I've said it often, "All Things Are Rooted In Paradox". You can't have the principle of of Aenesidemus "to every argument another argument is opposed with the same strength" in rhetorical opposibility unless all ideas and perspectives could be reduced down to at least two positions. I'm not merely talking about how the mind processes dedicated logical formulations of If/Or, This/That, as these are reliant on ever larger feedback loops of already partially processed info. What I'm saying is, consciousness itself is dependent upon a fundamental dualism, any kind of information we process must reject yet relate to some other kind of information, or else it isn't meaningful, not even a datum.
If it is relatable and not rejectable, it is the same process, so not even consciousness. If it is rejectable and not relatable it suppresses something else, and isn't a idea persay, but a potentiality in the conscious dialectic.
If you have two points, fundamentally not similar, one asserts or the other, not both, then you have the basis of a switch. Yes, No. 1, 0.
That's nothing in and of itself, and yet that's everything. Our expecpectation in physics that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time likely is rooted in this quirk that makes consciousness possible, and has more to do with cognition than physics persay (in other words, isn't actually a physical law, but a law of identity in how we categorize things, to make math and thus physics coherent. Your scraping at the limits of empericism here, pushing off into new philosophies beyond it).
Now, is everything, say Archimedes "Myriad Myriad" the universe? No.
Absolutely not. Non-Dualism, especially Advaitian, tries to insist this is the case, on the basis of pure perspective must equal all, but it dies this at the expense of calculating abstract logic, save one type "This Is All".
Likewise Liebniz Universal Monistic Physics, or a related philosophy of Pantheism as well, tries to mix the perception and abstraction together, to arrive at a formulation. Neither are sufficient, for our ability to observe meaningfully is conscious, and consciousness is stratified upon prearranged expectations, in how we Orient and then Observe.
Ideas tell us how to Orient and Observe within a larger decision making process. A choice in paradox is always made in abstract thinking in advance, A Priori. We say "this is like that" because we label it as so, to make sense of it algerbraically, but don't really study it too closely, if rushed or lazy. We aren't letting circumstance decide the idea new, but insisting a thing is a particular thing. We can be wrong. You buy a apple, then bite into it, only to discover it us rotten, unripped, nasty, dry, plastic, or simply mistaken, not a apple at all.
So if we can't dependably know a thing, can we presume a universe, or is a universe just a useful presumption? How well can we know a universe, if we can only know it through paradox?
Consider perspectivism, 3-D shape C to line A-B
Which way is C bent? It's a visual yet also a spacial imaginative presumption, presumed mnemonixally in the mind.
Hui Shi "The Ten Thesis"
1) "The largest thing has nothing beyond it; it is called the One of largeness. The smallest thing has nothing within it; it is called the One of smallness."
2) "That which has no thickness cannot be piled up; yet it is a thousand li in dimension."
3) "Heaven is as low as earth; mountains and marshes are on the same level."
4) "The sun at noon is the sun setting. The thing born is the thing dying."
5) "Great similarities are different from little similarities; these are called the little similarities and differences. The ten thousand things are all similar and are all different; these are called the great similarities and differences."
6) "The southern region has no limit and yet has a limit."
7) "I set off for Yueh today and came there yesterday."
8 )"Linked rings can be separated."
9)"I know the center of the world: it is north of Yen and south of Yueh."
10)"Let love embrace the ten thousand things; Heaven and earth are a single body."
The simpler a thing is in terms of reasoning, the more we've built it up. That's not paradox, that's heavily compounded thought, rationalization. Science seeks both the lowest possible variable-to-identity as well as a Meta-Theory that embraces all ideas. It seeks to know both the fundamental paradox that sets any thought against another, and make a mockery of it at the same time. You can't know the universe, yourself, or God, due to the Objective/Subjective divide. There is no nature, only a lazy place marker for it, that was decided long ago, in a nature vs nurture fight. Our brains, be it by intelligent design or evolution, aren't set up to know directly, but to presume causality. We don't actually know anything, but we presume we are correctly exploiting our "environment" well and efficiently. So we think, hope, and pray we are. It seems to work well enough.