A very interesting manner of trying to delve into the big picture, JB. And I like your honesty about having invested yourself into this realm at great length and disclaiming your views at the same time as the absolute truth. That is special.
I am a structural philosopher, and so I have to keep it simple. I am reading in your essays that you are not starting with the Accident. Rather, you accept the current conditions as if they are the eternal conditions.
My mind cannot comprehend that as a correct structure. To be living in a result demands that we start out with the Accident.
There are just three structures available how everything came into being, and two of the structures are not possible.
1. Everything from Nothing. This is something a 12-year old could perceive as possible. Mature people should know that this setup is not possible. I won't spend any time on arguing this.
2. A subsequent Everything from a prior Everything. This appears more correct already, potentially possible. Yet it can also not be. Any secondary 100% will revert to the original 100% in a jiffy. We really need an Accident turning 100% into different parts for a result to stick it out.
3. A distinct outcome from some of Everything. This is the structure that can be correct. Parts of Everything ended up becoming self-based to some extent (local independence) while other parts remained just like they had been in the original state (collective in essence), and as such we have a diverse result that endures. The collective forces are insufficient to bring the independent parts back to the original state.
We must have an Accident of a fundamental nature at the end of the original state first. Without it, we are not reviewing our current state correctly.
--
In 1992, I investigated the prime number sequencing and discovered how they are organized. The surprise was that one step in the overall pattern I discovered involved the required use of zero.
I had found the evidence, therefore, that the Accident is real. Later on I learned that Gödel had shown something with the same conclusion already about 100 years ago (incompletenesses only at the largest level).
Please remember that I am a simple structural philosopher. Like most people, I work on my own perspectives and investigate reality. Yet I investigate reality at very basic levels. I look for the mistake in other people's reasoning when their basics do not coincide with my basics. Sometimes this changes my basic reasoning (but not anytime recently).
Zero is a natural part of the resulting outcomes when viewing everything in numbers. As such we have a prior state of the universe in which zero was not fundamentally involved and the current state of the universe in which zero had become a fundamental aspect.
It's then much like the prior state being a Vase, and the current state being a Broken Vase, the pieces independent, never becoming one Vase again. Space, then, a fundamental aspect, showing there is distance (true breakage) between the (larger) pieces.
Important to note is that most people think that zero is singular, but it is not. Folks meld the distinct function of zero together with the zero that does not have a function, and think all is the same. That is why scientists haven't figured out the correct Big Bang model; their model is like a Cyclops and they are not looking for a second model. Everything in their model is correct, except for the single eye. Among all their mathematical calculations on the blackboard, they do not recognize the cyclopic aspect they are embracing as natural.
'Discovering Zero Among the Prime Numbers'
https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/discovering-zero-among-the-prime-numbers-65a47cbf79ec
