Thoughts about Nothing

I find my mind reaches to many areas of thought thinking and analyzing about many things but one particular area arises a particular interest. It is a paradox, not that there are paradoxes which I do not recognize so far, yet this one seems special. It is a paradox that I feel represents the most fundamental abilities of human understanding, yet gets overlooked in some manner. The paradox I am describing is the conceptualization of "nothing". Nothing by definition should not exist, therefore why give it a name? For example we could say that: here in this basket we have some fruit and in this basket we have nothing. Some may argue it is more appropriate to say we have "no fruit" or "fruit is lacking in this basket". On the surface it sounds like a resolution, that we should simply change our words in order to reflect an absence of "something" rather than to recognize that particular lack of something as something itself, that is by giving "it" a name.

However, there is the problem of acknowledging nothing as something, which is a rather trick in resolving. It is true that we can say that things exist. Whatever they are they are made up of matter which does exist. However, these things - they exist, yet they move around as well. The immediate question is "what do they move into?" They could be said to move into nothingness but then again, you arrive at the problem of naming or recognizing something that isn't. It is a contradiction of logical thought. One might think to resolve this by imagining that there is no "nothing" and that everything that exists is connected to something such that there is no empty space. Everything in this way would be like a sheet stretched to infinity in all directions and any bleep, movement, or bump would be a action. Still I wonder if this idea of a "sheet" is possible.

The idea that a sheet could represent all matter in reality lacks significantly. It lacks because a sheet is stretchable to certain distances that are usually thought of as linear. What about the space above and below, perhaps in between wrapped in other dimensions? As I understand it the only way for their to be a universe without that "nothing" that empty space it would have to be a solid universe so tightly compact that there is no possibility of movement. This actually makes sense to me for the reason that many leading scientists speculate the universe expanded from a supremely tightly point of matter or energy. Expanded into what though?

So nothingness has to exist? If there is to be any movement at all, if the universe is said to expand surely it has to expand into empty space. There is a difference I think. Nothing represents the impossible and empty space represents that which has yet to happen. Empty space is that which is lacking in movement, in motion, in time, and in space. It is not "nothing" but rather a lack of "something". In this way it isn't the negative we might associate it with but a neutral platform from which we form our concepts about reality.