>>>I can appreciate your reply, but my problem is that I don't know what a "collection of objects in a three dimensional space" means.> For example, suppose I said that reality can be represented by a "collection of events in Hilbert space" or a "collection of processes in Minkowski space", or a "collection of fields which can even describe space itself", etc... etc... >Each of the above seems to be as good as any other, however none of the above contain any meaningful statement unless we specify what we mean by objects, events, actions, processes, fields, space, etc. In addition, unless we further stipulate what exactly we are talking about (perspective, basis, context, etc) we have no way in which to frame your proposal.>For example, what if I said that reality is a "collection of actions in time"? You might come back and ask what I meant by acions and what I meant by time, and I said that an action is an event that is caused and time means the same as it does in your model.> Would my statement still hold any meaning? I don't think it does. We have no way of interpreting all of our sense impressions using this interpretive scheme. I haven't given any way to decipher quantum events which have an acausal aspect in their interpretation, I haven't specified how to break down an object into an action, etc. Others are left with their own imagination on how to apply my interpretative scheme and then my scheme becomes no better than a Chinese cookie fortune or the short astrological abstracts seen daily in a newspaper. Yes, we can take these interpretations to our day as a means to interpret the day, but they lack meaning because they don't tie into our lives. >Similarly, your suggestive scheme lacks meaning for these reasons. Unless I know how to interpret events, processes, thoughts, etc within your scheme it becomes a meaningless scheme. You need to be very specific and then we can evaluate how well your statement can actually apply to the world. If there are sense impressions of the world which force contradiction or are left without a valid interpretation (as suggested in your model), then we must forfeit the model. If it holds up, then we can start viewing the world according within that scheme and then we are on our way. >By the way, this is philosophy.