An interesting video, vaguely tangentially related to EBTs inasmuch as that it espouses (or rather, the paradox presented within it seems to imply) a kind of atomism.
(Skip to 6:30 if you want to get right to the matter at hand, although it is very good quality, this is technically a highschool-level resource, which shows in the presentation at the beginning somewhat. The atomism is implied when the rotational principle of the circle given is extended to the context of the sphere they bring up later. The hyperwebster itself is actually any atom as well, although it lacks conventional presentation in spherical form, as any part of the totality is mutually equivalent to the totality itself if separated [i.e. it is only reducible to itself], a property of classical atoms in many classical atomic theories.)
The proposed “hyperwebster sphere” is, in effect, an “atom”, in the classical Indian definition, that is, a “self-sustaining” fundamental foundation of reality predicated solely on “own-being”. It is interesting to see this idea being framed scientifically, and not philosophically. It is also interesting to see how old ideas reemerge in new contexts.
This is not from an EBT informed Buddhist, but this is Vasubandhu critiquing Buddhist atomism of his time, just for the sake of presenting it:[quote]"A sense-object is neither a single thing, nor several things, from the atomic point of view, nor can it be an aggregate of itself, thus atoms cannot be demonstrated.
How it is that they cannot be demonstrated? Because: through the simultaneous conjunction of six senses, the atom has six parts. If there were a common locus for the six, the agglomeration would only be one atom.
When there is no conjunction of atoms, how can there be one of their aggregations? Their conjunction is not demonstrated for they also have no parts.
That which has different parts cannot make a unity, how come it is subject to shadow and concealment? It cannot be argued that they, shadow and concealment, belong to the aggregate of atoms unless the aggregate is admitted to be different from atoms.
If their unity existed, one could not arrive at anything gradually, there could not be grasping and non-grasping simultaneously, nor would there be discrete state of many, and there would be no reason for non-seeing of the very subtle."[/quote]