What is nothing?

I see your point. The universe is like a giant computer, and the programming is the laws of physics and the objects in the computer code is matter/waves. The programm running would be a computer simulation called "Universe".

I don't really see the point you're making about individuality though. You seem to think it's something like a rock, that is passed on from one to another: One gains, but the other one loses. If so then indeed: There should have been a rock from the beginning, but there wasn't, so all rocks are just nonexistent. But I see individuality more like a teacher giving points: The student receives, but the teacher didn't lose anything.
IMO Individuality = The way your brain works and makes connections. Everyones brain works differently, so everyones an individual. After an event, there are more bridges created in our brain, sculpting our individual. But that doesn't mean there were bridges broken down in another person's brain.

Human consciousness does not exist, we are just a collective unconsciousness acting conscious though any means necessary.

If we are a collective unconciousness of either one or multiple beings acting as seperate conciousnesses what does that make nothing, since we obviously are concious in some state that means that nothing must therefore be something since without something there would be no consciousness at all, real or fake. The collective subconscious that we are must be striving to be something...

Indeed, you could look at the world as a clump of matter in a computer code, which started to behave really odd. If you start thinking about the why you could bring Darwin into the picture: Clumps of matter accently became organized and reproductive and then by natural selection and mutations, you know how it works, the earth was full of clumps of matter that we now call life. But that doesn't change the fact they are still just a collection of strangely interacting objects in the computersimulation "universe".
Conciousness is not something the programming does, it's just a side-effect from it. Darwin again: The clumps of matter that "thought" they were concious had the upper hand: Their interaction and creativity and thinking abilities clearly were a lot of help since we now rule the world.
I see your point we could be considered little programms of our own, in which the simulation would only be a tiny amount of matter but constructed in a very specified order.

But what... What is nothing?
I figure that due to the fact that all of our thoughts, emotions, and memory are just electronic signals it is quite possible that we are all just computer programs in some unconscious supercomputer that is really everything that ever has, ever will, and does exist. Nothingness is just a glitch in this supercomputer.

I agree until the last sentance. No idea where that was coming from... A glitch in my idea of the universe-computer would be something defying the laws of physics. Why can't nothingness be a part of the computer?

Our individuality is, although it seems to be in our full control more likely than not has been planned out for an infinite amount of time. Time as I see it is just the human perception of events transpiring around us, and as such since we are all programs in this super computer which has existed for an infinite amount of time and will always continue to exist even long after all the matter and energy is gone from our universe must have something above it, otherwise it would have no perception of time. Without its perception of time we would have no perception of time and thus would create a paradox.

There is an infinite loop of these supercomputers looped together in a subnet that stretched though out all dimensions of space, time, and all the other random crap we have yet to discover within our corner of the subnet. But what exists beyond it all? Anything? Infinity is a great great number but nothing is truly infinite, there must be a single point from which it all began. What is this single point, what we could possibly call nothingness?

I can't agree on that: We use the example "the universe is a computer" but that doesn't neccesairely make it true. Before the big bang, there was no time, nor space. It's useless to think "before the big bang" or " beyond our universe". It's the same as saying "wat's north of the north pole". You see a computer as a thing, with matter, and parts that move (time). That all doesn't exist outside our universe. You could say, when the universe was created, the same time the computer was.
As what created our universe, we'll never know. It doesn't require an intelligent action. Take for example the earth and creaton of life again: It just grew to existance by accident, without any intelligent creator.

This would then imply that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, we do not even exist. True nothingness as we define it. But as I stated previously everything is nothing and nothing is everything. This true nothingness must the the true everything. There is no such thing as nothingness or everything, it all just is.

I still don't understand your definition of nothingness, or what you are saying here. Can you explain a bit more? I think you mean, like in the real world, a computer simulation is just a simulation, so the world that it creates is just calculations in the computer. But like I said the computer-theory is just a theory, a thing to understand the world better by connecting exact physics/physics to (equally) exact computerscience.

So my conclusion is: Nothingness is "The thing north of the north pole". lulz