Part I, Philosophy, V. Natural Philosophy, Time and Space
Engels quotes Duhring's dissatisfaction with his predecessors, also, in the realm of natural philosophy, such as Schelling, whose adherence to the concept of the “Absolute”, involved the “hoodwinking” of the public. Duhring says,
“Fatigue has saved us from these “deformities”; but up to now it has only given place to “instability”; “and as far as the public at large is concerned, it is well known that the disappearance of a great charlatan is often only the opportunity for a lesser but commercially more experienced successor to put out the products of his predecessor under another signboard, again” . Natural scientists themselves feel little “inclination to make excursions into the realm of world-encompassing ideas”, and consequently jump to “incoherent and hasty conclusions” in the theoretical sphere. (p 57-8)
The phrase about one charlatan being replaced by another is, of course, one we can all recognise, especially in the realm of bourgeois-democratic politics, where the same ideas are endlessly recycled, but only with the difference that, from time to time, they appear in a red and, at other times, a blue packaging. Engels also suggests that Duhring, himself, is just another such charlatan.
Engels begins with a critique of Duhring's argument in relation to the concept of infinity. Simply stated, Engels notes that Duhring does not distinguish between infinity as it relates to numbers, as against infinity as it relates to reality, i.e. space and time, or, as we would, now, say, after Einstein, space-time. Of course, there is some debate, today, as to whether, any such distinction exists, i.e. whether mathematics is the underlying basis of the real world, rather than just a means of conceptualising, and modelling it. That is often posed as asking whether mathematics is created or discovered? In fact, this rider, following Einstein, introduces a modification, required to Engels' argument, specifically in relation to The Big Bang theory, developed by Hawking and others, as against the steady state theory of Hoyle.
Duhring's argument, and this is also, the basis of the argument by Hawking, is that, if you take any infinite, positive number. It is possible to count back from it to zero. In which case, this zero is a starting point. But the concept of infinity implies no starting or end point. In relation to the Big Bang theory, Hawking et al argued that, if the universe was expanding, what is called “inflation”, and, from measurement of galaxies, it was known it was, then, it must, at some point in the past, have been contracted and compressed into an infinitely small, and dense point, where space-time did not exist, because both space and time come into existence simultaneously.
At the time Engels was writing, obviously, this was not known, and so Engels argument is based on the idea that time has no beginning or end, and, likewise, space extends, indefinitely. But, this, really, only requires a modification of Engels' argument. Einstein's theory of relativity, and concept of space-time, is now pretty well established and confirmed by experiment and observation. Similarly, the concept of the Big Bang, and inflation is well established, and confirmed by the identification of the residual cosmic background microwave radiation from it. However, this still leaves the question of what existed before the Big Bang?
In fact, according to Roger Penrose, the evidence from the cosmic background radiation, now indicates that the inflation occurred prior to what is considered as the Big Bang.
Obviously, however concentrated, this singularity is still contained within something, and, it did not simply spring into existence from nothing. Current theories to explain that go beyond Einstein's theory into the realm of Quantum Mechanics, to the notion of multiple universes and realities, etc. For example, we do see some exotic particles that appear to simply pop into and out of existence from nowhere, but theories suggest that this is a function of their moving between different dimensions and so on.
When we talk about history, what is meant is the history of humanity from the point of its civilisation. Yet, humans existed prior to civilisation, just as other animals existed prior to humans; the Earth existed prior to plants and animals, and so on. All of these had their own “history”, their own reality, and process of development. To say that our current universe, and its space-time had a beginning, in the Big Bang, and an end in its heat death, is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing before or after it, or beyond it.
“The first conclusion drawn from this conception of infinity is that the chain of causes and effects in the world must at some time have had a beginning:
“an infinite number of causes which should have already fallen into line one behind the other is inconceivable, just because it presupposes that the uncountable has been counted”
And thus a final cause is proved.” (p 58-9)
No comments:
Post a Comment