Think about it

[Slam_Jones]

Why are you asking me? Nothing is a concept, a concept is a thing, therefore nothing is in fact something.

What I'm asking is this: if nothing is actually something, then there is no such thing as nothing, right? If every instance of there be nothing could be covered by calling it something, the word "nothing" would cease to be used, as it doesn't apply to anything.

Again, my question stands. If it doesn't exist, in any way shape or form, why is there a word for it? By definition, nothing is nothing. There is a word to represent the nothing, but it is still nothing.

It's a little like the concept of 0. It is a number, sure, but it represents nothing. It is the absence of anything. If it is "something," then it can be counted, or quantified, in some way. 0 is a perfect example of this. The concept it is putting is across is that there is no number: there is a void.

But we have to represent the void somehow, otherwise how would we talk about it?

Just because the void has a label (which exists simply for the purpose of identifying it, but in no way changes its properties), doesn't make it any less of a void.

-snip-

Nothing is only a concept, it can't exist, and a concept is a thing, therefore nothing is a thing.

Now I think you're confusing yourself... it can't exist, but it is a thing?

The word is a representation of the concept, not the concept itself.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Bill Phil]

We have a word for extra terrestrials, but we never met any. We have words for plenty of things that don't exist. Ideas and concepts do not physically exist, but we have words for them. They are constructs within our minds.

This is very much not like zero. Zero is not a representation of nothing. It's a value. It is quantified, as zero. As the starting point for counting.

Nothing is a concept, it can't exist physically. Even in the darkest reaches of space, there is space, virtual particles, energy, etc. Nothing cannot physically exist. It is only an idea, a concept, and those are things. So nothing is a thing.

Perhaps it would be better to define a "thing" first.

[Camacha]

You have referred to nothing as a thing...

I have rather explicitly not.

I'm not confusing a description with the actual thing. Let me explain like this: Nothing is used in regular conversation, in a specific context. Like, " there was nothing in the trunk." But there was air, and plenty of other things, such as microscopic life. Not only that, but even in space there is never nothing. There is always a certain amount of matter. There are also virtual particles, and even space itself. Nothing is only a concept, it can't exist, and a concept is a thing, therefore nothing is a thing.

You still promote the concept to the actual thing (or lack of it). For reasons explained, that does not fly. Besides, only by not existing it actually is nothing, and that is where the comprehension of most monkey brains ends and falls short. It is just our brain that is at fault there, not what it tries to understand. Human brains are notoriously bad at handling nothing. Many road or aviation accidents happen because there was a single object on an empty road or field. People are not good at aiming at nothing. People are good at aiming at something, and that is what they do, and then it all ends badly. This is why driving instructors always tell you to look where you want to go.

Maybe people even prove nothing is a viable concept by not understanding it, since their lack of understanding proves that an absence of something is possible.

Even in the darkest reaches of space, there is space, virtual particles, energy, etc. Nothing cannot physically exist.

That is a bold claim there. It seems you have figured physics, the history and the future of the universe (and anything or lack of it beyond) out a lot better than the rest of the world

Edited September 24, 2015 by Camacha

[dr_jt]

My doctorate degree is in philosophy with a bent towards Meta Physics and because of that I feel obligated to post in this thread.

[RainDreamer]

Basically...nothing comes from nothing, is that what you mean? Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Perhaps "nothingness" is better not understood the absence of existence, but rather the gap in our perception. We call something "nothing" because we simply can't perceive the existence of that something there. Until we are somehow able to perceive all that there could possibly exist in the universe and still not able to find anything, only then we can really say absolute nothingness exist or not.