There's a lot to think about in these last two posts.

Paul, I'm going to come back to your observations about being in two places at once. My elderly grey cells no longer hold on to as much information as they used to, so I have to rely to some extent on notes, which then have to be found!

Kirby, while I think we should try to avoid slipping into semantic wrangling, I agree on the importance of ensuring that we are all using words in a way that avoids confusion.

Originally Posted By: Kirby
the moment that you used the word “something” meant that it would exist.


Look again at the sentence you quoted. The "something" was something only at the point at which it obviously existed. The question could also be: "If something could become infinitely small, would it still be something?"

Personally, I think this is a redundant question, because I can see no way in which something of finite size can become infinitely small, or large.

Redewenur’s reasoning could also be re-worded to ask a slightly different question. E.g. If something reacts with other things, can it be infinitely small?

Quote:
This caused me to wonder if I could “up the ante” and declare that; if it was detectable then it exists.


I agree completely. Would you agree that you can turn this round the other way and say: if it exists it is detectable, at least theoretically?

There never was nothing.