Danila Ioan Marian


But it seems that the fining of the democritian model regarding the explication of the behavior of quarks can be made better by Anaxagora, rather than by Platon. For some of the fundamental properties of Anaxagora's holomers can be proved to be specific also to quarks. Respective, the model of holomers allows an unlimited divisibility in depth (as pretends also the democrition model), but requires in the same time the inseparability (alike with quarks) and the idea of qualitative differentiating (by which the accent does not fall on the sphere of quantitative, of a divisibility in depth only as endless fractionizing, but on the infinite diversity of ratios from the fundamental combinations). The working of this ideas in the model of quarks presents us an intersting picture. The infinite divisibility in microcosmos cannot be thought by quantitative fragmentation, as an endless progress towards more and more tiny particles, but by its transferation in a qualitative prime plan, what means that at a given moment it would be possible to arrive however at a limit of fractionizing, of quantitative division, at particles without constituents, at ,,ultimate" entities. The infinity and the divisibility in depth will be given then by the qualitative infinity, by the infinity of the correlations and the combinations of this ,,ultimate particles"(Biris, 1989).

If the quantitative division can arrive at a ,,limit of fractionizing", at ultimate entities, then the mathematical magnitude of the multiplicity of the ultimate entities will be finite. But a a finite mathematical multiplicity either added or mulptiplied or fractioned or combined with other finite mathematical multiplicity it is impossible to give rise to an infinite mathematical multiplicity. There is no any mathematical operation ( ) so as x y = or x y = - ; x and y being mathematical variables which can represent some domains of mathematical quantities (numbers).

Local Conclusion: a finite multiplicity cannot substantiate a combinatorial or structural (qualitative) infinite diversity. Combination of n entities taken n times, if n is finite, cannot result in an infinite multiplicity. Moreover, there is x<n so as the physical combination of n taken x times is physicaly divisible, disintegrable, fisionable etc.

,,But, with the whole this success, the model of quarks presents a paradox: even with the bighest accesible energies, obtained in the existent accelerators, until now it was proved impossible to be fragmented a hadron in its constituent quarks"(Weinberg, 1984). With other words, the quarks put us in the following situation. By their statute of ,,ultimate" constituents of hadrons, of fundamental entities, it is pushed in prime plane the dicontinuity of existence. But by their inseparabity it attracted our attention on the fact that we are placed, simultan, also in the presence of continuity. (Biris, 1989)  

Weinberg said only that with the bighest energies that we actualy can cause, we cannot frgmentate a hadron. Biris tried to extend the Weinberg's idea, giving the unargued impression that the quarks are absolutely inseparable. But he netheir argued what is the absolute limit of the magnitude of the energy that can be caused by any absolutely possible accelerator nor argued that there can be no other superior ways for the disintegration, decomposition, and fision of mater. On the other hand, he wrote all this as university professor of philosophy not as physicist, but, however, he does not considered the hypothesis that: if quarks would be absolutely inseparable, they would cannot be only cognitive or artificial entities or constituants? That is, if a hadron would be an unstructural or uncomposed entity, the quark's property cannot be only the properties of only an imagined fragment of the hadron? On the other hand, who can prove that even a string, if exist such a thing, is absolutely unfisionable? On thing is clear, Biris sustained that a hadron is both continuous (quark's inseparability) and discontinuous (composed by a multiplicity of quarks). But if a hadron is structured or composed entity, then it contain a multiplicity. Any objective multiplicity suposses the possibility of a differentiation. How can be a succesion of two quarks continuous? If they boundaries are partialy stuk together? That is, this continuity would mean that there is no any empty or free space between that parts of their boundaries? But then how can be argued that such a succesion is not only one uncomposed entity? If the quarks boundaries are absolutely uncomposed and if between some parts of their boundaries there is not any free space that can substantiate a discontinuity, what is the other possible way for the argumentation that there are two quarks and not only one entity? That is if in the boundaries of this quarks there is no any spatial loop and if between that parts of their baundaries there is no any spatial loop and if the quark's center is not differentiable physicaly, not only geometricaly, from its

boundary, then what is the other possible way for the argumentation that there are not only one entity?

