We cannot know everything, so at some point in our quest for knowledge we will reach a point in which we will have to use that which we know to talk about that which we don't, and to talk about ways to explore that which we don't know. In my opinion, that's metaphysics; a tool formed from verified knowledge to probe the unknown. If metaphysical analysis departs from verified knowledge, then I think it should be considered philosophy or at least as a philosophical tool.

Another version.

The obelisk among the trees.

The jungle was getting thicker, warmer, wetter, unbearable, and the donkeys, they were growing even more restless; they’d been acting stubbornly all morning, seemingly wanting to go back. "They are donkeys, Professor!", exclaimed our guide with a playfully dismissive tone when I brought the matter up; she was a gorgeous Brazilian woman much younger than me but certainly much more of an expert when it came to donkeys, or at least so I thought. I should’ve listened to the damed donkeys.

The expedition stopped to rest 175 km southwest of Macapuana, deep within absolute wilderness. The Akkadian map wasn’t really very precise, and there was still a lot of jungle to cover, maybe a couple more days, no more than a week, we hoped. We hadn’t received any radio communications from any of the other venturing parties, and that meant no one had found anything yet; this was good news, at least to me, although not so much to my companions, Professors Riley and Munroe, who kept insisting something didn’t feel quite right; a nervous pair, I must say. The donkeys were definitely not helping.

But it wasn’t until Peter mentioned his lack of (new) mosquito bites that we truly noticed something was off. We were surrounded by an entire jungle, and we could hear no sound other than the anxious tapping and whining of the donkeys. From time to time a falling branch resonated across the green abyss, as Professor Munroe so cleverly termed the bizarre experience, giving the landscape a more sinister aroma. We were very curious at first, we are explorers, but with the sinking of the sun the behaviour of the donkeys steadily evolved into a chaotic frenzy, bursting right before dusk; what a terrifying display it was. Neither Peter nor the ropes were enough to keep them with us. They managed to run away; who knows if they were lucky enough to scape.

We were close, we could feel it.

The night was filled with an utterly horrifying dark silence like the one that inhabits deep beneath the Earth’s surface; I closed my eyes and felt the emptiness, Oh, Mr. Munroe! When I woke up, I was completely alone. No one to hear my words, only trees and their leaves and their sad melodies. My eyes, they never saw another creature again, and now I am here lost in solitude once more and for the last time. We were close, too close.

No. Hee-Haw!!!!

I decided to change a couple things in the story trying to follow the advise of @Jamal and Nils; although now it is longer, I think it flows a bit better. Let me know what you think. Also, the image from @Nils Loc I think is just perfect; there is even a column of light coming from what seems to be the sun which makes me think of the obelisk. Really love it. (You guys should check out the image database of Babelia if you haven't - crazy thing)

@Caldwell you should read that collection. The guy is an amazing writer.... At the mountains of madness the best I have read so far (fuck Cthulhu, i think is a bit too overrated)

That's Lovecraft, makes you get into the story with almost all your senses... mine, an amateur attempt to copy his style, but I am glad I made you feel surrounded by the jungle and that horrible, never-ending silence.

Don't know the Loci method, but I am glad it stook in your mind - hopefully it didnt give you any nightmares!

Below the edited version. I hope you guys like this version better; I'll keep working on it, so any feedback will be welcomed.


The obelisk among the trees.

The jungle was getting thicker, warmer, wetter, unbearable, and the donkeys, they were growing even more restless; they’d been acting stubbornly all morning, seemingly wanting to go back. They are donkeys, Professor! exclaimed our guide with a playfully dismissive tone when I brought the matter up; she was a gorgeous Brazilian woman much younger than me but certainly much more of an expert when it came to donkeys, or at least so I thought. I should’ve listened to the donkeys.

