The Impossibility of Change

[Kronos]

This experiment may have some relevance to Hegel's theory of 'dialectical change', specifically the 'law of the transition of quantity into quality'. If this experiment is a success....I will have pulled Hegel's pants down around his ankles.

(this is only a test)

All physical objects and energies are composed of fundamental units of substance which do not change. We have observed that atomic structure, which composes molecular structure, is composed of sub-atomic structure. When we say that an object or energy 'exists', we mean that we have observed both as a composition of elementary particles. These particles do not change. If they collide and fragment, they simply divide. If a particle is annihilated in a collision, it simply disintegrates.

Macrocosmic change, whether physical or chemical, does not involve any fundamental change at any of the three levels- molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic. Rather, the characteristic of the object changes geometrically, making it appear as if it has increased or decreased mass, density, rigidity, fluidity, change of color, and so forth. These changes involve a reconfiguration of the fundamental units which compose the macrcosmic object in question, but not a change of the fundamental units.

Macrocosmic change -> molecular arrangement-> atomic arrangement -> sub-atomic arrangement.

In so far as we have observed these fundamental units of being, we cannot presume any other units of being exist, since we have never observed them.

Therefore, the universe, whether infinite or finite matters not, considered as a totality of the fundamental units of being, cannot itself change in nature. It cannot change ontologically.

It follows that what we call 'change' is only a particular, local instance of a reconfiguration of the fundamental units of being. Phenomena as it changes its physical characteristics, does so as a result of a different combination of the units, which as a whole are a set, beyond which nothing else exists.

If there are still more fundamental particles which we have not discovered, it is no argument against the fact that change is impossible. Only now, we would be aware of additional fundamental units of being which do not change.

To demonstrate:

Let '[ ]' be the known universe.

Let 'A' be macrocosmic being.

Let 'B' be molecular structure.

Let 'C' be atomic structure.

Let 'D' be sub-atomic structure.

Let '->' mean 'composed of'.

Let 'x, y, z' represent 'the physical characteristic'.

Let '*' mean 'the quality of'.

Let '^' mean 'at'.

---------------------------

The known universe at T1:

[ A -> x * -> B -> C -> D ]

The known universe at T2:

[ A -> y * -> B -> C -> D ]

The known universe at T3:

[ A -> z * -> B -> C -> D ]

The history of T1, T2, and T3 of the known universe:

[ A * x, y, z -> B -> C -> D ^ T1, T2, T3 ]

---------------------------

At any time, while x, y, and z are different, A is still the result of B, C, and D.

Spacial difference, concerning motion, rest and location does not concern the conditions of the above circumstances.

Change in 'place' does not imply a fundamental change in the units of being.

Suppose, finally, that you saw the world through an electron microscope: you would only observe spacial difference but not physical change. You would see the total set of the fundamental units of being engaged in constant configuration and reconfiguration, nothing lost and nothing gained.

---------------------------

Points to clarify:

"Flux" means configuration and reconfiguration.

"Chaos" means an ordered process in which we cannot know in advance the configuration of a future state.

"Entropy" means the disintegration of a local ordered system, but not of the total set.
---------------------------

The philosophical paradox of 'infinite divisibility' does not detract from the essential unchangeable nature of the fundamental units of being, since to divide a unit does not change that unit. When an atom is split, there are now only two halves. A change in quality does not occur, only a change in quantity.

---------------------------

Now that this is clear, philosophical statements such as "everything changes' and 'there are no absolutes' have been proven to be nonsense in both a metaphysical and ontological sense.

These concepts have relevance only in epistemology and semantics, and do not concern or address the fundamental nature of empirical reality.

note: I am a garage philosopher, not a professional.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, I must admit I never really understood Hagel.

But your analysis doesn't strike me as getting us very far. For several reasons.

First, even if what you say were valid, all you have argued is that a reductionist science is possible. So what? They've argued that since the Greek times, and I don't see anything in your arguments that hasn't been said before.

