Nothing is everything.

[Violet]

Hm, this idea has been on my mind since i read it, i still dont agree with it really, but at the same time i dont know how to exactly explain why. But i guess i'll give this an actual attempt instead of my little joke in the first post.

Righto.

Before i start though i want to make sure were on the same page when were using the terms 'Nothing' and 'Everything'. By 'Nothing' i mean nonexistence, no thing or not anything. And by 'Everything' i mean all things as a whole, or the total of all things. I'll just work out a few things that i saw kinda weird with the scenarios you can come up with if the statement 'Everything is Nothing' were true.

Nonexistence is an impossible state because everything exists... so I'm afraid we will not be able to agree under the terms presented. Nothing is a thing, you see... so while I agree that it contains no things: it still exists.

The only way for 'everything is nothing' to be possible is for there to be a total of only one thing, and that being nothing. Please don't confuse this with 'nothing is everything', as unlike void keeps trying to say: they are no more equatable than mary loves tom and tom loves mary.

- Everything is Nothing (E = N)

- Everything is the total of all things (E = T)

- The total of all things is greater than one thing (T > 1)

- Everything is greater than one thing (E > 1)

- Nothing is less than one thing (N < 1)

- Everything is Nothing (E = N)

- Everything is less than one thing (E < 1)

- Everything is Everything, Therefore... (E > 1 = E < 1)

Contradiction?

Flaw in the very beginning of the argument: E=N means that E holds the same value as N. Therefore T, which is E, is also the same value as N. Therefore false that E > N.

Further, nothing is one thing. Note, that is 1 thing. Not two, not zero, and five is right out... so that is also a false statement.

E=N is by tautology true. Everything is not less than one thing though, it is always a single thing. No matter how many 'things' make up everything: it remains 1.

Everything is indeed everything, and there is no contradiction if you are using the proper values for the items listed

---

No, you need to re-read what I said, I said inductively that nothing is an impossible state. To state that nothing exists is incoherent, as it is an absence of anything. The word nothing exists but this is of course abstract.

I read what you said perfectly the first time. I disagreed. I still disagree. What more do you want from me here?

Again you need to re-read what I said. Within the whole of reality we have never observed a state of nothing. There is a powerful inductive argument to suggest it doesn't exist. You cannot logically deductively conclude that nothing does not exist.

Yay, and within the whole of reality, the good old greeks never observed that there was a microbiology. Clearly then, there was a powerful indicative argument to suggest that such biology did not exist.

Because our own limitations and incompetency is clearly the best guide we could ever have as to what exists and does not, amiright?

T0 refers to the start of time, not the start of the universe. It is perfectly consistent with a universe always having existed. Something which also seems more likely to me as a state of nothingness is incoherent. You seem to be arguing that nothing has also never existed by making this point.

Oh does it now. Wheeee. Whoopeee. So? I don't presume the big bang to have been the start of time either. Infact, such is not possible by any guide of logic I use (time not existing means that time cannot pass, therefore nothing could ever change in its state). That it is what we perceive to have been the beginning of *our* time, i can believe. But the start of time itself? HAHA XD

Nothingness has always existed, and always will exist. It is inescapable that there will always be nothing. Whatever I seem to be arguing, it certainly isn't that there is no nothingness.

Again re-read what I said. I never said you did or would make such an argument...but nothingness clearly cannot be something according to the definition I have put forward and you agreed with.

Oh so clearly that I don't see it whichever way I cock my head save upside down! The re-read speech is getting old and tiring fast. I read it once, I read it again. My response is unchanged.

This was not the point I was making. I said 'perhaps a more interesting point etc'. Not that Anti -matter is negative existence. In addition it isn't about existence or non-existence, but instead probabilities of certain states pertaining at the quantum level.

Then I don't have a problem with it. I most certainly do have a problem with asserting negative existence though.

If you are going to postulate the nothing exists, then you need to be able to conceptualise and describe it. Speaking personally I cannot do either. The same is true of other useful concepts like infinity.

Because of course something has to be describable for it to exist. I'll make sure I tell the next person who gives me a christmas present that it doesn't exist because it cannot be described from my extremely limited point of view. I'm sure that it will go over well.