An Interpretation of "You are the salt of the Earth . . . "

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot." (Mathew 5:13)

Here is Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's interpretation of this passage:

I saw also that the Apostles were sent over the greater part of the Earth to crush the power of Satan and to scatter benedictions. It was just those regions into which they went that had been most thoroughly infected by the evil one. Jesus, by His perfect atonement, acquired that power against Satan for such as had received or such as would receive His Holy Spirit, and He secured it to them forever. I was given to understand that the power to withdraw various regions of the earth from Satan's dominion by means of a blessing, is signified by the words, "You are the salt of the Earth." For the same reason is salt one of the ingredients of holy water. (from the Complete Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, p. 12)

The Continuity of Mother Nature

Introduction

Below I share this growing list of quotes from the best thinkers of all generations so people can get accustomed to the concept that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a fundamental subatomic object, perhaps a double stranded thread like object or (EM Rope as Gaede calls it). Not only does this object interconnect all atoms, and yet also all atoms derive their form from this object. So this hypothesized object is not a discrete background object. This object has certain singular properties. It is inordinately long, and yet it has the tiniest height and width of all supposed real objects. It has the ability to superpose and intersect without disturbance up to a critical abundance which is met for example when protons and/or neutrons collide. Near the atom there are anomalies where basic interactions happen, and ideas like electron try to explain this.

Imagine a hydrogen atom as a convergence of gazillions of these double stranded threads supplied by all other hydrogen atoms of the Universe. The proton is an intersection of one set of threads of the converging double strands and perhaps the other set of threads emanate out in a double helical mode (electron threads of various lengths). The atom is a double star like pattern of Thread. This Thread underpins all things. An atom, especially a proton is a fullness of this Thread and so an atom is distinct and unequal to that which connects it to all others, and from which it derives its form. The atom constantly reforms itself, adjusts itself, shifts, and assumes two or more locations (i.e. moves) by this Thread. How a single proton retains its form is perhaps impossible to explain, but there is no empty space within the bounds of an atom. Space is just an idea we use to conceive form.

A light event consummates because electron threads superposes with the converging EM Rope. They take control of one another and switch between turning one another in a critically anomalous locations around the nucleus where converging EM Ropes and emanating electron threads superpose in different ratios. This could be basically how the atom signals through the thread to atoms and picks certain frequencies to torque the Thread. In electricity and chemical bonding electron threads could superpose and take control of electron threads from adjacent atoms and vice versa. Or perhaps they could confine each other's electron threads pursuant to the critical abundance of Thread overlapping through which no more thread may temporarily pass. There are also extraneous double stranded threads constantly passing through an atom. These begin and end on other atoms. So for example not only are all the atoms of the Earth connected to all the atoms of the Sun by EM Ropes, but Earth is always passing through EM Ropes connecting the Sun to all the stars. This is similar to a mainstream neutrino or dark matter concepts.

But the idea that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an EM Rope is a lofty fundamental assumption. It will never be able to be experimentally verified, or even logically validated, however it can be reasoned to and almost seems necessary to explain phenomena such as light and gravity, not to mention the form and patterns of the atom. And this basic idea can be used to clearly interpret certain famous equations and so called laws.

Throughout the centuries many physicists and philosophers have flirted with this assumption, but they cowered in figures of speech. Taking on this assumption is a gargantuan task. It forces one to rethink everything you may have thought you knew. Its a lot of fun. And you know what no one has to take it seriously. Who cares?

Quotes

"Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.'" --- (From Notes on Robert Grosseteste's De Luce)

"Bohr and Heisenberg were separated from Schrodinger by basic philosophical convictions and they were unable to reach common ground from which to consider the atom. Each of them accepted and used the same body of experimental evidence, but they could not agree on the conceptual means to embrace the evidence. Schrodinger looked at the natural world and saw continuity, so he was intellectually offended by energy states and quantum jumps." --- (From Hydrogen, the Essential Element)

"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." ---(From "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.)

"Nor is it divisible, since it all alike is. Nor is there any more of it here than there, to hinder it from holding together, nor any less of it, but it is all a plenum, full of what-is. Therefore, it is all continuous, for what-is touches what-is. . ." --- (Parmenides, Peri Physis)

"He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy." --- (Basil, Hexemeron, Homily II)

"The sun appears to be poured down, and in all directions indeed it is diffused, yet it is not effused. For this diffusion is extension: Accordingly its rays are called Extensions [aktines] because they are extended [apo tou ekteinesthai]. But one may judge what kind of a thing a ray is, if he looks at the sun's light passing through a narrow opening into a darkened room, for it is extended in a right line, and as it were is divided when it meets with any solid body which stands in the way and intercepts the air beyond; but there the light remains fixed and does not glide or fall off. Such then ought to be the out-pouring and diffusion of the understanding, and it should in no way be an effusion, but an extension, and it should make no violent or impetuous collision with the obstacles which are in its way; nor yet fall down, but be fixed and enlighten that which receives it. For a body will deprive itself of the illumination, if it does not admit it.” --- (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Eight)

“Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”---From Leonardo Da Vinci's notebook

"When we try to pick out anything by itself we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe." --- (Jon Muir, 19th Century Naturalist)

"If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported . . . by some material agency." --- (Henri Poincare, Physicist, Engineer, Mathematician)

"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." ---(Richard Feynaman, The Character of Physical Law)

“A chemical bond acts like a stiff spring connecting nuclei. As a result, the nuclei in a molecule vibrate rather than maintaining fixed positions relative to each other. ” --- (Darrell Ebbing, General Chemistry)

[The] investigator must feel the need of... knowledge of the immediate connections, say, of the masses of the universe. There will hover before him as an ideal insight into the principles of the whole matter, from which accelerated and inertial motions will result in the same way. --- (Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics)

...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies... ---(Einstein, Letter to Ernst Mach)

“ the electromagnetic theory is not based on action at a distance as was Newton’s. Space is thought of as being threaded throughout with electrical and magnetic tensions.” --- (Michael Disney, The Hidden Universe)

“ Somehow, Nature contrives to build a consistent world in which particles and field-oscillations are the same thing! Or, rather, her world consists of some more subtle ingredient, the words ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ conveying but partially appropriate pictures.” --- (Roger Penrose, The emperor’s new mind)

“Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

“most of us [physical scientists] are convinced in our innermost hearts that matter is ultimately of one kind, whatever ideas we may have formed as to the nature of the primordial substance. That opinion is not under discussion.” ---(Arthur Schuster On the Chemical Constitution of the Stars, 1897)

"It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation." (Pope Francis Laudato Si, 2015)

"I saw the interior, the organs of man as if in the flesh, in corporeal, corruptible images of creatures, as well as their relations with one another, from the stars down to the tiniest living thing. All exert an influence on man. He is connected with all of them; he [after the Fall] must act and struggle against them and from them suffer." ---(from the Complete Visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich 1800s)

Popular Expressions by Artists

"At this Mylo tour it is the first tour I have really looked at people in the eye while we’re playing. When we look at each other it’s a great feeling and you might never look at that person in the eyes again in either of your lives. So you have a little connection. I probably get to look at a thousand people a night. Not many people get to do that. I’ve never tried to explain it before . . . its sort of like every time you look at someone in the eyes you put a little thread between you . . ." ---Chris Martin

"All things by immortal power,
Near and far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star."
--- (Francis Thompson, Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913))

And finally Rumi's Poem of the Atoms!

O’ day, arise!
Shine your light, the atoms are dancing
Thanks to him heaven and earth is dancing
overcome with ecstasy,

Free from body and mind
I’ll whisper in your ear where their dance is leading them.
All the atoms in the air and in the desert are dancing,
puzzled and drunken to the ray of light,
they seem insane.

