I have made my argument in simple, stark, black-and-white terms in order to convey it more easily. No special cases, no ifs-and-buts were addressed and someone with a knowledge of physics would probably be aghast at my brevity. I ask you please to read between the lines. For example, I have not used the term 'force' in its strict physics textbook definition nor should the constraint of a bond be understood to apply to the distance between its constituent objects - it could well be their momenta or energies that are the subject of their constraint - and so on.

I am happy to address questions you may have by email (my email address is on the title page of this book), and would rather you email me than abandon the main argument, for the argument may deliver overall outcomes that are not dependent on the missing details.

However, there are some matters of detail that I feel should be covered here.

The Limited Flexibility of Bonds

The main text describes how a bond prevents its constituent objects from participating in external interactions as the bond's constraint prevents suitable responses to the external interaction, effectively negating them. The external interaction then affects the bond as a whole instead of affecting its constituent objects, and behaves as if the interaction was with the bond as a single object rather than with its individual constituents.

Now the constraint of a bond holds its constituent objects to a range of values rather than to a single value, meaning that there can be some response by the constituent objects to the external interaction within the range allowed by the constraint, however small that may be. That is, a bond need not completely negate the effect of an external interaction on its constituent objects. The external interaction could affect both the bond's constituent objects and the bond-as-a-whole, such that the bond-as-a-whole only responds to the external force to the degree that it negates the force on its constituent objects. The more that the effect of the external force on the constituent objects exceeds the constraining range of the bond, the greater is its effect on the bond as a whole.

The degree of the negation may of course be so great, or the range of a constraint so narrow, that for all practical purposes, the bond's constituent objects are comparatively undisturbed by the external interaction and the bond as a whole appears to respond fully. On the other hand, if the constituent objects are allowed a significant response to the external interaction, then both the bond and its constituent objects can respond to the external interaction.

In the case of a partially negated external interaction a bond displays a spatial volume of its own as well as the spatial volumes of its constituent objects (and perhaps those of their internal objects if they are partially negated). Outside objects are excluded from the spatial volume of the bond-as-a-whole as well as from the spatial volumes of its constituent objects. The excluding spatial volume of the bond may be enlarged by the volumes of its constituent objects and made less rigid by them.

While there is a degree of flexibility in the spatial volume of a bond, it is always only a degree. A bond can never be as flexible as a connective, for in a connective there are no constraints at all, meaning that the flexibility of a connective is limitless while any flexibility to a bond, even when sublimated, is limited.

In the discussion below, I describe how bonds can be made very flexible, like rubber bands, by chaining them together.

Indirect Bonds

Objects may participate in more than one interaction simultaneously.

In the case of connective interactions, multiplicity is straightforward, allowing objects to be linked in a network of different interactions utilizing different forces rather than all being direct participants in the same interaction. There may be an indirect connection between all the objects in a network with the connection between some objects mediated through others.

In the case of a bond, its constraint may prevent its constituent objects from participating in external interactions. But this is so only if the force utilized by the external interaction relies on properties that the bond is constraining, because of possible conflict with the constraint. If it relies on unconstrained properties, the constraint of the bond is not challenged and the external interaction is not negated. So the constituent objects of a bond may yet participate in an external interaction if that interaction utilizes properties not constrained by the bond - and that second interaction may also be a bond.

A bond's constraint will also not prevent its constituent objects from participating in an external bond when the external interaction does utilize properties the bond is constraining but the external bond's constraint ranges are the same as the bond's so there is no conflict maintaining both constraints.

An external interaction by a bond's constituent object may well be with the constituent object of another bond, with the result that the two bonds aggregate via a bond between their constituent objects. Both or either of these two bonds may aggregate in this same way with yet other bonds, to create a chain of bonds aggregated via their constituent objects rather than their topmost objects. In this way bonds can bond with each other in horizontal chains rather than in vertical hierarchies, with the bonds at either end of a chain linked to each other indirectly through the mediation of other bonds.

