Just some questions. From whence did the "higher physics" emerge, of which our 4D space/time is itself an emergent "phase change?"
I can readily accept the idea that what we see in our 4D world may well be just a manifestation of a higher-dimensional physics beyond the direct observational ken of human beings. But God is likewise beyond the direct observational ken of human beings. It seems in effect you are trying to put higher dimensional physics in place of God. If so, I gather that it would be okay with you if I were to ask (as other people ask with respect to God — i.e., what caused God?), what is the cause of this higher-dimensional physics?
To allege that people who do not ascribe to your cosmology hold that "null = something" is to entirely miss the point of what "null" means — which my dearest sister in Christ Alamo-Girl has been at such pains to explain to you and me.
To conclude that critics of modern scientific epistemology are holding that "null = something" is to invert what "null" actually means to such critics. Which is to say: null = absolute nothingness. Granted, such a thing as absolute nothingness is utterly beyond formulation by the human mind itself. In effect, your proposal that people like me think that "null = something" is to say that "bad thinkers" like me magically convert nothing into something — which is precisely what I cannot logically do.
Thus it seems to be you who falsely proposes that A≠A is what characterizes the thinking of people like me. If anything, we seem to be the people that gets this issue "right": Nothing cannot ever be anything, left to its own powers — of which it has none; for nothing does not exist such that it can have power or powers of any description whatsoever.
At least it seems you attribute a great deal of mental confusion to people like me, whose main difference from your own position (it seems) is that we do not believe that one can rationally reduce the world to the size of one's own mind and personal preferences. You go on to speak of the conservation of energy; but there's nothing in your proposal that seeks to answer the question of the origin of energy.
As to something as having been "always existing," it ought to be clearly obvious that there is no way in which you can support that claim on the basis of observation and experience. Temporally situated as we are, we do not see the whole of time. If there was a "beginning," we didn't see it. If there was no beginning, there was nothing to see. Such questions cannot look to direct observation for their answers, no matter how "rational" we think we are, or how "rational" we think the world is.
But if the world is in any sense rational, from whence did it get its ratio? You evidently seem to believe that this ratio is the "higher physics." Which to my way of thinking is simply to beg the question. Evidently you believe this "higher physics" is eternal.
Well, fine. Call this "higher physics" eternal if you want to. I'd say universal is the better descriptor of the situation. Still, for the world to be what it is, and not some other way, it must itself have had a cause. The logical requirement of a first unmoved (i.e., uncaused) mover to explain the phenomena of reality holds logically whether the universe is "eternal" or had a beginning in time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this question, spunkets!
Physicists tell us that space and time came into expression/existence with the creation of the universe we inhabit. Let's look first at dimension Space and its three variable expressions, using an 'allegory'.
To draw a line--representing linear Space--oe starts with a point on a page then holds down the pencil/pen and tracks a line. If one rapidly scribbles side to side with the writing instrument upon the page, while drawing the insturment forawrd of backward, the essence of a plane is expressed using merely lines. Did The Creator start at a point of thought and express first a linear expression of Space? When the linear 'stretched' as far as The Creator wanted, did this linear expression 'phase shift' into planar Space, and likewise at some desired expansion, the Planar Space 'phase shift' into Volumetric Space?
We could make an allegory for the unfolding of dimension Time, also, similar to linear, planar, and volumetric--past similar to linear, present similar to planar, and future similar to volume.
If we think of a quark as a packet of energy with certain expressions, would that not be a remnant of the phase shift states? Who is to say that the presnet universe we inhabit is not a phase shift state where more phase shifts have occurred since our 4D expressed?
And one further thought: when we expereince the universe, we do so as a projection based upon data received from temporal locations already in the past to us because we have a lagtime from energy/particle/wave emission to energy/particel/wave reception. Can anyone imagine a being able to sense in the present of an event, rather than extrapolating from past micro-events to fashion a storyline for reality?
We know we receive data fromt he recent past. We believe we exist in the present, and hope for the future. The 'future/volumetric' may already be, we just haven't reached that where/when yet.
They did not emerge. They always were.
"I can readily accept the idea that what we see in our 4D world may well be just a manifestation of a higher-dimensional physics beyond the direct observational ken of human beings. But God is likewise beyond the direct observational ken of human beings."
The higher dimentional physics you're referring to are simply detail that refers to the same 4d, not the physics this world arose from and within which God dwells. The physics of this world are simply a restriction placed on hte beings of this world to exist here only, because their machinery that provides for the functions of the sentience and rationality is limited to this world. See the parable in Gen 3. The physics of this world provide the function of the cherubim waiving the flaming sword.
"Granted, such a thing as absolute nothingness is utterly beyond formulation by the human mind itself."
It is not. It is quite simple and children can comprehend it. Absolute nothingness means exactly what the plain English phrase portrays.
I'll knock out the qualitatives that I didn't imply.
" In effect, your proposal that... people think that "null = something" is to say that folks magically convert nothing into something — which is precisely what I cannot logically do."
It is done by anyone who claims something was created from nothing.
"...there's nothing in your proposal that seeks to answer the question of the origin of energy."
There sure is! Again, it always existed.
"As to something as having been "always existing," it ought to be clearly obvious that there is no way in which you can support that claim on the basis of observation and experience."
The evidence for the conservation of energy is overwhelming. It includes observation of the vacuum interactions in this world. BTW, that vacuum is what this world is seen to arise out of and into which it is returning.
"Temporally situated as we are, we do not see the whole of time. If there was a "beginning," we didn't see it."
It's enough to know there was a beginning and that the beginning can be "seen", IOWs known and understood as a physical process, or transformation.
"Evidently you believe this "higher physics" is eternal."
Yes.
"Still, for the world to be what it is, and not some other way, it must itself have had a cause.
The cause is simply what's required for a phase change. What causes a steam bubble in an infinite pot of 100o water to pop. The world is what it is anyway.
Keep in mind Matthew 12:39, He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
To conclude that critics of modern scientific epistemology are holding that "null = something" is to invert what "null" actually means to such critics. Which is to say: null = absolute nothingness. Granted, such a thing as absolute nothingness is utterly beyond formulation by the human mind itself.
Many take things for granted, especially time. And also the arrow of time and causality itself.
At the root, we ask why this instead of nothing at all?
Why causality, why time, why space and so on.