Here meaning both:
Agglomerative - clustered together but not coherent
Ineradicable - not able to be destroyed or rooted out
Let us begin the inquiry…
If no origins? There is just a collection of things, and each thing is one such collection of things. There is no creation, no duality, no causality, no order, but merely the appearance of such things which when you look deeply into them they disappear.
Like ‘hotel California’ [the eagles song] and Hillbert’s infinite hotel, but here instead of looking for the fundamentals and origins, I am going the opposite direction. So in this theory there are no origins, duality itself does not exist, there are no fundamentals to anything, and instead there are only collections.
In the beginning was a collection but before that was also a collection, there are only ever collections. The facets of collections cannot be exact, as there are no specific distinctions, but there remains a ‘collection’ because there are no words to define what a collection is without that meaning there is a selection of parts and/or functions composing a set.
Time; the room divider. In the hotel you can walk from one room to another, but outside of linear time you are in each room at once [like Einstein’s all-time]. equally so you are transposed upon the rooms, and people move between your different appearances and different rooms in ‘your collection’ as you do theirs.
Death; in the collection of all things, there will always be the collection of all things and you will always be part of the collection. When your body dies, that means you have moved into another room, and the faculties of the previous format have changed. The body is now another room in another hotel or setup of the collective.
Multiverse and eternal returns; when you die you will simply find yourself in another hotel and another world. There isn’t just one infinite hotel [not that a collection is infinite nor finite], but instead each iteration of one hotel is itself a hotel.
Thought and material; Every facet of thought is transeunt [a mental act causing effects outside of the mind], because every room in the hotel are the same, so every thought and thing are parts of collections ~ the same. There is no mental/material duality.
Perspectivism; an object is the same as a mental iteration of thought, the difference is only in the perspective taken upon a given thing. A thought can be seen as an object or some objects, even though to your mind it is not an object but a facet of mind. Same goes for an idea or concept, they are the same as objects and have physical counterparts, and yet are more akin to a thought. Hence math can change physics and said physics work according to maths/patterns even though it [math] doesn’t ‘exist’.
There is no singular; you never get one thing, no matter what you observe or deem to exist, that same thing will be something else with respect to the perspective taken. Ideas and meanings are the same, look deeply and by observing one thing you will find you are observing more than one thing ~ no matter how deep you go. you will always be able to connect any given thing to further iterations of and onto the further collective. Keep going and you just keep going.
The Tao; can there be rhyme or reason to all of this? Well not in a linear fashion no, but there is always the collective which is not a set of aleph omega set of all sets. There are no aleph’s. a collection of collections [what this all is] will always be a collection of collections. To me that in itself speaks of some undetectable manner of movements between things. like one flower pops up in a field, and many flowers arrive, and then there are no flowers. This to me is akin to a visual poetry depending on how you look at it, ~ which is kind of what the Tao is about in my humble opinion. Where you get collections in which their many aspects interrelate [because they are all collections] like e.g. the masculine and feminine, flowers and buses, then that will always self organize but in an organic fashion. Ergo in each thing there is a way [Tao], and each collection of things will find ways. Its all in the way the whole thing communicates.
This particular instance of the collection appears to have fundamentals like said feminine/masculine dichotomy, and everything does work by virtue of being opposites, where the positions or arrangement of the scales denote informational values, which in turn says what something is or at least appears to be. Thing is, that’s just a perspective, the physics is merely there to substantiate the current organization of the collection. Again these things are simply the mechanism and means to wit the collective moves. Just observe them and they will soon become a collection again and not individual objects. A better way to see physics is instead of objects, there are appearances, and objects are just one view or perspective presenting an appearance. At the same time remembering that everything is communicating, so if an object like e.g. a bullet comes flying towards your head, that is going to change the relative positions of the rooms and occupants and you will die/move to a different shape of the collection.