This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 8. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Any suggestions about how to improve this article? I mean what about nonbeing, Heidegger's nihil and nihilating ("the nothing nothings") from Being and Time, etc.? Nothing in art? Should it talk about nobody and no one? Pop culture, as in The Nothing in The NeverEnding Story? Psyphics 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To improve article please also consider:
Please consider adding a reference to the artist Ray Johnson (Inventor of Mail Art, etc.) who refered to his performance art work as "a nothing" He might say " I am going to do [a] nothing" in such a way as to confuse if he was doing nothing or doing "a nothing". Much of his work has O or 0 in it: the nothingness within a b00k, the eyes of the bunny, and also the 0 of the symbol of Black Mountain College where he studied, etc.
68.253.111.180 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Thanks
Shouldn't this be marked as a stub? compare to the french article for néant. That is a thorough article from it's philosophical implications to it's usage in art.
Do the quotes really belong here? This isn't Wikiquote, perhaps they should be moved there. ArbiterOne 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is something not in anything, but always in nothing. Ananya Sengupta
This article does not cite any references or sources. References to nothing? There are an infinite number of URL's for that...
12.197.112.117 (
talk)
04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.belkin-gallery.ubc.ca/rayjohnson/images/artwork/Ray%20Johns%20Nothing.jpg Here is an image of a Ray Johnson Nothing. http://www.rayjohnsonestate.com/images/contentindex_rjbunny.jpg This one includes an image of Johnson with part of the bunny image with the 0 for eyes and gives the nothing feel as well
68.253.111.180 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks
The 'Could we have a picture?' comment belongs on the discussion page, so I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone and start the discussion as well.
Philosophically speaking, it's impossible to have a picture of nothing because - as the article describes - this would make it something. Even a blank black or white box would be something. Might I suggest a picture of one of the more prominent philosophers in the field of metaphysics, at least to make the article look more interesting? Sartre might be a starting point.
-- 88.110.203.90 17:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (psyk0, who is having trouble logging in today)
Well, you could link to a picture that doesn't exist, maybe. That'd be quite fitting I think.
172.143.221.71
20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
But a black hole is a VERY powerful vaccum with light surrounding it, so it is indeed something FinalWish 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
it should be a empty box with the word nothing in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 ( talk) 23:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't saying that "Nothing is a state" and "Nothing is a lack" reifying nothing? Maybe not reifying nothing, but definitely confusing it. Nothing is not anything. A "lack" and a "state" are both something. Simply speaking, nothing is not. Psyphics 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This page deserves to be featured at some point in the future.
"Nothing" may be the most mysterious of all intellectual concepts. We literally cannot even imagine "nothing".
I've thought about the concept for many years. The concept seems to be linked to the ultimate question of why is there something instead of nothing, of the question do we cease to exist after we die, and to the questions about whether God exists and what reality is.
No joke.
Well, if there is nothing, we cannot imagine it since we are something. Also, it is only possible for us to exist in something, because we are something and if we existed in nothing it would turn into nothing-except-us, and since we're something, it would turn into nothing-except-for-somethiing, which would equal to something, so it would turn to something from nothing. Besides, it is also impossible for us to imagine ourselves in nothing because we would be doing something, thus transforming the nothing imagined into something. Slartibartfast1992 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Without something, the existence of nothing would be difficult to prove.
There's nothing more I can add.
Twang
06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-_...thought exists in the nothingness but not in the emptiness. The mind tunnels through the emptiness,like an electron in quantum mechanics, void of thought it spontaneously exists in the emptiness conscious of becoming existent. rk 10/21/06
Excuse me for using your space Twang, this virtual reality is new to me rk
The section talking about nothing being the "definition of existence" is a bunch of self-promotion by some Nolan Aljaddou, and ought to be deleted. -Mario
Omicronpersei8,
I find no reason for you to have made this deletion. Neither did you provide a reason, suggesting not only ignorance of Wikipedia's reverting procedure, but also the possibility of a personal attack. Please respond by listing and linking to the exact URL (or URL and anchor) of the infraction you allege that I committed.
UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uberkuh ( talk • contribs) .
Jim's attitude is fine. You've been told why your link won't be staying and which policies it violates. If you want to argue the policies, do so at their respective pages. Recury 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So, UberKuh has requested mediation. I'd like to remind everyone that I am not a Wiki official and that whatever happens at the end of this mediation is non-binding. I'd like to get the two sides talking at a rational level.
Omicron, when you edited out UK's link, you probably should have given a reason in your edit summary, even if it went along the lines of 'vanity' or 'removing spam link' or something of the sort. Giving a reason actually seems like much less of a dismissal than having no viable edit summary.
UK, please recognize that the removal of ANY EDIT, no matter what it is, does not constitute a personal attack. Please do not take people changing your edits personally. Personal attacks are much more directed. I've been on the end of quite a few of them myself, check my talk page for some examples and compare them to what has been happening here. Also, I have to tell you that, as a third party, it appears as though Jim was only trying to help you and answer your question in this situation. Remember to Assume Good Faith.
All that being said, your dispute in this situation revolves around a 'potentially unwarranted removal of a link' and the 'dismissal of an entire medium'. Blogs can be cited on Wikipedia as secondary (and sometimes as primary) sources for articles. For instance, if Casey Stratton were to post something on his blog pertaining to his life, it would warrant inclusion in his article (his article actually links to his official website and blog, I believe). This is, at its heart, because he is considered an expert on his life (this goes without saying). So, your wish to include the link to your blog needs to be justified by your expertise. I am going to assume nothing, and am going to ask if you can confirm expertise in the field of philosophy or mathematics (etc) that would merit citing you in this article as an external link. This is not asking you to 'defend' yourself, but rather, to defend your edit in the light of the Wiki policies that have been cited against its inclusion.
I'll ask the other editors in the dispute to cool down a bit and not give any snap responses to anything UK might say. I hope we can reach a mutual understanding here. CaveatLector Talk 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the two tags to the article because 1) the article is unsourced -- a no-no according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and 2) a lot of the article needs to be either expounded upon or cut as pseudo-philosophy. -- Psyphics Ψ Φ 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is not quite good enough. We don't have enough information and we dont have any more nothings.
What else can we add to nothing? I think that we can at least add something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runescape dud ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
What protection is this, is it semi or fully, I'm not 3 days new yet :) Rock2e 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"This page is either protected or semi-protected. If the page is fully protected, only administrators can edit it; if it is semi-protected, only established registered users can edit it. Why some pages are protected Discuss this page with others; on that page, you can request an edit by adding {{editprotected}} with a reason for the request You may request unprotection You may sign in if you have not done so already You can view and copy the source of this page:
This doesn't actually say anything about which one it is, it's probably different to you because you can edit it, can you put
{{sprotected}}
on it please-- User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Root: Can you supply proof that the ASCII characters NULL, " " and "0" are in fact the same? 1Z 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This was the original sentence.
It was more of a misunderstanding of the reading. I literally read "zero" character as the '\0' character or character with numeric value 0, not the character representing the Arabic numeral 0, which is the '0' character, having some numeric value I don't remember. The null character IS the '\0' character, and saying the null character and '\0' were distinct was nonsensical. Of course, we haven't even touched Unicode, but I assume its more or less set up the same way in languages such as C. Your last edit better explains the situation, which of course I agree. Thanks. Sorry for the little edit skirmish ;-) Root4( one) 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"In one old joke, if nothing is worse than the Devil, and nothing is greater than God, then the Devil must be greater than God:
Devil > (nothing), (nothing) > God
Devil > (nothing) > God
Devil > God"
I think that this joke might be a bit offensive to some people and is not really necessary to the article, And that is why I am deleating it, but is some what amusing. Sorry!
Tobi is a good boy
00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I enjoyed your joke :) Hitherebrian ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
much ado about nothing. is this where we come to talk about nothing? - 76.27.231.192 ( talk) 15:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (i can't recover my password) >.<
this is very funny, I'd keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 ( talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why does "arguments for the existence of God" link to this page (instead of linking to "Existence of God")? Is someone trying to be funny? (Note that this only occurs if "god" is uncapitalised, which is how most people do searches, even if they mean "God".) Paulgear ( talk) 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In the Science section, it is written: "... Dark Matter; a collective substance which is referred to as being an anti-matter and having no mass." This is, as far as I know, nothing that we know about. Dark Matter is probably not anti-matter, see Dark matter. -- 193.11.220.75 ( talk) 22:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Nothing" exists because we have thought about it. Any existance is substance (whether thought or matter)and therefore is something which negates the true existance of Nothing. Further, if we truly live in a finite universe, it would seem that even outside the confines of the Birth and Death of our known universe, "Nothing" still cannot exist. Certainly No-thing of matter could not exist, but what about non-matter (truth, justice, philosophy, love - knowledge) whose existence would again negate pure Nothing? It would seem that all of existance must never have been. Theology would inject that The Creator has existant something from Nothing (hebrew "bara" - including matter and non-matter)). If this be true, then The Creator's existance truly negates Nothing. I guess the question could be: Can the finite understand the infinite? I certainly can not, but it interesting to think about. BCKenai ( talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 8. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Any suggestions about how to improve this article? I mean what about nonbeing, Heidegger's nihil and nihilating ("the nothing nothings") from Being and Time, etc.? Nothing in art? Should it talk about nobody and no one? Pop culture, as in The Nothing in The NeverEnding Story? Psyphics 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To improve article please also consider:
Please consider adding a reference to the artist Ray Johnson (Inventor of Mail Art, etc.) who refered to his performance art work as "a nothing" He might say " I am going to do [a] nothing" in such a way as to confuse if he was doing nothing or doing "a nothing". Much of his work has O or 0 in it: the nothingness within a b00k, the eyes of the bunny, and also the 0 of the symbol of Black Mountain College where he studied, etc.