The expedition was resting 175 km southwest of Macapuana, deep within absolute wilderness. The Akkadian map wasn’t really very precise, and there was still a lot of jungle to cover, maybe a couple more days, no more than a week, we hoped. We hadn’t heard from any of the other venturing parties, and that meant no one had found anything yet; this was good news, at least to me, although not so much to my companions, Professors Riley and Munroe, who kept insisting something didn’t feel quite right. The donkeys were definitely not helping.

It wasn’t until Peter mentioned his lack of mosquito bites that we truly noticed something was off. We were surrounded by an entire jungle, and we could hear no sound other than the anxious tapping and whining of the donkeys which with the sinking of the sun steadily evolved into a chaotic frenzy, bursting right before dusk; what a terrifying display it was. Shortly after, they managed to run away; who knows if they were lucky enough to scape.

The night was filled with an utterly horrifying dark silence like the one that inhabits deep beneath the Earth’s surface. When I woke up, I was completely alone.

My eyes never saw another creature again.

Im able to hide the stories from the main page by going to the short stories category (short stories dec 22), scrolling all the way down, and clicking on the eye icon on the bottom left.

Thank you all for your comments, I am really glad you guys liked it, thank you. I wanna say I loved the bit of mystery it caused, wasnt really expecting it. I also really liked @Baden's analysis, it surprised me in a very good way, it is quite interesting and true; if it is the purpose/meaning of the story to be philosophical in nature, I don't wanna say, I like the uncertainty of each of your interpretations; I never thought something so short and apparently simple could cause in others such amusement, and I am happy it did, really happy.

Yet, within the mind-independent world of molecules A, D, etc, excluding any external observer, no single part can have any information within itself about its behaviour, as behaviour is an external property of a part. — RussellA

We are debating if patterns exist independently of minds, where a pattern is a behaviour - regular or irregular - of (a group of) "stuff"; a behaviour which is not widespread, that is patterns are localized - in the sense that not all stuff behaves exactly the same and there is difference in the behaviours of "stuff". Following this definition, patterns rely on differences to exist; if there were no differences between "stuff" there would be no patterns. If we focus on the amount of change a thing can undergo, we can see it is limited to a certain range; that is, a water molecule on the surface of planet Earth won't change into a rock molecule spontaneously, but instead it will change within certain degrees of freedom determined by its composition and its surroundings - a water molecule surrounded by water molecules will probably behave differently to a water molecule surrounded by rock molecules (think of bond vibrations, bond rotations, dipole distribution, and all that stuff). So, we have that patterns depend on localized differences, and these differences are limited in their "range of" change (of behaviour). A molecule of water of course is not aware/conscious it is surrounded by molecules of water or rock or air; however, the change it undergoes depends on what it is surrounded by and the way its surroundings are organized (a molecule of water surrounded by molecules of rock at 0 degrees celsius will behave differently to a molecule of water surrounded by molecules of rock at 1 degree celsius). That is, not all molecules of water behave the same. By extension not all molecules behave the same; and further, not all stuff behaves the same. There is difference in the way stuff behaves. Another way to see this is that the behaviour of a point in space varies to the behaviour of other points in space (not all points in space have the same properties) - and again, the quality of there being variation across space exists. I would say a mind requires variation to exist and not the other way around, for there must be variation before a mind capable of distinguishing variation exists (specially when such a mind collects information by detecting changes in the environment through the senses of its body). If there is variation and there is "stuff" then there are patterns automatically.

So, a part may not have intrinsic information (tbh, I would like an example of intrinsic information) that it is part of a pattern, but its behaviour is characteristic to the pattern it is a part of - and even if different patterns may lead to the same behaviour of a part, not all patterns a part can be a part of lead to the same behaviour, and not all behaviours that result from being part of a pattern are the same.

Now, just to make this post a bit more confusing, if we focus on the fact that a thing in itself can be it and only it, and we assume that because it is limited to its nature it can change limitedly, then by it being itself it has all the information that "tells it" it is part of a pattern, for it is being itself all the time in contrast to what it is not, and by being something in contrast to something else, it is already a part of a pattern, and the pattern exists because it is in-itself in the sense that its parts behave different to their behaviour if they were parts of other patterns.

