I will give you my true insight into what you have presented to me.
Zarcus ask Is it possible that the reference point is only ‘something’ because it is recognized to exist, and therefore can be measured, and/or observed? ‘Something’ then must be the product of the immeasurable ‘nothing’, though we realize the ‘nothing’ must have existed, with properties found in the measurable ‘something’. The reason to refer to the ‘nothing’ is only because it can not be measured or observed. We have nothing to reference of ‘nothing’ outside of what is now ‘something’. This does not say that the ‘nothing’ never existed; just there is no way to tell what the ‘something’ was in prior states. Therefore the ‘nothing’ can only exist in concept.
Zarcus I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “nature abhors a vacuum” in all your studies. There was a time when religion proposed a vacuum besides God, but then was influenced by scientific implications of primal substance and so changed its stance to one which conformed to the big-bang and standard model. Then there was another change which implied an infinite Universe whereby energy is stretched to infinite proportions and even further to suggest that space forms matter, and this made the Hindus et al. happy because they envisioned a universal creation based on light forms everywhere which make up the fabric of space. But both stances cling to “something” because people are just aching to believe in “something” which continues to pester the absolute Void for no other reason than to exist as its own reality. That reality exist as a Ruler of Measurement which void your statement
there is no way to tell what the ‘something’ was in prior states
The questions, “Where are these things which define something, and how much space do they occupy?” I find in all you have put forth in your post these question does not arise in your normal course of explanation. Is this because many philosophers will be inclined to say that either the question makes no sense, or the answer is a simple Nowhere. None?
What is the measurement of space? There can be no measurement of space. What instrument is used to gauge space? Light. But what is space is the consuming question which proceed the question above being this entire conversation is based on nothing becoming something.
The Zero. Zero has nothing in its middle, and nothing beyond the endless invisible perimeter which makes one aware “imaginative” that the zero exist. The continuous imaginary outline, which has no beginning nor end is an illusion, and it is the illusion that there is one line which makes the nothingness of zero exist in a dimension where matter is the focus point.
Now it has been said that zero is the perfect number. But to be able to use zero you need two solid sets of numbers, zero is not a solid number. In reality of this material world, there is only one number which exist, “one.” Example, in order to reach two, you need to add one and one. But in adding one and one, you do not have two independent numbers, you have only the one. Therefore, to reach two when counting you have to extend the one, which is the only number which is an entity in and of itself. Ah, but you say, the same principle can be applied with two zero’s. But this can’t be done because if this should take place, the zero’s have been replaced with the number “one” for definition So add two zero’s and what comes up? either two definition which pan out to be one, or the number two. In any case zero has been eliminated by definition. And it was the invisible definition which gave it substance to be counted.
So when one use the term zero as a place holder “when counting,” they are not beginning their count from that place holder of nothingness, they begin counting from the only number which exist, which is “one.” Thus, the infinity of numbers are in the one, and to say one and one are two, counting two independent numbers therefrom as though they were not of the one is not the reality of numbers All numbers are only the extended one. Therefore two is only an extension of one, which can be fractionalized to either add or subtract from the one. If this is not true, then someone can produce an independent number to prove their position without using “.“one. One is the only number which is an entity in and of itself.
There is no such thing as ‘unstable nothing.’ All which we deem as nothing is filled, not with abstractness, but the building block of the visible and invisible. This building block is known as Consciousness, and it is Consciousness which is the ‘something’ which eliminates that which you state to be recognizable as ‘unstable nothing.’ The mere fact this so called ‘unstable nothing’ can be recognized make it ‘something.’
All which appear to be empty space and voids are filled with the thought-life of the forms of that Consciousness, visible and invisible. Space and voids are filled with light. And the Ruler of Measurement, thus the Principle and base for numbers cannot be found to be an entity of ‘unstable nothing.’