Moreover, if the hypothesis of string is true, then because of their internal tiny loops the existence will be discontinuous

The field at the microphysic level cannot any more be imagined as a vector, as a line of force, because the lementary particle should not be imagined as a geometric point, as a point of substance, cause it does not have dimensions and form. The particle resembles with a ,,bright point", where, in fact, it is not seen a ,,point", but a ,,litle sun", therefore a field, where we have not a singularity, but a multiplicity.

(Biris, p.164)

We can observe in the previous fragment fundamental errors of judgement did by the actual dean Biris. Fundamental, therefore important, because I do not want to exagerate the importance of some litle errors. The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of thought and reality, not only of language. That is, no mater how vaste physical informations has the dean or other philosopher, if misinterpretate, by fundamental errors of judgement, and puts them in a wrong framework.

a) He wrote that the field has not ,,dimensions and form", but if no mater what has no any dimension, and therefore form, cannot exist, cannot be a physical object. There can be no even an empty space so as its volume or the area of its surface is absolutely null.

b) he wrote that the field is without ,,dimensions and form", but then he also wrote that the field resembles with a ,,bright point". But any point has dimension and a geometrical form. This person is sane?

c) He wrote that the point is not a point, but a ,,litle sun", then a field, where we do not have a singularity, but a multiplicity. Multiplicity? And does not have dimensions and form?

A ,,litle sun", therofore a field? But the sun is a star which contains many atoms of hidrogen and helium, not a field.

In this ,,hot point"of the research from the domain of quarks the idea of field can help, of field as dialectic totality. And we wish to underline this aspect: the research at the level of quarks requires a dialectic conception of the field, not the theory of field in the traditional sense. For the discontinuity which is manifested by quarks at this elementary level of the matter in depth enters in contradiction with the continuity which results from the funciary inseparability. ,,The paradox" observed by physicists in the behavior of quarks is the expression of this deep contradiction between discontinuous and continuous, between the particle's discreet and the field's continuity. (Biris, p.163)

The quarks are and are not elementary particles. Are fundamental particles in the sense that their constituants were not discovered (yet), do not have structure. But are not particles, are not discreete entities, because are inseparable, represent a field. The field of quarks expresses, thus, a holomer, an existence which blends in a close unity, synthetical, both the continuous and the discreete, both the particle and the field, an self-consistent existence, in which the part has the power of the whole, therefore a field which distributes itself without to divide itself.

(Biris, p.164)

I cannot believe what wrote this person. It is perplexing and shocking, from a genuine philosophical and logical principle of consideration and evaluation. You see clearly that he is the fan of a fundamentally contradictory dialectic mentality.

Now, can understand Biris a genuine contradiction? Now, I will consider its last italicized fragments.

As we can see, he considers that the microphysical field is a multiplicity of united and inseparable quarks. Biris' field is both continuous and discontinuous. ,,The paradox" observed by physicists in the behavior of quarks is the expression of this deep contradiction between discontinuous and continuous, between the particle's discreet and the field's continuity. We can see, again, he sustained a genuine contradiction between discontinuous and continuous, between the particle's discreet and the field's continuity. However, the principle of non-contradiction requires the conservation or the identity of the time and of the criterion of consideration. But the hadron is discontinuous as composition and discontinuous as inseparability, that is from different criterions of consideration. More true, it seems that this continuities and discontinuities are not perfect or genuine. Consider the following case:

We have a stright line or a succesion of three inseparable quarks. This quarks, parts, should have some substance, being not only empty space. Imagine a bright line. If the brightness would be absolutely identical, we would have an absolute continuous stright line. If the between quarks the brightness would weaker but not absent, then the continuity would not be absolute and a discontinuity would be possible. If the brightness between parts would be absent, then the continuity would be absent and the discontinuity would be complete. You understand that Biris' continuity, if the quarks realy are discrete, canot be perfect. That is, Biris' continuity and discontinuity are not perfect and genuine, therefore cannot substantiate a genuine contradiction, cause a real contradiction would require either the discontinuity or continuity to be perfect; the contradiction is either between all have and some do not have or between some do have and all do not have etc.

