|
You have an interesting model of atomic structure and organization,
Jerry. It's quite different from the Rosennean view, but that's what makes
horseraces!
Cheers,
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 6:39
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Atoms as complex
systems.
Hi Judith,
There are lots of books on quantum
physics. Frijof
Capra's "turning point" and "The Tao of Physics"
maybe
good ones.
If we open an atom, there maybe particles.
However
these particles are just another level of
interconnections of
other particles that in turn are
interconnections. Therefore we never
endup with
"things". What we see are patterns of probabilities.
There are dances but there are no dancers. What's
inside an atom
is just a bundle of energy.
Complex systems are open systems that
change their
structure through interacting with the environment.
There
is no selforganization inside an atom. The
organization is maintained by
strong forces.
I see quantum physics as the lowest level of
the
hierarchy of emergence. Hence it is important to learn
the
characteristics of the lowest level since those
characteristics will be
inherited by all levels above.
Jerry
--- Judith
Rosen <***>
wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
Jerry Zhu
> To: ***
>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:26 AM
> Subject: [ROSEN]
Quantum Physics
>
>
> Judith said "an atom is
a complex system"
>
> I disagree with this. At
the subatomic level, the
> system is neither simple nor
complex. There is no
> things inside only tendency to
exist. it is
> statistic
> system of
potentiality governed by nonlocal
> variables.
> There
is no evolution inside an atom since no
> symmetric
breaking. Inside an atom there are
> interconnections of
interconnections and no
> interconnection is more
fundamental than the
> other.
> Our understanding of
it depends on what is in our
> mind.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
> Do You
Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best
spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
|