What is a “whole”? Have you ever looked at a rock on the ground, concrete, definite, and wondered: “Where is the rest of it? Where are its others? Why isn’t it whole?” The universe saw fit to break it from some greater mass. In our ideal model of the world, in our mind, why should we see it fitting to put the rock back where it came from? Is it not the domain of God to define what is and is not a complete thing? By what criteria do we even judge them to be complete?
Something is missing . . . but not from the universe, only from our conception of such a thing. Someone brilliant asked why there should be a universe at all. But, without a comprehensive definition of such a thing, we are only theorizing, hypothesizing, postulating, speculating, ultimately just musing, just daydreaming that there is such a thing at all. The only confirmed coherence of all the things we have seen, thought, felt, known, the only effectively encompassing correlation of everything in the whole world is us, our self, the beholder. Without even a comprehensive definition of that, how, with what metric do we begin to measure the most basic of differences, the difference between that which is us and that which is not?
The world we see is a model. When we judge something to be incomplete, we are simply saying that it is missing something. But, only our model is missing something. The external phenomenon that makes me see a rock, THAT is all there. The something missing is an expected piece of the world in my head. The something is missing from me.