Behaviour of Irreducible Particles
I think I have wrapped my head around the concept of a subatomic particle having no component parts. The trouble I have is then understanding how such a particle could combine with other particles and engage in the complex behaviours that we humans are able to observe. It is much easier to imagine a bunch of these particles simply bouncing around in otherwise empty space. How can a particle with no component parts act in what seems to be an intelligent way, with no outside guidance?
Comments (40)
Everything is potentially attached to everything else, even if the level of connection is insignificant to what is worth knowing about or being observed.
But this is probably just armchair malarky on my part.
Also is the irreduicibility of these particles absolute or just a matter of our own limitation (relative to us and the mathematical/conceptual tools by which we apprehend it).
I am not even doing the Socratic thing here, I am genuinely not understanding your thought process.
Let's imagine a setup with a potential field and a particle that interacts with that field (e.g. think of a rock falling from a height). Assume that the particle has no parts; it still responds to that field and does something (maybe not anything very interesting, but hey, it's just one particle). Does this solve the problem?
My question is, what is the nature/character of these irreducible particles? What, how and where are they?
Even quarks have inherent characteristics which, as far as are known, determine how they organize into various configurations.
There's this concept in esoteric spirituality, I can't convince you how logical it is, but it teaches that there is involution and evolution of life. Involution means something like how characteristics and inherent tendencies come to be part of the inner disposition while evolution is how the outer transforms in relation to external interactions. Therefore, involution is concerned with development of the instinctive/innate aspects while evolution determines the development of interactive aspects. Anyway, in summary, they both work in unison such that intelligence is a combination of both in any activity, and it's only our perspective which determines how we perceive it. Basically, to me, randomness/chaos is just unrealised order.
For me, every quality has a corresponding quantity or every form has a corresponding force, both of which determine the mode of activity to be expressed.
19th century physics had to come to terms with the idea of waves without medium, which is not intuitive.
Having characteristics is one thing... being able to organize and combine into atomic particles, which in turn somehow organize into increasingly complex structures/entities, is quite another! Which leads me to posit that since internal programming doesn't seem possible within a particle with no component parts, that the guidance has to be external. But what form could that guidance take? Seems it would have to be non-physical, or at least imperceptible, if science hasn't discovered it yet... haha
The alternative is perhaps that there really is no physical reality, only what my consciousness (wherever or however it may reside or exist) perceives. This leads me to lend credibility to the theory that consciousness may be creating reality, and that everything we find only exists to explain what we've gone looking for; that is, the macro-reality existed prior to the micro-reality... and that the universe is finite, in the sense that it is limited to what we have perceived.
I think having characteristics implies internal programming, otherwise, what would they be characteristics of?
Maybe even other forces whose interplay generates a host of interactive phenomena which we may eventually call a universe and such.
Quoting CasKev
An irreducible particle may not be a composite of distinct components but it is itself a component, especially when there's others like itself, and may have information as an inherent quality. For example, a force may contribute as information in the way it interacts with the particle and with other particles and forces.
In these respects the atom is both point space and a divider/multiplier as one atom is both composed of and composes further atoms equating the atom as a point of inversion between multiple atoms and the fractal atoms which compose the multiple atoms.
If you continually divide a point you are left with infinitely further points which are all the same point considering there is no difference between one point and another. A point in x locality is the same as a point in y locality with x and y localities being points relative to the further locality of z. A point is a point regardless of its position with all points being compose of an infinite number of points.
As all points are composed of an infinite number of points each point acts as its own field without boundaries.
The particle-wave (with all waves as fields) duality is solved in this respect: as a particle and field are both dualistic notions of point space. This dualism of a point and field can be solve through the point maintaining directive qualities through the line or circle.
So a line between two points observes the line in a third field of point space when observed as only a line between two points. However the line must continue through further lines of it is to project, and a separate argument continued which I won't get into because I addressed it elsewhere.
In a separate respect the circle (or maybe more accurately put "monad") as a point in center and infinite points around it as 1 point, observes the circle existing (again on it as own terms, even though the circle must progress much like the line) in a point field.
This can be observe in a simple exercise where one images any object approaching a point. The continual approach of a line to a point results in the line being surrounded by the very same point it is progressing towards when the point effectively becomes a "void" or "dimensionless field".
A point field is merely "void", which this void being observed through a continuing limit such as a line (a circle projecting through a void still results in a linear structure as a line). So a line may exist between two points but these two points, observed through the line, exist as a localization of a point field.
I probably should elaborate on one of these arguments.
But it's the degree of complexity being accomplished by these particles that astounds me. I could understand lesser phenomena, such as giving off light or heat, but to assemble and create a living thing with a conscious mind... that is a far far bigger stretch of the imagination. Seems to me it would be next to impossible for this to happen in a purely physical reality. Which leads me back to my life being a perceived reality, or it involving manipulation of the physical by as of yet undetected forces. I'm not sure which of those scenarios is more likely...
