# does everything include nothing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 1999, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702 "1999-07-12T10:42:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702/61 "2001-06-20T18:00:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \*\*\*Lost In Reality \*\* > The null set is equal to nothing. An element is an entity within a set and is therefore something. Not so. The null set _contains_ nothing. A set is not the same as its contents. > [@](#): > > In order to prove that the null set, which is nothing, is included in everything one must utilize the a contradiction proof. If I create set B, and B has the elements within it {x,y,z}. The null set includes {}. As one can simply see the null set includes nothing that is not a part of B. Therefore we are able to place the null set within B. Therefore the null set is part of set B. This can be repeated for the universal set as well. > > Since we defined B now as {x,y,z,null set} we now can define the null set as an element of set B. Going back to the original premise that an element is an entity then the null set is an entity and is therefore something. The set {x,y,z} has three elements. The set {x,y,z,null set} has four elements. They are not equal. What you have demonstrated is that the null set is a _subset_ of every set. It is not contained in every set. ---
**Author:** ![bj0rn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@bj0rn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bj0rn)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702/62 "2001-07-23T12:25:41Z")
imagine you have everything in your hand, then you throw it away. did you throw away nothing? or do you have nothing in your hand? as by the function of the words everything and nothing, nothing can not be included in everything, thus making everything: everything but nothing! bj0rn - one learns while lives. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_Locke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jon\_Locke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_Locke)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702/63 "2001-07-23T12:50:58Z")
I’m not a mathematician so I can’t argue with everyone’s null sets and whatnot, but speaking from the standpoint of theoretical physics the universe, matter/energy and space/time and alternate dimensions is made up of super strings. (String Theory.) The whole universe is freestanding waves on these strings. Everybody posting so far has talked about matter but no one has made the suggestion that space itself counts as a thing. To be outside of space itself is a condition which I really sincerely doubt the human mind can comprehend. Not just no matter, not just blackness, but nothing. That is what nothing is. It’s hard to even imagine. You can unravel a hypercube but it’s impossible to unravel nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702/64 "2001-07-23T12:55:49Z")
**Nothing** is a negative concept; it’s the _absence_ of **something** (or the absence of _ **everything** _ - same thing, because **everything** is the largest possible set of **somethings** ). it’s nonsense to talk about the ‘presence of nothing’, think about it, if you could have the presence of nothing, you should be able to have ‘two nothings’ or ‘an abundance of nothings’ So by [this] definition **everything** can’t include **nothing** , otherwise the presence of **everything** would have to exclude the presence of **everything**. ---
**Author:** ![bj0rn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@bj0rn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bj0rn)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702/65 "2001-07-24T10:28:18Z")
the problem is that everything does include nothing…the word nothing, not its meaning. so by all definitions everybody is correct. bj0rn - harmony comes through nothing [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-everything-include-nothing/16702.md?page=3)