I'll try to come with some better polished ideas that go against your view that patterns are mind dependent, I really like this topic and it deserves more thought form my part because to be hones your position is really difficult to refute, and it makes it fun. What I don't like about your view is that in the absence of minds then every point in space would have to be assumed to experience the same relations as every other point in space - there would be no differences of any sort; and I just can picture that when all I see is variation all around me. Again, I am assuming a pattern to be the result of differences in the distribution and hence behaviour of stuff. Those difference cannot be mind dependent.

But within the mind-independent world, where is the information within A that it is part of the same pattern as B but not the same pattern as D. — RussellA

In its behaviour (or range of). In the mind-independent world there exists an interface between different behaviours (of groups of particles - i.e., rock and water); the existence of the interface requires a distinction between the groups of particles that form the interface (or there would not be an interface); this distinction materializes in the behaviour of the particles that make up the interacting surfaces.

But the relations between two groups of things may depend on the regularity of the patterns they (the things) form within their groups, independent of their awareness about each other patterns. The configuration of parts in a composite relative to other parts in the same composite may define how a composite interacts with another even if none of the composites or their parts is aware of such configuration. A pattern would exist independently of a sentient being if the pattern is responsible for a set of relations which would be absent in its absence.

Has a similar writing style to "The Hairpin". I wonder if it's the same author; plus it seems Martita is here as well.

If you are buying?

I dare someone to write a story with 'Ukraine Crisis' as title :scream: — Amity

They needed to generate more inequality to maintain their power, how would they live without it, eh? No one suspected how they would do it; everyone was distracted, if it wasn't themselves, it was their partner, or it was their kids, or their parents, their possessions, their neighbours, their job, celebrities, their favourite team, or maybe something else. There was always something in their minds; they couldn't see what was going on right in front their eyes. Clever strategy, I must say, sometimes I think they deserve their power. In less than five years, they created enough distraction and division to prevent any attempt to constructive, and collective thought. Don't get me wrong, there were some who were aware of the atrocities occurring all around the globe, and to be fair, most people had an idea of how bad everything was; again, they just had something else to think about, and systematic thought concerning the dynamics of power was almost absent in the people; they strived for comfort, or at least a cheap version of it, you know, things. Those who saw it wanted it or were powerless to do anything about it, at least anything useful, permanent; strength is in the numbers, and there were numbers, but they were all around. Society was chaos. Five years, only five years to fool almost 9 billion people, clever snakes! Fall brought with it even more war, but it wasn't until winter that hell descended upon all of us. They talked of hunger, of housing problems, of race, of sex, of gender, of climate, of misery, of violence, of scarcity, of injustice, of freedom, while waging war, of freedom! Their temerity! But we were just too distracted, too far apart, too ignorant. It's been 25 years now and there's no more Ukraine, no more Russia, no more Europe, no more America, no more Africa, no more Asia, no more continents, no more Earth, no more humanity. Now? Now it is just crisis. Crisis all the time.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION.

My consciousness is all that I really know exists. — Art48

What is conscious is different from what it is conscious about - or what creates is different from its creation - meaning there is more than one thing.

Does the protagonist actually die? He takes the sharp spoon to his mouth, but I don't think he had the time to cut his tongue, or does he go through his chin? Why was the spoon sharp, and why did he have a spoon with dried chocolate in his pocket? So many questions.... good story.

Do you know of any established philosopher or philosophy that makes a distinction between “absolute free will” and “non-absolute free will”? — javra

No. My intention was to highlight that there is no independent action, and thus any decision we make is influenced by some external factor. Free will would entail that at the moment of choice we do not interact at all with our environment, including the choices we are presented with; otherwise, any interaction we participate in would affect our choice, for the interaction would necessarily affect us, and whatever it is that makes the choice would make such choice under the effect of the interaction - in contrast to the absence of such effect. So, because we are in constant contact with our environment, which is changing, the choices we make are necessarily and constantly influenced by such changes. No choice I make is fundamentally/entirely/absolutely mine and only mine for that would require that I receive no external influence, at all, no?

