Nothing is nonexistence and so there's nothing to change. Right. You're making sense to me.

However, I don't understand how nothing can exist.

Nothing can only be understood from the perspective of Duration/Mind. Do we experience Nothing? Possibly yes, when we are asleep between dream states or unconscious. In these states we do not experience duration, hence we experience Nothing.

But is Nothing absolute? Maybe not, because there is some spark that awakens us out of sleep (out of death?). To understand this question is to move more deeply into no understanding life.

Look here is what I believe. I will try to be as clear and concise as I can. We say something exists because it has a limit, or shape, or boundary, whatever you wanna call it; both physical objects and ideas (or concepts), which are the only things we are 100 % sure exist, satisfy this. A limit, however, necessarily implies that an object bound by it be separated from whatever is "outside" such limit, otherwise the object and "what's outside" would be the same thing (i.e. a limit does not exist). If existence is both a concept and a physical reality, it necessarily must have a limit. However, whatever is outside this limit that defines existence must have a limit as well (it is not existence) and thus, it exists. This is how I try to imagine what I just said, might help. 1. I try to imagine existence as something with a spherical limit. 2. This spherical limit serves as both a limit for existence and for whatever is outside it (try to picture a white circle in a black background; the circumference of the circle is a limit to both the circle and the black background). 3. Since existence is in the inner part of this spherical limit, it might be ok to assume that its opposite should be that which lies beyond this limit (nothingness); I make this assumption because since I am talking about existence, to say that what lies beyond existence exists makes no sense at all; 4. HOWEVER, keep this is mind, from 1 to 3 I am describing a snapshot of a moment no something that is moving or changing. Now, here is the tricky part: imagine the moment before existence came to exist. Whatever there is at this moment, be it nothing or whatever the duck it is or is not, it can only be one thing, not two, or three, but only one... it can only be itself; that is, even though this spherical existence does not exist yet, this thing before everything came to be can only be one thing. I mean, even if it is a composite it is only one thing. By being only this one thing, it has a limit and therefore, automatically, becomes something that exists (which I said to have a spherical limit {no reason I just think of it as a sphere}); however, something that exists can only be it and nothing else, as well, and therefore has a limit. Beyond the limit of existence we said its opposite must lie. This opposite again has a limit, for it is only what it is and therefore exists. As you might be able to see, nothingness is that from which existence comes but that never gets to be per se for when it is it becomes something that exists and therefore never exists and IS nothing. Now this nothingness before the origin must not necessarily be 0 of everything. As I said, it could be everything except the ability to change. I dunno it is as if change were what we call god. Change that arises because the limitation of things forces their existence. It is as if we exist because we have to exist. Makes sense?

Makes sense? — Daniel

Sorry, no.

@Daniel Are you speaking of a process in which the eternal becomes temporal?

There may be no perception of existence, or non existence, without relationship. When one thing or idea is compared to another, only then is there perception, and a corresponding need for definitions.

Conditions of absolute presence and absolute void may not be temporal. However, within temporality, the finite versions of these ideas can be measured. In this instance, presence must simultaneously exist alongside void. If the nature of temporality is finiteness, and movement from beginning toward the end, then it is the temporal which is the sphere of change. Correspondingly, that which is intemporal would not change.

While I am uncomfortable making any speculation as to whether the substance of what is intemporal or eternal can change into that which is temporal, this would negate a condition of intemporality to begin with.