To explain consciousness would cause a mirror effect where:
we:
explain(explanation)
explain (explanation(explanation))
explain(explanation(explanation(explanation)))
and so on and so forth.
This process of explanation in turn takes on directive qualities in itself.
1) Linear progression
2) Circular Self-Referentiality
3) Point of inversion where one concept turns to many as each concept itself is nothing.
The nature of consciousness is premised in certain limits which are fundamentally directed movement.
We can see references of this mirroring process in the Pythagorean argument of the Monad(s) mirroring itself, along with the mirror effect in social behavior.
Intelligence is fundamentally limits existing through limits where depth of consciousness, premised in the repetition of limits, is premised in basic "frequency" as a repetition of directed movements. These directed movements are premised in the basic point, line and circle.
Under these terms all of creation has some degree of consciousness with the nature of higher consciousness dependent upon a form of self-referentiality or "loops".
When one explains a phenomenon they give definition to the phenomena. This definition of the phenomena observes it as existing for what it is and allows us to interact with this phenomena. So I may observe a flower empirically through the senses. I can see, feel, taste, smell and hear certain qualities dependent upon my application of these senses.
However these explanations/definitions in and of themselves mean nothing. So I apply a sense of reasoning, through thought or emotion, where these qualities of the flower are connected or separated from other qualities.
Now this nature of sensing through explanation/definition, I may connect/separate one quality of the flower to maybe another.
What is observed is observed through further observations where I may observe one flower, which leads to another in a progressive linear movement where one flower is directed to another as a form of progression through multiplicity.
Now this new flower which further helps define the first, as a sensed/defined phenomena, in turn cycles back to the original flower where qualities are observed as connected and one and the same.
Now each flower in and itself is nothing unless we progressively observe further flowers and these further flowers cycles back on the original/non-original flowers. In these respects each flower as a foundation for the progress to further flowers and the cycling back to the original flower is in itself nothing, or rather a "point of origin" through which the further flowers exist as one (circular and self-referential) and many (linear progression).
This linearism/circularity in which we observe the flower, and explain/define it, observes a simultaneously nature through the senses where a feeling progresses to a thought and thought to feeling, etc.
I may have to explain further.
Yep. I'm missing how this links to the behavior of irreducible particles...
As argued above, all particles result in point space.
The point is both irreducible and an act of inversion (changing a unified phenomenon into multiple phenomena). All points leads to further points, with the point being constant as one point is the same as another. However this process of the point as being constant observes it as continual inversion.
The "flower", in the above example, is effectively nothing in itself but a point in space as it is merely a means of inversion to further flowers.
One aspect of consciousness is "inversion" where unity changes to multiplicity and vice versa. It is how we measure phenomena. This inversive nature to consciousness is premised in point space as strictly "void" where this "no dimensionality as no-limit" effectively exists as a founding nature of consciousness.
But first, what is "seemingly intelligent" mean? We know if quarks are a portion of consciousness and we observe quarks, the quarks are cycling through eachother as a foundation of that consciousness.
Empirical sense alone is dependent strictly on the unfolding of time, hence all empirical truths are not just probabalisitic but not definable completely except outside of time, with observing a phenomenon from a separate time zone still resulting in a time line in itself.
I see nothing "intelligent" in the behavior of particles. Their "behavior" is a consequence of their properties, not due to decision making or anything else that is typically described as intelligent behavior.
Are you equating "complex" with "intelligent"? Complexity is due to the fact that particles interact and entropy is increasing, but unevenly.
Ok, now I get your conundrum. To that I can only say that, existence has never been limited to what we perceive as physical or material. Some things, e.g. mind, consciousness, soul, spirit, etc, are best understood in the context they're given even if they're not immediately relatable. Familiarity may improve with time as they are further delineated with reference to our activities. All I know is that consciousness, mind, body, biological, chemical, etc, they're all part of nature and there's no need to try to define them beyond our perspective. They definitely have the same origin as everything else no matter how mysterious they may seem.
There is a new untested theory at the level of physics that might help explain the origins of the evolutionary process, which states that matter can adaptively dissipate heat by changing its orientation (properties) in certain stable context (with an energy source). New orientations bring on new configurations of matter and the process builds on itself until you've got a Darwinian process.
Tell that to the quarks that somehow keep my brain together! haha
Seriously though, I think the desire to know, or at least form a belief, comes from the depressed part of my mind, that silently hopes there is more to life than we perceive, or that the end of my existence would be only that, because the world only exists as a product of my consciousness (kind of like an escape clause if life ever becomes unbearable again). Thankfully, I have been pretty much free of any significant depressed feelings for a few years now, and I am quite hopeful that I will never return to the depths of severe depression.
