Even the Penrose bounce does not suggest a previous Universe becomes nothing before a new ‘Big Bang.’ — universeness

Fine. But I do not consider science to tell philosophy what is real.

I don’t think it is meaningful to try to objectify ‘outside’ of everything that exists. — universeness

I think it does. Why do you think otherwise?

Fine. But I do not consider science to tell philosophy what is real. — Jackson

I rely on science more than philosophy to evidence what is real.

I think it does. Why do you think otherwise? — Jackson

Because I perceive the concept of ‘outside of spacetime,’ to be fallacious.

Hegel didn't say that being and nothing unite in time to form the universe, as if that was the big bang. They are united inseparably, forming the material world that is objective but comes from the thoughts of God. For Hegel we are inseparable from God and think with his thoughts, however there is positive and negative in God. He is not static, but movement (negative) while being the union of being with nothing (positive). Nothing and being are inseparable as we are from God and God from becoming. Pure being can't do anything without the potential of nothing, just as you cant fill a cup without a nothing

Because I perceive the concept of ‘outside of spacetime,’ fallacious. — universeness

I see.

Hegel didn't say that being and nothing unite in time to form the universe, — Gregory

I certainly did not allege that.

In my experience, the subject of nothingness comes up most often when someone asks whether or not something can be created out of nothing. I think the consensus is that it can not. I'd argue with that, except the argument always becomes circular when I say "what about" and the other guy says "that's not nothing."

So, here I am in space, as far from anything as I can possibly be. Let's designate a cubic meter as our volume of interest. Now, even way out here there are particles and radiation, even if at very low levels. So I build a box around my volume. The walls are made of material that blocks all radiation and particles. The inside of the box is lined with material that absorbs all radiation and particles. So now we have a box full of nothing. Ok, ok, we'll get a waiver for neutrinos. So... nothing. But what about gravity waves, what about the curvature of space. And even if I could argue my way out of that, then there'd be the quantum field and virtual particles.

So, I guess that means there can't be nothing inside the limits of our universe. What about outside?

I think of nothingness as negative space in a visual field. It is the space between things that helps define the objects. — Jackson

Like figure-ground? We could reverse these then, right? With a shift of perspective the negative space becomes the object and the object becomes negative space. Conclusion:no priority can be given to object over negation. This is the post-structuralist ( Nietzsche, Deleuze, Derrida , Heidegger) critique of Hegel, that he prioritizes unity and identity over the negative. The role of the negative and the nothing in Hegelian dialectic is subservient to the unity of the total structure; negation is overcome by synthesis. For these authors the nothing is fecund, affirmational, creative.

that he prioritizes unity and identity — Joshs

That would be Kant.

Added: I do not read Hegel as saying the dialectic ends.

So, I guess that means there can't be nothing inside the limits of our universe. What about outside? — Clarky

Philosophers like Nietzsche , Foucault ,Heidegger , Derrida , Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty argue that the notion of the nothing as lack is the result of grounding difference and negation on identity and Sameness. They instead ground concepts like identity and sameness , which are the basis of the notion of the empirical object , in difference. Identity is an effect of difference. From this vantage , talking about the ‘nothing’ as a lack of identity is incoherent.

that he prioritizes unity and identity
— Joshs

That would be Kant — Jackson

Doesn’t Hegel post a totalization of differences in Absolute Subjectivity?

Doesn’t Hegel post a totalization of differences in Absolute Subjectivity? — Joshs

I do not read it that way. "Absolute Knowing" is more a criticism of Kant's subjective idealism.

Philosophers like Nietzsche , Foucault ,Heidegger , Derrida , Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty — Joshs

Are those guys outside the universe or do you have a point?

Are those guys outside the universe or do you have a point? — Clarky

I have a habit of posting before I have completed my edit.

