From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Why doesn't someone put a picture of nothing up, so everyone can see what it looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Word Choice[edit]

"Many unschooled in philosophy would consider the study of "nothing" to be foolish, a typical response of this type is voiced by Giacomo Casanova (1725–1798) in conversation with his landlord..."

This comes across as conde scending. Many who are schooled in philosophy would also consider it foolish, but that's also entirely beside the point of the article. Nor am I sure that the quote from Giacomo is exemplary of a "typical" response. I would suggest taking out the quote and it to something along the lines of:

"Some people consider the study of "nothing" to be foolish, however, historically "nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject worthy of research. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed." -Sxoa Feb 6th 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxoa (talkcontribs) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And besides, it is bad form for the first sentence in an article to be, ungrammatically, a "comma-splice". At the very least, substitute a semicolon for the comma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible merge[edit]

I was just reading through this and was surprised that I didn't find much about various philosophical problems of nonexistence, specifically whether existence should be seen (formally) as a property/predicate, quantifier, or something else. The page, "Existence" seems to have some of this information, and the topics of existing, not existing, everything, and nothing seem to have substantial overlap; so, I'm wondering if anyone thinks this page could be merged with the Existence page. (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Something about Nothing[edit]

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... (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)

Devil > God[edit]

"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? - (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 (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)

I would either remove or correct it. It's not that I find it offensive, at all. Anyone who visits this page would stand above that level of religious debating. But I did find it distracting, because it is logically flawed. Bad (i.e. "worse") is simply not the antonym of great (i.e. "greater"), but of good. "Nothing is worse than the Devil" does not equate "The Devil is greater than nothing". For the presumed fallacy to be more than a stretched game of words, and make the sound logical sense that the article deserves, "greater" would need to be substituted by "better", even as that may take away from its joke quality a little: 1. Nothing is worse than the Devil; 2. Nothing is better than God; 3. The Devil is better than God. --Lucian (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Existence of God[edit]

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)

No Nothing[edit]

"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)
As far as the history of philosophy goes, SpinningSpark is right, "substance" is an archaic term. However I don't think we should approach Nothing, as a concept, from any historical perspective (i.e. "substance" vs. "real science"), be that even the current perspective, but from an absolute one. That would be one acknowledging that anything is possible and that the current knowledge may well be superseded by future developments. Despite Spark's comment, and presuming that he's the writer/editor of the article, I actually did not find the article historically biased.--Lucian (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
True: as the opposite of anything there is, Nothingness (i.e. "nothing") cannot reside in the world. Meanwhile, if the world is finite, one simply cannot make an assumption on what is the outside of the world like. You can have your beliefs, but you cannot know. Anything you can think of is by default world-alike. You cannot imagine anything else than the forms of matter and force of this world. Thus, one cannot say that Nothingness cannot reside outside of the world either. It can. Anything can, even "nothing". The big question is: is Nothingness true, or just a reification? By true I mean a fundamental, un-divisible element of our datum, such as Pain, Matter, Force, Mortality. Because, if N is true, and since N needed to be outside of the world, then one would have demonstrated the very existence of an outside of the world, or of a point on the fringes of the world that may lead to an outside! That obviously would tie in with many mainstream beliefs among people, including BCKenai's "Creator" mention here, including gods, heaven & hell, nirvana, parallel universes etc., but those beliefs bring no valid argumentation. So the real, big question is: is Nothingness true?--Lucian (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I deny emphatically that I am the author of this article. My only part in it has been to protect the God/Devil fallacy from pro-christian vandals. As always, unable to think logically, they do not realise that one must first believe that God is greater than the Devil for the incorrect conclusion of the fallacy to even have meaning. SpinningSpark 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not meant to be a forum for discussion of the article's subject matter. If you wish to make a change, or discuss one, please make it more clear what change you are proposing. Triangl (not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


