Yes, indeed, Sebastian. We can know that there are things we cannot know. And we can know that the specific data will never be available to us.

And that declares that the larger picture is not whole, cannot be whole, which coincides with the data we do have of the Big Bang. With a collective outbound motion (though at the local level this desires to be convergent), we know that there is no basis underneath all that makes all that matter and space one.

Planet Earth is a whole unit, but Solar System and Milky Way are already not whole units but rather complexities of various units.

One step greater, the Universe, and we know that it is not a unit.

The weird fact is that most scientists are not in the business of acknowledging that this is true. Rather, they stand in the position that we cannot know if the larger level, the Universe, is whole or not. They are in denial. They use the known empty spot to wonder this or that; they are not acknowledging the empty spot all by itself.

There is a lot of data/evidence that we cannot take QM and make that the singular basis of our thinking. Those that take QM as the basis of their exploration will always be caught inside their QM thinking. They are then not at the overall level in which we must make ourselves free of specific structural thinking.

Same for starting with Consciousness. We know that there are areas of no consciousness at all in our universe, so we cannot take consciousness and let that be the basis for the universe.

It appears to be very difficult for most people to acknowledge that the largest of levels is one that does not have a single basis underneath, but rather is an amalgamation of a good number of different bases combined. We can pick from a variety of bases to declare our stories, but the minute we want to explore the largest of levels we must acknowledge the other bases. If we do not, then we are inside a self-made rabbit hole.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.