Does nothing mean zero or the empty set in this thread?
On May 5, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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".
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at