Talk:Nonexistence

Coherence and Intelligibility Issues
However, from (2 and 3) I deem your article incoherent: the article aims at talking about "nonexistence" or "nothingness", yet in both cases you are referring to something and 'something' must exist. Additionally, the only way we can know how to understand the terms "nonexistence" or "nothingness" is if these terms actually refer, hence the only way these terms can be considered intelligible is if they are actually things.Nonexistence is just another concept in our conceptual framework alongside sticks and stones, and quarks and electrons, all of which are supported more or less by the welter of neural input. However, be this as it may, "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are unintelligible concepts: concepts that we ought to dispense with. Lastly, your article has a distinctly-careless metaphysical flavour to it i.e., it seems to want to talk about nonexistence completely external to our conceptual framework, mind-independently, however I believe that this is impossible; there is no vantage point outside of science from which to understand these terms. .
 * 1) It seems to me that the intent of your article is to talk about nothing, and yet how can this be made sense of?
 * 2) If you refer to nonexistence, then you are referring to a thing; and a thing exists.
 * 3) Furthermore, quite naturally, you are presenting this article as being about truth, and if it is about truth then it must be about something.