Talk:Nothing/Archive 1

Overhaul

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

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)

Stub?

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.

Quotes

Do the quotes really belong here? This isn't Wikiquote, perhaps they should be moved there. ArbiterOne 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Something about Nothing

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)

Not according to Google, ghits = 657,000,000 with our article number three. SpinningSpark 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

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)

How about a black hole? Nothing escapes a black hole.  :) KSchutte 18:58, 14 January 2007 (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)

Rephrase?

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)

Featured article

This page deserves to be featured at some point in the future.

comment on nothing article

"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)

Very good article

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

blatant self-promotion

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

question

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) .

See point #3 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim. Regarding my question, however, given that it is directed to Omicronpersei8 concerning his or her unstated reason for deletion, I await his or her response.

Per Jim's response, I suggest inclusion of this article. Its intent is to clarify the present subject as a philosophical concept. If the source's design or content in some way violates rules for inclusion, then I am happy to remove ::::such violation.--UK 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'd seen it first, I would have removed it myself. See also point #7 on the above-mentioned Wikipedia guideline, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Aside from the fact that you linked to your own blog, the question would arise as to why your musings on the subject are relevant. I don't mean that to sound offensive; my musings would be no more relevant. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, your supercilious attitude is unwarranted and unwelcome in rational discourse. I am unaware of your profession, but mine for the past decade has been Web design, development, programming, and database management. Thus, while I do not intend to appear equally pompous, at this point given your attitude, I feel compelled to explain to you that I am professionally qualified to offer insight and explanation regarding Web-based technologies and their applications. Such technologies include Wikipedia and blogging software, which are defined in the popular culture as being synonymous with the marketing term Web 2.0.

With that aside, the article in question is contained within an open source content management system (CMS), which can be used exclusively as a blogging platform or, as the description makes apparent, as a generalized content management system that organizes and distributes information online. I apply a latter approach at uberkuh.com.

This list you cite is a set of normal recommendations, not uncompromising rules. One cannot logically exclude an entire medium from inclusion as an informative source of information. To presume so requires a depth of obtuseness that, unless I am equally obtuse, the depth of your contributions at Wikipedia belies. By such illogic, Wikipedia should be excluded from its own inclusion as an encyclopedia.

Additionally, Wikipedia is architecturally structured in like manner to that of a blog in that, like a blog, its functionality is not restricted to single authorship or to solely authorized contributions. Thus, even if you were to attempt to exclude an entire medium from inclusion here and to blur the distinction between a recommendation and a rule, I remain well within my right as a fellow contributer to improve Wikipedia as I see fit. Blind exclusion of any media is an attitude begging for improvement or, in this hypothetical case, permanent causal removal.

I again nominate this article for inclusion on this topic. If someone can show that it--and by "it" I of course mean the content of the article itself and not anything irrelevant to it--should not be so included, then feel free to object. To repeat, my position in favor of including the article in question is twofold.

1. My website is not a typical blog. On the contrary, it is substantially more expansive than one in the variety of content it provides and is, thus, substantially different than one.
2. If, despite reason to the contrary, consensus is reached among the Wikipedia community that my website is to be strictly defined as a blog, then I object within my right as a Wikipedia contributer to the irrational exclusion of an entire medium as a source of information.--UK 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Recury, with all due respect, I see no point to your comment. Opinion is not fiat. You address none of my objections, yet you feel the need to repeat the obvious, which I dispute on what I consider to be reasonable grounds. Your remark cannot be intended for any other reason than personally attack, so please refrain from further insult.

I apologize if I must to retain civility, but I cannot simply follow rules without question as you suggest I must. I do not think this way. Nor can I, as you also suggest, cower in the midst of a self-alleged authority for the sole sake of obeying authority.

I find that my article should rightfully be included on this topic's page for the reasons I have already stated, so, again, if there is a reasonable objection to this article's content, then I will agree to its continued removal. I am not being stubborn against reason. I am trying to simultaneously understand why three Wikipedia contributers are acting unreasonably and to naturally advocate the reinsertion of the link to my article, an article that I believe to be informative and helpful to the understanding of this topic, as I said above.

Please understand that I could simply replace the link in question. Yet, I hope it is apparent that I am attempting to revolve this conflict through advised channels. I wish, additionally, to be as clear as possible, and I do not believe my tone has been inappropriate, so I ask your support a rational discussion and either explain why I am mistaken or refrain from comment. From my understanding of what Wikipedia represents, nothing other than the content of the article in question is relevant to that question of inclusion.--UK 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have read quite a lot into my words that wasn't there. To bring this back to your original question -- the rationale for removing your link -- I'll simply direct you to Wikipedia:No original research. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Jim. By Wikipedia's own definition of publishing, my article is published.