What other definitions of intelligence do you think works?
What does this mean: "The particles as projecting to further particle "
Did you use google translate on your native language?
If particle A and B collide:
1) If we observe this from the fixed point of A, then B is moving directly to A in 1 direction with B moving away from a fixed focal point from which its course began.
2) If we observe this from the fixed point of B, then A is moving directly to B in one direction with A moving away from a fixed focal point from which its course began.
3) If we observe this from a fixed framework of Z, A and B are directed away from there fixed focal point towards eachother at the same time.
The movement of one particle to another:
A) Results in the particles projecting away from eachother from the fixed point of them meeting, each in one direction.
B) Results in the particles uniting and taking a new course of direction, projected away from there point of meeting.
C) Results in the particles individuating (multiplying/dividing simulatneously) into further particles which project away from there point of meeting.
The projection of the particles starts from a point of origin (the particle meeting another particle) towards another point (the particle meeting another particle). At each point of origin the particle fundamentally "inverts" by change from one direction to another where:
1) Moving from a previous set of multiple directions to one new direction.
2) Moving from one direction to multiple further directions.
3) From a larger framework of time points 1 and 2 happen simultaneously in different respects.
Either way the particle cannot exist without its relation to further particles with this relation necessitating movement.
Considering this particle exists if and only if it is moving, and this movement is determined by the projection from locality to another in one direction, the premise of the particle existing at all is dependent upon its directed movement giving it form. In these respects all particulate are premised in linear movement as extradimensional projection.
The particles exist as projection, hence "the particles as projecting to further particle" can be synonymous to the projection of projection to further projection.
Now in reference to intelligence, considering the particle as movement originates from a linear movement and what we understand of the nature of consciousness as having an inherent nature of measurement by separating and connecting phenomenon through lines, the particles reflect this same foundation of consciousness.
All movement is relative, you're treating it as absolute. Further, per QFT, particles are not moving; rather a quantum of energy is rippling through a field. Finally, your claim that a particle's existence is dependent on movement is an unsupported assertion.
1) the double slit.
2) the particles themselves.
3) time.
The quantum of energy "rippling" through the field observes the "ripple" as a movement synonymous to a frequency as alternating movement. This is considering all frequencies are premised in alternation.
This quantum of energy, or a localization of it, is still a particle.
The the particle/wave dualism can be argued as a localization of a field where the difference is a context of time.
If observing a localized quantum of energy up close it will appear as particle considering this "closesness" observes the particle with a specific framework of time with this time merely being a set of relations. Take for example is I look at a ripple in a pool up close, I see the crest move from one spot to another.
If viewed from a distance the ripple in a pool acts as a wave but as an individual wave is still a "particle" in the respect it is part of other waves.
The distance of the observation determines its localization, as the localization is a distance.
Now considering the particle and wave appear randomly, one alternates at some unidentifiable frequency (Considering the alternation between particle and wave is still a frequency), even though the framework of observation is still the same distance. This would necessitate the fields alternate distances between the observer.
Using the pool example again, it one it to look at the individual crests of the waves as a particle, then we can observe it as formed of waves in itself.
So I can observe a framework and see both particles as crests of the wave and simultaneous waves as multiple particles. Each relation of parts effectively is its own time zone with a time zone. It would be like looking at a clock and seeing one hand move from one degree to another. This degree would represent the particle. However the space between the degrees on the clock hand would be a wave of quantum degrees. Under these premises some particles would be smaller than another, so if an electron exists as both a particle and a wave(ripple in field), the electron as a particle can be greater or smaller in size than other electron particles.
In these respects the atomic perspective has a trifold nature of particle/wave/field where each alternates through the other as a framework.
Time is determined by distance in this case, with distance merely being a relation in parts. With distance determined by the observer, the object being observed and the framework in which it is observed (with this framework having a specific distance in itself) and so on and so forth.
Movement is merely particulation where an object individuates (multiplies/divides simultsneously) by inverting between unified and multiple states.
Take for example I see a particle "moving" from position "A" to position "B". The particle is effectively the replication of individual localities as the movement between A and B observes A to A.1 to A.2 to A.3, etc. all the way to position B. Now A.1 is composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc with each containing a localization in its own right. So the movement of the particle is the replication of localities are particles in themselves so that when we see the particle move from A to B we are observing the particle as multiple localities replicating, where the particle is composed of and composes further particles.
Movement in these terms is inversion of one to many and many to one in these respects. Where the particle as moving inverts from one locality to another locality as many localities. Simultaneously the many localities the particle is composed of (using the example of A.1 being composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc.) Invert to one locality.
This corresponds to the particle/wave/field triad in the above examples. In these respects my argument is supported.