It is inacceptable for a dean and university professor of philosophy of science to be enthusiasmed and to sustain contradictions and to dont distinguish between genuine and pseudo contradictions. The contradictions have a fundamental wrong influence on genuine science and philosophy. From an inconsistent logical system can be DEDUCED ANY STATEMENT (Lucica Iancu, at courses)

Moreover, he wrote The field of quarks expresses, thus, a holomer, an existence which blends in a close unity, synthetical, both the continuous and the discreete, both the particle and the field, an self-consistent existence, in which the part has the power of the whole, therefore a field which distributes itself without to divide itself, but he wrote before that the quarks are fundamental particles and that the field results from their inseparable unity or synthesis. He not only that defines the field by field, but do more contradictions, cause he stated before that the quark is fundamental particle and then he forgot, maybe, and said that the quark itself is field. That is, he said that fundamental is the particle-quark and the field results at their emergent level and then said that the quark is field. This person is sane or judge as a university professor of philosophy of science?

For, in the dialectic conception, the continuous and the discreete are inherent to unit, so as observed G. Lukács. (Biris, 1989, p.166)

There is a difference of sense between unit and union, unification, united, or joint. The unit and the null oposses to the multiplicity. The unit is a characteristic of all that constitute an elementary indivisible whole.

In the proper sense of unit, it is not true that the continuous and the discreete are inherent to unit; that is, Biris did an error, using an improper term.  

The continuous is discontinuous in itself, and the discreet is continuous in its essence.

(Biris, 1989, p.166)

This pro-contradictory tendency is very wrong, having a wrong influence for the genuine, valide, and true philosophy and for the human thought in general. No human person is omnscient or infailing, but the minds of students should not be infected with fundamental or principal errors of thought or reasoning. The objective continuity and the discontinuity are spatial or temporal modes of being. The discontinuous and the continuous are the beings that have the properties of continuity or discontinuity.

the discreet is continuous in its essence.

The discreet is an object that has the property of discontinuity. But what can be the essential properties of an object about we know only that has the property of discontinuity? Its essential properties should be properties of the discontinuity itself.

What caharacteristics or properties are essential? Those that are necessary and suficient. What is necessary and suficient for a discontinuity? A spatial or temporal multiplicity; for instance, a line of spatial points and a succesion of events. And the presence of the units of the discontinuous multiplicity at different places in space or time, at least relative at a criterion of consideration. The multiplicity and the separation. However, a genuine discontinuity cannot exist without ultimate continuous units. However, at one level of the human perception

a multiplicity can be melted in one thing. That is, the multiplicity even if contains necessarily the continuous, the multiplicity of continuous

units can lead to other continuous. Thus, the continuous is not suficient and proper for discontinuity.

But we can imagine a continuous empty space which is not composed by united 'quarks' of space.

Matter cannot exist without space, but the pure space is continuous and its imagination, at least, does not implies any discontinuity. The pure space or at least the imagined pure space is continuous, but not discontinuous in itself.

Therefore, by the totality-field suggested by the fundamental reality of quarks, the contemporary science discloses the deep unit between the microuniverse and macrouniverse, of the microphysics and cosmology, between the early universe, the actual universe, and human universe. (Biris, 1989, p.166)

It seems that, Biris wants to extend the form of the totality-field to the whole history and to the all the levels of the universe. That is, it seems that he wants to generalize that form to the whole history and organization of the universe. This extensions can represent another error of judgement or reasoning, if the essential properties of the microfield are not characteristics the whole universe and of all the levels of organiztion of the universe. For instance, if we accept that the theory of Big Bang is true, then the whole universe is divisible at least until hadrons, but Biris' hadron-field, that is Biris' microfield is inseparable. The universe is separable, at least until a limit,

but Biris' field is not. Moreover, Biris uses ,,the field man", considering that

the human body and the human consciousness are fields,

not an open system it seems.


Ioan Biris: 1984, Spre o totalitate-camp in stiinta contemporana, in Revista de Filosofie, (p.160-166), nr.2.