# An everything bagel \[and the nature of "nothing"\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815 "2014-11-28T06:57:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Cardboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Cardboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardboard)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/1 "2014-11-28T06:57:36Z")
Is ‘nothing’ part of ‘everything,’ therefore an everything bagel could never possibly exist because it must contain nothing as well as everything? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/2 "2014-11-28T07:02:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cardboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Cardboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardboard)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/3 "2014-11-28T07:03:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/4 "2014-11-28T07:10:54Z")
All bagels incorporate nothing. There is damn great hole through the middle! ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/5 "2014-11-28T07:50:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/6 "2014-11-28T08:36:55Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > 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 include every everthing bagel (including itself) since an everything bagel is a thing. 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? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/7 "2014-11-28T08:49:08Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > But nothing is something. Isn’t it? No, it isn’t. It’s no thing. > [@Cardboard](#): > > I mean, the absence of something is still a thing. As above. The absence of something isn’t a thing; it’s the absence of a thing. > [@Cardboard](#): > > You see a hole and you see the open space. Therefore, it is still there. What’s still there? ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/8 "2014-11-28T09:03:14Z")
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.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=718844) ---
**Author:** ![Cardboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Cardboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardboard)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/9 "2014-11-28T09:23:07Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > 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? When you dig a hole. Tell me what you see. You see a hole. Ergo, a hole, which is nothing, is something. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_is_the_new_Analog)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/10 "2014-11-28T13:51:04Z")
Does it include a whole wheat bagel, with regular cream cheese, open faced? 'cause I could go for one of those. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/11 "2014-11-28T15:56:18Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/12 "2014-11-28T16:08:19Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/13 "2014-11-28T17:05:15Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > When you dig a hole. Tell me what you see. > > You see a hole. > > Ergo, a hole, which is nothing, is something. 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? ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/14 "2014-11-28T18:03:24Z")
Nothing is better than sex. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than sex. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/15 "2014-11-28T18:16:52Z")
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 some_thing_ tangible. _Everything_, by its nature, includes things. Therefore, by definition, it cannot include nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/16 "2014-11-29T00:12:15Z")
The hole is a topological feature of the bagel, as is the salmon. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/17 "2014-11-29T14:49:16Z")
That’s disgusting! Cream or sugar, maybe, but who puts salmon in their coffee! ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/18 "2014-11-29T18:45:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/19 "2014-11-29T19:03:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/20 "2014-11-29T20:32:52Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > When you dig a hole. Tell me what you see. > > You see a hole. > > Ergo, a hole, which is nothing, is something. 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.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815.md?page=2)