h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks for that Ukkeli!

i don't think i'll include any historical stuff in the entry, because if i did i'd have to include a lot more historical and philosophical perspectives and before i know it i'd never be able t finish this entry. also i think historical and philsophical views on nothing/nothingness could make prety good other entries, while this entry looks factually as can be at nothing as a substance.

spook

GTB:

"Suppose P(x) = "x is in my pocket". Then P(nothing) = "Nothing is in my pocket", which means there does not exist any X with the property that X is in my pocket, or equivalently, for all X, X is not in my pocket."

Right, I see what you're saying. I was thrown a bit because you're using logical notation to talk about this word 'nothing' that doesn't follow the rules. According to the logic rules, 'P(x)' should evaluate to either 'true' or 'false', meaning either 'x has property P' or 'x doesn't have property P', and here its doing something entirely different. I guess this is the whole point we've been talking about all over again

It's too late too think about this much. Maybe i will come back 2moro. as it stands i don't think it is edited guide material, but then I'm not sure how to make is EG-suitable. So I think i will stick with for now.

Tango

*bangs head on table numerous times, then picks up the phone and enters the number 04204020402. God picks up the phone.*

God: Hello?

Spook: Hi God. It's spook!

God: hey spook! what's up?

Spook: well, can i ask you something?

God: Ask away!

Spook: why did you invent mathematics, letters, and language, as their usage together is really confusing me?

God: i'm afraid it was mans sin that caused that unholy combination.

Spook: well then God - if you didn't cause that unholy combination, then what should i do about it?

God: Nothing of course!

Spook: Thanks God! Speak to you later!

God: Bye!

*spook puts phone down.*

spook

any chance u could expand on why u don't think this is EG material Tango?

spook

Most of the things have already been said by others. It is not complete; there are versions of the noun you haven't mentioned, and there are other parts of speech that you should do. If you really only want to do the noun then change the title to that effect. It is also very confusing (and [i think] contradictory in some places, i would have to re-read it to find out more), you might want to read it again yourself as if for the 1st time, and see how confused you get.

Tango

>"there are versions of the noun you haven't mentioned"

there aren't. i have mentioned al meanings of the noun acording to the Marriam Websters dictionary.

>"there are other parts of speech that you should do"

this entry is not about speech, it is about substance, which is why only the noun form is applicable, and why it is the only form looked at and specified in the entry.

>"If you really only want to do the noun then change the title to that effect"

look above.

>"It is also very confusing (and [i think] contradictory in some places"

u must be referring to the bit where i say it is zero, then later i say it isn't. that is because looking at it simply it is just zero,but i then look into it in more depth and show that 'nothing' cannot be just zero since zero is a umber and not a thing, a substance, so the entry goes into detail about what this really means. u have to follow through the entry as it looks into nothing, and as you follow it through, the entry goes into more depth about 'nothing'.

>"you might want to read it again yourself as if for the 1st time, and see how confused you get"

just did so i could reply to your comment, and i wasn't confused at all.

thanks for commenting!

spook

part of speech means verb, noun, adj, etc.

see what above?

I must be more easily confused than you, but it sounds like others have been confused to.

Tango

see:

this entry is not about speech, it is about substance, which is why only the noun form is applicable, and why it is the only form looked at and specified in the entry.

that was the reply i put for another point of yours which is what i wanted u to look above at.

and i don't think anyone else has been confused...

spook

I don't think this entry is ready for the Edited Guide in its present form.

Spook, you don't want to get involved in philosophical or historical explanations - fine, that's your choice. But what that leaves is a fairly superficial look at the paradoxes involved in the everyday uses of the word 'nothing'. On this level, I don't think the entry is clear enough - it is confusing without managing to reach any depth.

'When talking about nothing, these meanings must always be taken into account as they are the only definate known facts about nothing.'

How do you reach the position that 4 definitions from one on-line dictionary are 'the only definate(sic) facts'?

'Therefore, it is possible to make the conclusion that nothing is not actually zero, but has a value of zero. A mass of zero.'

How have you made the jump from arithmetical zero to mass?


'But, if nothing is something, we must be possible to sense it, right?'
'It has some none features'

Okay, you can correct obvious grammatical errors like these, but there is a lack of clarity in your overall style which will still remain.

As I said, I don't think it's ready for the Edited Guide yet.

Azara

Told you someone else was confused, spook!