All these atoms are not so different than we are,
happy or miserable,
perplexed and bewildered,
we are all beings in the ray of light from the beloved,
nothing can be said.

The Crosier and the Scepter

In this staff lay spiritually Eliseus's mission and power. It was, as it were, his arm, the prolongation of his arm. And here I saw the interior signification and power of a Bishop's crosier and a monarch's scepter. If used with faith, they unite both Bishop and monarch in a certain way with Him from whom they hold their dignity, with God, marking them out at the same time as distinct from all others. 

---(Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Complete Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, p.11)

Intellectual Virtues vs. Intellectual Vices

Virtues

* clarity
* consistency
* non-contradiction
* sanity
* honesty
* forthrightness (going straight to the point; frank; direct;)
* subtlety
* profundity
* analysis wed to synthesis (or unification) (often times thinkers don't balance these two intellectual skills. They go to an extreme analysis without synthesis. It is much more difficult to synthesize ideas)
* poise
* wisdom (an ability to conceive underlying or hidden relations beyond appearances)
* elan
* athleticism (sometimes thought strikes me as almost athletic. It mimics a state of health in the body. In terms of intellectual life, it doesn't pay to sit around smoking and drinking all day! This might payoff in poetry but not in physics, philosophy, and theology)
* genuine joy (if the person doesn't seem to enjoy his subject chances are he won't have a high-quality of insight)
* organization
* definition
* rigor
* freedom (you don't have to rely to much on authority or cut and paste quotes from whoever)
* simplicity
* newness (conceptions no one else has thought of)
* detachment (emotionally as well as intellectually. One can even detach oneself from one's own ideas)
* open-mindedness

not easy to mingle all these together, and we are always in the process of rethinking and growing, but its good to have some references as to what is considered virtuous thought.

Vices

* ambiguity
* inconsistency
* contradiction
* overuse and over reliance on figures of speech and analogy
* laziness
* confusion
* disorganization
* shallowness
* pettiness
* dishonesty
* stubbornness (imagine that an idea you came up with may have happened on a day when your brain was overloaded with toxins or you were malnourished or fatigued. Or perhaps you didn't marshal enough facts. It doesn't pay to hold to that idea until you die. Always good to rethink, and move forward)
* over-sensitivity
* over-thinking, cluttered thought. too many ideas
* foppishness (excessively refined and fastidious in taste and manner.)
* oversight
* close-minded
* lack of originality
* beating around the bush 

The Keys to Philosophy and Physics: Object, Form, Existence, Concept, Referent

Dear Reader.  Sit back, relax (grab a drink if that is what you do) and enjoy my epic article on Philosophy and Physics.  If you assimilate these ideas well, I promise you, you will never see God and the world the same as before.  The philosophy and physics articles will resume after Christmas and New Year's.  Fare thee well.  Happy Holy Days.  

 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet: Juliet soliloquy)

"It may, perhaps, come to this in time," observed Monte Cristo; "You know human inventions march from the complex to the simple, and simplicity is always perfection." (Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo).

Do not winnow in every wind, or follow every path. Stand firm for what you know, and let your speech be consistent. (Sirach 5:9-10)

Introduction

Physics has its roots in ontology. Ontology is a philosophical study of radical names such as object, matter, form, existence, concept, referent. We need to learn how to resolve the ontology of word referents and commit to a clear, precise, consistent and non-contradictory definitions of key strategic terms that will make or break our entire study of physics. In order to do this we need to dig deep and resolve the referred meaning of these radical names: object, matter, form, existence, concept, referent.

Object

In context of physics the name object is synonymous with the names entity, body, thing. Physics is first and foremost a study of objects. Object impart causal relations to objects via objects. And so physics is also a study of objects and their causal relations. 

Before we can even begin to understand dynamic concepts such as light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, heat, ionization and atomic motion we better understand what an object refers to and how to distinguish an object from a concept so as to identify possible ontological contradictions.

The antonym of Object is Concept. All words can be separated into two distinct categories by way of their resolved ontology: Object and Concept. We resolve the ontology of the name referent by thoroughly understanding and committing to a perfect definition of the names Object and Form.

Object refers to that which has Form.

Matter is an ambiguous and ill-defined Concept passed down by Greeks. Matter refers to the set of objects or set of existing objects, say from atoms and the fundamental objects which constitute and interconnect them all to the stars.

Form: Introduction

Philosophy is the study of concepts and of reasons. Form is the most important name in all philosophy. It is even more important than the name Existence. Form is the first requirement of objecthood. Form is a primary quality of all objects. Children understand this quality very quickly by perceiving objects that stand out in their environment. Understanding Form is the epitome of education. In intellectual life it doesn't get any more radical than the name Form. Get used to it. This is the future.

Some synonyms of Form are shape, figure, structure, architecture, configuration, pattern.

Why is the word Form so important? The word Form is used to resolve the ontology of the word referent (that which the word refers to). We can only lump word referents into two possible categories:

1. Object
2. Concept

What we as humans are able to do is name objects and concepts. Obviously we then use these names in thinking and discourse. However the only way we have of discerning whether or not these names relate back to objects or to concepts is through the name Form. Does the word referent have Form??? Yes or no? Answer me this right here and now. If yes then the word refers to an Object. If no then the word refers to Concept.

Form allows us to perform a critical analysis of any given discourse. Form allows us to discover stealthily placed figures of speech and contradictions. Form leads one to intellectual heaven because this simple name forces one to take account for the endless spill of words coming out of everyone's mouth.

Unfortunately, with the development of the human race we have lost sight of the fact that we are constantly naming objects and concepts thus there is confusion over what a name refers to. Some treat objects as concepts or vice versa. What is even worse some literally assign motion to concepts (e.g. time moves, space moves, waves perform actions, fields perform actions, etc.) and except to be taken seriously. So in these tumultuous intellectual times we need the word Form to lead us out of the darkness.

What Does Form Refer To?

In ontology or generally for the ancient disciplines of philosophy and physics, the name Form has a specialized meaning. Form has nothing to do with an observer and his opinion. It is not as if we are looking at Florence Welch on stage at the Nobel Peace Prize banquet and thinking to ourselves: "She has a nice form". She may, but ‘nice’ implies opinion and observer. Form in this radical ontological context has nothing to do with appearance, opinion, observer or measurement. Mother Nature doesn't care about these.

Form is a root name that relates what is observer INDEPENDENT. An object has form regardless of whether anyone so happens to look at it, measure it or even think about it. The Sun had Form before the first human observed it, thought about it, measured it, calculated it, or theorized about it.

Form is what we call a native (innate) and intrinsic (inseparable) property of an object. An intrinsic property is what an object has of itself, independent of the observer. In contrast, extrinsic properties depend on an object's relationship with other objects, especially a human who serves as an observer. Some examples of extrinsic properties are size, color, dimension (length, width, height), taste, volume, weight, etc. Back in the day, extrinsic properties were called accidents. Extrinsic properties require connected objects and an observer to determine, yet Form, an intrinsic property, requires no observer, human or otherwise. Objects do not acquire Form through human opinion! God no.

Form is the single innate and intrinsic property that belongs to all objects without exception. Even God has Form. Form is the one property that relates the object itself from its immediate surrounding. How an object takes on its Form is given in a Theory but this is irrelevant here.

How do we define Form?

Form refers to a what. ('what' functions as a placeholder)
Form refers to what is bound.
Form refers to what is bound from the immediate surrounding.

