This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
When I'm dead and gone, am I then nothing - or something? Or am I no thing at all?!? It should really be a simple thing - energy cannot be destroyed, why I forever will be some thing - or the other...
The book was already there in the "References" section! I just added your useful link, after I downloaded it myself first. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)18:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted that, it is problematic for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is the wrong edition. The publisher, year of publication, country of publication, and ISBN are all different. The pagination is not the same as the edition used to source the article. So even if the text is completely identical (which is by no means certain) it is likely to eventually result in "failed verification" tags littering the article because the informtion will not be found on the page cited. Also note that this is not a facsimile of the book but an OCR scan. I spotted multiple scannos after reding just a page or two.
The second reason is that this is a potential copyvio and we should not link to such material per WP:COPYVIOEL. The book was first published in the UK and is definitely still in copyright there. The linked edition was published in the US amd the situation is more complicated there. For this time period copyright renewal is required in the States. This appears to have been done by Russell's widow. So on that basis, we can't link to it at all. SpinningSpark08:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather late to this thread. Please check my partial reversion and edit accordingly but make sure not to restore "subject" to the lede, which was my only concern. Kent Dominic·(talk)15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Computing section
To me, this has been coatracked into the article. I don't see how it can be considered part of the same subject. If it can, then something ought to be put in the article making that connection apparent. SpinningSpark21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does look a bit like an attempt at coatracking Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE), since the text focuses on a non-standard term apparently used literally with the text string nothingbyMicrosoft (responsible for EEE), and only afterwards mentions the more standard strings, this looks a bit like somewhere between phase 2 "Extend" and phase 3 "Extinguish". A null device such as /dev/null is closer to the philosophical notion of the absence of things, though we would need a WP:RS asserting the philosophical link. Boud (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A null command is a command to "do nothing". It is not a command to "be nothing". Similarly, a null device does nothing (no matter how much data you throw at it). It is not a device in a state of "being nothing". On the contrary, there must exist some code that implements the null device into existence. This article is about the state of being, not the lack of action. SpinningSpark15:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
create page: nihilogonyornilogony (cosmogony/a universe from nothing: Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Lawrence Krauss, etc.)
nihilogony or nilogony
definition:
The belief that nothingness itself had an active role in cosmogony as a potential state.
example:
Many physicists speak about a universe from nothing, but none has a specific theory of nihilogony. All existing theories are logically procedural, and their axiomatic foundations is rigorous logic and not the notion of nothing. 2A02:2149:8B03:1000:510F:834D:94E8:AF16 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, neither of the words nihilogonyornilogony actually exist. Wikipedia is not for documenting topics you have just made up. If you actually have reliable sources that discuss this topic then please point to them and we can talk further. We do, however, have cosmogony. SpinningSpark19:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The section regarding Hegel and nothing contains many, however common, misconceptions on Hegelian philosophy. Most notably, it defines Hegelian Dialectics as Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. This is incorrect (the Dialectic page's Hegelian section actually has a very well-written description of Hegel's logic). A more accurate system preserving the current structure would be to define Hegel's dialectic as Abstract/Negative/Concrete. This would better match Hegel's actual writing style and better incorporate the process as a subsection to the philosophical notion of "nothing". Alternatively, it may be better to rewrite this section from Hegel's view of Nothing as part of his Science of Logic. However, I do not know what the best form for that information would be. Davedbo (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is currently sourced to the philosopher Bertrand Russell's book. The first thing that is needed before changing anything is a source verifying these claims and a rationale why it is more authoritative than Russell. Is Hegel's take on this objectively different, or is this just a matter of terminology? SpinningSpark15:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
