Disproving Existance Through Grammatical Law

[The_Wrench_Ninja]

I'm bored, and I couldn't think of anything more interesting for my first post within this guild, so I figured I'd just do this. Keep in mind, that this makes more sence when processed through a mathmatical brain, then a poet's mind.


A) "Everything", is everything. This means that "Everything" includes all "Somethings".

B) Everything is "Something". If we have a noun for it, then it is "Something". So then by statement "A", all "Somethings" are what make up "Everything".

C) "Nothing" is "Something". "Nothing" is a form of a Noun, which are used to describe people, places, or things. So then by statement "A", "Nothing" is included in "Everything", because "Everything", is all "Somethings".

D) By statement "C", "Everything" includes "Nothing".



Have fun looking at the grammatical paradoxes in there. I must be off.

~Loki, TWN


P.S.- Let me know if this is in the wrong place. Thank you.  

[beliael]

I always thought "everything" while meaning to encompass all that there is, that everything can contain anything. But the idea of "nothing" is the completely absence of "anything" AND "everything".  

[chrystalclear]

The_Wrench_Ninja

I'm bored, and I couldn't think of anything more interesting for my first post within this guild, so I figured I'd just do this. Keep in mind, that this makes more sence when processed through a mathmatical brain, then a poet's mind.


A) "Everything", is everything. This means that "Everything" includes all "Somethings".

B) Everything is "Something". If we have a noun for it, then it is "Something". So then by statement "A", all "Somethings" are what make up "Everything".

C) "Nothing" is "Something". "Nothing" is a form of a Noun, which are used to describe people, places, or things. So then by statement "A", "Nothing" is included in "Everything", because "Everything", is all "Somethings".

D) By statement "C", "Everything" includes "Nothing".



Have fun looking at the grammatical paradoxes in there. I must be off.

~Loki, TWN


P.S.- Let me know if this is in the wrong place. Thank you.

Oh boy...my brain hurts. But I understand it, and that is interesting. *nods head*  

[lola_siannodel]

C I have already thought up. Only I phrased it as "Nothing is something, but something isn't nothing." Most people I tell that to get confused.  

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

My brain just crashed and needs to be rebooted.  

[Sola Catella]

That's like the old logical argument 'Love is blind. God is love. I am blind. Therefore I am God.'  

[Ithaya]

I've stated that argument before.

Counter-arguments I have recieved (mostly from myself, as I remember) include:

1) Nothing is the absence of something, and therefore not something in itself. (Untrue.)

2) Nothing is no thing, i.e. not a thing. (True, my own counter argument for many things, but also slightly flawed, as I will explain below.)

3) Nothing is incomprehensible by the human mind. (One huge paradox.)
Better put as: The human mind cannot comprehend the absence of a thing. (True.)


And, for the argument, we have:

1) Nothing is a word, therefore it is something.
...But, nothing the word describes no thing, it does not describe something, it does not describe anything. Its meaning is nothing.
...And then you go on to say:
'Nothing is a word, it means nothing, which is a word meaning nothing...', etc..

So nothing is included in everything. And therefore nothing exists.




But I will continue to use nothing in my 'begining of the world' arguments.

I.e.: These statements say the same thing:

1) There was nothing, then there was something.
2) There was always something.

The second is more correct.

And the following statement is untrue and stupid:

1) Something came from nothing.
The nothing did not create the something. The something simply was. (Eat that Dan Brown.)
 

[Mia Eidenschink]

Sadly...I understood that. however, can you reverse it?

If "Nothing" is "Everything" and therefore it is "Something", then does that mean humans are in fact, "nothing" ?  

[The_Wrench_Ninja]

I must say that I'm glad to see people have taken such interest in my topic. Most people that hear this, walk away as soon as they can think again. It is truly amazing what one can do with the simplest properties of human grammatical laws.  

[Ithaya]

The_Wrench_Ninja

I must say that I'm glad to see people have taken such interest in my topic. Most people that hear this, walk away as soon as they can think again. It is truly amazing what one can do with the simplest properties of human grammatical laws.

Ah yes, don't you just love linguistics?

I'm glad I have the internet, I must say, otherwise I'd be stuck with those kind of people for most of my life and never get a decent conversation.

Shrinking pringles...fun, fun. ^^  

[chrystalclear]

Ikonik Angel

I've stated that argument before.

Counter-arguments I have recieved (mostly from myself, as I remember) include:

1) Nothing is the absence of something, and therefore not something in itself. (Untrue.)

2) Nothing is no thing, i.e. not a thing. (True, my own counter argument for many things, but also slightly flawed, as I will explain below.)

3) Nothing is incomprehensible by the human mind. (One huge paradox.)
Better put as: The human mind cannot comprehend the absence of a thing. (True.)


And, for the argument, we have:

1) Nothing is a word, therefore it is something.
...But, nothing the word describes no thing, it does not describe something, it does not describe anything. Its meaning is nothing.
...And then you go on to say:
'Nothing is a word, it means nothing, which is a word meaning nothing...', etc..

So nothing is included in everything. And therefore nothing exists.




But I will continue to use nothing in my 'begining of the world' arguments.

I.e.: These statements say the same thing:

1) There was nothing, then there was something.
2) There was always something.

The second is more correct.

And the following statement is untrue and stupid:

1) Something came from nothing.
The nothing did not create the something. The something simply was. (Eat that Dan Brown.)

My brain hurts again, but I understood this as well, and I must say that I just learned something. =3
The funny thing is that the word "nothing" is used so commonly by people (For example: "Is something wrong?" "It's nothing.") and yet most of those people don't really know exactly what that term defines. sweatdrop
And now I'm going to look up the word "paradox" since I've been hearing it much too much lately.  

[Eleusinian Mysteries]

Hey, that does make sense...But it's awfully confusing...Oh wow, I can't wait to use that on some of my friends...I wonder how many will get a headache...  

[The MoUsY spell-checker]

chrystalclear

The funny thing is that the word "nothing" is used so commonly by people (For example: "Is something wrong?" "It's nothing.") and yet most of those people don't really know exactly what that term defines. sweatdrop

It's like how when people reply "nothing" to the question "What are you doing?" - Usually resulting in being told "That's the problem."  

[Ithaya]

The MoUsY spell-checker

chrystalclear

The funny thing is that the word "nothing" is used so commonly by people (For example: "Is something wrong?" "It's nothing.") and yet most of those people don't really know exactly what that term defines. sweatdrop

It's like how when people reply "nothing" to the question "What are you doing?" - Usually resulting in being told "That's the problem."

I'm guilty of using the word nothing in both those contexts regularly.

Now...another problem comes when writers start writing about things being made from nothing, and nothing-laced gunpowder and things like that, making it seem more like an acid than 'nothing'. (*Cough*GarthNix*cough*.)
Don't get me wrong though, he's one of my favourite authors. ^_~



Oh I love paradoxes...and oxymorons. Contradictions which make sense.  

[The_Wrench_Ninja]

...and now it's died... Didn't even make it to page two... Shame...