Wouldn't the component parts of a subatomic particle be the context of interaction (other things) through which it becomes significant or a knowable thing. The concept of thing doesn't likely approximate the thing itself either, as it reduces it incredibly, or is liable to features of an analogy which are just plain useless.

Everything is potentially attached to everything else, even if the level of connection is insignificant to what is worth knowing about or being observed.

But this is probably just armchair malarky on my part.

Also is the irreduicibility of these particles absolute or just a matter of our own limitation (relative to us and the mathematical/conceptual tools by which we apprehend it).

I am not sure why you think that "irreducible particles" in particular present a difficulty with respect to interaction and complex behavior. How do you think compound bodies manage it? What is it about irreducible particles that should prevent them from interacting and behaving?

It's not that the behaviour of compound bodies isn't amazing; it's just that it has to happen first at the level of the irreducible particles, which lack any component parts. Without component parts, it is hard to imagine how they could behave in a manner anything other than random and disorganized - bouncing or sticking, but not organizing into complex, intelligent forms.

Well, what I am trying to understand is why you are framing the problem in mereological terms. You say that "without component parts, it is hard to imagine how..." So would it be easier to imagine with component parts?

I am not even doing the Socratic thing here, I am genuinely not understanding your thought process.

For example, a plant is composed of cells. It is the actions of the cells that determine how the plant will develop. If a particle is irreducible, it has no separate components that could possibly combine to drive or influence its behavior. It would be easier to believe that it is being directed by some force external to the particle.

OK, I think I understand. The way you tell it, you seem to think that bodies are driven entirely by their internal processes. And yet you have also mentioned external forces - doesn't that begin to answer your question?

Let's imagine a setup with a potential field and a particle that interacts with that field (e.g. think of a rock falling from a height). Assume that the particle has no parts; it still responds to that field and does something (maybe not anything very interesting, but hey, it's just one particle). Does this solve the problem?

Sort of... To me, a particle/object/structure/entity that exhibits organized/intelligent behavior either has to have internal components driving the action, or an intelligent external force guiding it (or both). For example, for a plant to grow, its cells need to act in an intelligent way. For a bus to follow its route, it requires an intelligent driver. When it comes to irreducible particles, there can be no internal drivers, and while it may be acted upon by external forces (e.g. gravity), how could such external forces cause the particles to organize and act in complex and intelligent ways?

You keep using this word "intelligent." What do you think it means? At one point you say "organized/intelligent." So does "intelligent" simply mean organized, orderly, patterned, non-random? If so, then "an intelligent [organized, orderly, patterned, non-random] external force" shouldn't be a problem in our world, where, science tells us, external forces tend to be quite organized, orderly, patterned and non-random.

It is fairly easy for me to accept particles organizing in some manner according to some internal/external force. For example, an internal attractive force that causes particles to group together in the shape of a sphere would not be utterly surprising. But for those particles to then combine, form orderly, purposeful structures, and begin to perform complex actions... that is what I find difficult to fathom.

From 'nothing comes from nothing', if there's intelligence in complex configurations e.g. humans, then there's intelligence in the primordial existence whatever it is.

My question is, what is the nature/character of these irreducible particles? What, how and where are they?

At this point, I believe it is quarks that are considered to be irreducible.

Even quarks have inherent characteristics which, as far as are known, determine how they organize into various configurations.

There's this concept in esoteric spirituality, I can't convince you how logical it is, but it teaches that there is involution and evolution of life. Involution means something like how characteristics and inherent tendencies come to be part of the inner disposition while evolution is how the outer transforms in relation to external interactions. Therefore, involution is concerned with development of the instinctive/innate aspects while evolution determines the development of interactive aspects. Anyway, in summary, they both work in unison such that intelligence is a combination of both in any activity, and it's only our perspective which determines how we perceive it. Basically, to me, randomness/chaos is just unrealised order.

For me, every quality has a corresponding quantity or every form has a corresponding force, both of which determine the mode of activity to be expressed.

Maybe the conceptual scheme (analogy of parts) is somewhat irrelevant to the physics of these particles. They say particles can also be characterized as waves. Maybe the quantum (particle) part is essential to quantifying the phenomena but doesn't really extend to the conceptual reality by which we apprehend everyday life.