68.253.111.180 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Thanks
Shouldn't this be marked as a stub? compare to the french article for néant. That is a thorough article from it's philosophical implications to it's usage in art.
Do the quotes really belong here? This isn't Wikiquote, perhaps they should be moved there. ArbiterOne 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is something not in anything, but always in nothing. Ananya Sengupta
This article does not cite any references or sources. References to nothing? There are an infinite number of URL's for that...
12.197.112.117 (
talk)
04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.belkin-gallery.ubc.ca/rayjohnson/images/artwork/Ray%20Johns%20Nothing.jpg Here is an image of a Ray Johnson Nothing. http://www.rayjohnsonestate.com/images/contentindex_rjbunny.jpg This one includes an image of Johnson with part of the bunny image with the 0 for eyes and gives the nothing feel as well
68.253.111.180 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks
The 'Could we have a picture?' comment belongs on the discussion page, so I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone and start the discussion as well.
Philosophically speaking, it's impossible to have a picture of nothing because - as the article describes - this would make it something. Even a blank black or white box would be something. Might I suggest a picture of one of the more prominent philosophers in the field of metaphysics, at least to make the article look more interesting? Sartre might be a starting point.
-- 88.110.203.90 17:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (psyk0, who is having trouble logging in today)
Well, you could link to a picture that doesn't exist, maybe. That'd be quite fitting I think.
172.143.221.71
20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
But a black hole is a VERY powerful vaccum with light surrounding it, so it is indeed something FinalWish 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
it should be a empty box with the word nothing in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 ( talk) 23:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't saying that "Nothing is a state" and "Nothing is a lack" reifying nothing? Maybe not reifying nothing, but definitely confusing it. Nothing is not anything. A "lack" and a "state" are both something. Simply speaking, nothing is not. Psyphics 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This page deserves to be featured at some point in the future.
"Nothing" may be the most mysterious of all intellectual concepts. We literally cannot even imagine "nothing".
I've thought about the concept for many years. The concept seems to be linked to the ultimate question of why is there something instead of nothing, of the question do we cease to exist after we die, and to the questions about whether God exists and what reality is.
No joke.
Well, if there is nothing, we cannot imagine it since we are something. Also, it is only possible for us to exist in something, because we are something and if we existed in nothing it would turn into nothing-except-us, and since we're something, it would turn into nothing-except-for-somethiing, which would equal to something, so it would turn to something from nothing. Besides, it is also impossible for us to imagine ourselves in nothing because we would be doing something, thus transforming the nothing imagined into something. Slartibartfast1992 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Without something, the existence of nothing would be difficult to prove.
There's nothing more I can add.
Twang
06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-_...thought exists in the nothingness but not in the emptiness. The mind tunnels through the emptiness,like an electron in quantum mechanics, void of thought it spontaneously exists in the emptiness conscious of becoming existent. rk 10/21/06
Excuse me for using your space Twang, this virtual reality is new to me rk
The section talking about nothing being the "definition of existence" is a bunch of self-promotion by some Nolan Aljaddou, and ought to be deleted. -Mario
Omicronpersei8,
I find no reason for you to have made this deletion. Neither did you provide a reason, suggesting not only ignorance of Wikipedia's reverting procedure, but also the possibility of a personal attack. Please respond by listing and linking to the exact URL (or URL and anchor) of the infraction you allege that I committed.
UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uberkuh ( talk • contribs) .
Jim's attitude is fine. You've been told why your link won't be staying and which policies it violates. If you want to argue the policies, do so at their respective pages. Recury 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So, UberKuh has requested mediation. I'd like to remind everyone that I am not a Wiki official and that whatever happens at the end of this mediation is non-binding. I'd like to get the two sides talking at a rational level.
Omicron, when you edited out UK's link, you probably should have given a reason in your edit summary, even if it went along the lines of 'vanity' or 'removing spam link' or something of the sort. Giving a reason actually seems like much less of a dismissal than having no viable edit summary.
