Why do people tend to consider this statement as false?

Question

0 ≠ 1 = Unity
Nothing is not equal to one.
=> Nothing differs from Unity.
This is the very basis of modern science and philosophy.
But, Why do people tend to reject the basic principle - NOTHING DIFFERS FROM UNITY?

Answer 1

The purpose of modern philosophy is not to help men find the meaning of life, but to prove to them that there isn't any.

Answer 2

Nothing has its own unity in nonexistence...right? It is the unity of things that we live in...and it's amazing that we can even try to imagine the idea of "nothing".

So, why do people reject your/the idea? They're probably not very good at math. This is a guess, but it's probably true.

Answer 3

Very simple. Without unity there is nothing and some people can't tell the difference. It's like a "double negative".

Answer 4

Do people tend to reject that? Which people. I OBJECT to them, but I accept them as basic definitives, like A=A, the rule for logical descriptive identity. But, to treat them as complete antithesis to something true as description for a thing in reality or being, rather than an obsolete non-being existing only as descriptive in logic is over claiming their value for human purpose. The relation in the parts for a whole is knowledge of that whole thing, but not total knowledge of the whole thing, it is only enough for identity, for differentiation.

What are their relation to the Will and the Judgment? The Will is positive and the Judgment is negative. What are their relations, how does mind relate them all as descriptive for one purpose. How do I use them in my life for the Good and my Good.

Answer 5

"Unity", by definition, means oneness, or multiple entities working as one. So it can't possibly be the same as nothing. Nothing cannot be unified, because to have unity, you must start with something--typically multiple somethings--that works together.