19th century physics had to come to terms with the idea of waves without medium, which is not intuitive.

Even quarks have inherent characteristics which, as far as are known, determine how they organize into various configurations. — BrianW

Having characteristics is one thing... being able to organize and combine into atomic particles, which in turn somehow organize into increasingly complex structures/entities, is quite another! Which leads me to posit that since internal programming doesn't seem possible within a particle with no component parts, that the guidance has to be external. But what form could that guidance take? Seems it would have to be non-physical, or at least imperceptible, if science hasn't discovered it yet... haha

The alternative is perhaps that there really is no physical reality, only what my consciousness (wherever or however it may reside or exist) perceives. This leads me to lend credibility to the theory that consciousness may be creating reality, and that everything we find only exists to explain what we've gone looking for; that is, the macro-reality existed prior to the micro-reality... and that the universe is finite, in the sense that it is limited to what we have perceived.

I think having characteristics implies internal programming, otherwise, what would they be characteristics of?

I can understand an irreducible particle having something like gravitational force, but not instructions... because being irreducible means that there are no component parts, leaving nowhere for the information to be stored.

I can understand an irreducible particle having something like gravitational force — CasKev

Maybe even other forces whose interplay generates a host of interactive phenomena which we may eventually call a universe and such.

because being irreducible means that there are no component parts, leaving nowhere for the information to be stored. — CasKev

An irreducible particle may not be a composite of distinct components but it is itself a component, especially when there's others like itself, and may have information as an inherent quality. For example, a force may contribute as information in the way it interacts with the particle and with other particles and forces.

Looking at an irreducible particle you are left with point space as the particle must be reduced ad-infinitum until they are reduce merely to point space. In a second respect the particle continually being reduced to leaves point space as a constant and point space acts as a divider between the progression of one part to another.

In these respects the atom is both point space and a divider/multiplier as one atom is both composed of and composes further atoms equating the atom as a point of inversion between multiple atoms and the fractal atoms which compose the multiple atoms.

If you continually divide a point you are left with infinitely further points which are all the same point considering there is no difference between one point and another. A point in x locality is the same as a point in y locality with x and y localities being points relative to the further locality of z. A point is a point regardless of its position with all points being compose of an infinite number of points.

As all points are composed of an infinite number of points each point acts as its own field without boundaries.

The particle-wave (with all waves as fields) duality is solved in this respect: as a particle and field are both dualistic notions of point space. This dualism of a point and field can be solve through the point maintaining directive qualities through the line or circle.

So a line between two points observes the line in a third field of point space when observed as only a line between two points. However the line must continue through further lines of it is to project, and a separate argument continued which I won't get into because I addressed it elsewhere.

In a separate respect the circle (or maybe more accurately put "monad") as a point in center and infinite points around it as 1 point, observes the circle existing (again on it as own terms, even though the circle must progress much like the line) in a point field.

This can be observe in a simple exercise where one images any object approaching a point. The continual approach of a line to a point results in the line being surrounded by the very same point it is progressing towards when the point effectively becomes a "void" or "dimensionless field".

A point field is merely "void", which this void being observed through a continuing limit such as a line (a circle projecting through a void still results in a linear structure as a line). So a line may exist between two points but these two points, observed through the line, exist as a localization of a point field.

I probably should elaborate on one of these arguments.

According to Quantum Field Theory, waves -not particles- are fundamental. There's a field for every particle: a quark is a quantum of the quark field. All fields exist at every point of spacetime. So-called "virtual particles are actually non-quantized effects of the fields.

We are still left with the paradox where there are multiple fields existing through further fields, where each fields effectively is a part or "particle" of another field.

Maybe even other forces whose interplay generates a host of interactive phenomena — BrianW

But it's the degree of complexity being accomplished by these particles that astounds me. I could understand lesser phenomena, such as giving off light or heat, but to assemble and create a living thing with a conscious mind... that is a far far bigger stretch of the imagination. Seems to me it would be next to impossible for this to happen in a purely physical reality. Which leads me back to my life being a perceived reality, or it involving manipulation of the physical by as of yet undetected forces. I'm not sure which of those scenarios is more likely...