Philosophers like Nietzsche , Foucault ,Heidegger , Derrida , Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty argue that the notion of the nothing as lack is the result of grounding difference and negation on identity and Sameness. They instead ground concepts like identity and sameness , which are the basis of the notion of the empirical object , in difference. Identity is an effect of difference. From this vantage , talking about the ‘nothing’ as a lack of identity is incoherent. — Joshs

From this vantage , talking about the ‘nothing’ as a lack of identity is incoherent. — Joshs

I don't conceive of 'nothing' as lack. Nor would I say Hegel does.

Philosophers like Nietzsche , Foucault ,Heidegger , Derrida , Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty argue that the notion of the nothing as lack is the result of grounding difference and negation on identity and Sameness. They instead ground concepts like identity and sameness , which are the basis of the notion of the empirical object , in difference. Identity is an effect of difference. From this vantage , talking about the ‘nothing’ as a lack of identity is incoherent. — Joshs

Yes, I took the concrete path to the goal. You and those philosophers took the abstract path. We all seem to agree there can't be nothing.

Deleuze embraces Nietzsche’s anti-dialectical perspective against Hegel:

“Pluralism sometimes appears to be dialectical — but it is its most ferocious enemy, its only profound enemy. This is why we must take seriously the resolutely anti-dialectical character of Nietzsche's philosophy.

…the concept of the Overman is directed against the dialectical conception of man, and trans-valuation is directed against the dialectic of appropriation or the suppression of alienation. Anti-Hegelianism runs through Nietzsche's work as its cutting edge. We can already feel it in the theory of forces. In Nietzsche the essential relation of one force to another is never conceived of as a negative element in the essence. In its relation with the other the force which makes itself obeyed does not deny the other or that which it is not, it affirms its own difference and enjoys this difference.”

donut holes. — 180 Proof

negative space in a visual field. — Jackson

Which is the space and which is the object? Is there ever an object or just a field of differentials?

Apophatic clarity.

Too bad we didn't have a debate between Sartre and Carnap.

Is there ever an object — Joshs

You mean a thing?

or just a field of differentials? — Joshs

You mean a thing?

0 ness.

Is nothing, 0?

The question is about nothingness and not about nothing, a hole, a gap, not even space or vacuum.
Those others are negative things of sorts with at least some properties to go with their whatever substance. But in any case, if their identity cannot be proven then they cannot be said to 'exist'.

If we consider existence to be a group of properties (one or more, and any), then non-existence or nothingness would be the lack of all properties. It is absolutely undeniable that the current state of the world we live in is not nothingness; however, this does not mean that nothingness will not exist or could not have existed in the past. So, I think the question whether there can be an absolute lack of properties or not is more useful when exploring the topic of nothingness. In my opinion, an absolute lack of properties is not a possibility, and I believe there exists some natural law that prevents this from ever being the case which leads to the necessity of existence - i.e, there always will be at least one property because a complete lack of properties is not possible.

Nothing has been equated with nonexistence! A dictionary ahould come in handy.

The negation of existence is nonexistence. The best candidate for nonexistence is nothing.

Is red more yellow than fish are birds?

Same kind of question really.

Do not get fooled by words. ‘Nothing’ is generally a reference to ‘absence’. There can be many things in a room but once you have removed them there is nothing in the room. The ‘nothing’ exists in context to there being the ‘absence’ where there was once something. This is a concept that is so engrained in our lived experience that we barely give it a second thought.

The concept of a table is almost certainly nothing to an ant. An ant walking across a table is not in any way state or form aware of a ‘table’ it merely walks from one point to another with no conception of the item we call ‘table’ as a surface made for putting things on to keep them off the floor.

If something exists, so does nothing exist. — Jackson

Of course not. "Nothing" is an abstract concept formed by mental subtraction: imagine any set, remove members one by one. What's left? nothing. To claim nothing is something is self-contradictory, or a reification of the "nothing" concept.

Of course not. "Nothing" is an abstract concept formed by mental subtraction: imagine any set, remove members one by one. What's left? nothing. To claim nothing is something is self-contradictory, or a reification of the "nothing" concept. — Relativist

Or, nothing exists in the same way something exists.