Would this actually be true? An actual nothing as philosophically speaking? A complete absence of anything. If there's an actual nothing, wouldn't this also mean there is no logic, and thus it is not bound by logic? Therefore, wouldn't it mean something actually COULD come from nothing?

Am I making sense? Is the 4/20 really getting to me? Are socks mellifluous?

A poster put it on the erstwhile RDF forum thus: "nothing has no issness". Which I understood, in the course of the said discussion, to mean that nothing, by definition having no properties, also has no existence.

A physicial equivalent of nothing would be a quantum field with zero energy. Heisenberg put paid to such existing however.

josephchoi wrote:Out of nothing, nothing comes.

Correct. Zero equals zero. You can't get something from nothing but who says nothing was "first" (despite of "time" being finite...). I've got no problem with the thought that there always was and always is something.