28 April 2003 · Essay — motion, zero, infinity, and paradox.
Motion is God. I have been thinking about this heavily. Zero and Infinity: each unique, and yet the same. The world is a paradox. Both are concepts. You can continue to divide something, but will you ever get to a point where you can no longer cut it in half? You can continue to multiply something, but will you ever get to a point where you can no longer double it? Take the concept of absolute zero. The temperature of an object depends on the movement of its substructures. If you were to lower the temperature of an object to the point where heat no longer existed, then that object would cease to exist. This is an effect of time.
I said once in one of my poems: “Motion is merely a measure of momentum of the thoughts processed by my mind.” Pondering the nature of that statement will make clearer the portal through which one perceives the world. It’s about determining whether the following statement is true or false, both true and false, neither at all, or that it’s validity cannot be determined at all: The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
It is said that knowledge is power. If the limits of my language are the limits of my world, then existence is determined by my consciousness–my ability to perceive the world I inhabit–and it would follow that motion is the fundamental measurement of existence. We know that power is relative to friction and that friction requires motion. If knowledge is power, and power is determined by motion, then knowledge is basically relatively to motion and therefore established the validity of the adage: “I think, therefore I am.” The data above suggests that existence is dependent on thought.
Only “God” may know all things. Motion is fundamental to knowledge–it is the measure of momentum of the thoughts processed by our minds–and therefore motion determined godliness.
I recently overheard someone say: “Here I go again at the beginning.” I immediately began to speculate. How can one start again at the beginning if the beginning is a particular moment of time that is characteristic of a particular event and cannot be repeated or revisited? What if all things are cyclic? Any cycle is representative of infinity!
Is it possible to know of things that do not exist? In an infinite universe all things can never be known because if all things were known then the universe must be finite. Perhaps the universe, being dependent upon thought, and therefore upon motion (the measure of momentum of the thoughts processed by our minds), is only finite while a person is aware of only what is ocurring now. How that could be otherwise is beyond me, but an argument might be made to advocate its plausibility. The very definition of “God” states that which is godly possesses an infinite amount of knowledge, and it follows that “God” cannot exist within a finite universe. Therefore all things cannot be known within a finite universe. The limits of my language are the limits of my world, and yet, they are not. Paradox. If motion is godliness and it is our thoughts that determine existence, then we must solve the paradox of motion–the paradox of our own thoughts. Solipsism. The problem of other minds. Perhaps I am “God.” Perhaps you are. Perhaps we all are.
Consider an entity that continues past the limit of a finite field. One such way to consider this is with natural integers, as they measure that which trespasses beyond the finite integers, such as negative one. Once that entity passes the final point of a finite field does it then become zero, which indicates the absence of existence, or to a value that cannot logically exist in a finite universe? If the latter is true, then that cycle establishes the existence of infinity, and that both a finite universe and an infinite one dependen upon the other. How can two concepts that represent absolute opposites of one another in such a way as to negate the others’ validity exist simultaneously in the world? I believe that continued research into this pheneomenon will lead to new and exciting discovering about the physics of time and will introduce new dimensions of existence.
Can the absence of existence, i.e. nonexistence, exist?
Nonexistence and existence are just as paradoxical as yesterday and tomorrow. I suppose one must first state all possible premises before finding a solution, and at this point it is beyond my ability to do so. It seems that it would be possible to prove anything and everything relating to the legitimacy of both infinity and its finite opposite. Where one thing exists, its opposite must exist as well. Where science attempts to make sense of the universe, it must also prove that that which makes sense must have its antithesis, its nonsensical twin. Once identifying the values in an equation, it becomes possible to establish the “absolute value” of the answer, and therein lies godliness.
Composed 2003 · part of the Essays collection · authorship documented on the Provenance page.