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

The EG is not a place to put your own theories. This has been discussed before. Entries ABOUT theories are ok, entries that ARE theories are not.

Tango

Hi Spook, hi all,

i know we have spoken before, Spook, and i realise i generally don't like your style of posting, so i'm trying very hard to be impartial...

and the previous post to this is positive...

but i simply don't think you understand the nature of the criticism you have received. And i think that in being facetious and suggesting that some very clued up reviewers who have taken the time to lay out some very sound and detailed criticism of this entry to 'go and read the How to comment page' is sadly revealing of your blinkered attitude towards your own entries.

i agree with the description 'superficial and confusing'. I also agree with:

>>'why can't anyone understand such simple facts'

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

I don't honestly think you will get this entry to the EG. I hope not, anyway. Did you recognise the names GTB was listing, great philosophers down the ages who have already done *much* better than this with their discussions of 'nothing', in some cases over 2000 years ago?

Or, as one of your latest posts appears to suggest, were you expecting someone else to give you all the info we are suggesting would be necessary to make this a valid look at the concepts involved? If any of us wanted to do that, we would have written it...

You claim it fits the guidelines... I'd say it's arguably not 'factual' certainly not 'informative' and definitely *not* writing 'about what you know'.

good luck with it, if you really want it to be a definitive guide entry on 'nothing'. It has a long way to go, in my view. And i am only agreeing with what other reviewers have said better than i could.

btw, i still feel that you are rude in the way that you respond to criticism.

>>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.
<<

... is just absurd when you have had such thoughtful, intelligent and frankly generous feedback from some well-respected regular peer reviewers.

cya
spiff

And if you were a newbie, of course we would have responded differently. We would have assume the mistakes were due to ignorance of the ways of h2g2, and would have explained them. As it is, we know that you should know better, and i think that explains the style of our posting.

Tango

Still, everyone could take a lesson in 'fluffiness'. It'd be nice to be nice.

I'd like to think I started of being nice, but when you are talking to a brick wall it is very difficult to stay nice. But you're right, we must try harder.

Tango

i guess no-one who visits peer review has heard of make suggestions on how an entry can be improved instead of critiscise an entry and say how bad it is.

and spiff - i am getting really p****d off at how u r critiscising my writing style. i have accepted it long enough, and u even seem to critiscise it in other threads when i haven't done anything wrong, so perhaps you should spend the time thinking about what u put in your posts, since u obviously enjoy to insult me at every chance u get.

and tango - it is your opinion that this is not eg suitable, and other people i other threads and others in this 1 disagree with u, so don't lay down the law. this is not justmy theory, i am looking at a theoretical substance from a afctual perpective and the properties it would have. it isn't my ersonal little theory, and the next time u say it is will be the last straw. either make a fair critiscism and suggest how the entry could be improved, or just shut up, because i've had enough of your unhelpful, hurtful posts. i have put a lot of effort into this entry and i do not like it when you continuously put me and it down.

and spiff again - u made a nice long post put did u ever think of suggesting ways for the entry to be improved instead of making fun of me and putting "I don't honestly think you will get this entry to the EG. I hope not, anyway." i mean, hurtful comment. and u critiscise my posting style?

tango: "And if you were a newbie, of course we would have responded differently. We would have assume the mistakes were due to ignorance of the ways of h2g2, and would have explained them. As it is, we know that you should know better, and i think that explains the style of our posting."

how does that help me improve this entry? by saying i have made mistakes? what mistakes?

spiff - why don't u critiscise that post, since u enjoy critiscising. but, oh wait, my problem with that post doesn't count because it's me, does it spiff?

spiff: "btw, i still feel that you are rude in the way that you respond to criticism."

spiff, u wnat me to be rude, then fine spiff, i'll be rude. just f**k off spiff. i don't want to see u commenting on any of my entries again unless u r going to do it without critiscising my writing style. i have had enough with u. u happy now?

and if anyone tells me to be nice then i am not gonna listen as i have had enough with the horrible treatment i seem to be getting from people in peer review.

spook

Awu - thanks for the positive comments! it's because i know there are fiendly people like u that i don't give up on writing entries for the guide.

spook

"i guess no-one who visits peer review has heard of make suggestions on how an entry can be improved instead of critiscise an entry and say how bad it is."

