@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.

@JimmyRis QRI's solution is that you need to switch your ontology. Science doesn't say we're made of atoms and forces. We are made of fields! And fields *can have* objective, causally significant, frame-invariant, & computationally significant boundaries. These are topological in nature.