Hi there john,
In Rational Metaphysics, I begin with the most fundamental concepts involved in the issue of existence. From there, I build. But it isn’t very long before the notion of particles forming is a necessary aspect of those fundamental principles. Now what that ends up meaning is that the most fundamental principles of any existence must cause said particles to form (for any universe that is going to exist). At that point, no Science or physics is involved. It is pure definitional logic.
But as it turns out, those particles absolutely must behave (due to the logic) in a manner that exactly describes what contemporary physics has observed as the behavior of real physical particles. The number of elements of similarity are very many and there are none left out such as to imply that perhaps the logical derivation doesn’t exactly match the physics observation. So a foundation of understanding of the very logically required nature of sub-atomic particles is revealed, the “why” behind every aspect; why positive and negative attract, why electrons don’t crash into protons, why light travels at that particular speed, why all particles of a specific type are the same size, and so on.
Now that alone doesn’t tell you that it is necessary that the “metaparticles” derived from definitional logic must be the most fundamental and also the same as the physics observed particles. But there is another issue that does.
If you were to attempt to cause physics particles to simulate on a higher scale, their same behavior (to form megaparticles), you could not arrange it. The actual physics particles do not form particles of a higher scale except in crude ways that are easily distinguishable from physics particles. The analogy doesn’t work sufficiently to cause a higher level perspective of the exact same thing. Now what that means is that the metaparticles could not do that either. Thus it means that the metaparticles could not be representing a form of particle that was merely on a lower scale as those of the physics particles and just happen to be exactly similar. It means that the metaparticles that were born of the most fundamental concerns of reality are in fact the same particles witnessed in contemporary physics and there can be nothing on a lower perspective scale. In a since, if you try to reduce the particle analogy down a little, you run into principles that forbid any particle from forming.
But now as far as going very far up to the galactic scale, it is easy to see that galaxies do not behave as small particles behave. They do not have quantized sizes or charges, for example. And because of these differences, they cannot form atoms and molecules that would represent merely a higher perspective.
So in the long run, you have that you cannot go lower in perspective because you run into fundamental principles forbidding any kind of particles from forming at all and if you go higher in perspective, you run into resultant behavior that does not replicate those of the smaller behaviors. So you are stuck on a unique level of perspective that cannot be replicated either higher or lower.
Sorry if I rushed through that too quickly. I have a hard time trying to explain deeply complex things in a quick post in such a way that they are easily seen as true.
Not in the since that you are probably thinking, no. Intelligence requires specific memory and algorithm functions that have no room to be occurring else things like particles could not form. Particles form due to a relatively simple set of principles. To have intelligence on that level would require that the entire set of atoms and molecules and all of the complexity of a brain be established even before a particle got formed from their alliance.
It is fun to think of such things, but I’m afraid the logic forbids the real possibility of them.
