A hypothetical non-container.

[Tiberius]

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?

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).

[fr0d0]

It's reached its maximum so it's full

It exists in a negative plain and can hold quite a few

[tackattack]

Since you didn't specify a minimum, I would say it has reached it's maximum and is thus full. If it's minimum is = to it's maximum then it's not a container, so I'm glad you left that off.

[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).

[tackattack]

By it's definition of being a container, yes it must hold something. That is paradoxical because it can only hold a minimum and maximum of nothing. Therefore I insticntively threw out the improper item label and went with the descriptors. So then the follow up question would be If somethings only definition is that it's nothing, does it exist?

[Darwinian]

If both your statements are correct then it must be empty. We know it's a container because you've said so. However, we don't know why it can only hold 0 items.

Therefore, you have a container that can only be empty. It can't be full because that term infers a quantity which zero cannot satisfy.

[Tiberius]

I knew I could trust you guys to come up with some great reasoning

[Violet]

If both your statements are correct then it must be empty. We know it's a container because you've said so. However, we don't know why it can only hold 0 items.

Therefore, you have a container that can only be empty. It can't be full because that term infers a quantity which zero cannot satisfy.

And yet you could further posit that it is full of nothingness... for how else could it be empty of 'somethingness'?

[Tiberius]

I think it's quite an obvious paradox. Given that such a container cannot exist, it doesn't actually matter though. However, by definition it has nothing in it, so it is empty, but because it holds a maximum of 0 items, it is also full.

Of course it all depends on how you defined "empty" and "full".

If empty means there aren't any items in the container (which is true), and full means you cannot place any more items in the container (which is true) then it is both empty and full, and a paradoxical container.

[Violet]

Why could such a container not exist?

It should indeed be obvious... the reason it is "empty of things" is because it is "full of nothing"