Perhaps it's time for some clarity regarding my position on the subject of nothing.
Nothing is the absence of absolutely everything: no matter, no energy, no QM, no potential.
Although the term is used in many limited/limiting ways, and may have reached a point where it is necessary to qualify it as “absolutely nothing”; it is the above sense in which I use it, unless qualified for some specific reason.
There are various “clever” arguments that one meets in the course of discussion. I’ve never actually met this one, but it has the requisite “smartarse” touch. Absolutely nothing can have no certainty; it can also have no uncertainty, but if we can say with certainty that it has no uncertainty, then it must have certainty. If we cannot say that with certainty, then it must have uncertainty. Which does it have? Of course, this is pure semantics. It is not worthy of scientific discussion, but there are many arguments out there that are less obviously empty words, but amount to the same thing.
For nothing to become something, or something to become nothing would necessitate the violation of the laws of physics.
