Mawkish1983 wrote: As I recall, the Buddha didn't teach that nothing exists, but that nothing has self.
I agree. I would never say that Hamlet "doesn't exist".
One difference you may be alluding to b/w Abhidharma and Mahayana is the existence of partless particles. But I wonder if in Theravada the correct view is that even such a paramattha dhamma as matter is empty of self. I.e. its concreteness comes from its function as an ultimate description, not a concrete reality in itself. In which case anatta is not only inner but outer.
If that is true then what differentiates genuine reality from apparent reality is not the difference between extremely minute particles and coarse objects, it's the difference between specifically characterized phenomena (e.g. grey color, massive size, cuboid shape, metal/stone composition, extremely heavy, etc) from generally characterized phenomena (e.g. "The Empire State Building").
Things that perform functions as ultimate descriptions can only ever be specifically characterized phenomena, never generally characterized phenomena. "I have 2 hands" is a generally characterized phenomena, it is mythical language. ""There is an a, such that there is a b, such that a and b are not identical, and, whatever x may be, ‘x is a hand of mine’ is true, when and only when x equals a, or x equals b" is the specifically characterized phenomena, it is the only language that fulfils a function as an ultimate description since it avoids any reference to mythical entities, e.g. “2”.
It appears to me that the difference between Mahanaya and Theravada is simply the efficacy of starting practice by focusing outside the self of with the self. The end point is still anatta. But for purposes of this discussion that difference is beside the point. The question is the validity of scientific truth in its reification of “fact” and I am suggesting that even in Theravada anatta is extended outside the self, even all the way down to partless particles, since even at that level there is no concrete reality. The genuine reality is always the percept never the concept.