Everything is Not a Thing

[Consul]

Given the wide ranging set of definitions for the word "THING" your statement is false.
"everything" does comply with several point of definition here...

thing
[θɪŋ]
NOUN
…

Yes, the word "thing" has many meanings. For example, the German dictionary by the Brothers Grimm lists the following Latin terms as possible meanings of "Ding" (= "thing"): ens, res, substantia, aliquid, causa, judicium, forum, conventus, status, opes, persona.

Whether it is true that everything is not a thing depends on which meaning is used, and it also depends on the chosen domain of quantification of the universal quantifier "everything": Does "everything" refer only to existent things, or to both existent things and nonexistent ones. (In the former case, "Everything exists" is necessarily true; and in the latter case it is false.)

* If "thing" means "something" ("aliquid"), then "Everything is not a thing" means "Everything is not something/anything" = "Everything is nothing". What does "being nothing" mean? It means "being identical to nothing" or "having no essence/nature/Sosein".
Every existent thing is surely identical to something, and it also has some essence/nature/Sosein. Whether this is true of every nonexistent thing as well is a contentious issue among philosophers. Alexius Meinong is famous for having argued that a thing's Sosein (essence) is independent of its Dasein (existence), and there are philosophers who argue that nonexistent things are still self-identical.

* If thing means "entity" ("ens"), then it is false that everything is not a thing, because all existent things (at least) are entities of some kind or other.

* If "thing" means "res" in the narrow ontological sense of substance ("substantia") or object, then "Everything is not a thing" means "Everything is not an object/substance" = "Everything belongs to some ontological category other than <object> or <substance>". Whether this is true is a contentious issue among ontologists.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not being "real"is the same as not existing.


But everything is a construct like a dragon. You can talk about them but not see them.
Everything is a thing exactly like a dragon and are you going to pretend that a dragon is not a thing?

1. Fantasy characters exist as thoughts. If the thought of the fantasy characters exists then the fantasy characters exist as thoughts.

2. What is the construct of a construct?

3. You can point to a dragon but you cannot point to everything.

No, you cannot point to a dragon or Gandalf.
Is thinking a thing?
Is a concept a thing?
Define thing!
Is a thing a thing?

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

A thing is a part or individual. Considering everything, i.e. the totality, contains only itself it is without comparison and without comparison it is not a thing; it is not a part because nothing is beyond it, it is not an individual as an individual is relative to other individuals. It is neither one nor many.

[Eodnhoj7]

Physicality is existence. Imagination is the function of an energy form which is intangible, just as the product of imagination is intangible, until it is made objectively manifest in the world.

The imagination occurs through the tangible functions of the brain thus the imagination is tangible.

[Eodnhoj7]

Everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything.

That's an unsound argument. If "everything" refers to the mereological sum of all things, then it is a thing itself; and it doesn't matter for its thinghood that there is no thing which is distinct from it in the sense of not overlapping with it. (Mereological overlap is the sharing of parts—such that if x and y overlap, there is some z which is part both of x and of y.)

The sum of all things is without comparison and comparison is necessary for thingness, i.e. form, to occur. We know 'the sum of all things', i.e. 'the totality' or 'everything, is without comparison for if it did compare then it would not be everything as something would be beyond it.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no such thing as an independent existence, a thing is simply a sense of locality, and yet, everything is in motion as subjectively known.

The totality is independent.

[Eodnhoj7]

What things are distinct? I think we can agree that things like forests, humans, planets are not distinct. They interact with what is around them and also inside them and have fuzzy boundaries. But at the quantum level, pretty much every thing has these issues.

Thingness is distinction.

First of all, as for the concept of distinctness: Two things can be distinct in the sense of being numerically different/non-identical; and they can be distinct in the sense of not overlapping mereologically, i.e. of not sharing any parts—or, if the things in question are sets, in the sense of being disjoint set-theoretically, i.e. of not sharing any members.

Mereological distinctness and set-theoretical distinctness entail numerical difference, but numerical difference doesn't entail mereological distinctness or set-theoretical distinctness.
For example, my head and my body are two numerically different things; but they are not mereologically distinct, because they overlap by having a part in common, viz. my head. (It is a mereological axiom that everything is part of itself; so my head is part both of itself and of my body, which means that my head and my body overlap.)