@Paul Michael

To choose from a set of choices, we must be affected by the choices themselves before we make any choice. No?

Now, I think a completely independent action would require an absolute lack of interaction with our environment. So, I'd say absolute free will does not exist.

If entity A is necessary for the existence of entity B (and B is not necessary for A), then does it necessarily follow that that entity A is also logically prior to entity B, and if entity A is logically prior to entity B, does that not also mean that it is temporally prior to entity B as well (in terms of the first possible occurrence of entity B), or does logical necessity not necessarily also imply temporal priority? — TheGreatArcanum

I think it was either Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle (although I might be totally wrong) who said that a future event could be considered the cause of a previous one in the sense that the future event is the only possible end for the previous one (I might also be totally wrong here). How I see it, for example, is that I imagine there is a black hole which originated from a star; and I consider the possibility of there being a black hole right now as the cause for the origin and evolution of the star. So, that the star will become a black hole and that a black hole is possible to occur after the death of the star is what causes the star to become. In this case the black whole would be logically prior to the star (as in it is necessary that a black whole can form for the star that will become it to exist) but would follow it, temporally.
Now that I think I recall a bit better, I think the original argument concerns form and substance and that it is the end of substance to acquire shape through the assimilation of form and that it is this end the actual cause of the behaviours one observes in substance, or something like that. I guess one could consider the end of an evolving process to be its own cause if the end is necessary.

Much like travelling speed of a car is dependent on the car's system, but the speed itself is separate from the system, and is in effect a measurable non-physically existent quality. — god must be atheist

Hey, I wanted to ask if you could explain in which way the speed is separate from the system?

So it amounts to the claim that everything is real. — Banno

I gotta be a bit nit-picky here and say the statement in question would better amount to the claim that everything perceivable by humans (directly or indirectly) is real.
I think everything would include things which we are completely unaware of (due to their lack of interaction) if those things existed - again, if they did, they would not be real from a human perspective (according to the statement in question), but they would exist.

And hence, since we cannot claim of anything that it is not real, saying something is real is not saying anything about it. — Banno

I see your point, and I would like to completely agree with it because it is true that the word "real" has more meaning when used to make comparisons between certain things (an original and a forgery, for instance, as you have pointed out previously); nevertheless, I think statements such as "real is that which is the object of human inquiry" or "everything perceivable is real" serve not a descriptive role, per se, but a foundational one in the sense that they prevent the formation of statements such as "ideas are not real" or "the mind is not real" or "unicorns are not real (unicorns are ideas of the mind)" when analyzing the world around us; in this way assuming all is real prevents one from looking for unnecessary tools to explain strange phenomena and instead provides a framework in which one looks to explain the nature of reality using tools that have been proven to function in past investigation, and the knowledge gathered with them. I say this because I have seen many times people try to give to the mind, for example, some kind of special status somehow separate from the physical world we have been studying for millennia, and I have also seen them create all kinds of scenarios that would explain its behaviour no matter how improbable they are. So, I agree that stating that something is real when everything is considered to be real has no real meaning at all (see what I did there?); but the assumption that everything is real provides a guiding track, lets say, that constrict us to look for the cause of whatever is the object of our inquiry using proven knowledge instead of wondering to other worlds that will only exist in the form of ideas or in paper.

Cells were not objects of human inquiry before 18th?century and as such they were not real in the sense he uses it. — introbert

But again, cells would have been indirectly the object of human inquiry when asking about anatomy, for example, the same way gravity was indirectly the object of human inquiry in the pendulum example.

You seem to be saying that we can "formulate questions" about "Something that does not affect us in any possible way" — Banno

I meant the opposite - we cannot formulate questions about something that does not affect us in any possible way. The pendulum example was intended to describe something we may indirectly ask about (gravity), as you said. Its purpose was to differentiate this type of "indirect relations," which should be considered "real" regardless of our awareness of them, from no relation at all.

