Re: Relational "Space"

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Regarding Tim's comment, below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
> On the other hand, since by definition we cannot directly perceive this
> primary structure, then is there strong reason to even postulate its
> existence?

The ancient Greeks came up with a theory of atomic structure long before
humanity achieved the level of technology to verify that atoms were, indeed,
the building blocks of all matter.They postulated that either matter was
infinitely divisible or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then there had to be a
"smallest system" that couldn't be fractured and still be what matter is
made of. It's no surprise that my father had to go all the way back to
Aristotle to find the kind of analogies with which to anchor his theoretical
framework. The fact that the kind of organization in the atom is also seen
in systems of all types (like biological systems' organization), all sizes
(galaxies,etc.) would suggest that the "primary structure" is a version of
something we see in front of us all the time.

One question this raises for me: The space between the parts of an intact
system is not "empty". What is that space, then?

It's hard to shake off the habits of a lifetime in the way we look at
things. My father had a knack for looking at familiar things "differently",
on purpose, just to see how different perspectives could affect his
perception of what he was observing.

Judith