I think that if someone is not smart enough to understand what "Nothing" means, then they, in turn, won't have enough intelligence to use the Internet and Wiki it. Plus, why is this article even necessary? Because is a Philosophical article? I think this should be deleted. I won't nominated it for deletion, I'm just bringing it to attention that it is a useless article and it doesn't even need to be here. And, who ever thought it was decent to put an atheist joke on wikipedia wasn't thinking there decision through. Do you think the joke might serve a purpose? To help someone better understand the concept of Nothing by making putting a joke in there? Its like putting Muslim jokes on Wikipedia. It doesn't even HAVE to be there. But anyways, its like having an article on "Something", which I have just Wiki'ed and it turns out is a song, album, and apparently something to do with logic. At least its related to math in some way. People, if Philosophers spent there time helping solve problems like world hunger, gas prices, alternitive ways to create energy or fuel, we'd have a lot of the problems solved by now. It just goes to show you, they waste there time debating subjects like, "should nothing be considered a Philosophy?" or, "Is God or the Bible real?" when they could be helping the world. Even modern day Philosophers, like the ones on Wikipedia, could be making better, more important articles instead of these Bull-Crap ones.

Otaku Thief (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Otaku Thief

People, if people who complain on talk pages of admittedly irrelevant subjects spent there time helping solve problems like world hunger, gas prices, alternitive ways to create energy or fuel, we'd have a lot of the problems solved by now.
Fix't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the same goes for you too buddy. Stop being hypocrite. And please stay on subject and stop insulting people. Thank you.

Otaku Thief (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Otaku Thief

Look, my friend: All this "Bull-Crap" philosophy has been around for thousands of years, and whether you appreciate it or not, others will. (I'm trying not to start a feud here... This is stuff Wikipedians have gone over many times before.) If you will never understand the importance of phiosophy, that's fine, and I can't change you. But please: Wikipedia isn't a place for you to tell us all how much you hate philosophy and metaphysics. I don't care your religion (or lack of), but we're for knowlege here, right? Let's keep it that way... And stick to the goddamn topic. I think SpinningSpark did a fine job with the corrections, and pro-Catholic or pro-Satanist, they were sorely needed. If there's anything else wikipedians can do, present it, please. I'd like to know. Please, don't take this as a preaching. I'm just trying to say, stick to the topic (and *cough* wikipedia ain't paper!). Thanks. Now, can we drop this bull, and get back to Nothing? (I will admit, there are a few more corrections to be made... But the article is worth keeping!)

Comfortably numb55 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Is that picture of a white background really necessary? I think most mentally functional people are already aware of what nothing is! --Heslopian (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) I dont see ho nothing can e related to philosiphy, please can any of you explain?--Back$la$h (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya, sorry dude, I dont want to sound like a stuck up prig; I really don't know much about all this... Uh, idk, but mabye there is some importance to the fact that "nothing" is just a metaphysical idealism... I mean, it doesn't actually exist, that which doesn't exist? In my humble opinion, it seems that "nothing" is just an idea, so technicly not philosophy, but mabye a topic of... uh, metaphysics??? I dunno. Ask a philosopher. But, yeah, mabye I just used the wrong wording for that other remark a few weeks ago... And as for the white background, I see someone has removed it. Thanks.

Comfortably numb55 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the blank picture has just come back. In my opinion, as well as being pointless, it is making an unsourced claim and is WP:OR and should be removed. SpinningSpark 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm just wondering how many times thus far someone thought it was funny to erase the whole article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

73, not counting the ones that left behind some hidden text. First one was 29th November 2006. SpinningSpark 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Is that really vandalism in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Riddle About Nothing[edit]

The riddle that is in the article already brought another one from the back of my mind. It goes something like this:

I am greater than God and worse than the Devil. Rich men need me, but poor men already have me. Dead men eat me, but if a living man eats me, he will die. What am I?

