Couldn’t we say it is the absence of existence? If we look at like this, nothingness does not get described. When we say that nothing can exist, we are just creating a paradox. There can be the absence of existence. There can be the presence of existence. I think that the debate about nothingness is circular and we don’t get to the point. We shouldn’t use the word “nothingness”, as soon as we do that, we fail in our task. Nothing is just a term to describe the absence of something. But as soon as we describe nothing, we fail. That is why we must say, “the absence of existence” By doing this, we don’t fall victim to the paradox of nothingness. This is only because “we” make a mistake. When we say, “remove everything”, we say we now have nothing. This is wrong, we can’t take the second step, we can’t say there is nothing. After we say, “remove everything” thinking of “nothingness” defeats the point. When we say, “remove everything”, we can’t follow that statement with anything. There can be the absence of existence, but not nothing (as strange as that may sound) We are dismissing nothingness for the wrong reason, in my opinion.