After reading the question regarding "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I stumbled over the first part of "Sauls" answer:
Before anything else one should be aware of the instrument used to answer questions. That instrument is human language. While there is no guarantee that such a system of patterns is powerful and expressive enough to reason about the necessity of all that is, we can still examine what can we reasonably say and understand about this.
While this seems true, I think this goes even further, right to the inability to think of non-existance. Language and thinking are closely connected, but I am convinced that thinking in pictures allows us to think "better" in a way that we can now think about issues we couldn't express in words.
So after reading the mentioned answer, I tried to think of a non-existing universe.
I Take a picture of an empty, white colored room.
So far so good, remove the "boundaries", the walls
Now I just think of a undefined white space.
White seems to force the existence of something causingthe space to be white. I think of a black undefined space.
While this seemed like "nothing" to me first, on the second glance it it something, but with nothing in it. Maybe I can make it tranparent. but transparent means you can see though. And what can you see then? Something. It is ridiculous to try picture nothing, because I want to have something in my head then. Now we are back to the language boundaries. For me it seems impossible for any thinking creature to think of nothingness because we think of something then.
But until know this is just coming to the same conclusion after thinking about the answer I was referring to.
So here comes my question (of two parts): Are there any fallacys in the way my tought went, and nothingness can be described in any way?
If that isn't the case, re there any elaborations on the topic of what can be deducted from the inability to imagine/pictrue/describe/ etc. nothing?