Nothing, no-thing, or no thing (Latin: nihil), is the complete absence of anything as the opposite of

something and an antithesis of everything. The concept of nothing has been a matter of
philosophical debate since at least the 5th century BC. Early Greek philosophers argued that it was
impossible for nothing to exist. The atomists allowed nothing but only in the spaces between the
invisibly small atoms. For them, all space was filled with atoms. Aristotle took the view that there
exists matter and there exists space, a receptacle into which matter objects can be placed. This
became the paradigm for classical scientists of the modern age like Newton. Nevertheless, some
philosophers, like Descartes, continued to argue against the existence of empty space until the
scientific discovery of a physical vacuum.
Existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger (as interpreted by Sartre) have associated nothing with
consciousness. Some writers have made connections between Heidegger's concept of nothing and
the nirvana of Eastern religions.
Modern science does not equate vacuum with nothing. Indeed, the vacuum in quantum field theory
is filled with virtual particles.[1][2] The quantum vacuum is often viewed as a modern version of an
aether theory.
Philosophy
Western
Some would consider the study of "nothing" to be absurd. A typical response of this type is voiced
by the Venetian Giacomo Casanova (1725–1798) in conversation with his landlord, one Dr. Gozzi,
who also happens to be a priest:
As everything, for him, was an article of faith, nothing, to his mind, was difficult to
understand: the Great Flood had covered the entire world; before, men had the
misfortune of living a thousand years; God conversed with them; Noah had taken one
hundred years to build the ark; while the earth, suspended in air, stood firmly at the
center of the universe that God had created out of nothingness. When I said to him, and
proved to him, that the existence of nothingness was absurd, he cut me short, calling me
silly.[3]

"Nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid
linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to
make clear what is being discussed.

Parmenides
One of the earliest Western philosophers to consider nothing as a concept was Parmenides (5th
century BC), who was a Greek philosopher of the monist school. He argued that "nothing" cannot
exist by the following line of reasoning: To speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists.
Since we can speak of a thing in the past, this thing must still exist (in some sense) now, and from
this he concludes that there is no such thing as change. As a corollary, there can be no such things as
coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being, or not-being.[4]
Other philosophers, for instance, Socrates and Plato[5] largely agreed with Parmenides's reasoning
on nothing. Aristotle differs with Parmenides's conception of nothing and says, "Although these
opinions seem to follow logically in a dialectical discussion, yet to believe them seems next door to
madness when one considers the facts."[6][7][8]
In modern times, Albert Einstein's concept of spacetime has led many scientists, including Einstein
himself, to adopt a position remarkably similar to Parmenides.[9] On the death of his friend Michele
Besso, Einstein consoled his widow with the words, "Now he has departed from this strange world
a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us that believe in physics, the distinction
between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."[10]

Leucippus
Leucippus (early 5th century BC), one of the atomists, along with other philosophers of his time,
made attempts to reconcile this monism with the everyday observation of motion and change. He
accepted the monist position that there could be no motion without a void. The void is the opposite
of being. It is not-being. On the other hand, there exists something known as an absolute plenum, a
space filled with matter, and there can be no motion in a plenum because it is completely full. But,
there is not just one monolithic plenum, for existence consists of a multiplicity of plenums. These
are the invisibly small "atoms" of Greek atomist theory, later expanded by Democritus (c. 460–370
BC), which allows the void to "exist" between them. In this scenario, macroscopic objects can
come-into-being, move through space, and pass into not-being by means of the coming together and
moving apart of their constituent atoms. The void must exist to allow this to happen, or else the
"frozen world" of Parmenides must be accepted.
Bertrand Russell points out that this does not exactly defeat the argument of Parmenides but, rather,
ignores it by taking the rather modern scientific position of starting with the observed data (motion,
etc.) and constructing a theory based on the data, as opposed to Parmenides' attempts to work from
pure logic. Russell also observes that both sides were mistaken in believing that there can be no
motion in a plenum, but arguably motion cannot start in a plenum.[11] Cyril Bailey notes that
Leucippus is the first to say that a "thing" (the void) might be real without being a body and points
out the irony that this comes from a materialistic atomist. Leucippus is therefore the first to say that
"nothing" has a reality attached to it.[12]

