Materialism and the Contemporary Natural Sciences (page 3)

Robert Steigerwald

Measuring only works in relationship to something concrete that we extract from the infinite and use as a ruler. But is it not obvious that in relation to the infinite, every quantified size is trifling? It is a paradox to speak of space and time involving the infinite. For both terms derive from the concrete state of the universe we live in. They are something specific, not to be identified with the general they belong to. We can see this already when, to be able to speak about the infinite, we need the denial of space and time We can only speak of them by smuggling their negation into the comprehension of them. This often happens unconsciously: infinite or endless means not ending. As some philosophers and physicists at the turn of the century subordinated the general—matter—to the specific—the changing forms of mass, energy, elements—”matter” suddenly got “lost.” Theoretical physicists who do research on problems of cosmology say that space and time had their origin in a “big bang.” Materialists take offense at this, because in a way it ends with the thesis that God created the world out of nothing.

But is this logical? When physicists speak about what they know about their object of research and say they are talking about matter, they substitute their concrete knowledge of aspects of matter for matter itself (as suggested above).

Now I once again come back to the subject of space and time. Space and time, as they exist in the “known” universe (including the way we are built into them) actually do have their origin in the “big bang.” But just as the present state of the universe “known” to us began with the “big bang” hypothesis (I deal here only with the general hypothesis, not its many different versions), but not the universe “in itself,” thus also our ideas of space and time have their beginning with this “big bang.” But this is only the concrete appearance of matter. Matter itself includes more, is even more general than the “known” universe and conceptions of time and space acting within it. As far as I can see, we have not yet have created terms for this, unless we are satisfied with the negative definition un-ending or not-ending. In any case, we must not destroy the relationship of the specific and the general by subordinating the latter to the former.

All those who believe that space and time exist “in themselves,” that these are not simply the terms used for their concrete appearance in the universe known to us today but had their origin in the “big bang,” also make the mistake of confusing the general with the specific.

This leads us to the general theory of relativity. The special theory of relativity does not deal with gravity. It is known, however, that inertia and gravity act on moving bodies: If a car brakes, inertia keeps moving it forward—we all know the problem. So when analyzing processes of motion, one cannot ignore the effects of inertia and gravity. Einstein assumed that gravity and inertia are identical. Without mass, neither gravity nor inertia exists. Whether changes of a moving system depend on one or the other of the two forces (which are identical anyway) cannot be distinguished, and in any case both are due to the mass present.

The general theory of relativity led to a new cosmological theory, which I refer to here only insofar as it is essential for the present purpose. Shortly after formulating his general theory of relativity, Einstein concluded that the universe was finite in size. In 1917 he introduced a “cosmological constant” into his equations to ensure that the size of the universe was static. In 1922 a Soviet mathematician, Alexander Friedmann, made a correction to Einstein’s work (Einstein at first resisted but then subsequently acknowledged his error) and showed that according to the corrected theory, the universe was expanding. Friedmann laid the basis for what proved to be three models of such states of motion. The first says that the universe is expanding with sufficient energy that gravity cannot brake this process. If we follow the second model, expansion under the effect of gravity at a certain point comes to a halt, and a process of contraction begins. The third model assumes that the rate of expansion gradually slows down to zero without reversing. Which of these models is true presently cannot be said with full certainty, but four discoveries, each made independently of one another, presently support the assumption that the universe is in a process of indefinite expansion.

These are: the Doppler red-shift of cosmic objects, discovered by Hubble; the distribution of elements in the universe; background radiation in the universe, which is kind of a thunder of the big bang; and, recently, the temporal sequence of the appearance of elements in the universe.

This hypothesis of expansion allows us to calculate backward to the time when the known mass of the universe was concentrated into a space of unimaginably small size, the pressures and temperatures of this cosmos-soup finally producing the big bang that initiated the process from which the present state of our universe is derived.

Some consequences and problems merit discussion here.

The idea that the universe, though expanding, has a definite size, is associated with the concept of the curvature of space—that is, space that closes upon itself. This quite contrary to our intuitive notions of geometry as reflected in Euclidean geometry.

