Nothing

Call me crazy but when I thought of to write something, I could think of nothing. So I decided to write an article on it, on “nothing”. Seriously, 'nothing' is such an issue, such a material, such a phenomenon, that no-one seems to even think about it. Its a vast world within itself. There is definitely something, or probably more about 'nothing'.

Grammatically, the word "nothing" is a noun, which suggests that it refers to something. This can lead to confusion and forms the basis for a number of jokes. The simplest meaning is: no thing. So if "Nothing" is said to be in a particular place, have a particular quality, then it is meant that "no thing" is there, or has this or that quality. many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun: there is not any object it refers to. There are still various opposing views though.
In mathematics, nothing does not have a technical meaning. It could be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" is an informal term for an empty set. However, since two minus two is also called nothing, it could also refer to the number zero.
In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter. But it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space which contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, supposing such a region existed, it would still not be "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.
In computing, "Nothing" (VB.Net), or "null" (Java, C#, others), can be a keyword used to represent an unassigned variable, or a pointer that does not point to any particular memory address, or a reference that does not refer to an extant object.

This is how nothing is understood in this world, well maybe just a few of the many ways. Every branch of study has its own interpretation of nothing. Without nothing there is no mathematics, no variables, and above all, its from nothing that the entire universe has come into existence, and hence without it there is no universe. Still what does “without nothing” mean? Nothing already means “non-existence, or non-being, of something”. Without nothing means “without empty space, null, void”, and that doesn't mean 'materialistic something'. Null of null is still null hence without nothing still means 'nothing'.
But why is there something rather than nothing? Well, why not? Why should we have nothing rather than something? We better have something rather than nothing. Something is better than nothing, but not always. But we cant also say that there is 'nothing', as there is no experimental proof supporting the hypothesis, because if there were anyone or anything to observe then it would not be 'nothing'.
In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo contrasts universal negation with universal affirmation:
"All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word ‘no.’ To ‘no’ there is only one answer and that is ‘yes.’ Nihilism has no substance. There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing. Man lives more by affirmation than by bread. (1862, pt. 2, bk. 7, ch. 6)."
As far as simplicity, there is a tie between the nihilistic rule ‘Always answer no!’ and the inflationary rule ‘Always answer yes!’. Neither rule makes for serious metaphysics.
So does an empty world exist? The answer is not certain. Most philosophers would grant Peter van Inwagen's premise that there is no more than one empty world. They have been trained to model the empty world on the empty set. Since a set is defined in terms of its members, there can be at most one empty set. Others think the other way. Newton's laws follow one world, and Aristotle's another. This way they say an empty world is decided by the laws it follows. If variation in empty worlds can be sustained by differences in the laws that apply to them, there will be infinitely many empty worlds. The gravitational constant of an empty world can equal any real number between 0 and 1, so there are more than countably many empty worlds. Indeed, any order of infinity achieved by the set of populated possible worlds will be matched by the set of empty worlds.
To many, the possibility of an empty world seems self-evident. Imagine each object vanishing in sequence. Eventually you run down to three objects, two objects, one object and then Poof! There's your empty world. Mathematically, its possible, but in the 20-21st century mathematics and sciences, such a phenomenon occurs very few times. Physically there is no problem in statistics, shares, geometry, etc these days about a void. The concept is that either 'p' exists or 'q', else nothing. Everything is discrete.

But why is there something rather than nothing? There should be just something and no nothing. When something has come from nothing, why, if so, there is some nothing left out? If something and everything has come from nothing, then does that mean that every object is the nothing of itself? What does this even mean? What am I even trying to say? Why are you still stuck to this stupid article? Are you expecting something more out of “nothing”? You must be as jobless as I was when I wrote this piece of junk. Go find some purpose in life.