3 What exactly is "nothingness"? Can you conceive of absolute nothingness?

The ambiguity of nothingness

What kind of image do you have when you hear the word "nothing"?
Is it the contents of an empty box?
Is it outer space, stretching out forever in silence?
But are those truly "nothing"?

A box has a boundary between inside and outside.
Even in outer space, there is a subject that perceives it.

Hasn't the "nothingness" that humans have always held,
and the "nothingness" discussed in philosophy and religion,
always beena lack against a backgroundand
a partial negation?

Furthermore, this concept of "nothingness" often
mixes with the concept of "God" or takes on a mystical quality,and I suspect that the addition of each person's unique interpretation
makes the discussion of this concept of "nothingness" even more difficult.
"Nothingness" may have been a wall that past philosophers also faced as a limit of language.

First, I will write this based on the premise that we have a common understanding
that we are currently experiencing this world.

The moment you are reading this article,
you must feel that this world certainly exists.
I am likely breathing,
and you are reading these characters.
There may be people around you,
and cars may be driving by.
In other words, I believe it is safe to say that we exist overwhelmingly
under the recognition that things exist.

However, just because the world exists now, I believe it is a logical leap to say that "nothingness" does not exist there,
or that it never existed.
Whether in Eastern or Western philosophy, many philosophers have explained the concept of "nothingness".
However, as mentioned earlier, wasn't that "nothingness" some kind of lack?
In Mahayana Buddhism, there is no fixed entity,

and everything appears only within relationships.
"Nothingness" is not a lack, but the relationship itself. (There is relationship)
Laozi says being and nothingness produce each other.
The Tao is a state of fundamental potential before naming,
producing everything without action. (There is potential to produce)
In Christianity, God created the world from nothing.
This nothingness is the state before creation and a premise for God's omnipotence. (There is God)
Heidegger says nothingness is not the opposite of existence,
but an opportunity to open the question of existence. (There is an observer)
Kitaro Nishida, taking experience as a starting point,
discussed absolute nothingness as a place beyond the opposition of being and nothingness. (There is experience)

Based on these concepts of "nothingness",
I will attempt to organize the "nothingness" that has wavered throughout history,
by making it as simple as possible and pursuing the concept of "just not being" to the extreme.

To distinguish it linguistically from the "nothingness" used until now,
I will attempt to define [Absolute Nothingness] as
an extreme nothingness that denies all possibilities,
has no background,

and denies everything.

In it,

• there is no space or time

• there are no concepts or consciousness

• there is no observer ("observer" does not mean human)

• there are no boundaries and no distinctions of any domain

• it cannot be engaged with

• it does not even have the property of "not being"

is what it comes down to.
However, a problem arises at this point.

[Absolute Nothingness] cannot be verified or experienced.
Even if only within thought,
it cannot even be conceived.

It falls into the paradox that the moment it can be conceived,
it is no longer [Absolute Nothingness],
and a world with absolutely nothing cannot even be conceived.

To repeat,
because [Absolute Nothingness] has no distinction between inside and outside,
it cannot be "experienced".
Because there is no object, it cannot be "measured or observed".
The moment "verification" is possible, it becomes proof that something "exists".

Regarding [Absolute Nothingness]

• Verification

• Experience

• The very act of reaching it through
  demonstration becomes proof that [Absolute Nothingness] does not exist becomes proof that [Absolute Nothingness] does not exist.

The simplest of all, [Absolute Nothingness] was a concept that
could not be established using verification, experience, or demonstration.

Therefore, I hereby
assert the non-establishment of [Absolute Nothingness].

Along with this non-establishment of "absolute nothingness," I would also like to add the claim that "nothingness" as discussed in the past is "nothingness" that allowed for partial "being" in that it failed to exclude "something," or that it is "being" that is infinitely close to "nothingness."

A starting point as a double negative

As a result of trying to observe [Absolute Nothingness] by pursuing "nothingness" as thoroughly and simply as possible, it became clear that it cannot be established.

This corresponds to the double negative that 'nothing' is 'nothing', and at the same time, it is an entrance to affirmation. In other words, it becomes an important hypothesis that strongly supports the "being" that we currently feel. Even if it were for an instant, or even a tiny fragment, if [Absolute Nothingness] had existed, by its very nature, it would have had to extend to all domains and all of the past, and it would be impossible for us to exist (be born).

• Denying the claim that absolute nothingness exists

• As a result, the existence of something becomes a very rational hypothesis.

Since there is no [Absolute Nothingness], "something" is always there.

The demonstration of the [Non-establishment of Absolute Nothingness] is an epistemological demonstration starting from a world where the present is "being," and it is not proof that absolute nothingness does not exist ontologically. Based on the aforementioned definition and non-verifiability, it is a rationally derived hypothesis.

The "something" referred to here does not need to be matter, nor does it need to be a substance. It does not need to have meaning or purpose, and it does not require an observer.

It simply exists without disappearing.
That is all.

From here on, I would like to focus on that "something" and explain it.

I am writing this as a philosophical system, divided into sections. I plan to eventually publish it as a book. My writing is slow, but I will continue, so it would be encouraging if you could follow or like my work.

I have also posted links below, so I would be happy if you could read any articles that interest you.

Comments are welcome. I may be slow to respond, but I will definitely reply, so I would be happy to hear your thoughts and various opinions.