Movement Negates Solidity

*Though the theory described below can be arrived at independently by any person, as was the case for me, through logical rumination portions of this post reflect ideas and specific wording borrowed by me from a book by Charles Seife's in Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea.

It seems there are only 3 possibilities in which a universe could exist (2 if you deny the universe which is made up of nothing as a possibility). Either a universe is completely solid, that is it is filled completely with matter such that there are no gaps, a universe is completely empty of all matter, or a universe is a combination of matter and empty space. It may seem logical to conclude that a universe that has nothing is nothing, a stance I would be in support of. It should be rather obvious that a universe in which there is only matter could not be the universe as we know it, if only for the reason that we know that there is motion. It is quite simple to understand that for there to be movement there needs to be empty space. Therefore, we must live in a universe that has matter but at the same time also lacks matter.

This scenario once again leads to the paradox of nothingness. How can it be that nothing exists as it is an outright contradiction of itself? It may be that such an understanding is a misrepresentation of the reality of the universe. Try not to think of empty space as nothingness but as a void instead. Voids can exist between objects, but nothingness, it seems, is too powerful as it negates any objects in existence. Nothingness is the contradiction and it is the universe that cannot exist. The paradox seems to have disappeared with this clarification of ideas. It is not the case that a void is the same as "nothingness," in fact this idea of nothingness itself is a logical mistake. In reality the void or infinity can be looked at as a state of neutrality and not a antithesis of matter/energy, which would be nothingness.