In the common experience, the image of an object is normally grasped without strict boundaries that could isolate the thing from other objects and aspects of the reality surrounding it.
If we attempt to determine precisely which are those objects and aspects, we do not offer a comprehensive account of the primary object, but we put each of those other elements in its position as an object possessing a correspondent image and an amount of indetermination. When such an aspect is the space, there is well known that we meet along with the precise measurement a kind of indetermination even greater than that of the object, since the full understanding of space needs ultimately the representation of the objects occupying it.
For stopping an unending chain of explanations of indeterminacies proper to the things imagined, we rather have to admit their indeterminacy as something that cannot be defeated by an ongoing exercise of focusing on other objects than the first envisaged.
It is rather preferable to admit such indeterminacy as an inherent part of any imagined object, but, since the indeterminacy cannot be confined to some definite thing; it does not belong entirely to its image and to the act of grasping images. The only condition is to be compatible both to the imaged object and to the act of grasping images.
The span of the things and human activities that could fulfill such condition for a certain imaged object is almost unlimited. Any of these shares a degree of reality from the imaged object, even if there is not that appeal to reality as an authority that confirms their existence.
Thus, many imaged objects from nature allow looking forward to some divine reality with an impressive effect that is strongly similar to the act of getting visual impressions of things.