Hi Matt, I think you are thinking of atoms in the elemental chemistry sense ie an atom of carbon or oxygen or hydrogen, whatever.
If we are talking reality existing as fundamentally "quality" then we are talking the smallest "quanta" of existence of quality ... the equivalent of quarks or strings or whatever your favourite physics metaphor ... personally I prefer Qubits. An important point of all new physics ... since quantum mechanics .... however poorly explained and embedded in everyday science, is that there is (somehow) interconnectivity (non-locality) between one and all. The jury is out on the explanations, (multiverses, holographic universes, you name it) but the empirical evidence is everywhere as one variation or another of the one-electron / two-slits experiment ... (after John Gribben). Each "atomic" component does seem to "know" of the whole. Ian On Dec 19, 2007 9:17 PM, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Pirsig] > What, after > all, is the likelihood that an atom possesses within its own > structure enough information to build the city of New York? > > [Matt] > Is this a question of likelihood? There are trillions of atoms that make up > New York, each atom only has to hold its own space. The mind is composed of > billions of atoms as well, so why not? > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
