Don't target me by drawing on your own preferred babble. The OP states that he is outlining his own "theory of everything," and he then goes on to make statements about the nature of reality, and continues by making more claims about the nature of reality which are only supported by his ispe dixit
statements. As i have pointed out more than once, he doesn't even support those statements with bad logic.
I'm sure he communicates well with the likes of J L Nobody, whose world view seems to be that if one can imagine it, it must be true. That's the only "background in mystical principles" at work here. You, like the author, simply assume a circumstance ("mystical principles") without bothering to provide any substantiation, not even bad logic. You remind me of Whackeye here, who states he doesn't need evidence for anything he says, because, as he puts it, "I am zen," and therefore he just knows it. Sounds a lot like you, you snotty, fuddle-headed bullshit merchant.