YMS: “Nothing cannot be

YMS:
“Nothing cannot be actual, by definition.”
In which case, it can’t have a relation to anything that is actual (since it’s not a ‘it’), and nor can it ‘struggle’ with anything actual. At which point your dialectic stalls.
But you have a reply:
“All I can know is that Thing is distinct from No-Thing. Now, it might be that No-Thing is a thing, of some different variety, but the fact of difference exists, and that is sufficient. All things are struggling with un-being, as the entropic principle moves through the universe towards heat death. We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions.”
Well, I am still not too sure how something actual can ‘struggle’ with something not actual.
Sure, the universe is running down (so scientists tell us), but how does that show there is a ‘struggle’ going on here? Are atoms really struggling to stay atomic? And what form does this ‘struggle’ take? Are electrons slugging is out with protons (or is with positrons)?
“We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions”
This reads like yet more a priori dogmatics, and is therefore, as I have shown, non-sensical.
What do you mean by ‘Things in themselves’? I know this term has been bandied about since Kant dreamt it up, but it seems to me to be an empty word, like ‘Slithy Tove’ — and so, with all due respect, what you posted makes about as much sense as this.
“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.”
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
“Hardly metaphysical to say that everything is connected through common cause and (possibly) common substance. that’s mechanical. BTW, did you know taht, I think, every twentieth breath you take contains an oxygen molecule breathed in by Julius Caesar. he has touched you, and you have touched him. Across time, no less.”
Indeed, it is metyaphysical, since it purports to tell us about fundamental aspects of the universe that are way beyond any possibility of confirmation or disconfirmation — ad is based on no little speculation dressed up as popular science (of the sort that Cox is happy to pass of as solid sicience).
Your thought experiment about Julius Caesar, even if correct, hardly shows he has touched me — unless, of course, you are using the word ‘touched’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?
But, even if you are right, how does this show that regions of space and time that are outside our light cone are interconnected with us now?
“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once”
‘Could’ is not the same as ‘is’; you need to prove with evidence, not speculation, that light is everywhere at once.
But, even if it is, how does that show that everything is interconnected? That yawning chasm in your argument has yet to be filled.