Talk:Nothing/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: For that matter, there is John Cage's work 4'33", in which nothing is played.  (you just reminded me of that!)  Personally, I think John's work is more notable (at least more famous), although who knows, Ray's work may have notability here.  However, I'm not going to add your ref, you can hash it out with somebody later.  I think John Cage's work is certainly notable here, as that's probably the only famous work in which "Nothing" is actually played; the pianist remains silent. Root4(one) 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Do the quotes really belong here? This isn't Wikiquote, perhaps they should be moved there. ArbiterOne 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody responded to this and according to Wikipedia:what wikipedia is not, "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." If somebody can come up with a good reason for the quotes to be here, they can always go back up. Shadowoftime 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: 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)
replies: text: Not according to Google, ghits = 657,000,000 with our article number three. SpinningSpark 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something about Nothing 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about a black hole?  Nothing escapes a black hole.  :)  KSchutte 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rephrase? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  comment on nothing article 

message: Without something, the existence of nothing would be difficult to prove.
There's nothing more I can add.<BR>Twang 06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article 

message: 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. --PsyphicsΨΦ 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you should look at how much pseudo-philosophy there used to be here.  I think that we're going to have trouble finding an expert on nothing, so I'm going to remove that tag.  References, of course, are needed. --Strait 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it prior to the headings, and that was miserable.  Right now, it definitely needs sources.  --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and expert tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What else is included in nothing? 

message: What protection is this, is it semi or fully, I'm not 3 days new yet :)Rock2e 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says at the top when you try to edit the article, "This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it." So one more day or so. –Pomte 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it, for me, it says 
"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  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  on it please--User:Rock2e  Talk - Contribs  20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Root: Can you supply proof that the ASCII characters NULL, " " and "0" are in fact the same?
1Z 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In computing, the null character and the zero character are distinct;
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)

text: And looking at the history logs, I see I did indeed judge in haste, as it appears the current sentence was the one you rewrote when you first denied my VB note.  Again I apologize. Root4(one) 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computing 

message: "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)
replies: text: I have put this back.  It makes the point of the fallacy a lot clearer than the text that replaced it and Wikipedia is not censored.  IMO this comes under the same argument that we should not take down images of Mohammed because Muslims find them offensive. If it's only purpose in being there was to cause offence then that would be different, but it is not, it illuminates the article. SpinningSpark 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devil > God 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed - vandalism. SpinningSpark 09:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence of God 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, obvious nonsense.  I've deleted it. SpinningSpark 09:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark matter 

message: "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)
replies: text: Substance as a philosphical idea is entirely archaic and has been replaced by real science. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Nothing