Is there such a thing as no thing?

NO

since all things rely the existence of things

to the point of advanced life , thinking beings , contemplating this question

Hi!

Thanks to some of you for your predictable dribbling.
There is nevertheless a point to these questions.

If no-thing (nothing) cannot exist then EVERYTHING is 'physical' and 'physical' ONLY.

Ergo, what is perceived to be other than physical, i.e spiritual, emotional are simply labels for what is otherwise PHYSICAL, or, as concluded by these threads - does not exist!

Thank you - the few that actually dare to delve beneath the surface of what is tangible.

Hi Fil, long time no see!
Have a splendid everything!
Mark...

This is why your threads are of no value and what makes you an asshole.

What's this about dribble ?

At last North made a valid point. He indicated the requirement of "contemplation" as a necessary component of "existence". This is exactly Heidegger's point. And "physicality" is self evidently a conceptual issue involving a contemplator of the difference between "the physical" and "the non-physical".

As Aristotle pointed out, you have only two choices, assertion and denial, if you cannot apply these you can think no better than a veggie.
The two elemement metaphysics defines a thing as any material difference in any form. i.e. the two elements are matter and form. These are not things--nor can you predicate of them. I.e. cannot say that they exist or do not exist, all you can do with them is construct things.

I'm sure that what makes him an asshole is much more complicated than what has gone on in this thread. This is simply an example of assholery on display; the origin of the assholishness has yet to disclose itself. I mention this qualification only in the interest of correctly representing the ass-holisitic method.

This pun was brought to you by Scotch.

Substance is form...Matter or whatever other substance you want...
(Matter is just f´(x) nothing else...)

if it was the case, which it was n´t, that the question was not pertinent, then the natural consequence would be a consensus in the set of answers proposed so far...

...thus necessarily your "gayish" side comment on the Thread interest in relation to its author is not only false but also intentionally misleading...

...now I seriously wonder what drives you on this ?
Personnel for no reason ?
Or is it the case that you and others like you have nothing else to do with your time but ad hominems ?

...and this because I can tell you that, undoubtedly, I usually find 90% of the participants in any forum whatsoever, intellectually inferior to the minimum requirements to impose any effort on my reasoning axiology, and nevertheless, I rarely comment their methods if not in reply to their own stupidity towards other participants...

...the so called "neighbourhood kings" who have read half a dozen books in their petty life and that already can figure 2+2 are typically the worst kind around... they are the atavistic underdog task force of Institutional bureaucratic mediocrity, working in the interest of ubiquitous self serving goals...PH.D. Joe´s and Jack´s are everywhere...a bi-product of the western democratic naive utopianism.

...Nietzsche right down their heads and "karmas"is my best wish to them...

You know...Heidegger´s "Dasein" (being-there) is one of those expressions that wanting to convey it all ends up conveying nothing...

...it definitely does not address the existential absurdity of Man, but Man´s absurd reasoning !

...perspective without referents is like referents without perspective...transcendent stupidity !

that is the same as saying equal is not equal, since an environmental acquisition system can abstract either one or the other. i.e. there is none that know the thing itself.

Yes you are right...both are mutually conversable.

Yet:

∃ x: P(x) means there is at least one x such that P(x) is true.

Is it the case then that P=nP ?

I see that you never figured out that so called symbolic logic is a joke.
First symbolic logic is a tautology. Every logic uses symbols. Second every true logic rests upon a convention of names. Third, every logic is founded upon a two element metaphysics. The fact that you can only assert or deny should lead you to understand all logic as binary. We capitalize upon that through the use of a naming convention.
The foundation of symbolic logic., a logic of a logic, self referential fallacy.

The principles of grammar are the same for every logic system. The only differences is in one's ability to comprehend and preserve them.

Spend some time with Plato and Euclid--
Internet archive search johnclark8659

Whatever you say on Logic the assessment is still valid...
(I am not even a symbolic Logic fan...)

Given X, X has property´s !

Is not the case that you can sustain the phenomena without the thing...if you take out X you take (also) out meaning...

Yes, but according what your body tells you, and the definition of a thing, it has exactly two properties, or in other language, two elements, its form and the material difference in that form. Since we use multiple sense systems, we come up with a number of elements as determined by a particular abstraction system.

read Language and Experience.

I did the reading...

The justification is not in how I conversely describe a system but in the equivalence of such descriptions, regarding functions...

if P=nP is the case that nP is just P described in a different way...

Knowledge and Being are different issues.

Look at Chemistry...form is shaped by different quantity´s of "matter", and yet "matter" is itself a form...

...the difference between 1 and 2 is that 2 is just a "quantitative projection" of one itself in which fundamental qualification is redundant to it.

not true at all. Look at a table, is the surface of a table the wood of a table, or is the surface only a boundary between two different materials? Form and matter are not the same. These are the two elements from which we make the abstractions no difference, ie. true, or is or equal, and difference, not equal, not true. etc. Without a clear understanding of these elements, it is true what Plato, Aristotle, and every reasoner who plays with metaphysics says is true, you cannot reason at all.

The difference between two Chemical elements stands upon the number (quantity not quality) of electrons around a nucleus in a chain of Atoms...that is "language", is Form !

If you are willing you can do the conversion to binary code...yet bare in mind that zero is no thing...(maybe at best an "effect")

if to speculate:

...zero is probably a null function of one by one itself with different direction...+1 + -1 = 0