The 'what' that is bound is considered holistically, as a whole, as one. In conceptualization one may reify space (treat a concept 'space' as an object) so as to understand Form however in reality it can only be an all encompassing fundamental object that imparts form to atoms or which is inherent to an atom's Form and this fundamental object does not rely on a concept called space for it's Form. More below).

The name Bound plays prominently in this definition so some synonyms of bound are demarcated, separated, differentiated, contained, defined, delimited, etc. Objects need no definition since they are defined of themselves. IN contrast concepts always need definition because they refer to relational activity rooted in the brain. God knows what is happening between most people's ears.

Notice in so called 2D objects like squares and circles it is impossible to imagine anything that is bound, contained, demarcated, separated, delimited, differentiated, etc. So in response some people calls these abstract or imaginary objects. The fact that nothing is contained implies that these abstract 2D object CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST. And so you see the nihilistic religion called geometry begins to be exposed with these definitions.

Form refers to a what, i.e. what is contained in context to the object in question, itself. What is included or excluded is a matter of context. Form always implies a boundary or boundaries. How those boundaries are set, how an object such as a star assumes its Form, or what imparts form to an object in question is made manifest in a Hypothesis and Theory.

The History of Form

Thinkers from time immemorial have brainstormed for a more thorough understanding of the name Form. And some have even flirted with a perfect understanding of the name Form. All of these quotes are somewhat useful. Please note that the words thing, body, corporeal, matter are basically synonymous with Object. A more refined definition of matter is the set of existing objects.

Historical Thinkers On Form:

by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance -- Aristotle, (Metaphysics, Ch. 7)

For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form -- Robert Grosseteste (On Light)

The first corporeal form is in my opinion light ---Grosseteste (On Light)

The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. (Riedl, Clare C. (Translator) Notes on Grosseteste)

Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. . . The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . (From Notes on Grosseteste)

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' (From Notes on Grosseteste)

For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9)

where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13)

The term 'body' [object] therefore can signify that which has such a form as allows the determination of three dimensions in it, prescinding from everything else, so that from that form no further perfection may follow. If anything else is added, it will be outside the meaning of body thus understood. (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there are extrinsic and artificial properties that we relate but these cannot define an object. Only form can define an object]

The term body [object] can also be taken to mean a thing having a form such that three dimensions can be counted in it, no matter what the form may be . . . (Aquinas, On Being and Essence)

Now matter and form are so related that form gives being to matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words all objects in the set named matter have the native-inherent property called form and this may qualify them under the category existence].

Matter then cannot exist without some form but there can be a form without matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words he realized that there is a fundamental form that underlies the set of objects, i.e. matter].

As Avicenna says, "The quiddity of a simple substance is the simple entity itself," (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there is a fundamental object that belongs to all objects in the set of matter and this object is what is bound of itself]

A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

A figure is that which is contained by a boundary or boundaries.” (Euclid, Elements)

the knowledge of the universal consents of things …. I … understand as the science which applies the knowledge of hidden forms to the production of wonderful operations; and by uniting (as they say) actives with passives, displays the wonderful works of nature. (Francis Bacon IV, 366–7: De Augmentis III.5)

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (Saint Paul) [Even God has Form].

A complete answer would amount to a history of thought, for in one sense everything possesses form. In some contexts the Greek words Eidos, Schema, and Morphe, and the Latin word Forma, which are often translated as “form” mean no less than “the qualities which make anything what it is.” (Notes from Accent on Form by Whyte)

Around 1250 we find Thomas Aquinas regarding forma as the essential quality or determining principle of every individual thing. (Notes on Accent on Form by Whyte)

But more importantly, shape is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object. (Fatfist, Physics--What is Shape and Why Does it Define an Object?)

Ultron to Jarvis: Where is your body?Jarvis to Ultron: I am a program. I have no form. (From Avengers: Age of Ultron)

All of these thinkers basically understood that Form goes hand in hand with Object. Object and Form are inseparable. It is impossible for an Object not to have Form. Without Form there is no Object. An Object without Form is irrational, inconceivable and impossible.

These thinkers may not have agreed on their definition of Form and of course there is a never-ending inter-generational brainstorms and debates over these ontological concepts, however it is easy to see that Form was a pivotal name wed to Object.

The buck stops at Form. Form is the Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing itself speaks). Once we have understood the name Form there is no circling back to concepts in a perfect understanding and definition of the name Object. Object and Form are inseparable. Form belongs to all Objects. Lack of Form = Concept. Obviously attributes and relations lack form and cannot possibly exist. Attributes and relations refer to our thoughts about objects. Attribute refers to a comparison of objects. What does this thing have or not have in comparison to that thing. What can this thing do that another cannot do.

Form is a primary attribute that all objects have and that distinguishes all objects from concepts. Form has no quality, property, or attribute. Once we have conceived Form there are no more conceptual relations in regards to the Object. To suggest so much is patently circular and contradictory. A quality does not have a quality. Property does not have property. Attribute does not have attribute.

Robert Grosseteste (First Corporeal Form = Minimal Reality)

I placed Grosseteste's quotes near the top since of all these historical thinkers he seemed to be the one who was onto something. His meditations spring up from his work with light. I suggest that perhaps in its most restricted usage the name Form is synonymous with what Grosseteste calls the 'minimal reality'. This minimal reality is basically the same as his 'first corporeal form', Aristotle's 'primary substance' and Avicenna's 'simple entity'. Lets call this the assumed fundamental subatomic object.

In the most radical context of physics it is this assumed Fundamental Object that belongs to all objects in the set named Matter. When these thinkers first conceived their concepts and named they had no clue as to what the First Corporeal Form may be. And so they came up with a host of names such as substance, essence, etc. Since then we have narrowed the search down to atoms and subatomic objects constituting atoms as well as mediating light and gravity between all atoms. Now we are a little more advanced, so we can make a reasonable and safe assumption as to what the assumed fundamental object may be. And we think this assumption without the need for any validation or verification (for our perception begins on objects of our environment comprised of atoms, and this fundamental object mediates our perceptions and observations of objects). Then we will use this assumption to redefine and restrict the usage of Form and Existence for the purposes of physics.

Grosseteste thought that this fundamental object was light. Light of course refers to a concept, and so cannot possibly be a fundamental object. Ontology aside, I think what he was really after were that object which mediates light (and gravity) to and from all atoms. This fundamental object converges from all atoms of the Universe, so that a single hydrogen atom (proton or neutron) may assume its Form. Notice what I said. I said that the objects that mediate light and gravity between all atoms are one and the same from which all atoms assume their form. This is the only reasonable  way of reality and this simple statement is hidden in Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation.  

Now let us take a step back and reanalyze the definitions of Object and Form:

Object: that which has Form
Form: that which is bound from the immediate surrounding

In EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory the immediate environment is gazillions of double stranded Threads converging into Neutrons or Hydrogen Atoms that belong to an object such as the Sun. It is this Thread that serves as the source of continuity in the set of objects called matter whereas atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons are critical matrices of Thread. Atoms serve as the limit of Thread. Thread serves as the limit of Atoms. Atom does not equal Thread, Thread does not equal atom. There is inequality between atoms and thread and yet one cannot have one without the other. Thread is continuous, Atoms are in a sense discontinuous and yet derived from the Thread. Atoms could be thought of as a critical abundance of Thread. A Critical Abundance of Thread refers to an intersection, overlap or superposition of Thread through which no more Thread may penetrate. This is how we don't simply fall through the Earth via gravity.

In some subatomic features these Critical Thread Densities are temporary since if all the Hydrogen atoms of the Universe are permanently connected by Thread there would presumably be an extraneous superposition of Thread on all Hydrogen atoms fused and clustered together say for example in a star. And yet a Critical Abundance of Thread or Atoms are radically distinct and unequal to Thread. They are discrete and yet derived in the the one Thread which is continuous.

