Ridling Zaine. Philosophy: Then and Now. A look back at 26 centuries of thought

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

158

motion. Thus the motion of a single particle involved the motion of an entire

closed chain of particles, called a vortex. As a result of the original motion,

some particles were gradually ground into a spherical form, and the resulting

intermediary space became filled with the surplus splinters or “grindings.”

Ultimately, three main types of particles were formed: (1) the splinter

materials, which form the finest matter and possess the greatest velocity; (2)

the spherical particles, which are less fine and have a smaller velocity; and (3)

the biggest particles, which originated from those original particles that were

not subject to grinding and became united into larger parts.

Thus Descartes could construct an atomic theory without atoms in the

classical sense. Although this theory as such has not been of great value for

the scientific atomic theory of modern times, its general tendency was not

without importance. However arbitrarily and speculatively Descartes may

have proceeded in the derivation of the different kind of corpuscles, he finally

arrived at corpuscles characterized by differences in mass, velocity, amount of

motion, etc. – properties that could be treated mathematically.

Atoms as Centres of Force: Dynamic Particles

Most systems of Atomism depict the action between atoms in terms of

collision – i.e., as actual contact. In Newton’s theory of gravitation, however,

action between bodies is supposed to be action at a distance – which means

that the body in question acts everywhere in space. As its action is the

expression of its existence, it is difficult to confine its existence to the limited

space that it is supposed to occupy according to its precise shape and size.

There is, therefore, no reason for a sharp distinction between occupied and

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

159

empty space. Consequently, the mind finds it natural to consider the atoms not

as extended particles but as point-centres of force. This conception was

worked out by the Dalmatian scientist R.G. Boscovich (1711-87), who

attempted to account for all known physical effects in terms of action at a

distance between point-particles, dynamic centres of force.

Atoms as Psychophysical Monads

The idea of applying the atomistic conceptions not only to material but

also to psychical phenomena is as old as Atomism itself. Democritus had

spoken of the atoms of the soul. According to the principles of his doctrine

these atoms could differ only quantitatively from those of the body: they were

smoother, rounder, and finer. This made it easy for them to move into all parts

of the body. Basically, however, the atoms of the soul were no less material

than other atoms.

In Leibniz’s monadology the situation was quite different. Leibniz did

not first conceive of material atoms and then only later interpret the soul in

terms of these atoms; from the beginning he conceived his “atoms,” the

monads, in terms of an analogy with the soul. A monad is much more a

spiritual than a material substance. Monads have no extension; they are

centres of action but not, first of all, in the physical sense. Each of the monads

is gifted with some degree of perception; each mirrors the universe in its own

way. Monads differ from each other, however, in the degree of perception of

which they are capable.

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

160

The Immutability of Atoms

By their nature all atomic theories accept a certain degree of

immutability of the atoms. For without any fixed units no rational analysis of

complex phenomena is possible. At least with respect to the stable factors in

the analysis involved, the atoms have to be considered as immutable.

According to Atomism in the strict sense, this immutability had to be

interpreted in an absolute way.

The same absolute interpretation appeared in classical chemistry,

although its atomic theory deviated from Atomism in the strict sense by

assuming qualitatively different atoms and by assuming molecules (rather

stable aggregates of atoms). The decisive point, however, is that molecules

were formed by mere juxtaposition of atoms without any intrinsic change of

the qualities of the atoms. Modern atomic theory, in contrast, gives a less rigid

interpretation of the immutability of elementary particles: the particles that

build up an atom do not retain their identity in an absolute way.

In some philosophical atomistic theories, the immutability of the atoms

has been understood in a highly relative sense. This interpretation arose

mainly in the circles of those Aristotelian philosophers who tried to combine

atomistic principles with the principle of Aristotle that elements changed their

nature when entering a chemical compound. The combination of both

principles led to the doctrine known as the minima naturalia theory, which

holds that each kind of substance has its specific minima naturalia, or smallest

entities in nature. Minima naturalia are not absolutely indivisible: they can be

divided but then become minima naturalia of another substance; they change

their nature. In a chemical reaction the minima of the reagents change into the

minima of the substances that result from the reaction.

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

161

Other Differences

Atomisms also differ regarding the number of atoms, whether they

occupy a void, and how they relate to one another.

Number of Atoms

As has already been mentioned, Democritus introduced the hypothesis

that the atoms are infinite in number. Although one may question whether the

term infinite has to be taken in its strict sense, there is no doubt that by using

this term Democritus wanted not merely to express the triviality that, on

account of their smallness, there had to be an enormous quantity of atoms.

