Udgivet 19/09 kl. 22:08
Here's an argument against nothing being part of everything.
If nothing is to everything what darkness is to light, then nothing is nothing in and of itself, but merely the abstense of everything (or anything). This means nothing can't be part of everything because you can't contain something (nothing) inside something that it is defined to be the abstense of. It's like having a spot of darkness (not a shadow cast by an interfering object) in the middle of a ray of light. You can't put nothing in a box and store it in your garage.
The opposite of everything is nothing, yet the opposite of nothing isn't necessarily everything, it could be something. Is everything something? Well it's not nothing so it must be something, yet something can be (not just can but must in fact) contained within everything which is also something. Is everything within nothing? No, everything can't be within nothing because then nothing would include everything, which is impossible since nothing is the absense of everything. Then what is everything inside of? Everything isn't inside anything, cause whatever it would be inside would also be part of it. But doesn't that then mean that nothing must be outside everything? No, cause nothing is not a thing. In fact it is an abstract concept. It is exactly what it says, not a thing.
There is no 'outside of everything', but this is not easy for the human mind to comprehend. Also, there is no 'abstense of everything'. There is no nothing. The evidence is that you sit here reading this. You are a something within everything. If nothing truly existed you wouldn't be reading this wondering about just what the heck 'nothing' is. The point is it isn't.
So there you have it.
Læst 15 gange
Kommentering er er ikke muligt, da du ikke er logget ind.