It is assumed all the atoms of the Universe are connected and comprised of a taut, rectilinear twined Thread. The Thread is common to all objects in the set named matter just like Grosseteste thought. It is this physical mediator of light and gravity that belongs to all objects in the set named matter.

In summary: When we say that an Object is that which has Form; Form in this radical ontological context is a name that refers to what is contained. It is impossible, inconceivable and irrational for an Object not to have Form. This has nothing to do with a subjective observer's opinion, thought or act of measurement. Mother Nature herself taught us Form, so to speak. The Sun had form before any of us observed it. In context to the Sun, Form refers to what belongs to the Sun before it's light even reaches us. The Form of the Sun refers to what is contained namely all of its atoms and neutrons patterned by a crisscrossing convergence of the First Form, the Thread.

When we think and trace back to the First Form, this is bound of itself. The referent of First Form doesn't need an idea called space to contour it. The First Form is self-contained. Res ipsa loquitur.

Does God Have Form?

Yes even God has Form. This would seem obvious but in a world now ruled by concepts, it seems that more than ever the conceptual aspect of God is emphasized at the expense of his objecthood. St. Paul clearly teaches that God has Form:

[Christ Jesus] who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,

The word English word 'form' is translated from the Greek word 'morphe'. Morphe unequivocally means form. I do not care how many word games one plays you will never get around the fact that 'morphe' means form. Saint Paul was writing to the Philippians who spoke Greek. So we can assume Saint Paul and the God who inspired him intended to use the word morphe with profundity.

Existence and form are two closely related concepts. Notice the wording of Philipians:

who, being in the form of God (YLT)
who, existing in the form of God (KJV)
who was in the form of God (NAB)

All objects have form and if they exist they certainly have a location. God meets these requirements. God has form. God is located in the discrete object known as Heaven. Heaven is detached or set apart from all objects of matter that is the atoms and the fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms and which all atoms also derive their form from.

Form in this context refers to an intrinsic quality. It does not refer to an extrinsic quality such as appearance, look, color, etc. Form is a quality that is observer independent. Form is a quality that an object has of itself, independent of other objects or comparative relations. So God has a form independent of anyone in Heaven observing God. And God has a form prior to God creating all the objects in the set called matter. God's Form and Existence require Faith.

God is bounded from His immediate surroundings. He has some type of singular face delineating Him from all other objects. If this were not the case God would be a pantheistic God. When the just are assumed into Heaven they do not spill into God, and God does not spill into them. Rather they are initiated into an immediate relationship with God within a real object called Heaven. They see Him face to face with no go bet-weens. Still God is bound from the environment of Angels and Saints in Heaven. Otherwise how could a face to face relation be possible? The Angels and Saints do not morph into God, and God does not morph into the Angels and Saints or atoms, trees, stars, etc.

Even when the Holy Spirit is sent and resides within a human, he still retains his unique form. He relates intimately to that human form, more so that any two humans can possibly relate but he retains his own form. The Holy Spirit is superposed with the soul and body of a human in sanctifying grace and this is similar to how the fundamental subatomic object behaves. And yet again in spite of this mystical superposition, He, the Spirit still retains his singular form.

What is the form of God? I don't know. I've never seen Him. God is not of atoms or the fundamental subatomic objects. God has a supernatural form. He is not of the same stuff of Angels or human souls. But these are in his image and likeness. God's Form is a Trinity so it could be described as One Form yet Three Forms. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich described God like a sphere within a sphere within a sphere. So there are Three Divine Forms yet One Divine Form. It is sort of like how all the fundamental subatomic objects converge and superpose to form a single atom. They are many, and yet one as we will see below.

The Fundamental Subatomic Object or First Form

For it was not impossible for your all-powerful hand, that formed all things from unknown material, to send forth upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions, (From the Book of Wisdom 11:18)

Everyone wants to know what the Fundamental Object or First Form is, but in this most radical of all physical contexts all we can possibly do is describe it. In terms of physics, once one gets to the fundamental object there is nothing left to justify, posit or explain. In supposition the hypothesized Thread just is. Even our basic physical notions such as the action-reaction principle spring up from this supposed First Form.

What is It?

I noticed that many throughout history have traced back to what is called a fundamental object or fundamental entity or simple entity, or first form or minimal reality. These are all basically synonyms. This fundamental object imparts form to all objects, contains all objects, separates all objects, differentiates all objects etc. from the H atom to the most massive star. We call this fundamental entity the Thread. It is called Thread, because if we could see it (which is impossible because it mediates light) it would appear similar to our macro Thread. We have this Thread assumed to be the finest object in existence. The Thread stands out on its own. The Thread is rectilinear and double stranded, transforming itself into an atom.  The Thread is 3D. Height and Width is extremely tiny. Length is immeasurable. It is impossible to trace a beginning or end to the Thread other than the atom itself which it converges on and constitutes.

The Thread has Form, a wholly unique Form unlike any of the other objects we consider such as man, woman, horse, star, etc. The Thread is uniform, monolithic, always the same, never changes its Form. It is indestructible to all except God Himself. It is to some degree God like. A little reflection of God.

What I noticed with this fundamental object is that it is impossible to imagine anything imparting Form to the Thread unless some sort of miracle happened as in God creating the Thread ex nihilo. Space, a devious relational activity of the brain CANNOT possibly impart Form to the Thread or any Object whatsoever. The Thread is self-contained. Its just there. The thing speaks for itself. And it doesn't change Form because the referent of Form or the 'what' that is bound in context to Thread never changes. What the Thread is made out of never changes. Physicists and philosophers figured this out hundreds of years ago but they had no assumed object called Thread. Modern Physicists and Cosmologists tend to ignore the wisdom of the past. In their never ending race of discovery, fame, fortune and funding they have failed to realize that all of these hundreds of new particles are really just minor disturbances and manifestations of one and the same fundamental subatomic object at work everywhere.  And no one is the wiser. 

It is interesting: what is bound in reference to Thread is almost the same as saying what the Thread is made of. It's essence, its substance. That I or anyone else does not know. One would have to fly up to Heaven and ask God. But we can call it any name we choose. Call it Gaedium.

The Thread is what they call topologically invariant. The Thread retains its Form even when it is impinged upon by atoms. When atoms assume two or more locations (in other words move) they rather mysteriously reform themselves by this thread while retaining their inherent connection to all other atoms of the Universe. A single hydrogen atom has a fundamental subatomic double stranded threadlike object ending on every other hydrogen atom of the Universe. An atom tapping into the double stranded threads is a light event and this serves as the constant action/equal and opposite reaction needed to sustain inertia as well as gravity non-locally across the Universe between all atoms as well as between those in close proximity. This is why mass and velocity of light squared are wed together on the right side of Einstein's equation.

