REDEFINING NOTHING. After insisting that explaining how something really big came from something very small is not the same thing as explaining how something came from nothing, Holt and Rosenbaum endorse a restrictive definition of “nothing”. Rosenbaum says: “[Holt] sets the bar high for nothingness. He won’t let just anything qualify as nothing. Nothing is not mere emptiness, nothing is not just a vacuum, which can be riddled with waves and particles and possesses extension, dimension, temporality, or at least laws.”

Rosenbaum endorses Holt’s definition of nothingness: “a closed spacetime of zero radius” and quotes Holt: “This is the most complete and utter nothingness that scientific concepts can capture. It is mathematically devoid not only of stuff but also of location and duration.”

This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.