The following post was prompted by the Aeon article linked below:

What the author is expressing here is
really an indication of the problem we with have with singularity.
The fact of the matter is that, as we understand it today, it is
wholly unable to be consistent with itself and the formalized
expressions that describe relativity. And this is so because it
currently starts with the assumption that a single, immaculate moment
of infinite mass began the cosmological process of what and when. An
infinite potential that begins with no preceding specifications other
than it is infinite.

From this inherent inconsistency does
all of the seeming difficulties of quantum theory arise; especially
as it relates to accepting either the “Copenhagen
Interpretation,“ “Objective
Collapse interpretation ,” or
the “Many
Worlds” interpretation. And the
only way to resolve this, in my opinion, is to restate singularity as
follows:

An unbounded process of infinite
potential; an eternal of no time or space dimensions of its own where
potential is a combination of both infinite boundaries, and infinite
vectors of meaning association, within which to create new
boundaries, within that unbounded, singular process.

This infinite potential cannot be
static so its very being assumes an automatic existence of realities
going out in infinite angles of relative direction (derivative of the
various permutations of first order interaction constants, of which
more will be said), realities where the arrow of time is the vector
of association, or interaction, wherein is created both physical
meaning space and sentient meaning space. All of these vectors then
having an infinite corresponding set of initial reference points for
which to set the base constants for which first order interactions
will be able to constitute meaning.

There are a couple of things to
remember here as these vectors expand out into their growing space
time relationships, or over all meaning.

The first is that boundaries inside
each are relative to the vector at hand, and remain deterministic
only to a certain scale of energy. Higher energy scales mean more
potential for vector cross talk, for lack of a better term, so
require increasing probability resolution to describe; especially as
sentient meaning space and physical meaning space begin to interact
to a greater degree within the same vector of association.

The second is that physical meaning
space is deterministic in the context of the first order of
interaction, which is the creation of information as discrete units
in a given sequence over time. Meaning in that context is inherent in
the initial interaction constants, in conjunction with the given
characteristics of space time at any major differential of expansion.
Sentient meaning space, however, is where quantum complexity really
comes into its own for it is here that the act of observation takes
on fundamentally different aspect. Sentient choice in not only how an
observation is conducted, but with the meaning assumptions already
held in the individual meaning processing system, affect how the
observation will resolve event probabilities.

Having realities branch off at every
quantum moment is a great deal more consistent with a Cosmological
whole when that cosmology begins with a singularity conceptualized as
an unbounded process of time vectors originating from every possible
reference point. That, in itself, however, would not be enough, in my
view, to account for quantum complexity without also allowing that
each vector of reality is made up of both physical meaning space and
sentient meaning space. This necessarily gets us into the
philosophical realm, but that would be necessary in any case. The
problem for science in general is that, powerful though empiricism
is, it can only take us so far in understanding the Cosmos. As the
author of this article already stated, in the quantum world there is
no objective observation. Which is no more than to say that there are
limits to what we can objectively measure and test. Conclusions will,
therefor, ultimately come down to subjective consideration, and
choice.