Second, and somewhat relatedly, you confuse useful epistemic models with ontological priority. But this is problematic, because in using epistemic models you implicitly premise the validity of a framework (e.g., logical inference) that have no real ontological significance, at least under the schema you propose.

Finally, your use of the word "change" is ridiculous. It is in contravention to other ways in which the word is used in every day language and appears to have been defined to suit your claims. Under your claims, it would be rather meaningless to say something like "I changed my hair style" or "The weather changed". If you want to insist that no change has taken place, that is your prerogative, but I really, really doubt anybody will take that at all seriously.



The philosophical paradox of 'infinite divisibility' does not detract from the essential unchangeable nature of the fundamental units of being, since to divide a unit does not change that unit. When an atom is split, there are now only two halves. A change in quality does not occur, only a change in quantity.

By this token, to divide something that has relatively clear ontological significance, say, a statement should not change it. But if the statement "John is a jerk, but I admire him nonetheless" is divided so that "John is a Jerk" exists independent of the second part of that statement, nothing should have fundamentally changed. Which is absurd.

[mel]

But doesn't change in any sense that is meaningful to people in the real world still happen? Either a person changing, or a society changing, these things clearly happen every day. I know this is a really anti-philosophical response to your argument, but it just doesn't seem to me to have any practical consequences (though I am not a person who has studied dialectics, you may very well have delivered them a crushing blow)

[Kronos]

But your analysis doesn't strike me as getting us very far.

Of course. Whether or not I am right or wrong has no relevance to revolutionary activity.


So what? They've argued that since the Greek times, and I don't see anything in your arguments that hasn't been said before.

It was for fun. Democritus contra Heraclitus revisited.


Second, and somewhat relatedly, you confuse useful epistemic models with ontological priority. But this is problematic, because in using epistemic models you implicitly premise the validity of a framework (e.g., logical inference) that have no real ontological significance, at least under the schema you propose.

I don't understand what you mean.


Finally, your use of the word "change" is ridiculous. It is in contravention to other ways in which the word is used in every day language and appears to have been defined to suit your claims. Under your claims, it would be rather meaningless to say something like "I changed my hair style" or "The weather changed". If you want to insist that no change has taken place, that is your prerogative, but I really, really doubt anybody will take that at all seriously.

Not ridiculous at all. In fact, I am trying to prove that grand philosophical statements like 'everything changes' are ridiculous. Of course there are practical, ordinary uses of the term in language. Yes, the weather changed, but I wonder what change occurred at a sub-atomic level. The quality change of the weather is the result of a quantifiable change at such a level. Ultimately the apparent differences observed in the change of this weather are the results of only a reconfiguration, reordering, of the unchangeable sub-atomic entities, no?

And no, I wouldn't expect such an exercise in philosophical speculation to be of very great importance. Although I will admit that my preoccupation with such an exercise might be the result of being convinced that revolutionary narratives and waxing endlessly about communism is just as fruitless. I got past that phase a couple years ago.


By this token, to divide something that has relatively clear ontological significance, say, a statement should not change it. But if the statement "John is a jerk, but I admire him nonetheless" is divided so that "John is a Jerk" exists independent of the second part of that statement, nothing should have fundamentally changed. Which is absurd.

Remember that propositional logic does not need to correspond to the world in order to be valid.

All dizzenwhipters are tassleoft. Therefore, that dizzenwhipter is tassleoft.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ugh. Philosophers really shouldn't do physics. It results in such an incomprehensible mess.

[New Tet]

This experiment may have some relevance to Hegel's theory of 'dialectical change', specifically the 'law of the transition of quantity into quality'. If this experiment is a success....I will have pulled Hegel's pants down around his ankles.

(this is only a test)

All physical objects and energies are composed of fundamental units of substance which do not change.

Er, pardon my ignorance here, but I'm not sure I follow you. How do you know that the "fundamental units" that make up all matter "do not change"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos, you should be congratulated for trying out new ideas (except I have already rehearsed similar ideas in my Essay Eight Part One).

