Re: Atoms as complex systems.

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Judith,

I am not that great to have an atomic structure model
of my own.  I just retype instead of copying some of
the giants. We are talking things at different levels
of organization. SO there is no horse races. I do not
exclude anyone's model as a conflict to be resolved.
Rather I tend to see where other models fit into a
hiearchy organization and what are the concepts
reflected from lower levels and what are new ones.

I found Rosanean view worth exploring and interesting
at certain levels.   It has been fun and worth the
time talking here as I did basically whole day today.

Regards

Jerry

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> 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 ----- 
>   From: Jerry Zhu
>   To: ***
>   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
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail