>>14296741>nothing is the negation of thingYou're onto something. I think it would be more precise that we talk first about the existence of things. "Things can exist." Where? Let's say in particular where, like "X" for every time we say something exists.
Otherwise if we talk about existence of things in general. Then even if something doesn't exist in real life, since we're talking about the thing, then it exists in our minds. Even if it doesn't exist in anyone's mind, then it may exist in another realm that nobody has discussed or we're not aware of, like I'm not aware of the existence of many things in other countries.
It is problematic to negate the existence of something in every "X" because, we're talking about it, thus it exists in our minds and the supposition it didn't exist anywhere was false.
Nothing for me is short of, "In X you will not find anything that you can find in a Y not equal to X, regardless of which Y you talk of." And since I have defined nothing, it exists as what I said, a short for a bigger thought process. I do not think that talking about X and Y's is unnecessary because of what I said earlier, without those places of existence we're kind of talking nonsense.
