A hypothetical non-container.

[Violet]

Ok, so I just thought this one up as I was laying in bed trying to get to sleep and thought it was an interesting philosophical problem that I'm sure a lot of you will have answers for when I check this thread in the morning:

If we have a container that can hold a maximum of 0 items, is it full or empty?

Could that be equated to a container that holds nothing? Wouldn't that by definition be empty of things... or full of nothingness?

Also not that while you say the container can hold a maximum of nothing... it does not necessarily mean that it does hold such. And the thing must be a container if it is indeed containing said nothingness... as it is containing nothing at all An impressive containment if I do say so myself

By the way, this isn't some kind of trick question, so I don't mind if people argue that something like that cannot exist, or it technically isn't a container. I'm just curious what reasoning people can come up with for one or the other (or both).

It's an interesting question. I think it would be full in the sense that it is full of nothing... which is what other people declare "empty". Therefore it is both full of nothing.... and also empty (because it is filled with nothing).