Nothing is everything.

[Violet]

---

Nothing, the absence of things, exists right now? Where?

You should stop relying on intuitions, like, now...

Yes. Outside of the universe.

Menotouchylinkys, explain it yourself ^_^

Whaaaaaat????

Everything is not a thing, it is a concept of the totality of all things, just like nothing is a concept of a complete absence of any things. How are many things just one thing? Are 14 things one thing? What if there are only 14 things, are they now 1 thing? How does that even work?

Reference was what I said before so people wouldn't be lost with what you said. But i'll respond to 'this' again

Everything is a thing. Everything is also a concept. Nothing is a thing. Nothing is also a concept. Many soldiers 1 army. 14 things are one thing. If there are only 14 things, then those 14 things constitute everything, which is still 1. It works pretty simply, you're still caught up in something or other it seems though ^_^

Nothing neither contains nor IS a thing. The absence of energy is not energy, the absence of things is not a thing!

What exactly do you define a "thing" as?

Nothing contains no things and is a thing itself. I would say that the absence of energy is a type of energy itself (0 energy). However, that is debatable. Unlike the absence of things being a thing. One is a question of physics, the other a point on the fundamental design of the 'greater existence', which is by nature unmeasurable from within said existence. Surely you can see how those are next to impossible to compare? And zero apples is also a thing. A thing that makes me hungry. And me no likey being hungry

A 'thing' is existence dissected into however one has defined it. Reality exists as one, it is we who identify 'things' where before there is everything. So we ignore most of everything to define what things we do to understand the universe along lines that can be tested and stuff ^_^

Sure, if I'm wrong then make a case, don't just assert that the absence of things is a thing (a statement that is nonsense). If you have an absence of things (0t) you do not have 1t! 0=/= 1 =/= 1+1+1...

You're making a false case, so really what should I do instead? It's not as if you agree on how to number either nothing or everything. You seem obsessed with neither of them being one thing, when infact they are both one thing. And both of them are equally full of 'thingness'. Nothing is 1 thing. Everything is 1 thing. For the sake of every god i do not believe in, stop trying to understand a thing to be 0 or 1+1+1+1... that's kinda ridiculous of you. If we are noting the number of things *within* everything and nothing, then we shall of course find many more amongst everything than nothing. But these in themselves are but 2 things.

Really, what case *is* there to make? ^_^

Your contention is literally nonsense.

You use 'literally' and 'nonsense' and probably other words more than you should, I think

That's like labling an empty Pen an "every sheep", it's not, it's "no sheep".

It is true though. A pen empty of sheep contains every sheep in that pen, which happens to also be no sheep. I really don't see a flaw in this at all?

And even if we agreed, Everything, in a reality where there are things, is NOT no things. Propose a non-reality with no things and the sum of those non-things is nothing, you could just a tiny bit maybe not look like a fool for calling that "everything" but that still implies the existence of things, so it still doesn't work.

My example was everything minus everything is no things. I have claimed from the start that everything is not nothing unless it subtracts from itself or is nothing to begin with. We're discussing a philosophical matter, do you really expect non-hypothetical examples of a hypothetical proposition?

Anyway... the eventual conclusion of this is that nothing is a thing and that everything and nothing can exist as one and the same given that there is nothing but nothing. There is more than nothing though, so that's really just an exercise in using your brain

Everything means the sum of all things, to a non-reality the word is not applicable, not even when the non-reality is hypothetical. To say "everything" you necessarily need things to talk about, otherwise you are just stringing words together, much in the same way "square circle" sounds like it might be a thing but is really just nonsense.

Sum of all things is infinite. Everything is one thing though. And so is nothing.

To say everything, you need nothing to talk about at all. Which is to say that everything applies at all times everywhere/time. Given noplace/time nothing, everything remains what it is.

Square circle is a contradiction, dead void... granted it may be true in some warped location in physics... but it is certainly not compatible in my understanding of the world.

No things means no things at all, not one, not 14, not a trillion.

You are saying that "nothing" = "no things" = "0 things" = "1 thing"!

I agree that there are no things in nothing. But nothing is still a thing.

And yes, 0 things is one thing. Not more than that though.

---

To state that nothing exists, is a horribly incoherent. By definition nothing must be the absence of anything; since we have never observed that in the whole of reality we can at least state to a very high degree of probability that nothing is not a possible state. In much the same way, when the something cannot arise from nothing argument is tripped out, that falsely assumes that the universe at T0 was in a state of nothingness. But this seems a highly improbable state of affairs. It is perhaps more interesting that there is only a small surplus of matter over antimatter in our universe and when all energy and matter is totaled on both sides of the positive and negative divide, there is a lot less in our universe than we suppose or observe. So in some sense a small something can give rise to bigger set of +ve somethings and -ve somethings.

It is incoherent to state that a thing which exists... exists? 0.o

I agree that nothing is the absence of anything. And not having observed nothing within a place where there is not nothing means that it doesn't exist? I'll keep such "logic" in mind

I do not presume the universe to have *had* a "T0", and infact disbelieve all proposals that the 'Big Bang' was the actual "start" of the universe. Part of the process i could believe. Start? No.

And I would never make this "something cannot arise from nothing" argument... because nothing itself is something.

Only there is no negative state of existence. There is nonexistence, and existence. Antimatter is positive. Matter is positive. That these interact explosively does not modify their state of existence.