No. 49
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 Image
Based on Henry Bergson (Matter and Memory) and Bertrand Russell (Analysis of
There are some meaningful expressions in English, such as, what is matter? I doesn't
matter. I think what really matters is Matter. With this, Korean translation of the 'matter' is
probably not appropriate. Henry Bergson' and Russell's matter is very similar to the
object 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 short
period time) stage of consciousness, and the latter two by the slow and later stage of
consciousness). Russell says "matter is less material, and mind is less mental". Leibniz
says, "Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream, and the visible
world nothing but a phantom, I should call this dream or phantom real enough , if we
were not deceived by it". Remind you, once again, of the movie, Matrix. If the world of
physics is brought into the world of perception, it can be said 'idealism
(solipsism)' (representation of mentality with respect to physical world is matter", and the
apposite 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 mentioned
again. 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 same
concept as sensation of Russell and Kant. Both pure perception and sensation are
represented image (i.e., appearance of Kant), with any roles by related memories being
excluded. Similarly, memory may change images from the same matter (object); this is
not regarding problem of rightness or wrongness. Memory, by the way, is not mentioned
by Kant at all. Perception can be combined with memory to become subjectives, through
the process of consciousness.
Bergson says, represented image can be independent from corresponding matter, even
though it is from the matter, even with independent order and some principles of
interactions 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 even
perception), which is the classical physics. However, Russell and Bergson have different
thought on their view, instead, either image or perception independently exists from the
corresponding 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 in
brain, once the matter or object disappears, the image still remains in the form of
memory, 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 an
image surrounded by combination of all the formed images/phenomena formed
physiologically, chemically, and even physically with matters in physical world. In the
processes of both perception and image making, habit may play roles of some kinds of
filters to prohibit consciousness from obtaining pure perception and sensation. Thus,
habit is most likely fatal to obtainment of pure perception and sensation. In other
aspects, there is no image once all memories are removed, thus, this fact proves
memory is something and more important in both cognition and perception processes
than any other things.
There is strong competition between perception and memory, which is very different from
Kant's view with his concept making process; as we reviewed previously, Russell says
that perception and memory can be deviated after cognition (i.e., early stage of
consciousness, for sensation and image) through sensibility, with synthesized unity of
manifold and elements of the manifold being emphasized, respectively. With observation
of matter and object, it is surely not easy to completely separate formed perception and
memory, but, they are also surely different. The two are intermingled, like in osmosis
process, through interchange of their substances/essential entities of them. In addition,
affection is one category of perception, but with strong affinity of physical body (of
senses). If memory is dominated over perception, people easily recognize a mixture of
those as simply memory. Thus, there is sometimes a need of excluding roles of memory
to 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 based
on 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 two
worlds of physics (with objects) and perception are finally connected in spatial-temporal
dimensions (with points in space, and instants in time; both are individuals), with a string
of events being presented; again, if we accept a notion a string of events is not different
from consciousness, it is the view of monism. String of events (i.e., actuality) is
categorized 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) in
total, for both particles and living organisms, being categorized into physics and biology/
behaviorism, respectively. For the former, the mechanical or quantum-like approaches
can be used to explain the neighboring events and totally combined occurrence, as
proposed by Newton and quantum physicists, such as Heisenberg.
Mechanical view versus Quanta theory: As we already know, some physicists found a
big gap between motion/movements of large and very small particles (planet versus
atom), as explained by the mechanical view and theory of quanta. There were
approaches to try to explain even motions of quanta using the mechanical (classical)
principles, such as 'Gyromagnetic electrons and a classical theory of atomic structure
and 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 similar
to the mechanical view, with some limitations (such as discontinuity or minute structure
of 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 explain
orbital motions without any physical meaning, such as quantum number, but, with both
discontinuity and separate planets. With Heisenberg, electron and atoms do not have
any degree of immediate reality of objects of sense, but, instead, have only the sort of
reality which one naturally ascribes to light quanta (probability based statistical
approach). Then, his equation could handle motions of all atoms and electrons. In the
Heisenberg's theory, time still contributes a serious role, like in the specific relativity
theory of Einstein. It is Einstein who tried to explain both large and small particles, using
not separate but the same principles or laws, after transformation of dimensions by the
Lorentz transformation. Different from the Heisenberg's approach, there is a parameter
having physical meaning, i.e., s (distance) and ds (infinitesimal distance), for specific and
general relativity theories, respectively. Here, concept of distance is one between
adjacent events. With the specific relativity, time plays a great role, like the Heisenberg's
one. When s (s2=c2t2 - r2) is positive or negative, corresponding events are said to occur
in time-like or space-like dimension, respectively. The Euclidean still works with a
different time concept. With the general relativity, distance between adjacent events
should be very small (i.e., ds), but, ds also has physical meaning. And, all the Euclidean
geometry has to be abandoned, thus, it is only mathematical world, not the physical and
tangible world. There is no separate time duration, no separate spatial extension, no
metrical 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'. In
this new theory of Einstein, firstly, the planet is moving freely whereas in the old (i.e., the
Mechanical view of Newton), it was subject to a central force. Secondly, it moves in the
nearest possible approach to a straight line (in the old, it moved in an ellipse). Thirdly, in
the old, the sun was like despotic government, in the new, it seems everybody does what
they prefer at each moment. However, for the observers, from the above three, they are
almost the same.
All motions of both large and small particles are attempted to be explained, using
various different approaches, with helps of a view considering motions as events; the
mechanical view, quanta theory, and relativity theory can be tried to be combined with
helps 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 and
event, it is known that probability may be entangled into the mechanical view; the
probability (statistical) law is not different from the classical physical law. By using this
bridging conceptually, we can hypothesize (at least we believe) even behaviors of living
organisms can be explained using the physical laws, conceptually under the mechanical
view, with different views but the same occurrences of matter and event, as behaviors
can be categorized under certain contingencies (similar to probability concept).
Therefore, without regard to particle or behavior, and large or small scale, they all are
known 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 physical
world) and memory (with causality from other mental events), may go a step further, in
the temporal-spatial interpretation, which we already know to be Compresent. By
Russell, this spatio-temporal interpretation is not the same as old-fashioned logical
(classical causality) interpretation. We can defer that the separate time and/or space
dimensions 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).