I find no legitimate reason for anyone to prohibit the link I propose. It seems that you, Omicronpersei8, and Recury oppose this inclusion unfairly, suggesting the possibility of personal attack. Specifically, you, Jim, have listed two normal recommendations, one of which (#3) you claim invalidates the inclusion of all blogs, thus, excluding an entire medium of online information. This is patently ridiculous to any online author, myself included, or anyone aware of copyright law. Thus, even if the recommendation were wrongly interpreted as a rule (I.e., you cannot break a recommendation.), it remains unreasonable and I remain within my right as a contributer to disregard it for the sake of improvement.

The other recommendation you cite (#7) is irrelevant, since my work is published. And given that I have other articles linked on Wikipedia, I see no reason why I should not be considered a reputable source. And, of course, my inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia automatically invalidates your argument using recommendation #3.

Omicronpersei8 has never provided a reason for his actions. Thus, his actions can be reversed without any problem.

And Recury's pithy intrusion obviously held no merit.

I have filed an informal complaint and I await a response. Unless you offer a legitimate, rational reason for my link not to be included at the bottom of this Wikipedia article, I will not reply until judgment has been given, since I believe I have taken more than enough time to support my argument and to show why each of the two arguments given against me are invalid or irrational and destructive to the future of Wikipedia.--UK 20:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please humor me and read the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:External links
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith

You have been given several reasons for removal of that link. While you're reading those, you should take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks and recognize that nobody has attacked you. I've attempted to explain to you, calmly and rationally, why your link was deleted. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

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)

Thank you for taking this case, CaveatLector. While certainly not envied, your experience with personal attacks here is reassuring and helpful in that it puts my experience in a broader perspective. This is only the third link to uberkuh.com that has been added to Wikipedia, so I must plainly count myself as a newbie, yet, it is the first to have been deleted. While two out of three ain't bad, I hope you can understand my frustration that one met with mysterious disapproval. The difference is that UberKuh tried to add UberKuh's third link, whereas the first two were anonymously added.

This leads me to your introduction to this mediation, above. I appreciate that you took the time to read my previous responses. I feel that you have fairly summarized my argument to date. And I welcome the opportunity to defend my expertise, but I would like to first address the issue of the importance of expertise in general.

Why Expertise is Not a Defining Factor

To begin, I disagree that because the person in your example has not met with disapproval in having a blog linked to his Wikipedia article, this necessarily defines the criterion by which an author is allowed to post a link to an offsite article that he or she happens to have written. Applicability of your analogy hinges on the assumption that an unequal relationship exists between:

• a link to an online resource, the subject of which is directly related to a Wikipedia article, and
• a link to an online resource, of similar kind the subject of which is indirectly related to a Wikipedia article.

The difference between the two cases is the kind of relationship each link has to each respective article. I do see a circumstantially valid argument against allowing links whose sources are topically only indirectly related to that of a given article, but in this case, I do not see this issue as defining.

Moreover, what these two cases share in common is that the content of each link is directly relevant to each respective article. The relevance of a link is determined by the content a user finds after the link loads in a Web browser. In both cases considered here, the content of the link directly reflects the content of the article to which it is or was attached. This, in turn, reflects the value and principles of a collective information source like Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's strongest selling point is its facility towards collective intelligence. As we have all surely felt by now, there is a certain relief in knowing that millions of Internet users around the world proactively recognize that two heads truly are better than one. We can tell from the evolution of websites like Wikipedia that collective intelligence is also emergent intelligence and that, despite what executives at traditional knowledge management centers like Encyclopædia Britannica might say in expected opposition at the rise of new media, a clear benefit of emergence is refinement.

As I understand the concept of Wikipedia, having educated myself with its various documentation, expertise is not only not the sole criterion for inclusion of an article or link; it is not even a primary consideration. This is due to the security afforded by said refinement capability. The selling point of Wikipedia has never been expertise. On the contrary, precisely the opposite is true in the sense that Wikipedia does not gain value or precision by being built by experts, but by being built by Everyman. If some of these Everymen have expertise, then all the better, but the point of appreciating collective intelligence is that it is appreciated as a collective effort. Thus, expertise is not and never has been a defining factor for content at Wikipedia.

Why I Have Expertise

If you want to exclude someone from participating in anything that requires a certain level of knowledge, all you have to do is insulate that requirement with cleverly abstracted terminology or jargon. For example, if I start a club for golfers and claim that anyone who plays golf can join provided they have sufficient golf experience, then it is an effortless task to exclude certain personally undesirable persons by leveraging the semantic generality or vagueness of the word "sufficient." That word is purposefully used without a meaningful qualifier to allow prejudice its reign.

We know this happens all the time. So before I begin defending what I consider to be "expertise," it should be explicitly acknowledged up-front that I am doing so within a realm of vulnerability to prejudice caused by the generality or vagueness of that very abstract and unqualified word.

Case in point, who is an expert on nothing? Caveat, your definition of an expert is a philosopher or mathematician. Must I be a professional philosopher or mathematician? If so, is a computer scientist in part a professional who specializes in mathematics? If so, then, yes, I am an expert on the value of zero or a null entity as used in algorithmic application and analysis. If not, then, no, I am not employed as a mathematician in the academic, corporate, or military sector of the job market.

