Rosa Lichtenstein
8th June 2006, 01:52
Comrades might like to read my latest essay, just posted. Here is an edited taster:
Forces And Contradictions
DM-theorists frequently assert that "contradictions" (in nature or society) may be understood as the inter-relationship between "opposing forces". These forces condition one another, operating in equilibrium or in disequilibrium, as the case may be -- but only as revealed by careful scientific analysis. [Reference to Note 1 edited out here.]
[DM = Dialectical Materialism]
Citations like those listed in Note 1 -- making the same point -- can be multiplied almost indefinitely. To be sure, such passages are often accompanied by extensive qualifications, depending on context, but the overall message is abundantly clear. Nevertheless, my concern here is not so much with whether these passages are consistent with one another, or even whether any attempt has (ever) been made to substantiate sweeping statements they contain with adequate evidence -- or any at all --, but with whether the idea that forces can model contradictions itself makes any sense.
Gravity Is Annoyingly Undialectical
As we shall see, the identification of forces with contradictions is highly dubious, at best. There are several obvious initial difficulties with the whole idea. For example, if the forces in a system are in 'conflict' -- and are hence 'contradictory' -- there would clearly have to be at least two forces present, operational and oppositional for that to be the case. But when we consider one of the most important and general types of motion found in the universe -- the orbital trajectory of bodies in a gravitational field -- we find that in classical Physics, at least, this sort of motion is governed by the operation of at most one force, which deflects the otherwise (assumed) rectilinear path of the body in question toward the centre of mass of the system. So, if classical Physics is correct, it is not easy to see how such forces could be viewed as 'contradictions'.
Even post-classical Physics offers little comfort for DM-theorists; here such motion is either a function of the topology of Spacetime (gravitational 'force' having been edited out of the picture), or it is the result of a body being situated in a tensor, vector and/or scalar field, in as many dimensions of phase space as are deemed necessary.
And this is not just true of gravity; as Max Jammer notes:
"[The eliminability of force]...is not confined to the force of gravitation. The question of whether forces of any kind do exist, or do not and are only conventions, ha[s] become the subject of heated debates....
"In quantum chromodynamics, gauge theories, and the so-called Standard Model the notion of 'force' is treated only as an exchange of momentum and therefore replaced by the ontologically less demanding concept of 'interaction' between particles, which manifests itself by the exchange of different particles that mediate this interaction...." [Jammer (1999), p.v.]
Unfortunately, this means that most (if not all) of the bulk motion in the universe cannot be accounted for by DM (if it is viewed as the result of 'contradictions' interpreted as opposing forces). Hence, it would seem that DM can't explain most (if not all) of the motion found in nature.
This is, of course, just a snippet; the rest can be found here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm
Forces And Contradictions
DM-theorists frequently assert that "contradictions" (in nature or society) may be understood as the inter-relationship between "opposing forces". These forces condition one another, operating in equilibrium or in disequilibrium, as the case may be -- but only as revealed by careful scientific analysis. [Reference to Note 1 edited out here.]
[DM = Dialectical Materialism]
Citations like those listed in Note 1 -- making the same point -- can be multiplied almost indefinitely. To be sure, such passages are often accompanied by extensive qualifications, depending on context, but the overall message is abundantly clear. Nevertheless, my concern here is not so much with whether these passages are consistent with one another, or even whether any attempt has (ever) been made to substantiate sweeping statements they contain with adequate evidence -- or any at all --, but with whether the idea that forces can model contradictions itself makes any sense.
Gravity Is Annoyingly Undialectical
As we shall see, the identification of forces with contradictions is highly dubious, at best. There are several obvious initial difficulties with the whole idea. For example, if the forces in a system are in 'conflict' -- and are hence 'contradictory' -- there would clearly have to be at least two forces present, operational and oppositional for that to be the case. But when we consider one of the most important and general types of motion found in the universe -- the orbital trajectory of bodies in a gravitational field -- we find that in classical Physics, at least, this sort of motion is governed by the operation of at most one force, which deflects the otherwise (assumed) rectilinear path of the body in question toward the centre of mass of the system. So, if classical Physics is correct, it is not easy to see how such forces could be viewed as 'contradictions'.
Even post-classical Physics offers little comfort for DM-theorists; here such motion is either a function of the topology of Spacetime (gravitational 'force' having been edited out of the picture), or it is the result of a body being situated in a tensor, vector and/or scalar field, in as many dimensions of phase space as are deemed necessary.
And this is not just true of gravity; as Max Jammer notes:
"[The eliminability of force]...is not confined to the force of gravitation. The question of whether forces of any kind do exist, or do not and are only conventions, ha[s] become the subject of heated debates....
"In quantum chromodynamics, gauge theories, and the so-called Standard Model the notion of 'force' is treated only as an exchange of momentum and therefore replaced by the ontologically less demanding concept of 'interaction' between particles, which manifests itself by the exchange of different particles that mediate this interaction...." [Jammer (1999), p.v.]
Unfortunately, this means that most (if not all) of the bulk motion in the universe cannot be accounted for by DM (if it is viewed as the result of 'contradictions' interpreted as opposing forces). Hence, it would seem that DM can't explain most (if not all) of the motion found in nature.
This is, of course, just a snippet; the rest can be found here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm