I understand this is possible too but don't want to accept some author I am not familiar with yet. (I may have already come across him and forgot.) I didn't follow what your quote said of his said but prefer to speak in my own terms rather than old ones.
My thinking is that we can argue from 'first principles' in logic, something that is more akin to Bertrand Russell's attempt in "Principia Mathematica" and to the intended goals of David Hilbert. I am certain that Husserl related too from his "Logical Investigations at that same time (turn of the 20th century). So if you can translate in your own words it might help instead.
I don't see how we "observe" logic. Numberd are also unobservable, yet a number is unchanging. I am not sure what you mean by "absolute nothing". There is, in my mind, only the absolute idea of "nothing" not strictly speaking "absulutely nothing". The latter is a colloquial use of language. "Nothing" is a quantifier.
"Logic" is the way we connect things as verbs are to connect the subject to objects in sentences. Nouns would be the static parts we put in such as subjects and objects. Both must be inferred and are also equally translated in terms of the other. The nouns are what many interpret are the domain of "science", though.
To me, seeing that they are just relative and essential functions of each other, they must be in perfect sync. A noun is the static representation of something we can explain 'finitely' (or pretended as such) and are what people think of as what 'matters' (and thus 'matter' as a relative meaning of the static things we can sense.)
Verbs or actions in general are OPEN and act as forms that need nouns to complete. The "predicate" is the receptive part of a sentence that contains both the verb AND a possible object. The predicate is incomplete as the verb itself is without being 'completed' by a subject. But when these are 'complete', they form sentences that can then be summarized in another noun-form that can be reintroduced into a new sentence to create more complex ones.
"Logic" then usually focuses on the 'form' but is actually as much about the parts, as nouns are too. But many think that the domain of "science" is limited to the inducing of the reality of the words and logic as the way they are connected. However, logic must as much be inferred "scientifically" as science is "logically" deduced in the way that subjects and predicates relate.
The concern with logic though is usually to pay attention only to form and not substance, where science is to attend to the substance (as input) to the forms, as the logical structure that draws novel conclusions or summaries of its content.
I treat assuming "nothing" like we are born to be 'absent' of opinion. Most still have a hard time understanding, for instance, what "atheism" is because they think we are born "knowing" a god (a something) and cannot fathom one thinking there is none by default. As such, to them, an "atheist" is one DENYING the reality of a god rather than "lacking a positive belief in a god". In this same way, we are biased if we assume a "something" as
a priori versus a "nothing". My stance is to understand reality by not assuming something biased by our experience in it as
a priori in the way others presume a "something" must be defaulted to. We must BE alive to question things of course. But if we are questioning nature, you can't presume nature to abide by needing us to question it in order for it to exist.
Note that "exist" is "ex-" (outside of), "-is(t)" (that which 'is'). We interpret reality by what is outside of us imposing reality upon us, not something from within. So the LEAST you can infer is the boundary from where you became FROM some state of relative non-existence, or "nothing". This, if you are fair to be 'scientific', must be most self-evident and means that we have more justice to interpret reality as a whole deriving from some similar state. If not, you have to have personal 'evidence' of BEING alive forever. You only LEARN about what a 'past' means later in life and infer that such a past existed but don't know it with more certainty than your prior LACK of knowing eternal non-existence.
Begin with an assumption of Nothing, represented by "0", our experience of being alive only at least asserts some "non-0" exists. So, even IF Totality originated as nothing, "0", for it to PERSIST ["per-" to each, "-sis(t)" remains the
same], nothing must remain itself. But if it remains 'itself', it is either "consistent" or "inconsistent". It is BOTH. And while it may appear 'contradictory', to nothing itself, it doesn't care WHAT you think because it doesn't
think. It's not a 'god' nor a law abiding factor. But this also means it CAN be free to be both. This makes two parts to totality: One that has (0 and not-0) and one that has not-(0 and not-0) [which is identical to (0 OR not-0).]
Just because we can't see what is contradictory about reality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. OUR part of Totality is to the side that has the "law" that (0 OR not-0) [law of excluded middle]. THEN we can see that Contradiction in this 'side' of Totality is the motivating factor that forces resolution to it by again dividing into distinct 'places' to repair this state.
"not-0" = "1", by initial definition. From this you can determine reality based on what is initially abstract to what we are.
In math, Set theory uses this kind of approach to define how numbers originate. They use the "empty set" as "nothing" though.
I understand the discomfort. It was Bertrand Russell who actually first recognized the problem in his 'barber who shaves all men in town who can't shave themselves' paradox. [Same as the liars paradox.] Had he anticipated Godel, he may not have started his "
Principia Mathematica". Godel proved that beginning with consistent logics with extensive depth to cover all 'truths', no such system could PROVE all things that are 'true' logically. As such, "consistent" logic, as in beginning with a "something", is never able to be complete. But this is NOT the case with beginning in ABSOLUTE nothing. This is because while "inconsistent", it is COMPLETE, as I tried to explain earlier.
The only hope to find closure (completeness) then, is to begin with absolute nothing. Instead of treating "contradiction" as a means to STOP in some argument, you can USE it to derive what to do. For instance, if you begin with 0, it leads to 1. But then (0 & 1) are 'true', a contradiction. So the solution is to have another solution, P that means (0 or 1) but in a perpendicular 'direction' (or dimension). This is just an example I won't go into here.
