a footnote to Democritus as Taoist

"Taoist" is justifyed because the article quotes the Tao Te Ching, but perhaps it could be more appropiate to title it "Democritus and the Yang/Yin School", because the Yang Yin doctrine was at these times an independent school not incoporated to the taoist corpus. Furthermore, the (ceremonial?) fragments of the TTC found at Goudian burials do not include chapters 11 and 14

The mention in footnote 4 about Zeno paradoxes can be concreted by searching in google by Chuang-tzu Hui Shih arrow. It is dated 275 BC.

To frame the atomists in Chinese cronology, perhaps it is better to see Democritus as contemporary to Mo-Zi. Generically, a good cross-cultural chronology is lacking, at least in the internet. Besides greek and chinese, one should include early Budhist (the Majhima Nikaya, late Vth century, names the four elements) and some hinduist (Vaisheshika Suttra, about 200 BCE, as well as early Jainism.). An example: the dyad/triad postulation of volume elements is kept in the Indian tradition of atomism, while it is lost in the western remmants.

The chronology quest must not be confused with a priority issue. Our real problem is that we have lost all the text of the atomists, so we need to infer the atomic theory from contemporary references, and here the cronology helps us to determine who these contemporary were. It is equally important if the atomists could be quoting them, if them were quoting to the atomists, or if there was some cultural contact or even an annual football match :)

We should be able to use the reconstructed discussion as an introductory way ;) to think the modern theory. Lets give an example: Does "extension" pertain, as a property, to the "being" or to the "non-being"? If the second, then particles are points, as in current quantum field theory. If the first, then particles are strings or branes, as in current(?) superstring theories.