Thing is Gringinho, my point being, you can't reduce existence to anything else. But you do have nothingness dependant on existence, in that way it is by necessity reduced to existence. I would agree with you, the future does not have existence in my opinion either, but the concept of future does, like nothingness does and they (everything and nothing) both rely upon being in states of existence. So I repeat...a state of non existence relies on existence. If that state could not exist, then those states of "nothing" or "nothingness" could not be. They could not exist. You could not have "nothing". The mass of constituent parts in existence ie the Universe, indeed are complicated, however the irreducible couldn't be more straightforward once the concept is grasped. Anyway thanks for the chat.
Uhm, just a comment that I should have made earlier... Besides the similarity to existentialism, there is also the similarity to Leibniz' monads - monism. Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that all reality is subsumed under the most fundamental category of being or existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz#The_monads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism I kind of agree with the monads to some extent.