So the empty glass and the full glass are equally real, eh?
They share an equal value. 
Why are you telling me this? What are you referring to?
What does “~” mean?
It seems that you are approaching the problem from a mathematical, I from a linguistic perspective.
I think there is a difference between absolute nothing and relative nothing. Relative nothing does have a place value. Absolute nothing does not. It is the absence of everything (including all places).
You said: “You made a “non-existent” glass with your mind”. How do you know you didn’t make your monitor with your mind?
There can’t be absence of all places because even our thoughts have places. Even our thoughts come from somewhere. Nothing=0. They still have places. Even when you say nothing it must have a place and being to be nothing.
Precisely! There can’t be absence from all places! Therefore, absolute nothing doesn’t exist! But that is precisely the definition of absolute nothing…
If you do so much as say it, it has a place. There cannot be anything that does not exist. “absolute nothing” has just been said, given a place.
So: absolute nothing does not exists, because there exists something (indeed, everything - by definition). We disagree, however, as to what this something is. Or rather, we do not know everything that exists, or perhaps we do, but then we do not know that we do; I, however, ask: what do we know, what are we absolutely certain of that exists? -
Your words exist. That’s all you’re basing it off of. That’s how you know.
This is similiar to Sartre. He says that “nothing” can be concieved when, for example, you “walk into a room and realize Pierre’s absence.” The fact that he is not there is paradoxically becomming an object of consciousness and is at the level of awareness and contemplation, since reflecting on this fact while it happens is the rule in progress.
So here a non-existent is real as an object of thought. You “notice” a negative.
There is nothing that does not exist. <=> Nothing does not exist.
Nothing is by definition not a thing. <=> A thing that is not a thing is not.
What if those words are creations of my mind, SilentSoliloquy?
Saully, you’re confusing yourself unnecessarily.
Though nothing may represent an absence of being it does not make it itself as a place value non-existent.
Words are a creation of your mind.
That is relative nothing. Absolute nothing would be the absence of everything including the place SilentSoliloquy has just given to the phrase “absolute nothing”.
Your words exist. They represent something. You are trying to say that you don’t exist when clearly the very thought of non-existence…exists!
I am not confused, Miss.
You should use quotation marks, like I do. “Nothing” represents an absence of being. Nothing is an absence of being.
And my keyboard?
Everything exists, doesn’t it, Siley? But what is this “everything”? May it not only be my imagination?
No, Saully lol.
It itself represents an absence of being. To do you must be. It is representing. Nothing is a word in a sentence and represents the very thought you are expressing.
Imagination exists, Saully. Imagination is a result of your existence. Your mind houses it. Your mind exists.
A case of bad interpunction. “Nothing is a word in a sentence” means there is no such thing as a word in a sentence; ““Nothing” is a word in a sentence” means the word “nothing” is a word in a sentence.