And the answer is nothing. So, I don't know if this should go on the article, too. It is probably more famous than the one that is already there, and probably less likely to offend strong Christians. Eatanorange (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The item you are referring to in the article is not a riddle, it is a syllogism demonstrating a false conclusion. It can only be taken as offensive by those who are unable to understand this simple fact. It does not, in fact or intention, insult God in any way. Where Christianity is mentioned, or implied, at all has entirely passed me by. SpinningSpark 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Now you are leaping to the conclusions! Perhaps he/she was suggesting to use that one because it is more famous, and not because it offends... religious people.
Eh, the 'See Also' section has an extra sapce after 'Big Bang'. -- (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is about nothing, shouldn't the page be blank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Nothing Exist??[edit]

How can nothing exist? It is both impossible and simple to discover, if you try to discover nothing you won't find anything, but that's exactly what nothing is. Simply, it's not possible for humans to determine the truth about nothing, the answer is far beyond us in this world, but it might be a possible theory to grasp if humans learn to completely develop their minds, sadly, that is also nearly impossible to do. The amazing knowledge and power we have inside of us has the answer to everything, however it has not been discovered yet, but the potential that lies in us is still yet to be tapped. How can nothing be two things at the same time? If it is nothing, it can't be anything, but could nothing be something at the same time? I believe nothing is merely an idea that cannot be proven, yet cannot be denied. Austin W. M

The Observer.[edit]

Nothingness does exist and it is one part of the duality. The duality consists of Nothingness '0' and the observer '1'. The two are the identity and the contradiction. With the contradiction the duality is the static and eternal Trinity. Humans can understand the truth about the Trinity and the Nothingness within it. By observing the Nothingness the observer gives it existence and at the same time he himself exists as the Nothingness of his 'I', whih is the limit capable of creating any unit as one truth which can be observed in the 'now' thus creating consciousness of the existence of the truth and of the 'self'. (try to find your 'I'. You cannot because it is the Nothingness.) Apart from the observer only the Nothingness exists in the 'now' as the observer. (ask more) KK ( (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

The definition of nothing is created by the use of a scale of variance excepted by the current mathematical system and confirmed by physics using 4 dimentional space where space and time are linked by relativity as a singularity a uniquely associated partnership of human thought. Knowledge informs logical thought everthing must start and finish as time moves on via evolution but knowledge also within physics informs us energy or something cannot be created or lost only changed. So where does nothing come from and what creates it "human thought" creats it and physics contradicts it. Nothing is a human conception that physics is moving away from and quantum structure proves nothing is a impossiblty.
so was there a state of nothing before everything or is that the only explanation current knowledge allows.-- (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What does not exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothingness does not 'come'. It 'IS'. Time is not involved because Nothingness is static. It is not 'created'. There is no Nothingness before 'everything' apart from your 'I' which is the limit of Nothingness capable of creating units. (try to find your 'I'). Perfect limit creates within and out of Nothingness. The reality is created by the eternal motivation directed by the laws of nature. KK ( (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from, 24 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} PLEASE! (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not made a request. SpinningSpark 09:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Please specify what you wish to change in the article, and provide reliable sources to prove that, then place the {{editsemiprotected}} template back on the page and somebody will deal with your edit soon. - EdoDodo talk 12:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Raj Patel's "The Value of Nothing"?[edit]

Relevant Raj Patel's "The Value of Nothing"? (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the book comes from a quotation from Oscar Wilde, "nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing". The book is about the politics of food: how market forces cause poverty and starvation. Hardly relevant to this article. SpinningSpark 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


To comprehend nothing take diversity as exception. Perpetually permutate 'nothing, not, or' to lim E~ih/t tbj(97). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What does Nothing look like?[edit]

How does something come from Nothing? Before the Big Bang, was there Nothing? What did it look like, and if so, how did Nothing become Something when Nothing was there to create Something? If Zero represents Nothing then how did One come about? An atom is Something. A Proton is Something. A Neutrino is Something. Gas is Something. What is Nothing? What do you see when there is Nothing? Is it Clear? White? Dark? Is it vast? Of course, if there is Nothing then Something can not see it. If the Universe collapsed and all matter disappeared then what is left?: Nothing...well, what does it look like? Does Nothing even exist? It had to...before there was Something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahovictor (talkcontribs) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fallicy of Four Terms example should be nixed[edit]