Do I think one needs to be a mathematician to discuss in detail and with coherence the concept of a numerical value? No, I think most people with a high-school algebra education would agree that symbolic manipulation is a necessary introduction to learning higher maths.

I could tell you that I am well-versed in symbolic logics and study the relationship between language and logic as part of my graduate education. This is true. My graduate diploma will not say "Master of Science in Mathematics" or "Master of Humanities in Philosophy," however, so I cannot help but wonder whether you would consider one who voluntarily studies a subject using his or her own free time and resources, like this--and perhaps especially this given its complexity--to be an expert on that subject. If you feel bound to abide by societal definitions of authority, then the answer is no. I must admit that I find would that to be a grossly illogical, shall we say, miscalculation on your part, but, then, I am hopeful you will not be found guilty.

I could also tell you that I am a member of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE). This is also true. I gained admission evincing the required merits, merits that I obviously consider to be more than adequate with respect to intellectual capability to coherently conceptualize hard mathematical and philosophical problems. This is not bragging rights for me. The desire for admittance was motivated partly by the association's relatively positive and longstanding reputation, the scientific facts undergirding the field of psychometrics, and the organization's incentive structure around productivity. These were my reasons, and some may disagree for whatever reason, but, again, I gained admission by meeting ISPE's admission standards and this I feel is more than adequate to qualify as one possible and popular interpretation of "expert."

Nevertheless, to conclude, let me repeat that the only rational rationale I can find for judging the fate of the link in question is the quality of its content. The article linked must be judged on its own merits, not its medium and not its author's fit with someone's classification of academic or professional expertise, especially in regard to the technically void topic at hand. Unless that quality can be refuted as being largely worthless or "novel" as one article here euphemistically calls the disorder described by myself as "longwinded creative or crazy insight, depending," then I argue that this simple link at the bottom of an article that I doubt more than a handful of Internet users visit in a day, be reinserted for the value it added in clarifying the topic.--UK 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Very eloquently put, UberKuh, but a problem remains. Among the things Wikipedia must be is a practical source of information. Wikipedia is meant to serve as a reference source, and as such, all things within it must be sufficiently verifiable. This goes in line with your argumentation of why 'expertise does not matter'. Yes, Wikipedia IS designed so that the 'Everyman' can make an edit. HOWEVER, the content of those edits cannot consist of material of original research. This is quite simply because the material on Wikipedia must be reliable. The 'Everyman' must cite experts within the field who have studied and published on these concepts. Otherwise, how can we rely on the knowledge? Where does the line get drawn?

Wikipedia is also not an endless depository of information. Your website, no matter how 'well written', does not serve as a source any more than a 15 year old's personal fansite would. That's not to say that you are equal in content, but that you might as well be, as we have no way of knowing whether or not we can rely on your websites content. If you had a degree, or something widely published and recognized in the field discussing this matter, then your personal blog that contained the article in question would do well under the 'external links' section. As it is, the wiki article does not relate in any tangible way to your article. It does not serve as a good external link. And, I apologize, but you are wrong when you say it 'clarifies the subject'. It doesn't. This is mainly because there is no litmus that can TEST the 'quality of the content' on your page. All we have to go on is your own personal word that your ruminations add to an understanding of the topic. Wikipedia must limit its content to those things that can be verified and/or have gone through the rigors of academic inquiry. Now, I cannot make a 'decision' in this case, but all I can do is advise your read the policy on no original research and meditate on the prospect of not 'Everyman' but every man inserting a link from their personal website that discusses 'nothing' on this Wikipage. This would, of course, be a complete mess. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a 'meeting of the minds' so to speak. It is not a discussion forum. It is designed in the hopes that it will serve as an academic resource (though a website that DID serve as a discussion forum for anything and everything, and wasn't populated by insanity like Usenet, is an intriguing idea that I would LOVE to see).

Unfortunately, I see no compromise here. I recommend that you consider what I have said and that, if you still feel as though the insertion of your link is in line with Wikipedia's philosophies and policies, you contact an official administrator and discuss it with him/her/hir. If you have any other comments, please do feel free with either leave them here or on my own talk page. I'll close the case soon, but I'd rather those comments be on logged on the mediation page when I summarize the mediation. Thanks again! CaveatLector^Talk 04:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced and expert tags

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_ΨΦ 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I've seen it prior to the headings, and that was miserable. Right now, it definitely needs sources. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What else is included in nothing?

 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).

Protection

What protection is this, is it semi or fully, I'm not 3 days new yet :)Rock2e 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 {{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)

Computing

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.

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)

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)

Devil > God

"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)

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)

Existence of God

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)

Fixed - vandalism. SpinningSpark 09:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dark matter

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)

Agreed, obvious nonsense. I've deleted it. SpinningSpark 09:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No Nothing

"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)

Substance as a philosphical idea is entirely archaic and has been replaced by real science. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)