Superposition

There is another enigmatic property of the Thread which we can call superposition or light on light. Thread can pass through Thread to a critical abundance or maximum number. These overlaps serve as locations of fundamental interactions such as light, fusions, chemical bonding, electricity and magnetism. When a threaded feature of the atom attains critical abundance of Thread a sort of anomaly happens either moving the Thread or locking it into place. Thread connecting atoms gets disturbed, etc. But in between atoms and stars Thread intersects, superposes, and overlaps Thread. This was first understood by Grosseteste, then by Huygens, and finally by Maxwell. Although these thinkers were still stuck in the darkness of concepts such as field, wave, light, etc. They never pinned down the problem thoroughly enough before another figured it out namely Gaede in 1997. Here are some quotes:

Maxwell: “ Equation (361) for the electromagnetic field is linear in the field,… this means that two waves can travel through each other without disturbing each other” 

“ Here then we have two independent qualities of bodies, one by which they allow of the passage of electricity through them, and the other by which they allow of electrical action being transmitted through them without any electricity being allowed to pass.” (J. Maxwell, On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine 21 (1861)) 

Huygens: “ Another property of waves of light, and one of the most marvelous, is that when some of them come from different or even from opposing sides, they produce their effect across one another without any hindrance…the waves do not destroy nor interrupt one another when they cross one another” (C. Huygens, Treatise on Light (1678) trans. S. Thompson (1912) p. 22) 

Grosseteste: "Corporeity, therefore, is either light itself or the agent which performs the aforementioned operation and introduces dimensions into matter in virtue of its participation in light, and acts through the power of this same light. But the first form cannot introduce dimensions into matter through the power of a subsequent form. Therefore light is not a form subsequent to corporeity, but it is corporeity itself. . .

Professor Richard A. Mueller (Berkeley): The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. (From Gravity and Satellites)

If the hypothesized Thread performs the dynamic concept called light conceived as torsion waves then this fundamental object or first form can superpose, overlap, pass through, intersect etc. without hindrance, interruption, disturbance, tangling, etc. It is only when we have an intersection or overlap of a maximum abundance of Thread at a given location that Thread may get disturbed, hindered, stopped, redirected, etc. This critical overlap is exemplified by proton, neutron, and electron which are basically supposed as a convergence (proton, neutron) or overlapping alignment (electron) of gazillions of Threads, perhaps even 3 times that of all base Hydrogen atoms (protons) of Universe. These nodes of critical thread abundance are discontinuous, they are matrices, they are radically distinct, and unequal to the Thread and yet derived in the Thread which is continuous.



Musings of Werner Heisenberg

The famous physicist Werner Heisenberg wrestling with notions that the fundamental subatomic object constitutes all atoms in the set called matter.  In his honesty he was at a loss for words on how to describe what his mathematical descriptions led him to believe.  And so what he thinks is very close to what we covered above only he was not equipped with a clear philosophical basis and language with which to express his ideas.  He was a pro at Mathematics, but Math alone cannot elucidate Mother Nature; especially at the most radical level which we cannot even see!  Here are some of his quotes:

Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. . . This state of affairs is best described by saying that all particles are basically nothing but different stationary states of one and the same stuff. (Heisenberg, Quantum Theory, 1930)

My Comment: Light and Matter both refer to concepts.  Light is a dynamic relation consummated by atoms and the fundamental subatomic objects interconnecting and constituting all atoms of the Universe.  The single entity is the fundamental subatomic object, the Thread.  The so called stationary states are temporary crisscrosses, overlaps, or superpositions of Thread which is a requirement for fundamental interactions such as light, fusion, electricity. 

Thus even the three basic building-stones have become reduced to a single one. (from Atomic Physics and Causal Law, from The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Werner Heisenberg, 1958)

Comment: There is a single closed looped Thread underlying all atoms/protons, neutrons, electrons.

There is only one kind of matter but it can exist in different discrete stationary conditions. (From Atomic Physics and Causal Law, from The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Werner Heisenberg, 1958)

Comment: The one kind of fundamental object, the Thread is continuous, but this Thread can establish what I call Critical Thread Abundances, which are not continuous, however derived in the one Thread. A Critical Abundance of Thread is an superpostion of Thread through which no more Thread may pass.  This is the proton.  Perhaps in what they call black holes at the center of galaxies, there is a sort of exotic object that is not an atom or a star, but has almost a continuous presence of Critical Thread Abundances.  And this is why star that travel into this unique object are torn apart.    

To some that a 3D object, albeit fundamental, could overlap up to a hypothetical critical abundance may seem ridiculous. But I suggest you understand the utter vanity of questioning this assumption. Thread overlapping, superposing or intersecting has nothing to do with the stated fact that Thread has Form and so refers to an Object, that we could hypothetically measure to length, width and height. Length, width and height depend upon an observer, but the Thread's unique property is observer independent and in addition does not require any sort of conceptualization from a human or the Thread itself for that matter. Thread overlapping is natural. It is unnatural for two trees to overlap because the atoms comprising the tree have attained a critical thread abundance which enables them to not pass through one another but rather repel one another.

I could just as easily come back at you and ask why do protons and electrons repel one another? How is it that you do not sink down to the center of the Earth this very moment? Its not because atoms are 3D. Oh no. An atom is a fullness of Thread converging from all the atoms of the Universe. The idea that atoms are mostly empty space thus you are mostly empty space is a ridiculous and unenlightened idea. Space refers to that which lacks form. An object cannot be made of mostly empty space. This is a stupid thought rooted in Rutherford and the planetary model of the atom. Rationale would seem to suggest that an atom or a human is a fullness of whatever fundamental entity comprises all matter. Wherever an atom or a human or a star is, there is an abundance of whatever it is that fundamentally comprises these and here we have that assumed as Thread. All one need do is get over the unique properties and behavior of this fundamental entity such as superposition.

Existence

People sometimes used to say that exist must be ambiguous because look at the difference between 'chairs exist' and 'numbers exist'. A familiar reply goes: the difference between the existence of chairs and the existence of numbers seems, on reflection, strikingly like the difference between numbers and chairs. Since you have the latter to explain the former, you don't also need 'exist' to be polysemic. (---Fodor, Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong)

With some understanding of Object, Matter, Form and First Form we may graduate to Exist. Exist is the most important name in all physics. In order to study phenomena such as light, gravity, electricity and magnetism we need to invoke objects that exist.

The name existence comes from the Latin word exsistere. Exsistere literally means to stand out: the Latin prefix ex means out added to the Latin verb stare meaning to stand. Synonyms of existence are nature, perhaps real, be, presence, reality. I imagine that our Latin ancestors originally conceived 'EXISTENCE' because they rationally discerned between objects that stand out in their environment (existing objects) and dream objects, hallucinatory objects, imaginary objects, 2D geometric objects, hypothesized objects, etc.

The name Existence is what we could categorize as a static concept. This static concept is used to describe object/form. And in light of the literal Latin meaning and our thorough understanding of the name Form and First Form; Existence is easy to understand.

That which has Form, STANDS OUT.

Or if one wants to get even more radical:

That which has the First Form, STANDS OUT.

Existence refers to that which stands out. That which stands out implies three dimensions (length, width, and height), however these are measurements and whether or not an object exists does not rely on our act of measuring.

Forma and Existentia are two fundamental ways of describing Object. Form refers to what is contained and Existence refers to what stands out. Form refers to the 'What' from boundary to core, Existence refers to the 'What' from inside out.

In terms of physics Existence relates an Object contained out of Thread or the Thread itself. A configuration of Thread stands out.  Concepts lack form and so they are automatically disqualified from existence.  No a number does not exist.  Imaginary objects, abstract mathematical objects, and so on do not stand out because it is impossible to imagine them containing anything. In other words, in terms of physics they are NOT configured of the supposed 'first corporeal form' which Grosseteste made synonymous with the 'minimal reality' which we call the Thread. So in this conception, the primary qualifier of Existence would be Form and the secondary qualifier would be Thread.





So now let's apply these super restricted descriptions to the referent of Florence. The referent of Florence has Form. Thus the referent of Florence is an Object. The First Form belongs to the referent of Florence. A convergence of countless Twined Threads coming from all the atoms of the Universe pattern her body. The Threads either converge in abundance to form her atoms (or protons and neutrons). Thus the referent of Florence exists. She stands out.

