We do not live in a universe of (nothing but) motion.

[ckiit]

I understand this may not be well-received,
but nevertheless it was/is necessary to impart.

With due genuine respect(s) to Larson et. al.:
Larson's principle deduction (via. his own use of induction) is incomplete:
that is, fundamentally, we do not live in a universe of (nothing but) motion.

Whereas 'motion' is a principle of matter, 'motionlessness' is (reciprocally) a matter of principle.
There is thus a reciprocal relationship between (even) these two discrete states (of motion & motionlessness)
which must necessarily principally underlie (thus precede) the otherwise autonomous motion in-and-of-itself.

In other words: what "yang" is to motion, "yin" is to motionlessness
(& Bruce did describe Larson as a "yang thinker").

Whereas one may consciously (or not) choose to perform an action(s), one may also choose not to.
It is therefor not (only) in all the action(s) one performs: it is also in all the action(s) one does not.

[Djchrismac]

I don't recall Larson ever saying we live in a "Universe of Nothing but motion", more that it's a reciprocal universe of motion, so motionless (from our 3D space perspective) is motion in 3D time. Motionless would also be included by default, in the general statement of a "Universe of motion" even if it's not mentioned specifically, because motionlessness is a result of motions balancing out. There is always +1, -1 and 0. Occasionally a "zero" means the motion has moved to a higher dimension.