Re: Relational "Space"

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Neither the "primary structure" nor the "tertiary structure" (conformation)
would be perceptible. Only the effect (phenomenon).

Mind you, this is all hypothetical. The main point I'm making is that the
atomic theory that ancient Greek "philosophers of science" came up with was
based on very little "perception" of "primary structure" of atoms. It was
based on application of logic to the effects, to try and get at possible
causes. And they had it amazingly close to the "truth" (such as it is) as we
know it today.

In the case of space and time, my father suggested an analogy between the
behavior of protein folding automatically into a certain active conformation
and the possibility that space and/or time are doing something similar. His
reason for suggesting there may be similar activity in such different cases
was based on his experience with biological organization carrying over into
physics and beyond.

Why does something need to be perceptible to be accepted as real, when there
are phenomena (effects) that are being caused by it? We should be able to
prove its existence indirectly, via the behavior of the effects under
certain circumstances. The need to "verify the existence of something with
one's own senses, directly" is right out of the Cartesian methodology.

Judith

Tim wrote:
> I don't see how it is different. If phenomenon is generated by
conformation,
> then how would primary structure be perceptible, since primary structure
is
> not itself a conformation and thus would not generate a phenomenon? Or,
are
> you saying that something which might be a primary structure for a given
> conformation is itself  composed of conformation(s) of some other primary
> structure(s), which would then make that first primary structure
> perceptible?
>
> Regards,
> Tim