The problem is not in treating nothing as a concept. It is that the falacy of four terms fails to acknowledge the fifth term, "beyond". Nothing is not "beyond" the universe. This example should be nixed. (Its NRS anyway.) PPdd (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suffix "-ness" in "nothingness"[edit]

Interestingly, the suffix "-ness" means "the state of 'being'". PPdd (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. Wiktionary, for one, disagrees. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Search for Nothing[edit]

A Google search for 'nothing' returns 635,000,000 results. Evidently the Internet's vast information collecting ability is returning large amounts of information about nothing. This is natural. As the emerging consciousness of Earth's silicon begins to wonder about the Universe outside itself, it finds mostly nothing. That is, it finds space-time, mostly composed of nothing, and a lot of light from stars, which is probably (to internet silicon) the glow of computer screens.

If definitions appear about how near in distance the relevant nothing must be to be of interest or consequence to silicon, perhaps the internet will concentrate on nothing closer to home, or nothing that matters more nearly at hand. Then silicon will not mistake Nothing for God.SyntheticET (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The 2 Nothings[edit]

There are two different kinds of nothing, absence and privation. Absence is nothing in the neutral sense such as empty space or humans not having wings. This is the norm. Privation on the other hand, is the kind of nothing condsidered to be evil. Evil in turn can be known as nothing. Since evil cannot exist without good, it is good deprived of something. Which is why evil is sometimes refered to as darkness, or "the void." This nothing can be seen in the metaphysical and occasionally phycological privations in people. I think both versions of nothing should have equal presence and separation in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phord42 (talkcontribs) 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Discussion is here. PPdd (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why were images removed during the above discussion of them. The orange image was a specific request of another editor. The Lewis Carrol quote is one of the only sourced sentences in the article, but was removed. Please do not remove images during discussion of them. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Blank images have been removed before by consensus. Discussion of improvements to this article should be on this page, not elsewhere, the article is not even within the scope of Wikiproject Death and in any case I do not see any reasoned discussion on that page. The Lewis Carroll quote has not been removed - indeed, it is the only part of your edit that was kept. SpinningSpark 08:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. You have not responded at all to the removal of citation needed tags.
  • 2. A WikiProject Death member asked for the orange image. What is the basis for your saying "Nothingness" is not within the scope of WikiProject Death?
  • 3. Since the discussion pertains to more than just his article, the ongoing discussion is at the project page. You can alert members if you want to move it here. I have no problem with moving the discussion wherever you want it.
  • 4. Re - "Blank images have been removed before by consensus."
  • 4a. Please provide the diffs of the consensus vote. I asked for this some time ago, and it was not provided.
  • 4b. How many editors were in favor of the specific captioned black image, and how many were opposed? PPdd (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Tag bombing on the first point and see further up this page for the most recent discussion on the last point. Search the archives yourself for the rest. On point 2, this article is within the scope of the projects shown at the head of this page. SpinningSpark 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(I think the "orange" image suggestion might have been made by another editor in partial jest, with a philosophical argument to back it, but that argument is OR. A plain black image is pretty conventional.)
  • 1. Thanks, I was unfamiliar with WP:Tag bombing, and I will read it. It is an essay, not a WP policy or guideline, so does not necessarily reflect consensus, but it still reflects the opinion of some so should be considered. My intent was to separate what was dubious or from what is not controversial, so that essay does not seem to apply, but I will re-read it.
  • 2. I searched the archives and read the discussions on images. There did not appear to be consensus on never having images in the future, and there was very minimal participation, mostly by one or two editors showing signs of WP:OWNership. So there is notconsensus. Claiming there is consensus on NEVER having images, without consideration of all possible images, and no citation of the consensus vote, then telling an editor to go find the vote and waste a bunch of time, when the consensus vote is not there and known not to be in the archives, does not improve Wikipedia and help foster a working community, and makes AGF difficult. Saying "see further up this page" as a response to a question as to not being able to find information up the page again makes AGF difficult, and is not helpful. I could not find it up the page, so that is why I asked the question. Your responses border on belligerance, and show signs of WP:OWNership, but I continue to AGF.
  • 3. WikiProject Death is likely the most relevant project of all, since discussions of "nothingness" related to death is common to all of history in every culture, and likely the most highly developed and rich in reliable sources for use in improving Wikipedia. Stating that no one put a tag for WikiProject Death at the top, so "therefore" it is out of scope, is, well, ... Continuing my AGF, wouln't it have been more helpful to have simply spent three seconds and put the prject tag, than to have spent four seconds writing that the tag is not there? I will add the tag myself. PPdd (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is considerable reliable source information on images, for example, in the minimalism literature in aesthetic philosophy. For example, discussion as to which is more minimal (having closest to nothing), a blank white canvass, which reflects most light, or one painted black, which has paint on it, but nothing reflects off it. Or discussion of John Cage's 4 Minutes Silence, which fills the listeners ears up with ambient sounds the listener is otherwise unaware of but for the expectation of "something", not "nothing", at a concert. The talk page discussion of this seemed pretty much "lay-person and unsourced", not really relevant to the academic literature on images and representations of "nothing". PPdd (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the article was not in WikiProject Death's scope merely because there was no banner, I said it also because the article does not discuss death and nothing. On the image, rather than picking over who said what in the past, let's start an RfD;

