Atomic Thought (Part 2)
In a previous post, we looked at the conjecture that in every discipline, some basic elements should exist. In chemistry, it is probably conceptually and culturally accurate to say that this is the atom – even when thinking about what an atom is, and what it is made of, we still see the concept of 'atom' as a baseline. In biology, this position is occupied by the cell, although the idea of 'DNA' as a more valid fundamental is gaining currency.
But what are the equivalents for mathematics, geography, history, literature, visual arts, physics, dancing, fencing, and a host of other disciplines? Can we say 'number' is an atomic concept for mathematics, or that 'space' is the equivalent for geography? It would be interesting to see what readers think.
=====
Update: NBL comments that, for mathematics, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms should be atomic. I am sure that they are; I am also sure that they are difficult to see as such. For physics, he suggests 'field'; I think that this is also a good choice, but once we get into string theory, which basically represents the universe as a huge ball of string, most people will not be able to imagine this.
I suppose that one of the key things about the atomism I am talking about is that anyone with a high-school education should be able to say something meaningful about the basic concepts used. For example, in drama, one might choose 'actor', 'action', and 'scene' as atomic concepts. Most people can intuitively see that any play would be comprised of these elements strung together, with the plot (if any) or other structure as the implicit string linking the elements. The fact that there need not be a plot in a play actually excludes 'plot' as a basic element.
More comments please!
But what are the equivalents for mathematics, geography, history, literature, visual arts, physics, dancing, fencing, and a host of other disciplines? Can we say 'number' is an atomic concept for mathematics, or that 'space' is the equivalent for geography? It would be interesting to see what readers think.
=====
Update: NBL comments that, for mathematics, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms should be atomic. I am sure that they are; I am also sure that they are difficult to see as such. For physics, he suggests 'field'; I think that this is also a good choice, but once we get into string theory, which basically represents the universe as a huge ball of string, most people will not be able to imagine this.
I suppose that one of the key things about the atomism I am talking about is that anyone with a high-school education should be able to say something meaningful about the basic concepts used. For example, in drama, one might choose 'actor', 'action', and 'scene' as atomic concepts. Most people can intuitively see that any play would be comprised of these elements strung together, with the plot (if any) or other structure as the implicit string linking the elements. The fact that there need not be a plot in a play actually excludes 'plot' as a basic element.
More comments please!
Labels: Education, Philosophy
etched with acid at 3:38:00 pm
3 Comments:
For mathematics, I'd have to go with either "set" or "axiom" (particularly the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms).
For physics, perhaps "field"? It may soon be replaced by "string" though.
Well DNA and cell are kind of different. Like DNA is not "more core", and there must have certainly have been some simpler precursor to DNA (and not just RNA). I will go so far to say that the (proto)cell probably existed before DNA did. And then we have fun self-replicating things like prions. And are there any physics equivalents for viruses?
The cell is atomic, and DNA is more analogous to cosmic strings, photons, and tau leptons. And there are universal constants -- where do those fit in?
A look at MIT's Department ring designs (http://web.mit.edu/gsc/www/programs/ring/icons.shtml) is interesting. Biology is indeed represented by a DNA strand, but chemistry by the periodic table (and flask). It's certainly closely linked to the idea of "atom". Physics is a Feynman diagram - which I suppose could be verbalised as any of a host of subatomic particles and their interactions.
(Mathematics is currently represented by the "set" of integers - which is the layman conception of "number". The old ring design was a capital Sigma.)
Post a Comment
<< Home