Definition: “a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts.” — Merriam-Webster
At one point, we had begun a spirited discussion about gestalt, specifically, whether it really exists. It occurs to me lately that there is one very obvious natural manifestation of a gestalt: the atom.
Its constituent parts, subatomic particles, are, according to the strong HUP nonduality entities. They are either at some place or headed some direction, but never both; that is, it isn’t simply that you cannot determine both the scalar and vector of a particle, but that they do not simultaneously exist (the strong HUP).
But when these particles combine, a whole new dimension of existence arises spontaneously. It becomes possible to know both the position and the momentum of an object. It is hardly possible to overstate the importance this ability plays in our lives, especially our modern technological lives. Being able to know both where we are and where we’re going is useful, to say the least.
Because this duality manifests ex nihilo, I argue that the atom represents a genuine natural gestalt. Its attributes cannot be derived from the attributes of its constituent parts.
[edited to delete line that was stretching the page out–Gaudere]
[Note: This message has been edited by Gaudere]
How is it that you have deduced that a subatomic particle cannot occupy space and have momentum simultaneously? As a physics student, I am very familiar with the HUP, but what is this “strong HUP” to which you refer?
I see. There is no real difference between the “weak” and “strong” HUP. It is my belief that the terms the indivual employed are merely interpretations of the HUP (methods of explanation varying in scientific degree, if you will). It is true that the position and momentum of a subatomic particle cannot be simultaneously defined, but that does not imply that the particle in question does not exist in both position space and momentum space.
However, this fact does not negate the possibilty or genuine gestalt. A free electron or an electron in an electron shell cannot be precisely defined. A free proton cannot be precisely defined, but a proton in a nucleus can be defined. Your theory for gestalt still stands as far as I can tell. I’ll run back to the ol’ quantum text for verification.
You’re right. Either way, it is not possible to account for the duality that is mundane with atoms from any attributes of its particles since, even by the weak HUP interpretation.
::scratching head:: Is the fact that subatomic particles do not have a discernable (at the same time) position and momentum when they are separate, but they will when they combine into an atom somehow very different than, say, oyxgen and hydrogen becoming water? Oxygen and hydrogen separately do not have the properties that water does, either (just try putting out a fire with hydrogen and oxygen. ).
Um, yeah, and when you put the pieces of a car together properly, you get a vehicle that can go 120 MPH, consumes gas, and can play pretty music (well, not my car–CD player broken). Put them together wrong and you have a pile of rubber and metal. The way things are organized matters in what the final properties will be: “things + certain organization = different thing”, but this does not seem to be “gestalt”. Didn’t we go over this before? I thought Spiritus had some good posts on this.
Oy vey, Gaudere! :eek: You made me don my thinking cap. The property that H2O (forgive the lack of subscripts) extinguishes fire is derivable from O and H. O and H don’t exist as O and H except for extremely small periods of time; they exist as O2 and H2. O2 oxidizes carbon and hydrogen based compounds releasing energy and other compounds. Due to the bonding nature of H2O the O doesn’t get the opportunity to oxidize anything. You probably knew this drivel. My point is: due to the innate valence energies of O and H the fact that H2O doesn’t burn is a predictable property and therefore is not exemplary of gestalt. Buy it?
Whoa. I have no problem with Libertarian using the word gestalt as he desires. Like Humpty Dumpty, he is privileged to make a word mean what he wants.
But my understanding of the term is that it is used in perceptual psychology, and hence in common usage with that meaning, to refer to the perception of a composite entity as a single concept/percept, as opposed to its constituent parts. When I look at Gaudere’s painting, I do not (at first) see the paint representing the hair, the flesh, the eyes, etc., but the person whom she has represented. Then, if at all, I notice the details of the representation. The first view is a gestalt perception of the painting.
Lib., my apologies for hassling on your word. But I think we should at least get the original definition up.
Is it due to the properties of the subatomic particles that, while when separate they do not have a determinable position and momentum at the same time, but when they are combined into an atom, the atom does? Could we predict that subatomic particles when combined into atoms would have a determinable positon and momentum, if we knew enough?
[You don’t know it, but you’ve stumbled into a theology v. atheology debate. I don’t necessarily buy Libby’s point about gestalt–for one thing, I can’t seem to get a good defintion from him–even if he can prove truly objective gestalt.]
Good point, Nen, but not the last word (IMO). The reason that the valence properties of H and O are “predictable” is that we have observed and measured them with some accuracy and have confidence in those measurements. A similar process gives us confidence in the “bonding properties” of electrons, protons and nuetrons in an atom. Libertarian’s point seemed to be that because the whole exhibits properties not found in teh parts a atom represents a natural gestalt. In fact, it is quite difficult to think of any complex object which does <b>not</b> exhibit characteristics not found in its component parts. The Sun, for instance, exhibits many properties not found in its “free floating” component elements. The key term in Lib’s definition seems to be “derivable”. If we disallow scientific induction, then almost nothing exists that is truly derivable from its component parts. If we allow scientific induction, then the list of things which are <b>not</b> deriveable is subject to the ever-advancing march of knowledge. Gestalt, then, becomes either a term so broad as to be meaningless or a simple description of the temporary state of our understanding.
I think what Lib is trying to find an example of is a gestalt that can never be reduced to a simple scientific prediction. Given that understanding, the uncertanty principle is a natural place for him to turn. I just don’t think he has made his case for the atom (at least not yet).
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Gaudere, can you use your moderator abilities to fix the line in Lib’s post that’s making this thread too wide to read comfortably?
Lib: are you trying to say that the uncertainty principle does not apply to atoms? Because it does. Everything exhibits wave/particle duality – look up de Broglie waves. Things like you and me, though, have very very short wavelengths.
Gestalt either “obviously exists” or is nonsensical, depending on your definition. The propery of being “the element gold” is a gestalt property – none of the subatomic particles that make up gold atoms are gold themselves, but together they are gold. If that’s what you are saying then you are correct, and I don’t understand why there would be any debate. Are you trying to say something more subtle?
Definition: “a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts.” — Merriam-Webster
Lib: Lay off the persecution complex, and realize that
is not a straightforward or non-controversial concept. Is “goldness” “derivable” from the protons, neutrons, etc. in a gold atom? Is a person’s personality “deriveable” from the configuration of neurons in his or her brain?
So you agree that there are questions about the definition? Do you further agree that people are applying the word to areas where there is not 100% understanding? Rather than implying that people who are debating with you are being disingenous or are disregarding your posts, could you please make a better effort to try to understand why they say what they say, without first assuming that they are “out to get you”?
Now, if you want to stick to the definition you’ve given, it is necessary for you to attempt to explain what you mean by “derivable by summation of its parts” in order to make any progress in the discussion.
discussion about gestalt, specifically, whether it really exists. It occurs to me lately that there is one very obvious natural manifestation of a gestalt: the atom.
).