Talk:Creatio ex materia

Stub classification

There isn't really enough information in this stub to categorise it in any concrete way, but I picked Physics because of the mention of Conservation of Energy and the See Also entries. --TheParanoidOne 15:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should categorize it in both Philosophy and that if it's possible, or if not...make it possible ;) Besides, the mention in 'see also' does not deem whether or not what category the actual content should be placed in, by the way. They're only relevant information, not sources. --OleMurder 19:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is King Lear included in the see also list?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.247.130 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

Could someone maybe insert a phonetic version of 'Ex nihilo nihil fit' (i.e. a guide to pronunciation)? My Latin isn't so hot. 142.66.49.154 19:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sound of Music

Shouldn't this article also give the quotation "nothing comes from nothing" from "The Sound of Music?" Most people I ask think that this is the origin of the quote, so it should at least merit a mention on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.108.43 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing - Zero to Negative

Nothing not necessarily mean Zero, It can also mean Negative.

If Nothing = Zero, Nothing comes from Nothing

If Nothing = Negative, Imaginary comes from Nothing
example: SQRT(-4) = -+2 or --2 = 2i—Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.212.105 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Logical Analysis of "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

Translation

Literally translated, this Latin phrase means, "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes." The Latin prefix 'ex', which the reader may recognize from English words such as, Exit, means 'out of'. 'Nihilo' is the ablative form of the Latin nominative 'Nihil' meaning 'Nothing'. And, 'fit' is the present indicative form of the Latin verb Fio meaning 'to become'.

Philosophical Assessment

For the purpose of this discussion, we shall define concept of Nothing to be literally the absence of any 'thing'. To briefly labor this definition, nothing means the absence of any physical material (seen or unseen), non-physical material, boundaries, alternate realities, unseen entities, energy, spirits, powers, beings, time, philosophies, logic, nature, etc. It 'literally' means 'no' 'thing'.
If the reader would try to imagine a universe of nothing (which the discerning reader will immediately recognize as a self-contradiction for, by our own definition, we have agreed that a 'universe', which is a 'thing', cannot exist in 'nothing') then the reader will begin to understand the difficulties of our human minds grasping the idea of nothingness. Difficult though it may be, it is, nevertheless, achievable. Consider this vast and boundless nothing. Now consider what would have to occur in this vast nothing that would cause something, 'any' 'thing', to come into existence. Since there are no alternate realities, nor energies, nor spirits, nor powers, nor any thing in the nothingness, there are not means or materials from which any thing could come into existence. There is nothing to cause something to exist. Therefore, the logical conclusion is, there is 'nothing' that can [be]come from nothing[ness]. Ergo, 'Ex nihilo nihil fit'. Rocky Fortune (talk) —Preceding undated comment added at 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Translation 2

Is " Born willy-nilly, every animal, both wild and tame," really the best possible translation? "willy-nilly"? Seriously? In a philosophical treaty? I get brevitas but there it must be a better substitute.
-Jacopo 75.132.82.147 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Excessive edit

I disagree with the removal of content in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nothing_comes_from_nothing&diff=932489332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.228 (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"This is different from the philosophical conception of nothing, which has no inherent properties and is not governed by physical laws."

I would be interested in where that statement came from. I have added a citation needed tag next to it, because it seems from a brief perusal of the literature that "nothing" in philosophy is an issue on which there are different perspectives. Therefore, this statement (if true) requires additional information to be added to it.--Phil of rel (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)