Nothing is everything.

[Violet]

---

Righto, good luck with this line of reasoning

Hasn't failed me yet. Yawn.

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.

Uh, when did i say T > N?

I said E = T because my definition of 'Everything' is 'The Total of All Things'.

Your flaw is taking this total of all things to not be a thing in and of itself. Everything is one thing. I can't have everythings.

Hence, you said T > N when you said that the total was greater than one. The total number of things contained by everything is ∞. Everything, however, like nothing, is one thing.

If your saying that my definition cannot be correct, then please consult the dictionary and the English language.

Argument from establishment. It's amazing we progress at all.

None of my statements prior to this say 'T > N' I dont know what your trying to get at here.

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

You did say this. You can go back and look if you like. I quoted you and responded to that.

Also if you do the math and get 'T > N' BUT you did all the logic or math correctly the only conclusion you get is that the statement T = N faces a contradiction, NOT that my logic was wrong. For example if i want to make a statement that 0 = 1 and someone tries to argue by saying...

1 and 1 is 2 (1 + 1 = 2)

1 and 0 is 1 (1 + 0 = 1)

If we are comparing number of things *contained* by everything to number of things contained by nothing, then we are comparing ∞ to 0, which would be great if this wasn't a strawman of my position (which is that everything is a single thing, and that nothing is a single thing).

Your problem comes from T > 1, the total itself is 1. I took it to mean that you suggested T was E. Everything is one thing, so T cannot be greater than this.

If you intend to rephrase your argument to T contained by E, we can agree on that much.

I Cannot counter this argument by saying that 'Zero' must hold all properties of 'One' therefore this logic is flawed and incorrect.

Zero is 1 thing. Nothing is 1 thing. Trying to tell me otherwise is flawed logic and incorrect

By my statement i am making the 'assumption' not the 'fact' that 0 = 1, Therefore logically if 0 indeed is 1 the properties themselves should be the same without me changing the products when i put in other variables, such as the 0+1 and 1+1.

The properties of nothing are entirely different from the properties of that which is contained by your universe. Your faith in logic amuses me greatly.

Anyway, the argument is not that 0=1, it is that nothing is 1 thing. 1 thing = 1 thing. Please stop misrepresenting my argument

If i indeed DO need to change the other variables in order to come with the same solution this is based on the idea that you are stating 1 = 0 is a 'Fact' not an 'Assumption'.

Because of course I am arguing that 1 = 0 and not that 1 = 1? It is you who is obsessed with nothing I being not a thing. That is your assumption and it is incorrect.

By the way by definition 'Nothing' is supposed to say 'No things' if you are saying that 'Nothing' is 'one thing' then why would we have the word 'nothing' in the first place if its supposed to mean 'one thing'? And if N =/= 0 then what DOES equal 0?

Nothing contains no things, this is true. However, I am saying that it is a thing. Pretty straightforward if you know what a thing is. We have the word nothing to explain the lack of things in a place. That doesn't mean that there is more than nothing there, but it certainly does mean that there is 1 thing there (nothing).

Nothing = 0. It also = 1. I pity those that have a problem with that.

You also seemed to miss that i said my definition that 'Nothing' is 'No thing' but at the same time according to your statement 'Nothing' is also 'one thing'. This kinda doesn't make sense, because your saying the word which represents 'No things' also is 'One Thing'.

No things is one thing. I'm sure you'd love to assert once again that this is otherwise. I will be plenty happy to deny your assertion again

- Nothing is No Things (N = NT)

Nothing contains no things. It is 1 thing.

- No Things is less than One Thing (NT < 1)

No things is indeed less than one thing. However, we are not talking about no things here: we are talking about nothing.

- Nothing is One Thing (N = 1)

Nothing is indeed one thing.

- No Things is One Thing (NT = 1)

No things is 0 things.

Properties of NT
NT = 1 and NT < 1

Your mathematics are still screwed up with your failure to understand nothing

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

Okay, heres a better way to put it.

By the statements i made, to find the definition of E we must apply the properties of E that were found before, therefore...

The property of everything is that it contains all things. However, it is itself one thing.

Properties of Everything
1>E and E>1

1 is not greater than everything. Everything is not greater than itself. Everything is 1.

I guess the only thing left is to find something that can be both greater than 1 and less than one at the same time. Have fun finding it.

You are confusingly lost with your mathematics

---

On a side note, if my post above didn't make a point, i did think of a few scenarios that would be quite interesting if this statement were true.

Is this the statement that if everything is nothing then everything is equal to nothing?

Two men were found at the scene of a crime.
One of them were blind, the other perfect vision and witnessed everything.
When they were questioned about the crime the blind man answered "I saw nothing".
The second man who had perfect vision answered "I saw everything".
Both men saw the same thing

The blind man indeed saw nothing. The second man, however, did not see everything. He saw a very small number of things, really. Things are our inventions after all

A man asks his wife if anything is wrong, she says "Nothing is wrong"
A second man asks his own wife if something is wrong, she says "Everything is wrong"
Both these men won the same thing

Won the same thing? What? 0.o Is this a typo for own? So you believe husbands own those morons who wed with them? Fascinating.

If everything is nothing and nothing is wrong (which nothing is indeed wrong), then it follows that both of these women are correct.

Two men go to a poker tournament.
One wins the tournament and he wins everything.
The other loses in the first hand and wins nothing.
Both these men won the same thing.

If there were no bets made in this tournament: this is entirely correct.

A boy asks his friend if he got anything wrong on his test, he says "Nothing"
The boy asks a second friend if he got anything wrong on the test, they answer "Everything"
Both boys got the same test score.

The test included Q/As such as 2+2=7. So while the first, who randomly guessed his answers, indeed got nothing wrong: the other, who knew the proper math, and also what the answer was supposed to be, indeed got everything wrong.

The Conservation of Energy generally states that nothing can be created or destroyed, only turned into another form.
This also means that everything can be created or destroyed.

Nothing is indeed created and destroyed all the time. Everything, if it were nothing, could also be created and destroyed.

If everything includes nothing (which it does), then it is destroyed and created infinitely.

---

---

Is nothing transparent?

No, glass is transparent.

---

Is nothing transparent?

No, glass is transparent.