Background
The basic idea that I am attempting to refute in this essay is the idea that everything is in a constant state of change and is at no time static. I do not presume to know all of the intricacies of Heraclitus’ theory, but since he is the first known philosopher to systematize the idea, I will attach his name to the idea. I am not attempting to refute the idea that all things (all of reality in all dimensions and universes) are constantly changing, I am arguing that nothing, absolutely nothing, can constantly change.
Now, I realize that this is an extreme view, I also realize that there are philosophical standpoints that purport an idea of universal ‘sameness’ or ‘unity’, I am not supporting these theories. I believe that some things change; this is readily justifiable through many studies in philosophy. My contention is with the general idea of change (and movement) and how this idea is understood.
As stated above, according to the flux theory, everything is in a constant state of change. In more words, this means that nothing reaches a standstill, or a time where the thing could be said to be not changing. On the surface, this idea seems reasonable but there are many bad implications and insurmountable inconsistencies in this theory. The epistemological implications of this theory are catastrophic: if everything is always changing, then it is impossible to know anything, and even if knowledge were still possible it would be false knowledge and therefore not knowledge at all. Plato, with his introduction of forms, makes it possible to accept the flux theory and to have knowledge. Thus, the flux theory cannot apply to everything (all reality) but just to the physical world and not to the “world of the forms”. However, there are still major problems with this theory of flux being applied to the physical world.
An Important Point
First off, a point must be established, and that is that all change of the various components of the physical universe (the universe composed only of atoms) is nothing more or less than a change in location. All heat change is a change in the speed of the vibration of the molecules. All ageing is a disorientation of the original order of the thing that is ageing. All chemical reactions are a moving of the electrons, neutrons, and protons in various different orientations. I could go on and on but I hope that you already get the idea.
Now, as far as I know, motion can only explain the changes that happen to the physical universe. There are other types of changes (i.e. spiritual) but if these changes affect the physical universe, and I believe there are millions of cases of this happening, then the corresponding change or ‘affect’ in the physical universe can be nothing more or less that a change in location of the things affected. Thus, integrating this idea into the flux theory, we now have ‘everything is in a state of constant motion.’
Of course, it is the case that God could end the existence of certain atoms or objects in the physical universe or he could create and introduce wholly new things into the physical universe. However, these actions could not be said to be changes in or of the physical universe since it is a introduction of new material and not a changing or ‘alteration’ of what is already there.
The Problem
Some of you may have already figured out where I am going. If you paid close attention in the last three paragraphs you might have already pieced together what the problem is. The problem I have found with the flux theory is simple on paper but hard to grasp, yet once it is grasped it is very easy to remember, articulate, and argue against, so I ask you to be patient. The essence of the problem is founded in an apparent paradox: there seems to be only two explanations of how change takes place and both of them are inadequate or even obviously false. If something is always changing and is never static or at a standstill, then the two options are 1) varying segments of time are in reality all infinite in duration or 2) the distance that the parts of the changing objects are traversing is in reality equal to zero.
How did I come to this paradox? The discovery of this paradox came to me several years ago when I was contemplating movement in itself. How and why I was contemplating motion in itself is inconsequential, but it is important to know that the paradox first came in relation to motion alone and not to physical change in general. Motion, according to the simplest definition I could come up with, was ‘an objects change in location’. This definition seemed to be sufficient until I actually tried to put it to work.
I will now try to explain how this mental experiment I conducted. To make the discussion more simple, let the object that we use in this example be and electron, since it is, as far as we know, an indivisible object. It would cause confusion and loss of focus to use a divisible object such as a ball, but you can think of a ball in this example if you want. Let us say that an electron is moving from point A to point B. The first question I asked was “how many places will the electron exist in during its traverse of the distance between the two points?” Now, mathematics, physics, and science tells us that there are an infinite number of locations in between any two point in space. In some respect they are right, for, any distance can always be divided by two (or any other number greater than one) and zero distance will never be reached. There are, perhaps, an infinite number of theoretical measurements in between point A and point B but that dose not necessarily mean (and I will argue cannot mean) that there are an infinite number of places for the electron to exist in as it moves.
Back to the example, if there were an infinite number of places for the electron to exist in and it does exist in each of them for any amount of time as it travels, then the electron would never reach point B. Any number (other than zero) multiplied by infinity equals infinity. However, if the electron spent no time at each of these places, then the electron could not exist at all, because it would not be anywhere at any time. Any number (including infinity) multiplied by zero is zero. Thus, we come to the apparent paradox: either 1) varying segments of time are in reality all infinite in duration or 2) the distance that electron travels is in reality equal to zero. Either every movement of anything from any point A and B happens after an infinite amount of time has elapsed, or all measurements between any point A and B are all illusions and are actually zero.
The Answer
Some may argue that this is where we must stop, that when a paradox is reached we must accept that we will never know the answer, or that we must wait until new discoveries are made. I think that answers can be found, if we are willing to believe some very interesting things. My solution to this paradox is very radical and will seem strange at first, but I believe that it is the only way to explain what is happening when a thing moves.
There are, according to my theory, a limited number of places a thing can be. As a thing ‘moves’ from pint A to point B it only exists in a limited number of places (probably an enormous number, but less than infinity). But here is where it gets weird: there can be no time between when the thing ‘moves’ from one of the limited number of places it can exist (I will call these places ‘cells’) to the next. If there is a time when the thing is ‘in between’ the cells, we are brought back to the essence of the problem to which this theory was formed to remedy. What I am arguing for is an instantaneous change of location from cell 1, to cell 2, to cell 3, etc. In addition, the time it takes for the electron to get from point A to B is spent remaining at rest (existing) for a limited time (probably very short, but longer that zero) in the limited number cells. Any limited number multiplied by a limited number equals a limited number. These cells would be the only absolute locations where any indivisible thing could reside, which means that the indivisible parts of divisible things would reside in different cells at different times while still holding together through molecular attraction or covalent bonds. I can see no other way of explaining motion. I warned you that it would be weird.
Now, of course, I have no idea what these cells look like, how small they are, if they overlap each other, what exactly determines how long things stay in these cells, or if they have independent existence outside the presence of matter. It would take much scientific research to discover the answers to these questions. However, this theory of absolute location (as I have coined it) is the only answer that allows for change of location, for distance to be real, and for our measurement of time to be real. All others lead to absurdities that include infinite restrictions or extensions of space and time respectively.
Conclusion
If the theory of absolute location is the only way to explain motion in the physical universe then it is part of describing any change in the physical universe. This means that everything, although it may be ‘moving’ is in reality always at a state of rest. Things ‘change’ in that they instantaneously change location from cell to cell, but this change cannot be “constant” as Heraclitus purposed. All things must stay static for some amount of time, or else they cannot exist.
© COPYRIGHT 2008 JOSHUA SHIREY. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment