Can "nothing" be defined solely in terms of the absence of properties? E.g., NOT(having mass), ..., NOT(having length), NOT(having width), ... , even, NOT(having duration)? But NOT(some property) seems, itself, to be a property. Certainly Asa H handles NOT(category X) in the same way it handles some (category X). And Boolean logic circuits handle NOT(X) the same way they handle X. If NOT a property IS a property too and if any "something" is just defined by its list of properties then "nothing" is a "something" too. (See my blog of 20 Feb. 2015)
For any of the concepts that Asa H has learned (see, for example, my blogs of 5 November 2015 and 1 October 2015) NOT(concept) also makes sense and can be used in Asa's reasoning.