Can there be a "base" particle? (aka Lego Prime)

[fatdave]

I will try to pose a philosophical rambling, poorly disguised as a logical argument:

Assume that all of creation is composed of infinitely small "building blocks". For the ease of argument, I'll sloppily call them "particles".

Can a single state, single function, particle exist? That is, can a particle be so basic, that no other particles are contained within it?

If so, then what governs the rules of interaction between particles? If the rules of interaction are contained within the particles themselves, then couldn't those rules considered to be smaller particles?

Let's suppose we have particle A and particle B, that are to react to each other in a certain way. Would the rules of interaction be contained within both particle A and particle B, or would there perhaps be a third particle that creates the bond between the two? If so, what governs the interactions between particles A and C, or B and C?

If there is no third particle, then perhaps there is an underlying, permeable, "ruleset" that contains the rules for attraction and interaction for all particles. If this is the case, then surely there must be a method in place for particle A to "receive" and abide by the rules placed for it.

Perhaps particles A and particles B are shaped like puzzle pieces, and they don't need outlying rules, because they interact when joined together naturally. However, there must be some subparticle keeping each parent particle in that particular shape. It couldn't be some external "force" keeping them in that shape, because then there would still be an external ruleset, determining that the force interacts with particle A in a fashion, but particle B in a different fashion. So, since there is no external force, then there must be an internalized system of structure, determining the shape of the particle.

The point of all of this is, while the methods of interaction between different particles (either external or internal "rules", that no matter how recursively deeper you go within a particle, there must always be something to interact with something else.

There can't be a "base" particle, because if there was, there would be no way to interact with it. Otherwise, you would simply have something equivalent to gumballs in a candy machine... lots of little particles, with no real interaction (and therefore no building, no creation).

Can there be a base particle? If so, how does it interact with the rest of the universe? If not, then would this "system of particles" and interaction just continue on infinitely, getting smaller and smaller?

[Peter666]

This is in essence the same thing that Aristotle questioned and then answered about the Universe. How can things change and actually BE at the same time? There must be a base "particle" that always IS but cannot be material, or else there is something even smaller that would be its base. This line would go on forever and a thing could actually never be at any one moment.

He went on to explain that the base is pure potential being the essence of everything, or God. This base is in constant action giving actuality to changing objects. We cannot exist if God did not particularly will us to do so. And it is also the "high falutin First Cause argument" that proves God exists and causes emotional panic in mathematicians, scientists and non-Deists who are limited by their field of study and came to the false conclusion of Atheism.

[A_C_Slater]

"The largest is in the smallest" --Lao Tze

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

"it's turtles all the way down, sonny"

[ QUOTE ]
I will try to pose a philosophical rambling,

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't read the rest. Once you start a discussion on base particles with a philosophical rambling, it is already wasted bandwidth.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will try to pose a philosophical rambling,

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't read the rest. Once you start a discussion on base particles with a philosophical rambling, it is already wasted bandwidth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like this response.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
And it is also the "high falutin First Cause argument" that proves God exists and causes emotional panic in mathematicians, scientists and non-Deists who are limited by their field of study and came to the false conclusion of Atheism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Georgia Avenue]

I like your post, but then, I actually read it. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

YET, I think it begs the question: Does the fact that physicists keep finding smaller particles indicate that NO base particle CAN be found? One could simply say: So far, science has found only smaller particles. But the knowledge that there COULD be even smaller one doesn’t constitute evidence of said theoretical particles. Therefore the scientist is under no obligation to explain himself to your argument. He can just point at the phenomena, and remain silent. He doesn’t have to say: Yes, there can there be a base particle, OR No, there is just an infinite regression. He can just point and smirk.


I ask because I’m on a quest these days to get theology people to give up on weak-livered Thomistic proofs and go straight for the Jugular: Psalm 14:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.