Quote: How can a process not be a 'thing'?
Illustrate to me how the existence of a process is different than the existence of a thing?
Example being say evolution. Would you not posit that evolution exists? If so... then why would you say that infinity and nothingness do not in fact exist (as more than concepts, and if you do in fact think of them as a 'process')?
And yet we have a name for that absence of things. Similar to how a lack of theism would be atheism... itself descriptive only as what it is not. No thing is only descriptive so far as its not being a thing... but then what is it? Is it at all? How could it be an it in the first place if it does not first exist?
Perhaps nothing doesn't posit that it doesn't exist at all... but rather that it exists in a state where it is not a thing (that being what specifically does being a thing entail?)? If 'thing' is defined as an object... then its existence is fine. But what about nonexistence, even granting that nothing exists? Does nonexistence exist? A state that does not exist... surely that must exist if only by not existing (In the way atheism exists only in its not being theism)?
^ More counterpoints.
'Nothing' is a description of an abscence of something, the concept of nothing exists, but if that is what your are putting as a measure of existance then so does god and the flying spaghetti monster.
This is a poor meaure of existance and I reject it.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
