Well here goes my very own cosmology or rather my very own fictional cosmology since as far as I can tell what I'm describing isn't real; of course since anything could be possible this is a certain chance that what I'm describing could be the true structure of reality but I seriously doubt that it is. Nonetheless here is the first part of my cosmology as I describe the basic building block of my cosmology, the unit or element. A unit or element is an abstract point of information which comprises the basic building blocks of all reality; however units aren't points as one might of points as even Euclidean points are made up of units. At their core units represent the basic building blocks of information and without them nothing can exist since everything is dependent on information.
But if everything is dependent on information then what is information dependent on?
In my cosmology information is made up of tiny sub-units of information called packets which at their core represent the fundamental nature of the unit; such as in the way the unit represents the fundamental nature of information.
But since information no matter how tiny is still information the packet and the unit are actually identical objects; the only difference between them is their structure and size but overall they are the same basic object only viewed from different perspectives. The same goes for objects on scales larger than the unit, with all the atoms, planets, galaxies, universes etc. being representations of a single abstract entity which has no name but which is coloquially known as the unit; bringing the sub-hiearchy of information back full circle.
Units cannot be described or understood since description and understanding require information to be meaningful and since meaning is purely subjective it can be said that units are impossibly small and large, eldritch abominations which cannot be reasoned with and bring terror into the heart of fear itself. Units aren't conscious because consciousness requires information and yet they aren't dead since death is also a matter of information; in fact almost any concept you can think of (and many you can't think) of require information in some way. To attempt to understand what a unit is requires us to use units in our explanation which would make our argument circular; reducing it to a logical fallacy. Yet if we can't describe or understand what a unit is then how can I justify their existence?
Well the truth of the matter is that I can't since like everything in this cold and meaningless universe the units are completely devoid of meaning, purpose and absolute logic; whereby absolute logic is a kind of logic relating to a particular structure which cannot break down under any circumstances, a singularity proof logic as one might say. However since no form of logic no matter how powerful is completely devoid of any singularities the units represent a kind of archetypal logic which is beyond the reach of any logic found in this universe; whether that logic be practically, quasi-practical, quasi-abstract or abstract to the absolueth degree. So to put it simply a unit is an abstract, conceptual entity which comprises the most basic layer of reality and works on a kind of archetypal logic which cannot exist in abstract or concrete reality; in other words units are hyper-abstract points of transfinite and infinitesimal magnitude.
Now that we've defined what a unit is we need to start thinking about how units can interact with each other to form more complex structures; such as atoms, molecules, planets, people, buildings etc.
For the sake of argument let's consider two units as being the same as two Euclidean points; which they are from a basic geometric sense.
Now using Euclid's 1st postulate from his magnum opus the Elements which states when paraphrased; "the shortest distance between two points on a flat plane is a straight".
We'll call this straight line the connecting bridge or connector and define a connection containing two units or points to be a simple network; then by taking this notion of a simple network we can abstract it to fit any number of finite numbered network graphs. Now if you take a piece of paper of any size but preferably large enough for you to draw multiple graphs of varying size and use a pen or pencil to draw a collection of dots in a random order; you'll find that some interesting patterns begin to emerge.
For instance if your sheet of paper only has one point or unit on it you'll find that the only possible connection would be a feedback loop; whereby the connecting bridge or edge as it is often called in graph theory leaves the single point on the piece of paper, does a kind of loop like motion then return to the point. Another interesting property emerges from comparing graphs to one another in order to measure the complexity of each graph.
A single point or unit is defined to be the most basic and fundamental unit of abstract and concrete information therefore it is very simple.
Two points or units if placed on a perfectly flat surface can be any distance apart even an infinite distance and a straight line will still still be the simplest way to travel between them.
However things get a different when we're trying to work out the shortest distance between two points on the surface of sphere or ball.
If you'll take a sphere of any magnitude finite or infinite and a perfectly straight Euclidean line you'll find that if you attempt to connect two points on the surface of the sphere your line won't be able to fit on the surface of the sphere, making it impossible to connect to points in hyperbolic space using a straight line. The reason is that curvature of the spheres surface requires a curved line in order to connect any two points; thus if we were to give the line we previously defined the property of curvature we would easily be capable of connectiong any two points on the surface of the sphere.
Now that I've done a brief overview of how the shortest distance between two points can vary with curvature let's move on to the next time of graph; a graph containing 3 points, nodes or units.
A graph containing three units is called a tri-graph and a triangle and is typically defined by having the property that all its angles add up to 180 degrees; unless it's on the surface of a system in which place you can triangles with 'far' more than 180 degrees. Furthermore a triangle or tri-graph depending on which you prefer is what I like to call a basic 1st level structure graph due to the fact that a triangle is an incredibly stable shape you can possibly find in this universe.
Now if you continue to draw graphs for as long as you manage you'll start to notice quite quickly the complexity of the graphs in relation to one another becomes increasingly complex and once you have an infinite number of nodes all you'll find is chaos. This notion of rapidly increasing complexity in systems of pattern and organisation is a key part of understanding how my cosmology works; since it is through increasing complexity that everything emerged.
Without including complicated theories relating to quantum gravity and what not let's consider the universe as having emerged from a kind of initial singularity; akin to the ones found at the centres of black holes i.e. a gravitational singularity. If we imagine this singularity as being an incredibly small and simple point (but nonetheless brimming with complexity) we can see the from the moment when the singularity started to expand 1 planck time into its existence complexity started to rapidly increase. In an infinite amount of time the universe asuming its still here in one way, shape or form will be infinitely complex and hence beyond the comprehension of lower life forms like humans.
To summarise I've defined to you want a unit is in relation to my personal cosmology, how graphs/networks relate to my personal cosmology and how complexity plays a key role in understanding my cosmology.
'