I too read your post with great interest, but had trouble following you at some spots. I think it may be because some terms are easy to confuse. For instance, I’m fairly sure ‘multiverse’ refers to the concept of multiple (infinite) universes. I’m not sure what ‘meta universe’ means, but i’m pretty sure it’s different from ‘multiverse’ :-).
As for me, I’ve been pondering over Dr Menas’ multi-part question ever since he posed it here a few days ago, but have been stumped by the very first part (“Is the universe alive in the sense that life is one of its primary properties?”), for the simple reason that I’ve been unable to define life as a property. The animate / inanimate distinction is commonly used, but even that begins to break down when examined. When a person dies (ie ceases to be alive), the cells/tissues in their body are still active and changing (in admittedly different ways, but still in a known, predictable direction). Single-celled organisms are vastly different from us complex humans, but they are still considered to be alive. A grain of sand may be considered inanimate, but under a powerful microscope, it’s exchanging atoms with its surroundings just like our skin or lung linings are. On the larger end, whole stars and galaxies evolve in clear, majestic patterns. Looks like life to me! So I can’t escape the conclusion that every part of the universe (micro and macro) has life. But the stickler in me still wants a precise definition of life :-). The dictionary doesn’t really help:
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Any thoughts, all?