The Mandelbrot Set and The Universe

When one takes a look at the universe and removes the blanket of familiarity, the only thing that is left is a repetition of pre-symbolic patterns whose construction is only logical if viewed through a set of traditional measurement systems. That the planets orbit the sun, that humans live in houses, that atoms have protons and neutrons; each one of these facts is confirmable but not traceable to any one origin--wherever one originates things, always presupposes an earlier origination. This is a paradox only if one insists on the necessity of meaning in the patterns of reality. If one interprets reality in the sense that everything is just a calculated result of a complicated expression of esoteric functionality, in the vein of the Mandelbrot set, one can view the universe as simply a viewing of that expression, onto which one of its expressions is self-imposed meaning.
Let's take a look at a Mandelbrot set zoom.

The patterns in the Mandelbrot are beautiful, complicated, and infinitely complex. They resemble each other on a level of scales, and there are different sections that diverge in different ways. Imagine if there was a four-dimensional set in the same vein as this one. That set would resemble our own universe in every way except superficiality.
Thought is just another dimension in the set, another line on a plane that intersects with the other dimensions to create a more complex mathematical shape. The shape is not planned. Nothing and something lose their meaning when both are just pieces of an overall puzzle, just pockets in an infinite vibrancy that is static, motionless as it absorbs motion into its self-reflective intimacy.
The universe can be explained by recognizing the fact that everything is as it appears, and that concrete is concrete and etherial is etherial until proven otherwise--what we are doing is simply cataloging the contours of our locale on the greater discus. We see what we see and don't see what we don't see. Sometimes we see further. Sometimes we use tools, sometimes we use our minds--sometimes we argue and sometimes we fight over what it looks like or should look like. And we have control over some parts of it, as well.
But the takeaway from this piece is the idea that everything is part of a whole, and that whole does not need to be explained as it encompasses everything and the only thing that is missing is our local understanding of that everything. There is no real impetus to finding the origin of the universe--the universe has an origin, however convoluted and farcical, and we as humans are presupposing that our lack of understanding about that origin can somehow mean that the universe actually does not know its own origin. The universe knows. We're just playing catchup.
Whether it be God or the Big Bang, or some other fruitlessly contorted explanatory mechanism, the universe is simply waiting for us to figure things out and understand that the only thing keeping humans from understanding the universe is our own ignorance, and only by conquering our ignorance can we understand the universe. It sounds self-explanatory, but the main idea behind that statement is that the search for understanding, no matter what form it takes, is the primary mechanism by which humanity catalogs its local space in the formally recognized piece of the universe.
We are observing one minute of that video, randomly selected, with our naked eyes. We are observing a minute ahead with our microscopes. We are observing a minute behind with our telescopes. That is the nature of what we are seeing. It has no meaning other than the meaning we impose on it--and that meaning is a natural part of itself. Everything is within the confines of the shape--or it isn't. That is the question of the nature of thought that everyone struggles with, and this is the baseline for which I will tackle this question: the Mandelbrot method. Is thought a dimension of the fractal set, just set to self-reference? Or is it an active outside force that has an alternate origin? Are those two ideas even different?
I hope you enjoyed my musings. More will come later, on many other topics. Thanks, and keep a lookout for more!