OOO and Quantum Theory

Told you! Been thinking about this for about three years now.

The thing is, I've been reasoning that if tiny things can behave in a quantum way, it's because there is something about objects in general that enables this. So that larger things might also be able to behave in a quantum way, validating the idea that there is something general about objects. Which is why after reading a lot of quantum theory textbooks I got very interested in OOO.

A thing is incapable of being grasped in some decisive way, even when it's considered as a unit such as a quantum. Even when it is totally isolated, beyond relations with others. It sort of aesthetically ripples: it is a little bit displaced from itself. It is not fully present, even to itself.

Relation and processes don't account for why things are flowy and permeated with nothingness. They are like that all on their ownsome...

Remember, the object these guys use is way, way bigger than the quantum scale we've become used to.

Besides Aaron O'Connell, these guys are also figuring out how things are not metaphysically present, yet real. They breathe. It's basically a logical conclusion from the OOO definition of objects and the difference between real and sensual.

Discoveries like this provide the empirical support for some of the arguments in Realist Magic. Very nice cartoon. Thanks Cliff Gerrish!