depends on how well they’re connected.
and
We don’t know what the nothingness exactly is, so we also don’t know whether the nothingness exists or not, but we can think the nothingness, so the thought of nothingness is in our mind, and for that reason we can’t say that we know nothingness doesn’t exist, but we have to say that we don’t know, whether nothingness exists or not.
[b]So we must consider the irrationality and not give up the rationality. Nothing of the rationality, logic. Nothing!
We should do what mathematicians do! [/b]
This is simple guys.
Is nothing something?
It has been proposed that such “maybe be” true.
If that is the case, then the very essence of logic is doubtful, “not-A ?= A”. If one doubts that not-A is NOT-A, then nothing said changes anything. No confidence can be gained from anything. And in a state of no-confidence, rational decisions cannot be made and the person becomes nothing as well (which seems to be the intent driving such thoughts).
RM is solely about finding what it is that one CAN have 100% confidence in. Any fool can doubt all things for all of their short lives.
Is 2+2=4 ??
“Well, I don’t know really. It might, might not. We really don’t know anything for sure.” - [size=85]because “we” are absolute sheepish morons.[/size]
That has nothing to do with what I am (or even we are) talking about, James. We can agree with each other that doubt and doubtlessness can coexist. I don’t have to doubt that nothingness exists or that nothingness does not exist. Terms like “Not-A = A” or “2+2=4” are a lttle bit different from terms like
“nothingness = part of existence (special case)” or “0 = part of the numbers (special case)”.
Nothingness is a special case. One can compare it with the number “0” (it is a part of the realm called “whole numbers” and [either] not [or sometimes even also 
] a part of the realm called “natural numbers”). Both “natural numbers” and “whole numbers” belong to the realm called “rational numbers”.
What we were talking about was the definition of “existence”. You proposed that hypothetically “nothingness” might exist. But the very definition of “nothingness” is that it doesn’t exist. To say that nothingness exists, is contrary to its definition. It would be like saying that "maybe blue is a special case of red".
The color black and the quantity zero, both express the non-existence of something; void of color and void of quantity. We give both of those concepts a word or symbol so that we can express the non-existence of the quality of interest.
If you are thinking of perhaps a “region of space wherein there is absolutely nothing”, then it is the region or volume that exists (and has affect because of being a volume). But the “absolute nothing” itself within the region by definition means non-existence.
It is like asking if a “void of air” exists. There can be a region that has a void of air, such as space. The region exists. But the “void of air” itself is the non-existence of air. And non-existence cannot exist merely by the definition of the term. The language itself forbids it.
But as you discover later, even the hypothetical region of non-affect cannot exist.
James, I have been knowing your ontology for a long time, but I don’t know all of its details. So if I want to know more about the details of your ontology, I have to ask you by “coming” from outside of your ontology or by playing a role, for eaxmple the “uninformed informer” (I didn’t play that role) or so. The first problem we two got was the word “existence”. Many philosophers, especially the existence philosophers, have been being very engaged in the word “existence”.
However, “existence” is a word. How came the meaning of something like the word “nothingness” into the mind of the early human beings? Because of the meaning of something like the word “existence”? Or was it reverse? It was because of something like the word “existence”. Human beings perceive, notice, make experience with their ambience, environment; they become more intelligent by using more words and thoughts and by improvements and reforms of the older experiences with their ambience, environment; it is a spiralic development. Linguistically something ( 
) like “nothing” or even “nothingness” has been derived from something like “existence” in the early times of human beings. So now we can also derive “existence” from “nothingness”. But should we do that?
What does a mathematician do with the word “nothingness”? Mathematically “nothingness” is “0”. But do mathematicians say that “0” is not a number because it is “nothing”? No, they do not.
Black means “no light/color”
Zero means “no quantity”
Nothing means “no-thing”
Existence means “thingness”
No-existence means “no-thingness”.
and thus,
Nothingness means no-existence.
Does your “nothingness” have affect upon anything?
If not, how would you know it was there?
Look at the following Venn diagram:
The subset “A” could be your ontology. The set “B” could be all ontologies.
Please look at the next following Venn diagram:
The intersecting set (red) betwen two sets could be the common definition of “existence” of two different ontologies. It could also be the common definition of “nothingness” of two different ontologies. It could also be the number “0” between the positive numbers and the negative numbers.
You can also say (for exampe):
“The color of my pullover is black.”
“Zero means not the pure quantity, but quantity or not quantity in the sense of a special case.”
“Existence doesn’t merely mean thingness, but being, namely both real being and ideal being.”
That’s not my “nothingness” because I have not any. 
All jokes beside:
I don’t know whether nothingness is there or not, so I also don’t know whether it has an affect or not. So I can’t say both “it is there” and “it is not there” because I just don’t know it. But to some philosophers nothing and something have to come together in order that being can become, or to other philosophers being is nothingness and nothingness is being …
We can think the “nothingness”, so it is possible that nothingness exists. But I don’t say that “it exists” or that “it doesn’t exist”. In that case I am as agnostic as a scientist.
That is why one must choose his language and stick with it. Do not use one language if the other person is using the same words for a different language. What language is chosen is arbitrary as long as all parties agree to use the same meanings for the associated words. Be consistent. And a language is merely an arbitrary set of chosen definitions.
That is Your language.
In my language;
Thus a “Lack of Consequence” is a Lack of Affect (or Effect).
How would you know? 
If you are a “Nothingness Agnostic”, then you cannot say that “nothingness” represents something that you believe exists and yet has no affect (that would be a “Nothingness Theist”). That was the question that started all of this, "Name something that you believe exists, yet has absolutely no affect".
In the long run, you discover that the very idea of nothingness is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a word or phrase that is contrary to itself, such as; “square-circle” or “round-square”, “intelligent-liberal”, or “good-socialist”. An oxymoron is an incoherent thought. An oxymorononic entity has no opportunity to exist even as a coherent idea. And it turns out that “nothingness” is such an idea, lacking any opportunity to exist as a coherent thought.
No, that’s the English language in a philosophy dictionary.
That’s okay, if the language convention is accepted, and it is accepted.
That was a joke! My correct answer is: I don’t know whether it is my “nothingness” or not.
I am not saying that, but I am saying: “I don’t know whether nothingness represents something that I believe exists and yet has no affect”, and therefore I can say: “Maybe or maybe not that nothingness represents something that I believe exists and yet has no affect”.
I didn’t ask for a “maybe”. I asked for what you believed, not what you suspect might be.
Do you know of anything else that you BELIEVE exists and also BELIEVE has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever?
I find it funny how it has never been facts that have had the greatest effect on mankind, but the evolution of a system of beliefs. Beliefs have always been stronger than fact. Nobody won a battle by having the facts presented to them; they won because they believed fully that they could and they didn’t get in their own way.
Besides the special cases: no.
That, with the other things mentioned, is why it is rational to accept the definition of existence being “that which has affect”.
The next question is about the possibility of absolute homogeneity of affect. For absolute homogeneity of affect to be the state of the universe, the affectance would have to be infinitely identical in all locations. What is preventing that?
The “infinite homogeneity” and something which is “infinitely identical” are not the same.
Well one cannot have infinite homogeneity without having infinite similarity, so what distinction are you trying to make?
The distinction between “homogeneity” and “identity”.
I didn’t say, “Identity”. I said “identical”.
That’s right. You said “identical”, and I said “identity”. You used the adjective, and I used the noun (substantive).
So back to the question: