Nothing is everything.

[reverendjeremiah]

No, glass is transparent.

So is plastic and water, and crystal

Nothing is everything

The title is giving me a fucking headache

[Violet]

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.

Agreed with your entire post. The one point of contention I have is that E can = N, if indeed nothing is all that there is. That's a purely hypothetical position that is not reflected int he real world, but it is a mistake to believe that every apple in a basket cannot be no apples in a basket

---

No, glass is transparent.

So is plastic and water, and crystal

Indeed, therefore nothing is not transparent, as there are transparent things

Nothing is everything

The title is giving me a fucking headache

Despite it being totally rational of a thing to say that nothing is everything except everything?

[fr0d0]

Reducing a problem to mathematics pulls it out of nature and proves nothing ultimately useful to reality. Or a purist might say that it's poorly realised mathematics...

"Zero is something and nothing at the same time." (http://www.chemistryland.com/Metricopoul...egins.html )

I'm waiting for Sae to pop and doubtie 2 to be born.

[lilphil1989]

The one point of contention I have is that E can = N, if indeed nothing is all that there is. That's a purely hypothetical position that is not reflected in the real world, but it is a mistake to believe that every apple in a basket cannot be no apples in a basket

Agreed.

Despite it being totally rational of a thing to say that nothing is everything except everything?

So your position is that E=N if E=N, and E=E+N otherwise?

[Violet]

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

None taken, though I wonder why you would posting on a philosophical topic in that case I mean i hate discussing religion... so I opt to not.

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.

It's a cliche to tell you that nothing is a thing? And here I thought I was the one that first stated such a lofty thing. At the least... i do not recall reading of someone who said the same until lilphil (whom honestly stated my position better than I).

I have no precise understanding of what you mean by 'by reversing the pro and con of said-cliche and....', but I hardly expect it to have been intended flatteringly.

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.

The first example is somewhat applicable. In example: I won a million dollars and lost my husband that hates money with all his heart.

The second is only true if all things are nothing.

To gain wisdom you must indeed first recognize that you are a fool. Else you are arrogant. And the arrogant have wisdom like an empty glass has water.

Statements with 'ultimate' in them make me queasy. Ie: death is the ultimate peace. Really, ultimate is an unnecessary flavor word. Death is peace. However, pain is unrelated to love (entirely) in my understanding.

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.

Capitalized expressions of not caring to read a thing is really impressive when responding to it. It's rather a downer that either turns one off of reading what you wrote (as you didn't respect what they said, why should they respect what you say?), or at the least deteriorates someone's mood. Nonetheless, I'll read it... but you should realize that you will often receive a colored response for such.

Truly defined? It is not enough that it is defined... it must be truly defined now? Next thing we know you'll be declaring definitions to be objective and pointing us to a subjective dictionary to prove this

If it pleases you, I will say that I highly doubt that someone who regards philosophy as nonsense understands the basic concept of subjectivity. However, I will stop short of insulting your worth and of suggesting that you cannot comprehend a thing which you currently do not.

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.

Because the reason we read a book is to find out the ending?

---

So your position is that E=N if E=N, and E=E+N otherwise?

Yes, and it was from the start. However, I apparently suffer from being unable to eloquently state my position.

This would be funny (of me) if it wasn't sad

[reverendjeremiah]

Reducing a problem to mathematics pulls it out of nature and proves nothing ultimately useful to reality.

Bite your tongue zero...I mean fr0d0

[JohnDG]

Why is this so hard for you to understand. Nothing is everything in the fact that when we dont have anything it is nothing. You can't have -2,-1,1,2 you need a 0. You cant have an up and a down with something inbetween. You can't have something between in and out there are only the 2 options. Left, Right, East, West, North, South, wtf is inbetween. NOTHING. We need nothing in order to have everything otherwise it would not exist. Your only confusing yourselves trying to make it into a math problem. And btw anything plus 0 is itself. E+N=E the only time anything would be nothing is N+N=N
but things just exist. Therefore we can never have less than E.

[Sarcasm]

Yea...this thread is beginning to look like a joke tbh.

[Violet]

Yea...this thread is beginning to look like a joke tbh.

Please keep in mind that i didn't make it

Now that you hopefully understand my position: you agree yes?

[Sarcasm]

Yea...this thread is beginning to look like a joke tbh.

Please keep in mind that i didn't make it

Now that you hopefully understand my position: you agree yes?

I dont agree and honestly i'm a bit confused, could you explain it more in depth? maybe then i'd understand more. I mean i kinda get that everything could be nothing, but i dont think it applies to every situation, its kinda...a conditional thing. I can kinda see how it could make sense if your looking at everything as a whole (as the term itself representing 1 thing) and nothing as a whole instead of everything in the sense of alot of things together and nothing being literally nothing.