I don’t know if this topic has been tackled before - although I suspect aspects of it have - nor am I aware of any scientific theory related to it - although I’m sure there must be - but I’ve been thinking about something, ‘cause I do that sometimes, and no matter how much my ego would like to believe I invented it or that I spontaneously became aware of it plucking it out of the ether my reason insists that it is the product of conversations with many others over the years and an aggregate of information gathered from multiple sources both consciously and unconsciously. 
So I’ve been thinking……….
(I understand that the following positions are fraught with symbolic duality, as the mind posits opposites, often absolute, conceptions to formulate intermediate understanding of itself and its place in the universe.)
What if our universe, or our conception or part of the universe we are aware of and inhabit were but a region of a whole where another region exists with an equal but opposite reality?
That is, whereas in our region of ‘’reality’ entropy increases with time – in fact our conception of time and its direction defined by the increased entropy – in this hypothetical ‘other region’ entropy would decrease in equal proportion creating an opposite temporal flow.
If that were the case then one can surmise an explanation concerning ‘dark matter’ and the overall balance of the universe and one can imagine anti-matter to our matter or how something can be both a particle and a wave or how a theoretical ‘super-string’ can be imagined as a loop or where these other hypothetical dimensions are extended towards; one can even imagine eternal recurrence and reincarnation.
Science-fiction, right?:o But bear with me and my mental wanderings.
The universe would become this flow, where one region tumbled endlessly towards chaos (complication) and fragmentation whereas another tumbled endlessly and simultaneously towards unity and order (simplification).
This other region would be invisible to us since our mind, being the product of this particular region, cannot perceive an opposite or because of the very nature of consciousness.
Consciousness is a byproduct of life and life is a product of entropic decay – one might say life is a resistant reaction to a growing fragmentation – and due to its nature as an ordering/simplifying mechanism it is made possible through its unifying memory which creates the phenomenon of identity and individuality.
In this theoretical other region consciousness and life would be impossible because, if we take this premise to its finality, that region would flow towards order and simplicity (Death unto Life) which would only enable a consciousness - if we can call it that – which would reactively resist by disordering or forgetting and so would lack the unifying element of memory and so make identity and individuality, even if illusions, impossible.
Then the Big Bang would not be a fixed temporal/spatial point but a continuous process occurring at the same time as the Big Crunch but never completed due to the push and pull of these equal but opposite temporal/spatial phenomena. (Which might be nothing more than a nexus of reversal)
In such a case the Big Bang is not a historical event that has occurred but an ongoing process which, through temporal flow, has distances itself from us, as we grow closer to the moment of temporal reversal and a return to the Big Crunch.
But why a flow at all? Why would the Big Bang lead back to a Big Crunch – if it does at all and we are not all destined to perish in a whimper?
Movement or change or action presupposes an absence, a void in need of fulfillment, a restless activity exposing imperfection. One does not move or act or think unless there is a need to and where there is a need to one cannot speak of stability.
I can understand the notion of harmony of the whole, as parts interact with one another creating balance or an enclosed autopoietic system, but movement within a whole indicates some form of instability of the parts requiring interaction as a way of realizing this balance.
Can something be considered stable and complete when its parts are not?
If one pushes the idea of stability and perfection to an imagined absolute state of Being one envisions an inertness; a completion requiring no action and no movement to balance itself out; then one ceases talking about existence as we know it. An absolute Being would be devoid of change and therefore of temporal/spatial dimensions. It would be a singularity and the only word we could use to describe it would be: Nothing.
It raises those old theological questions concerning the absolute ‘goodness’ of God and how ‘evil’ can be created and tolerated within such hypothetical absolute ‘goodness’.
Movement (action) insinuates, to us humans, a need and a need presupposes an absence requiring fulfillment.
But perhaps speaking of regions is false and erroneously alludes to temporal/spatial distances.
What if this process was simultaneously occurring within every moment and place and being - a parallel reality occurring at the same time, yet in an opposite temporal direction – what if this is what we speak of when we say Becoming?
Becoming denoting this paralleled coexistence of Being and Nothingness within each entity/phenomenon.
It would seem logical since our sensual awareness and the manner in which our brain functions, limits it to becoming aware of what has already occurred and so understands reality backwards by storing instances in abstracted simplified memory and unites these instances into categories and patters there. This would make any reverse temporal flow incomprehensible and invisible to us forcing our minds to be forever focused towards a unidirectional temporal flow while we are thrown in another.
(Backwards or forwards denoting an entropic direction)
The entire premise could be connected to Sartre’s and Heidegger’s concepts of ‘Being’ and ‘Nothingness’ – Sartre believed Nothingness lay “…coiled within Being†- Heidegger claimed human existence springs out of the Nothing and then returns to it, spending the intermediating time avoiding it.
If we are consciousness “thrown†unto death and consciousness is that which separates Being into multiplicity by negating it into parts and distances then we can say that consciousness spring out of opposing reality, tapping into the opposite flow; in fact consciousness faces in the direction away from the temporal flow, making it share a perceptive direction with this reality’s temporal opposite reality.
In other words our consciousness faces in the temporal direction of this reality’s opposite and hypothetically parallel reality.
If we are to assume that in our temporal reality Something springs forth out of Nothing then in this hypothetical other realm Nothing must spring forth out of Something.
Is this why consciousness “ brings negation†as Sartre said, into the universe and becomes aware of its own Nothingness?
Could this be the mythological root for the fallen angel and the expulsion of man from paradise?