It seems futile to use logic to reason about things beyond the reality on which logic itself is based. However, I think it is precisely the arbitrary pursuit of inconsequential answers that inadvertently leads us to insights about the indescribable. In the spirit of this opinion, I am going to try describe how the science of computing - a domain driven entirely by absolutes - has led me to answers to questions I didn't even know I was asking.
Let's begin by understanding what lies at the foundation of computing, the bit. A single binary digit, a bit is the most basic unit of information in computing. It can represent only one of two values, 0 or 1; off or on. On its own, a bit seems to be insignificant; but, the power of binary lies in its collective interpretation. For instance, it only takes 5 bits to represent each of the 26 letters of the alphabet, because there are 32 different combinations of 5 bits. In addition, it only takes one bit to represent true or false which means it only takes a one bit to make decisions - "if" or "else". So, by combining bits, it becomes possible to represent information and make decisions about the information - provided there is a consistent standard for interpretation.
Now, maybe it's a bit of a leap but it seems reasonable to me that bits are not so different from the building blocks of physics and chemistry. Take elementary particles - particles without any substructures (such as quarks and electrons). These particles constitute everything that make up the material world and the laws of nature under which it is governed. In my mind, the way we perceive elementary particles to build this enthralling reality we find ourselves in, is just not that different from the way bits are interpreted for a computer program to put together information and make decisions about it.
Say that I write the code for a game. In the game there exists a dog whose job it is to fetch blue balls. So, every time a ball is thrown, a decision needs to be made regarding whether the dog fetches the ball (if it is blue) or not (if it is some other color). Now consider that the dog is only the manifestation of code - millions of bits of information. The decision-making ability of the dog - its mind - is also just an arrangement of bits. The question is, when that decision gets made, who is making the decision? Is it the dog's decision or is it mine, the creator's? Well, I'd like to propose a third option - that my mind and the dog's mind are one in the same thing.
See, when I am writing code for the game, I am - at one point - making the decision about which colored balls need to be fetched. When the dog chooses to fetch a blue ball, I am not there making the decision anymore; but, without my original thought - my conscious choice - the mind of the dog would not exist. Now let's take it a step further. The bits that constitute the dog and it's mind are represented in our world as billions of tiny switches. These switches consist of elementary particles - just like us. So, at the point that I chose to write the code for the dog to fetch blue balls, the elementary particles that constitute me and my mind cascaded into the arrangement of elementary particles which constitute the dog and its mind. You see - the dog's mind and mine are no different at all.
In the dog's world, it seems like bits govern reality. In our world, it seems like elementary particles govern reality. In the world that is beyond our understanding, there are sure to be other silly building blocks that are fun to play with. Look beyond the blocks though and see that, really, they have no control over reality at all. Only you have that power because only you have the power of interpretation.
Have fun flipping bits, 01100010 01111001 01100101!
"Those who can imagine anything, can create the impossible."
- Alan Turing