The pop science aphorism¶

The pop science aphorism that “atoms are mostly empty space” is, itself, a mostly empty statement. It rests on a facile conception of “what is,” that philosophically positions even the most fundamental building blocks of reality as having immutable “essences.” (1/25) The atom, it is claimed, is composed of tiny nuclei, made of protons and neutrons, and collections of even tinier electrons moving around them at distances so vast in comparison to the size of the subatomic particles as to make the atom itself largely the nothingness (2/25) where none of those particles happen to be. The picture painted is of an atomic snapshot, with the infinitesimal electrons frozen, as if they are planets orbiting a star, millions of miles away, with nothing in between them. (3/25) But this picture is so flawed as to be completely useless for demonstrating the properties and interactions of atoms. Electrons cannot be thought of as static objects, occupying first one point, then another, then another. (4/25) The space within an atom where an electron happens to not be currently “occupying” with the simple presence of its mass is nevertheless still part of that electron’s “location.” (5/25) A house is not “mostly vacant,” just because its occupants happen to not be in every inch of every room at all times. Their presence is made clear by their regular activities as they move throughout their home: the furniture they arranged, the decor they collected, (6/25) the dishes in the sink, the half-full garbage can, the light left on in the bathroom, the stray hair that drifted behind the couch. Every moment they move through the “empty space” of the house, they influence its character. Their heat radiates out through the walls. (7/25) Their respiration alters the house’s carbon dioxide concentration. That their mass happens to stay confined to one point within the house at any given moment is not especially relevant. (8/25) The fact is that the house is occupied, and the particularities of that occupation have direct ramifications on the relationship of the house to its direct environment. It has physical impacts that extend beyond its confines, such as its energy usage, (9/25) the way its foundation distributes load into the ground beneath, the displacement of water during storms, or the diversion of natural wind patterns. It also has social impacts, which are of course dependent on the context in which that house and its occupants live. (10/25) Occupied houses can be used as leverage for the displacement of other residents, they can be focal points of community building, they can provide local capitalists with a stable supply of workers, or they can be temporary havens for those with nowhere else to sleep. (11/25) Houses can act as noble gasses — isolated atoms, drifting through space without ever forming bonds — or they can be akin to carbon atoms, linking together to form molecules of unimaginable complexity, with collective properties that form the basis of life itself. (12/25) The humble electron, then, is not merely a point mass. It can be understood only in the context of its movement, its attraction and repulsion of other particles, and its extensive influence across its entire environment. (13/25) An atom is not “mostly empty”; its space is completely filled up with the movement of its electrons. The electromagnetic forces they exert, the bonds they form with other atoms, the energy given and received to change states are all there. (14/25) This distinction is not simply idle pedantry. It exposes a profound conceptual gulf left behind by liberal ideology, one in which people, objects, and events are torn from their context and presented as unitary, stationary, and unchanging. (15/25) We can think of this broader misunderstanding of the dialectical relationship between objects and their context, as the “point mass fallacy.” Its manifestation in bourgeois culture is often referred to obliquely as “individualism”... (16/25) ... although that doesn’t do justice to the sheer depth and breadth of the ideological obfuscation involved. The conceptualization of reality itself is warped by the point mass, and leaves those educated and socialized under bourgeois hegemony adrift. (17/25) Struggling to make sense of the world around them, and struggling to organize to change it.

This theoretical malfeasance is crucial to the maintenance of liberal society, and forms the foundation of its many philosophical pillars. (18/25) It lurks within essentialism, the notion that objects are defined by “essences,” which imbue them with eternal, metaphysical characteristics, unbroken and distilled down to an object as it exists in isolation. (19/25) It hides itself in the “nuclear family,” a bourgeois construct that attempts to strip mother, father, and child of all external forces that could influence social reproduction. (20/25) It builds its home in the consignment of history to a void of abstraction, unable to touch contemporary events.

It is perfectly situated within the fascist ethos that posits nations, genders, races, and classes as occupying “natural” places within social hierarchies... (21/25) … with any attempt at movement being met with blood and bile and steel: the static point mass must be maintained if the liberal regime is to survive. (22/25) Neither physical nor social space is ever empty. It is filled with the tension of interacting forces, fully occupied by the movements of its constituent parts.(23/25) The forest is not made of isolated trees: it is soil and birds and seeds and vines and insects and mycorrhiza and climate and atmosphere and megafauna and water table and minerals clostridium and tectonic plates and nematodes and the endless flow of elements and energy. (24/25) The world is in motion. We are moved by it, and we move it. It is only by understanding the collective properties of our world -- physical and social forces alike -- that we are empowered to direct that movement toward liberation. (25/25)