This looks like plain old common sense.
But lets look at this from a logical point of view.
If we take Occam's principle: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Twist it around a bit to get get: principles should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Take a few moments to absorb that last thought and then cast an eye over the next two definitions.
Def 1: nothing = no things and no principles.
Def 2: nothing = no things and the principle "you cannot get something from nothing".
The first question is: where did the "you can't get owt from nowt" rule come from? Is this a principle that belongs to logic or empiricism?
I say it is empirical.
The second question: is not def 1 a more minimal possibility than Def 2 and therefore closer to being absolute nothing.
I say it is.
Third question: Is Def 1 useful or is it just baloney?
I think it might be useful, would like to argue it is :2gun: , so is there anyone who thinks it is baloney and can give some reasons why? (If anyone can see a use for it that would be cool).
