Thread:Nuclearspook/@comment-77.126.88.135-20190204165315/@comment-38251655-20190204210137

A'ight... "The categories should be as general as possible". For thousands of years, scientists have tried to classify things by common properties. It's what we do... This has lead to things like the periodic table of elements (Dmitri Mendeleev), the binomial nomeclature (Carl von Linne) and bloody Wikipedia. For reference, Carl L and Dmitri M have 30+ categories on Wikipedia.

Categorizing stuff as "Thing" and "Not a thing" seems very general, even "as general as possible", but one could argue, not very useful. Also, the quantum physicists might throw a wrench in the works and argue that "Not a thing" is actually a "Thing", for very short durations. But we generally ignore quantum physicists because they don't exist unless they can prove it.

So... I'm drunk, and lost my train of thought. What were we talking about?