My apologies. I’m usually a “there are no objects only forces” guy but when I tripped over mathematical morphology I finally feel ok talking about objects as the ambiguity of their nature is acceptable. Basically this: You can go to infinities if you like. All is one. All is connected. That’s good and ok. But – if you need to get things done, the ability to split everything into parts is practical. One good way to do that is to say: Everything smaller than [this] or larger than [that], I will put aside and call it “gap”. What’s left is objects.

My apologies. I’m usually a “there are no objects only forces” guy but when I tripped over mathematical morphology I finally feel ok talking about objects as the ambiguity of their nature is acceptable.

Basically this:

You can go to infinities if you like. All is one. All is connected. That’s good and ok.

But – if you need to get things done, the ability to split everything into parts is practical.

One good way to do that is to say: Everything smaller than [this] or larger than [that], I will put aside and call it “gap”.

What’s left is objects.

—-

You talked about empty space in physics. I did not. I was talking about gaps. Gaps are always filled with ‘something’.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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


4 × = twenty four

Leave a Reply