As for the ontological possibility of vague things (objects), I think there is no such thing as ontological vagueness, because vagueness is just a matter of semantics, of semantic imprecision or "semantic indecision":

"The only intelligible account of vagueness locates it in our thought and language. The reason it's vague where the outback begins is not that there's this thing, the outback, with imprecise borders; rather there are many things, with different borders, and nobody has been fool enough to try to enforce a choice of one of them as the official referent of the word 'outback'. Vagueness is semantic indecision."

(Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. p. 212)

"I doubt that I have any correct conception of a vague object. How, for instance, shall I think of an object that is vague in its spatial extent? The closest I can come is to superimpose three pictures. There is the multiplicity picture, in which the vague object gives way to its many precisifications, and the vagueness of the object gives way to differences between precisifications. There is the ignorance picture, in which the object has some definite but secret extent. And there is the fadeaway picture, in which the presence of the object admits of degree, in much the way that the presence of a spot of illumination admits of degree, and the degree diminishes as a function of the distance from the region where the object is most intensely present. None of the three pictures is right. Each one in its own way replaces the alleged vagueness of the object by precision. But if I cannot think of a vague object except by juggling these mistaken pictures, I have no correct conception."

(Lewis, David. "Many, but Almost One." 1993. Reprinted in: David Lewis, Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, 164-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p. 170)

You are making distinctions about distinctions thus leaving 'distinction' vague as it has a multiplicity of meanings.

To "have no correct conception of a vague object" is in itself a vague object as it can mean just about anything.

[popeye1945]

There is no such thing as an independent existence, a thing is simply a sense of locality, and yet, everything is in motion as subjectively known.

The totality is independent.

Totality is not a thing.

[popeye1945]

Physicality is existence. Imagination is the function of an energy form which is intangible, just as the product of imagination is intangible, until it is made objectively manifest in the world.

The imagination occurs through the tangible functions of the brain thus the imagination is tangible.

You are mistaken, do you believe thought is tangible, tangible generally means substance, physicality as in objects, or things. Do you also believe that a feeling is tangible?

[popeye1945]

There is no such thing as an independent existence, a thing is simply a sense of locality, and yet, everything is in motion as subjectively known.

The totality is independent.

Totality is not a thing. With totality there is nothing to be independent from it just is.

[Sculptor]

1. Fantasy characters exist as thoughts. If the thought of the fantasy characters exists then the fantasy characters exist as thoughts.

2. What is the construct of a construct?

3. You can point to a dragon but you cannot point to everything.

No, you cannot point to a dragon or Gandalf.
Is thinking a thing?
Is a concept a thing?
Define thing!
Is a thing a thing?

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

[popeye1945]

No, you cannot point to a dragon or Gandalf.
Is thinking a thing?
Is a concept a thing?
Define thing!
Is a thing a thing?

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

A thing is a localized energy form, or localized compound of energy forms to form a new thing and a subjective experience of a conscious subject.

[Sculptor]

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

A thing is a localized energy form, or localized compound of energy forms to form a new thing and a subjective experience of a conscious subject.

A thing is a mental construct, bounded by interest, is more accurate to say I think.

[Belinda]

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

A thing is a localized energy form, or localized compound of energy forms to form a new thing and a subjective experience of a conscious subject.

I agree with Popeye that "totality" is not a thing, however I'd rather call that which is not differentiated "absolute".

I can point to a dragon by describing it in words, in a picture, or in a map. My index finger is irrelevant when I am transmitting a concept. I can even teach my dog how to react to the word 'dragon'. My dog has several adored Gandalf lookalikes in his life.

The social utility of the concepts of dragon, or of Gandalf, is a separate issue.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no such thing as an independent existence, a thing is simply a sense of locality, and yet, everything is in motion as subjectively known.

The totality is independent.

Totality is not a thing.

The totality is without compare thus independent, its is both thing and no-thing, 1 and 0...a contradiction. To be independent is to be singular, it does not require a relationship nor an absence of relationship, it is the same as saying "just one" or "one". However the contradiction goes further as there being only 'one' is there being nothing as the 'only one' is without the comparison necessary for form thus 'the one' is 'no-thing' as it is without form.

[Eodnhoj7]

Physicality is existence. Imagination is the function of an energy form which is intangible, just as the product of imagination is intangible, until it is made objectively manifest in the world.

The imagination occurs through the tangible functions of the brain thus the imagination is tangible.

You are mistaken, do you believe thought is tangible, tangible generally means substance, physicality as in objects, or things. Do you also believe that a feeling is tangible?

Thoughts occur through the brain and as such are tangible. An example of this can be pulled from my real life experience. I have a neighbor who runs a business. She used math in this business. She developed brain cancer, had surgery, recovered but now she cannot do math.