Wow. That title almost crosses the line.

I wrote the following at about 2:30 a.m. the other night so I wouldn’t forget it the next morning:

• A boundary is a theoretical division between two entities.
• All boundaries are theoretical. Those that mask themselves as physical can always be viewed more closely, to the point where the whole of the boundary is divided into sub-boundaries. Where there’s this division, there’s a theoretical boundary.

For instance:

Draw a line in the sand. The line is a physical boundary, right? Zoom in, as if with a camera, until the edges of line are outside of your field of view. What do you see now? Sand, right? Tiny pieces of sand. Each with its own boundary, distinct from the others. Zoom in more. Now you see a grain of sand. And even more. Atoms. And now, what boundaries are there?

Is it safe to say a physical boundary is really boundary of boundaries, that in itself is a boundary of boundaries? If not, then where do we draw the line (no pun intended)? To me, we draw that line when we make a theoretical division between the items that make up the boundary. At this point, we care less about what’s really physical — each piece of sand, each atom — and instead care about the theoretical: i.e., the line you shouldn’t cross. That’s the boundary.

Part of me now wants to replace the word “theoretical”, above, with the word “cognitive,” though I’m not sure the effect is much greater.

I have a feeling the basis for this view of boundaries is rooted in one of the major philosophies. Something like, “We can not properly understand the utility of a chair unless we recognize that the physical object is in fact a chair.” In other words: until we give that physical object boundaries, hence the theoretical.

Note: This probably isn’t an orignal thought. Recognition goes to the original attendees of WHET with whom these musings started.