It follows from both Euclidean geometry and from Einstein’s general theory of relativity that a “straight” line is the shortest distance between two points. It is also the case in Einstein’s theory that a beam of light traces out a “straight” (more precisely, a geodesic) line. But if mass attracts other masses, and a beam of light on its way from the sun to earth passes close to a planet, the beam will be slightly deflected by the gravity of the planet, and will bend away from its original path. And since the whole universe is filled with mass, we find these deflections everywhere, affecting the qualities of space and time. This has caused much controversy about the sense in which we can consider Euclidean geometry valid. Some consider it as mere idealization and assume the real geometry of the universe to be quite different because of its curvature. Others point out that physics as a measuring science cannot renounce this geometry.

Notes

1. Reference to a German poem by Christian Morgensternm “Die unmögliche Tatsache” (The Impossible Fact) in which a man named Palmström is run over and killed while improperly crossing an intersection. Upon contemplating the circumstances of his death, he reasons that the car that ran him over should not have legally been there. He then concludes that he is not dead because “what must not be, cannot be.”—Ed.

2. Translation of quotations from non-English sources in the Reference List were made by the translator.

3. In the discussion that follows, I do not deal with differences in the kinds of models or the difference between material and theoretical models.

4. The author is referring here to the historically dominant variety of critical realism in Europe, which is akin to a form of neo-Thomism. See Hörz, Röseberg, et al. 1980, 165-77).

Reference List

Acham, Karl. 1974. Analytische Geschichtsphilosophie. Munich: Alber. 1977. Über Parteilichkeit und Subjektivität in der Gesellschaftswissenschaft. In vol. 1 of Theorie und Geschichte. Munich: Kossel/Mommsen.

Albrecht, Erhard, Werner Ebeling, et al., eds. 1974. Streitbarer Materialismus und gegenwärtige Naturwissenschaft. Vol. 33 of the series Zur Kritik der bürgerlichen Ideologie. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Aristotle. 1912. Aristotle’s metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2000. Nicomachean ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Becker. Oskar. 1954. Grundlagen der Mathematik in geschichtlicher Entwicklung. Freiburg: K. Alber.

Bernal, John D. 1969. Science in history. London: C. A. Watts.

Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1953. Biophysik des Fließgleichgewichts. Brunswick: Vieweg.

Beurton, Peter. 1978. In 100 Jahre “Anti-Dühring,” edited by R. Kirchhoff and Todor I. Oiserman, 325 ff. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Biller, E. 1992. Chaos-Forschung: Revolution des naturwissenschaftlichen Weltbildes. In Freidenker, Organ des Deutschen Freidenker-Verbandes. No. 4. Dortmund.

Bitsakis, Eftichios. 1988. Quantum statistical determinism. Foundations of Physics 18, no. 3. 1988. Potential and real states in quantum mechanics. Manuscript. 1989. Quantum probalities, Manuscript. Athens. 1993. Scientific realism. Science and Society 57, no. 2:160-93

Blokhintsev, Dmitrii I. 1968. The philosophy of quantum mechanics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Bolhagen, P. 1967. Gesetzmäßigeit und Gesellschaft. Zur Theorie gesellschaftlicher Gesetze. Berlin.

Born, Max. 1969. Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge. In Wellenmechanik. Einführung und Originaltexte, by G. Ludwig. Berlin.

Brugger, Walter. 1980. Der dialektische Materialismus und die Frage nach Gott. Munich.

Brugger, Walter, ed. 1988. Philosophisches Wörterbuch. Freiburg: Herder.

Buhr, Manfred. ed. Enzyklopädie der bürgerlichen Philosophie im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Leipzig 1988.

Buhr, Manfred, and Todor I. Oiserman, eds. 1981. Vom Mute des Erkennens. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Bunge, Mario. 1963. Causality: The place of the causal principle in modern physics. Cleveland: Meridian Books. 1973. Quantum mechanics in search of its referent. In Philosophy of Physics, by Mario Bunge. Boston: Reidel. 1980. The mind-body problem: a psychobiological approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Darwin, Charles. 1998. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Descartes, René. 2001. Discourse on method, optics, geometry, and meteorology. Indianapolis: Hackett.

de Vries, Joseph. 1958. Die Erkenntnistheorie des dialektischen Materialismus. Munich: Pustet.