Aristotle, Newton, Descartes

Aristotle (384–322 BC) provided the classic escape from the logical problem posed by Parmenides
by distinguishing things that are matter and things that are space. In this scenario, space is not
"nothing" but, rather, a receptacle in which objects of matter can be placed. The true void (as
"nothing") is different from "space" and is removed from consideration.[13][14] This
characterization of space reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton who asserted the existence of
absolute space. René Descartes, on the other hand, returned to a Parmenides-like argument of
denying the existence of space. For Descartes, there was matter, and there was extension of matter
leaving no room for the existence of "nothing".[15]
The idea that space can actually be empty was generally still not accepted by philosophers who
invoked arguments similar to the plenum reasoning. Although Descartes’ views on this were
challenged by Blaise Pascal, he declined to overturn the traditional belief, horror vacui, commonly
stated as "nature abhors a vacuum". This remained so until Evangelista Torricelli invented the
barometer in 1643 and showed that an empty space appeared if the mercury tube was turned upside
down. This phenomenon being known as the Torricelli vacuum and the unit of vacuum pressure, the
torr, being named after him. Even Torricelli's teacher, the famous Galileo Galilei had previously
been unable to adequately explain the sucking action of a pump.[16]

John the Scot

John the Scot, or Johannes Scotus Eriugena (c. 815–877) held many surprisingly heretical beliefs
for the time he lived in for which no action appears ever to have been taken against him. His ideas
mostly stem from, or are based on his work of translating pseudo-Dionysius. His beliefs are
essentially pantheist and he classifies evil, amongst many other things, into not-being. This is done
on the grounds that evil is the opposite of good, a quality of God, but God can have no opposite,
since God is everything in the pantheist view of the world. Similarly, the idea that God created the
world out of "nothing" is to be interpreted as meaning that the "nothing" here is synonymous with
God.[17]

G. W. F. Hegel
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) is the philosopher who brought the dialectical method
to a new pinnacle of development. According to Hegel in Science of Logic, the dialectical methods
consists of three steps. First, a thesis is given, which can be any proposition in logic. Second, the
antithesis of the thesis is formed and, finally, a synthesis incorporating both thesis and antithesis.
Hegel believed that no proposition taken by itself can be completely true. Only the whole can be
true, and the dialectical synthesis was the means by which the whole could be examined in relation
to a specific proposition. Truth consists of the whole process. Separating out thesis, antithesis, or
synthesis as a stand-alone statement results in something that is in some way or other untrue. The
concept of "nothing" arises in Hegel right at the beginning of his Logic. The whole is called by
Hegel the "Absolute" and is to be viewed as something spiritual. Hegel then has:[18]
• Thesis: the absolute is pure being
• Antithesis: the absolute is nothing
• Synthesis: the absolute is becoming

Existentialists
The most prominent figure among the existentialists is Jean-Paul Sartre, whose ideas in his book
Being and Nothingness (L'être et le néant) are heavily influenced by Being and Time (Sein und Zeit)
of Martin Heidegger, although Heidegger later stated that he was misunderstood by Sartre.[19]
Sartre defines two kinds of "being" (être). One kind is être-en-soi, the brute existence of things such
as a tree. The other kind is être-pour-soi which is consciousness. Sartre claims that this second kind
of being is "nothing" since consciousness cannot be an object of consciousness and can possess no
essence.[20] Sartre, and even more so, Jaques Lacan, use this conception of nothing as the
foundation of their atheist philosophy. Equating nothingness with being leads to creation from
nothing and hence God is no longer needed for there to be existence.[21]

Eastern
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2009)
The understanding of "nothing" varies widely between cultures, especially between Western and
Eastern cultures and philosophical traditions. For instance, Śūnyatā (emptiness), unlike
"nothingness", is considered to be a state of mind in some forms of Buddhism (see Nirvana, mu,
and Bodhi). Achieving "nothing" as a state of mind in this tradition allows one to be totally focused
on a thought or activity at a level of intensity that they would not be able to achieve if they were
consciously thinking. A classic example of this is an archer attempting to erase the mind and clear
the thoughts to better focus on the shot. Some authors have pointed to similarities between the
Buddhist conception of nothingness and the ideas of Martin Heidegger and existentialists like
Sartre,[22][23] although this connection has not been explicitly made by the philosophers
themselves.
In some Eastern philosophies, the concept of "nothingness" is characterized by an egoless state of
being in which one fully realizes one's own small part in the cosmos.[dubious – discuss]
The Kyoto School handles the concept of nothingness as well.

Taoism
Laozi and Zhuangzi were both conscious that language is powerless in the face of the ultimate. In
Taoist philosophy, however real this world is, its main characteristic is impermanence, whereas the
Tao has a permanence that cannot be described, predetermined, or named. In this way the Tao is
different from any thing that can be named. It is nonexistence, in other words, nothing.
Taoists also have the related concept of wu wei.