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

Gases are substances. So oxygen is a substance.

Are you disagreeing with a dictionary definition? If so then the whole basis of your article is flawed, as it is all based on a dictionary definition. You can't have it both ways.

Tango

Suppose I were to tell you about some kind of creature out there, roaming the tundra of Siberia, and suppose I told you that one of the defining characteristics of this creature is that it always has a thick white coat of fur. Suppose also I told you it also never has any fur on its body at all.

You would be right to conclude from this description that this creature cannot possibly exist, because its properties are logically self contradictory. Likewise with a substance that does not exist, it's properties are self contradictory. Therefore, it cannot exist, purely from logic.

White holes are a different story - they are supposed to have properties, such as spewing out matter etc, but those properties alone are not self contradictory, so we cannot conclude that they don't exist purely from logic (unless we later find some consequence of the properties of white holes that leads to a contradiction).

I'm not clear on your distinction between a 'substance' and an 'object'. Whats the difference exactly?

Antimatter does not have 'antiexistence'. It really does exist. The 'anti' refers to physical properties being in some senses opposite to ordinary matter, not to whether or not it exists.

>"substance

4: the stuff of which an object consists"

objects consist of substace, but that does not mean all substances make objects.

for example, i could say:

plastic

the stuff of which a chopstick consists. that does not mean that all plastic makes chopsticks.

Very true, but you could not use that as a definition of plastic. By using it as a definition it implies that it is always true in both directions.

Tango

This is getting a bit heavy for a Saturday night.

I agree, i am in the middle of about 5 conversations with people who are all online. Very hard work!

Tango

>"with a substance that does not exist, it's properties are self contradictory. Therefore, it cannot exist, purely from logic."

your logic is flawed, and you have to think outside the box on nothing.

the entry gives the properties of nothing, then says where it could be found. where it could be found states your opinion which is that it cannot be found in our universe. it also states another theory that it can be foun in our universe.

i think you are saying the entry is not factually correct as it gives a difefrent theory to your own, hoever, it also gives your own view in there. you simply are not realising that the entry works on the assumption that there is a substance 'nothing', which it states at the very beginning. u disagree with the existence/non-existence of such a substance, while this entry looks at it from a factual perspective of what the theoretical substance would be like.

spook

tango - i think we are on to a matter of interpretation now, however, it has no effect on the entry which is factual in every way. of that i am certain.

spook

There is no such thing as "thinking outside the box" as far as logic is concerned. Logic is black-and-white by definition.

Tango

PS If my posts here seems to be more curt and unfriendly than usual, i apologise, i am not in a particuly good mood due to another thread. Sorry.

"your logic is flawed, and you have to think outside the box on nothing."

Could you perhaps point out where? Without some sort of justification, just dismissing an argument as logically flawed is not going to further the pursuit of knowledge...

If the 'box' is logic, then no, I don't have to think outside of it.

"you simply are not realising that the entry works on the assumption that there is a substance 'nothing', which it states at the very beginning."

I'm realising this very clearly. I'm disputing that you can take this as an assumption in the first place. Well, you can start from an assumption that is not true, then you'll get to a contradiction sooner or later. There's a pretty fast way to get to a contradiction from logic, you don't need to go out and try to find it somewhere in the universe to do that. Once you've got a contradiction, assuming you didn't make any mistakes in deriving it, then the initial assumption is false, end of story.

Once you have this, whats this about a theory that it can be found in our universe? Either one of the theories is true or the other is no? Which is it to be?

I wasn't sure where in the entry this second theory is...is this it:?

"Nothing could then only be found in a place outside our reality where there is no existence, and it is impossible to know whether there even is a place."

Sure its possible to know if there is such a place. Its "a place where there is no existence", hence it doesn't exist.

Whoami - its just about lunchtime here

Not in the UK, it isn't. You're in the USA, aren't you?

