Reflections on Reflections: “IS”, not “IS NOT”

“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 astable 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.

One thought on “Reflections on Reflections: “IS”, not “IS NOT”

  1. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.