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_01.htm

The only problem I have is that your tentative theory is just as a priori and dogmatic as dialectics is.

In which case, interesting though it is, your tentative theory is no less non-sensical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

New Tet:


How do you know that the "fundamental units" that make up all matter "do not change"?

The answer is that if they changed, then they must be made of parts, and so cannot be fundamental (since the parts would be 'more' fundamental).

The real problem is that such a thesis must be derived from words/concepts alone, and hence this must be an idealist theory.

[New Tet]

New Tet:



The answer is that if they changed, then they must be made of parts, and so cannot be fundamental (since the parts are 'more' fundamental).

The real probelm is that such a thesis must be derived from words/concepts alone, and hence this must be an idealist theory.

I agree with the first clause of your reply but I have a problem with the second.

Am no mathematician or physicist but, conceivably, there probably are mathematical equations that can demonstrate, up to a point, the seeming validity of his first proposition. Assuming, of course, that an ultimate, indivisible part of matter can ever be discovered.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

New Tet:


I agree with the first clause of your reply but I have a problem with the second.

Am no mathematician or physicist but, conceivably, there probably are mathematical equations that can demonstrate, up to a point, the seeming validity of his first proposition. Assuming, of course, that an ultimate, indivisible part of matter can ever be discovered.

I presume then that you mean you have a problem with this:


The real problem is that such a thesis must be derived from words/concepts alone, and hence this must be an idealist theory.

In response, you suggest that there might be mathematical ways around this.

Well, that is why I used the phrase 'words/concepts', and that therefore includes mathematics in what I said, which employs specialised languages and concepts.

[Kronos]

Ugh. Philosophers really shouldn't do physics. It results in such an incomprehensible mess.

Why don't you stop throwing rocks at me and lend a hand, junior?

Aren't you the science guy of the bunch?

[New Tet]

New Tet:



I presume then that you mean you have a problem with this:



In response, you suggest that there might be mathematical ways around this.

Well, that is why I used the phrase 'words/concepts', and that therefore includes mathematics in what I said, which employs specialised languages and concepts.

Thank you. I misread that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Of course. Whether or not I am right or wrong has no relevance to revolutionary activity.



It was for fun. Democritus contra Heraclitus revisited.


Independent of politics, I still don't see how it advances us.


Second, and somewhat relatedly, you confuse useful epistemic models with ontological priority. But this is problematic, because in using epistemic models you implicitly premise the validity of a framework (e.g., logical inference) that have no real ontological significance, at least under the schema you propose.

I don't understand what you mean.


Try harder.



Not ridiculous at all. In fact, I am trying to prove that grand philosophical statements like 'everything changes' are ridiculous.


All you've argued is that ONE such statement appears, to you at least, to contradict a reductionist corpuscularian understanding of the natural world.



Of course there are practical, ordinary uses of the term in language. Yes, the weather changed, but I wonder what change occurred at a sub-atomic level. The quality change of the weather is the result of a quantifiable change at such a level. Ultimately the apparent differences observed in the change of this weather are the results of only a reconfiguration, reordering, of the unchangeable sub-atomic entities, no?

Why not call "reconfiguration, reordering" change? If such reconfigurations/reordings occur often I can't see the harm in commenting on the ubiquity of change.



And no, I wouldn't expect such an exercise in philosophical speculation to be of very great importance.


So why engage in it at all?


Although I will admit that my preoccupation with such an exercise might be the result of being convinced that revolutionary narratives and waxing endlessly about communism is just as fruitless. I got past that phase a couple years ago.


Maybe, but it doesn't take philosophical discourse to come to this conclusion.



Remember that propositional logic does not need to correspond to the world in order to be valid.

All dizzenwhipters are tassleoft. Therefore, that dizzenwhipter is tassleoft.

Right. So why do your claims about change or anything else have any more validity independent of the "correspondence to the world"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why don't you stop throwing rocks at me and lend a hand, junior?

