Yeah but something can't have the property of nothingness, because if there is something that can have properties then it isn't nothingness.
A better way to put it is to say nothingness has the property of having no other properties by definition.
In fact, time, regardless of what your conception of it is, is really only validated when other things exist. If nothing existed, and here was nothing to have motion, time would be a completely redundant concept.
That is actually a misleading statement because of how any meaningful usage of the word nothing refers to that a particular concept is absence. Nothing is always marked in relation to what does not exist, as otherwise it has no meaning. To simply say "nothing" tells us nothing because it hasn't told us what concept is not reflected in reality. It is likes saying: "Truth," "Existence," or "Morally correct." Without identifying what the term refers to, the idea is incomplete is not meaningful because we have no ides where to find it. "Nothing" and "existence" usually avoid this problem by people considering that the word on its own means "anything that is true," but that also hides that when they refer to nothing, that they are actually expressing that there is an absence of anything that we can conceive as a concept in our minds, leading to situations where people think that nothing is actually having an absence of properties while understanding that it is. This complete "nothing" is having the property that all other properties(i.e. effectively an infinite number of concepts) are absent, but to simply define it has such misses what this actually means: that something is actually being given the quality of nothingness, namely, the concept that does not exist as a property. Something being said to possess nothing is actually what occurs. The concept(s) being stated to not exist are being treated as possibly existing properties, then, being rejected to exist. To understand "nothing" correctly, one must treat any given concept as possibly existing, so it can then be marked as not actually existing.
Not quite, it depends which property of time is being spoken of. If you are speaking time in the sense that objects move through space and end up at different points, then yes. If, however, you are speaking of the experience of the passage of time, that might not actually be true. To use an example, if almost everything were suddenly to disappear, with you remaining behind in a black void with no moving objects, would you cease to experience time passing? Or would, even though it doesn't really say anything of meaning now, would you experience that was passing? You stuck in an empty void with nothing to do an no-one to interact with.
I still don't see how nothingness/non-existence is a property, it is clearly to me the absence of any properties. When there are no properties, it does not exist. To say the lack of properties is a property would be strange indeed.
And if existence was a property, then it seems confusing to say a certain property exists, because then I'd have to ask myself if that existing property has the existence property, and so on. To treat it differently shows that it isn't like any property because it isn't a property.
Because "nothing" is a quality that reality and a concepts have.-i.e. it is true those things exist with the quality of non-existence. You cannot justify the presence of nothing without it. This is simply seen in the challenge: "How do you know there is nothing?" If you cannot give the justification "it is true that there is nothing," then you have no argument. It cannot be said that there is a state of nothing because it hasn't been logically justified.
Only because you are not identifying the nature of what "existence" means correctly. "Existence" on its own doesn't actually tell us anything. It simply says: "There is something in reality," which tells us precisely nothing of meaning. Sure it has said something is true in reality, but what is this something? Is it a mouse? Is it a house? Is it a carrot palace? We don't know. "Existence" on its own is the quality of existing on reality that has been separated from the particular properties that do exist in reality. A realisation that, for example, the object the properties of table and the object the properties of a bowl share a property: that they both exist in reality. That they both belong to the category of what exists in reality(as opposed to the category of what does not exist in reality).
It isn't like other properties because it is the base unit of reality. It is Truth. Whenever something is true, it exists. It is still a property though. Some concepts have the quality of existing. Other concepts do not have the quality of existing.
Carry on.
