How are possibilities actual?
What diference does it make anyway? We make distinctions about things wecause its usefull to us, the distinctions don't really change the things. Classifications also are only for our service. Changing the classifications could change how we think about things but any way you look at it they are for us to organize related things.
So what if we are all made of atoms, how usefull would it be to call averything "atom"? Distinctions (diferences) and classifications (liknesses) are only determinations that people make. If you want to call a cat a mog because it is like a dog then just do it. When your idea catches on and everyone agrees to call cats mogs then a cat is then a mog. In either case a cat has similarities and diferences from a dog and from averything else in the universe.
Similarite's in the variable's, that compile the chararistic's of the function's that the object dose or dose not do, with it's self or another object, mainly has led to the distinction's between them and the classification's of them due to there liknesses.
Also man has categorized object's and thing's by there variable's, chararistic's, or function's into a system of dualism duality of perception of those chararistic's, function's, and variable's.
So, if a female has a chararistic that is distinctly a opposite chararistic of the male sex, it's very likly that the "fe"male" sex would not be categorized by the same lable as "male"
So if all thing's are made of atom's, shall all thing's be categorized as atom's. No, even tho we are all made from atom's, they have ditinct chararistic's and function's depending on the order that they are in with one another, which has led to the categorization of thing's by that order that they are in, hence a cat is not a dog, due to the fact that the atom's are observed to have distinct chararistic's that are not shared by the dog, therefore ant form of cat's that share the same chararistic's wont be put into a category of a dog, due to the fact it dosnt share those common similarite's.
Also there is no white, black, brown, yellow, ect, and race of human's, there could be said to be diffrent breed's, yet everyone is classified as human's due to the fact that there are an overwhelming amount of similarite's of people's function's and variable's that compose them.
It would be arrogant to make sub-classification's for single chararistic's of human's, it would allso be very unproductive for a developing intelectualy based world. Cat's have breed's, but i think they should not, a cat should just be a cat.. The same should go for human's...
(such sub-classification's are deemed to be raceist!!!)
This to can be appied to none living object's, by categorizing them by there fuction's and deveating variable's.
Well no they shouldnt call everything atom due to the fact(we cant share the mental image's of what atom we are talking about so that's why we shouldnt lable everything the same thing)
( This subject is closly related to Infinit Opposite Dualism Of Realality, since they are both way's of classafie o fobject's for the mean's of communication to one another.)
I only say that because I.O.D.R. Is a new concept that I've been working on, with great haste to work out all the bug's and to present it in an absolute form.