Dear John,
Of course, as you say, you can make your own private definition of a word, but I have found that it is usually best to invent a new word or phrase if you need to communicate some new concept rather than trying to apply a new meaning to an existing word because it is less confusing to readers who may from their past experience think that you mean one of the existing meanings of that word and thereby misunderstand what you are saying. You seem to be using the word absolute to represent all things and only all things. You also seem to believe that all things somehow cancel each other out to basically equal zero or nothing. In fact, if you look at the definition of the word absolute you see that it mainly implies the maximum extreme condition of something, not necessarily all things. You are right that zero is a maximum extreme of real quantity with infinity at the other extreme end. Of course, if you weigh and balance out zero with infinity as you describe to be needed in your paper, it doesn't seem that zero would necessarily be the balance point between the two opposite or conflicting extremes.
To be fair, you do mention the universal state of the absolute and say that it would be a condition of overwhelmingly basic simplicity. Of course, we live in the absolute universe, we should, therefore, live in this state or condition of absolute simplicity that you mention where all conflicts are balanced out, there is neither good nor bad, up or down, inside or outside, etc. In reality things don't work that way though. If in the universe all up's and all down's balanced and canceled out as you seem to be saying, we would not see any up's or down's in the universe, but that is not what we see. You might say that all of them cancel each other out on a complete universal scale, but don't at the small scale that we can observe, but the full universal absolute knowledge of all up's and down's would not just include knowledge of the universal balance, it would also include knowledge of all of the individual up's and down's and the details of each one of them such as their locations in the universe and how far up or down they are, etc. The true absolute being would not only know the absolute generalization of all things, he would also know all of the details of each and every thing in existence from the smallest to the largest. After all, he would need to know all of these things in order to be able to come to the absolute conclusion that they really do balance out (that is if they really do). The universal absolute being would, therefore, not only need to know all of the balance points between the extremes of every type and the extremes of each and every thing, he would also have to know the state or condition(s) of each and every type or thing that generates those balance points. This would also all be necessary for him to be able to create the universe in the first place. Every detail about everything at all scales of all variables would have to be known including how they all relate to and interact with each other. Contrary to your belief that he would know nothing, he would actually have to know all the details of all things in order to have been able to have created the universe.
It looks to me that you began with the assumption that God does not exist in the form of an intelligent being that could plan, design, and create the universe without any real logical reason for taking that position. Once that belief is established it becomes necessary to somehow explain how the universe came into being as it is. The current problem with this concept is that observational information shows that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning or creation and will also have an end. Various cyclical theories have been proposed, but the question remains as to what caused the beginning of the first cycle and since the end of one cycle destroys all information from that cycle, it is not possible from within any given cycle to prove that any other cycles have ever existed. Thus, it can only be considered an unprovable hypothesis or a blind faith belief. There is the problem of how the universe was generated from nothing and if something existed before it, what was it and what created that thing? Again that information is not accessible and, therefore, only another unprovable hypothesis. Moreover, it does not make much sense to believe that all of the complexity of structure that is present in the universe just happened by probability because that probability would have needed to be great enough to start from nothing and generate all things in existence at least within about the 14.5 billion years or so that man currently believes to have passed from the beginning of the universe. The size of the universe and the limited speed of light can make it difficult to envision how some complex structures could have been generated. One example is that since its formation the earth could have only made about 35 revolutions around the galaxy. Even if it and the galaxy had been formed immediately 14.5 billion years ago, it could have only made about 115 revolutions around the galaxy. This means that all of the complex structure of the outer parts of galaxies would have to have been formed in very few revolutions of the galaxy around its center.
More importantly and much harder to justify is that all of the complexity of life on this planet would have to have first begun and then to have generated all existing life forms and all forms that once existed, but have now gone extinct within 4.5 billion years, which is the belief of how old this planet is. No one knows how the first creature could have been formed without being created by an intelligent being since the universe other than living creatures, which would not have existed before the first living creature was formed, actively works to destroy complex high potential energy structures such as DNA and large Protein based molecular machines, etc. necessary to produce even simple living creatures. The probability that all of the complex structures necessary to even build a simple living creature would first be all formed in one place and then somehow be joined together in such a way as to produce a living creature before any were destroyed by entropy is just too small to be a practical belief. The biggest problem with explaining the complexity of life is that if one assumes that it is due to evolution caused by transcription errors during DNA copying with the good results being selected by natural selection, and a probability time between each positive change is chosen that is short enough so that all different living creatures could have been developed by the present time, we should be seeing major evolutionary changes taking place all around us in most current living creatures. This is because in the beginning there would have been only one creature of one type and positive changes would have to be often enough with the relatively small number of creatures that would exist in early times to produce adequate good changes to generate new types of creatures. As the number of different creatures and the number of each type of living creature increased in the earth, the rate of evolution would increase because the larger number of creatures would generate a larger number of good transcription errors. With the great multitude of many types of living creatures today (including 7 billion of man) we should be seeing large numbers of changes each year, but that doesn't happen. A good demonstration example of this principal is atomic decay. If you look at an atom that has a 1 billion year half-life, you could expect to wait 1 billion years to have a good chance to see it decay, but if you look at 1 billion such atoms at once, you could have a good chance of seeing one atom decay per year. I have found that often only one side of a problem or a solution to a problem is looked at. Usually it is the side that supports a desired belief, but often there is another side that can show that what looks good when only looked at from the preferred side can be seen to not be practical when one looks at the whole picture. Of course, those who strongly desire to believe that there is no intelligent God who created the universe (usually because they desire to be god themselves) are still free to believe it against all probability by blind faith. I can have compassion for them because I once was an agnostic for about 22 years. My desire to know the truth about the universe compelled me to change that belief as new scientific information became available that showed it to be just too improbable that it could have arrived at its current complex, but stable state by chance happenings. The thing that finally caused me to believe in an intelligent God was that after I gained access to scientific information that no man on this planet knew about, I opened up and read some of the Christian scriptures and found that it had been recorded in the scriptures more than 2 thousand years ago. The scriptures could not have been made by man because much of the observational data that would allow some of those concepts to be thought of and developed has only come to be available to man in about the last 100 years and some is still not observationally available to man except that it is recorded in the scriptures.
For your information, a temperature of absolute zero is not actually a state of no energy or action whatsoever as you have in your paper. It is the point at which there is no molecular motion for all practical purposes, but electrons are still moving around in the molecules' atoms (generally at their lowest energy levels) and still even going between atoms in the molecules to maintain the chemical bonds. The motions of the particles in the nucleus are still taking place and all the motions in the matter particles are still continuing. Sub-energy flow motions are also still taking place. So you can see that many actions are still going on at absolute zero. Matter can even radiate energy photons and matter particles at absolute zero. If you lower a sample of fissionable matter to absolute zero, atoms in it will still decay into lighter atoms and radiate energy photons and/or matter particles in the process. Motion is the true basic energy and as you can see there is still much motion present at absolute zero. I hope this is of help to you.
Sincerely,
Paul B.
