Establishing the Parallel

By the rule
"x cannot be in two places at once"
I force x and x's place from nothing
because it is not here, it must be there
there must be for it to be there
there is
it is
not here (restatement)

Add to this an inverse scale;
the more unlikely or improbable it is that x is here (for we must provide for a variety of instances, some in which x is not visible and others in which x has not yet happened), the more likely or probable it is that x is there.

Instance 1: While walking home with groceries, and thinking of this and that, I am taken with a scenario.  In it, I seek out one of my associates and extend to them, in all seriousness, and in great earnestness, an invitation to x (which may very well be no more or less than the rule itself).   I am taken with the scenario, but I know it cannot be completed, in earnest or otherwise.  I cannot see myself recreating it for a variety of reasons, none of which having to do with the misplacement of x.  I think of all the things that will go otherwise--I will be refused, ridiculed, or condemned; my offer will be considered a joke. My associate will think me strange from then on, and regard me awkwardly.  The specifics of the reasons do not matter--only that they build against the likeliness of the scenario happening.  (The invitation and the scenario of the invitation are not x, but they may be seen as an extension of x, all the more so because they too were not recreated).  The restlessness one feels when counting these reasons then becomes exchangeable for its inverse;  it is no longer a matter of getting something to happen here, but to reach it there.  It is more palatable (more interesting, more workable) to imagine a place one cannot reach than a nonplace.

Further, in the former instance one may spend a great amount of time imagining ways to reach the place; one may explore ways, or never find ways, or establish ways as rituals, though I do not see this done (or spoken of) often (or in ways I like and consider worth remembering).

And lest speaking in these general terms becomes problematic, I will clarify that in this instance x was a ship, and it is never much more or less than a ship.