That is called "Absolute nothing" and it's not a science term
I dislike “absolute nothing” on the basis that you cannot have degrees of nothing. Either you have something or nothing. However, if science needs degrees of nothing, so be it.
Absolute nothing as per your definition can't exist in science it's not possible because there is an instant falsification because you exist.
Not only do I agree with this, it is what I have been saying on this forum for over three years.
Now can I reverse the problem why do you feel the need to even consider an absolute nothing? If you really feel absolute nothing as you have defined is essential then you need to take up a religion there isn't another choice and I am serious.
Could there be a spot of fixation amnesia here Orac. Look at my “signature”
Of course science does not depend on the answer to this question. Science existed before the Big Bang had even been thought of as a beginning of anything, and will continue if/when something replaces the BB.
So make a choice Bill S .... A or B .... no-one is ever going to give you any others and can't because of what absolute nothing implies.
On the contrary, as I have mentioned before, I have posting in various places on the subject of whether there can ever have been nothing; and if there was ever nothing would there be anything now. Below is just one of the many responses – backed by a PhD, and years working as a physicist:
“All these laws are assumed to be true only within our universe, since that's the only place where we can look to see if they're true. We have no idea what happens outside of our universe--if there is an outside. If our universe was created from "nothing" it's possible this law doesn't hold.
Similarly, causality can't be violated within our universe, but outside our universe it might be---in particular, the concept of causality probably wouldn't have meaning, since it describes how things interact within the space-time of our universe, which presumably doesn't extend outside of it.”
