Is ‘nothing’ part of ‘everything,’ therefore an everything bagel could never possibly exist because it must contain nothing as well as everything?
Nothing is not part of everything, since everything only necessarily includes every thing, and nothing is no thing.
It follows that an everything bagel can exist, but it would have to inlude every everthing bagel (including itself) since an everything bagel is a thing.
But nothing is something. Isn’t it?
I mean, the absence of something is still a thing. You see a hole and you see the open space. Therefore, it is still there.
All bagels incorporate nothing. There is damn great hole through the middle!
And the hole, which is nothing, has specific dimensions, and in part defines what the bagel is. Without the hole it wouldn’t be a bagel. So nothing is part of something.
Every bagel must either include itself (whatever else it does or doesn’t include), or else it doesn’t include itself (whatever else it does or doesn’t include). So we can divide all bagels into two sets: Those that include themselves and those that don’t.
Now, consider the set of all bagels that don’t include themselves. Does this set of bagels include itself?
No, it isn’t. It’s no thing.
As above. The absence of something isn’t a thing; it’s the absence of a thing.
What’s still there?
This is clearly a discussion about the definition of “nothing” and “everything” but in case anyone is interested …
…here is a good discussion about Everything Bagels from Café Society from last March.
When you dig a hole. Tell me what you see.
You see a hole.
Ergo, a hole, which is nothing, is something.
Does it include a whole wheat bagel, with regular cream cheese, open faced?
'cause I could go for one of those.
Although I was tempted to move this to Cafe Society, as a philosophical question it’s better suited to Great Debates. Thread title edited to better indicate subject.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
One does not see a hole. One sees past a hole to what lies beyond it, since one’s vision is no longer obscured by what used to occupy the hole.
What you see are the boundaries of something that surrounds the nothingness of the hole. So the hole has a shape and dimensions defined by the something around it, but no properties of its own. How much does a hole weigh? If you’re in outer space and looking at a region of empty space – which for the limited purposes of this discussion can be considered “nothing” – what do you see?
Nothing is better than sex.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than sex.
Nothing is defined as absence.
You say the hole in a donut is nothing.
No, it is the empty space between something.
Once you introduce some thing, as a necessary antecedent, there can be no nothing. The hole does not exist without the donut. The existence of a thing, the donut, is necessary to the definition of the hole.
Is a hole inside a hole nothing?
No, because a hole is bound by definition to exist as an empty void surrounded by something tangible.
Everything, by its nature, includes things. Therefore, by definition, it cannot include nothing.
The hole is a topological feature of the bagel, as is the salmon.
That’s disgusting! Cream or sugar, maybe, but who puts salmon in their coffee!
This seems like an absurdly silly word game to me. The whole point of words is to define concepts and communicate with each other. Using “nothing” and “everything” in this way reduces it to absurdity. It makes the word meaningless and ridiculous. Hell, “everything” may be an inherently worthless term without context. And that’s what’s missing here. What does “everything” mean in the context of a bagel? Well, we know what an “everything bagel” is. It’s a bagel with all the typical ingredients one would make a bagel with. Often, more information is required beyond “everything”. The idea of an “everything bagel” when “everything” means something else is pretty much meaningless. If everything means “the set of all things”, then “everything bagel” is an utterly meaningless term.
For designers the hole would be considered “negative space” and it is indeed something very useful for artists, architects and Gruyère cheese makers. 
“So there is no such thing as nothing, arguably anyway; on the other hand, if you want to disagree, there is nothing to stop you.” - Stephen Fry in QI.
Have you ever tried a nothing bagel? They’re next to the everything bagels, but, of course, you can’t see them, which is too bad, because they taste like nothing you’ve ever had before, and you can live off them forever. (Which includes never, so you can forget everything I just said.)