So what is not the object of human enquiry? — Banno

Something that does not affect us in any possible way (directly or indirectly) so that it cannot be wondered about (directly or indirectly) because there is absolutely no information about it we can use to formulate questions about its nature - there is simply nothing that could be known about it due to its lack of interaction with us. So, for example, suppose we lack complete awareness about the existence of gravity, and we are studying the movement of a pendulum; wondering about the pendulum's movement indirectly asks about gravity even if we are not aware of it, and this "unknown" gravity should be considered as real as the pendulum's movement according to the definition of "real" being discussed. Something that does not interact with us at all may exist, but it would not be real to us since it could never be conceptualized or at least wondered about indirectly as with the "unknown" gravity in the example above. So, what is not real to human beings is that which does not interact with human beings at all, and therefore it can never be the object of (direct or indirect) human inquiry. Now, something like that may or may not exist; if it does, not everything is real (according to the human mind); if it doesn't then everything is real. In my view, all things that exist (must) have at least one thing in common, and as such they all interact with each other via this similarity, and therefore they all are real according to the definition being discussed, for humans are one of these things that exist.

Real is that which is the object of human inquiry.

If one analyzes the concepts of "real" and "reality" from a strictly subjective/human point of view, I think one of the most natural conclusions is that what is not real can be subject to transformations carried exclusively by the mind. For example, an imaginary apple can be imagined as a small apple, as a medium-size apple, or as a humongous apple; similarly, it can be given any colour, taste, shape, texture, etc - it is an imaginary apple, and as long as the mind considers it an apple, it can be altered to any extent. In contrast, that which is real, requires the use of (skeletal) muscles in order to be changed or transformed. A real thing cannot be altered at whim using only our mental capacities; it is required that we exercise our capacity of movement in order to affect it. So, if we want humongous, real apples we would need to carry a series of movements which end result would be humongous apples; for example, cross-breeding and artificial selection. Given this interpretation of what is real and what is not, one is left in doubt about if ideas are real or not. One might be inclined to think that they are not since ideas can be transformed at ones will without the use of any (skeletal) muscles; but careful examination reveals that one can change other people's ideas through one's movements and vice versa. So, ideas are real because, following this interpretation, they can be altered through ones movements.

Taking the concept of reality out of the equation for a moment, I believe we can assert with confidence that there exists variation in the way things are organized in the universe; meaning that we can be certain that there exist things different and separate from themselves and our bodies - the distribution of whatever it is that makes that which we call the universe is not isotropic. Even if this variation is real or not, it exists (no matter what real means, there is variation); it is undeniable, even from the human perspective, since the fact that there are things different from me implies that I am different from them - none of the schools of philosophy can exist without variation/difference/variety. In fact, any kind of organizing process, if that makes any sense, is unable to exist without variation - for how can there be any kind of organization in an absolutely isotropic quality/entity/substance? Now, to me, it seems this variation is ubiquitous across all levels of organization that pertain to the sciences, math, and logic, and I would say there is nothing more real than that, but again, it might not even be.

What would be the difference between a universal and a multi-place (potentially infinite-place) resemblance relation? — litewave

I would say that the resemblance relation is dependent on the instances of a given general property - if there is no or if there is a single instance of such property, for example, there would not be a resemblance relation. The universal, on the other hand, I think, is independent of there being any instances of it. In the case of instances of red, for example, these instances are not found everywhere in space, and in addition their distribution in space changes; that is, the resemblance relation, although invariant relative to the total instances of red* is not invariant relative to instances of other properties, meaning that it cannot be potentially infinite-place (if I understand what you mean by this, correctly) since it is possible that in a given moment in time a point in space will not be red, excluding any chance of it being red**. In the case of redness, it is the fact that any point in space (or that there are points in space that) has/have the potential to be red. Thus, the resemblance relation requires that there are points in space that are red, and since their number and distribution is limited (not all points in space are red), the resemblance relation is also limited; on the contrary, redness requires that there are points in space that have the capacity to be red, independent of there being any red points.

