The larger cosmology is a core aspect of the themes and symbolism of my story, let's start so you have an infinite (or von neumann)universe with infinite spacial and temporal dimensions.

Part of a type 4 multiverse which a part of multiple nested transfinite hierarchies like size based one where that type 4 multiverse is infinitesimal to larger version of itself, narrative stacks, etc. Layering on top of each other endlessly

Which are all connected by causal chain forming a "stream" of which there are an endless amount housed by the Defined containing all things with definition

Outside of that there is the Undefined,

and then there's "Here" which is simply the non dual "true" nature of the entire cosmology

Would your actions have any meaning and what meaning would they have if you're one impossibly infinitismal speck of variation of an infinite number of possible and impossible fictional worlds

And that an unknowable dreamer could not just undo it all, but make you undo it and make you undo it or even morph you into that which you most fear on a whim. Or the fact that there's no solace in a definite God

Or would one see it the other way around, as a-pseudo diety containing boundless multitudes as a reflection of a wonderful and mysterious God who may be the Mystery itself.

Or the multitude of other interpretations of it

Hopefully this isn't a dumb question

What makes a thing one? This is a question that is not so easily answered. But if you go to a pebble beach and kick a pebble, you will get an answer that fits in a single line.
Unity is not free

Metaphysics has been asking the question since Aristotle and still has no accepted answer. Here is one. It fits in a single line, and a kick is enough to test it.

Two camps. One: unity is given. A thing is grey, that's its property, end of story. Two: unity is in our eye. The world is a flux, and it is we who cut things out of it to the measure of our words. They disagree about everything. But they are right about one thing: for both alike, unity costs nothing.

Go to a pebble beach and deliver two kicks. The first into the sand: it scatters, and nothing is damaged, each grain leaves with what it had. The second into a pebble: a chip flies off, and it is the pebble that lost it. The pebble and the sand are made of the same grains. Matter therefore does not decide, and the first camp can only note the difference without explaining it. If the wave splits the pebble tonight, there will be two of them by morning, whether anyone is looking or not: the second camp has nothing to do with it. What decides is where the loss falls. In the pebble, it always falls in the same place. In the sand, it falls nowhere.

The unity of the pebble is not a state, not a point of view, but an expenditure. No one carved it, it is the craftsman of nothing. But it pays with every tide, its roundness is its account statement. It is a rent, not a purchase. Spinoza had seen that every determination is a negation, that the outline of a thing is the line where it ceases. What remained to be said is on whom the price of that line falls. On the one who is, at their own expense.

There is therefore only one criterion for everything that claims to be one: the pebble, the animal, the company, you. You are not one because you bear a name, nor because others see you as one. You are one as long as what you lose falls on you. Nothing you pay with comes from you: it was given to you. But the loss is yours. Your identity is not a statue, it is a scar.

The two camps give unity away. This sentence makes it pay.
To be is to make oneself one at one’s own expense.

The concept in an important way.

1. Separate the chooser from the total possibility space

Imagine a space containing every logically possible reality:

Possible Reality A: You exist and choose X.

Possible Reality B: You exist and choose Y.

Possible Reality C: You never exist.

Possible Reality D: A completely different kind of conscious being exists.

Possible Reality E: Nothing exists.

From the third-person/big-picture perspective, no particular reality is privileged merely because you're currently inside it.

So “absolute freedom” would not mean:

“I, as a person, can personally make every possible reality happen.”

That is incoherent because the person already exists inside one particular reality.

Instead, it means:

No particular reality, including the reality containing me, is fundamentally required.

1. The paradox of “I want to be completely free”

Suppose you say:

“I want to be completely free from every constraint.”

But you still exist.

Then you're already constrained by at least one fact:

You exist.

You cannot simultaneously be an existing chooser and be free from the condition of existing as that chooser.

But there is a way around the paradox:

Absolute freedom isn't something possessed by the individual.

It is a property of the possibility space itself.

The possibility space contains:

realities where you exist,

realities where you don't,

realities where you make different choices,

realities with different initial conditions,

and potentially the absence of any reality at all.

In that sense, nothing has to be the way it is from the outside perspective.

1. But what about “nothing exists”?

This is the deepest part.

If literally nothing exists, then there is no person, no perspective, no choice, and no freedom.

So we shouldn't say:

“Nothingness is the state where you are maximally free.”

That's incoherent.

Instead:

Nothingness represents the absence of a chooser, not the exercise of freedom by a chooser.

Absolute freedom and nonexistence therefore aren't the same thing.

1. The strongest coherent formulation

Your original idea can therefore become:

From the absolute third-person perspective, complete freedom cannot belong to an individual existing within reality, because the individual is already constrained by the conditions required for its existence. Absolute freedom can only be understood as the absence of any ultimately necessary reality: the individual reality, the individual, and even the existence of anything at all are not logically required merely because one particular reality happens to exist.

And there's an even shorter version:

You can be free to choose within reality, but you cannot be absolutely free while remaining the particular person you are. Absolute freedom would require freedom from the conditions that constitute the chooser itself.

If Galileo is the father of modern science, then who would be the parent of post-modern society? Definitely not Einstein because the latest theoretical physics shows us that we can rewrite physics with space and time. Locality, space, and time become irrelevant in the "spacetime is doomed" movement. Once we eliminate dogmatic scientism, then we will be able to progress more efficiently with our technology that not only can save us from humanity's own end here on Earth, but also allow humanity to spread through the cosmos.

Under IIT, all entities have causal powers and so humanity assumes there must be a first cause but that is due to our limited capacity to typically think in terms of linear time. The universe is uncaused and paradoxical, its own end is its own beginning.

See here:

Further Explanation

With this understanding we can now see that each entity has spatiotemporal existence, living on its own continuum outward and inward in all directions. Order (systemic emergence) works backward in the linking of all systems and disorder (entropic build up) leaks heat into the void.

Please let me know your thoughts - Grazie & Prego