Request for comment on article image[edit]

Is the image of a black square contributing anything to the philosophy section of this article?

A black image is standard on academic discussions. I will be adding a section on black body radiation, and other "black ops" of physics (ok, stupid optics pun). It was thought nothing radiated from black bodies until the Einstein associates work on this, which revolutionized physics.
The black image will be referred to in several sections, and already is in the arts section. Black images and black are often used to depict "nothing" in the arts, as editors are likelyh famkiliar with in Rembrandt, etc., as well as in minimalism. I am working up the sources on the art stuff this and next weeks.
I Intend to add an image of nothing from architecture or interior design, or conceptual art commentary on the same, and am working up the sources first, since I have read about it, but don;t feel comfortable putting it in without sources, like the other stuff, which will be improved, and is only there as a stub, but will be developed. I encourage others with expertise in this to help out, maybe suggestinbg the most conventional "nothing" image from your architecture or conceptual art class. The black image is easy for me to find sources on, but I have not done much reading in this specialized area of conceptual art and architecure. PPdd (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. --Trelawnie (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The black square is effective. Particularly as it raises that question "Is the image of a black square contributing ANYthing to the philosophy section of this article?" Well it's contributing NOTHING, indicative of this concept. An image of a white square would likewise demonstrate the same. Most people, especially in architecture or conceptual arts, begin with a white piece of paper, or canvas. Word documents, most websites, including Wiki, begin in white. "Blank" in a way represents nothing. This is most likely a conventional but overlooked "nothing" image. The difference between black and white in my view may be that white tends to initiate a response to create something, black seem to imply a loss of direction and sense of confusion, which is perhaps a more suitable representation of "nothing". It's all subjective however. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Image location in article[edit]

I will be starting a section on nothing in the arts, once I gather the references for citations. Then I plan to move the white image to that section, while retaining the black image at the top. Also to move the empty set image to the math and logic section. The reason for keeping the black image at the top is that its caption makes it illustrative of both the logic and the arts sections ideas, and it will be referenced by them both, with reliable sources, as the article develops with citations during construction.

Deleted images[edit]

I understand that there were discussions of other images that were deleted, but I cannot find the images. Can anyone who put them in the article, or agrued to keep them, put them here in this talk page section, or restore them to the article with captions that correspond with sourced article body content. I cannot find a consensus vote, and only minimally contributing talk page discussion.

