Jejudo, South Korea
Yeah, that's how I would define it.
Nothing is, has to be, a relational concept, not an absolute concept (I'm not sure what 'absolute nothing' means anyway).
Yet, no one here seems interested in the problems of 'something' as a concept.
What is an absolute something?
A quick definition of something is:
"An undetermined or unspecified thing"
There are other definitions but I think this is the one that is being used here. But what exactly is an undetermined, unspecified thing when thing itself is already specified as:
"An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence."
In order for a thing to exist, it must be specified by definition. Therefore something, unless the word is used relationally, contextually, doesn't exist, is impossible to use, because it's unspecified.
Therefore, nothing and something both exist or don't exist. Actually, the 'or' should probably be changed to 'and' -- nothing and something both exist and don't exist depending on the context of the conversation.
One more example of the problems of 'something':
There is something.
"there is" is a relational idea. There really is no there there outside of a speaker's, observer's relation to it.
Okay, but what about:
I saw something.
This one's even easier. If you saw something, you have already perceived a thing that is specified (it can be seen), right? Any 'something' has to be specified in order to be perceived. Any 'something' has to be specified in order for it to be thought.
In this way, I just don't see the problem with nothing/something. They have to be used relationally or not at all. Even Absolute zero or absolute vacuums can only be conceived in relation to their negatives. Still, it is interesting to speculate on their possibility I was under the understanding that even the vacuum itself (the fabric of space/time) contains energy in itself).