Now one could opt for a broader but no less clear, consistent, unambiguous and non-contradictory definition of the name existence. Existence refers to an object that has location. That which has Form and location exist. Primary qualifier: Form. Secondary qualifier: Location. Existence invokes a WHAT (Object/Form) and a WHERE (Location). In other words exist relates something somewhere, a presence, a nature. Location is the set of static distances from an object to all other objects. This definition disqualifies all geometrical objects such as circles, squares, lines, etc. from existence as well as imaginary objects such as Bart Simpson. With this enlightened understanding of the word existence we can clearly see that 1D, 2D, or 4D objects of geometry cannot possibly exist or be used in assumptions, explanations and conclusions in physics. Geometry is a nihilistic religion.

I opt for the more radical and restricted definition of Existence because if an Object has the First Form it is (in my understanding) literally connected to all objects via the First Form. The Sun exists because it is comprised of a big ball of configured Thread coming out from all the atoms of the Universe. To have the First Form is to be connected to all physical objects in the set called matter. The Thread enables us to redefine some extrinsic qualities for the purposes of physics. Distance is really the length of an EM Rope connecting any two atoms. Location means an object is connected to all other objects by the supposed First Form twisted out from the atoms that belong to a particular object. Dimension describes a figure of Thread.

In summary here are some possible definitions of existence for the purposes of physics and philosophy:

that which has form and location
that which stands out
the Thread or that which is woven by the Thread

1D object, 2D images, fail on all accounts. Dream objects, hallucinatory objects and abstract objects also fail. 4D objects are impossible.

With object, matter, form, first form and existence in mind let us proceed to the radical name Concept.

Concept

The name Concept is the antonym of Object. To describe a Concept as an object, entity, or form is a terrible misnomer that causes confusion. A sheer contradiction. All concepts, without exception lack Form, let alone the First Form, thus Concepts do not refer to Objects, or Forms and of course are disqualified from Existence. (This Plato along with some Medieval philosophers failed to understand).

Again, Concept refers to a lack of Form. Concepts do not literally assume a Form. They have no Form. So called "Concept Formation" is poetry. Concepts are the antithesis of Objects. Some synonyms of concept are idea, notion, thought, abstraction, conception, conceit, cogitation, intellection, conceptualization, etc.

In the radical ontological context, Concept refers to a work of the brain, a brain-work. Concept refers to a motion of the brain, more specifically our neurons and on a more fundamental level atoms signaling to each other via fundamental objects. Our brains elaborate relations in service of understanding and then praxis or communication.

We process objects of our environment through our sense organs and by way of the brain we identify and associate relations between objects. We then treat these relations as if they were objects in an act of naming. We remember the names, trace the names, etc. Sometimes we use the same name to label many new concepts. Through the names we use the concepts that they refer to in recall and through communication. At this juncture of the human family we have gazillions of concepts traced out. Our concepts (brain works) have become increasingly complex and difficult to learn. In fact we are at a stage of micro-evolution where specialists learn and use a narrow set of concepts known only to those in their fields.

Concepts are relations. Relations can be classified into many categories but some basic modifiers are natural/artificial, intrinsic/extrinsic, and dynamic/static.

With this understanding we can define Concept as
a relation between two or more objects (worked out by the brain).
I added the parenthesis (worked out by the brain) because it does not seem clear to everyone that conceptions originate via the brain. We live in a time when concepts seem to take on a life of their own. People tend to be enslaved by concepts, so to speak. But this is not at all how it should be. Since it is us who continuously do the work called conceptualization till brain death, it is us who should have dominion over our concepts. And since it is us who conceive the onus is on us to define our concepts unambiguously and without contradiction.

All rational concepts can be traced back to at least two objects. Even the referent of a simple name such as 'Florence' can be traced back to the object who conceived the name usually Mom or Dad and the referred object of the name that is the baby.

All concepts are relational actions of the brain. The brain takes in objects of the environment through a sensory system and works a relation between objects. Some of these relations such as light and love work out naturally, others are artificial, man-made. A concept's meaning is defined by the user and sender. Concepts are not supposed to confuse or deceive . . . they are supposed to help. (Corollary: IMHO concepts worked out by the brain are ever new. Even familiar concepts are ever conceived anew. We almost continuously do the work of conception till death. This is why no two genuine discourses are ever the same unless we quote, copy, transcribe, etc.)

Some concepts could be described by the name 'abstract'. Abstract concepts are simply a nest of many related objects and/or concepts worked out by the brain. A classic example of an abstract concept is Universe or Cosmos. Universe is a binary conceptual system relating space and matter. Matter is the set of all existing objects, all things. Space relates lack of Form. I guess that an ancient got sick of saying, "All the trees, and all the hills and the seas, and all the men, women, and children, and all the stars, and space, etc." So he came up with the bright idea now called Universe or Cosmos. Universe lacks From, this name resolves to an idea.



But now some have gone and named the brain work called Universe into a pregnant Florence Welch with a curving belly. In other words, some have irrationally converted the abstract concept Universe, into an object of existence that can perform actions like curve and expand. Although we reify concepts such as space and matter, to perform a synthetic abstraction we must understand that the reification does not allow our concepts to exist and perform causal actions or undergo change effects. We reify concepts in the act of naming. We cannot relate to that which lacks Form, thus we do this almost preternatural trick of treating our brain-work as if it had form so as to name, use in understanding, consummate higher order abstractions, communicate and so on.

Obviously someone has mistaken Universe or Space, both names that resolve concepts, lacking form, not to mention the concepts of dark matter, dark energy, the Higg's Field, EM Field, quantum field, the sixty or so particles, energy, gravitational waves, gravity wells and so on and so forth ad nauseum etc. for the abundance of Twined Thread crisscrossing and connecting, converging and forming all the atoms and neutrons of existence.

Concepts Do Not Change

Concepts DO NOT change. The idea distance does not change. All the stars and galaxies are connected by the supposed First Form twined in a DNA like configuration. It is these supposed objects connecting the stars that change, and the stars themselves that change, not the idea distance. "Change of distance" does not happen in reality. Change of stars, galaxies and the supposed objects connecting them is the reality.

Since Concept refers to relational actions worked out by the brain by our neurons, atoms, mediators, etc. it is blatantly obvious that Concept lacks Form and so is automatically disqualified from Existence. In a radical ontological context, Concepts cannot possibly move since concepts are motions of the brain. Concepts cannot possibly perform causal actions or undergo change effects. (Note that this does not entail that Concept does not HAPPEN, however these dynamic concepts must ALWAYS be performed or worked by objects that exist.)

Onto-logically, strictly speaking, in a stern restricted manner, concepts cannot possibly change because concepts are what the existing objects of your brain DO. One is always conceiving anew. The objects of your brain are changing. When a human changes his ideas, it is not the ideas that change, it is the human who changes or the objects connected within the human that change. If one is thinking differently than he did as a child then his brain has evolved.  

Concepts cannot possibly change.
Only objects can possibly change.
Concepts cannot possibly move.
Only objects can possibly move.
Concepts cannot possibly perform actions (verbs)
Only objects can possibly perform actions.

And objects that exist are way more valuable and important than concepts. Objects are greater than concepts, e.g. food, an object is more important than economy, a concept.

Referent

Now languages have the fault of containing certain expressions which fail to designate an object (although grammatical form seems to qualify them for that purpose) . . . 

So language brands a concept as an object, since the only way it can fit the designation for a concept into its grammatical structure is as a proper name. But in so doing, strictly speaking it falsifies matters. (Gottlob Frege, 1892a, 168-69) 

"the concept horse is not a concept" (Gottlob Frege, 1892b)

A name is same as word. All names are first and foremost concepts. This is a matter that Frege could never quite work out. He understood that a horse is a concept and yet not a concept. But he never could solve the answer as to why. The name 'horse' is a Concept, but the name refers or relates Frege to that which has Form in other words an Object.

