"Everything is nothing, because it includes nothing within it.
Nothing is something, because it has a name, and so therefore, must be something.
Something is everything, because it includes all, yet not nothing."
2007-05-18 06:35:32 · 14 answers · asked by Mailman 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Very philosophical but isn't it also a paradox ?
2007-05-18 06:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by John M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey Mailman,
Everything is relevant. So of course it's TRUE
2007-05-18 19:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by Me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Everything can't include nothing. nothing times anything is nothing.
2007-05-18 13:43:57 · answer #3 · answered by Scotty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well yea of course
but thn ther would b no such thing as nothing considering tht itz definition would infer tht itz well... nothing but the fact tht it has a name would mean tht it iz sumtin n tht itz own definition contradicts itself
2007-05-18 13:40:33 · answer #4 · answered by blah girl 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, I seriously don't believe you're even old enough to know any better, so we'll just let it go at that....
2007-05-18 13:40:16 · answer #5 · answered by bobemac 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is way too confusing! Sorry, I am not bothered!
2007-05-18 13:40:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
even if there is somthing it doesen't need a name so there is somthing bu there is never nothing
2007-05-18 13:39:08 · answer #7 · answered by The real quagmire BBC Three 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if today is yesterday’s tomorrow
2007-05-18 13:42:35 · answer #8 · answered by RayRay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how bout yes.
do you believe this is true? i gave you a star cause you have great hair!
2007-05-18 13:40:56 · answer #9 · answered by That Girl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
okay that is just WAY too confusing for me!
2007-05-18 13:39:07 · answer #10 · answered by pullthetrigger 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