You seem to espouse belief-antirealism, and yet you claim I believe in truth vs falsity.

You diminish the reality of the conflict between the true and the false, and then you cite a "law of nature".

You criticize the meaning of language and argument, and then structure an argument on the basis of several word definitions.

Is anyone here denying the role of motion in temporal reality? No, but you would reduce everything to it, thereby undermining the vertical causation of the intellect itself, without which they could be no apprehension of Logos, no meaning in definitions, no possibility of argument. I do not find what you are saying to be coherent.

@Chiro @KingOfWhiteAmerica

The universal; the ALL is communicated to the ONEs within through motion; through change.

Yes, but this is not the only way the One is understood by the Many. It has long been a goal of the sages, and later the alchemists, and later (some) scientists to understand God through the forces and patterns in nature, of which motion (as change) is a kind of all-encompassing category.

But I ask you: is mind itself not a motion, and not something which is always in motion? In fact, is its motion not the most peculiar because it transcends temporal and spatial dimensions, moving freely with a power not demonstrated by any other natural phenomena?

Why dismiss the motion of the mind, especially the automatic motions which encounter us as intuition?

The One is understood not simply through man's senses, in the wise that the brain perceives nature directly, but instead the One is perceived through the intellect - by way of intellective acts which encompass the lower reasoning and the higher forms of direct intuition, together comprising what the ancients called gnosis.

Show me anything within nature I need to submit my consciousness to instead of adapting to it?

Exactly what do you take adaptation to be? I'd like to know what you think it is, this adaptation, that does not benefit in every respect by the conscious apprehension of what we're doing when we do it.

To increase ONEs potential equals to increase ONEs comprehension of ALL.

Alright, so you say that the ONEs are set into motion between start and end, and in between they can comprehend the ALL. Since all ONEs issue from the ALL, then it follows that the ALL gains - through the ONEs - a kind of understanding of itself. That might be a simplification, but it does enough work. So doesn't it follow that the ALL, being infinite, would over time attract to its local manifestations (ONEs) the maximal number and types of knowing that could cause understanding to be the most complete within the boundaries of the natural law?

Think about this for a moment. You are saying the ALL can only be known through our adaptations to motion. That's pretty paltry, on anyone's account of knowing. To clarify, imagine a coconut falls from a palm tree, I notice it and step out of the way to avoid being struck. On your account, I've adapted, but this is where it stops. The question I'm posing is: do I not know more about the phenomenon of that set of motions (including my own adaptation) if I can reason about it and use language to communicate it to other ONEs? It's as if you'd wish to eliminate our shared experience of the ALL by preventing anyone from going beyond the immediate subjective experience of it, and communicating.

If there were not more ends than this in reality, why the diversity of creature and kind? If responding to motion is the final cause of all things, then the eagle or the shark or the hummingbird or some sleek, swift cat would be the only Forms necessary. Everything which sets mankind apart from other animal nature appears to lay with man's unique pursuit of justice, truth, and beauty - this great rising up to the air from out of the mud, literally an elevation, that simply cannot be dismissed as misbegotten and undesirable adaptations to motion. Your reduction of this is so palpably absurd that I'd actually like to somehow draw the thought from your head and find a way to light it on fire and stomp it out with my heel. It's that bad.

Why would the ALL not also increase the means for comprehension, such that with time the ONEs could begin to know the ALL through multiple channels, including experience and apprehension directly of the logic (laws) in nature? It follows that language and pictographic representations of meaning would also come to be ways of knowing the ALL. And that eventually our social adaptations such as Churches and art, and music, and culture would be means of, together, participating in an even greater collective apprehension of the highest reality. We are always climbing UP and transcending the most material level of existence where the only meaning is in the vector quantities of particles and their motion and collisions...your theory throws out entirely the much more robust universe of the spiritual, of which our physical/material universe is just a coarse microcosm.

There is a dark force that would very much like for you to ignore the spirit and only see crude motion and materiality in the world. But you'd be missing the cosmically more important part of your being. To answer another question you posed in your post, there is no non-existence. God is and always was, and therefore the Absolute Spirit everywhere is. 'I am that am' (Exodus Ch. III)

@PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica

Modernists hate this man! One weird trick...