Does nothing mean zero or the empty set in this thread?

On May 5, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 04 May 2012, at 17:48, John Clark wrote:
> > > If the nothing of a vacuum is really full of potentials,
> > If you insist on the strictest definition of "nothing" which is not
> > even the potential of producing anything, then even God Himself
> > could not produce something from nothing; and this line of thought
> > is quite clearly leading precisely nowhere.
> At the meta level of a theory, "nothing" and "everything" are
> basically equivalent with respect to the difficulty to be define them.
> In set theory, everything (the "universe" of set) is given by the
> unary intersection of the empty set, for example. And the quantum
> vacuum, needs the whole non trivial assumption of quantum mechanics.
> The "no" and the "every" in "nothing and everything" depend on the
> logical assumptions. The real difficulty is in the definition or
> choice of the notion of "things".
> Bruno

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to