“it is the set of all things, and a set cannot be a member of itself”
What if the case is different. What if a universe os not a single universe. Then the one universe can belong to a set of universes, and the logic of classification fails.
Could a multi universe be actual numerical pluralism, or it may be mathematical fallacy, if, it is a fragmented transcendental universe posing in different quantum states?
Is this possible difference worthy to set the stage for a cosmic causative factor, and if so, does the logic succomb to an actual identity between the single and the multistate distinction.
In other words, a phenomenological plurality may actually be the equal of nominal singular universe, where singular and singularity are conceivable as arguably similar to identical processes.
What is implied is a quantum uncertainty of the cosmos, where the defining attributes become inconceivable, and anything possible has a set of inconceivable functional reality.
One good example is the idea that many of the farthest galaxies perceived do not exist, since they have died ages ago, by the time they appear on our telescopic imaginations.
Some of these appear no different then a single star, while containing maybe millions of stars!
There may actually be a linear expansion, defining a curved horizon, where , if the speed of light could be exceed light, where the greatest imaginable magnitude of extension could meet another like object ( an other universe- that may be a fragment of the same or another universe)
Incidentally, what certainty is there of a difference or identity of universes phasing within a mobius type phasing ?
In this highly embellished description, can even the identity and/or difference between some thing and nothing survive scrutiny?
Does possibility eat up actuality and all things subsumed into their cyclical opposites?
That makes more sense then the cosmically limited conception.
If this appears more fiction then fact,(science) then perhaps we still have a new copernican revolution ahead of us.