Nothing, Properly Understood

ABSTRACT

This paper challenges the prevailing philosophical view that “nothing” cannot exist and is merely a logical or linguistic placeholder. It argues that such denial is internally inconsistent. If logic is valid for establishing the existence and properties of 'something' and 'nothing' is defined as its logical negation, then 'nothing' must be granted equal standing within that logical system. Denying the reality of 'nothing' while using it as a necessary concept undermines the coherence of the very logic used to define 'something' Moreover, the claim that thinking about 'nothing' transforms it into 'something' confuses conceptual representation with instantiation. Thinking about nothing does not bestow attributes on it. 

 'Nothing' is not a thing with properties, but a logically and metaphysically distinct state,a condition devoid of attributes that must exist in order for 'something' to be intelligible. This paper defends the view that 'nothing' is not a contradiction or illusion, but a foundational, reality indispensable to thought and being.

INTRODUCTION 

Throughout history there have been several philosophers that have denied the existence of nothing and claimed that it doesn't exist or it has no meaning 

Parmaneides is famous for denying the existence of nothing. According to him being is, and non-being is not. To speak or think of nothing is to give it some kind of being, which is contradictory. 1

Greek atomists on the other hand took an opposing view that allowed the existence of nothing i.e a void,non-being

Later philosophers like Rene Descartes denied the existence of an unfilled space or a vacuum and took a position that space is an extension of and inseparable from matter thereby returning to Parmaneides like reasoning that there can't be nothing. 

Spinoza is another philosopher taking the view that nothing is not real because only Nature exists necessarily. According to him nothing is not a real state or possibility, because nonexistence is not part of the nature of being. 5,6 

Among German philosophers Hegel was a somewhat more positively inclined towards nothing but even in his dialectical method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis there was no place for either being or non being it was all becoming.

Heidegger’s view of nothingness was more experiential and emotional. Nothing was not simply absence but a fundamental aspect of existence that allows us to understand what it means for something to be. His nothing took on a supporting role that allowed beings to understand what it means for something to exist. Nothing had no existence independently. 2,3,4

DOES NATURE ABHOR A VACUUM?

If nothing doesn't exist then there must only be something. There can be nothing in something but there can't be something in nothing. The arguments of philosophers who say nothing can't exist also limit something because now something can't have nothing. 

That makes something inherently incomplete because you can add nothing to something and it will still remain something. Therefore something must inherently and at all times contain nothing.

But according to some philosophical views that is not possible because nothing can't exist.  

Bringing nothing into existence does not necessarily have to change its properties. It would still have no attributes. No properties ,no mass etc. Infact there is a school of philosophers that define nothing as the absence of everything. Which seems to be a more accurate view. 

Yet only one of them can be true. The crux of this debate is whether the existence of nothing turns it into something? For it to be something it needs to have defineable properties. But nothing does not have any of those and hence it's not something. 

Logically if nothing does not exist there can't be something which is the opposite of nothing. Something can contain nothing within it but it is by definition opposite of it. 

According to the strict denial view one can't think about nothing. Thinking about it makes it something. But there is a problem with this view. 

Thinking about nothing allows properties to be formed ,according to view of the denialists,which means that there was a prior point at which properties were not formed & hence nothing existed. 

In this view something is simply opp. of nothing. Which can't be unless there is nothing.  

-Nothing can exist as absence, not as a "thing with properties."

- Denying nothing entirely undercuts the definition of something.

- Therefore, nothing must be logically possible, even if not physically instantiated.

-Claiming that thinking of nothing gives it properties assumes a transition from a state of no properties to one of conceptual form admitting a prior condition that had none.

Nothing as a Prior State

Importantly, this isn't a definition of nothing as absence of something (which still depends on something to define it), but rather: NOTHING IS A PRIOR, ALWAYS-POSSIBLE STATE.

- It is not dependent on something to have meaning or coherence.

- It has no attributes, no properties, no potential and yet it is logically valid as a neutral ground or baseline.

-Thinking about it does not give it properties; it merely acknowledges the possibility of non-being without transforming it into being.

Nothing exists in the most minimal, non-ontological sense , as a distinct, property-less state. Its existence does not contradict its nature, because it lacks all that would make it something.

To conceive it is not to give it form, but to affirm that such a condition , wholly devoid, wholly neutral ,is not only thinkable, but essential to the intelligibility of something.

The proponents of non existence of nothing can argue that there is no prior state before something exists. But that would mean that something always existed and that would mean nothing also exists because something must also include nothing to be complete and because now we don't have to think about nothing to make something. It simply exists. 

This may seem like a shortcoming of the language or logic rather than being a seperate entity. Many philosophers have indeed argued that nothing is simply a construct of the language. Wittgenstein is a good example of a group of philosophers who hold this view 9. 

However nothing is not just a shortcoming of logic or language or thoughts. Reality exists whether or not you observe it or think about it. If you don't think about, say the sky, that does not mean that the sky ceases to exist. Nothing is a state that exists even when it can't be observed because it has no properties.

If we carefully analyse the arguments that different philosophers have taken it's easy to see how they are self contradictory. First they deny that nothing exists. Then claim that nothing does not exist ontologically but it can exist as a logical placeholder.

However if nothing exists for the purpose of logic then it exists for all things that are true according to that logic. This implies its existence because the same logic is used to assert the existence of something and probe something to determine whether it's true or not. If logic is true for something then that implies nothing is also true because it's defined by the same logic that is tested on something.