They are the same thing, you improve what is bad, so telling you what is bad is the same as telling you what to improve.

"and spiff - i am getting really p****d off at how u r critiscising my writing style. i have accepted it long enough, and u even seem to critiscise it in other threads when i haven't done anything wrong, so perhaps you should spend the time thinking about what u put in your posts, since u obviously enjoy to insult me at every chance u get."

The entire point or Peer Review is to criticise, and if you read spiffs post more carefully you would notice that he said he WASN'T going to critisise it, because it wouldn't help anyone.

"and tango - it is your opinion that this is not eg suitable, and other people i other threads and others in this 1 disagree with u, so don't lay down the law. this is not justmy theory, i am looking at a theoretical substance from a afctual perpective and the properties it would have. it isn't my ersonal little theory, and the next time u say it is will be the last straw. either make a fair critiscism and suggest how the entry could be improved, or just shut up, because i've had enough of your unhelpful, hurtful posts. i have put a lot of effort into this entry and i do not like it when you continuously put me and it down."

Laying down the law? How have I done that exactly, I have expressed my opinion about the entry, what would you expect me to do in PR? How do you define a "fair" critiscism? I think all my comments have been fair, and if you can't take that you shouldn't submit work to PR.

"and spiff again - u made a nice long post put did u ever think of suggesting ways for the entry to be improved instead of making fun of me and putting "I don't honestly think you will get this entry to the EG. I hope not, anyway." i mean, hurtful comment. and u critiscise my posting style?"

He was expressing an opinion, just like every other tom dick and harry in this godforsaken place. Grow up!

"tango: "And if you were a newbie, of course we would have responded differently. We would have assume the mistakes were due to ignorance of the ways of h2g2, and would have explained them. As it is, we know that you should know better, and i think that explains the style of our posting."

how does that help me improve this entry? by saying i have made mistakes? what mistakes?"

It doesn't help you improve the entry, i was simply countering an arguement you had made. What mistakes? Try reading the rest of this thread.

"spiff - why don't u critiscise that post, since u enjoy critiscising. but, oh wait, my problem with that post doesn't count because it's me, does it spiff?"

Now who's getting personal?

"spiff: "btw, i still feel that you are rude in the way that you respond to criticism."

spiff, u wnat me to be rude, then fine spiff, i'll be rude. just f**k off spiff. i don't want to see u commenting on any of my entries again unless u r going to do it without critiscising my writing style. i have had enough with u. u happy now?"

Of course he's not going to be happy, of course he doesn't want you to be rude. Just grow up.

"and if anyone tells me to be nice then i am not gonna listen as i have had enough with the horrible treatment i seem to be getting from people in peer review."

So you don't value being nice? How do you expect people to be nice to you if you are not nice to them? No-one started of being un-nice, they just critisised your entry, which is what they are meant to do, it is you that has not been nice.

Tango

Judging by your reply to Spiffy and Tango I'm guessing you're not too pleased about their comments, spook?

From what I can glean from the multitudinous backlog on this thread is a great deal of confusion on both sides. I assume that you are familiar from your English Media paper on questions 1 and 2, using the skills 'Inform, Explain and Describe' and 'Analyse, Review and Comment' respectively, and with a view to the Entry being an article of the Earth Edition of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, on BBCi, therefore making it part of the media. I shall try and do it from this point of view:

How are the points put forward on the H2G2 Entry 'Nothing'? Analyse its explanation of the etymological, mathematical and lexigraphical definitions and theories on the noun, 'nothing'.

