@Yogi DMT,
Emil wrote:That depends what "empty universe" means.
Absolutely, it does.
Quote:If the universe 'contains' only space-time but no things besides that, it seems to me that it can rightfully be called empty.
Yes, I noted that later. However, I think that's
still a misnomer. Because, there's nothing with which to be empty. There is no container. So, what exactly is empty? Nothing, because there would be nothing in an empty universe. Empty universe is a confused notion. Unless, of course, you conceptualize the universe is a container. In that case, we could rightfully call the universe empty, just as we could rightfully call a water jug empty. But that's not how the universe is, from the information we currently know, so why go down that path? I can conceptualize that the sun is made of red marbles, too, but why would I?
kennethamy wrote:Well, as I said, I don't think there can be an empty universe, since it would be impossible to distinguish one from another, and impossible to count them. And unless something is distinguishable, and countable, it is not conceptualizable. So, I cannot be conceptualizing anything that is an empty universe.
You could conceptualize the universe as an empty water jug. Isn't this analogous to the idea "empty universe" these people were using? In this case, you don't have to distinguish or count water jugs to conceptualize an empty water jug, do you? But, again, as we both noted, it's silly to do this.