I'm no scientist and my opinion may not have the needed merit to persuade too many people, but I think this matter is within reach of everyone, because it is more philosophical than scientific. I agree with the two statements made during this discussions, that nothing has no states, and that science can only detect what happens after the universe has come into existence. Concerning what is defined as stateless, however, I disagree, since it has been said here that the concept of nothing is self-contradictory due to it having properties that make it nothing. Nothing is indeed the absence of everything, but the state is applied to the things that would be, not the nothing itself, and only applies as a state in reference to those things. Therefore, when something has the state of absence, it is excluded from reality, and therefore gives room for nothing. Nothing defines reality when nothing else defines it. So nothing does not have states, rather, it is the state of all things being absent. Also, that those objects have the state of absence does not mean they exist, for the state of those things are evident in that they do not exist, not the other way around.
I know that was probably the most crack-pot thing you've read so far.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