Both connective and binding interactions can thus also be indirect, that is, mediated through a chain of interacting objects.

An indirect bond can also interact as an object in its own right with its own emergent properties. But the overall constraint of an indirect bond is a composite of the constraints of its composite bonds, so any leeway in each component constraint adds to the total leeway in the indirect bond. The greater the number of bonds in the chain, the more the composite constraint can widen. A very long indirect bond can be very flexible indeed, like a balloon or a long polymeric molecule, though ultimately its flexibility remains limited.

Since an indirect bond can interact as a single object in its own right, it may be a constituent object of a direct bond, and so reside within its hierarchy, while the whole hierarchy of a direct bond may be just one link in the chain of an indirect bond.

The architective hierarchy of an aggregate offers a clearly defined and fixed map of all the direct and indirect bonds in its construction. Indirect bonds may be more flexible, but their architectures remain fixed.

The Disruption of Aggregates

In discussing aggregation in the chapter "Features of Connective and Binding Interactions" it was said that disrupting any of an aggregate's internal objects would destroy the whole aggregate.

This statement needs to be tempered, for, as described above, not all the bonds comprising an aggregate contribute to its vertical hierarchy and so to its structural integrity. A structure may also rest on many pillars and the disruption of one pillar need not necessitate the disruption of the entire structure. Indeed, some elements of an aggregate may be purely ornamental while vertical elements may be duplicated to the extent that the disruption of one does not change the structure of the aggregate at its higher levels.

Nonetheless the overall structure of the aggregate - its architecture, the map of all the bonds used in its construction - has changed, so the aggregate could be seen to have processed (described at the end of that chapter) from one architecture to another, even though its higher levels may be unaffected.

The concept of a processional narrative (as described in the chapter "Features of Serial Meaning") also bears on this situation, in that a procession of architectures may display a persisting narrative theme, which can furthermore organize the narratives of its contributing architectures. We as persons are such processional narratives in that we display a continuing theme to our characters even though the cells and organs of our bodies are regularly replaced.

Some Notes on Sublimation

The chapter "Features of Connective and Binding Interactions" introduced the concept of sublimation, whereby an external interaction does not act on an object as a whole but rather on its constituent objects, which happens when the external interaction does not challenge a constraint on the object's constituents. This may happen, for example, when the external interaction oscillates and sets up waves and vibrations among the object's constituents whose amplitudes lie within the range of their constraint.

The result is that the external interaction acts on the object's constituents as if they were in a connective rather than in a bond. As well, by a sublimating object not interacting with an object as a whole, the sublimating object is not responsive to the object's properties as a whole, such that the sublimating object does not recognize the properties the object has in its own right. As far as the sublimating object is concerned, the sublimated object does not exist at all, only its constituents do. The result is that the external interaction acts on the object's constituents as if they were in a connective rather than in a bond.

In particular, a sublimating object does not recognize the sublimated objects' spatial boundaries (its boundaries in its own right), so a sublimating object might pass through the object as if passing through a connective.

However, since the sublimating object is not responsive to the sublimated object's properties as a whole, the sublimating object is also not recognized by the sublimated object; that is, neither object recognizes the existence of the other and the sublimation is mutual.

This argument is predicated on either the sublimating or sublimated objects (or both) having constituent objects, and that their constituent objects are apparent to each other. Their constituents thus interact with each other as connectives that are able to pass through each other.

When connectives pass through each other, waves of disturbance may propagate through the connectives, but interestingly these waves will remain within the boundaries of each sublimated objects' constraints.

In the case where some of the objects have no constituents, only the objects that have constituents will have waves disturbing their interior. If none have constituents, the idea of sublimation is not meaningful.

Elementary objects such as leptons and quarks do not have constituent objects. They cannot be sublimated - and therefore cannot host waves, and cannot pass through each other. But they might pass through and generate waves when they sublimate non-elementary objects.

If one was to make the assertion that all objects can host waves or pass through each other, then according to this idea of sublimation every object would have constituents and no elementary objects exist.

Previous Home Appendix 2