Dingler, Hugo, 1952. Über die Geschichte und das Wesen des Experimentes.Munich: Eidos Verlag

Ebeling, Werner. 1989. Chaos Ordnung Information: Selbstorganisation in Natur und Technik. Frankfurt-on-Main: H. Deutsch. 1990. Erneuerung als Grundmerkmal der Evolution. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, no. 7.

Ebeling, Werner, and Rainer Feistel. 1994. Chaos und Kosmos: Prinzipen Evolution. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

Edlinger, Karl, Wolfgang F. Gutmann, and Michael Weingarten. 1991. Evolution ohne Anpassung, Frankfurt-on-Main: Waldemar Kramer.

Eigen, Manfred. 1992. Steps towards life: A perspective on evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Eigen, Manfred, and Ruthild Winkler. 1981. Laws of the game: How the principles of nature govern chance. New York: Knopf.

Einstein, Albert. 1929. Über den gegenwärtigen Stand der Feldtheorie. In Festschrift für Prof. D. Aurel Stodola, edited by E. Honegger. Zürich. 1979. Albert Einstein: Autobiographical notes. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court. 1995. Physics and reality. In Ideas and Opinion, by Albert Einstein, edited by Carl Seelig. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks.

Einstein, Albert, Hedwig Born, and Max Born. 1969. Briefwechsel 1916-1955, Munich: Nymphenburger Verlagshandl.

Einstein, Albert, and Leopold Infeld. 1950. The evolution of physics, London: Scientific Book Club. 1969. Über spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, Brunswick.

Eisenhardt, Peter, et al. 1988, Du steigst nie zweimal in denselben Fluss. Die Grenzen der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Engels, Frederick. 1942. Letter to Conrad Schmidt, 12 March 1868. In Selected corrrespondence 1846-1895: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 527-531. New York: International Publishers. 1987. Anti-Dühring [Herr Eugen Dühring’s revolution in science]. In vol. 25 of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected works, 1-309. New York: International 1990. Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. In vol. 26 of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected works, 353-98. New York: International Publishers.

Erpenbeck, John. 1980. Psychologie und Erkenntnistheorie:Zu philosophischen Problemen psychischer Erkenntnisprozesse. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1989. Das Ganze denken: Zur Dialektik menschlicher Bewußtseinsstrukturen und Prozesse. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Feynman, Richard P. 1965. The character of physical law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Foerster, Heinz von. 1985. Sicht und Einsicht: Versuche zu einer operativen Erkenntnistheorie. Brunswick: F. Vieweg and Sohn.

Frank, Philipp. 1947. Einstein: His life and times. New York: Knopf.

Friedmann, Aleksandr A. 1922. Über der Krümmung des Raumes. Zeitschrift für Physik 10:377-86.

Gamow, George. 1952. The creation of the universe. New York: Viking.

Geissler, H.-G. 1987. The temporal architecture of central information processing. Evidence for a tentative time-quantum-model. Psychological Research 49, no. 8:99 ff.

Gell-Mann, Murray. 1994. The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Gutmann, Wolfgang F., and Klaus Bonik. 1981. Kritische Evolutionstheorie. Ein Beitrag zur Überwindung altdarwinistischer Dogmen. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Gutmann, Wolfgang, and Michael Weingarten. 1991. Maschinentheoretische Grundlagen der organismischen Konstruktionslehre. Philosophia Naturalis 28, no. 2. 1990. Die biotheoretischen Mängel der Evolutionären Erkenntnislehre. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 21:309ff. 1995. Die Konstruktion der Organismen: Struktur und Funktion. Frankfurt-on-Main: W. Kramer.

Haken, Hermann. 1984. The science of structure: Synergetics. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hawking, Stephen W. 1993. Is everything determined? In Black holes, universes and other essays, by Stephen W. Hawking, 127-39. New York: Bantam Books.[[Chk title]] 1996. A brief history of time. New York: Bantam Books.

Heisenberg, Werner. 1971. Physics and beyond; Encounters and conversations. New York: Harper and Row.

Hejl, Peter M. 1989. Self-regulation in social systems: Explaining the process of research. Siegen, Germany: LUMIS, Siegen Univ. 1992. Konstruktion der sozialen Konstruktion: Grundlagen einer konstruktivistischen Sozialtheorie. In Zur Chaos-Theorie : ideologiekritische Betrachtungen: Neue Perspektiven für Natur- Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften, by Rainer Hess und Gerhard Hofner. Frankfurt-on-Main: Verein Wissenschaft and Sozialismus.