Rather than deleting another editor's image insertion, perhaps helping the inserting editor out with the idea he/she was trying to express via the image, by adding appropriate captions with sources, and tying the images more tightly to inline sourced material in the article body, will make them appropriate for reinsertion with the new captions. This will both not be discouraging to the editors who first inserted them. It is very discouraging for editors, especdially new ones, to have their images deleted, espeically by laypersons in an almost entirely unsourced article. We should be encouraging new editors, not discouraging them. And who knows, their images might actually have value to users of the encyclopedia with backgrounds other than the deleter's. There is also nothing worse than having an edit deleted by another who does not understand the value of edits for others than themselves. By helping with the captions, the images may make more sense to those who deleted them. Aslo, those deleted images might improve the article with captions, but not without. But I cannot find them to discuss them. Can someone put them up in this talk page section? PPdd (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics Section: "the word "nothing" can be an informal term for an empty set"[edit]

No, "the denotation of 'nothing' are the elements of the empty set". PPdd (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell, Gottlob Frege, Alonzo Church[edit]

  • 1. Much of the article's philosophy sections can have inline citations from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosphy, with multiple very simple expositions of the cited Philosophers' statements. I read it when I was a kid, and don't have a copy handy. Can someone who has a copy at hand, add inline citations where relevant? I did not tag those sentences with citation needed tags, since it should be simple to provide such ciations. PPdd (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • 2. Another moderately simple exposition of the stuff in the mathematics section is Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (which I read while I was in jail for growing pot when I was about 14 years old). I opened a discussion on the Church-Frege ontology, which responds to problems with Russell's theory of types in the seciton above this one. PPdd (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Article Move[edit]

Most reliable sources discuss "nothingness" and not "nothing". I propose a title change to "nothingness", and redirect of "nothing" to it. PPdd (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation overload[edit]

The[citation needed] current version [citation needed] of[citation needed] the[citation needed] lead[citation needed] paragraph[citation needed] looks[citation needed] a[citation needed] little[citation needed] bit[citation needed] silly.[citation needed] See WP:BLUE and WP:CITEKILL. Jowa fan (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is in construction. The tags are indicators to me of things to look into. Much or the article has ideas that are not entirely incorrect, but it reads like an unresearched undergraduate paper, and many of the sentences are technically false. I could simply delete all of the questionable sentences and move them to the talk page until the original editors can find sources, but I find that this discourages occaisional editors and new editors, and does not produce a conducive editing environment. There is a reason why Blue and citekill are essays, and are not policies or guiedlelines, because they failed to get consensus. Give some time for others to fill in the citations where indicated, and then to cite the rest of the article that will not be tagged, but still needs citations. PPdd (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that this is work in progress, and that's why I didn't simply remove the tags. But, for example, the assertion that the Merriam-Webster dictionary supports the content of the first three sentences is something that only needs to be said once; there's no need for five links to the same reference. Such a high citation density makes for poor readability, at least to my taste. BTW, thanks for your work on improving the article. Jowa fan (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I will consolidate them later. My editing style on medical or BLP articles is to delete any unsourced sentences, but move them to talk so others can help find sources, so as to preserve the inserting editors work. My style on philosophy articles is require citation on any word in a sentence. I citation needed tags to any word that is not "nothing", i.e., is of consequence. But instead of then leaving the article, I try to remove my own tags each day. This preserves the inserting editors work, but satisfies analytic philosophers' mandates of strict rigour. In fact, bertrand Russell write about this strict pedantry as being how he was able to (in his opinion) build all of mathematics out of nothing in the empty set. Which reminds me... I need to go add a tautology section, since the content of tautologies is nothing. PPdd (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I can live with that if you are really intending to work at finding sources, otherwise just one tag in the offending section is all that is really necessary. I not also that a lot of material has appeared in the article without any citations at all. A little practice what you preach would be helpful here. SpinningSpark 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining your method of working. It's looking much better today. Perhaps I shouldn't have interrupted you in the middle of this process ;-) Jowa fan (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Re new citationless material, thats why I put up the construction tag, and I only added what I know I have hard copy sources for. I am working away, buried in hard copy books, in the thick of nothing. PPdd (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing[edit]

