Could stating facts be no more than making consistent demarcations in the world? In saying that two lines are parallel, we are splitting the world into three. We divide the world into one line, another line, and everything else in existence not included in the parameters of said lines (note: not just the mereological sums, but the groups exactly as they are). Expressing the relationship between the two lines is merely shorthand for what is not in the parameter of these lines and would be redundant if the entire state of the universe were known. This is different from saying that by knowing the entire state of the universe we would know the relationship between the two lines. My suggestion here is that the relationship is nothing independent of the groupings themselves.

Using something as compound as a book was probably confusing because it requires all of the elements of the compounds themselves to be identical. Electrons, let’s use: the universal “electron” exists in the ability to divide the world into every individual electron and the remainder of the world. The remainder of the world is the unique group, whereas all of the electrons in their specific relations with the rest of the world can be moved without altering the world.

I might also represent the sentence “the ball is red,” for instance, not by relating the demarcation “ball” with the universal “redness,” but merely by dividing the world in three ways: the ball, all things red (including the ball), and the rest of the world. The most difficult thing to note here is that we are only dividing the world into groups, not making relationships between the groups that are over and above the groups themselves because we would then have something outside of the groups, which, as stipulated, encompass everything in existence. The groups are all that exist.

The universal “redness,” again, exists in the arbitrariness with which this “aspect” of the demarcation “ball” (I wish I could avoid saying it in this way) could be swapped with the same part of other members of the group with respect to the remaining group demarcated that is the rest of the world. We can note that grouping the red ball with all blue things and the rest of the world would strike us as flawed because there is nothing common among the two former groups that can be interchanged without altering the latter.

This is, of course, merely an experiment in thought, and I’m skeptical on the truth of the matter. Many will naturally object that the relations do exist and cannot be short hands for the remainder of the system as they are not identical with the remainder of the system, thus they themselves exist within the system and are as unique, if not more so, than the groups themselves. I’ll let these thoughts rattle for a while.