Democritus also had a strong rational argument for postulating a strictly

infinite quantity of atoms: only thus could he exclude the existence of atoms

that specifically differed from each other.

When in modern science the problem of the number of atoms arises, the

situation is quite different from that of the Greek Atomists. There is now

much more detailed information about the properties of the atoms and of the

elementary particles, and there is also in astrophysical cosmology some

information about the universe as a whole. Consequently, the attempt to

calculate the total number of atoms that exist is not entirely impossible,

although it remains a highly speculative matter. In a time (around 1930) when

all chemical atoms were supposed to be composed of electrons and protons,

the pioneering joint-relativity-quantum astrophysicist A.S. Eddington

calculated the number of these elementary particles to be 2 136 2

256

, or

approximately 10

, arguing that, since matter curves space, this is just the

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

162

number of particles required barely to close the universe up into a hypersphere

and to fill up all possible existence states.

The Existence of the Void

To Democritus the existence of the void was a necessary element in

atomistic theory. Without the void the atoms could not be separated from each

other and they could not move. In the 17th century Descartes rejected the

existence of the void, whereas Newton’s conception of action at a distance

was in perfect harmony with the acceptance of the void and the drawing of a

sharp distinction between occupied and nonoccupied space.

The success of the Newtonian law of gravitation was one of the reasons

that atomic theories came to prevail in the 18th century. Even with respect to

the phenomena of light, the corpuscular and hence atomic theory of Newton,

which held that light is made of tiny particles, was adopted almost universally,

in spite of Huygens’ brilliant development of the wave hypothesis.

When in the beginning of the 19th century the corpuscular theory of

light in its turn was abandoned in favor of the wave theory, the case for the

existence of the void had to be reopened, for the proponents of the wave

theory did not think in terms of action at a distance; the propagation of waves

seemed to presuppose, instead, a medium with not only geometrical properties

but with physical ones as well. At first the physical properties of the medium,

the ether, were described in the language of mechanics; later they were

described in that of the electromagnetic field theory of J.C. Maxwell. Yet, to a

certain extent the old dichotomy between occupied and nonoccupied space

continued to exist. For, according to the ether theory, the atoms moved

without difficulty in the ether, whereas the ether pervaded all physical bodies.

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

163

In contemporary science this dichotomy has lost its sharpness, owing to

the fact that the distinction between material phenomena, which were

supposed to be discontinuous, and the phenomena of light, which were

supposed to be continuous, appears to be only a relative one. In conclusion it

can be claimed that although modern theories still speak of space and even of

“empty” space, this “emptiness” is not absolute: space has come to be

regarded as the seat of the electromagnetic field, and it certainly is not the

void in the sense in which the term was used by Democritus.

Atoms in External Aggregation versus in Internal Relationship

In most forms of Atomism it is a matter of principle that any

combination of atoms into a greater unity can only be an aggregate of these

atoms. The atoms remain intrinsically unchanged and retain their identity. The

classical atomic theory of chemistry was based upon the same principle: the

union of the atoms into the molecules of a compound was conceived as a

simple juxtaposition. Each chemical formula (e.g., H

O, H

, NaCl, etc.)

reflects this principle through the tacit implication that each atom is still an H,

O, or S, etc., even when in combination to form a molecule.

Chemistry had a twofold reason for adopting this principle. One reason

was an observational, the other a philosophical one. The fact that some of the

properties of a chemical compound could, by simple juxtaposition, be derived

from those of the elements (the molecular weight, for example, equals the

simple sum of the respective atomic weights) was a strong factual argument in

favor of the principle. Many properties of the components, however, could not

be determined in this way. In fact, most chemical properties of compounds

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

164

differed considerably from those of the composing elements. Consequently,

the principle of juxtaposition could not be based on factual data alone. It was

in need of a more general support. This support was offered by the

philosophical idea that inspired all Atomism, viz., that if complex phenomena

cannot be explained in terms of aggregates of more elementary factors, they

cannot be explained at all.

For the evaluation of this idea, the development of the scientific atomic

theory is highly interesting, especially with respect to the interpretation of the

concept of an aggregate. Is the only interpretation of this concept that of an

assemblage in which the components preserve their individuality – like, for

instance, a heap of stones?

