Can "nothing" be unstable? Not by any scientific logic. > > >Absolute "nothingness" would be absolutely stable. To any sane natural philosopher it is a fairly ridiculous concept. > > George: I completely disagree with this! > How accurately can nothing be measured? > To be an absolute nothing it has to be 0.00000000000... > where there are an infinity of zeros. > If there was a nonzero digit somewhere along the line > it would not be nothing but something. > Something, however small, is something. > Nothing, to exist, has to be impossibly accurately defined.-This discussion is not at a math level, but philosophic. Nothingness can be conceived, and does not need to be measured. As conceived it is stable. Krauss' 'something from nothing' is not nothing, but a quantum virtual vaccuum, which is a something. Thus, something has had to be eternally present for us to be here.

The first commenter states: > > >Can "nothing" be unstable? Not by any scientific logic. > > >Absolute "nothingness" would be absolutely stable. To any sane natural philosopher it is a fairly ridiculous concept. > > I completely disagree with this! > How accurately can nothing be measured? > To be an absolute nothing it has to be 0.00000000000... > where there are an infinity of zeros. > If there was a nonzero digit somewhere along the line > it would not be nothing but something. > Something, however small, is something. > Nothing, to exist, has to be impossibly accurately defined.-Lawrence Krauss wrote a book in 2012, entitled "Something from Nothing."-In his view, you're wrong: Nothing never ceased to exist in the first place! -Love it when you post here!!! :-D