UK, please recognize that the removal of ANY EDIT, no matter what it is, does not constitute a personal attack. Please do not take people changing your edits personally. Personal attacks are much more directed. I've been on the end of quite a few of them myself, check my talk page for some examples and compare them to what has been happening here. Also, I have to tell you that, as a third party, it appears as though Jim was only trying to help you and answer your question in this situation. Remember to Assume Good Faith.
All that being said, your dispute in this situation revolves around a 'potentially unwarranted removal of a link' and the 'dismissal of an entire medium'. Blogs can be cited on Wikipedia as secondary (and sometimes as primary) sources for articles. For instance, if Casey Stratton were to post something on his blog pertaining to his life, it would warrant inclusion in his article (his article actually links to his official website and blog, I believe). This is, at its heart, because he is considered an expert on his life (this goes without saying). So, your wish to include the link to your blog needs to be justified by your expertise. I am going to assume nothing, and am going to ask if you can confirm expertise in the field of philosophy or mathematics (etc) that would merit citing you in this article as an external link. This is not asking you to 'defend' yourself, but rather, to defend your edit in the light of the Wiki policies that have been cited against its inclusion.
I'll ask the other editors in the dispute to cool down a bit and not give any snap responses to anything UK might say. I hope we can reach a mutual understanding here. CaveatLector Talk 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the two tags to the article because 1) the article is unsourced -- a no-no according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and 2) a lot of the article needs to be either expounded upon or cut as pseudo-philosophy. -- Psyphics Ψ Φ 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is not quite good enough. We don't have enough information and we dont have any more nothings.
What else can we add to nothing? I think that we can at least add something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runescape dud ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
What protection is this, is it semi or fully, I'm not 3 days new yet :) Rock2e 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"This page is either protected or semi-protected. If the page is fully protected, only administrators can edit it; if it is semi-protected, only established registered users can edit it. Why some pages are protected Discuss this page with others; on that page, you can request an edit by adding {{editprotected}} with a reason for the request You may request unprotection You may sign in if you have not done so already You can view and copy the source of this page:
This doesn't actually say anything about which one it is, it's probably different to you because you can edit it, can you put
{{sprotected}}
on it please-- User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Root: Can you supply proof that the ASCII characters NULL, " " and "0" are in fact the same? 1Z 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This was the original sentence.
It was more of a misunderstanding of the reading. I literally read "zero" character as the '\0' character or character with numeric value 0, not the character representing the Arabic numeral 0, which is the '0' character, having some numeric value I don't remember. The null character IS the '\0' character, and saying the null character and '\0' were distinct was nonsensical. Of course, we haven't even touched Unicode, but I assume its more or less set up the same way in languages such as C. Your last edit better explains the situation, which of course I agree. Thanks. Sorry for the little edit skirmish ;-) Root4( one) 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"In one old joke, if nothing is worse than the Devil, and nothing is greater than God, then the Devil must be greater than God:
Devil > (nothing), (nothing) > God
Devil > (nothing) > God
Devil > God"
I think that this joke might be a bit offensive to some people and is not really necessary to the article, And that is why I am deleating it, but is some what amusing. Sorry!
Tobi is a good boy
00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I enjoyed your joke :) Hitherebrian ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
much ado about nothing. is this where we come to talk about nothing? - 76.27.231.192 ( talk) 15:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (i can't recover my password) >.<
this is very funny, I'd keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 ( talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why does "arguments for the existence of God" link to this page (instead of linking to "Existence of God")? Is someone trying to be funny? (Note that this only occurs if "god" is uncapitalised, which is how most people do searches, even if they mean "God".) Paulgear ( talk) 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In the Science section, it is written: "... Dark Matter; a collective substance which is referred to as being an anti-matter and having no mass." This is, as far as I know, nothing that we know about. Dark Matter is probably not anti-matter, see Dark matter. -- 193.11.220.75 ( talk) 22:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Nothing" exists because we have thought about it. Any existance is substance (whether thought or matter)and therefore is something which negates the true existance of Nothing. Further, if we truly live in a finite universe, it would seem that even outside the confines of the Birth and Death of our known universe, "Nothing" still cannot exist. Certainly No-thing of matter could not exist, but what about non-matter (truth, justice, philosophy, love - knowledge) whose existence would again negate pure Nothing? It would seem that all of existance must never have been. Theology would inject that The Creator has existant something from Nothing (hebrew "bara" - including matter and non-matter)). If this be true, then The Creator's existance truly negates Nothing. I guess the question could be: Can the finite understand the infinite? I certainly can not, but it interesting to think about. BCKenai ( talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |