The premise of this proposition is that we cannot be two places at once ourselves but that for every place we are not there is a chance we could be there.
Being is the place where an entity exists. In other words where the subject is it is understood that it cannot be any other place. Being cannot exist everywhere. There must be space in between where subjects are. Because a subject can move from one place to another is evidence that being does not mix with other being. The evidence that there is not an overlap on being is seen in that if it were so the being would be of one being and not two separate beings of placement in relation to each other.
So when considering where a being is we should understand that there is a chance that it could be somewhere else. The evidence of this is that being is something that moves and subjects tend to change position of relation to each other.
So how can we account for what is in between where beings change position in relation to each other while not overlapping to each entity that exists? It is the entity, or rather the non-entity that exists everywhere where a being does not exist. But that is not the full story, for when we do not know the location of a being, it could be anywhere. If a subject cannot be everywhere how is the subject to know its relation to all other beings? This is something that cannot be clearly explained. We can only say we do not know where the entity is in relation to us. If we have to be somewhere but cannot be everywhere it is imaginable that we can be perpetually accounted for to be everywhere and nowhere. But it is preposterous that we can be everywhere and nowhere. Our conscious mind dictates where we are and since neither my conscious mind nor unconscious mind can know that I am in two places at once it should be understood that we can only be one place at a time.
There then has to be a divide of being. It is in this that we come to the full understanding of what it means to be in nothing. We cannot truely know where we are in relation to other entities. It is only in estimation that we know where we are in relation to other beings. It is in this divide of being that we see that we don't even fully grasp where we are. We can only know where we are when comparing our being in relation to what is not nothing. The divide is that because there is a nothing we cannot know the space that is between entities. We can however know that we are closer in relation from one being to another, but we can never fully grasp the distance of nothingness in between us and another entity. The distance of nothingness is therefore perpetually the distance between beings. In the greater length of nothingness it gets harder to know where we are in relation to that not nothing.
So then we are but a light in an area surrounded by darkness and in our relation to others who are also like lights we cannot know to what extent we are from other lights only insofar that we know that we are closer to some lights than others. It is the in betweenness and only in that that we are able to get a feeling of distance between one entity and another. We are constantly changing position in relation to other beings and in this we are in nothingness.