The Complexity of Nothingness

The discussion centers on the philosophical idea that treating nothing as a thing rather than as not anything may lead to confusion, particularly in the interpretation of Leibniz's statement about nothing being simpler than something. It is suggested that Leibniz might be indicating that the hypothesis of nothing existing is simpler than the hypothesis of something existing, which encompasses an infinite array of possibilities. This viewpoint highlights that while the assertion of something existing involves numerous entities such as animals and celestial bodies, asserting that nothing exists presents a straightforward concept with no complexities. Therefore, the interpretation could shed light on Leibniz's ideas without contradicting the notion that treating nothing as a substantive entity is a fundamental mistake.