Aren't you the science guy of the bunch?

Well, it would help if I knew what you were trying to achieve. Are you trying to disprove statements such as "all things change"? Well, it would be much easier to just find a counter-example to such a sweeping statement, as opposed to some convoluted logomachic chicanery. For instance, the electron does not change as far as I know - no matter it's position in any system, it will always have the same charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge); -1. It does not decay, unlike the proton in some theories. They are elementary particles with no known subdivisions, so they cannot be split. This seems to indicate that the number of electrons in the universe has remained unchanged since their formation in the universe.

As for there being "no absolutes", the laws of thermodynamics certainly seem to be the closest thing we have to a set of absolute, unbending rules.

But of course, it takes the arrogance of a philosopher to make such sweeping, unsupported, absolute statements in the first place, who in their hubris completely ignore the natural world in favour of introverted navel-gazing.

[trivas7]

[...]For instance, the electron does not change as far as I know - no matter it's position in any system, it will always have the same charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge); -1. It does not decay, unlike the proton in some theories. They are elementary particles with no known subdivisions, so they cannot be split. This seems to indicate that the number of electrons in the universe has remained unchanged since their formation in the universe.

Electrons are entirely representations of mass that lack extension in space.

Change is mainly a concern for philosophy that, like causation, is not the subject of empirical science.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Electrons are entirely representations of mass that lack extension in space.

So an electron gun emits "representations of mass"? :lol:


Change is mainly a concern for philosophy that, like causation, is not the subject of empirical science.

What rubbish. Many objects and systems that undergo change fall under the purview of science.

[trivas7]

So an electron gun emits "representations of mass"? :lol:

Exactly; calling them "elementary particles with no known subdivisions" adds nothing to my knowledge.


What rubbish. Many objects and systems that undergo change fall under the purview of science.You miss the philosophical point entirely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exactly; calling them "elementary particles with no known subdivisions" adds nothing to my knowledge.

That's because you wouldn't know "knowledge" if it bit you on the arse.


You miss the philosophical point entirely.Perhaps that's because philosophy is pointless, or at least the kind of philosophy you seem to promulgate.

[Kronos]

You got me into some big trouble, NoXion. I hope your happy. I've got this thread up at another site, and I mentioned what you said about the electron. Now this guy is telling me something different:


You got this from freely available sources, can you provide them please?

You realise the big bang is a hypothetical model: The implied beginning, not the actual beginning.

An electron does not change its charge; however, an electron is not a defined object. Electrons exist as particles, frozen interpretations of an electron cloud. An electron cloud is a representation of the possible positions about a positively charged nucleus that the negative charge can exist.

These are quantifiable: They are what we call 'shells', and there are definite amounts of energy within each shell. An electron absorbs and emits energy [electromagnetic radiation] in quantified amounts. It absorbs and emits energy so that it exists within these shells, and it does not exist outside of these quantified shells. The more energy within an electron, the further from the nucleus an electron can get.

An electron represents the conventional negative charge as a whole interger [-1]; negative charges are effected by EM fields, meaning the charge [smallest quantifiable negative charge] will move if acted upon by a magnetic or electric field.
This movement can be measured, just like the charge and the energy.
Thus the electron is an abstraction: It represents a mass, a charge, an energy potential [voltage], and these all rely on quantum mathematics to have meaning. They are not real. They are abstractions; models for the observed phenomena - Just like the big bang is too.

**I cannot go into an electrons mass: as gravity has still not been fully explained [other dimensions have been hypothesised], well either has spin or charge or energy for that matter... but I know less about gravity than I do about EM & atomic structure.**


Then I find out that electrons can be split. Now listen, in order for my theory of the impossibility of change to work, I need a FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE that cannot be reduced or split further.

Can you give it to me or what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You got this from freely available sources, can you provide them please?

You realise the big bang is a hypothetical model: The implied beginning, not the actual beginning.This guy is simply wrong. The Big Bang is not a hypothetical - it has evidence.


