“Not” is about the only way I can think of expressing the concept of a zero-dimensional Reflection. By ‘Reflection’ I mean *opposite*, except that in zero-D, there is no *position* – maybe ‘inversion’ is more appropriate? In Zero-D, something either *IS*, or *IS NOT*. But if you think about it a little further, you’ll see that “IS” can be constructed from two “NOT”s – just like the bistable flip-flop in electronics. So “IS NOT” is actually three “NOT”s in a loop – which can be reduced to one “NOT” with its input tied to its output. This is the final, self-inverting, supremely *a*stable paradoxical “Strange Loop”.

So, in zero dimensions, there are two states of being: one, highly stable; the other, highly unstable – one static, the other dynamic.

One state can never be resolved – the ‘Strange Loop’ of a single zero-dimensional self-Reflection – yet without it, there is no *Action*, by which I mean actual transformation as opposed to potential transformation. This supremely dynamic state of existence is the sea in which the stable zero-D ‘particles’ of Static (dual-NOT loops) entities exist. I posit that the perpetually self-re-evaluating single NOT *is Time*. The dimension of Time. This is the forever-clock of Reality’s processor.

This leaves us with the Static Loop – the bistable. So what *is* this *thing*? It is the Point. But, given that a zero-D Reflection *is identitarily* a one-D Rotation, then this Point is also the ‘unit vector’ of a Rotation in one dimension. So this Point is also a one-dimensional Point. But a one-dimensional Point *must co-exist* with an infinite number of other Points that form that one dimension. What separates two Points? Well, two neighbouring Points *are one-dimensional Reflections* of each-other. And a one-D Reflection is a two-D Rotation. So that Point is also a 2D rotation. Being in two dimensions, then there are similarly, infinite Points in two directions. Once again, separating two points is the 2D Reflection (once again, “This Point *is not* That Point”), which is identitarily a 3D Rotation. And so now we have three dimensions (and more, if you keep going), merely by virtue of the NOT.

But now there’s this sea of Action – Actual Transformation. These three dimensions exist while Time exists with it. But this is the *axis of time*, not t=0 Time. There is still no reference point from which to begin counting. Like an infinite pulse, unless there’s some parallel transformation then we have no way of knowing any kind of *duration* or even *sequence* (what comes *before* or *after*).

Picture it: …|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨| an infinite series of pulses. Which direction is it going in? How long has it happened or been happening?

But put two *different* transformations side-by-side and you begin to notice a kind of semi-solution to our problem (but not quite yet, bear with me):

…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|

…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|…………|¨¨¨¨|

Now we begin to see a difference, but we still have no notion of *direction*, and therefore *sequence*.

So the ‘second’ series of changes needs to be *different to itself* each ‘time’ also:

…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|…|¨¨|

…………|¨¨¨¨|…………………………….|¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨|……..|¨¨|……………….|¨|.|¨¨¨¨¨¨|

Above, we know have a notion of *before* and *after*, (though, admittedly *direction* is ambivalent). If, for the sake of this example, we ‘read’ from left to right, then the first shorter pulse definitely happens *before* the longer one. The inverse can be said if we ‘read’ from right to left – however, and here’s an important point, provided the second series of pulses is *consistently different to itself*, then Time is *irreversible*.

This whole property of ‘being consistently different to one’s self’ is the inherent property of the Strange Loop – the zero-dimensional self-Reflection, because it is at no instant *determinable* – consider the following:

This sentence is False.

Is the sentence above True? If it is, then saying it is False is clearly *false*. But then if that’s the case, then it’s *true*. But if that’s the case… and so on, forever! That sentence is an example of a self-inversion or self-Reflection.

Therein lies the seed of a higher-level transformation which I’ve yet to figure out… More to come later.

This has me trying to remember my semantics class from uni 😉 the topic had to do with evaluating the syntactic correctness of a statement/sentence/phrase/utterance by evaluating its truth value.