ha I answered this correctly ages ago

If ’nothing’ is defined as the absence of physical matter
And the concept that defines ‘nothing’ is a thing
Then thought, which conceived the definition of ‘nothing’, consists of physical matter

Does that mean that ‘nothing’ must also be defined as the absence of physical matter and thought?

That could be a problem for those who believe in an intelligent creative force.

Not really. Its not a problem for me and I do contend that there is an intelligent creative force.

Thought are things, on this I agree.

(But is a "concept" a thought, or the attribute of a thought?)-- It doesn't matter.

I do think we can define the meaning of a word like "nothing" and still conclude that "nothing" has no existence, particularly if it is defined as "the absence of physical matter and thought."

The absence of physical matter and thought is what I would call a description of a condition or a state. (A concept) That condition does not actually exist.

BUT

The fact that I can imagine the absence of all physical matter and thought, is a clue to what I am.

Potential.

Potential exists and it has some of the same attributes of nothing. It is not thought, and it is not matter or energy. It is Potential.

Looking at potential from an outside viewpoint, you would not be able to distinguish it from nothing. But it is not nothing, it is potential.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/zero,_reification_of.html

Zero, Reification of

¶

A vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists, is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It consists of regarding “nothing” as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being. E.g., “Nothingness is prior to being.” (Sartre)—“Human finitude is the presence of the not in the being of man.” (William Barrett)—“Nothing is more real than nothing.” (Samuel Beckett)—”Das Nichts nichtet” or “Nothing noughts.” (Heidegger). Consciousness, then, is not a stuff, but a negation. The subject is not a thing, but a non-thing. The subject carves its own world out of Being by means of negative determinations. Sartre describes consciousness as a ‘noughting nought’ (néant néantisant). It is a form of being other than its own: a mode ‘which has yet to be what it is, that is to say, which is what it is, that is to say, which is what it is not and which is not what it is.’” (Hector Hawton, The Feast of Unreason, London: Watts & Co., 1952, p. 162.)

(The motive? “Genuine utterances about the nothing must always remain unusual. It cannot be made common. It dissolves when it is placed in the cheap acid of mere logical acumen.” Heidegger.)


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/non-existence.html


Non-Existence

¶

Non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist. (One can arrive at the concept “absence” starting from the concept “presence,” in regard to some particular existent(s); one cannot arrive at the concept “presence” starting from the concept “absence,” with the absence including everything.) Non-existence as such is a zero with no sequence of numbers to follow it, it is the nothing, the total blank.


Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not “the absence of pain,” intelligence is not “the absence of stupidity,” light is not “the absence of darkness,” an entity is not “the absence of a nonentity.” Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing. . . . Existence is not a negation of negatives.

Interesting.

if you make nothing a "thing", then it is not nothing anymore...

This of course touches on the question of exactly what you are trying to define, and as I said, thoughts are things.

So, a thought about the meaning of "nothing" is not nothing.

I would love to see the answer if you do not mind.

Also, I would like to suggest that nothingness is an illusion. You can take any point of seemingly empty space and always find it full of something, Take any sub atomic particle and observe the space between the structure of the particle and still you will find that the "empty" space is yet full of even smaller something, take that smaller something and observe the "empty space" that seemingly fills the gaps between the structures and sure enough you will find even smaller something and so on forever.

We seem like we are moving through empty space because we can move through it. It has no solidity relative to us. But just like a neutrino, it is so small that it could travel right through the entire planet untouched.

I have always had two different meanings of Nothing and Nothingness.

Nothing means "No thing."

"Nothingness" on the other hand, is a concept that describes a state or condition of non existence.

In other words Nothingness is a "noun" describing a state or condition of non existence of matter, energy, space and time. (MEST)

"Nothing" is an adjective that describes the attribute of Nothingness.

You take:
a Set S = All the Universe and All math = Empty Set

And it all dissolves: without math there is no Empty Set or equivalence.

Just another biblical mistake.

"Nothing" is just a human term without real meaning.

nothing is the absence of a cognising mind/intellect/ awareness to pose the question at all. maybe

The absence of a conscious observer? THAT really would be nothing.

But then, who would know?

NOBODY.

One might note first that the idea of an empty space in both metric theories (like gr spacetime) and qm, the void there actually contains enormous amounts of energy. This is what renormalizition is all about, getting physics back to a normal way of dealing with empty space in those theories. So it might not be too far of a stretch to say that that which we call the void or space currently is actually more important, more substantial empirically as measured by a possible experiment, than what ordinary matter-energy is. Matter and energy icludes practically everything dealt with in classic physics, the elastic energy, nuclear forces, repulasion, radiation, gravity or tenstion, most everything we think about! So continueing this trait into modern times, it's really no wonder that physicists are having a time with defining nothingness.
Another point is that the absence of perpetual motion means that energy cannot be made from nothing or no source of power. It also means that energy is not conserved, in a vague analogy in mechanics where the loss of energy to heat shows no perpetual motion, and also no total conservation. One may say heat is energy, yes, but it is not reversible, that is able to go back into work for the machine.
So combining these two simple statements, that the void really has enormous energy, and that energy is not conserved, one arrives at a view where a state of begining is not neccessary. Things like matter and the space we consider familiar to the mind, may have been selections through time, picked because at whatever moment they just seemed to work at the time. There may not have been a great emptyness at the begining of the universe, or existence. The nothing in this sense would never occur, because matter-energy and spacetime will have been a product of a development where the contridiction of having nothing and the a quantity of something is not important when conservation laws are not valid for the whole picture.
I don't think it satisfies the mind to say that a lack of awareness is nothing. Objects like the toaster in the cabinet in your parents home that you've never seen still exist.

Nothing is a word without real world meaning; you can`t really transfer it to anything. We humans use it mostly to describe the lack of something specific, for example the lack of milk or water in a glass. There is always something everywhere.

This is true. Its just a word that represents the lack of something.

philosophically nothing is something that has not been conceived

Good one!

Hey namefake.... what's your real name?