Thank you ALG, but may I first ask of you; in reading Luciddd's explanation of this - did you accept it all, or do you have an alternative explanation here and there. Notwithstanding your reply, I'll respond to each of your points in turn, as if you agreed entirely with Luciddd, ok?
Acting Like Godot:
* Your parents are basically made of some muscles, fats, bones, skin and hair. (I'm thankful for that, at least, and no issue so far)
*All of those things are basically made of molecules involving combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. (As normally accepted)
*All of those things are basically made of atoms. (Beautiful)
*Atoms are basically a lot of empty space with a couple of electrons, neutrons and protons. (Of late I question the electrons, neutrons and protons bit, for these also are constituted of fused/compressed light, but ok so far)
*The neutrons and protons are made of even more empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. (And the electrons? In any case, I'm relatively comfortable to this point)
*Therefore your parents are mostly empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. (as is all 'matter')
*Essentially they are about the same as golf balls, Maseratis, babies and poop. It's all mostly empty space with a few subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence. (Kool)
*The behavior of those particles is either particulate or wave-like, depending on how they are observed. (The nature of light has been shown to fit both definitions, even though that seems to be an impossiblity - without finding a new dfinition I guess)
*Furthermore, before they come into existence (that is, before they blink in), they are best expressed as functions of mathematical probability. (Or alternatively, I would expect; light)
*Thus your parents and the golf ball are essentially empty space until the laws of probability flick them into existence, then flick them out, and in again. (The complete entities themselves flick in and out of existence? Or the sub atomic structure does - likely at differing moments - thereby maintaining the apparently 'solid' nature?)
Now ALG, back to my initial question; I might say the above is far more in tune with what I previously understood, yet it doesn't seem to resonate so much with my perception of Luciddd's account.
Simply trying to get a better grasp on this now, in your opinion, so does all that make yours and his contridictory, do you think?