Comment 16 by susanlatimer

I'm still trying to get my head around this. But I think it's more about humans always assuming that "nothing" is a viable option. Which means we have to ask what we mean by nothing. It's not a word that can be approached intuitively, though it often is.

I have my head fully round it and grasp Krauss's 'nothing'. The reason why the metaphysical nothing-ists keep on is largely because of the reluctance of physicists to draw the inevitable conclusion from their 'nothing'......which is that it must always have existed. The problem being that a mutiverse ( or whatever ) that is infinitely old raises even more philosophical questions.

Metaphysical nothing is philosophical child's play next to infinity......and it is thus ironic that Krauss thinks he has dispelled philosophy by dispelling metaphysical nothing, yet all he's actually done is present a cosmos that requires the metaphysical everything of infinite infinities.