*No matter the number or distribution of red instances, they will resemble each other in the fact that they are red.

**A potentially infinite-place resemblance relation, as I understand it, would mean that any point in space at any given time would have the potential to become red and part of the resemblance relation, which I do not think is the case since it is possible that any point in space at any given time is not red or will not be red - if a point in space is not red at a given time it is because at some previous time it was potentially not red. So, that a point in space has the potential to be red is not equivalent to a point in space having the potential to be part of the resemblance relation of red. A point has the potential to be red and never be red and thus never be part of the resemblance relation.

Imagine an infinitely large line of people or a line of people that goes all the way around earth. Every person in each scenario has a person in front and another person behind them; in addition, each person is in front and behind two other people. Imagine you are the leftmost in a group of three people from one of these lines. How would you explain that the person in front of you is the person in front of you when that person is in the "behind" of someone else? In fact, how would you explain your existence when you are someone else's behind?

as space is the measure of the lack of material change. — apokrisis

But space also changes, doesn't it? I mean, I understand it is supposed to be expanding, although this is not the kind of change I am referring to, since it is supposed to be caused by dark matter, and Im not considering it (dark matter) to be material; again, this is not the kind of change I am interested in discussing. Now, at any time t, a body occupies a given place in space; same for every body there exists (not going into QM - let's keep it simple), but not all space is occupied by bodies (assumption - a huge one); meaning that at any time t, there is some free space. If one could create a 3d map of the distribution of free space and see its evolution through time, I think one would see its distribution change, and this change would be due to the movement of material things. (Mapping of the universe suggests its matter to be distributed in space in the form of a reticular network - and I am assuming that as the network changes its architecture with time, the distribution of free space must also change !!! the distribution of free space would be the inverse of the distribution of matter, nah?) Anyways, I don't really understand the quote, and I wanted to ask you if you could talk a little bit more about it.

When the particle decays, does it act upon itself? Does the presence/fields of all other things (as parts) in the universe have no bearing on why/when/how that particle decays? — Nils Loc

@absoluteaspiration @apokrisis

Could you address his questions, if possible.

If one understands “something” in a very wide sense, so that no weight is put on the thingness in it — spirit-salamander

I don't understand this; specially the part in bold.

This down and up refers to their spin right? I'm no physicist.

Again, how can there be change when there are no parts? Please, please, please! Answer the question! Explain to me the process in which something changes when it has no part at all! What changes? In which property of this "simple"is there a variation of such nature that it can be said it experiences change? Change is of something, and it implies a "transformation", that takes place in this something, from one state to another that if able to affect its environment would affect it differently from its original state. What is different in one state compared to the other so that they affect their environment distinctly?

Why do you assume that existence presupposes a relative difference from another existent? — absoluteaspiration

Because the idea of something existing when all of its properties cannot be differentiated from each other (the quality of difference does not exist) makes no sense to me. To be honest with you, that is the best answer I can provide, so far (a weak one, I admit). Now, I would like you to pay attention to that state (if a state, at all) in which the quality of difference does not exist, where all is the same. What would exist in such a universe?

Couldn't A be different from (in this world) non-existent nothingness? — absoluteaspiration

This is a hard question (in my opinion), and the "naive" answer would be no, because how could something be different from "something" which does not exist? I have not been able to imagine or think about such scenario; hence my assumption that something exists different from something else, which I think would also exist.

Beautiful, and I agree.

But what is not-A? If it would be something, at all. How do you conceive of this thing which is not A?

By "no parts", do you mean no separable parts or no parts at all? — absoluteaspiration

If by separable parts you mean that it has parts but they cannot be by any means separated (I'm aware this would be the literal meaning of "separable parts", I just wanna be as clear as possible), then I would say that by "no parts" I mean no parts at all.

If state B was reached because the atom was previously in state A, would that manner of causation qualify as "affecting itself" in the sense you intended? — absoluteaspiration

Now, I will answer with another question. Could there be change in an entity that has no parts? What sort of change, or transformation, would this be?

