This is a parody. You know the drill.
An Assessment of Nothing in General
Does nothing exist? This isn't the same as asking, "Doesn't anything exist?" because the latter question deals with things, and the first question deals with the concept of absolute nothing, the opposite of everything or something. Is it possible for there to be no space, no time, and no matter?
Since we think in language, let's test the idea of Nothing with linguistics. One could say that if nothing existed, it would contradict it's own definition. For Nothing to exist, nothing can exist...even nothing. So you could conclude that Nothing cannot exist, because if it did, nothing would exist within Nothing, which would make Nothing something, and therefore prove that Nothing contradicts it's own definition, and therefor cannot exist. Of course, this can be countered by the arguement that if Nothing does not exist, then it is no longer condtradicting it's definition, and would therefore exist.
This is simply a play on words. All this does is show us how language is a flawed and unreliable method of thought and reason. We must therefore step outside of language to comprehend the concept of nothing.
Let's turn to the Bible to see if we can get a clear picture of Nothing.
The Bible implies that God is "All." So for those who put their stock into the Bible, the concept of nothing must be VERY clear... Nothing is Godlessness. Hell, therefore, must be the zenith of Nothing.
The problem is that if I go to Hell and become part of Nothing, then how am I to be burned? Fire, even hellfire, doesn't exist in Nothing. Even if you take a "modern," rational approach to the concept of Hell, meaning that you believe the fire is metaphorical, a person would not be aware of being in Hell, as conscienceness cannot exist within Nothing. This will lead to the question, "How bad can Hell be, if I never know I'm there?"
In Hell, as it is generally percieved by Christians, there must be conscience, and therefore, God (identified as "All") must be there in some way. If you disagree with that, then the only other conclusion you can come to is that Hell does not exist, as it contains something. Nothing (identified as Hell), as I've pointed out already, contains nothing.
Other religions do not hold a concept of Hell, or if they do, it is not suggested to be godless, as the Biblical interpretation of Hell is.
We obviously cannot turn to religion to help us find our answer.
Let's try to take the route of science to find our answer.
Quite frankly, no one in the scientific world has ever done an assessment of nothing in general. Science is flawed in that it only explores areas of the universe that a theory can be made out of. They don't sit around asking stupid questions like, "Does Nothing exist?" They only try to define stupid answers to stupid questions. It's the job of the philosophers to find those stupid questions, so let's turn to philosophy.
Philosophy, just like science, hasn't tackled the subject of Nothing directly, but they HAVE looked at existence and conscienceness. From those assessments and experiments, we should be able to pull enough information to, at least, begin to answer this sly question of Nothing.
Take a look and Schrodinger's famous cat in the box. This man put a cat in a steel box so that he couldn't percieve the cat in any way, and so there was no passage of anything between the outside world, and inside the box.
The idea was, if you cannot sense, in any tangeable way, within a specific area, then the space within that area is in a state of all possibilities. So the cat was alive, and dead, at the same time. Of course, the cat was also in the box, and the cat was also not, and so on. This means that time, space, and matter do not exist within that box, because all of those things are only possibilities. The lack of these characteristics is exactly what we're looking for!
The problem is that this is only a possibility, and as soon as the cat is let out of the box, the infinite possibilities instantaneously become one possibility, which is the observable state of the contents of the box.
This deals with perception, a relative and personal thing, which has no hold on the concept of Nothing as an absolute, the mama of all Nothings. For example, dinosaur fossils were discovered in the 19th century. We did not percieve the dinosaurs, nor their bones, prior to that. Here, in some twisted way, Schrodinger would have to say that the dinosaurs did not exist, or they were not possible, until the 19th century.
We've got one more area to search, and that is mathematics. Mathematics deals with abstract concepts, so we should find SOMETHING, right?
The sad news is, it offers little more than we've already found in the other areas. But hey, we'll look anyways.
Nothing can be found in the non-number, Zero. It is defined as the dividing point between positive and negative numbers, where there are no numbers. This definition would match our description of our Nothing, if it weren't for one small problem; Numbers, not just Zero, are abstract. Any given number could represent any given measurement (for example, one metre is not the same as one foot, but they both use the number one). If numbers are conditional and relative, then the point of no-numbers (Zero) is conditional and relative. This is not the absolute Nothing that we are looking for.
Here, we are forced to make a decision; Either we accept that there is no such thing as Nothing, that it does not exist, or we attempt to press on and see what we can come up with. Well, it would be a waste of your time to read this, and a waste of my time to write this, for us to simply accept what is so obviously true, so let's press on and form a conclusion the best we can.
We can draw conclusions from each area, as we have done, except for science. As far as science is concerned, there isn't enough information, or we don't have the means to properly calculate the answer to the question, "Does Nothing exist?" The simply fact that they've not explored it is the MOST proof we've had that Nothing DOES exist, because nothing has been scientifically examined, and as we should all know by now, when there is nothing, there MAY be Nothing.
We, ourselves, have been scientifically able to state that Nothing may exist somewhere, because nothing has ever been written on Nothing in a scientific manner.
Did...did we just contradict ourselves? Crap. By making a scientific assessment of Nothing, we have actually destroyed Nothing.
Well, okay. CORRECTION: We have successfully proven that Nothing does not exist, by making a scientific statement about Nothing in general, when there was no statement before. And as we all should know by now, by stating that Nothing doesn't exist, we show that nothing DOES exist, because Nothing cannot exist.