The ideal isn’t so much an expression of, or balance to the absolute, but an abstraction of conscious focus. That our directionality has some ultimate goal. That perfect form we must be seeking. God as the platonic ideal of everything.
Yet nature just reacts to our actions. For instance, efficiency, the mantra of the modern world, is to do more with less, so the ideal of efficiency would be to do everything with nothing. Obviously the feedback breaks that down.
Math seeks the ideal through abstraction, so what would be more ideal, the circle or the square? (Probably the circle.)
The opposite of the absolute is the infinite. Energy radiates to infinity, while mass and form coalesce to the absolute. Yet the result is a thermodynamic feedback loop between these opposite attractions.
If you take all physical properties away from space, it has the non-physical properties of infinity and equilibrium. Infinity because there is nothing to bound it and equilibrium is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the longest ruler and fastest clock is closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum. The absolute zero of unmoving space. So space is the absolute and the infinite.
Three dimensions are just a mapping device, like longitude, latitude and altitude. The xyz coordinate system.
Galaxies are those cosmic convection cycles of energy radiating to infinity, while mass coalesces to the zero of the black hole at the center.
So when we study patterns and form, they go to the absolute, but when we understand energy and processes, they go to the infinite.
Some thoughts on cosmology;
