Defining oneness, does it have ‘thingness’?
If i have two glasses of water in front of me [or any given objects], one cannot think of them as being ‘a glass of water’ in the singular. However, if i have a space with information contained in it, i can imagine two instances of that, then that space is space and info is info = a oneness.
For information to inform other informational parties of what they are or what the info is, then they must observe one another. When observers ‘know’ one another via this interaction, they become the objects being observed in the equation.
This is all meaningless information and behaviours if there isn’t something real about all that. So this is why i ask the question ‘what is oneness’, because fundamentally if you have two circles they must exist in a third. Any plurality must ultimately belong to a oneness.
If we can agree then we can say reality = a oneness. Then we can say that anything occurring in that is as if ‘shaping the clay’, so observers informations and spaces, are giving shape to the clay-like oneness of reality.
If all true, then you need nothing other than an ‘infinite’ reality which is better described as a oneness reality. Gods, laws and principles are surplus to requirements in the sense of reality having thingness ~ as an ‘object’!
_