"Nothingness" as Relativity?

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothingness is merely an observation of relation, as a gradation of unity in being through multiple unit-particulate relating. Take for example the very same empty space, that space is merely empty if and only if their are boundaries to that vary same space. In simpler terms when we view emptiness what we view is merely an absence of something relative to something else.

So let's say we have an empty vessel, a cup, the cup may in itself be empty but that does not take away from the observation of emptiness merely being an observation of the cup for the "emptiness" is merely an observation of how the cup relates to its immediate environment.

Now let's apply this is to space and specifically focus on the grammar of the argument: "empty space".
Intuitively, through the language itself, we can observe that space acts as a boundary in its own respect as emptiness is merely an observation of a relation, or one could even call it a gradation of, space.

The question occurs then: "how can space be empty if space cannot be reduced to anything other than space"? Considering, using the cup example again along with the aforemention grammatical example of "empty space", we can observe that space acts as a boundary of dimension. From these respects we observe the empty space is merely:

1) An observation of the inherent dimensions that form boundaries.

2) These boundaries, as space, are absent of further boundaries of space.

3) From the above we can observe, what may be implied as a paradox of "space being empty of space".

4) From this we can observe a constant that space is both limit and no-limit, or in simpler terms "limitless limit". This reflects further a quantitative understanding of "1" being both structure and absent of structure or the concept of infinity as "limit without limit".

5) Secondly from this we may observe that space is relation, or that it acts as unit-particulates that must relate to further unit-particulate, as they are not whole in itself. An empty space is merely a space that is absent of some other form of space, ie. a dimension acting as a boundary. From they with may observe that dimensions as boundaries, relate to further dimensions as boundaries

Using the empty cup example again, what we observe as emptiness is merely an absence of an implied relation conducive to that specific spatial dimension, in this case a liquid. However the cup may contain another spatial dimension, ie air/gas, in which it is not absent of. In these respects the observation of absence is an observation of relation, where one relation may not be present but another is. Now taking the cup example further and putting it is a vaccuum tube we may observe that is it absent in relation to any liquid or gas, however it may contain another spatial dimension such as particle waves (electromagnetic, gravity, etc.) which relate.

In these respects space acts as relation of dimensions as "units", particulate (parts of whole, fraction of, etc.). In these respects quantitatively space exists through "1" as both "unity" and "unit" and maintains a dual role of unity and multiplicity.

[Dalek Prime]

So, you're saying nothing is truly empty? Possibly. I can imagine situations where something can be empty for a period of time e.g. the last of an EM wave in space passing a location, and nothing to fill it until another passes through.

[Eodnhoj7]

So, you're saying nothing is truly empty? Possibly. I can imagine situations where something can be empty for a period of time e.g. the last of an EM wave in space passing a location, and nothing to fill it until another passes through.

Yes, and what we observe as 0d "space" is merely a limit to a specific reality where it inverts to another reality or dimension. The EM wave is an interesting example you provided considering a wave is merely a frequency with depth (or a series of frequencies existing as depth). This is important to observe considering the frequency, at its foundation, is alternating linear space where the line as a 1 directional limit alternates into another and in effect propogates through repitition...this alternation as inversion is premised through 0 dimensionality which acts as a point of inversion.

Alot of confusion occurs over "point space" considering we can never fully observe it in one respect but it is always present. Take the line example again, it exists between two points, with these points observing the line inverting into another line. The line always approaching 0 dimensionality in effect causes the 0d point to act simultaneously as a field...so a line between two points is observing these two points acting as a field considering no matter how many 0d points exist they are all the same...the line on the other hand is not the same considering its direction and size may change relative to itself.