3. Nothing is longer than A

4. Nothing is shorter than C

11. Nothing is greater (in terms of nothingness) than nothing

if you're like most of us then what you'd be saying in your mind would be: "1 cm - C; 3 cm - B, 5 cm - A, 0.5 cm - nothing, 9 cm - nothing

What is wrong in saying "nothing is greater than nothing"? Is it not true that there can be nothing more nothing than nothing? Doesn't this amount to saying nothing is greater than nothing? Apply the same principle I did with the objects in the previous 2 paragraphs: nothing matches with nothing and a greater nothing would, again, match with nothing.

I would say this in my head, but I would not thereby mean that the state of nonexistence is 0.5 or 9 cm long, since the state of nonexistence cannot have a length. Rather, I would be thinking that "There is no object in the universe which is either 0.5 or 9 cm". — Alvin Capello

Consider the idea of nothing which for this discussion, and hopefully staying true to the meaning as intended in the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?", will simply mean the state of nonexistence. — TheMadFool

It seems to me the entire question of "why is there something rather than nothing" is just a result of a mistake in our reasoning. We tend to subconsciously reify categories and relational terms into ontological "things". In this case, we turned relative absence into it's own absolute thing "nothingness". — Echarmion

But you can just change the wording to ask, "Why does anything exist"? Which doesn't need to reference some ontological nothing. — Marchesk

to what would you assign, in the universe I described, lengths greater than 5 cm and less than 1 cm?

1. object A is the longest

2. Object C is the shortest

3. Nothing is longer than A

4. Nothing is shorter than C

Ergo, we can combine statements 3 and 4 as:

5. Nothing is longer than A which is longer than C which in turn is longer than nothing. In other words the following statement is true:

6. Nothing > A > C > Nothing (">" here means "longer than") — TheMadFool

No object in your universe has these lengths, so I would not assign them to anything. This doesn’t at all mean that I would assign them to the state of nonexistence. — Alvin Capello

May I remind you that a ham sandwich is better than nothing and nothing is better than God, therefore, a ham sandwich is better than god! Defining terms is not the only way to keep out of the pit of nonsense, but it's a start. — tim wood

If it's mandatory that each length be matched, the most logical option is to match both 0.5 cm and 9 cm to nothing. If you disagree then it is required of you to find something that matches these lengths and, of course, none exist.

I think this statement already highlights the problem with the notion of "nothing" as an ontological category. You can only meaningfully talk about the nonexistence of something. Nothing is always a relative term, denoting the relative absence of something, whose attributes we know.

It seems to me the entire question of "why is there something rather than nothing" is just a result of a mistake in our reasoning. We tend to subconsciously reify categories and relational terms into ontological "things". In this case, we turned relative absence into it's own absolute thing "nothingness". — Echarmion

As I explained above, you are equivocating on the use of the term ‘nothing.’ We can correctly say that these lengths match up to nothing in the quantificational sense, i.e. in the sense that no object possesses these lengths. But we cannot say that they match up to nothing in the ontological sense, i.e. in the sense that they match up to the state of nonexistence,

Do you not recognize these 2 very distinct senses of the word ‘nothing’? — Alvin Capello

You are still equivocating on the term 'nothing'. All I can do in response is to emphasize that I can only assign these to nothing in the quantificational sense, but not the ontological sense. Your argument conflates these 2 quite different meanings of the term — Alvin Capello

Again, I would assign these to nothing in the quantificational sense, i.e. in the sense that I would not assign them to anything. But I would not assign them to nothing in the ontological sense, i.e. nothingness considered as a state of nonexistence. Your argument crucially depends upon an equivocation of these senses.

I will repeat the question from above: Do you, or do you not, recognize these 2 very distinct senses of the term? — Alvin Capello

Kosher ham or not, like the song says: 'all you need is ham / ham is all you need' ... — 180 Proof

You're erroneously treating "nothing" as a rigid referrent.

Consider Propositions 3 and 4:
3. Nothing is longer than A
This means: For all x: x<=A

4. Nothing is shorter than C
This means: For all y: y>=C

y and x are two different variables, having no mathematical or logical relation between them. In your proof, you conflate them (in effect). — Relativist

Already salted, best with a bit of Coleman's, and as much Chardonnay as possible. — tim wood

Again, you are assigning these lengths to nothing in the quantificational sense, but not in the ontological sense.

To ask again, do you not recognize the distinction between these 2 senses of the term? — Alvin Capello