I like the attempt, Jan, and I do not object to it.

However, the nice part about 1 + x = 1 is that the two 1s are indeed the same total of energy but not the same in many other ways. The focus then becomes the x, which represents the change that took place without adding or subtracting any energy.

As such, the equation is of a certain quality, and we can discuss if one can use this equation anywhere else or not. I would say not. The transformation toward matter, the part that we know of with certainty, is something that occurred just once. We cannot repeat the entire materialization process from scratch.

--

Not sure if I would translate universe with one movement without pointing to the word versatility in which a single reality has multiple expressions available in the toolbox. So, personally, I translate the word universe as indeed establishing that 1 for the overall level, yet containing a good number of verses, not necessarily in sync with one another. While groupthink, for instance, is a word that points to one peculiar behavior of a group, it also points to the singular behavior of all groups involved in groupthink, not all coming to the same conclusions. Or take the word coffee. It is one of those words that can be interpreted many ways.

It is important what meaning we give to universe because we can end up seeing it as an egg instead of the omelet. I have seen many people think that the omelet is the egg, but they forgot about the breaking of the shell and the throwing away of the shell. It is customarily not left inside the omelet. So, with the universe seen as the egg, we have a completeness. With the universe seen as the omelet, however, we are looking at a far more interesting outcome.

Thank you for thinking along, Jan. I really like that.