Duhring conceives of a state of the world as existing in a self-identical state that is unchanging. But, the problem with this, as with a concept of a Big Bang, before which nothing exists, including time, just as with the concept of a black hole, in which time ceases to exist, is how, then, this turns into a situation where something does exist, and where change occurs. For the Big Bang to occur requires that everything existed in a singularity, but it also requires quantum fluctuations, i.e. change at a quantum level. A black hole is conceived as a place where time stands still, and yet, for space-time to cease to exist, i.e. the heat death of the universe, black holes must also cease to exist, and the process by which that occurs is explained by Hawking Radiation.
“The absolutely unchanging, especially when it has been in this state from eternity, cannot possibly get out of such a state by itself and pass over into a state of motion and change. An initial impulse must have therefore come from outside, from outside the universe, an impulse which set it in motion. But as everyone knows, the “initial impulse” is only another expression for God. God and the beyond, which Herr Dühring pretended to have so beautifully unrigged in his world schematism, are both introduced again by him here, sharpened and deepened, into natural philosophy itself.” (p 65-6)
Duhring says,
“Where magnitude is attributed to a constant element of being, it will remain unchanged in its determinateness. This holds good ... of matter and mechanical energy”. (p 66)
This, as Engels notes, is puffed up tautology. Descartes had already stated it 300 years earlier. Thermodynamics, also, set out the principles of conservation of energy. But, again, Einstein in theory, and Rutherford in practice, showed that there was, also, no absolute distinction between energy and matter. In splitting the atom, Rutherford proved the theory set out in Einstein's equation E = MC2. Engels asks where was the mechanical energy at the time of Duhring's unchanging state of the universe, and what did it do? The answer, according to Duhring is,
“The original state of the universe, or more plainly, of an unchanging existence of matter which comprised no accumulation of changes in time, is a question which can be spurned only by a mind that sees the acme of wisdom in the self-mutilation of its own generative potency.” (p 66)
In other words, he had no answer, and, like many of today's confessional sects, could only respond to being questioned with invective and insult, an appeal to faith.
“But we, who have already seen some examples of Herr Dühring's potency, can permit ourselves to leave this elegant abuse unanswered for the moment, and ask once again: But Herr Dühring, if you please, what about that mechanical energy?” (p 66-7)
Duhring says,
“the absolute identity of that initial boundary state does not in itself provide any principle of transition. But we must remember that at bottom the same holds for every new link, however small, in the chain of existence with which we are familiar.” (p 67)
That still does not answer the question. The whole point is about the process of transition from one state to another, and the real answer to the question resides in the transformation of quantity into quality, in the accumulation of numerous, small quantitative changes, resulting in a large qualitative change, as also detailed in chaos theory, and “the butterfly effect”.
Duhring continues,
“But if we had conceived the so to speak” (!) “motionless equilibrium on the model of the concepts which are accepted without any particular objection” (!) “in our present-day mechanics, there would be no way of explaining how matter could have arrived at the process of change.” But, apart from the mechanics of masses there is, also, we are told, a transformation of mass movement into the movement of extremely small particles, but as to how this takes place — “ we have no general principle for this at our disposal up to the present and consequently we should not be surprised if these processes end somewhat in the dark”” (p 67)
No comments:
Post a Comment