Truth HQ by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

T R U T H H Q

old they are. Or they need to be sensed by an observer who can experience colour, smell, taste and so on.

We can ask, what is the most basic of things? There are just a limited number of fundamental particles, for instance, so surely these are the most basic things we can properly call a ’thing’. What’s more, at least it is assumed, all fundamental particles of a particular kind are identical. For instance, all electrons are

identical. The fundamental particles make up atoms, the atoms combine into molecules, and still we must presume a sameness. Aren’t all water molecules or all salt molecules identical? So we seem justified in calling them ‘things’ and not ‘somethings’. ‘Somethings’ implies some

kind of uniqueness. But if we go on adding molecule to molecule, do we not just create things that could, in theory, be replicated exactly, just by putting together the same set of basic elements? In fact, if the universe is

infinite, are we not in a position of being able to replicate any arrangement of matter? So

nothing could make a claim to uniqueness. In which case, the cut-off point of what is just a thing and what qualifies as a ‘something’ just seems arbitrary, or at least, based solely on how difficult it would be to replicate something in ACTUALITY, rather than just in theory. But, wait up! Let’s go back to what was said about the qualities of an object. All qualities are relationships of some sort. And we can quickly conclude that EVERY object must have a unique set of relationships. Every object is in fact a ‘something’ rather than a thing.

I get the impression, dear reader, that science would very much prefer our first option – everything is a thing – to our second.

67