Well, this is where you need to understand what an ontology is. Every understanding of existence is an ontology. There is either the reality itself, or an ontological understanding of reality. That is all there is. Reality itself has no words or concepts to it. It is simply what it is, no actual forms or properties. An ontology categorizes issues of concern into abstract concepts. The concepts don’t actually exist in physical reality, but in order to communicate and think, the mind chooses such categories, else it could never keep track of anything nor communicate anything.
One common issue of concern can be the concept of pushing or pulling, “force”. In normal life, a person sees himself pushing on something in order to make it change relative location. He “applies force”.
In Newtonian physics, that concept of applying force is given a means of measurement. That was a very useful thing to do (and the only reason you even know his name). But let’s say a different guy, “Jacob”, thought in different terms. Jacob considered such actions, not as “forcing”, but “inspiring movement”. In both cases the person is causing a change. But the concepts are a little different. Newton pushes things to move them. Jacob inspires things to move. Newton implies that Newton is doing all of the action and the object is just receiving his effect. Jacob implies that Jacob merely initiates an action that is carried out by the object. The end result and by all superficial appearances, the two are the same.
So the difference between Newton and Jacob is merely one of the ontology they are using in order to describe the same reality. So in reality, was the object pushed or was it inspired to move?
Newton formed a standard for measuring push. But Jacob didn’t establish a standard for measuring inspiration. Thus common physics used Newtons pushing concept, “force” rather than Jacob’s inspiration concept. But which one is “REAL”?
In a sense they are both real, but you won’t find any physicist talking about objects inspiring other objects to move, but rather forcing them to move. It is just an issue of language and inferred connotations.
In RM:AO, I get into the extremely ultra minuscule happenings even below the level of sub-atomic particles. In such an environment, there are no “things” to be pushing anything or to be pushed by anything. There simply is no pushing or pulling to be found. The concept doesn’t apply. In order for the concept to apply, “things” have to form and then acquire a means to push other things. At that point, I could then talk about “force” as the average end effect of the infinite number of smaller occurrences that brought about that end effect. So “force” is a concept that can apply on a macroscopic scale, but not on a pico-scopic scale.
So in order to stay consistent, because a force makes no sense on the smaller scale, I (like most people) just say that “the larger concept thing doesn’t “really exist”. It just appears that way.”
Science does that same thing on many issues. Science says that “spirits don’t exist”. The reality is that it is just a matter of ontological construct. A “spirit” is merely the interaction of a group of things or the behavior of the group as a whole. When Science says that “spirits don’t exist”, it is saying that there is no interaction within a body. But what do you have if you take out the interactive processes within a body? You have a dead body, exactly what the spiritualist was telling you, the spirit is no longer in the body" = “the interaction processes are no longer in the body”.
So do spirits REALLY exist? It is just a matter of ontological language. In the language of Science, no they don’t. But Science will agree that behaviors exist. You just have to use the right word for the same concept.
Atheists love to proclaim the non-existence of many things so as to promote Secularism when in fact, they are just using a different language and declaring that the other language is fantasy, even though they are actually speaking of the same things.
In the case of forces, something is implied that truly has no place on the ultra low scale of reality. Everything that is attributed to forces is understood without any lower level of force existing. Thus when I say that “forces don’t exist”, I am not merely changing language. I am stating that when you get down to the very bottom of reality and what makes things work, there is nothing that you could rightly call a “force”. And when you raise the level up to the point where you could speak of forces and make a little more sense, nothing new has come into the ontology, no new element to be called “force”, but rather merely a combination of a great many smaller non-force actions, “inspired migrations”.
So in RM:AO ontological understanding language, Jacob was right and Newton was wrong (sort of). Things are “inspired to move”, not really forced. They move because of changes within them, not because of pressures on their “surface”. On the lowest level of reality, there are no “surfaces” either. And that is why nothing can actually be completely isolated from anything else - except through time.
Of course keep in mind, that reality itself doesn’t care what anyone is calling anything. We choose our language for our own subjective issues. Our concepts never “actually exist”. The mind can never grasp actual existence, only a map of categories of affects in the terrain, a terrain that the mind will never actually know, only estimate.
To think about reality one MUST choose an ontology and stick with it. Conflating ontologies creates confusions, conflicts, deceptions and fantasies = “the LACK of understanding reality”. It is the same as trying to speak two languages at the same time. It doesn’t work to communicate. And mixing ontologies doesn’t work to form understanding.
So in RM:AO, forces don’t exist. But that doesn’t mean that in common physics they don’t. And it doesn’t necessarily mean that either is wrong (but it just so happens that forces cannot exist, even in common physics, on the ultra low level of existence).
Newton’s laws were macroscopic principles, not principles of universal physicality. RM:AO is truly universal.