I see nothing "intelligent" in the behavior of particles. Their "behavior" is a consequence of their properties, not due to decision making or anything else that is typically described as intelligent behavior.

Are you equating "complex" with "intelligent"? Complexity is due to the fact that particles interact and entropy is increasing, but unevenly.

Ok, now I get your conundrum. To that I can only say that, existence has never been limited to what we perceive as physical or material. Some things, e.g. mind, consciousness, soul, spirit, etc, are best understood in the context they're given even if they're not immediately relatable. Familiarity may improve with time as they are further delineated with reference to our activities. All I know is that consciousness, mind, body, biological, chemical, etc, they're all part of nature and there's no need to try to define them beyond our perspective. They definitely have the same origin as everything else no matter how mysterious they may seem.

Maybe a plain answer to emergent complexity besides irreducible stuff is quantity. The more of set of a particles space the more relational aspects there are. There is a certain level of material order (differentiation) which is progressing to a new state and this is nothing but fundamental properties sorting themselves out. If you didn't have enough of them their effects would be different at different levels of description (probably).

There is a new untested theory at the level of physics that might help explain the origins of the evolutionary process, which states that matter can adaptively dissipate heat by changing its orientation (properties) in certain stable context (with an energy source). New orientations bring on new configurations of matter and the process builds on itself until you've got a Darwinian process.

there's no need to try to define them beyond our perspective — BrianW

Tell that to the quarks that somehow keep my brain together! haha

Seriously though, I think the desire to know, or at least form a belief, comes from the depressed part of my mind, that silently hopes there is more to life than we perceive, or that the end of my existence would be only that, because the world only exists as a product of my consciousness (kind of like an escape clause if life ever becomes unbearable again). Thankfully, I have been pretty much free of any significant depressed feelings for a few years now, and I am quite hopeful that I will never return to the depths of severe depression.

all being composed of particles, by that definition is complex. All lifeforms also suffer entropy, and relative to time the particles "bounce off of eachother".

What other definitions of intelligence do you think works?

The particles as projecting to further particle reflects the same linear nature we use for measurement, with the nature of consciousness as composed of particles observing this same form and function. Consciousness cannot be separated from a particulate nature.

What does this mean: "The particles as projecting to further particle "

Did you use google translate on your native language?

I would not call it a native language but rather real, real basic relativity...you should know this considering your...lol...screenname...maybe you should Google that...that and language being relativistic in nature.

If particle A and B collide:

1) If we observe this from the fixed point of A, then B is moving directly to A in 1 direction with B moving away from a fixed focal point from which its course began.

2) If we observe this from the fixed point of B, then A is moving directly to B in one direction with A moving away from a fixed focal point from which its course began.

3) If we observe this from a fixed framework of Z, A and B are directed away from there fixed focal point towards eachother at the same time.

The movement of one particle to another:

A) Results in the particles projecting away from eachother from the fixed point of them meeting, each in one direction.

B) Results in the particles uniting and taking a new course of direction, projected away from there point of meeting.

C) Results in the particles individuating (multiplying/dividing simulatneously) into further particles which project away from there point of meeting.


The projection of the particles starts from a point of origin (the particle meeting another particle) towards another point (the particle meeting another particle). At each point of origin the particle fundamentally "inverts" by change from one direction to another where:

1) Moving from a previous set of multiple directions to one new direction.
2) Moving from one direction to multiple further directions.
3) From a larger framework of time points 1 and 2 happen simultaneously in different respects.

Either way the particle cannot exist without its relation to further particles with this relation necessitating movement.

Considering this particle exists if and only if it is moving, and this movement is determined by the projection from locality to another in one direction, the premise of the particle existing at all is dependent upon its directed movement giving it form. In these respects all particulate are premised in linear movement as extradimensional projection.

The particles exist as projection, hence "the particles as projecting to further particle" can be synonymous to the projection of projection to further projection.


Now in reference to intelligence, considering the particle as movement originates from a linear movement and what we understand of the nature of consciousness as having an inherent nature of measurement by separating and connecting phenomenon through lines, the particles reflect this same foundation of consciousness.

Considering this particle exists if and only if it is moving, and this movement is determined by the projection from locality to another in one direction, the premise of the particle existing at all is dependent upon its directed movement giving it form. In these respects all particulate are premised in linear movement as extradimensional projection. — eodnhoj7

All movement is relative, you're treating it as absolute. Further, per QFT, particles are not moving; rather a quantum of energy is rippling through a field. Finally, your claim that a particle's existence is dependent on movement is an unsupported assertion.

All movement as relative to context is an absolute, as context is absolute. While the movement may be relative to a specific context, that context determines its movement in a constant manner. The double slit experiment, as a framework, has three variables which determine the wave movement of the particles:

1) the double slit.
2) the particles themselves.
3) time.

The quantum of energy "rippling" through the field observes the "ripple" as a movement synonymous to a frequency as alternating movement. This is considering all frequencies are premised in alternation.

This quantum of energy, or a localization of it, is still a particle.

The the particle/wave dualism can be argued as a localization of a field where the difference is a context of time.

If observing a localized quantum of energy up close it will appear as particle considering this "closesness" observes the particle with a specific framework of time with this time merely being a set of relations. Take for example is I look at a ripple in a pool up close, I see the crest move from one spot to another.

If viewed from a distance the ripple in a pool acts as a wave but as an individual wave is still a "particle" in the respect it is part of other waves.

The distance of the observation determines its localization, as the localization is a distance.


Now considering the particle and wave appear randomly, one alternates at some unidentifiable frequency (Considering the alternation between particle and wave is still a frequency), even though the framework of observation is still the same distance. This would necessitate the fields alternate distances between the observer.

Using the pool example again, it one it to look at the individual crests of the waves as a particle, then we can observe it as formed of waves in itself.

So I can observe a framework and see both particles as crests of the wave and simultaneous waves as multiple particles. Each relation of parts effectively is its own time zone with a time zone. It would be like looking at a clock and seeing one hand move from one degree to another. This degree would represent the particle. However the space between the degrees on the clock hand would be a wave of quantum degrees. Under these premises some particles would be smaller than another, so if an electron exists as both a particle and a wave(ripple in field), the electron as a particle can be greater or smaller in size than other electron particles.

In these respects the atomic perspective has a trifold nature of particle/wave/field where each alternates through the other as a framework.



Time is determined by distance in this case, with distance merely being a relation in parts. With distance determined by the observer, the object being observed and the framework in which it is observed (with this framework having a specific distance in itself) and so on and so forth.


Movement is merely particulation where an object individuates (multiplies/divides simultsneously) by inverting between unified and multiple states.

Take for example I see a particle "moving" from position "A" to position "B". The particle is effectively the replication of individual localities as the movement between A and B observes A to A.1 to A.2 to A.3, etc. all the way to position B. Now A.1 is composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc with each containing a localization in its own right. So the movement of the particle is the replication of localities are particles in themselves so that when we see the particle move from A to B we are observing the particle as multiple localities replicating, where the particle is composed of and composes further particles.

Movement in these terms is inversion of one to many and many to one in these respects. Where the particle as moving inverts from one locality to another locality as many localities. Simultaneously the many localities the particle is composed of (using the example of A.1 being composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc.) Invert to one locality.

This corresponds to the particle/wave/field triad in the above examples. In these respects my argument is supported.