Science teaches us that an event will only occur at the interface between two things. If we were to take that lithium and hold it in the air, we'd find that it would being to oxidize. It went from nothing happening, to something happenning. If we were to take that same hunk of lithium, and submerge it in water, we'd have an explosion. Something happened at the interface between water and lithium.
A large problem is that philosophically, we attempt to remove things from the context in order to understand that. We use ourself and our experience and reason as the frame of reference, and measure against that.
This however, will inevitably lead to false conclusions. You cannot simplfy the universe that way. Example, if you are standing at a shoreline, how do you tell how far away a boat on the ocean is, without a rangefinder? Lacking visual depth cues, you would have to use several reference points and triangulate. How many frames of reference do you end up requiring?
Well, first, you require the inital view point. You require a second view point. However, just having to places to view from accomplishes nothing, because you also need an absolute direction (the shoreline would work well for this) to measure angles against.
In otherwords, in a system consiting of only myself and the boat, there is very little I can accurately say about the boat. Simplification has lead to errors.
The mystical language I use while working is completely context sensitive, so much so that it ends up being incomprehensible in a concious way. For example, the phonete "v'tall" conveys a conception of explosion. Depending on the context this can cover anything from a star, an orgasm, a fart, or a car. And there are a thousand other words that can also mean those things, and it is only because of the specific reference that one is to be preferred over another.