Does nothing exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]I understand those are different propositions...

Good.

See... we have no capacity to know the Easter Bunny, FSM, or God exist outside of them being a concept. If they are not a concept, then you can't consider them: simple as that.

Yes, but the existence of them as simply concepts and the existence of them themselves beyond that are two different propositions and we mustn't confuse the two remember.

Everything exists (tautologically true... else none of it could be a thing)

True. Just as nothing can't exist. Every THING must exist, because if it doesn't exist, it's not a thing. But some things are merely concepts in our head - that doesn't mean they also exist beyond that. Those, once again, are two different propositions.

... therefore my questions are leveled at wether nothing exists as well, as even nothingness would be a thing (that thing being no thing )

"Nothingness" the concept is a thing, it exists as a concept. But nothingness cannot exist as not only a concept but as an actual thing beyond that because it's not a thing and something that is not a thing cannot exist by definition, because it's not something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat

I think nothing both exists and does not, at the same time.

We cannot understand what that intuitively means though. Quantum physics is very different because it can be calculated and not (at least not yet, and maybe never) understood on an intuitive level. We make our definitions up with our own intuitive way of defining the world - which is very different to quantum physics. By our own logical rules and definitions, something cannot not exist and also exist at the same time. A cannot =A and not A at the same time. The fact that the Schrodingers cat concept contradicts this is merely because we're talking about quantum physics/mechanics there - nothing has been proven that this is somehow literally the case - that something can and cannot be, that doesn't even make any sense by definition: But that's the whole thing with quantum mechanics, it cannot be properly understood on an intuitive level it seems (at least not yet).

The calculations make sense, but we more or less really don't seem to know what a lot of it means yet.

Of course... as i already explained before: to consider nothing... it must already exist, even if just as a concept.

'it' isn't 'it' existing as a concept though. 'It' can ONLY exist as a concept. Nothing cannot exist by definition. The concept of nothing existing is a completely different proposition entirely. So to say that 'it' exists as a concept doesn't really make sense to me - 'it' cannot exist at all, nothing cannot exist at all, by definition. The existence of the CONCEPT of nothing is a completely different proposition entirely, once again, don't confuse the two.

And we have no understanding of anything that is not a concept... therefore nothing must exist at least as a concept, and perhaps as more (or rather, less).

Nothing as just the existence of a thing that is the CONCEPT of it, and nothing as a thing itself are two completely different concepts themseleves. Nothing cannot exist by definition - the concept of nothing existing beyond a concept is a ridiculous concept - it shouldn't be taken seriously. The concept of the concept of nothing existing obviously is not a ridiculous concept to take seriously, because we can be pretty damn sure that the concept of the concept of nothing exists because....well, we can conceptualize it.

^ Counterpoints waiting to be refuted. ^_^

I hope.

EvF