Author Admin / 2017-11-17
Climate Change Humanities, 2nd Week, on Event
2. Is issue of Climate Change still Event?Some views on Matter and ImageBased on Henry Bergson (Matter and Memory) and Bertrand Russell (Analysis ofMatter):There are some meaningful expressions in English, such as, what is matter? I doesn'tmatter. I think what really matters is Matter. With this, Korean translation of the 'matter' isprobably not appropriate. Henry Bergson' and Russell's matter is very similar to theobject of Kant, but, the object which has a potential to be represented appearance, thus,and existence. Matter is sensed to make either sensation, image, perception or memory,by consciousness (recall that sensation and image by the early (within a very shortperiod time) stage of consciousness, and the latter two by the slow and later stage ofconsciousness). Russell says "matter is less material, and mind is less mental". Leibnizsays, "Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream, and the visibleworld nothing but a phantom, I should call this dream or phantom real enough , if wewere not deceived by it". Remind you, once again, of the movie, Matrix. If the world ofphysics is brought into the world of perception, it can be said 'idealism(solipsism)' (representation of mentality with respect to physical world is matter", and theapposite is 'materialism'.What matters is 'Matter'. If concept of the matter, as proposed by Russell and Bergson,is the same as the one of Kant, we may be curious why the issue has to be mentionedagain. It is memory and pure perception that go beyond the Kant's, with the matter(object in Kant's discussion). Pure perception of Bergson, I believe, has almost the sameconcept as sensation of Russell and Kant. Both pure perception and sensation arerepresented image (i.e., appearance of Kant), with any roles by related memories beingexcluded. Similarly, memory may change images from the same matter (object); this isnot regarding problem of rightness or wrongness. Memory, by the way, is not mentionedby Kant at all. Perception can be combined with memory to become subjectives, throughthe process of consciousness.Bergson says, represented image can be independent from corresponding matter, eventhough it is from the matter, even with independent order and some principles ofinteractions with other images. His thought is believed to be the same as Russell's, but,different from Kant's dogma; thus, both Newton and Kant thought (I personally believe)that a matter is always the same as its corresponding image (appearance, and evenperception), which is the classical physics. However, Russell and Bergson have differentthought on their view, instead, either image or perception independently exists from thecorresponding matter (object).Where are the representations formed, either in brain or in somewhere outside of brain(i.e., on the matter or object)? If we accept the notion that the represented image is inbrain, once the matter or object disappears, the image still remains in the form ofmemory, and can be also transported (through a process called testimony or education)to other memory storages of other persons. Bergson stressed that brain is nothing but animage surrounded by combination of all the formed images/phenomena formedphysiologically, chemically, and even physically with matters in physical world. In theprocesses of both perception and image making, habit may play roles of some kinds offilters to prohibit consciousness from obtaining pure perception and sensation. Thus,habit is most likely fatal to obtainment of pure perception and sensation. In otheraspects, there is no image once all memories are removed, thus, this fact provesmemory is something and more important in both cognition and perception processesthan any other things.There is strong competition between perception and memory, which is very different fromKant's view with his concept making process; as we reviewed previously, Russell saysthat perception and memory can be deviated after cognition (i.e., early stage ofconsciousness, for sensation and image) through sensibility, with synthesized unity ofmanifold and elements of the manifold being emphasized, respectively. With observationof matter and object, it is surely not easy to completely separate formed perception andmemory, but, they are also surely different. The two are intermingled, like in osmosisprocess, through interchange of their substances/essential entities of them. In addition,affection is one category of perception, but with strong affinity of physical body (ofsenses). If memory is dominated over perception, people easily recognize a mixture ofthose as simply memory. Thus, there is sometimes a need of excluding roles of memoryto be excluded, intentionally for a scientific consciousness methodology.When all the representations with either of sensation (pure perception), image,perception, or memory, from observation of object/matter, are spread ordered, as basedon causality and neighboring relationship, in time or space, to make a series of events,whatever your view is based on idealism or materialism, and dualism or monism, the twoworlds of physics (with objects) and perception are finally connected in spatial-temporaldimensions (with points in space, and instants in time; both are individuals), with a stringof events being presented; again, if we accept a notion a string of events is not differentfrom consciousness, it is the view of monism. String of events (i.e., actuality) iscategorized as movement/activity and behavior for non-livings (including particles,planets, and atoms) and living organisms, respectively. Once a string of events is made,there exist neighboring relationship(s) between very adjacent events, and principle(s) intotal, for both particles and living organisms, being categorized into physics and biology/behaviorism, respectively. For the former, the mechanical or quantum-like approachescan be used to explain the neighboring events and totally combined occurrence, asproposed by Newton and quantum physicists, such as Heisenberg.Mechanical view versus Quanta theory: As we already know, some physicists found abig gap between motion/movements of large and very small particles (planet versusatom), as explained by the mechanical view and theory of quanta. There wereapproaches to try to explain even motions of quanta using the mechanical (classical)principles, such as 'Gyromagnetic electrons and a classical theory of atomic structureand radiation (1926, by L.V. King)' and 'Spinning electrons, Nature (1927), by R.H.Fowler'. However, in general, there are two separate and different principles of the two:Mechanical view versus Quanta theory. With Bohr, electrons motions, upon light energy,within orbits of an atom, only for H and He, could be explained using some rules similarto the mechanical view, with some limitations (such as discontinuity or minute structureof world), with at least some equations with quantum number, having physical meanings.With atoms other than H and He, the Bohr's approach is even not available, thus,Heisenberg attempted to use different theory (different equation from Bohr's) to explainorbital motions without any physical meaning, such as quantum number, but, with bothdiscontinuity and separate planets. With Heisenberg, electron and atoms do not haveany degree of immediate reality of objects of sense, but, instead, have only the sort ofreality which one naturally ascribes to light quanta (probability based statisticalapproach). Then, his equation could handle motions of all atoms and electrons. In theHeisenberg's theory, time still contributes a serious role, like in the specific relativitytheory of Einstein. It is Einstein who tried to explain both large and small particles, usingnot separate but the same principles or laws, after transformation of dimensions by theLorentz transformation. Different from the Heisenberg's approach, there is a parameterhaving physical meaning, i.e., s (distance) and ds (infinitesimal distance), for specific andgeneral relativity theories, respectively. Here, concept of distance is one betweenadjacent events. With the specific relativity, time plays a great role, like the Heisenberg'sone. When s (s2=c2t2 - r2) is positive or negative, corresponding events are said to occurin time-like or space-like dimension, respectively. The Euclidean still works with adifferent time concept. With the general relativity, distance between adjacent eventsshould be very small (i.e., ds), but, ds also has physical meaning. And, all the Euclideangeometry has to be abandoned, thus, it is only mathematical world, not the physical andtangible world. There is no separate time duration, no separate spatial extension, nometrical element, but, only purely ordinal (newly ordered) number, only points of spacetime(spatial-temporal; overlapping can be imagined in a new time-space dimension('Compresent')), in a new derived and transform world which is called as 'Geodesic'. Inthis new theory of Einstein, firstly, the planet is moving freely whereas in the old (i.e., theMechanical view of Newton), it was subject to a central force. Secondly, it moves in thenearest possible approach to a straight line (in the old, it moved in an ellipse). Thirdly, inthe old, the sun was like despotic government, in the new, it seems everybody does whatthey prefer at each moment. However, for the observers, from the above three, they arealmost the same.All motions of both large and small particles are attempted to be explained, usingvarious different approaches, with helps of a view considering motions as events; themechanical view, quanta theory, and relativity theory can be tried to be combined withhelps of concepts of matter and event, suggested by both Bergson and Russell.Connectivity from particle motion to behavior: With helps of the concept of matter andevent, it is known that probability may be entangled into the mechanical view; theprobability (statistical) law is not different from the classical physical law. By using thisbridging conceptually, we can hypothesize (at least we believe) even behaviors of livingorganisms can be explained using the physical laws, conceptually under the mechanicalview, with different views but the same occurrences of matter and event, as behaviorscan be categorized under certain contingencies (similar to probability concept).Therefore, without regard to particle or behavior, and large or small scale, they all areknown to be analyzed under one umbrella of view, with concepts of matter and event.Mental events, combined with both sensation (with causality from objects in physicalworld) and memory (with causality from other mental events), may go a step further, inthe temporal-spatial interpretation, which we already know to be Compresent. ByRussell, this spatio-temporal interpretation is not the same as old-fashioned logical(classical causality) interpretation. We can defer that the separate time and/or spacedimensions which we have been trusting to be true, may not be true: self-contradiction
(why do we have to believe our old separate concepts of time and space).