[stareatgoats]

Very clever. A whole article (book?) could no doubt be devoted to that logical trick; how a seemingly reasonable argument can lead to such absurd conclusions.

Maybe it was covered in the article, which I didn't read yet (either?). I might have to though, because it touches on a subject which interests me more and more; that of language, perception and meaning vs reality. For example, in the case of "nothing" I would propose that it has a meaning in everyday language that doesn't make it into the dictionaries or thesauri: that it partly means (or can mean) that which has not been discovered yet.

This type of definition differs from a strict logical definition (in which nothing would mean absolutely nothing, void, emptiness, non-existence). Much confusion can be had from mixing the logic of language (terms that are logical/mathematical in nature if you will), with meaning, which is has to be the essence of language.