It turns out, there’s still a lot you can say about nothing:
“The wary reader might fear that what we have here is a rehash of Krauss’s unhappy speculations about “possible candidates for nothingness” in A Universe from Nothing (which I criticized in a review in First Things). But that is not the case. Krauss’s book gained notoriety even among some thinkers who share his atheism for its conceptual sloppiness, arrogance, and philosophically ill-informed flippancy. Kuhn is neither conceptually sloppy, nor arrogant, nor flippant, nor philosophically ill-informed. Nor does he share Krauss’s unreflective scientism.
[...] In any event, Kuhn does something Krauss tried but failed to do, which is to propose a philosophically interesting conception of a kind of “nothing” which is something less than what he calls “absolute” nothing or “Real Nothing.”