A referent is that which the name refers to. Names are conceived so as to refer the thinker or the audience to objects or to concepts. In other words we name objects and concepts. We establish an affinity with objects by our act of naming. With objects all we can possibly do is name them, assume them, draw them and explain how they work in relation to other objects. Naming refers to a dynamic concept completed by a human and can be traced directly to the object that is named (to that which has Form). We also have the tricky ability to perform the work of naming our conceptions. We name our brain works, to organize, synthesize abstractions, develop and stimulate our brains and also so as to communicate directly with other objects such as humans and animals. Naming concepts modifies objects, describes them, etc. This name can indirectly trace back to the objects of our brains (atoms, electrons, neurons, connectors, etc.) performing causal relations and undergoing change effects in the referred concept or to objects of our environment remembered and used to relation in conception.

The name of our conception serves as a placeholder for the objects of our environment we conceived in a relation via our sensory organ or the objects of our brain performing the work called conception and serves to modify, describe, explain the objects. So we perceive water molecules, remember their locations, think and name that thought wave. Wave is what an object does. Wave does not refer to an object. We can trace back wave to objects even if these objects are no longer perceivable or even imperceptible.

Since we perform the act of naming we have to determine whether or not we named, or used a name, to refer to an object or to a concept. The way we do this is to ask:

Does the nominal referent have Form?

If so we may file the name under Object. If not the name resolves to a relation worked out by the brain: Concept. Now this may seem insignificant at first, but I assure the reader that this is one of the, if not THE most important task in all of philosophy and physics.

Language can be tricky and seductive without an ontological basis that we perform naturally and yet seemed to have lost touch with. The seeming deficiency, ambiguity, or seduction of language has to do with us. We conceive and use words in a deficient manner. And we introduce ambiguity into language when we fail to define strategic words. And some seduce the weak minded with deficient and ambiguous word use.

But all referents without exception are categorized into two categories by way of their resolved ontology: The two ontological categories are of course

1. Object
2. Concept

There is no third category.

The underlying ontology of the word referent is resolved objectively. The objective criterion is based on the rigorous definition of the names Object and Form derived from all the great thinkers of history. All we need do is take a word in its context and ask whether or not the referent has Form. This is a cut and dry. The answer is yes or no. Form is the only name that can possibly describe any and all Objects. Thus Form serves as the criterion for resolving the ontological context of the word referent. If the referent of the word does not have Form, then the word refers to a relation worked out by the brain; the word refers to a concept.

We haphazardly resolve word ontology every time we parse a sentence. However this skill needs to be honed so that we can perform a contextual analysis on any and all discourses given by anyone in any study, especially science. And we need this skill to trace concepts back to objects. If a concept cannot be traced back to a minimum of two objects then you should note that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Evaluating the Ontological Context of Referents is the only way an author or a reader can guarantee clarity in understanding and communication. By resolving the underlying ontology of the word referent one is able to discern ordinary language from scientific language. One is able to discern figures of speech, colloquialisms, rhetoric, etc. One is able to discern hogwash. And one is able to accomplish many other educated tasks.

The ontological roots of language are as clear as the Sun and as strong as a mountain. There is no manner of circumventing a concept. All concepts necessarily invoke a minimum of two objects. And all concepts lack that which belong to all objects, namely Form.

Whoever understands the significance of resolving the ontological context of word referents is truly educated and free. Whoever does not understand how to put this into practice or does not respect the importance of this practice is uneducated. Educated of means "led out from". The idea is that one is lead out of darkness and into the light. We need to be able to master concepts in route out of darkness.

Some Examples of Resolving the Underlying Ontology of Word Referents:
Wind

Does the name 'wind' refer to an object? Or to a concept? Wind has no form, thus it resolves to a concept. Wind could be defined as two or more locations of air molecules parallel to the Earth's surface. Adam and Eve came along, thought invisible objects moved parallel to the ground: pelting their faces, trees, as well as their huts and so named 'wind'.

Wind cannot move. Wind is objects (air atoms/molecules) in motion. Wind is really a specialized verb in disguise. It is as if the subject, air, is built into a verb. Wind relates motion of air. A verb is a name that represents a moving relation worked out by the brain. With motion we need an object(s) regardless of whether or not we can see them.

Wave

Wave is a tricky one. A wave may seem like it has form but indeed the ontological context resolves to a concept. Like wind, wave refers to a dynamic concept, a verb. Wave is a manner of motion. Wave is our conceptualization of a thing's action. For example, Florence Welch's arms wave when she sings. There is no such thing as a wave. A wave is not a noun of reality, e.g. gravitational waves resolve to concepts. They cannot possibly exist.  No one in the history of the Universe, not even God himself has ever literally seen a wave.  All we have done is imagined a thing waving. 

In context to light and gravity and electron, it is indisputable that these phenomena have dynamic wave-like properties. So we have to ask ourselves what is it that is waving? What is waving at the atomic perimeter??? What is waving between stars in light and gravitational mediation??? Brainstorm and then suppose a rational mediator, an object.

Space

Space is the whore of philosophers and of weak minds.

The tricky and seductive word Space, resolves to a concept. This might sound crazy to the uneducated, but it is impossible to see space via our sensory systems. No one in the history of the Universe has seen space or taken in space via their sensory systems. Not even God has seen space. All we can possibly see are objects that are literally connected to our eyes by the mediators of light. When we see two objects, we think space. Space refers to the separation between two or more objects. However the referent of the name space is an impoverished notion since we assume that the Twined Threads separate any two objects and the Twined Thread is bounded from the immediate surrounding of itself. The stuff that is the referent of the name 'Thread' or 'first corporeal form' or 'fundamental entity', or 'minimal reality', certainly doesn't need an idea called space to separate it.

We cannot see that which mediates light and converges to form all the H atoms and neutrons of the Universe, thus we have overindulged ourselves with the bunk notion of space. Space has never imparted a causal relation or undergone a change effect in the entire history of the Universe since it is JUST A RELATION worked out by the brain!!!! Space is a concept. Space is not even a container. Space cannot perform the the referred action of the verb 'contain' or 'bind'. Concepts do not perform actions. Space is a sheer deprivation and it is truly a sign of the times that people so fawn over the name 'space'.

Does God Refer to Concept?  

And so we end with the Almighty.  Above we already explained that God has Form.  This clearly written in Sacred Scripture in many places.  Now, how do we reconcile this with other more conceptual descriptions of God for example "God is Love . . . " from the first letter of John.  Love refers to concept.  Could God possibly destroy everything I just said above about the two categories of language?  Could God refer to both Object and Concept???  I guess so.  The reason is because the Trinitarian relations are essential to God's Form.  The Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Three Forms) are consubstantial (One Form), and this consubstantiation is based on what we call Procession or Generation.  The Father is eternally generating the Son; the Father and the Son are eternally generating the Spirit in a single moving relation that is God.  

And so philosophers and theologians talk about these ideas such as God is pure act or in God "being is doing and doing is being."  Is God a noun ... Or a verb?   Perhaps both.   In God, Object is Concept and Concept is Object.  In God, Form is Relation and Relation is Form.  This defies all my rational discourse above.  And so be it.   

What is Real?

Real is about as Latin of a word as one can find.
It comes from the Latin realis.

Re is a variation on the Latin word res
alis just means: of, related to, connected with, belonging to

So realis is literally that which is related to things.

Res was a Roman staple, e.g. res publica literally public matter or public things.

