It does seem a bit crap: "Science, too, seems to suggest that there exist many “nothings” that have a positive existence: the vacuum, the number zero" Pretty s

It does seem a bit crap: "Science, too, seems to suggest that there exist many “nothings” that have a positive existence: the vacuum, the number zero" Pretty sure that's confusing the positive existence of a label eg. the word 'vacuum' with the thing itself. He sort of addresses that: "But according to quantum mechanics, a vacuum contains quantum fluctuations and has non-zero energy." But this sounds crap too - prior to discovering quantum fluctuations (QF), was space empty or not? No it wasn't in reality because QF must have existed already, but did we consider it empty? Yes because we didn't know about QF. he goes on "And in any case, if a vacuum is a region of space, it contains space" And WTF is space? How can it contain it? It is space. more "And just like an empty plastic shopping bag is not nothing, an abstract empty shopping bag is not nothing, either." Actually it may or may not be depending on what you want. It is a concept, purely a concept, so it can represent utter void if you wish. This seems a sloppy, un-rigorous use of anything. I'm not impressed. and he winds up with this "All of this still leaves us with our original question: Are absences fundamental in perception?" Always questions. Some 'philosophers' seem to be just engines to turn questions into more questions. I'd prefer answers if you don't mind, and if you can't provide them then at least frame the questions such that some testable hypotheses can be made.