Is 'Everything' One Thing?

Hi Fresco!

Yes or no, Is 'everything' (the sum total of all things) one thing?

Thank you.
Mark...

You can refer to a set of things as one set (a single linguistic object).

You must refer to a (one) set of things as 'a (one) set of things... There is no other way to express it.

A star-system is made up of many things, but it is still 'A (one) star-system'.

Have a great day RE!
Mark...

Not in logic as it is typically practiced. The subject and predicate are interchanged but the modifier stays where it is. Thus the converse of "All X are Y" is rendered "All Y are X."

Meaningless..."one thing" for what purpose ? All "things" are defined with respect to fluctuating functionality.

I’m thinking of a thing, which is it first, a thing, or a thought?

I thought I seen something.
I thought I heard something.
I thought I felt something.
I thought I tasted something.
I thought I smelt something.
I thought I thought something.

I thought that looked like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that sounded like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that felt like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that tasted like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that smelt like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that I thought it’s a bird, then it must be a bird.

(So what is it first, a bird, or a thought?)

For is not the thought of "everything" just thought? Well thought is a thought, is it not? Therefore how could it be anything but one thought? For what makes a thought a thought is the fact that one has thought the thought. Hence no thing cannot be thought, and no thought cannot be a thought, therefore all is one, and one is all.

Refer to everything I've posted in the same confused threads that involve in their titles the words. something, nothing, nobody, somebody, nowhere, and somewhere. The OP isn't asking what it thinks it is asking because it doesn't understand the function of the words its asking about.

I honestly don´t get how a reasonable intelligent guy like you indulges in this fantasy dichotomy between objects symbols and representations when none of it is clear...

To say something, or to say a car, or simply grass is exactly the same thing, being the difference the wider or less wider scope that one concept encompasses in relation to the other when referring to anything, and being this anything itself a place holder of orderly information, or combined property´s that can refer further in the chain even as objects and not as concepts, its a matter of "gravitational pull" and functions...so both, symbols and things, material and immaterial (where is the difference ?) refer to a set of property´s, both are place Holders as both are things...as for abstract and concrete we have exactly the same nonsense going on...

Maybe a little cross linguistic example will help you get where I'm coming from. Many less isolating languages than English use grammatical affixes to encompass these concepts and perform these functions. In fact English does the same thing to an extent.

any/every/some - in many language all three are expressed by one affix. They are not words or even bearing morphemes. They are iflectional morpheme performing a gammatical function. They all perform the function of (unspecified - X) There is no difference to native speakers who grew up bilingually knowing English between the three. It is the same in English Any/every/some when compounded serve the same function. Any-thing, every-thing, some-thing (out of all the things it could be it is unspecified) same with any-car, some-car, every-car. In English there are meaning differences to the three words, but not functional differences.

To say something and to say a car is not saying close to the same thing. It has nothing to do with the categorical scope of carness. Something referrs to something unspecified. It cannot represent a car. Even if it is a car it cannot represent it.

Someone has a toy car behind their back.
A) "What's that you're hiding?"
B) "Something"

Even if the both people know it is a car, something refers to unspecified. the same goes for nothing, nobody, nowhere. Which just become the negativized unspecified.

Someone has a toy car behind their back.
A) "What's that you're hiding?"
B) "nothing"

Being unspecified it cannot represent a particular thing, idea, concept other than unspecified (X) or the non-specified in the case of things fixed with -no-.
So to ask questions like is everything one thing, or does nowhere exist etc... is a functional misunderstanding of the usage of the terms. It takes the word out of any real context and misdefines their usage by isolating them, thereby misdefining the isolated term as well.

Words cannot be categorized outside the context and function of their usage and remain relevent.

I get what you said alright, I just don´t happen to agree !

Can you give me an example of a specified referring word ? Specified up until where ? Where does it ends ? when you say "such car" you mean to represent some car a specific one, of course, but did you describe it with a word ? hell no ! That´s precisely why it is a symbol, a shortcut to something else and not a information clone...something, anything, everything, are no different...more or less specific does not mean really specific, but relatively specific...that is relatively to the questioners intent and cosmogony, or to the cultural common ground of a group of people.

Of course something anything and everything or nothing can relatively refer !
Is just up to a degree. In the case a very small one.
There are words that refer in a more clear (familiar) way. But even those only go so far...

1 - Anything, refers to one of the things there is. One with the property of being.
2 - Everything to them all as a group, a set. A set as One, a Unified result of what is.
3 - Nothing to the opposite of being, through the being...that which has to not be. ( a symbolic mind experience )

Now of course the common use of this words in context is about not being specific in relation to something. Something that we think to be clearly specified already and that we may not want to share or even to be able to describe...but is it so ?
That´s what is up for debate.

It is. Can you give me an example of common usage where it is not? As for the uncommon that is another story and one which really cannot be discussed without clarifying the parameters that make it uncommon.

That/this/those/these/here/there any demonstrative, personal, or proximal deictic these specified proforms.
This time
That thing
the thing
now
then

I'm sorry that you don't agree with how language works, but there must be categorical differences for it to work. The structure of language requires that some things not be on a continuum in order to differentiate between them. Granted many things have considerable overlap especially semantic domain categorization, which is what you are lumping these into. However the words discussed in these threads also serve and primarily serve a grammitcal function which if overlapped in a continuum like the oversimplified charicature of semantics you are painting would render language unintelligible.

Yeah

I see your point...but I think relativeness on concepts axis is precisely what renders them functional and operative...you are the one attributing them absolute different natures instead of a natural common ground.You bring up transcendences where there is none. A dangerous business !

All language, all words are representative of something up to a degree, that´s why they represent instead of being what they describe. Up to a degree !

Even Objects themselves which have "real" property´s, and have specific size and are able of relation with other objects cannot escape this condition of being relative when it comes to law´s of nature working their way in the World...and that´s the thing, they relate to be, they depend on the partner to whatever they are. You change the partner you change them...their weight, their orbit, even their inner characteristics and behaviour...and all that regarding the interferences that go on in the vicinity...just imagine Io the moon without Jupiter´s gravitational pull, how different would it be...

A moon can be big but it goes around a planet does n´it ? it goes around many other things in the galaxy, as many things go around it... A planet is a World but it revolves around the Sun...the Sun itself is a satellite in the Galaxy...An Atom can be in many respects considered a mini solar System...The Sun, the World, and the Moon, above all are concept and Idea as what distinguishes them can be defied to an extent...what they are is not for them alone "to say"but for what is around which makes them be what they are at T1 T2 or T3...
Now, Time is the means of relation but not its cause...and if things relate in the first place such is because they have the ability, an ability of precisely through the "other" to become something else themselves...

This is not about concepts and things, but about the things which are in the concepts, and the concepts of what things are...

Hi!

Or 'Y are all X'. Do you think. Same wordage in the sentence, only rearranged.

Mark...

Hi!

'Nature' For instance... Is it or is it not 'one thing'?

Mark...

I like you!!!

Hi Russ!

This is not relative to language, the use of or correctness.
It is about substance.

mark...