Nothing vs. Something

I've noticed a pattern whenever the subject of "nothing" comes up. Whenever somebody talks about "nothing," there'll be somebody else who is quick to point out that they are treating "nothing" as if it were "something." Then the person who brought up "nothing" will say they were misunderstood. After that, it's like chess. Once the predictable openings are played, it can go in a variety of different directions.

I think there are two reasons this same "opening" keeps happening in coversations about "nothing." One reason is because of a difficulty in language. It's hard to talk about "nothing" in a way that doesn't sound like you're implying that it's "something." After all, it's a word that presumably has some meaning, but as soon as you start attaching meaning to it, it appears as if you're attributing properties to it. If "nothing" has properties, then it's "something." So it's hard to talk about "nothing" without sounding like you're talking about "something." That's one reason.

Another reason (which is almost the same reason) is that "nothing" is equivocal. Consider this argument:

• Lima beans are better than nothing
• Nothing is better than beef fajitas
• Therefore, lima beans are better than beef fajitas

The first use of "nothing" means "not having anything," and the second use of "nothing" means, "no other thing." This equivocation between two different uses of "nothing" results in the bizarre claim that lima beans are better than beef fajitas.

Another reason is because of a lack of charity. People are quick to jump on the most uncharitable interpretation of what the other person says because it's easier to refute a strawman than the substance of their position. I see this happen all the time where somebody expresses something inarticulately, then the other person will pounce on the inprecision of their wording instead of really dealing with the substance of what they are saying. Actually, now that I think about it, I've probably done that myself.

I don't think anybody (except maybe Lawrence Krauss) thinks that "nothing" is actually "something." So when somebody speaks about "nothing" as if it were "something," I think the best thing to do is give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there's an imprecision in their wording. Instead of pouncing on them and pointing out the flaw of treating "nothing" as if it were "something," it's better to ask them for clarification. I'm willing to bet that with the exception of Lawrence Krauss, you'll find that they don't actually think "nothing" is "something." So if it appears to you that somebody is treating "nothing" as if it were "something," and the person you're talking to is not Lawrence Krauss, you're probably misundertsanding them. So instead of pouncing, take a step back and try to get some clarification.