I was shown a paper that my brother had gotten off of a website and it was about Taoism. Now, I am not to educated in the subject at all, but took a look at one of the questions posed and gave my opinion as to what I thought the answer was:
If nothing has potential to be something is it really nothing?
I started to think of it like this:
0 = nothing (in mathematical terms)
0 has potential of being any number but let's keep it simple and say that 0 has the potential of being 1.
0 is still 0 and always will be 0 until the moment 1 is added to it.
If we rephrase the question using this logic it seems to answer itself:
If 0 has potential to be 1 is it really 0?
Of course it is still zero.
Then I started to think of the context they use it in. The "nothing" they question seems to be thought of as a tangible item. Just because we as humans define a space as nothing, does it mean it is in fact a thing- no. An area in space is obviously nothing, so why do we think it could be something just because we...
I think your suspicions that there's a confusion in the use of the word "nothing" is on the right track. You can get yourself into a bind -- and people have for millenia -- if you assume that every word, in order to be meaningful, must refer to something. Because then in order for the claim "There is nothing in that drawer" to make sense, it seems there really has to be something in the drawer. And now "nothing" seems as if it's referring to something after all -- maybe "emptiness", or "space", or what-have-you. For some more on this, see Question 49 .