# Reality:

It may seem absurd that I see Reality (indeed, all Reality, hence the capital ‘R’) as being ‘made of’ Transformations. I am the first to admit it because this is my view almost despite myself – “I would it weren’t so”. In fact, it’s this very discomfort, this very dismay that motivates me to review each reason, carefully, once more.

While it may seem reasonable that, in seeking something which can both be ‘Sameness’ and ‘Difference’, I choose Transformation as the definitive candidate, it nevertheless seems difficult to grasp how that might come to be, in the real physical realm.

But let us reconsider the ‘natures’ of Transformation:

## 1) Transformation is self-describing

If existence is ‘being different’ then transformation is the means by which difference occurs, and thus transformation ‘self-exists’.

## 2) Transformations ‘are’ Change

Indeed, vectors etc. are but mere descriptions, or representation of an actual physical transformation. Or consider: if there is no actual physical change, then there is no transformation effecting that change.

## 3) Transformations ‘are’ Non-Change

‘Sameness’, or non-change, can be ‘effected’ by two equal and opposite transformations; that is to say transformations can cancel other transformations. As such, equal and opposite ‘pairs’ of transformations can be the ‘substitute concept’ for absolute Nothingness – Sameness or non-change.

## 4) Transformations transform Transformations

This is a natural deduction from 3, above: if one transformation can cancel another, then it is clear that transformations transform other transformations. That is to say, the ‘input’ of a transformation can be another transformation also, which would ‘output’ a different transformation – or a ‘transformed-transformation’.

# Physicality

OK, so how would Transformation ‘manifest’ itself from non-Transformation (putting aside for a moment the question of how that even begins)? By that I mean: Transformation has to be of something, right?

Remembering what we’ve just seen above of non-transformation – that it can be ‘thought of as’ a pair of opposite-and-equal transformations – and that transformations can transform other transformations – does it not seem reasonable then to posit that the ‘something’ that a transformation (the ‘first’ manifestation) transforms is our non-transformation? By that I mean, that it is the sameness itself which is being changed into a ‘different sameness’? Or again in other words, that ‘sameness’ is the substance that is being transformed?

One mustn’t forget that ‘in’ sameness, we’re not talking about the void of space, or even the mathematical concept of space. Being Nothing, there is nothing – no Time, no Space, nothing.

“Ah hah!” you may think, “There’s the catch! You can’t have a transformation in ‘no space’ – Transformations require at the very least a dimension!” Uh, sorry, no. I put to you the idea that transformations define dimensions. Or, rather, that dimensions become a simultaneously-emergent means to describe transformations – but not that transformation requires dimensionality.

But we’re not out of the woods yet. It’s not like we could just plonk an ‘arrow’ (a translation transformation, say) in the ‘middle’ of nothingness and have it manifest. No, that’s not how physics works – at least, I think not. Instead, I stick to the conviction that for a translation to exist, there must still be a ‘thing’ to translate… No, we have to proceed cautiously. Instead, there is a transformation which doesn’t require a Thing, but instead actually defines a Thing: the involution (also known as the reflection).

At this point I invite you to read my humble attempt at explaining this in my previous article. There you’ll see that a Thing, is or is not – i.e. that’s all we can possibly know about a Thing at this point. There is no location, no size, no dimension in which this thing exists – it just does or doesn’t exist.

So through the involutory transformation, the Reflection, sameness becomes then two samenesses. While I’m not yet ready to call it a manifested Thing in physical reality (it may yet be, who knows?) I would liken this to the creation of an imbalance akin to what we call a ‘potential difference’ in electromagnetism – or possibly a thermal difference (alluding to its cousin the ‘heat death’ of the universe, where energy is spread so evenly that the ‘temperature’ of the universe is actually absolute zero)? Note that I make no mention of ‘virtual particles’ because a ‘particle’ is still a bounded Thing – virtual (seriously? Whatever do they think they mean with that word?) or not.

Regardless of whether or not the boundary between these two, now opposite, samenesses is fuzzy or sharp – the mere fact of the totality of All having been ‘split’ into two sets-up a means to define a dimension. By being conterminous these two states of existence are ‘adjacent’ or ‘neighbouring’ and therefore next to each other – all concepts of one-dimensionality (I will try to stick to physics here, because I’ve some specific ideas on geometry which I’d like to develop in a separate post).

So again, we’re not out of the woods yet. We still don’t have physical things as physicists expect to find – but we do have a rudimentary ‘space’ (albeit one-dimensional).

# Time

We mustn’t forget Time and its two aspects – temporality and historicity. The first is a word I’ll use to describe the actual ‘changiness’ of Time – i.e. the fact that it ‘flows’ – though I’m using a word I hadn’t actually looked-up until now (and I see now my usage is way off! Never mind. I’m sticking with it). The second I will use to refer to the Past-Present-Future-ness of Time – i.e. the fact that they are different from each other and how.

Well, Temporality is a difficult one because we’d posited that there was a transformation (the involution) in the sameness of a still and dead ‘Nothing/All’. So ‘the fact that it changed’ – something which would fall under the auspices of Temporality – feels somewhat taken away from us. But let’s remember that the very existence of a transformation is temporality or ‘changiness’. So maybe indeed by positing the existence of that imbalance, that involutory transformation, we actually posit temporality also. There is also something to be vigilant of: ourselves. We’d like to have temporality ‘on its own’, but we’re talking here of the very very early and as-yet-ill-defined universe. There’s no reason to suppose that temporality shouldn’t become distinct ‘later’.

Historicity seems easier to understand. Again, the fact that the transformation changed one sameness into two means that there is a ‘before’ (where it was not) and, before that there was an ‘after’ (where it was going to be). So Past and Future seem fairly straightforward. But what next? This is a tough part:

Remember that our first transformation was the involution – and, hopefully you’ve read the previous article by now so you see how it is ‘not’. Well, if we’re to be intellectually honest (I should damn-well hope we are!), then we must recognize that this the ‘grand-pappy’ of all Reflections – it is the only Reflection of All Existence (at this point). It is reflection itself. That means that it must be ‘not’ itself – always! This is an uncomfortable mental playing field for most normal people, so I acknowledge it may sound very self-contradictory. But, what if it was? What if that’s the very essence of change – the forever-irresolvable self-contradiction? I’m trying very hard to find some kind of metaphor or intuition pump that might help here. One I had used for my own intuition was the analogy of the infinite ‘while loop’ that programmers use to simulate ‘real-time’ programs. Most often, in programming, one sets-up an infinite while loop by stating the truth condition:

```While(True)
{
Do stuff;
}```

```While(This sentence is a lie)
{
Do stuff;
}```

Do you see how this lone Reflection is a self-reflection? It is as if this first transformation where the ‘juice of the universe’.

I acknowledge I’m really struggling. Possibly you are too. Another way to intuit the strange nature of this involution is to look at a Mobius strip and consider the continuity of ‘sameness’ (our initial nothingness) as the strip itself, and the first reflection as the half-twist you put in the strip. The strip has two sides – but it doesn’t – but it does – but it doesn’t … etc.

So returning to Historicity, this Transformation is the very transformation of Future into Past. It is the boundary between Future and Past, where the Past is not-Future, and the Future is not-Past. The Present is that very transformation. ‘Now’ is ‘Not’.

Ok, it’s dinner time for me and this one’s a long one. Chew on these concepts and don’t be afraid because they are head-scratchers! But if you’re here, that’s probably why you’re here – you love that stuff!

Please, comment, disagree, question, and let me know if any of this makes sense to you!