You might want to comment on:

- presentation of the information with regards to the intended audience

(25)

(Right, let's see...)

The Entry 'Nothing' uses views from several different areas to put forward the case about the noun 'nothing' so that it attempts to be both understandable and concise to the reader.

The Entry bases itself upon the theory that 'nothing' is 'something that does not exist... it is not really a substance'. This gives that impression that 'nothing' is an entity that is not within the human range of perception, and so therefore more of an idea rather than of substance. However, the etymology of the word 'nothing' could be said to come from 'no thing', as could be used in the sentence 'Nothing is here' - 'No thing is here', so there is not a 'thing' in substance or perception wherever 'here' may be.

The mathematical point of view that the Entry puts forward looks at how the idea of 'nothing' has a value of zero. This relates to the point put forward that it is 'something that does not exist'. It uses the simple sum '1 - 1 = 0', where '1' has lost its value of being 1 by being subtracted by itself to have a non-existent value, but has rather become the integer '0'. There is 'no thing' that is perceivably visible that shows us the original value, and therefore 'nothing' is there to show that.

'nothing is not actually zero, but has a value of zero'

However, the point made previous to that begs the suggestion that zero could be 'nothing', or has a value of 'nothing', contradicting this quotation. To clarify this, for example, the sentence, 'I fall sleep when I eat' suggests that when you are in the process of eating, you fall sleep. However, the opposite of this, 'I eat when I fall sleep', would not be the same as the latter, as it suggests that when you fall sleep you are still in the process of eating. There is not enough information present in the second to say that it is identical to the first. This asks a further question - whether the concept of zero is within the same perception to us as the concept of 'nothing', and makes for a rather confusing debate.

In contrast, the next paragraph explains it further, attempting to clarify the confusion by using zero as the value of 'nothing'. On the other hand, there is slightly more confusion, with the reference to 'zero degrees'. Temperature is measured in degrees Celsius, degrees Fahrenheit and the SI unit Kelvin. It implies that a temperature of zero, without a specific unit, has no temperature at all. On the other hand, water freezes at 0ºC, and absolute zero delves further into the negative range of the temperature scale whilst still having a temperature. Therefore, it seems to suggest that anything with a temperature of zero, be it degrees Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin, would have no temperature at all, pulling in further confusion.

Returning to the point of perception stated previously, the Entry states that 'nothing is the opposite to something', and explains clearly how 'nothing' can be 'something' because of the idea of 'nothing' in existence. This relates back to the dictionary definition at the beginning, of how 'nothing' is 'something that does not exist'.

In the conclusion of this Entry, it acknowledges that 'Nothing is a very difficult concept to understand', suggesting that confusion due to difficulty to understand the Entry is also part of what the reader may come across. However, the conclusion itself brings some contradiction into it, referring to 'nothing' as a 'thing...', which it cannot be as 'nothing' is 'no thing', and therefore not a 'thing'. The other points referred to in the conclusion successfully back up that 'nothing' cannot be perceived, and therefore is a mere concept, an idea.

In conclusion, the Entry uses the concepts in regards to the mathematical and perceivable sense to put forward 'nothing'. However, it appears that to be able to successfully understand the idea of 'nothing' in this Entry, the reader may be required to bypass the confusion that may come with debating over the idea of 'nothing'.

--

Well, this analogy is different to how I'd usually put it, obviously in quite different circumstances, and shorter than one of my normal answers to 'Inform, Describe and Explain' and 'Analyse, Review and Comment', but I had to tackle some quite confusing topics in my opinion to be able to understand it. It is neither critical of the Entry or praising, and just analyses the way that it is presented to the reader.

If you would like a positive comment to respond to, spook, I can say that it is practically grammatically correct. If you would remove the extra 'the' in the paragraph 'For other things, zero could represent... The most likely answer would the that a temperature...', the grammar would be fine.