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

I would strongly disagree with the assertion that definitions in a dictionary constitute 'definite known facts'. They're just some lexicographer's attempt to reflect common usage. There's no guarantee that dictionary definitions will have any logical or philosophical consistency. In particular, 'something that does not exist' is an oxymoron, IMHO.

Have you looked in a philosophical encyclopedia, or any place other than a dictionary?


GTB

*spook bangs head on table lots of times.*

why can't someone critiscise parts of the entry instead of the entry itself. logic is not always right. the assumption that there is a substance 'nothing' is made as it is theoretically possible, as are the big bang, different dimensions, white holes, and so forth. and nothing may be a substance with opposite properties to other substances where other substances are not, in space somewhere. or, they may not be in space. we do not know, therefore both options are informed about.

if u give me any piece of factual data that can be taken as pure fact that is not in the dictionary, then please, give it to me. if not, then do not dispute the fact that they are facts.

u must think of nothing out the box as it is not a regular substance as it has irregular properties which seem contradictory to fact but are not, you are simply thinking in human terms of existence, while nothing's non-existence is the state it holds, a state which is called nothingness.

this entry made an assumption and does not contradict that asumption so the assumption cannot be faulted.

>"Sure its possible to know if there is such a place. Its "a place where there is no existence", hence it doesn't exist."

no no no. a place where there is a lack of existence could eb space as as far as we know space is just total nothingness that lasts forever and the nothingness is only not there when matter or energy or existence move into the space.

why can't anyone understand such simple facts and i don't even know what i have and haven't replied to so i am just gonna shut up now and maybe bang my head on the table few more times.

spook

'why can't someone critiscise parts of the entry instead of the entry itself.'

Anyone who knows my habits of Peer Reviewing will know that I think it is important to point out any serious flaws in the entry as a whole, before getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty of individual points. As far as I am concerned, this entry has serious flaws in being both superficial and confusing.

'logic is not always right.' Since you don't want to get into historical or philosophical discussions, what you are left with is a matter of contradictory meanings and logical paradoxes. If you can't pick your way confidently through matters of logic and English usage, what's left?

'do not dispute the fact that they are facts.'

I think that both GTBacchus and I have pointed out that a dictionary definition is not a fact, it is a description of the way in which the word is commonly used.

'why can't anyone understand such simple facts'

Probably because your presentation of them is not at all clear.

'*spook bangs head on table lots of times.*'

I think that in this case you have bitten off more than you can chew. Since I have made my opinions clear, I think it's as well to unsubscribe.

Azara

ok i've changed the dictionary meaning bit slightly and i've also added an eistence of nothing section which u may like to read now but it is not finished and i'm going to bed bye

spook

DMT, re "Having": Haw haw. I'll never get used to that distinction - it's not in American English.



Spook: "by including philisophical views i would be including information that is not factual, but opinions on nothing."

I'm concerned that you seem to think that, in this entry, you're not talking about philosophy. By talking about the existence of things (or of 'nothing', as the case may be), you're going into an area of philosophy called ontology. Your treatment of 'nothing' in this entry also touches on logic, philosophy of language, and I think some metaphysics (). Saying that you're not doing philosophy, and ignoring all philosophy about 'nothing' except that which you invented (without calling it philosophy), doesn't mean that you're not writing about philosophy, it just means that you're doing it without doing your homework, ie, any research.

I also disagree that you'd be including non-factual information if you told us what any pre-Spook thinkers have said about nothing. Fact: Aristotle said X. Fact: Sartre said Y. Et cetera.

Interesting that when the great thinkers of Western Civilization have tried their best to be factual, all they could come up with were mere opinions, but when you simply log on to the trusty M-W.com, you manage to present us a completely factual entry. Too bad Heidegger didn't have a dictionary, huh? Could have saved us all a lot of trouble.


I don't think this is a topic on which one can write a good entry without doing one's homework.

Spook, would you agree that this entry is theoretical? If so then I remind you of the writing guidlines which state that EG entries must be factual. Theories can only be in the EG if they are widely accepted, and therefore the entry is ABOUT the theory, and is not the theory itself. The way I see it, this does not comply with the guidelines.