In the dictionary they also try a trace Res back to Sanskrit:

"From Proto-Italic *reis, from Proto-Indo-European *reh₁ís (“wealth, goods”). Cognate to Old Persian [script needed] (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”), Avestan (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”) and Sanskrit रयि (rayí, “property, goods”)."

And note that in Latin the spelling RES is the same for singular and plural. So its like res are your things. Your land, your house, your bike, your car, your husband or wife, your body, your children, your money, your clothes, your food supply, and any relation in regards to your things. Your stuff! A very simple down to earth word and much less technical than the other Latin word: Existentia

There are hundreds of English words that use RES, e.g. resurrection, residue, reservoir, residence, etc.

The way the Romans used the word is similar to how people use the English word 'thing' or 'matter' or 'stuff'. In English 'thing' or 'matter' is basically used as a placeholder for any word in an ordinary conversation. But in physics and philosophy these words are used differently and people will be trying to figure this stuff out until the Sun explodes.

If we are to use the word REAL in physics and philosophy then we have to define it.

The Latin is literally that which belongs to things. Thing is just synonymous with object, entity, body, etc. What belongs to all things I ask? Form. Form is the primary quality of all things. So real has a lot to do with form. Form refers to that which is bounded or contained from the immediate surrounding. Then if you want you can add the idea of location. So this form has a location. That star you see every morning has form and location. And guess what? Your act of observing it or thinking about it doesn't determine this. The Sun is just there. It stimulates the atoms in your body and forces you to wake up. Very profound!!! So in real there is this sense that the thing is independent to your thought or act of perception.

Your wife you wake up to every morning has form and location. Once you tie the knot you can't escape her. Your car or bike or skateboard has form and location, that magnet you used in science class has form and location, as do all the atoms that constitute these. HOWEVER that woman you dreamed about last night seemed to have a form but no location. If you look around you will not find her. You can think about her, but you can't relate TO HER. Your brain just generated a picture and made a movie of her. That triangle you traced in geometry has a form but no location. Or those spacetime lines your curved don't seem to be found. These forms are not real. They have no relation to all the atoms of the Universe.

So its very simple. The Romans were no fools. They conceived and used words like REALIS and EXISTENTIA because some of their Greek neighbors were insane. These are static concepts used to describe objects.

In philosophy and mathematics they start messing around with the word real and for thousands of years this word is never resolved or defined. And then we have mentally ill philosophers, mathematicians and so called physicists preaching to the masses about the word real. And then they build trillion dollar devices to decide what is real or what is not real because they are confused about how the philosophers use the word real.

All these imaginary problems could be resolved in an instant if the philosopher, physicist or mathematician defined the term REAL and used it consistently in his presentations. Simple as that.

so in summary for physics and philosophy I would define

Real: that which has form (object) and location independent of any human action whether thinking, perceiving, observing, measuring, dreaming, hallucinating, etc. Not all objects qualify as real.

Location & Real vs. Existence

Location refers to a static concept (a picture imaged by the brain). Where form is a primary quality of objects used to resolve the ontology of the word referent, location refers to a sort of secondary quality sometimes used to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists.

Real and existence are often used to mean the same, however they are strictly speaking a little different. Real is more down to Earth; one may even say colloquial. A sober concept and has to do more with that which has form independent of any sort of human intervention. Existence is more technical. Existence literally refers to that which STANDS OUT and seems to imply the three classic dimension (length, width, and height). So one could argue that existence implies a human observer. But on the other hand if one has a perfect understanding of the crucial word 'Form' and takes into account mercurial assumptions, I think one can do away with need to toy around so much.

Location can be defined more or less in an observer independent manner so as to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists

Location refers to the set of static distances from an object to all other objects.

If an object is described by real or exist, one should hypothetically be able to measure its distance to all objects of the Universe. So if superman is real and/or exists he should be located X distance from the Sun, Y from the Moon, Z from the Earth, A from you and so on. One doesn't have to do the measuring but the basic concept is powerful. It serves as a sound conceptual exercise.

Location can tell you right away whether or not some form is imagined or traced. For example a triangle. A triangle is an object. It has form, HOWEVER. does it have location? And even more 'what' could we possibly imagine bounded or contained of a triangle? In between the boundaries all one does is conceptualize space or some other imaginary forms. Space lacks form. So obviously a triangle is an abstract or imaginary form used in some context of utility. A triangle has nothing to do with reality and/or existence and all to do with a human brain conceptualizing. Similar with all concepts such as love, justice, gravity, etc. These concepts have no form, and neither to they have location. Where are you literally going to find love? Love is what God, humans and animals do.

Really once one takes on some mercurial assumptions all one needs is Form. But now one can make a list of objects and ask whether or not they have location so as to help resolve whether or not they are real or exist. And so it becomes clear that humans imagine objects, hallucinate objects, project objects unto their environment, trace objects on paper and via computers, dream objects, abstracts objects, idealize objects, hypothesize objects, etc. However none of these can be located and strictly speaking they have no form. Their form also has to be described with the same modifiers. They have imaginary form and so on. We thought of them, we pictured them via our brain and used them to think, but there is no what contained, or bounded from immediate surrounding, no essence, no three classic dimensions, etc. You will never be able to locate a triangle or the ideal woman or superman. None of these objects stand out, none have three dimensions, none of them are connected to all the atoms of the Universe much less constituted by atoms. None of them are qualified in the abstract nest called matter. These imaginary objects have no foundation.

Are Memories Real?

Memory is a brain capacity. The brain or neural objects move to re-image an object of the past or imagine objects collectively mediating an event which happened in the past. The objects used in memory are not real since they lack location or a 'foundation' object from which they derive their form. They are imaginary objects or objects of memory. Just like dream objects or objects in hallucination. In this scenario we could just assume the brain and neural objects or human performing an act of memory are real.

Memory refers to a concept about what an object (brain) is able to do. Memory or memories lack form. There aren't any objects called memories constituting one's brain. Strictly speaking, real describes object. Memory lacks form and so relates back to a concept that we worked out about what our brain is able to do. Thus memory is not object and cannot be described by a static comparison called real. Similar with event. Event lacks form.

What is Time?

Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron).---Antiphon the Sophist (5th Century BC)

. . . fast forward to our century and this is about the best definition one will ever see . . .

Time: the equation of motion to a preconceived cycle of motion that is assumed to occur regularly.

Time is a relation . . . a concept worked out by the brain. First we conceive of regular, repetitious motion. Then we relate other irregular action to the regular cycle and by counting the repetitions of the cycle, we derive a number that can be considered "time".

Seconds, days, years, etc. are all abstractions referring to regular, repetitious cycles that we have conceived of as constant and dependable.

Even atomic clocks, which are considered "the most precise" are based on the assumption that the atoms of the clock are performing an action in cycles that are regular and dependable.

Time is based on assumptions and artificial, idealized relationships. ---Mike Huttner (21st Century AD)

For Time to qualify as real it would have to have form, location and stand out implying three dimensions. So in other words it would have to be some invisible fundamental subatomic object, and the particle physicists and disciples of Einstein would have to spend billions to confirm its existence to the world.

But most reasonable thinkers throughout history clearly understand that Time refers to concept, a brainwork. One simply compares two or more motions. One conceives and assumes one motion as regular, cyclical, constant. And then one equates this motion to others. If there is an irregularity in relation to the assumed motion used as a standard then there should be some explanation. For example the irregularity of Earth's orbit around the Sun. Or an irregularity when comparing a caesium atom's activity near Earth's surface in relation to a caesium atom's activity in Earth's orbit. The presence of some fundamental invisible subatomic object in different ratios (number of subatomic objects and their effective actions) must account for the irregularity in these two different locations, but this object is not called Time.