-Reality exists independently of observation or thought (a realist position).

- By analogy, nothing as a state should not require thought or observation to exist

 -If logic is used to assert the existence and properties of something, and the same logic defines nothing as its counterpart, then nothing must be as real (in the logical sense) as something.

- Otherwise, the logic itself becomes inconsistent or selectively applied.

This argument does not claim that nothing is a thing with properties, but rather that its logical necessity grants it a form of existence as robust as that of something.To maintain internal consistency, philosophy must treat nothing as more than a mere placeholder it is a real, if property-less, aspect of the logical structure of reality.

Critics might argue that if something always existed (e.g., an eternal universe), there was no prior state of nothing, rendering it irrelevant. However:

- Nothing is not a temporal state but an atemporal metaphysical necessity. It is the absence of all properties, essential for defining something, even in an eternal system.

- Like zero in mathematics, which is necessary for the number system without needing physical instantiation, nothing is necessary for the metaphysical system without requiring a before or after.

- Even if something always existed, nothing remains the logical negation that makes something intelligible.

Robert Kuhn takes the concept of nothing further and defines 9 levels of nothingness. Levels 1-7 progressively reduce the content of each level of nothing. However Levels 8 and 9 make stronger claims and they need to be tested more rigorously. 

“L8. Nothing where not only is there none of the above (so that, as in Nothing 7, there are no concrete existing things, physical or non-physical), but also there are no abstract objects of any kind—no numbers, no sets, no logic, no general propositions, no universals, no Platonic forms (e.g., no value).”

“L9 Nothing where not only is there none of the above (so that, as in Nothing 8, there are no abstract objects), but also there are no possibilities of any kind (recognizing that possibilities and abstract objects overlap, though allowing that they can be distinguished).”

These levels are problematic 

-If possibility doesn’t exist, then Level 9 can’t exist because its existence would be impossible.

- This is a self-negating claim: There is Nothing, including possibility then this state isn’t even possible.

Level 8 denies logic. This denial of logic gives rise to absurdism where anything would be possible. Things may exist and not exist at the same time. 

Robert himself acknowledges the limitations of level 8 and 9 because nothingness collapses under its own weight.

   

If it denies the very tools needed to describe or conceive it, then it cannot coherently exist.Possibility is irreducible.

Even the idea of no possibility presupposes possibility making it logically necessary.From possibility flows structure: logic, numbers, distinctions the seeds of Something.

So nothingness becomes self-cancelling, and its failure gives rise to something. Nothingness not only exists but is necessary for something to be. Level 9 Nothing is so unstable, it forces emergence like a void that must give rise to structure, simply because it cannot maintain its own denial.

Ultimate Nothing (as defined in Levels 8 and 9) collapses under its own weight because denying possibility, logic, and structure generates contradictions that make its own state impossible. This collapse is not into chaos, but into the very first forms of structured being — logic, possibility, number — from which Something arises.

We are proposing that Nothingness generates Something not in spite of its purity, but because of it ,because absolute Nothing is metaphysically unstable, and that instability is the generative force. 

In the presence of something, nothing gains existence too. Not as an entity with properties but devoid of any attributes. Something includes all possibilities including nothing a state with no properties. But it is seeded by absolute nothingness, L9 as Robert says, that is so metaphysically unstable that it gives rise to something and thus marking the instance when something and nothing co-exist. 

If logic and abstracta do not exist (as in Level 8 nothingness), there are no rules or constraints.

- This leads to absurdism,where anything is possible,including contradictions like the existence and non-existence of logic and numbers.

- Without logic, the very concept of nothingness loses coherence and collapses.

- As a result, any structure or possibility could spontaneously emerge, effectively reverting to a less restrictive level of nothingness, where at least some distinctions exist.

 

Levels of nothingness that deny logic and abstract structure (L8 and L9) are self-defeating and incoherent; they cannot be sustained, so something must always be possible as must be nothing. 

CONCLUSION

The denial of “nothing” as a meaningful or existent state rests on an unstable foundation. By asserting that thinking or speaking of 'nothing' necessarily transforms it into 'something' proponents of the strict denial view collapse the very distinction they seek to uphold. This view also undermines the consistency of logic itself: if something is intelligible through contrast, then nothing must be logically, real.

Far from being incoherent or self-defeating, nothing is a conceptually necessary state ,a condition of total absence that does not require attributes, presence, or form to be meaningful. Its existence is not empirical or substantial, but logical and structural: it is the silent counterpart that gives something its meaning and boundary.

To deny nothing is to risk severing the conceptual conditions that make something thinkable. Recognizing the logical reality of nothing restores coherence to philosophy and respects the full structure of reasoned thought.

REFERENCES 

1 Nothing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

2 Nothingness 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

3 In the Clear Night of the Nothing of Anxiety:An Exposition of Heidegger’s Concept of the Nothing

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/270257737.pdf

4. The Meaning of "Nothing" in Heidegger

https://www.johnpiippo.com/2009/12/meaning-of-nothing-in-heidegger.html?m=1

5. Spinoza

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

6 Spinoza 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

7 Question about nothingness/void in Spinoza’s “Substance with infinite attributes”

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10jixne/question_about_nothingnessvoid_in_spinozas/

8 Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

https://capone.mtsu.edu/rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica1.html#Prop. XV.

9 Nothingness is unimaginable (therefore impossible)

https://philarchive.org/archive/ZANWOB

10 Levels of nothing 

https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-lawrence-kuhn/