" is the absense of something else.

Also, does "thingness" suggest that "something" has phenomenal value--i.e., it can be experienced by us—
o

r that it has mass--i.e.,

that it can affect something else? Gasp. Are we not just digging intellectual holes for ourselves"

I tend to think of the term "nothing" as "zero value of a specified something"

it seems most postings in this thread involve a more nearly absolute meaning, the absence of anything at all, and whether such a “condition” can in fact occur

Ok. Fair point.

......such as 'nothing' and 'everything' only have meaning in relation to other concepts.

If you remove that relation, which is what happens when you speak about "the absence of anything at all", it simply doesn't make sense.

Similarly, if we speak of "absolutely everything" we have no relation to anything that is "outside everything", because there can be nothing outside 'absolutely everything', by definition.

Absolutes of this nature are linguistically untouchable.

The best we can ever hope for is approximations by means of parables and examples, and that almost always ends up with us driving the train further than the rails go.

Yes I agree but you’ll have to explain in language suited to the Average Clod (me) why that means I can’t posit nothingness

Especially where so many participants (no not you Cyr) use vague philosophical language to explain a position better expressed in everyday terms

...get back to it I was adding stuff as usual...knock yourself out !

1 - I think you are the one needing to explain how is it that Nothingness can exist......

2 - Justifying claim X through X is a tautology not an explanation !

3 - Equally you would have to explain how is it that you assert that nothingness requires no justification if you are yet to provide an example of absolute nothingness...

at the very least you ought to say here I cannot justify it but here it is !

Where is it ?

What is it ?

You are pointing into a sort of "meta X" based on a gut feeling aren't you ?

...that is, for every thing that I can enumerate ad infinity I can think of a corresponding negative function.

I’m not quite sure I understand but in any case when I assert that it’s possible to imagine a state of nothingness I mean it in an absolute way with no special reference to another concept

It is possible to imagine the whole universe as 'everything'.

Then it's possible to ask, "but what lies beyond the edge of the universe?"

But if there lies something beyond 'everything' then 'everything' isn't 'everything'.

That is an example of what I mean when I say we drive the train further than the rails go.

We apply logic that works in scenarios we think are similar...