An infinite holographic reality

{this is not the same or anything like a multiverse theory, but there could be many different holographic realities, and some of them may work with similar information bases}

Unboundedness

The argument goes that where all things are unbounded, one thing would reduce or destroy another [argument below if you need it].
I can see a couple of exception to this, at least in theory;

1. If there is only one object or entity of existence; this would mean that the destruction of one thing would be the allowance of another, such that the unbounded essentiality of the oneness would retain its integrity as whole [merely its aspects would change].

2. An infinite holographic reality; if an aspect of a hologram [e.g. universe] is destroyed then the underlying ‘eidos’ or information set would remain, resulting in its holographic projection occurring elsewhere.

I think we can take 1 and 2 together within a single basic theory, imagine it as like an infinite set of fractals, where the image is resultant of the code/info. One could remove the image and the code/info remains, this by the same means to wit info is manifest holographically.

Essentially in the holographic theory, it would seam that where there is info that denotes it should be a given thing, then reality simply manifests that info as that thing.

What all this may mean for life/death, purpose and god, who knows. Perhaps you have some ideas? I rather like the fluidity of all this, it needs no beginning and finds its own reason and morality as it goes, nothing would be set in stone, though I guess there would always be some universals to how it all works.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The arguments…

Aristotle remarked of Anaximander that his positing of the first or primary principle [to life/existence] as "the Unbounded" is done in part so as to allow that things may not be destroyed by another's unboundness. The elements were conceived in their pure form, the property abstracted from that to which the property attaches, as essentially unbounded, but Anaximander realised that if any one of these were essentially unbounded the others must eventually cease to be, being overtaken by the unbounded (infinite) nature of the other. Thus no single element can be the primary unbounded principle (Thales had proposed this principle was "water"). Anaximander wisely noted the error in this thought, and posited not a single unbounded element but the notion of the unbounded itself as primary. This is a huge conceptual leap. Aristotle interpreted Anaximander's unbounded as an "internal undifferentiation", the mixing of all opposites (hot and cold, warm and dry, etc) together such that no quality is left of the originals, nothing but a singular undifferentiated and indeterminate "boundlessness" remains. It is then from this that all other differences arise, being separated out from the originary "whole" and entering into their common oppositional relationships.

Interestingly modern notions of difference in philosophy posit a similar "internal nondifferentiation", e.g. repetition of the same, to account for that from which difference arises. Nietzsche metaphorically conceived of this thought as the Eternal Recurrence/Return; Deleuze took up the thought and naturalised it further, positing an internal principle of difference, absence or void, as fundamental to everything (to "all forces") in so far as separation of quality effects inherent distancing and division. Even at the level of pure quantity space/time effects this separation, and this goes all the way back to Aristotle's formulation "A is A". So "space/time" is then seen only as the basic principle of repetition through which "the same" (difference/absence in itself [the "Unbounded"]) is manifest "physically" or on the level of force-interaction.

.