http://Which%20brings%20me%20full%20circle%20to%20the%20question%20of%20nothing,%20and%20my%20own%20comments%20regarding%20the%20progress%20ofphilosophy%20in%20that%20regard.%20%20%20When%20it%20comes%20to%20the%20real%20operationalissues%20that%20govern%20our%20understanding%20of%20physical%20reality,%20ontologicaldefinitions%20of%20classical%20philosophers%20are,%20in%20my%20opinion,%20sterile.%20Moreover,%20arguments%20based%20on%20authority,%20be%20it%20Aristotle,%20or%20Leibniz,%20are%20irrelevant.%20In%20science,%20there%20are%20no%20authorities,%20and%20appeal%20to%20quotes%20from%20brilliantscholars%20who%20lived%20before%20we%20knew%20the%20Earth%20orbited%20the%20Sun,%20or%20that%20space%20canbe%20curved,%20or%20that%20dark%20matter%20or%20darkenergy%20exist%20do%20not%20generally%20inform%20our%20currentunderstanding%20of%20nature.%20%20Empirical%20explorations%20ultimately%20change%20ourunderstanding%20of%20which%20questions%20are%20important%20and%20fruitful%20and%20which%20arenot.%20用这个方法使我对虚无的问题有了圆满的认识，这是我自己所认为的在这方面的哲学进展。当提到理解物质现实的可操作的问题时，我认为经典哲学家的存在论定义会变得苍白空洞。再有，对于亚里斯多德（Aristotle）和莱布尼茨（Leibniz）谁是学术权威这个问题的争论也是毫无意义的。科学上没有学术权威，早期的辉煌学者是不大可能预示现在我们对大自然的了解的，比如地球绕太阳转，空间可被弯曲，暗物质和暗能量等。实验探索最终会改变我们对一些问题的理解，比如哪些问题是重要的能有收获的，而哪些不是。整段几乎全理解错了。我的理解是：
第一句的nothing跟他研究的真空没关系，意思是让我再回到原
来的（哲学没作用）的问题上，以及就这一点所作的关于哲学
发展的评论。
亚里士多德、莱布尼兹一句，意思是基于权威的辩论，不管这
权威是亚里士多德还是莱布尼兹都是无关紧要的。