This appearance of existing things however is illusory and arbitrary. No matter how closely you observe an object, whatever that object is, you cannot precisely define it's boundary. When you look closely enough, down to the level of the atom and beyond, it becomes impossible to distinguish the actual physical beginning or end of any object or any thing. The keyboard has a definite boundary to our limited perception of it, but when you look close enough you'll see that there's no real boundary between it's edge and the surrounding air. This goes for everything around us, even ourselves. A direct consequence of this is the simple fact of the interconnected nature of everything, nothing truly has a clearly defined beginning or end. With this in mind, when we observe objects around us, we can start to make some interesting observations, such as that nothing has inherent existence, meaning that no thing can exist independently of everything else, since for a thing to exist it has to have at least another thing for it to be relative to to give it identity, for instance an observer to consciously make the observation. We can also say that no particular thing exists in an absolute sense, but only the appearance of existence as it is presented to us. Things around us, you and me, exist in a practical sense, but not in an ultimate, absolute sense due to the arbirary nature of their nonexistant boundaries.
As far as the criticisms of my posts go and my perceived attacks on Biedny, fair enough, I'm guilty as charged. But what is it I'm being charged with? Is it the manner of the attack, and not the content? How non-sceptical do you have to be not to ask some pertinent questions, like "where's the proof"? If you all ask that of everyone else except David, who makes equally extreme statements, don't be surprised when some asshole like me comes along once in a while and asks him for you.
