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!!!


> >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.