Eventually I got to accepting with amazement that there’s always another gap and that the gaps are what makes all of this possible.

Eventually I got to accepting with amazement that there’s always another gap and that the gaps are what makes all of this possible.

For example: Surfaces. What’s inbetween two surfaces? Might be glue or lubricant, or air or dirt…. surfaces can join or slide.

But what’s inbetween the surface of the top part of what’s inbetween and the bottom part of the top surface?

More complex interactions.

How is all of this movement – these interactions possible?

Gaps. Can’t move a thing without “nothing much” to move into.

But all this stuff going on… all of this is “doing”. It’s action. Active. Never stopping.

However deep you go, there’s always another “inside” part of inertia that can point to something else moving.

Get down to the subatomic level with yet more activity.

Get to smallest current levels we can measure well and there’s uncertainty. So we use tricks to figure out probabilities and do well enough but what’s going on in there? Dunno. It’s uncertain.

Moving back up from “atom in a box” level into 3 or more interacting atoms and we have to leap back into chemistry. There’s just too much going on to move from physics into chemistry without a massive gap inbetween and different ways of explaining interactions.

I think the problem we have at root is that our explanations and assumptions are missing a big “something” and I think that something might be found in an improved understanding of inertia.

I don’t know what that is yet. My gut says to allow for more subjectivity — more “inner engines” to allow their relative perspectives to remain theirs… assert a little uniqueness to the imaginary points.

But how that’d be possible? I dunno.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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


× 5 = forty five

Leave a Reply