Hörz, Herbert, and Karl-Friedrich Wessel. 1983. Philosophische Entwicklungstheorie. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Hörz, Herbert, and Karl-Friedrich Wessel, eds. 1986. Philosophie und Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Hörz, Herbert, and Ulrich Röseberg, eds. 1981. Materialistische Dialektik in der physikalischen und biologischen Erkenntnis. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Hörz, Herbert, Ulrich Röseberg, et al. 1980. Philsophical problems in physical science. Minneapolis: Marxist Educational Press (MEP Publications).

Holbach, Paul Henri. 1889. The system of nature: Or, laws of the moral and physical world. Boston: J. P. Mendum.

Holz, Hans Heinz. 1983. Dialektik und Widerspiegelung. Cologne: Pahl-Rugenstein. 1986. Widerspiegelung und Konstruktion. Topos (Bonn), no. 7. 1990. s.v. Widerspiegelung. In vol. 4 of Enzyklopädie der europäischen Wissenschaften, edited by Hans J. Sandkühler, 825 ff. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

Hoyle, Fred. 1960. The nature of the universe. New York: Harper.

Kamke, Erich. 1950. Theory of sets, New York: Dover Publications.

Kanitscheider, Bernulf. 1981. Wissenschaftstheorie der Naturwissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1984. Kosmologie Geschichte und Systematik in philosophischer Perspektive. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Kedrow, Bonifati M. 1979. Friedrich Engels über die Dialektik der Naturwissenschaft. Berlin: Dietz.

Klix, Friedhart. 1980. Erwachendes Denken: Eine Entwicklungsgeschichte der menschlichen Intelligenz. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Kuhn, Hans. 1973. Entstehung des Lebens: Bildung von Moleküleigenschaften. Forschung 14, no. 3: 78-104.

Kuhn, Hans, and J. Waser. 1981. Molecular self-oranization and the origin of life. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl 20:500-20.

Kuznetsov, Boris G. 1979. Einstein. Leben, Tod, Unsterblichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Landau, Lev D., and Yurii B. Rumer. 1974. What is the theory of relativity? Moscow: Mir.

Lanius, Karl. 1988. Mikrokosmos Makrokosmos. Das Weltbild der Physik. Leipzig.

Lenin, Vladimir I. 1961. Philosophical notebooks. Vol. 38 of V. I. Lenin: Collected works. Reprint 1972. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1962. Materialism and empirio-criticism. Vol. 14 of V. I. Lenin: Collected works. Reprint 1972. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Lucretius Carus, Titus. 1998. On the nature of the univeerse, Oxford: Clarenden Press.

Marquit, Erwin. 1980. Stability and development in physical science. In Marxism, Science and the Movement of History, edited by Alan R. Burger, Hyman R. Cohen, and David H. DeGrood, 77-104. Amsterdam: B. R. Gruener.

Maturana, Humberto R. 1982. Erkennen: Die Organisation und Verkörperung von Wirklichkeit: Ausgewählte Arbeiten zur biologischen Epistemologie. Brunswick: Friedr. Vieweg and Sohn.

Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco Varela. 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala. 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: D. Reidel.

Mayr, E. 1984. Die Entwicklung der biologischen Gedankenwelt, Berlin. 1994. Ethik and Sozialwissenschaften, edited by F. Benseler et al. Opladen.

Nelson, Leonard. 1911. Die Unmöglichkeit der Erkenntnistheorie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Newton, Isaac. 1934. Sir Isaac Newton’s mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world. 2 vols. Translate1d by Florian Cajori. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

Oparin, Alexandr I. 1957. The origin of life on earth. New York: Academic Press. 1961. Life, its nature, origin and development. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Planck. Max. 1910. Zur machschen Theorie der physikalischen Erkenntnis. Vierteljahreszeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie, no. 4:498.

Plato. 1973. The Timeaus of Plato. New York: Arno Press.

Prigogine, Ilya. 1986. Natur, Wissenschaft und neue Rationalität. In Dialektik: Beiträge zu Philosophie und Wissenschaften (Cologne), no. 12.

Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Boulder, Colo: New Science Library. 1993. Das Paradox der Zeit. Munich.