@Relativist From what I gather, your responses do nothing to explain the intelligent behavior taking place... Not that I expect someone to be able to provide an irrefutable response; just that I would like to consider the most likely alernatives.

The explanation of behavior, through behavior, is strictly the consciousness mirroring itself (a process of repetition, similar to the Russian Doll but not the same).

To explain consciousness would cause a mirror effect where:

we:

explain(explanation)
explain (explanation(explanation))
explain(explanation(explanation(explanation)))

and so on and so forth.

This process of explanation in turn takes on directive qualities in itself.

1) Linear progression
2) Circular Self-Referentiality
3) Point of inversion where one concept turns to many as each concept itself is nothing.

The nature of consciousness is premised in certain limits which are fundamentally directed movement.

We can see references of this mirroring process in the Pythagorean argument of the Monad(s) mirroring itself, along with the mirror effect in social behavior.

Intelligence is fundamentally limits existing through limits where depth of consciousness, premised in the repetition of limits, is premised in basic "frequency" as a repetition of directed movements. These directed movements are premised in the basic point, line and circle.

Under these terms all of creation has some degree of consciousness with the nature of higher consciousness dependent upon a form of self-referentiality or "loops".

Can you dumb it down, or give a practical example?

Well I will use this example and if it does not work, I will apply another.

explain(explanation)
explain (explanation(explanation))
explain(explanation(explanation(explanation))) — eodnhoj7

When one explains a phenomenon they give definition to the phenomena. This definition of the phenomena observes it as existing for what it is and allows us to interact with this phenomena. So I may observe a flower empirically through the senses. I can see, feel, taste, smell and hear certain qualities dependent upon my application of these senses.

However these explanations/definitions in and of themselves mean nothing. So I apply a sense of reasoning, through thought or emotion, where these qualities of the flower are connected or separated from other qualities.

Now this nature of sensing through explanation/definition, I may connect/separate one quality of the flower to maybe another.

What is observed is observed through further observations where I may observe one flower, which leads to another in a progressive linear movement where one flower is directed to another as a form of progression through multiplicity.

Now this new flower which further helps define the first, as a sensed/defined phenomena, in turn cycles back to the original flower where qualities are observed as connected and one and the same.

Now each flower in and itself is nothing unless we progressively observe further flowers and these further flowers cycles back on the original/non-original flowers. In these respects each flower as a foundation for the progress to further flowers and the cycling back to the original flower is in itself nothing, or rather a "point of origin" through which the further flowers exist as one (circular and self-referential) and many (linear progression).

This linearism/circularity in which we observe the flower, and explain/define it, observes a simultaneously nature through the senses where a feeling progresses to a thought and thought to feeling, etc.

I may have to explain further.

I may have to explain further. — eodnhoj7

Yep. I'm missing how this links to the behavior of irreducible particles...

As argued above, all particles result in point space.

The point is both irreducible and an act of inversion (changing a unified phenomenon into multiple phenomena). All points leads to further points, with the point being constant as one point is the same as another. However this process of the point as being constant observes it as continual inversion.

The "flower", in the above example, is effectively nothing in itself but a point in space as it is merely a means of inversion to further flowers.

One aspect of consciousness is "inversion" where unity changes to multiplicity and vice versa. It is how we measure phenomena. This inversive nature to consciousness is premised in point space as strictly "void" where this "no dimensionality as no-limit" effectively exists as a founding nature of consciousness.

But what makes the quark join with other quarks and start doing seemingly intelligent things? (Sorry if I'm missing your point, but I'm really going to need more concrete examples for each of your concepts to understand...)

Fair enough.

But first, what is "seemingly intelligent" mean? We know if quarks are a portion of consciousness and we observe quarks, the quarks are cycling through eachother as a foundation of that consciousness.

Empirical sense alone is dependent strictly on the unfolding of time, hence all empirical truths are not just probabalisitic but not definable completely except outside of time, with observing a phenomenon from a separate time zone still resulting in a time line in itself.

By 'seemingly intelligent', I mean organized behavior that results in the creation of a complex structure or entity. Particles sticking together or bouncing off of each other = not intelligent. Particles combining and forming life and consciousness = seemingly intelligent!