Good post. I've been lurcking around some time but you made it worth for me to post ahah..

My interpretation for the nonduality is that it's a perpetual contradiction and thus we perceive with our minds, that has inherent limits, the duality of being and also concepts like infinite.

I am biased in this because I like Taoism and I define myself and what surrounds me by Taoist principles.

Picture this:

..I have nothing. When I have nothing, I have something.
With Duality, I have Time. With Time comes Infinity.
Infinity is in All. Infinity is Divinity.
So is One. One is All. All is None...
(All and None at the same time I find no name)

Hence the Tao is the unfathomable mystery.

When you join every object, particle, energy, concept, idea into one closed group.. everything. To define this group, be it infinite in content it has to be infinite in size. But what is outside its frontier, forever far? Might it be nothing? But if it is nothing then the group hasn't everything, so we put nothing there too. This is the unspeakable paradox, that leads to the conservation of infinity.. Also, if you put nothing in the group then there is nothing for everything to compare to. There are no boundaries, but our senses make them (again, paradox, conservation of infinity).

Answers:
1- Yes and no at the same time.
2- Yes and no at the same time.

Nothing(ness) only obtains relationally, in relation and contradistinction to (the extension of) matter. It's mistaken, of course, to think of it as a "thing that exists."

I have two questions:
1. Is nothing part of everything?
2. Nothing is something? — wax1232

Nothing is no thing. Null. Zero. Zilch. Empty. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Nothing plus nothing is nothing.

:D

1. No, "nothing" is the missing complement of everything.
2. No, of course not.

if it be nothing, I shall not need spectacles — Gloucester

_{Nothing (Wikipedia)
Nothingness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)}

Wait, @Bitter Crank, except according to some theologians, their deity can do the impossible, creatio ex nihilo.
So much for the old metaphysical thesis, nihil fit ex nihilo, I guess.
It may be sort of wrong anyway, after a fashion, e.g. the zero-energy universe, expansion of the universe.

I have two questions:
1. Is nothing part of everything?
2. Nothing is something?

Hi

Following Plato, I think everything can be otherwise than what it is, that 'nothing' means something other or different from what is referenced, and it thereby eludes Parmenides prohibition: "Never shall this be proved that things that are not are, but keep back thy thoughts from this way of inquiry"

Whereas we have not merely shown that things that are not, are, but we have brought to light the real character of 'not being'. We have shown that the nature of the different has existence and is parceled out over the whole field of existent things with reference to one another, and of every part of it that is set in contrast to that which is; we have dared to say that precisely that is really that 'which is not'

The question about this thread is:

Is nothing of nothing everything?

Do these words really correspond to some kind of fixed metaphysical entities about which we can attain certain and/or useful knowledge? In my view, this kind of "word math" is a poor substitute for actual math. I do understand the esthetic appeal, however, of concepts like being and nothingness. I do think that some discussions involving "being" and "nothing" make for good "literature."

I do think that some discussions involving "being" and "nothing" make for good "literature." — visit0r

Not if the author has NOTHING on the ball.

Nothing makes sense. Something is wrong.

True. It's a hard trick to pull off. Usually the being-and-nothing talk translates into platitude or absurdity.

1. No, "nothing" is the missing complement of everything.
2. No, of course not. — jorndoe

... from a logical point of view.

It is the same thing, isn‘t it? :)

I have two questions:
1. Is nothing part of everything?
2. Nothing is something? — wax1232

For me nothing is pure, unfettered potential. The infinite possibilities it represents is awe-inspiring. From depressed viruses to clownish Gods - anything, everything is a possibility.

1. Is nothing part of everything? — wax1232

Nothing is simple lack: "Do you have two dollars on you?" "No, I don't."

To say that nothing is a subset of everything is to ignore the context of the word "everything", or even the word "something".

Richard Feynman pointed out that the nothing of physics is not to be confused with the philosopher's nothing. That (in mind if not entirely understood) adds some clarity. The philosopher can say anything he wants about nothing, taking care not to violate logic, unless intentionally. Nothing, then, is a concept, a tool, that when abused becomes nonsense, or part of a game or "language on a holiday."

For the scientist nothing is absolutely something, and a subject of scientific inquiry.

Well put!

'Nothing' is impossible, equally so is 'something'. This double negative ensures a positive, and everything exists in a state of flux, within the fulcrum. A fuller explanation may be found at www.samuelviii.com

There is no referent of to the word "nothing" no relation between its expression and an entity in the real world to which it refers. "nothing"'s sense is its relations to other expressions in the language system. It has sense but no referent in real world.

That's because there is no nothing entity, it's impossible.