Revisions of #1203

Contributors: Dennis Hackethal
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.↵
↵
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.↵
↵
Or am I missing something?

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.

Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.

Or am I missing something?

Version 1 · #1203 · Dennis Hackethal · 12 days ago · Criticism
1 comment: #1205

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.

Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.↵
↵
Orwork. At least when it refers to all of existence.↵
↵
Or am I missing something?

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work. At least when it refers to all of existence.

Or am I missing something?

Version 2 · #1204 · Dennis Hackethal · 12 days ago · Criticism
1 comment: #1258