One criticism, void of the subject matter, pointed out by viewers has been how very, very similar the sketch is to one aired on comedy show This Hour Has 22 Minutes earlier this year.
In his Fourth Letter to Clark, for example, he first argues that there can be no sufficient reason for any ratio of void to matter other than 0 1, and then argues that "the case is the same with atoms: what reason can anyone assign for confining nature in the progression of subdivision?" (G VII.378/AG 332).
Now, however, new calculations in Physical Review Letters demonstrate "the bright side of voids": Because voids lack the gravitational pull of matter to restrain the universe's expansion, they expand faster than the overall cosmos, producing a Doppler shift that overwhelms the dimming and causes objects on a void's far side to look a few percent brighter than they otherwise would.
According to cosmologists, the inflaton field stretched a minuscule region of primeval space into a gaping void, then filled the void with the hot, dense soup of matter and radiation that grew into our universe.
Plenist theorists deny the void and assert a plenum of matter, as Descartes does by identifying matter with extension.
Descartes provides a ready example of a mechanical philosopher who was not an atomist insofar as he rejected the void and held that particles of matter could be broken down into smaller particles.
Following the Epicurean model (with debts to Lucretius, Democritus, and others still), he starts with a basic ontology of matter and void, and develops a thoroughgoing account of the physical world rooted in a picture of the inherent features of atoms.
My inability to find an answer to the above arises from the fact that within a cluster most of the spacetime is void of light emitting baryonic matter, and how would, then, this seemingly "empty" space appear to us in the face of an expanding universe?
It is derived from the Latin origin "emptiness", which in turn relates to Lucreatius' interpretation of matter and the void.
Anderson's tone is theatrical and clangorous because his vision of self-destruction and self-reconstruction involves masks and rituals; Carruth's is muted and mercurial because his vision of selfhood and its innate otherness is based in the voids and elisions and displacements of matter itself.
