|
Hi Jerry,
I agree with the statement that there's no "evolution" inside an
atom (although I don't know whether I would attribute evolution to "symmetric
breaking" or even asymmetric breaking...) My father saw a big difference between
evolution and other kinds of development.
I also agree with your assessment of the organization of an
atom:
Inside an atom there are interconnections of interconnections and
no
interconnection is more fundamental than the other. You're speaking of relations, right? You're saying that the
"interconnections" are at least as important as the particles? Which is
basically the same as saying that, in spite of the fact that atoms have all
different sorts and numbers of various particles, we are able to recognize them
all as "atoms" because of some common aspect-- an aspect which clearly plays the
critical role in making atoms "atoms"... namely; their organization. That sounds
suspiciously like a description of Rosennean complexity to me.
At the subatomic level, the
system is neither simple nor complex. I mostly agree with this, too: At the sub-atomic level, it's not an
"atom". It's just the parts. This is what we get when we fractionate an atom.
That's what sub-atomic means. It refers to the pre-organization
pieces/components/parts/ingredients....
But I would argue that we don't know anything about the nature of
the organization of any of those components other than that complexity is built
into the system of space/time/other(?) that we call "the universe".
Judith
|