Gorgias was right

Something does not arise from nothing. What is not can never be what is. There is no nothing. No nothing, no destruction, no destruction, no generation, no generation, no change, no change, no becoming. Only Being.

kys

is nothing a thing or not a thing

If I said something different by saying 'nothing changes' as opposed to 'not a thing changes,' then I didn't mean it.

your intentions are irrelevant.

If what is meant by the saying and the meaning of what was said are different, why should someone not be allowed to divorce themselves from what was said?

>Something does not arise from nothing.
bold claim there, friend.
>What is not can never be what is.
What is not constantly comes into being.
>There is no nothing.
yes, and nothing is omnipresent
>No nothing, no destruction, no destruction, no generation, no generation, no change, no change, no becoming. Only Being.
mere myopia and is-ness-chauvanism.

>should

Why should I care what Hume thinks?

>bold claim there, friend.

Only if you're unwilling to accept that what is not is not what is. Everything else follows from there

"no man steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man"
"all flows"
-Heraclitus

that things can become other things is at least weak evidence that nothing can become something.

There is no such thing as nothing, it's merely a term we use to describe a division we make with our imperfect perception of reality. Everything is always changing, reality is made up of "fizzing" quantum particles, in a constant state of flux.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form

>Only Being
wrong. the fact of being necessitates the fact of non-being. They are mutually arising, yin and yang. the conflict and harmony between this mutual arising is the engine of all

More like something appears to "become" something else. Change is an illusion, and Heraclitus the hack cannot refute the fundamental postulate that what is not can never be what is. Language is unequipped to discuss the notion of "nothing", which leads you astray.

Indeed, there is no nothing. But the true implication of that is that there is only ever something, there was only ever something, and nothing is ever in flux. You know nothing of quantum mechanics btw

Whereof one cannot speak and so on

So nothing is nothing.

Nothing never "is". We cannot in any real sense describe it, because any time we try we're just assigning properties to something that is not. There is no nothing, and we cannot speak of it.

>Change is an illusion
wrong
>Language is unequipped to discuss the notion of "nothing", which leads you astray.
wrong again, it is your mind which is unequipped. Language is a perfect instrument.

>he's disputing the law of identity
this is the face of madness

Language is the most imperfect instrument there is. You cannot speak of nothing, because every time you try you're speaking as if it "is", when it clearly is not. No nothing, no change.

see
>You cannot speak of nothing
regardless of your mad beliefs we have been speaking of nothing throughout this whole thread. Say hello to your therapist for me.

Nothing has no identity. You may be speaking, but you're speaking nonsense. In fact, you're speaking of nothing at all

yet more madness

for the sake of us all, unrustle your jimmies

Stop reifying the nothing and turning into a thing and then pretending that's not what you're doing, in order to win an argument.

Heidegger did the same thing.

I am enjoying my life with solid, filled casks that don't leak. I do not think I would be happier if they had holes in them.

Because he is right.

>reading Gorgias's On Non-Being
>nothing exists, not even nothingness
oh shit, I'm in love

>Change is an illusion
even the illusion changes
how can this be if everything is actually constant?