I hope this response can be accepted, and it appears that you are very clear on 'Argue, Persuade and Advise' with your comment to Spiffy and Tango

Caper Plip

Whoami? - you're right of course. I suspect I'm not very good at being 'fluffy'. I am good at some things, but maybe they're not what's needed in this thread. Spook's asked for specificity and civility, which I can pull off, I think.



Spook - I'm sorry. I thought I had been specific about suggesting improvements. I suggested that you research the entry. I didn't suggest that it would be particularly easy. You may not have *meant* to choose a difficult topic, but you did, and it deserves a more thorough treatment than you're giving it, IMHO. Asking that someone simply provide a link is like asking that someone research the entry for you. I looked for good treatments of 'nothing' on the net, and I didn't find any, in a quick Google search or two. That shows how valuable it would be to have a good one here, so I think it'll be super if you're willing to do the work required to give us one. If you do, you'll have my full support, and any assistance I can provide.

If I were writing this entry, my research would include familiarizing myself with the literature that's been mentioned in this thread to the point that I could confidently summarize the thoughts on 'nothing' of at least a couple of important thinkers. Some work with a search engine will find you summaries of specific philosophers' ideas about 'nothing'. Suggested keywords: 'nothing' + [name of philosopher] OR [name of philosopher] + [name of book/essay].

I did go over the logical status of the word 'nothing' with HenryS. We, I admit, used fairly abstract, symbolic language to talk about it. Your reply was that you didn't understand, from which it wasn't clear to me whether you were at all interested in that angle. If you want to talk about that stuff, I'd be happy to explain it, but it really deals more with 'nothing' as a pronoun, so maybe it's not what you're interested in, as you've said you're focusing on the less common, noun usage.

I've also responded to some specific things you've said, which is not out of line, seeing as this is a conversation. I wouldn't count those as criticisms of the entry or critcisms of specific things about the entry, but as responses to things you've said in this thread.

Bottom line/Specific suggestion: *Learn* about the topic, and base the entry on what you learn, rather than on what occurs to you after reading a definition in a dictionary. cf Writing Guidelines 7 and 8 ("write about what you know" and "research your entry thoroughly")

If you're only interested in doing your own philosophy, rather than researching anyone else's, then I suggest you submit your work to the Post, or the AWW. Alternatively, if you want to write the EG entry on 'nothing', but don't want to do all the work yourself, then CWW might be a good option, and might lead to an entry that's much better suited for Peer Review, if that's the path you're determined to pursue.

GTB

(I hope I'm not coming off as rude. This thread seems to be full of misunderstandings. If anyone wants to suggest how I can be more helpful in my PR comments, I'm certainly open to hearing what you have to say. My personal space is just a click away.)

Caper Plip - thanks for the coment. when i update this entry i will re-read what u have put and look at ways to improve on it.

GTB - i think some of your critiscism was unfair but i do think u did have a few good suggestions in some of the other postings. i got lost with your representations when you were speaking to HenryS and if it was talking about the usage of the pronoun then i probably won't include any of what u said in the entry anyone,as this entry is focusing on the noun form. although, an explanation would be nice as it may help me when improving the entry.

i'll also look at your comments when looking to improve this entry. in truth GTB, it was mainly spiff and tango that got me p****d off (i gotta get congrats for always starring out my swearing, right?). spiff with the fact he just came in and started critiscising me personally and my writing style, and tango because of comments such as "I'd like to think I started of being nice, but when you are talking to a brick wall it is very difficult to stay nice" which i found insulting, and it put me in a stress which is what made my previous post so angry and unfriendly. to those who were insulted by it, but i'd just had enough of being insulted.

