Nothing is everything.

[lilphil1989]

I think there's a little confusion in this thread about the difference between a set and the contents of a set.

Here's my approach to the problem, for what it's worth:


Let E be the set containing everything. We can define it as follows: E is the set such that every conceivable set is a subset of E.
(E is 1 thing, it's content is not.)

Let N be the empty set. This also allows quite a nice (albeit abstract, mathematical) definition of nothing: the content of N.

N must be contained in E, both by definition of the empty set and by definition of E.
Therefore E contains N, but not only N.
E contains the content of N, but this is not the only thing it contains.
Here you could make the statement "E contains nothing", but this is not the same as saying "E does not contain anything" or "E is empty", since nothing is simply defined as the content of N, and the statement E=N is not true.

---

This is why I don't get to heavily into Philosophy. No Offense.

Philosophy doesn't have to be that way!

Plato, Bertrand Russell and Dostoyevsky are just 3 authors I'd recommend, if you're interested in having your mind changed.

As for your third "nonsense" (To gain wisdom you must first know that you are a fool), I think there is something to be said for that. The most intelligent people seem to be the ones who aren't afraid to say "I don't know".