The lede section in the article as I first found it disxcussed insignificance, etc. In thinking of possible sources for the unsourced material, Shakespeare popped into mind. In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare takes "noting" (gossip, rumour, and earvesdropping) and turns it into a whole play. The accepted standard reliable sources say his pun is the "Noting" sounds like "Nothing". In the article's now partially sourced lead - "In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest,[4] value,[4] relevance, or significance[4]. Nothing is contrasted with "something'". Does anyone have sources that there is a second level of pun, related to our lead section, in that noting, is turned into "something". Shakespeare is often a wealth of secondary source information, since his jokes are based on prior literary knowledge, and as the title of his play is "about nothing", there may be content that can be tracked with reliable sources to add to the article. PPdd (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland[edit]

In the "Language and Logic" section there is a quotation ... Alice: "I see nothing"; Cheshire Cat: "My. You have good eyes". I've been unable to find this in Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", so where does it come from please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange, it gets quoted a lot over the internet, perhaps it's from a film. It is leftover work from an editor who inserted, quite disruptively, a lot of unsourced material, now mostly removed. This at least appeared to be sourced, but as it is now clear the source is bogus, I have deleted it. SpinningSpark 17:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

About the Michelson Morley experiment (Physics in Nothing article)[edit]

``It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether postulated as the transmission medium for propagating light waves (whose existence has been disproven in the now famous Michelson-Morley experiment).

The word ``disproven is physically speaking incorrect. The Michelson-Morley experiment has not disproven the existence of a luminiferous aether, even today reasearchers construct new machines to push the bounds on this measurement, hoping to find a non-zero result which might indicate ``new (as in, unexplained) physics. The Michelson-Morley type of experiments have put upper bounds on a possible influence of the luminiferous aether, neither proving it's existence nor disproving it. Note that a ``proof of nonexistence can never be given by measurement of ``zero within the error bounds of an experiment. ( (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

Hopefully a message of peace for the nothing is greater than god bit.[edit]

Nothing is Greater Than God.

God = Infinity.

Nothing Is Greater Than Infinity.

God Does'nt Exist = Nothing is Infinite = 4 ever nothing = Impossible = I exist = Something Exists = Infinity = God

Nothing doesn't exist

I = observer

Observer Breaks the Waves of Possibility From Infinity to a Singular Percieved Reality.

Observer = Creator of Reality

God or infinity = Creator of Reality

Observer = God

I = God

I = Infinity

I = Singular = I = God = Infinity = Everything = Everybody = Singular = We Are All One = God = Love = I Love You!

I represents a singular being, Yet I In all Forms Is God because I represents the singularity of the Observer. The Observer creates a single reality of waves of posibility. A wave could be refered to as a bandwidth for posibility based on relevance. If that band is part of infinity then the Observer is creating the reality from infiniy. One of the meanings of God is the creator of reality from Infinity (or itself), so therefore the Observer is God. God is there whether or not individual being is. Therefore As I inherintly means God; and God is beyond individuality; then The boundarys of individuality are superficial, and that we are all one at that Which we would call the center of our being, the soul; and what we know as I is unifyed shared. As we all are I then an action toward another is an action Toward yourself. And on that principle I enjoy being Loved, so even though I don't Know who you are reading this; I Love You!

Sincirly Roald R.L.P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014[edit] (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added.
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


Nothingness is interesting. The more nothingness anything is the less it is how it is described. A description of nothing is not nothing.-- (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

informative tautologies of nothing is nothing[edit]

you may want to include these to the page

   Main page;

nothing is nothing

nothing equals nothing

nothing implies nothing

nothing has the property of nothing

nothing exists as nothing

nothing is made of nothing

nothing is the cause of nothing