Tango

>"Theories can only be in the EG if they are widely accepted"

a theory is a theory. u cannot make tha separation, and this entry is talking about a theoretical substance that may or may not exist/non-exist. it is looking at it from a factual perspective, just as u would look at the big bang from a factual perspective. everyoen seems to be disputing the substance when they have no evidence to the contrary. therefore i will ignore or comments made about how the substance is not, as they are unfair critiscisms.

>"I'm concerned that you seem to think that, in this entry, you're not talking about philosophy. By talking about the existence of things (or of 'nothing', as the case may be), you're going into an area of philosophy called ontology. Your treatment of 'nothing' in this entry also touches on logic, philosophy of language, and I think some metaphysics (). Saying that you're not doing philosophy, and ignoring all philosophy about 'nothing' except that which you invented (without calling it philosophy), doesn't mean that you're not writing about philosophy, it just means that you're doing it without doing your homework, ie, any research."

i'm not ignoring philosopy. i am simply basing this entry on fact. if this entry touches on all those things then it does, but simply including a few philosophical vies on nothing will not do. give me a header, some part of nothing this entry does not explore, then i will include a section on it. i will look at the data so far, the properties and effects this would have, use factual knowledge, perhaps scientific knowledge (i am gonna use scientific knowledge in the existence of nothing section), and then draw a number of logical conclusions possible from the data, which will no doubt concur wth philosophical views on nothing.

that is how this entry works and by following this process the entry always stays factual and informative. like i said, suggest sections that should be improved. don't just say this entry is flawed as the substance should not exist, like u lot have been doing, but instead, u should have suggested how to improve it, like what i am ding, adding a section on the existence of nothing in the first place. don't just say u disagree with the fact that the dictionary meanings are definite facts, but suggest that it would be re-worded to say how they are taken as a basis of fact which could possibly be disputed and why.

>"I also disagree that you'd be including non-factual information if you told us what any pre-Spook thinkers have said about nothing. Fact: Aristotle said X. Fact: Sartre said Y. Et cetera."

if any philisophical views were put in this entry it would be to back up or disagree with some of the conclusions this entry has made. if u have any helpful links then please, give me them, but it is extremely hard to find relevant philisophical views on nothing, as i tried once and i did not have much luck. maybe i might try again, but so far u've just said include views, u have not suggested in what context, where, o anything such as that.

>"Interesting that when the great thinkers of Western Civilization have tried their best to be factual, all they could come up with were mere opinions, but when you simply log on to the trusty M-W.com, you manage to present us a completely factual entry."

this entry states if the substance does exist then it would have to have these properties, based on information from the dictionary, yes, and also from looking at nothing from a logical perspective. this entry mixes a lot of things together to look at nothing from a factual perspective. it is theoretical yes, and as i have sid, i am happy to include other views in, bu not just as views in an entry, but mixed into the sections to back up or disagree with what has been deduced.

all i have been getting from people is critiscism, a lot of it about the entry itself, while no-one is giving helpful suggestions on where and how it can be improved. hasn't anyone ever read 'How to Comment in Peer Review' on the peer review page?

"Simply posting 'I hated this, it's rubbish', doesn't give the author much of a clue what they may be doing wrong. If you don't like it, try to make your criticism specific."

people have just been saying 'nothing does not exist, this entry is totally wrong, it's rubbish.'

perhaps you people should re-think how you comment in peer review, as if i was a newbie, i'd have left h2g2 by getting such horrible and unfair critiscism.

spook

I like it!
I was once quotes as saying "there are many different kinds of nothing".
That came from a technical discussion we were having about marking an entry in a data base as empty, never had data rather than zero money, empty string, etc.

Chris Date, the database guru, wrote a little program to track membership in some club he was in. The members paid monthly dues. Those members who had never made a single payment didn't get found by his test for those having paid less than the full amount, because a null is not the same as zero.

Awu