Prigogine, Ilya, and P. Glansdorff. 1971. Thermodynamic theory of structure, Stability and Fluctuations, New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Röseberg, Ulrich. 1978. Quantenmechanik und Philosophie: Standpunkte des dialektischen Materialismus. Brunswick: Vieweg. Philosophie und Physiks. Leipzig. 1983. Dialektische Widersprüche der physikalischen Bewegungsform der Materie. 1984. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, no 12. Szenarium einer Revolution. Nichtrelativistische Quantenmechanik und philosophische Widerspruchsproblematik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Roth, G. 1986. Selbstorganisation und Selbstreferentialität als Prinzipien der Organisation von Lebewesen. Dialektik: Beiträge zu Philosophie und Wissenschaften (Cologne), no. 12. 1988, Annalen für dialektische Philosophie, Cologne.

Ruelle, David. 1993. Zufall und Chaos. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Paris/Tokyo/Hong Kong/Barcelona/Budapest 1992.

Satshkov, Juri V. 1988. Konstruktivnaya rol slutshaya. Voprossi filosofii. German tranlation: Die konstruktive Rolle des Zufalls. Sowjetwissenschaft, no. 5 [1989]).

Schilpp, Paul A., ed. 1970. Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist. La Salle, Ill: Open Books.

Shmal’gauzen, Ivan I. 1986. Factors of evolution: The theory of stabilizing selection. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Schramm, E./Weingarten, M. 1987. Biologische Moralund Ethikkonzeptionen zwischen Weltanschauung und reaktionärer Ideologie. Dialektik, Heft 14, Köln.

Schrödinger, Erwin. 1967. What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell and mind and matter. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Smart, John J. C. 1963. Philosophy and scientific realism. New York: Humanities Press. 1972. Further thoughts on the identity theory. The Monist 56.

Spickermann, Wolfgang. 1978. Kosmologie und die Legende vom Schöpfungsakt. Berlin: Frankfurt-on-Main: Verlag Marxistische Blätter.

Steigerwald, Robert. 1999. Abschied vom Materialismus? Zur Antikritik heutiger Materialismus-Kritik. 2d ed. Schkeuditz, Germany: Bonn: GNN-Verlag

Treder, Hans-Jürgen. 1974. Philosophische Probleme des physikalischen Raums: Gravitation, Geometrie, Kosmologie und Relativität. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Varela, Francisco J.. 1990. Kognitionswissenschaft Kognitionstechnik: Eine Skizze aktueller Perspektiven. Frankfurt-on-Main: Suhrkamp. Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North Holland.

Wahsner, Renate, and Horst-Heino von Borzeszkowski. 1989. Physikalischer Dualismus und dialektischer Widerspruch, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Watson, James D. 1997. The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Weinberg, Steven. 1977. The first three minutes. New York: Basic Books.

Weingarten, Michael. 1991. Darwin, der frühe Darwinismus und das Problem des Fortschritts in der Evolution. In Natur und Museum, Bericht der Senckenbergischen Naturforschen den Gesellschaft, no. 121, May 1. (Frankfurt-on-Main). 1993. Organismen—Objekte oder Subjekte der Evolution? Philosophische Studien zum Paradigmenwechsel in der Evolutionsbiologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1992. Organismuslehre und Evolutionstheorie. Hamburg: Kovac.

Weizsäcker, Carl F. F. von. 1972. Die philosophische Interpretation der modernen Physik: zwei Vorlesungen. Leipzig: J. A. Barth. 1958. Zum Weltbild der Physik. Stuttgart.

Wetter, Gustav A. 1958. Dialectical Materialism. New York: Praeger. 1958. Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft in der Sowjetunion. Hamburg: Reinbek. 1966. Soviet ideology today. New York: Praeger.

Wolff, Michael. 1981. Der Begriff des Widerspruchs. Eine Studie zur Dialektik Kants und Hegels, Königstein/Ts.: Hain.

Vol’kenstain, Mikhail V. 1964. Sushchhnost’ biologitcheskoi evolyutsii. Uspechi fisitscheskich nauk 143:441ff.

Zahrnt, Heinz. Die Sache mit Gott: Die protestantische Theologie im 20. Jahrhundertt. Stuttgart: Evangelische Buchgemeindex

The views and opinions expressed here are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, or position of the publishers.