The Impossibility Of "Absolutely Nothing" (Part 2)

There is no such thing as absolutely nothing, since, as I explained in a prequel post, logic and space, which are things despite not commonly being classified as such, cannot not exist [1].  But one can prove that absolute nothingness is impossible through an alternative means: by demonstrating that even if the necessary existence of logic and space are not taken into account, as logic and space are both things, nothingness itself is something.

Absolute nothingness is impossible not only because logic and space are things that must exist, thereby meaning that some things cannot not exist simply by nature of what they are, but also because nothingness is something itself.  It would be impossible to think about or discuss absolutely nothing; the very fact that someone can linguistically classify, reflect on, and converse about nothingness demonstrates that nothingness is not and cannot be absolute nothingness.  Nothingness is at most the absence of material objects or consciousnesses--animal, human, angelic, and divine consciousnesses.  Nothingness is itself, therefore, something.

The only reason I can even contemplate “nothingness” is because when I do so there is actually something that I am contemplating: the absence of certain other things (matter and minds).  However staunchly someone might deny it, they cannot escape from this.  I cannot think about pure nothingness because then there would be nothing to think about!

If someone opens a closet that does not contain any clothes, boxes, or other items and says that there is “absolutely nothing” in the room is absolutely mistaken!  The laws of logic and the dimension of space are always present in the closet, regardless of the absence of material objects or minds in it.  Since nothingness is never a complete absence of all things, it will always be impossible to speak of nothing as if it is not itself something, as evidenced by natural linguistic references to nothingness as its own noun.

There is no such thing as absolutely nothing, and there cannot be such a thing.  This truth is viciously simple, and yet it is still neglected by every historical or contemporary philosopher I know of.  It is the specific details about reality--complex as a whole but always entirely simple in themselves--that determine if one has an accurate worldview.  Without correct knowledge of the details, one cannot have correct knowledge of the composite series of truths they contribute to.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html