Can you name a single thing that isn't a thing.

File: Von Neumannlet the brainlett.jpg (167KB, 490x639px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 490x639px

an object cannot be in a set and not be in the same set...

my gf

Nothing

File: darmok.jpg (57KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 630x630px

>>8836493
Nothing is still a thing, since you conceptualize it as something. So nothing is really something. Unless you mean nothing that is beyond the word nothing. In that case it's an absence of something, but as such still a concept and therefore still something.

>>8836462
Yes.

>>8836462

Magic.

>>8836520
concept is not a thing

>>8836558
a concept is a certain configuration of your brain's neural network... is that not a material thing?

milhouse being a meme

File: tesseract.jpg (25KB, 666x635px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 666x635px

>>8836542
11/10

>>8836563
they way we think is irrelevant in the issue because it breaks the logic of discussion

>>8836493
Either nothing is not a thing or nothing is a thing, in which case it is not a thing that is not a thing.

File: paper pepe.jpg (36KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 655x527px

>>8836462
You can't. Thing is one of the most interesting words in the English language because you can't name anything that isn't a thing. You literally can't. Even things that don't exist are things. Even things that are logically inconsistent are still things. It's a word that refers to everything and tells you nothing about anything. It's even hard to describe what a thing is without using the word "thing" because there's nothing that's not a thing. You could say something like "the set of all things is not a proper subset of any set" but I don't think "set of all things" is a valid set under most axioms.

>>8836462
>>8836462
>name a type of apple that isn't an apple!
Wow, our language can be used to construct contradictory horseshit, nice finding socrates!
This is why philosophy fags are retards and belong behind the counter in starbucks.

>>8836462
The only way you could name something that isn't a thing is by not naming it, because as soon as you give it a name, it is now a thing.

>>8836462
irrational numbers.

>>8836462
.

>>8836462
Stuff is not a thing
If stuff is divided it is still stuff
If a thing is divided it is no longer that thing

>>8836462
mathematics

File: 1492401509444.jpg (7KB, 250x216px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x216px

>>8836471
spbp

File: Flora+London+Marathon+BwERsyI0C9Bl.jpg (134KB, 522x594px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 522x594px

>>8836471

>>8836462
Depends on how you define thing.

>>8836462
Time

File: Recursivethinker17.jpg (15KB, 250x249px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x249px

>>8837465
If time is not a thing then what is it?

>>8836520
No, you can't. You can define it but you can't conceptualize it. Try to visualize "nothing".
That's right, you can't, because you're visualizing nothing, or a black backdrop with area and/or volume.
Just because it's defined doesn't mean it's something.
No-thing. Nothing.
>>8836563
The configuration in your brain, even if you could conceptualize it, only represents he concept, it's not the concept. {} see this? I just represented the content of the empty set. key word is represented, because there is, guess what? Nothing. There is nothing in the empty set.

>>8837477
an unthing, duh

>>8836462
A thing that is not a thing can be interpreted as a thing that does not exist or as a true statement who's negation is also true.

Implucations are an example of this.

Ex. If op has a brain, then his brain is not a thing.

The negation is
Op has a brain and it is not a thing.

Since both statements are clearly true, op's brain is a thing that is not a thing

>>8837650
If gravity was the product of mass being pulled towards nothing. What would that say about nothing?

File: fractalrecursivethinker.jpg (90KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x250px

>>8837650
No thing = empty set
Nothing = no set

>>8837861
I didn't say the set represented nothing, I said it's content did
>>8837807
Well it isn't, that should tell you a lot. And it couldn't.
>what if it was though.
Closest thing you have to anything like that is a vacuum. Then again that's not nothing pulling, it's air around it pushing.

>>8837987
>it's content
misspoke, it's lack of content I mean.

>>8836462
Equality between the races.

File: wat1.jpg (230KB, 800x797px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 800x797px

The only thing that is not a thing is the thing itself. Because it points to nothing, it doesn't exist and therefore is not a thing.

So after reading and thinking over all this said.

Nothing has no existence or nor a setting.
We use it to indicate concepts, like the examples of gravity, a black hole, a vacuum or time,...

Maybe try an other way of asking the question:: "Is there a concept that is nothing?"
I think infinity may be an example of a concept meaning nothing.

>>8836462
Is there a set of all things that do not exist in any set?

>>8836462
an idea

are Americans really that stupid? did you guys go school?

>>8836462
>I conceptualize it as X therefore it is X
bad reasoning and even the premise (that we are conceptualizing it as a "thing", whatever that means) is arguable

>>8838604
meant to quote >>8836520

>>8836471
Came for this, was not dissapointed.

>>8837477
A made up concept that doesn't really exist. There is no such thing as a second, minute, or hour. Everything we can't see or touch isn't real.

File: evenwhatisnot.jpg (70KB, 300x797px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 300x797px

>>8838984
>can't see or touch radio waves
>can't see or touch radiation
>can't see or touch black holes
>it means they're not real