Tango

>"But what that leaves is a fairly superficial look at the paradoxes involved in the everyday uses of the word 'nothing'"

if you read the entry properly you will see this is not looking at the everday uses of the word nothing but is looking at the substance nothing, which is theoretical i can admit know, but then so are most scientific facts and things like the big bang. this entry looks at this substance of nothing from a factual perspective.

>"'When talking about nothing, these meanings must always be taken into account as they are the only definate known facts about nothing.'

How do you reach the position that 4 definitions from one on-line dictionary are 'the only definate(sic) facts'?"

i've added something in the entry about this know, but to put it simply these are the only definate facts about nothing beause there is no other factual data on the substance.

>"'Therefore, it is possible to make the conclusion that nothing is not actually zero, but has a value of zero. A mass of zero.'

How have you made the jump from arithmetical zero to mass?"

you're right, i have jumped into that, so i have added in a section about what the value of zero could represent.

i've corrected those gramatical errors, but i don't get what u mean by style as i think the style stays the same throughout.

i've also added soem information about nothingness into the entry.

what does everyone think now?

spook

"this is not looking at the everday uses of the word nothing but is looking at the substance nothing, which is theoretical i can admit know, but then so are most scientific facts"

The problem here is that 'nothing' is *not* a substance. Theoretical physics isn't the right place to talk about it, philosophy is. And philosophy will tell you that the concept of nothing as a substance is contradictory, at least in the way you're taking it. 'Something that does not exist' is *not* an object. Objects exist.

The dictionary definition you keep referring to is contradictory and misleading, so when you deduce things from it, of course you're going to get paradoxical results, although there really isn't a paradox here. The only problem here is in treating 'nothing' as an object.

You've said that you don't want to get into the philosophy, but I don't think the entry is going to be factually correct unless you do, sorry.

>"The problem here is that 'nothing' is *not* a substance."

where is your prove? prove that the big bang happened. can you? you cannot say that nothing is not a substance wthout prove, and this entry looks at the substance nothing, and it is as factual as any entry could be written on white holes, which are also not proven.

an assumption like u made here cannot be made without evidence. my evidence for its existence and the facts abiut it are in the entry.

>"philosophy will tell you that the concept of nothing as a substance is contradictory"

exactly. this entry looks at the properties nothing should have, then looks at where you could find them, and shows that nothing is either where there is no existence or does not exist in our universe. the entry reflects this. there are loads of philosophical theories on everything. this entry deals with nothing on a factual basis, and does not deal with all the different philosophical theories. if you read this entry, you will understand what nothing is, and you can draw your own theories on it's existence (or lack of).

>"'Something that does not exist' is *not* an object. Objects exist."

i'm not talking about nothing as an object, but as a substance. if there is such a substance, this entry informs u about the properties it would have and where you would find it. you have to have an open mind about nothign as it is unlike everything else.

>"The dictionary definition you keep referring to is contradictory and misleading, so when you deduce things from it, of course you're going to get paradoxical results, although there really isn't a paradox here"

the dictionary definition is not contradictory or misleading, and forms a solid basis of facts. hence the fact there is not a paradox, although, you are left to draw your own conclusion on whether nothing can be in our universe or whether that would be a paradox.

>"The only problem here is in treating 'nothing' as an object."

as stated before, i treat nothing as a substance, not an object. the only thing i can compare nothing to is anti-matter in star trek as it is not existence it is anti-existence, if u get what i mean. i don't know much about anti-matter though.

>"You've said that you don't want to get into the philosophy, but I don't think the entry is going to be factually correct unless you do"

everything in the entry is factual as it is looking at nothing from a factual perspective. by including philisophical views i would be including information that is not factual, but opinions on nothing.

i also know this entry is factual and i have drawn factual conclusions as i went through this entry step by step when writing it and looked at everything from a factual perspective when writing.

spook

Regarding Post 54, please be careful when "Having" things.

Sate?

DMT

One of the definitions from dictionary.com:

substance

4: the stuff of which an object consists

If nothing is a substance it must make an object. What is that object if nothing is not an object?

Tango

oxygen is a substance that does not make an object.

spook

Air is an object.

Tango

i disagree, air is a substance, and not all substances make up objects, so we can debate about air all day but if nothing is a substance then it does not have to make an object, and i am not saying that nothing cannot form an object, but for that we would need more evidence and data on the substance.

spook