# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/21 "2014-12-01T00:57:27Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > When you dig a hole. Tell me what you see. > > You see a hole. > > Ergo, a hole, which is nothing, is something. A hole is not nothing. It’s a hole. There may be nothing _in_ the hole, but the hole itself is a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Peanuthead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peanuthead/32/360_2.png) [@Peanuthead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanuthead)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/22 "2014-12-01T05:11:32Z")
_As you wander through this life No matter what your goal Keep your mind upon the bagel And not upon the hole_ May The Buddha smile upon you. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/23 "2014-12-01T05:56:23Z")
There is a very rigorously defined “empty set” in set theory, and it has some very specific properties. Using loose, poetic language to call “nothing” a thing is just silly. The terms aren’t well-defined. It’s like pretending that “No one” is a person. No one is faster than the fastest racer; no one is stronger than the strongest hero. No one is able to understand this kind of hokey conundrum. Quite a guy, that no-one. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2014, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/24 "2014-12-01T06:41:46Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There is a very rigorously defined “empty set” in set theory, and it has some very specific properties. > > Using loose, poetic language to call “nothing” a thing is just silly. The terms aren’t well-defined. It’s like pretending that “No one” is a person. > > No one is faster than the fastest racer; no one is stronger than the strongest hero. No one is able to understand this kind of hokey conundrum. Quite a guy, that no-one. What he said. It’s pointless word games; nothing that actually _means_ anything. Which is funny, because when I say “nothing” in that context, _you know what I’m talking about_. You could rewrite that sentence to maintain the same meaning without the use of the word “nothing”. These terms only make any sense in specific contexts and with specific usages, and pulling them out of those usages for a philosophical discussion is like redefining “god” as “the universe” and then proving that “god” exists and acting as though one had accomplished anything. ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/25 "2014-12-01T07:05:25Z")
the “nothing” is the hole in the bagel, obviously ---
**Author:** ![dogbutler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dogbutler/32/428_2.png) [@dogbutler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dogbutler)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815/26 "2014-12-01T21:24:33Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > 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? “You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?” - George Carlin [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-everything-bagel-and-the-nature-of-nothing/705815.md?page=1)