My goal was and is to develop an explanation for the universe where at no point must one rely on human limits of comprehension in order to buy into the concept
I see this as a nonsensical goal, because the explanation which you are developing is not for an objective reality, but rather a subjective
perception of reality which is already subject to "human limits of comprehension". You cannot exceed the limits of your own comprehension, except in some manner which is incomprehensible by nature.
I have a problem with your assumption that "zero" is equal to "nothing". I think it would be more appropriate to say that zero is equal to balance, neutrality, or a state of rest. The ultimate fate of an entropic system.
But, granting you your assumptions for the sake of argument, I have other problems. You have time as a factor without explaining its nature; and since it is an integral part of your theory, to explain it by means of the same theory would be circular logic. You assume that a more complex articulation would take longer to "dearticulate" than a very simple one, but what says that the basic fabric of the universe has limited processing power? It might take me half an hour to solve a complex equation to figure out the path a body would take in a gravity well, but the gravity itself just happens. Unless time is a factor in your equation, then there is no moment of articulation or of dearticulation, and they are effectively simultaneous (and everlasting). They would be more concurrent states than separate events, and since the articulation and dearticulation are opposite, the result is a state of neutrality. Music can help to illustrate my point in a way, actually - think of two identical waveforms which are cancelling each other out because they are out of phase. The result is complete neutrality. You can extrapolate the existence of an infinite number of infinitely complex waveforms, and all of them exist in theory in that neutrality (your "zero"), however none of them actually exist in fact. The state of the waveform is that there is no waveform.
I might not be articulating myself (pun not intended, until I noticed it, at which point I guess it became intended) well enough, but hopefully you can see what I mean. Everyone takes time for granted.
I can appreciate that you are attached to the idea, though, and I thought up something along similer lines some years ago that I thought was quite elegant as well, but really they are just intellectual constructs, riddled with the faults of our own assumptions and perceptions. The more detailed you get, the farther you travel from the truth.
I once thought up a similar type of construct which I thought was quite elegant and aesthetically pleasing. I was trying to think of a reason for the existence of life (or sentience) as something more than an infinitely complex set of natural phenomena. I realized that I could comprehend no reason that life should (or could) exist, however I refused to consider the possibility that life did not exist, because if that is true then it invalidates my construction of a logical argument, which is self-defeating, not to mention downright boring. So I based my construct on paradox, with the following assumptions:
1. Everything must have a reason.
2. There is no rational reason for life to exist.
3. Life exists (I exist).
So the reason for life to exist must therefore be irrational. My hypothesis was that any particular soul (quantity of life) exists by its own denial of the fact that it cannot exist. Because this denial (or alternately, will) cannot come into being independant of life, there can be no point at which life came into being; life exists only by virtue of will, which exists only by virtue of life; it's the chicken or the egg as long as you insist upon a moment of genesis, therefore in order to exist at all it must exist/have existed at every point in time without a beginning or an end.
There are a few reasons I found this idea so compelling (although it is even more obviously circular logic, and just as flawed as any other construct of this sort). The embrace of paradox seems appropriate when I consider that I am searching to comprehend that which is beyond my comprehension; paradox is by nature beyond comprehension. And the idea that life comes about through raw power of will seems quite elegant, most likely because it is flattering to the ego. I like it also because it is relatively abstract, as existential constructs go, and that makes me think it is close to truth.
I don't think I've stepped away from science at all. I've offered a hypothesis that, if it were possible to test, could be disproved.
Anything which can be tested can be disproved. Because your hypothesis cannot be tested it is not science; it is philosophy.
I would be careful if I were you to take quantum physics with a heavy grain of salt. Saying that we "know" anything because of quantum sounds to me suspiciously like a scientist hundreds of years ago claiming to "know" anything because of spontaneous generation. It may be that some time from now a discovery will be made which totally invalidates quantum physics, and we will realize that things only appeared to be popping in and out of existence when something entirely different was going on, only we lacked the tools to observe that process.
Let cake eat them.
).
.
