Talk:Q154242
Autodescription — nothing (Q154242)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “nothing” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
what is this?[edit]
Is this item supposed to model the concept nothing, or the word "nothing"? It seems to be used as the concept, but it's defined as the word... -- Duesentrieb (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Changing the description according to Wikidata_talk:WikiProject Ontology#What is nothing? -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
image of nothing, rather than no image[edit]
Currently the image is absent.
Image should be a common graphical representation of the concept, so no image is not a good way to convey the concept of nothing.
What is a common image of that concept? How about a 100% black image? Or an image of a basket containing nothing?
Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Photo of a square black nothing we have (Black Square (Q1170315)). We need photo of empty set (Q226183) --Fractaler (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Black image should be used with absence of colour or light. d1g (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd think that nothing having no image is fitting. Because it is nothing. Giving it an image makes it something. 2600:1700:1A21:6830:40C1:31BB:EF:883C 02:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
"nothing" is not an entity[edit]
It is a pronoun. Pronouns do not identify entities as intensions/Frege:Sinn. The complementary opposite of "nothing" is "something", and from the point of view of ontology, polar opposite ("everything") is irrelevant as an opposite. And "everything" is also a pronoun and not an entity. By contrast, "the set of everything", "the aggregate of everything", "the totality of all things" are conceptually all entities, whether they correspond to something out there or not. (Since, it could well be that each real existing thing is, but "the totality of all things" does not refer to any entity, and paradoxes of set theory would suggest that to be the case.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
nothing is manifestation of empty set[edit]
That is a beautiful heading since it reveals the pronoun nature of the word. And the concept of nothing is not a manifestation of empty set; empty set is something. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)