>"you're only interested in doing your own philosophy, rather than researching anyone else's, then I suggest you submit your work to the Post, or the AWW. Alternatively, if you want to write the EG entry on 'nothing', but don't want to do all the work yourself, then CWW might be a good option, and might lead to an entry that's much better suited for Peer Review, if that's the path you're determined to pursue."

if i didn't plan on making this entry one of the best dam edited entries ever then it wouldn't still be in peer review!

please keep posting critiscism and try to focus on particluar aspects so that i know what to improve upon in a few dats once i've survived my GCSE mocks (i hope).

spook

no Spook, you get no congratulations for swearing at people with intent to insult. You are absolutely unjustified in doing so.

You also have a short memory. I have made various comments in this thread, ever since page 1. And when you *didn't* respond to my earlier comments, i didn't mind.

Do you understand that peer review is *not* a place to submit an unfinished article and expect reviewers to finish it for you with their comments? That is what you appear to be suggesting should be happening. I think you are aware of the existence and raison d'etre of the writing workshop, so why isn't this piece there where you could work on it?

You clearly don't recognise completely fair and politely stated criticism. That is bound to cause a problem in a forum like this.

I have never posted anything that i intended to be insulting to you. I have always tried to state my point of view regarding your manner of posting. The fact that you don't react well to criticism makes the whole peer review process difficult. I'm not interested in childish arguments. Not your kind, anyway. I *am* interested in writing and discussing other people's writing. That is what *most* people do in PR.

my congratulations, for what they're worth, go to GTB who manages to react to having his helpful comments misunderstood and/or ignored by simply repeating them in a different way.

you do realise that telling me to go forth and multiply in PR constitutes flaming, i hope. More sensitive souls than myself might be reaching for the button or crying to the eds. personally, i just think that you are the only person to suffer, as it reveals more about your character than mine.

You just don't appear to think about what people are saying to you, sometimes. Your self-righteous posts above suggest that you may not even have bothered to read what i wrote, and just got into a mardy and posted in anger. a shame really, but no big deal.

good luck
spiff

"if i didn't plan on making this entry one of the best dam edited entries ever then it wouldn't still be in peer review! "

Rock and roll! It's good to remember that we're all in Peer Review for the same reason - filling the Guide with really great entries!

Hey, good luck on those GCSEs. I'm going to go ahead and post some stuff here now, for whenever you're focusing on this again. No hurry, of course. I'd hate to think I'm distracting anyone from their exams.



"i got lost with your representations when you were speaking to HenryS and if it was talking about the usage of the pronoun then i probably won't include any of what u said in the entry anyone,as this entry is focusing on the noun form. although, an explanation would be nice as it may help me when improving the entry."

I'll try to summarize the conclusion we arrived at. Rephrasing it will help to straighten out my own thoughts. Even if you don't use this in the entry, it will be good background knowledge to have.

---------------------------

Most pronouns stand for some noun. If I say "That is in the corner", then the word "that" is referring to some noun. The sentence really means "X is in the corner", where X is whatever noun "that" was referring to.

This also works if it's a personal pronoun: "He is in the corner" still means "X is in the corner"; we just know that X is a male human (or animal) in this case, referred to by "he".

"Nothing" is a funny pronoun, because it doesn't work the same way. If I say "Nothing is in the corner", that means that "X is in the corner" is a *false* sentence, no matter what noun X refers to. Alternatively, "X is not in the corner" is a true sentence, no matter what X refers to.

That makes "nothing" different from most pronouns. Instead of standing for some noun, it stands for *every* noun, but in the negation of the original sentence. The pronoun "nobody" works the same way, standing for all people in the negative.

You could compare it to "something" and "everything": "Something is in the corner" means there is some X, for which the sentence "X is in the corner" is true. "Everything is in the corner" means that no matter what X stands for, "X is in the corner" is true. (Ditto for "someone" and "everyone".)

Anyway, that all applies to "nothing" as a pronoun. Example: "Nothing is better than eternal bliss" means that, no matter what X stands for, the sentence "X is better than eternal bliss" is *false*. That's a textbook example of the pronoun use we've just described.

OTOH.....

