I have prepared a longer post
, but no one enjoys them so I am just posting my conclusions, but trust me Synthsin, I have applied my mind to this from several aspects.
I believe A singularity as proposed by science, is all matter, space and time, "condensed" together in such a way, that an absolute vacuum is possibly formed. If we define Absolute Vacuum as something a little different from "that containing no matter" to that of containing all matter. This is the only time Nothing can actually be said to exist.
So for the sake of argument, I am changing my definition of absolute vacuum.
A vacuum is that which is void of all matter. It is the scientific equivalent of the philosophers Nothing.
I used to be convinced an absolute vacuum was impossible to ever achieve, but I may have been wrong, and Nothing may be able to exist. This is because I was looking at a vacuum incorrectly. I used to always see it as a removal of all matter. But that always left the container and complications.
But when you view the creation of an absolute vacuum as a gathering and compacting (breaking down) of Matter, Space and Time into a Singularity, then an absolute vacuum exists, and Nothing can be said to actually exist.
The problem and paradox comes in, when you realise that the absolute vacuum exists inside and is part of The singularity and so likewise does Nothing exist inside The Singularity and is part of The singularity.
I am not sure if a singularity is actually possible, and science does not have definitive evidence of that yet. But if a singularity can exist in its truest sense, then Nothing can exist.
We are apparently, currently in an inflationary process, so are not a Singularity, so it is impossible for Nothing to exist in our current form, or for an absolute vacuum to exist as of now (maybe later if you believe in inflation-deflation).
However this does not mean Nothing is potential or that Nothing actually exists.
If the concept of A Singularity is scientificaly possible, to the extent that during its compacting phase it breaks everything down, including space itself into Uni units of such uniform shape that they align aside each other with total uniformity to form what would be a truly solid body such as A Singularity....A true ONE. Then Nothing can actually be said to exist within that Singularity except itself.
But as is the paradox, the existance of The Singularity disproves the possibilty of Nothing, UNLESS it is The Singularity asking the question "Other than me, does Nothing exist?" Then the answer is yes, Nothing does exist, but without The Singularity it cannot exist.
If The Singularity asks, "Is there Nothing if I have become aware of myself", then the answer is No if you are aware of yourself (singularity) , then Nothing does not exist.
Of course Potential for Nothingness is part of The Singularity. Nothing itself has no potential. The only potential Nothing has, is to be Nothing. Nothing itself cannot alter its characteristics, as it is not an actual thing. We can evolve as we are actual, but Nothing is a concept theory.
The only time Nothing can exist, is if we take Something out of the equation. That seems illogical to do that when asking the question.
I agree that absolute Nothing is merely a concept and not an actual thing, but it is a concept that exists within our understanding of everything. So in effect it does exist, and I have to agree with Synthsin. Now the question was whether Nothing as a concept, is a candidate for Potential?
Here again I have to kind of agree with Synthsin. Nothing has potential. It would be wrong for him to say Nothing is Potential, but I do agree that Nothing has potential
So to me Nothing exists as a concept, and it has potential.
But what I have now realised through a long process, is that the only potential Nothing has, is to be Nothing. You cannot give it any characteristic including Potential, as Nothing by definition is the lack of any attribute.
The only time Nothing could have existed is when The Singularity EXISTED but an absolute vacuum requires The Singularity to first exist. That is because The singularity is everything including the absolute vacuum or , The Singularity, is an Absolute Vacuum (taking my ammended definition of Absolute Vacuum). This is where the thought of "everything is nothing and nothing is everything" would come from.
But it is extremely important to differentiate between Nothing being Everything, and Nothing being a part of Everything. For me it is only a part of everything. Synthsin says the part that Nothing is of everything, is The Potential.
So in terms of Everything, Nothing is Potential. But to me, the part of Everything that Nothing, IS, is to be Nothing. thats all Nothing has the potential to be.
If quantum fluctuations are measured in space, and Nothing is used in its correct linguistic and scientific form, then wherever those fluctuations are occuring, there must be something, and we just cannot see it yet. Because if it was Nothing we we're looking at, then we would see no fluctuations.
So likewise and logically , if we have scanned the universe and observed a patch of it with absolutely no activity or characteristc whatsoever, we would then know we have founding Nothing, except we would not know we have found Nothing, until we had something to measure it against, which then defeats itself.
The search for Nothing would be an infinite excercise. You would never find Nothing. Thats not to say it doesn't exist, it just means we would never be able to find it in our current form. The only time Nothing exists as a concept is when Something exists like A Singularity, which in itself would be evidence of Nothing existing..
So Nothing is a concept that has potential to be Nothing only. If this seems illogical, then I am illogical. If it is not, then Synthsin is illogical.
Apologies for the long summary, but I want to see if my logical process is flawed and where.