It’s hard not to sound poetic at this level smile emoticon I find myself there too.
I like an essence / energies distinction. It’s old fashioned (like 1500 years old old-fashioned) but it works.
The more esoteric aspects of the Eastern Orthodox stuff that drew me in at the time (and I’m not suggesting it – just explaining my path) was precisely my ongoing fascination with quantum physics as a teenager.
They have a concept of the Uncreated God. The equivalent to this would be the Nothing concept you talk about.
This Uncreated God’s essence is just, well.. ‘there’. It’s not pantheistic but it has pantheistic elements to it, which is why the Ecumenical councils were so keen on getting things precise or trying to.
Forget the Jesus part of it at the moment.
Now, something that’s Uncreated is Nothing. It’s there but it’s not. We can’t trace it back. There’s no history really. No before to speak of before Time.
Yet, here we are.
At the tiniest levels you have fields. In the Nothing, the Uncreated Nothing that’s just Nothing, there’s still energies.
But energies of what?
We can visualise them using lines on paper. Wavy things. We can turn them into numbers. probabilities. All intangibles.
There’s no there, there.
Yet there, is there.
So, yeah, things get wonky, whenever you get to this level, whatever external construct you place around this nothing/everything thing.
Indeed. There’s limitations to logic – there’s something at the / inbetween the either/or. I love this zone myself. All the interesting stuff happens here. Physical systems, conceptual systems, whatever it is. I love this zone.