When you say 'there is something', you can ONLY say that against a background of 'no-thing'. You just don't realize you're doing it, because nothing cannot be conceptualized. It's just already present by default. It's 'something' that must be brought into conscious awareness by effort. Were it not for the pre-existing presence of nothing
You're being mislead by language. Don't worry, you're far from the first that has been misled by the word "nothing"- indeed, you're in good company; there are entire schools of thought founded upon this bit of linguistic mischievousness.
"Nothing" appears to be a noun, like "something", "anything", and so on- that is, its a word that
picks out some object in the world, sort of like a label. But appearances can be deceiving. This is to misunderstand the usage of this word, what it does in a sentence or proposition- it stands for negation. Nothing is not some other thing, like a
something, it is the lack or negation of any somethings. Nothing is not an entity- it is the lack of an entity. Nothing can be present only in the sense that a something is NOT present. When I say "nothing is here", I am NOT asserting that there is a thing here, namely nothing, but rather saying that there is NOT a
thing here at all.
Cyclical universe - or the Big Bounce - is just a notion, a supposition, or unverifiable hypothesis.
No. It is an unverif
ied hypothesis, but not an unverifi
able one, and it is not "just a notion". Many current hypotheses in cosmology are credible- neither confirmed nor refuted- including big bounce/cyclical models, Hawking's/Hartle's "No Boundary" proposal, the Zero-Energy proposal favored by Krauss and others, and so on.