I wanna recommend At the Mountains of Madness by H. P. Lovecraft (or most of his stories) if you'd like to experience a bit of dark suspense.

Hard to talk about such abstract and foundational things, it's as if we don't have the proper language to describe it — Jerry

That's very true. Do you (or anyone) have by any chance writings on the kind of metaphysics we are talking about? I understand many ancient philosophers deal with this kind of stuff, but it is so spread on their works that it can be a bit hard to find... do you have any sources, modern or ancient?

Also, if you want you should read some of my discussions (not posts). I think we have a somehow similar thinking and you would probably enjoy them; they are not very organized or clear but I think you still might like them.

Lastly, I would ask, how can things be varied if there is no commonality between the things upon which they vary? — Jerry

Excellent question. I am thinking about it, and it makes me wonder if you are asking if it is possible for two things to have nothing in common.

Imagine a pendulum hanging from your ceiling, for example. Let's assume the pendulum oscillates in two dimensions indefinitely without ever coming to a stop. Now, imagine we could somehow shade the area of space which is occupied by the pendulum during its oscillations, giving it some kind of coloration. If the weight is dropped from a height equal to ceiling's height, the area of the oscillation will be a semicircle; anything lower than that will form a pizza-slice shape that gets smaller and smaller with decreasing dropping height. If during a pendulum's oscillation one were to block this area with a finger, for example, one would eventually interrupt the pendulum's oscillation with certainty. Now, imagine one dropped the pendulum several times, each from the same height but varying on the angle with respect to a coordinate plane drawn on the ceiling with its origin at the fixed point from which the pendulum hangs, limiting the oscillations to a two-dimensional plane, as in the previous example. If one rotated the pendulum an infinitesimal distance and shaded the area of the pendulum's oscillation for an entire rotation of the pendulum, each of the shaded areas would add to the volume of a semicircle. Again, blocking this volume would eventually interrupt the pendulum's oscillations, given that it rotates. Now, do you think the oscillations occupy a space?

Could you explain that a little more? You mean that as relations to exist, it first presupposes "things" to exist as to get related? That's why you think variety of things more fundamental?

Ok. First, to be honest with you, I cannot say I completely understand what I am trying to say; lest's just say it is work in progress. Second, I am equating a relation to a transfer of information (an interaction - a change/deviation from the ground state/behaviour/nature/properties/form of an entity/particular/object/thing/individual due to an external effect*). That said, imagine a scenario in which information is being transferred. The mere action of transferring information disturbs the environment/space in which the transfer takes place; this disruption requires the possibility of variation. If no change, either in the environment or that which is affected by the transfer of information - which is ultimately part of the environment -, can take place (for x or y reason), I do not see how there can be a relation, at all. Again, change requires the possibility of variation, for change is between two different states. If relations depend on change, then they depend on variation.

* In my opinion, an interaction requires a change in something due to the interaction, a change that would be absent in the absence of the interaction. In other words, an interaction occurs when a change in some point of space causes a change in another point of space, or spacetime if you want, and considering objects as properties of space.


Now, I want to apologize for the very vague language, I guess I am trying to generalize as much as possible, which might be a huge mistake; nevertheless, I'll do it once more just for the fun of it and say that a relation cannot occur between the exact same thing(s), and the possibility for variation must exist before a relation can take place. So, even if things exist, if they do not change in any of their properties relative to each other simply because they cannot vary (they cannot adopt other conformations other than their ground conformation) and hence cannot be affected, there won't be a relation between them. I am gonna stop here cause I am sure I am making it more complicated, but if you'd like to continue the discussion on the necessity of variation, I am glad to do it with you or anyone else. I think is an overlooked phenomenon in metaphysics for its ubiquity and our habituation to it as a result, and I think it should be looked at more seriously, better than how I do it, for sure.

0 = the mind; or the mind and 0 belong to the same category of things?