The philosopher defines things using arbitrary terminology and is fine with it, the physicist tries to connect all the pieces (starting from a single point/formula) and [so far] can't. "It's illogical to demand vibrations spend a majority of their time (time vibrating, that is) censoring vibrations that happen to get tangled up in the recordinds of a person's own vibrations" s/vibrations/motions <-- this is the thought that triggered the first line. maybe it was "movements". they both ask (had:say) "what is movements?", but philosophers come to an agreement on what it is (arbitrarily defined (like everything)) and move on. Maybe philosophers don't, but I do. And I tend to think that I'm thinking (lol) philosophically (rather than..... scientifically? idk arguably philosophy is a science).