Download Nothing You Fit Do ##HOT##

Nothing, no-thing, or no thing, is the complete absence of anything; the opposite of everything, or its complement. The concept of nothing has been a matter of philosophical debate since at least the 5th century BC. Early Greek philosophers argued that it was impossible for nothing to exist. The atomists allowed nothing but only in the spaces between the invisibly small atoms. For them, all space was filled with atoms. Aristotle took the view that there exists matter and there exists space, a receptacle into which matter objects can be placed. This became the paradigm for classical scientists of the modern age like Newton. Nevertheless, some philosophers, like Descartes, continued to argue against the existence of empty space until the scientific discovery of a physical vacuum.

Existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger (as interpreted by Sartre) have associated nothing with consciousness. Some writers have made connections between Heidegger's concept of nothing and the nirvana of Eastern religions.

Download Nothing You Fit Do

Download 🔥 https://urlgoal.com/2y4OMx 🔥

Modern science does not equate vacuum with nothing. Indeed, the vacuum in quantum field theory is filled with virtual particles.[1][2] The quantum vacuum is often viewed as a modern version of an aether theory.

As everything, for him, was an article of faith, nothing, to his mind, was difficult to understand: the Great Flood had covered the entire world; before, men had the misfortune of living a thousand years; God conversed with them; Noah had taken one hundred years to build the ark; while the earth, suspended in air, stood firmly at the center of the universe that God had created out of nothingness. When I said to him, and proved to him, that the existence of nothingness was absurd, he cut me short, calling me silly.[3]

"Nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to make clear what is being discussed.

One of the earliest Western philosophers to consider nothing as a concept was Parmenides (5th century BC), who was a Greek philosopher of the monist school. He argued that "nothing" cannot exist by the following line of reasoning: To speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists. Since we can speak of a thing in the past, this thing must still exist (in some sense) now, and from this he concludes that there is no such thing as change. As a corollary, there can be no such things as coming-into-being, passing-out-of-being, or not-being.[4]

Other philosophers, for instance, Socrates and Plato.[5] largely agreed with Parmenides's reasoning on nothing. Aristotle differs with Parmenides's conception of nothing and says, "Although these opinions seem to follow logically in a dialectical discussion, yet to believe them seems next door to madness when one considers the facts."[6][7][8]

In modern times, Albert Einstein's concept of spacetime has led many scientists, including Einstein himself, to adopt a position remarkably similar to Parmenides.[9] On the death of his friend Michele Besso, Einstein consoled his widow with the words, "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us that believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."[10]

Bertrand Russell points out that this does not exactly defeat the argument of Parmenides but, rather, ignores it by taking the rather modern scientific position of starting with the observed data (motion, etc.) and constructing a theory based on the data, as opposed to Parmenides' attempts to work from pure logic. Russell also observes that both sides were mistaken in believing that there can be no motion in a plenum, but arguably motion cannot start in a plenum.[11] Cyril Bailey notes that Leucippus is the first to say that a "thing" (the void) might be real without being a body and points out the irony that this comes from a materialistic atomist. Leucippus is therefore the first to say that "nothing" has a reality attached to it.[12]

The most prominent figure among the existentialists is Jean-Paul Sartre, whose ideas in his book Being and Nothingness (L'tre et le nant) are heavily influenced by Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) of Martin Heidegger, although Heidegger later stated that he was misunderstood by Sartre.[19] Sartre defines two kinds of "being" (tre). One kind is tre-en-soi, the brute existence of things such as a tree. The other kind is tre-pour-soi which is consciousness. Sartre claims that this second kind of being is "nothing" since consciousness cannot be an object of consciousness and can possess no essence.[20] Sartre, and even more so, Jaques Lacan, use this conception of nothing as the foundation of their atheist philosophy. Equating nothingness with being leads to creation from nothing and hence God is no longer needed for there to be existence.[21]

