A world cannot be empty if we live in it.

Is this necessarily true? Must a thing be either logically contradictory or logically possible? Aren't there other alternatives? E.g. a concept can be ill-defined or incoherent, thus having no logical status at all.

Some people seem to be arguing that 'nothing' does exist in some fashion because is it possible-conceivable

What is the point of pontificating about nothingness unto itself? This is the realm where metaphysics descends into meaninglessness. Nothingness is only meaningful as a counterposition to something, anything. Taoism is THE philosophy of nothingness, and it is very self-consciously built on the something-nothing relationship.

The issue is whether "nothing" is a referring word, like, "cat". Or whether it is a non-referring term like, "although". Does the word, "although" refer to anything? What is an although? Not all words are referring words.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

You have concentrated on "nothing" as a natural state.

I disagree with this. I think that in every respect by which we apprehend "nothing", it's always understood as a counterposition to "something". It connotes material relativity, not material fact.

Is it really a duality? Think about it. If a world is defined by the stuff in it, then a empty world would not be a world. If so, then where is the duality between something and nothing? Similarly, take the property of charge particles. There is a duality between positive change, and negative change. Do you think this duality is intricsic to the charge particle, or just a man-made convention? In this case, we cannot just expect to randomly naming something, because the charge nature of particles is instrinsic to the particle disregarding how we label it.

In all actuality a negative charge is just the same energy in either a different motion or different state but still the same energy regardless.

But, if nothing is a natural state, then how could nothing (whatever that may be) be a natural state? And, you seem to be talking about the word, "nothing" (since you place it in quotes). How could a word be a natural state? It makes no sense.

The fact that the idea of X exists, in no way means that X exists.

The idea of unicorn exists. Unicorns do not exist.

And, neither does it mean that the the idea exists in a "different way".

In this case, the idea exists, but what it is the idea of, does not exist. Period. But, I don't think that even the idea of nothing exists. The word, "nothing" certainly does exists, but it does not follow that the idea of nothing exists. And if the best explanation that can be given of the notion of the idea of nothing is this explanation in term of an empty world, then the notion of the idea of nothing is in real trouble.

I think you have it confused with what possible worlds are. This is a completely technical matter so i can understand your confusion. The idea of possible worlds is postulated in modern philosophy in an attempt to reduce modal talks to non-modal talk(ie: categorical claims) by quantifications over entities we know known as possible worlds. These worlds are used to analyze modal notions like "could be", and "must be".

You have concentrated on "nothing" as a natural state.

I disagree with this. I think that in every respect by which we apprehend "nothing", it's always understood as a counterposition to "something". It connotes material relativity, not material fact

Yes, it does. When we say that the idea of a unicorn exists, we are using the word 'exists' in a difference sense than when we say that horses exist. Some people would say the difference is that the former exists mentally, the other exists in physical reality (external reality), but I accounted for the difference phenomenologically.

Did you even read what I wrote?

The absence of light is darkness, darkness does not exist of itself, it just is the lack of light. This is considered by US to be a duality but I did not say that duality is an actual thing but instead something by which we categorize the world by.

The underline reality is that all things are just one and the same thing, energy.

Therefore the opposite of something is nothing by which they are exactly the same thing. In other words the duality of existence and non-existence.

In all actuality a negative charge is just the same energy in either a different motion or different state but still the same energy regardless.

I think you're right. I don't quite understand what you mean by 'possible worlds' in a technical sense: i.e. if in effect it means anything other than what it does in common usage. So perhaps my argument does not apply to your use of 'possible worlds.' In any case, the argument I'm using applies to the notion of possibility itself, and how it differs from that of actuality.

And, it may be that we discover that they exist in different ways, but that does not mean that they exist in different ways.

I think this dispute over the word "exist" is a linguistic quibble. A word can have a common core of meaning in all its uses, but differences of detail from one use to another. For example, the meaning of the word "ride" in "I ride on a horse" and "I ride on a bus" is the same in some ways but different in others.

It is certainly linguistic, but whether it is a quibble is another matter. Anyway, you were the one who said that "exist" means different things when applied to ideas, and when applied to horses. Maybe you had better explain how it means something different in those two cases.After all, if I said that "exists" means something different when applied to a female horse rather than when applied to a male horse, would you agree, and say that was a quibble? Just how do we tell what a difference in meaning is; and whether the difference is a quibble or not?

I was pointing out was the appearance of duality when often times it really is not dual in any sense of the word.

My whole post was about energy, nothing specific about particles or atomic charge.

Just like how we only see with our eyes a small range of photons but the range at which photons exist is very broad. What separates or distinguishes one photon that perhaps we can see from another photon in which we can not see? There is only one difference and that is, energy.

So my point again is to make the claim that nothing and something are just states of energy and inverse energy.

Something is more of a natural state than nothing, given that its probability is greater than nothing's.

For instance, theoretical models such as the the inflation theory of the early universe indicates a small but stable system which often spontaneously transforms into a more complex system.

But if nothing is as simple as it gets, stability would be expected.

However, like the inflationary theory, a natural transition of nothing-into-something would be natural and without the requirement of an external agent.

The 'instability' of nothing could put more emphasis on the presence of something.

I don` t understand your example, and i have no idea what this got to do with energy. What you see, and what you cannot see has to do with your perceptual capacity. You are throwing the word "energy" in for no good reason.

There is no energy in nothing.

This is enough to show that not everything is energy, because space-time is not energy according to our best scientific theory.