Nothing is everything.

[Captain Scarlet]

It is incoherent to state that a thing which exists... exists? 0.o

No, you need to re-read what I said, I said inductively that nothing is an impossible state. To state that nothing exists is incoherent, as it is an absence of anything. The word nothing exists but this is of course abstract.

I agree that nothing is the absence of anything. And not having observed nothing within a place where there is not nothing means that it doesn't exist? I'll keep such "logic" in mind

Again you need to re-read what I said. Within the whole of reality we have never observed a state of nothing. There is a powerful inductive argument to suggest it doesn't exist. You cannot logically deductively conclude that nothing does not exist.

I do not presume the universe to have *had* a "T0", and infact disbelieve all proposals that the 'Big Bang' was the actual "start" of the universe. Part of the process i could believe. Start? No.

T0 refers to the start of time, not the start of the universe. It is perfectly consistent with a universe always having existed. Something which also seems more likely to me as a state of nothingness is incoherent. You seem to be arguing that nothing has also never existed by making this point.

And I would never make this "something cannot arise from nothing" argument... because nothing itself is something.

Again re-read what I said. I never said you did or would make such an argument...but nothingness clearly cannot be something according to the definition I have put forward and you agreed with.

Only there is no negative state of existence. There is nonexistence, and existence. Antimatter is positive. Matter is positive. That these interact explosively does not modify their state of existence.

This was not the point I was making. I said 'perhaps a more interesting point etc'. Not that Anti -matter is negative existence. In addition it isn't about existence or non-existence, but instead probabilities of certain states pertaining at the quantum level.

If you are going to postulate the nothing exists, then you need to be able to conceptualise and describe it. Speaking personally I cannot do either. The same is true of other useful concepts like infinity.

[Violet]

Hm, this idea has been on my mind since i read it, i still dont agree with it really, but at the same time i dont know how to exactly explain why. But i guess i'll give this an actual attempt instead of my little joke in the first post.

Righto.

Before i start though i want to make sure were on the same page when were using the terms 'Nothing' and 'Everything'. By 'Nothing' i mean nonexistence, no thing or not anything. And by 'Everything' i mean all things as a whole, or the total of all things. I'll just work out a few things that i saw kinda weird with the scenarios you can come up with if the statement 'Everything is Nothing' were true.

Nonexistence is an impossible state because everything exists... so I'm afraid we will not be able to agree under the terms presented. Nothing is a thing, you see... so while I agree that it contains no things: it still exists.

The only way for 'everything is nothing' to be possible is for there to be a total of only one thing, and that being nothing. Please don't confuse this with 'nothing is everything', as unlike void keeps trying to say: they are no more equatable than mary loves tom and tom loves mary.

- Everything is Nothing (E = N)

- Everything is the total of all things (E = T)

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

- Everything is greater than one thing (E > 1)

- Nothing is less than one thing (N < 1)

- Everything is Nothing (E = N)

- Everything is less than one thing (E < 1)

- Everything is Everything, Therefore... (E > 1 = E < 1)

Contradiction?

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.

Further, nothing is one thing. Note, that is 1 thing. Not two, not zero, and five is right out... so that is also a false statement.

E=N is by tautology true. Everything is not less than one thing though, it is always a single thing. No matter how many 'things' make up everything: it remains 1.

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

---

No, you need to re-read what I said, I said inductively that nothing is an impossible state. To state that nothing exists is incoherent, as it is an absence of anything. The word nothing exists but this is of course abstract.

I read what you said perfectly the first time. I disagreed. I still disagree. What more do you want from me here?

Again you need to re-read what I said. Within the whole of reality we have never observed a state of nothing. There is a powerful inductive argument to suggest it doesn't exist. You cannot logically deductively conclude that nothing does not exist.

Yay, and within the whole of reality, the good old greeks never observed that there was a microbiology. Clearly then, there was a powerful indicative argument to suggest that such biology did not exist.

Because our own limitations and incompetency is clearly the best guide we could ever have as to what exists and does not, amiright?

T0 refers to the start of time, not the start of the universe. It is perfectly consistent with a universe always having existed. Something which also seems more likely to me as a state of nothingness is incoherent. You seem to be arguing that nothing has also never existed by making this point.

Oh does it now. Wheeee. Whoopeee. So? I don't presume the big bang to have been the start of time either. Infact, such is not possible by any guide of logic I use (time not existing means that time cannot pass, therefore nothing could ever change in its state). That it is what we perceive to have been the beginning of *our* time, i can believe. But the start of time itself? HAHA XD

Nothingness has always existed, and always will exist. It is inescapable that there will always be nothing. Whatever I seem to be arguing, it certainly isn't that there is no nothingness.

Again re-read what I said. I never said you did or would make such an argument...but nothingness clearly cannot be something according to the definition I have put forward and you agreed with.

Oh so clearly that I don't see it whichever way I cock my head save upside down! The re-read speech is getting old and tiring fast. I read it once, I read it again. My response is unchanged.

This was not the point I was making. I said 'perhaps a more interesting point etc'. Not that Anti -matter is negative existence. In addition it isn't about existence or non-existence, but instead probabilities of certain states pertaining at the quantum level.

Then I don't have a problem with it. I most certainly do have a problem with asserting negative existence though.

If you are going to postulate the nothing exists, then you need to be able to conceptualise and describe it. Speaking personally I cannot do either. The same is true of other useful concepts like infinity.

Because of course something has to be describable for it to exist. I'll make sure I tell the next person who gives me a christmas present that it doesn't exist because it cannot be described from my extremely limited point of view. I'm sure that it will go over well.

[JohnDG]

Ive got it, normally we can't grasp the idea of nothing, it's simply not in our logic. But if you blow your brains out you would have nothing to grasp. But in the end you would still have something left, and that something is nothing. Atleast in your head.

[Captain Scarlet]

@Aerzia Saerules Arktuos

Righto, good luck with this line of reasoning

[Sarcasm]

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'. If your saying that my definition cannot be correct, then please consult the dictionary and the English language. None of my statements prior to this say 'T > N' I dont know what your trying to get at here. 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)

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

Further, nothing is one thing. Note, that is 1 thing. Not two, not zero, and five is right out... so that is also a false statement.

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?

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'.

- Nothing is No Things (N = NT)

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

- Nothing is One Thing (N = 1)

- No Things is One Thing (NT = 1)

Properties of NT
NT = 1 and NT < 1

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...

Properties of Everything
1>E and E>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.

[Sarcasm]

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

[reverendjeremiah]

Is nothing transparent?

[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.

[Cinjin]

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

Anyone (and I really mean EVERYone has) can take a cliche and turn it into some "deep intellectual philosophy" by reversing the pro and the con of said-cliche and than tacking it onto the end just to hear people say, "wow, you're right that's soooo thought provoking." When in reality it really isn't - it's just masturbatory musings for those who gain gratification by making others believe that they are of a higher station and intellect.

Examples:
Sometimes when you win you really lose and sometimes when you lose you really win.
The absence of all things is the aquiring of all things.
To gain wisdom you must first know that you are a fool.
To know great love you must first understand great pain for great pain is found in ultimate love.

BLAH BLAH BLAH ... There's thousands of these stupid things and all the rediculous math calculations in the world will not give them any more meaning than what the persons hearing it reads into it. What's even better is that because these little philosophical ramblings cannot ever be truly defined - the author or speaker can claim at any point that your are inferior and do not have it within your mind to comprehend existencialisms.

and that's my problem with philosophy ... it never offers conclusions, and most often it only raises absurdities that can never be answered because in truth, the were never meant to be answered.

[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".