An electron does not change its charge; however, an electron is not a defined object. Electrons exist as particles, frozen interpretations of an electron cloud. An electron cloud is a representation of the possible positions about a positively charged nucleus that the negative charge can exist.The fact that electrons do not have a definate position doesn't change the fact that they actually exist. Again, an electron gun emits something rather than nothing.



<snip science lesson>

They are not real. They are abstractions; models for the observed phenomena - Just like the big bang is too.They're as real as such things can be. This seems to be the sort of vulgar materialism that says just because we can't experience something directly with our own senses, it doesn't "really" exist. That is bollocks. Why? Because if our instruments can consistently decieve us, so can our senses and thus begins the descent into solipsism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As for electrons splitting - the only situation in which I know that can happen is in something like the double-slit experiment. My understanding is that from the "point of view" of a quantum mechanical object like an electron, there is in fact only one slit. It's weird but there you go.

[Kronos]

A team of physicists from the Universities of Cambridge and Birmingham have shown that electrons in narrow wires can divide into two new particles called spinons and a holons.

http://sciencecodex.com/physicists_show_electron_division_into_spinons_and _holons

Not good, NoXion. Not good at all. If these idiots keep splitting all the particles they find, I'll never have my fundamental particle.

I'm gonna have to shift my premise now: the field is the irreducible entity, not the object.

Change is still impossible.

[ shew....that was close ]

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://sciencecodex.com/physicists_show_electron_division_into_spinons_and _holons

Not good, NoXion. Not good at all. If these idiots keep splitting all the particles they find, I'll never have my fundamental particle.

Gah. Science marches on, I guess.


I'm gonna have to shift my premise now: the field is the irreducible entity, not the object.

Change is still impossible.

[ shew....that was close ]You know, these kind of headaches could be avoided in the first place if philosophers were more willing to recognise that knowledge is provisional.

[trivas7]

Then I find out that electrons can be split. Now listen, in order for my theory of the impossibility of change to work, I need a FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE that cannot be reduced or split further.

Can you give it to me or what?
No he can't; not on scientific grounds, anyway.

[Kronos]

Wrap your brain around this, Trivas. This was my response (on the fly) in a thread discussing the universe, whether finite or infinite. Being the master sophist that I am, I worked it all out:

An eternal recurrence of the same (this loop) existing without being created is easier to imagine than an infinite universe not consisting of a single, fundamental substance to which all phenomena are reducible to.

In the latter case, even if time and space are relative to mass, and mass is no longer considered a thing but rather a kind of 'field' of forces/energies, then we again find a single, irreducible entity- the field.

Alternatively, if this is not the case, and 'new' entities can somehow 'enter' this universe....from where do they come? If they come from 'the other side', as physicists suppose that an annihilated particle maintains a sister particle of the opposite charge 'on this other side', then this other side has to be considered only another side of the same system- it would be another aspect of this universe.

The only feasible option here, I believe, is to conceive of an uncreated, infinite universe (no boundary) consisting of one fundamental substance.

This is why I am drawn to Spinoza- he was light years ahead of his time. In his Ethics he describes essentially what modern physics is describing. Whether the big-bang, the multiple universes, or the string theory- each describes a phenomenal world (what Spinoza called the extensions and modifications) which are composed of one fundamental, irreducible thing (what Spinoza called Substance). The Attributes of this Substance are infinite, meaning, there are an infinite number of possible combination for this single Substance, since there is no boundary in space time to restrict the assembly of fundamental bodies (the field). But the essence of Substance never changes, only the particular modifications of this Substance change.

I think it is better to imagine a no-boundary, infinite 'field' of a single substance which produces recurrences.

You see, one cannot possibly imagine 'eternal change', because in order to do so, one would also have to imagine an eternal introduction into the field of new substances. From where would they come? Does God think them into existence? Clearly not (nice try, Leibniz). And if they do come from outside the universe, how could they relate causally to the substances present in the universe they came into?