Modern atomic theory offers an answer to this question. This theory still

adheres to the basic principle that a complex structure has to be explained in

terms of aggregates of more elementary factors, but it interprets the term

“aggregate” in such a way that it is not limited to a mere juxtaposition of the

components. In modern theories atomic and molecular structures are

characterized as associations of many interacting entities that lose their own

identity. The resulting aggregate originates from the converging contributions

of all of its components. Yet, it forms a new entity, which in its turn controls

the behavior of its components. Instead of mere juxtaposition of components,

there is an internal relationship between them. Or, expressed in another way:

in order to know the properties of the components, one has to study not only

the isolated components but also the structures into which they enter. To a

certain extent modern atomic theory has bridged the gap between atomistic

and holistic thought.

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

165

History and Major Representatives of the Various Atomisms

Philosophical Atomism

From the ancient Greeks through the 16th century, Atomism remained

mainly philosophical.

Ancient Greek Atomism

It is characteristic of the importance of Greek philosophy that, already in

the foregoing exposition of the different aspects of Atomism, several Greek

philosophers had to be introduced. Not only the general idea of Atomism but

also the whole spectrum of its different forms originated in ancient Greece. As

early as the 5th century BCE Atomism in the strict sense (Leucippus and

Democritus) is found, along with various qualitative forms of Atomism: that

of Empedocles, based on the doctrine of the four elements, and that of

Anaxagoras, with as many qualitatively different atoms as there are different

substances.

Yet, in spite of its successful start, Atomism did not gain preeminence in

Greek thought. This is mainly because Plato and Aristotle were not satisfied

with the atomistic solution of the problems of change as a general solution.

They refused to reduce the whole of reality, including man, to a system that

knew nothing but moving atoms. Even with respect to the problems of the

material world, Atomism seemed to offer no sufficient explanation. It did not

explain the observable fact that, notwithstanding continual changes, a total

order of specific forms continued to exist. For this reason Aristotle, with

Plato, was more interested in the principle of order than in that of the material

elements. In his own analysis of change, which resulted in the matter-form

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

166

doctrine, Aristotle explicitly rejected the thesis of Democritus that in a

chemical reaction the component parts retain their identity. According to

Aristotle, the elements that entered into a composite with each other did not

remain what they were but became a compound. Although there is some

indication that in Aristotle’s chemical theory smallest particles played a role,

it was certainly not a very important one.

Meanwhile, atomistic ideas remained known in Greek thought. Their

opponents paid much attention to them, and there were also a few adherents of

Democritean Atomism in later times, such as the Greek hedonist Epicurus (c.

341-279 BCE) and the Roman poet Lucretius Carus (c. 95-55 BCE) who,

through his famous didactic poem De rerum natura (“On the Nature of

Things”), introduced Atomism into the Latin world.

The Elachista of the Early Aristotelian Commentators

Empedocles had suggested an Atomism with qualitatively different

atoms, based upon the doctrine of the four elements. Aristotle adopted the

latter doctrine but without its atomistic suggestion. Certain Greek

commentators on the works of Aristotle, however, viz., Alexander of

Aphrodisias (2nd century CE), Themistius (4th century CE), and Philoponus

(6th century CE), combined the Aristotelian theory of chemical reactions with

atomistic conceptions. In their systems the atoms were called elachista (“very

small” or “smallest”). The choice of this term is connected with the

Aristotelian rejection of the infinite divisibility of matter. Each substance had

its own minimum of magnitude below which it could not exist. If such a

Ridling, Philosophy Then and Now: A Look Back at 26 Centuries of Thought

167

minimum particle were to be divided, then it would become a minimum of

another substance.

The Minima Naturalia of the Averroists

The Latin commentators on Aristotle translated the term elachista into

its Latin equivalent minima or also into minima naturalia; i.e., minima

determined by the nature of each substance. In fact, for most medieval

Aristotelians the minima acquired little more reality than the theoretical limit

of divisibility of a substance; and in their descriptions of physical and

chemical processes, they paid no attention to the minima. With the Averroists

– followers of the Arab Aristotelian Averroës (1126-98) – an interesting

development occurred. Agostino Nifo (1473-1538), for example, explicitly

stated that in a substance the minima naturalia are present as parts; they are

physical entities that actually play a role in certain physical and chemical

processes. Because the minima had acquired more physical reality, it then

became necessary to know how the properties of the minima could be

connected with the sensible properties of a substance. Speculations in this

direction were developed by the Italian physician, philosopher, and litterateur

Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484-1558).

Modern Scientific Atomism: Early Pioneering Work

Modern Atomism arose with the flowering of science in the present

sense of the word.