Nothing does not exist.
Prove it!
My contentions:
Avoid the categorization error–it is a distraction from the proof.
Address the paradoxes with why and how they’re formed.
Make sense of and ‘undo’ the paradoxes.
Semantics and grammar will be very important in the proof.
Metaphysics will be necessary near the end, but why, how, and is that reasonable?
Have fun Nihilists! 
ima chip in for the fun of it.
"Nothing does not exist.
Prove it!"
. . . . . . . … . .
then if nothing does not exist, everything around us is a constant and “at the moment” assumption of future events, feelings memories and actions, automatically replacing anything that can be recognized as nothing, but in a sense that the actions predetermine the non existence of nothing; thus proving that nothing exists.
is this what you wanted?
I’m not convinced that “nothing does not exist” with your explanation.
and what exactly will convince you if not something you already agree with.
You tried to prove that ‘nothing exists’.
I want to know: Why does nothing not exist?
because something is the exact opposite to nothing .
something has dimensional properties and space , therefore can manifest , exist
nothing has no dimensional properties has no space and therefore can't manifest or exist . ever
This is a well-attempted proof.
However, I don’t think it is complete since you are attempting to prove the non-existence of nothing through the concept of ‘somethingness’.
I don’t think this proof is sufficient or necessary.
how so ?
“somethingness is not a concept . somethingness is a fact”
Ok, say it is both.
How can you prove the non-existence of nothingness through that concept/fact?
Assume it does exist. Then it has certain properties, as a thing can’t exist without any properties (if it did, in what sense would it exist?). But nothing can’t have any properties, by definition. Therefore we have a contradiction, so nothing doesn’t exist.
I don’t think you can really do anything much better than that. When you think of nothing as a concept I would argue you’ve already thought of it as something. We can’t think of nothing, because to think of something is to consider it, and you can’t consider whats not there. The minute we hold the thought in our mind its not a thought about nothing per se. I think we can rreally just say that nothing doesn’t exist, by definition.
“Therefore we have a contradiction, so nothing doesn’t exist.”
Good ideas, but this conclusion does not follow so quickly. You need more details and you need to explain how nothing can’t have properties. Yes, it cannot by definition, but there is much more to the problem of this paradox.
Oh my.
above
Yes it is; every word with a relational meaning is conceptual.
This is an assumption, but I will grant you it.
There is such a thing as ‘conceptual knowledge’, so you’re wrong. Conceptual knowledge constitutes what is ‘proven’ and what is not.
give an example of what you mean
I am pretty sure I was proving how and why nothing doesn’t exist…please read it again real, I’ll rephrase it just in case:
Why does nothing not exist…Nothing does not exist because patterns or constants are at work ; our actions, most reactions and general occurrences are derived from some form of understandable or alien pattern, one that repeats and manifests itself in so many different ways that any emptiness is pre-filled or pre-determined. This system of present implications on any form of perceived futures will completely occupy any space or void, thus giving nothing and emptyness a 0% chance of paradoxically occupying what doesn’t necessarily exist; in other words, nothing is a mere spacial antithesis to existence.
There is no ‘physical reality’ without words.
I will give you some help: ‘somethingness’ has both physical and non-physical properties…
All knowledge is based on concepts. For example, when you tell me a tree is green and the reason for its green color is the chlorophyl found in the leaves, then I understand these ‘facts’ based on the concepts being relayed between us.
‘Tree’ is a plant/vegetation with trunks, stems, leaves, etc. I have built my knowledge of trees mainly off of pine trees, since I live in the Pacific Northwest.
‘Green’ is a color on the color spectrum, associated with the human sense of vision. I have built my knowledge of green around words like ‘pine’, ‘apple’, ‘grass’, ‘plants’, etc.
‘Reason’ is a logical deduction term used for attempting to explain things in an order of successive events.
I could go on, but I will spare you for now. All knowledge is built around concepts and all concepts are built around knowledge. They are mutually-inclusive and you cannot have one without the other. The biggest difference between these terms are their contextual usages.
You’re on the right track, but I think you should explain these ideas further. Prove them explicitly.
“any emptiness is pre-filled or pre-determined.” (what emptiness are you referring to? are you assuming nothing exists in order to explain it?)
“This system of present implications on any form of perceived futures will completely occupy any space or void, thus giving nothing and emptyness a 0% chance of paradoxically occupying what doesn’t necessarily exist;” (what system of present implications are you talking about?)
“in other words, nothing is a mere spacial antithesis to existence.” (that is the conclusion we’re after of course)
really . so physical reality doesn't provoke the need for communication ?
lets start here .
agreed