If they relate causally (and they would have to) then they are subject to the same laws the universe is subject to, therefore they didn't come from 'another' universe with different laws. They couldn't have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^See what odd stuff you come out with when you capitulate to the temptation to concoct a prori theses about fundamental aspects of reality, derived from language and thought alone?

[Kronos]

Rosa, please, I have an eighteen mile long particle accelerator in my back yard and I can promise you I have seen these particles I speak of. Perfectly posterior, mmkay?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


Rosa, please, I have an eighteen mile long particle accelerator in my back yard and I can promise you I have seen these particles I speak of. Perfectly posterior, mmkay?

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but your descent from a priori dogmatism into pure fantasy was only to be expected.

You now appear to want to live in the 'castle in the air' (to paraphrase Wittgenstein) you have built.

[Kronos]

If you knew the cretins I'm involved with in this debate you too would build a castle in the air....if only to get away from them. Does this or does this not make sense? You tell me, you're the pro.

(one of my recent responses)

Until you can prove that all observable, empirical being does not share a common, unchangeable denominator which does not change- the known elementary particles- you are simply blowing hot air.

If all empirical being is reducible to sub-atomic composition, and nothing can be observed beyond this sub-atomic composition, then 'everything changes' is pure metaphysical speculation, because as long as there is at least one entity that either a) is not made up of smaller entities, or b) is made up of smaller entities that haven't been observed, that 'everything changes' is nonsense.

I am not interested in Heraclitus's jibber-jabber and poetry.

Mass conservation in a closed systems is a principle which has been, and will be, always true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

For all intents and purposes, an 'open system' is as theoretical as the assertion that 'everything changes'.

While the sum total of the existing particles in the universe might not remain the same, the quality of the particles do not change, only the quantity.

Therefore, anything which exists that has mass and takes up space must consist of these fundamental particles.

The particles compose the atoms- the atoms compose the molecules- the molecules compose the elements- and the elements composes that burrito you are eating.

You take a bite. The burrito changes? Yes, if by 'burrito' you mean 'the elemental characteristics x, y, and z'. But these characteristics are contingent to the 117 known possible elements. These, in turn, are made up of molecules....in turn made up of atoms, etc.

You are not eating a burrito. You are eating particles.

Finally, if the universe did begin with a big bang, and will end in a big crunch, then the universe was a closed system. If it is closed, its mass if finite. If its mass is finite, there is no essential change in the structure of the universe....but only instances of arrangement and order.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Finally, if the universe did begin with a big bang, and will end in a big crunch, then the universe was a closed system. If it is closed, its mass if finite. If its mass is finite, there is no essential change in the structure of the universe....but only instances of arrangement and order.

I'd say the formation of stars, galaxies, superclusters and the rest represents a pretty drastic change in the structure of the universe, along with their eventual decay.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


If you knew the cretins I'm involved with in this debate you too would build a castle in the air....if only to get away from them. Does this or does this not make sense? You tell me, you're the pro.

What do you mean if I knew them? I have been arguing with dialectical numpties here for nearly four years, and with them in general for longer than most RevLefters have been alive, but do I build castles in the air, still less attempt to live in one?

And, if you are asking for my opinion about the a priori super-science you posted, I think you can answer that yourself. You know me well enough.

[Kronos]

"Rosa of Revleft, I query you, how could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown.

Nor was it once, nor will it be, since it is, now, all together, one, continuous; for what coming-to-be of it will you seek, Rosa? In what way, whence, did it grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow. You to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought. That it is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow, later or sooner, if it began from nothing? Thus, oh Rosa, it must either be completely or not at all."

http://laescueladeateanas.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/parmenides.jpg

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Alas, the descent of this fine mind into fantasy (imagining that that confused mystic, Parmenides, would address me, -- or worse, that I'd listen to this idiot (i.e., Parmenides, not Kronos)) and a priori dogmatics continues apace...