The understanding of "nothing" varies widely between cultures, especially between Western and Eastern cultures and philosophical traditions. For instance, nyat (emptiness), unlike "nothingness", is considered to be a state of mind in some forms of Buddhism (see Nirvana, mu, and Bodhi). Achieving "nothing" as a state of mind in this tradition allows one to be totally focused on a thought or activity at a level of intensity that they would not be able to achieve if they were consciously thinking. A classic example of this is an archer attempting to erase the mind and clear the thoughts to better focus on the shot. Some authors have pointed to similarities between the Buddhist conception of nothingness and the ideas of Martin Heidegger and existentialists like Sartre,[22][23] although this connection has not been explicitly made by the philosophers themselves.

Laozi and Zhuangzi were both conscious that language is powerless in the face of the ultimate. In Taoist philosophy, however real this world is, its main characteristic is impermanence, whereas the Tao has a permanence that cannot be described, predetermined, or named. In this way the Tao is different from any thing that can be named. It is nonexistence, in other words, nothing.

Despite the proven existence of vacuum, scientists through the 17th to 19th centuries thought there must be a medium pervading all space that allowed the transmission of light or gravity. Thus, in this period, it was not accepted that complete nothing was possible. Theories describing such a medium are collectively known as aether theories, so named as an evocation of the aether, the classical element from Greek philosophy. In particular, the medium that is supposed to allow the transmission of light is called the luminiferous aether. This became the centre of attention after James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave in 1865.[24]

Although a physical medium was no longer required, the concept of aether still did not entirely vanish. It remained necessary to assign properties to the vacuum for various purposes. In some respects vacuum and aether are treated as synonyms by science.[30] In modern quantum field theory, a completely empty vacuum is not at zero-point energy, the lowest possible energy state. First proposed by Paul Dirac in 1927, the lowest energy state has constant random vacuum fluctuations which bring into existence short-lived virtual particles.[1][2] This is somewhat reminiscent of early philosophical plenum ideas, and means that vacuum and nothing are certainly not synonyms.[31]

Often you can write your IF formula so that it won't run unless the conditions are met (essentially doing nothing to the target cell). For instance, if the formula below was in a column "Total Days", nothing will happen in total days unless both a start date and end date are present.

@Mike Dufour - I concur with @Kelly P. 100% and have tested out the formula for you - check out the last row in the screenshot below that uses the formula but returns nothing in Column14 because the dates are essentially blank while rest are returning value 1.

About a year ago a member of the Italian Renaissance era fashion discussion group, Loggia Veccio on Facebook asked for help decoding the blackwork on the sleeves of this portrait. I volunteered, but heard nothing back. Today she came forward again to repeat her request. So I oblige.

I've noticed if I keep the color: black; in else then that could override another validation rule that colored it red previously. So I want it to either color it red or do nothing. I don't want it to make it black. I've also seen suggestions saying to use the [Column5] again in the else but then it's just rewriting the data without any other formatting, which is basically just saying color: black;.

When I put color: black in else it colors it black which is the correct color. But really I just want it to do nothing in the else. I don't want [Column2] there cause it will rewrite the data without any of the formatting so I lose the red if this was flagged for any other reason and by putting color: black in the else it would also overwrite any other rule as well.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with day jobs. Most people have them. They're an honest living. Some people really enjoy the particular one that they have. If your day job is right for you, that is wonderful and I will not second-guess your decision.

Sure, in the short run, I was writing XML files and Java classes which, knock on wood, successfully let my employers ship an examination management system to their client (a major university). I was a really effective Turing machine which accepted emails and tickets as input and delivered (occasionally) working code and Excel files as output. But no matter how much I spun, nothing about my situation ever changed. I worked my week, got to the end of it, and had nothing to show. The next week there would be more emails and more tickets, exactly like the week before. The week after that would be more of the same. And absolutely nothing about my life would change. I'd end the week with nothing. e24fc04721