"A peanut butter sandwich is better than nothing" is an example of a sentence where "nothing" is a noun - the usage this entry is about. First, we can see that the pronoun analysis doesn't work: "A peanut butter sandwich is better than X" certainly could be true for many X's. (A pb sandwich is better than herpes.) If "nothing" were a pronoun, as above, then "A pb sandwich is better than X" would always have to be false. Clearly, "nothing" isn't being used as a pronoun, but as a noun. It is a noun with the property that it's not as good as a peanut butter sandwich (though it's better than herpes, IMHO). It refers to lack, void, or absence, perhaps an absence of food.

"A pb sandwich is better than something that does not exist"
"A pb sandwich is better than the absence of all magnitude or quantity"
"A pb sandwich is better than zero"
"A pb sandwich is better than something of no or slight value of size"

Those all work as reinterpretations of the original sentence, although I would take issue with the meaningfulness of "something that does not exist". I still think it's a contradiction in terms. (See A145342 for a link?)



One other thing, before I forget. The typical mathematical way to *define* zero is as an additive identity. In other words, zero is defined as a number that you can add to other numbers without changing them. 0 + X = X, for all values of X. The fact that subtracting a number from itself leaves zero as the answer comes later.

That's just something I thought of, because you have a section where you talk about what zero means.



Well, I hope that some of that was useful, or at least interesting, or at least made sense to someone besides me!


GTB

Hi Spiff - simulpost there. (Thanks for the vote of confidence, BTW! )

It's true that PR isn't intended for WW-type stuff, but you know how much attention entries tend to get in WW. If Spook is interested in moving this entry there, I'll certainly migrate to the new thread that will arise. While we're here, though, I figure I'll keep posting here.



GTB

h2g2 is always a good distraction from my exams. takes my mind of them all. i had my english and frnech mock this moring and i've survived so hopefuly that is a good sign.

gtb - thanks for that explanation. it's starting to make sense to me now i think, and i think i got mixed up the first time because you were talking about the pronoun and u had too many Xs. anyway, i'll make sure i'll look at the stuff u've said when i perhaps do a little bit of wrk on this enty this evening.

spiff - not gonna reply to any point but one - i submitted this finished to pr yonks ago, and have since improved it lots of times and continue to do so until people think it is ready. at the present state it is not finished as of suggestions from people, however, there is no point taking this out of pr, submitting it to WW where it won't get attention anyway, finishin the entry, submitting it back to pr then getting a bunch of comments on how to make it better, then repeating the process again. better to just leave it where it is and work on it and work on it until it is finally the best entry there could ever be on, well, nothing!

spook - master of the nothing jokes

ok, good luck with this. I agree that having got this far in PR, there's no point in shifting it over to the WW now. But that's where it should've started off, imo. You say you posted it 'finished' yonks ago, but i don't agree. It was and is far from finished, again, in my opinion. In fact, it seemed to start off as a bit of a joke based on saying 'nothing' a lot.

I do realise you have done work to improve it since then, and I genuinely hope it finishes up as a good entry. I still don't think it is a particularly good way of dealing with a difficult and interesting subject, but it's there and you seem determined it should go in. Nothing is exactly what i can do about that.

I don't think i'll comply with your request that i refrain from posting to your threads in future, though. And i shall continue to try to remain polite in doing so. Perhaps you would be kind enough to do likewise. Whilst you claim to be getting 'horrible treatment' from 'people in PR', I'd say the only person who has actually been rude here is yourself. I'm sorry you took my comments so badly. But they were only my views on what had been said in the thread, not at all intended as 'personal insults' as you suggest.

One specific comment for you. You repeat the words 'this entry' a great deal, especially in the opening paragraphs. Perhaps it would read better if some of these sentences were reworded.

cya
spiff

I accidentally hit the wrong button.

Any suggestions on how we can resubmit this to PR?

I*really* apologise, Spook and everyone else in this conversation, for any inconvenience.

Ashley