BW: H2O is always H2O, no matter where it is. There is no such thing as "human water" or "non-human water". The *location* of any particular molecule of water is *not* an essential characteristic of water, it's just a position. If we were to consider position to be an essential characteristic, then all 200 zillion molecules of water in the Earth environment, each with a different position, would have to be defined and named as unique "objects". That would be pretty silly: H2Ox24924231y10678323z8501231731. Of course, each molecule of water is a *different* object and each of them interact with other objects (H2O or otherwise) to create effects, but they all share identical characteristics.
TSW: "Where does the human being end and the environment begin?"
BW: Humans are as much a "part" of the concept "environment" as water. We are distinguished from all those other environmental objects by essential characteristics, particularly a body. Any physical thing not directly interacting with our physical body is not a part of our body. So, H2O in, or on, my body is one aspect of my identity as a human. A molecule of H2O in the Indian Ocean is not an aspect of my identity ... until it evaporates, is blown H2O around the world, inhaled or consumed, and finally absorbed by the tissues that compose my body. Then - and ONLY then - is it "connected" to my body. I am not "connected" to all the H2O remaining in the Indian Ocean.
TSW: "Long after they expire, the old cells lie loosely upon the skin as so much dead weight - they are actually part of the environment.
BW: Ignoring the fact that humans are always a part of the environment, dead skin cells are not an *essential* component of human identity, so how or when they shed isn't relevant.
TSW: "A thing is transformed into another thing only as it gains or loses matter or motion to other things in its environment.
BW: Correct: transitional phases aren't relevant to the issue of whether anything is "connected" to one entity or another: their constituent parts are simply moving from one position to another. The two primary objects don't need to come into contact at all.
TSW: "... interconnection and infinity demand that subquantic exchanges must occur somewhere in the subatomic hierarchy."
BW: It does occur "subquantic", though it has nothing to do with interconnection or microcosmic infinity.
In the UT, a photon is a rotating stack of Unimids moving at c, while an electron is a quasi-spheroid, usually in an orbital shell. When the photon hits the electron, and a sufficient portion of the photon energy is absorbed, the electron accelerates and separates from the electron shell. The "separation velocity" required has been accurately measured in the Photoelectric Effect, but it isn't correct to say that the electron picks up a "full quanta of motion" ... it acquires energy, which is a composite of mass and motion, from the photon.
Except for the instantaneous moment of collision, there is no "connection" between the photon and the electron. There's nothing in the process that is "infinite", it's all done in finite quantities of energy (mass in motion).
TSW: "... the exchange of motion between those infinitely subdividable particles is not restricted to the quantum."
BW: A longer story, but the Plank "quanta" is not actually a quantity, it is a conversion factor. It's just the relationship between rotational frequency and energy content. Those two features are modified concurrently in the process of generating light particles.
TSW: "We have rejected Greek atomism in the study of matter; let us reject it in the study of motion."
BW: A purely mystical stance. You can assume whatever you'd like, but you can't expect acceptance of a postulate with no evidence whatsoever. I expect skepticism in advocating the existence of Unimids, but if they can be shown consistent with actual experiments (like the Photoelectric Effect), that will constitute evidence.
TSW: "For a connection to occur between two objects, we merely require there to be something else between them. This something else need not be 'solid' matter."
BW: This doesn't correlate with any definition of "connection", nor with your previous statements about the lack of empty space between all objects, to infinity ... which is a perpetual solid.
TSW: "... interstellar regions contain gas and dust that form at least a partial interconnection."
BW: According to your previous statements, there must be matter between every particle of gas and dust: there can be no such thing as "partial" connections if there is no such thing as "empty space".
TSW: "Even those who still support the ballistic theory of light must admit that space is not empty when light is traveling through it."
BW: I do support the Newtonian or Ritzian theory of light as an emitted material object (even if it has "wave-like" characteristics). Unimid photons cannot travel through *occupied* space: any collision would disrupt at least a portion of the Unimid photon stack.
TSW: "This [aether] view survived until about 1910 when the Michelson-Morley experiments and special relativity led to its widely acclaimed rejection."
BW: Einstein's Special Theory was advanced *for the sole purpose* of preserving the wave theory. He consistently believed in an invisible "Aetherial Medium" before and after it was disproved by the Mitchelson-Morley experiments. He just "waffled" by saying the concept was no longer "necessary". In order to save the aether, he had to destroy the concepts of length, motion, and time. Dualism asserts that light is *both* a particle and a wave. Totally irrational, since the two states of motion are entirely different.
TSW: "... consupponibility without interconnection is a contradiction in terms."
BW: I'll treat the next section as a distinct "chapter" on logical coherence.