No qualms about your point, but to approach closer to the asymptote of this argument no "object" has really a well-defined boundary one you look at it close eno

No qualms about your point, but to approach closer to the asymptote of this argument no "object" has really a well-defined boundary one you look at it close enough (spatial scale and/or time-resolution scale). Going back to J.C. Maxwell's complaints that many physicists of his time did not understand that we do not perceive matter directly, only forces. Of cause, this should be nowadays high-school level attentive student's knowledge. Perhaps useful distinction, depending on the level of analysis, one can split into categories: a "mathematical/physics" object versus the "reality". E.g. in thermodynamics, (mathematical) cloud has a clear and precisely defined boundary.