But aren't semantics conceptual?
I did say there is no physicality to the universe. That it's all conceptual. That would mean semantics are conceptual also.
If you'd pay closer attention, you'd realize that I was simply saying your analogy is flawed. It's a fine illustration, but it is flawed as an analogy. You are supposed to find similarity between unlike things, not take one thing and say that it's similar while the facts disagree with you. The circle has space inside it (empty as it may be), and a fundamental entity does not. Where is the analogy?
Obviously the illustration is not a fundamental entity. That makes it unlike a fundamental entity. The depiction was to point out similarities, and the need to use a little imagination to bring it in line with a fundamental entity. The purpose was to point out what a fundamental entity is. I can't show you an actual fundamental unit ... so I'll show you a depiction of one. Get it?
So rather than play along for purposes of understanding exactly where I'm coming from - You choose to discuss some photons coming from you screen, and argue from that angle. I'm trying to explain a conceptual understanding of existence, not a physical one as you know it.
Let me try this again.
Here is a depiction of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg
This is also what space looks like if space does not act upon you.
Heres a depiction of what space looks like when some of it does act upon you.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/030725_dark_nebula_04.jpg
Keep in mind I'm only speaking of what we see, and not what we feel, hear, smell and taste, although the process is the same for the other senses.
And here is yet another depiction of space acting upon you.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/mountains.jpg
The inquiry would be - What is it that is acting upon us in terms of what we see?
You would say that whatever it is - It's physical.
And I am saying it is entirely conceptual.
Lets get to the crux of the matter ( the original depiction).
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
This is what I term - A fundamental entity. Which is nothing inside it. Nothing outside it, and the concept of it. I'll even go as far as calling this a photon at rest, or this is what a photon would look like if it were at rest, Even though I know photons don't rest, and I can't actually see it the way it's depicted. This is a conceptual understanding of a photon (fundamental entity) through this depiction.
This is a 2D depiction. Essentially it is a slice from a spheroid shape for purpose of discussion. The circle in the drawing is not actually there on a physical level. If I zoomed in on a section of the circle - I'd get something like this.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/appl3.jpg
Lets zoom in a bazillion times closer for effect.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/appl2.jpg
The point here is that the line for the circle does not get fatter as we zoom in on it, because there isn't anything there. There is no physicality to it at all. It's there, but not physically. I would call this a conceptual reality of a fundamental entity, and all entities act in accordance and within the concept of physical laws.
On a mathematical scale - It's like this.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/Infinity.jpg
There is an infinity of these concepts possible, all in the primordial soup of nothing. Each and every concept after the first one is a geometric twin of the first. The purpose of the universe is for the eventual complete definition of nothing - Of which never happens, because nothing is undefinable given the infinity of it's very nature.
