Presentism and Infinite Chain of Past Events

[Edwardo Piet]

https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-i...ebate.html

"The theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford University suggested a highly technical nothing based on quantum field theory that involved a quantum system lacking degrees of freedom (dimensions). "The ground state of a gapped quantum system is my best answer," she said."

Do you (hammy) have an intuitive take on that?  Do you think Grandizer considered whatever the fuck she just said when forming his conclusion?

My take is that they're talking about the scientific reconceptualization of quote-unquote 'nothing'. Rather like the scientific reconceptualization of a 'splittable atom'. after they realized "Oops, this atom isn't actually an atom because it's splittable. Let's not change the name now though because then we'd have to keep constantly changing the name of what we find and that would get confusing and it would slow down scientific progress unnecessarily over something that is more of a job for the philosophers which a lot of us scientists aren't necessarily interested in." Or something to that effect.

And they're not talking about nothing. It's not possible to talk about nothing. One can only talk of 'nothing'. Nothing is by definition that which is not something and they are most definitely talking about something. If it were nothing they wouldn't even be able to talk about it, let alone discover it.