This to me seem like a lot of physics inspired mystical nonsense.

I agree with your concept stated as "The Singularity of this oneness is the immaterial nucleus of Existence and the fundamental source of the illusion of asymmetric duality." But posit that this nucleus of existence is NOT the Singularity itself, reality is an attribute of the Singularity and not its entirety.

If by density, you mean that which we perceive as physical reality, I do not agree that it is 'that which is not aware'. Physical reality demonstrates a form of consciousness and responds according to its nature. I might agree if you state that density is not aware of its essence, or rather its fundamental construction, but it is responsive to other physical entities, so one should not negate this form of 'awareness'.

I agree that reality is sustained by the interaction of apparent opposites. But if this opposition is illusionary than can it be possible for there to be a flow between the two? It strikes me that this concept of reality requires a balance point through which a field of potential must flow. Basically stated Reality emerges from a field of potential. But this emergence should flow through a third field in order to be conceivable.

"This cycle inevitably brings the illusion back to the fundamental interval of the empty set. This is the point when the entirety of the density finally passes out of Existence, effectively bringing the Universe to its end. When this occurs, the awareness is rendered unable to perceive the source of its own presence, as there are no longer any material entities present to reflect its eternal emptiness."
Something in the form of this statement, and in its conclusions of re-emergence, is unsettling, and I have sought to resolve this contradiction myself. I continue to reflect upon this point ... What conditions would necessitate this shift within a singularity?!

"The energy then begins to form into the elementary point particles that comprise the shifting density."
I argue that points do not exist within this concept. The identification of point particles of singularity are only concepts and not realities. It is not possible to identify a point within reality because as it emerges from its potential it is already moving within the fabric of space and time. The dot at the end of this sentence is in a constant state of fluctuation of the electricity that command the pixels which form it. I may come a bit closer to identifying a single point by engraving it on a stone tablet, but still, the point can be defined only relative to my observation of it; this same 'fixed point' is engraved on a stone tablet which is itself a more dense fluctuation of energy hurling in a spiral through space around a center that is also spiraling around yet another center. I agree with your concept of the formation of reality, but cannot agree that a fixed point of energy can be identified. We can identify other attributes, but not its fixed position because it has no fixed position. We can cheat, as physics tries, and stop time, negate space and identify points that once existed. But someone please demonstrate how we may identify a fixed point within reality? By my reasoning such a point can exist only as a concept prior to emergence.

I consider the interactions you describe as the consciousness inherent within the physical Universe. This forms the structure and coherence which we now experience.

If reality emerges as an attribute of the changeless reality, changeless reality must necessarily contain the attribute of change within it. This illusion is resolved once we accept that the emergence of reality makes no change to its source. Energy has this attribute, that it should form a single atom or a spiral galaxy does not change the material from which it is made manifest.

Thank you Asymmetric for your post. It is refreshing to meet the opportunity to discuss concepts that many on this thread are too quick to dismiss without bothering to refute the points made. Your insights are most appreciated by those of us who are aware of its source ....

Do you come from a literary background? For me, you are unreadable just like the other guy. I am always open to new ideas, but what you write are not remotely like anything i study( analytic philosophy).

Living in Paris and using the formal structure of an Analytical Philosopher would be like asking me to think while balancing a pile of bricks on my head. However, coming at such questions from a point of view of the Humanities, Fine Arts and, yes, Literature, I like the challenge of stretching my intellectual muscles and will have a go at structuring the basic premise of this argument into something more formal. So with apologies to the likes of Bertand Russell and company:

STATEMENT: The parallel Existence of Absolute Nothingness and Reality is an illusionary paradox. By definition Absolute Nothingness cannot exist parallel to a state of Being. Our perception of reality suggests that we experience existence as a series of events which have cause and effect. Our experience also suggests that everything with physical properties fluctuates between being and non-being. If Reality is to be explained it must be done causally. To resolve this paradox:

Reality is a state of being with physical properties.

Absolute Nothingness is a state of non-being without physical properties.

Absolute Nothingness is a static state.

Reality is a fluctuating state.

Absolute Nothingness is in a state of Stasis. As a change within its nature is not plausible, any shift of attributes will be balanced by equal attributes in order to maintain its state of stasis.

Reality is a state which has emerged from Absolute Nothingness as one of the attributes of Absolute Nothingness.

The emergence of Reality is required to maintain the stasis of Absolute Nothingness.

Reality and Absolute are not opposing, they co-exist as a single, balanced state.

Now, completely off-subject ... Should the role of an analytical philosopher not be that of forming structure from sources which have no apparent formality? How does Analytical Philosophy sort through new insights if it builds from pre-existing formal structures? Sorry for asking, I am just naturally curious that way.