Primer to a Totalizing Cosmology
I believe in infinity and void, existing simultaneously, interpolating, cohabitating, interpenetrating. I believe that the infinitesimal and infinite loop back on one another — binary, antithetical mirrors set against one another, playing out the ineluctable possibilities contained by the set, “the whole of all being.”
I believe that, so far as the analogy goes, all of the normal basic rules of mirrors apply. When normal, average mirrors face one another, they cascade infinitely. One mirror is infinity, the other is the void. There are practical limits, and these practical limits also *ahem* reflect our limitations of perspective and observation of reality. First, we get in our own way, literally. As an observer that takes up physical space, it is only at the periphery that we catch a glimpse of just how far things go. In the center, our observational equipment itself (i.e. our head) gets in the way. Second, the inverse square by which the intensity of light diminishes over distance is further diminished by the fact that each successive reflection is farther away than the one before. In other words, things go dark very quickly, the deeper you look (this is analogous to entropy). Third, we can only look at one mirror at a time. We happen to look toward the infinity of stuff (or perhaps the void when meditating), and it is often impossible to keep ourselves reminded of the fact that the reflection of the other side is intimated in that which is directly in front of us. We are looking at both sides, but it only feels like one, for the most part.
Aside from these physical limitations, there are also limitations of the imagination. By this I mean, our anthropocentric assessments are falsely limiting.
First, we presume the nature of all possible observers to be like our own. Why could one not observe from an infinitely tiny point at the center of the first frame, and on a perfectly perpendicular vector? This would eliminate the problem of getting in our own way. (Our self-selected primacy of the material has always hampered our explorations). Also, who is to say the observer cannot be one who views all possible vectors simultaneously? The only true infinity must include all possibilities, after all. (Such a viewpoint would be impossible to calculate in any traditional manner as the amount of information entailed is greater than the number of particles in the universe; the computer required must therefore be larger than the universe itself. Said another way, the universe is that computer, and the perceived passage of time is the extrapolation of its grand algorithm). This simultaneity of all possible perspectives is the true reality. Every individual part of reality is observing every other part, at all times. These lines of observation represent an exponentially larger field of information than what is contained by the observable universe itself. This larger field might be called “god” or “the (true) universe,” “the clock” or “chaos” or “reality.” The names by which we label our pet theories are endearing and self-revealing, but meaningless. The label does not contain the set, merely gestures vaguely in its “direction” (all directions). We are all worshiping/observing/experiencing the same thing. Yes, that means you too, atheists. Whatever words we use to describe “what is,” IS!
This is my first post here on Medium. The goal was to toe the line between brevity, and giving a broad overview of my thought process and philosophical construct (which ultimately branches into every field of study). There are very many loose ends alluded to above. I hope to discuss them all with you in the future.