Chapter 3 Chapter 2 My Present View of the World

The perceptions I have developed are almost universally misunderstood.I shall, therefore, try my best to state this view as simply and clearly as possible.I am just trying to state this view now, without giving reasons for my belief in it.But I will say this as a preface: this view of mine is the result of a synthesis of four different sciences, namely, physics, physiology, psychology, and mathematical logic.Mathematical logic is used to create structures with specified properties from components with little mathematical smoothness.I reverse the procedure that has been common in philosophy since Kant.Philosophers often start with "how we know" and then move on to "what we know".I think this is a kind of mistake.Because knowing "how we know" is a small part of knowing "what we know".I think this is a mistake for another reason, because it tends to make "knowing" have an importance in the universe that it does not have.This leads the philosopher to believe that the mind is supreme over the non-mind universe, and even to believe that the non-mind universe is nothing but a nightmare that the mind has when it is not philosophizing.

This view is far, far removed from the universe I imagined.I unreservedly accept the view derived from astronomy and geology, according to which there seems to be no evidence for anything having a mind except in a small fragment of space-time.And the great course of evolution of nebulae and stars proceeds according to laws, in which the mind plays no part. If this preliminary prejudice is accepted, it is clear that an understanding of the major processes in the history of the universe must first be sought in theoretical physics.Unfortunately, theoretical physics is no longer as definitive and clear as it could have been in the seventeenth century.Newton used four basic concepts: space, time, matter and force.These four concepts have all been swept into the trash by modern physics.For Newton, space and time were solid, independent things.They have been replaced by time-space.Time-space is not substantive, but merely a system of relations.Matter has to be replaced by a series of things.Force is the first Newtonian concept that was abandoned and has been replaced by "energy".And "energy" has been found to be indistinguishable from the dim ghost left behind by matter.Causality, the philosophical form of what physicists call force, is also broken.I don't think it's dead, but it doesn't have the vigor it once had.

For these reasons, modern physics is somewhat confused.Even so, we have to believe it, otherwise it is very dangerous.If there is a society that does not recognize the teachings of modern physics, physicists employed by a hostile government can easily destroy that society.So the power of modern physicists far exceeds that of the heyday of the Inquisition.We need to treat what physicists say with awe.Personally, I firmly believe that, although physics will change as it goes forward, the current theory is probably closer to the truth than the current world's hostile theory.Science is never quite right at all times, but it is rarely quite wrong, and often has more chances of being right than the doctrines of non-scientists.Therefore, it is reasonable to admit it in a hypothetical manner.

Not everyone always realizes how extremely abstract the knowledge theoretical physics gives.It lays down several fundamental equations which enable theoretical physics to deal with the logical structure of things without elucidating at all the intrinsic properties of things with this structure.It is only when we encounter these things that we know the inner nature of these things.There is nothing in theoretical physics that enables us to account for the intrinsic nature of things elsewhere.These things may be completely similar to what we have encountered, or they may be so different that it is impossible to imagine.What physics has given us are equations that describe the abstract nature of how things change.As for what changes, where the change comes from, and what the change becomes, physics doesn't talk about it.

The next step is to take a look at what perception might be, but not within the realm of physics.A negative exposed to a part of the night sky can reveal some stars.Under similar film and weather conditions, various photographs of the same part of the sky are very similar.So there must be some influence (I use the most ambiguous terms I can think of) emanating from the stars and reaching the negatives.Physicists used to think that this effect was due to fluctuations.But now they think it's made of small bundles of "energy" called photons.They know the speed of the photon and how the photon sometimes deviates from the straight path.When it hits a negative, it becomes a different kind of energy.Since every star has been photographed, and since the star can be photographed anywhere in the unobstructed sky on a clear night, there must be something happening where it can be photographed, which has a special connection with that star. connect.The night sky, therefore, contains as many events everywhere as there are photographable stars, and each of these events must have some individual history linking the event to the star from which it came.All of the above is the result of considering negatives exposed to the night sky.

Or to take another example, let us imagine a rich cynic who is annoyed by the sophistication of theatergoers.He decided to make a play, not in front of living people, but in front of some movie cameras.These movie cameras (assuming they are all equally good) will produce very similar records, differing only by the laws of perspective and distance from the stage.This, too, is like a photographic negative, showing that something happens at every moment in every movie camera, and these things are closely connected with those on the stage.Here, as before, influences from different sources are required.If at some point one actor shouts: "Squire, die!" and another actor shouts: "Help me!

kill it! "It's all going to be recorded, so something connected to both must be happening in each movie camera. Another example: Suppose a speech is recorded simultaneously on several gramophones.These phonograph machines bear no notable resemblance to the original speeches.However, with suitable mechanical devices, they can produce something very similar to the original speech.But the structure of this common thing can only be expressed in fairly abstract language.Broadcasting is a better example of this same process.On the radio, what happens between a speaker and the listener is superficially different from what the speaker says and what the listener hears.Here, again, we have a causal chain.In this chain the beginning and the end are alike, but the intermediate terms seem, so far as their inner nature is concerned, to be of quite a different kind.In this case, as in that of the phonograph, there remains an invariant structure in the whole chain of causation.

These various processes are purely physical.We don't think movie cameras have minds.Even if the people who made movie cameras were clever enough to make the cameras in the theater boxes clap their hands and the ones in the front row sniff at them, we shouldn't think those cameras have minds.These physical analogies to perception show that at most places and times, if not at all places and times, a whole host of overlapping events are happening, and that many of these events at one place and time, are causally linked Linked to an original event which, by some fertile inheritance, produced offspring roughly like itself in many different places.

What kind of picture do these considerations lead us to form about the universe?Our answer must proceed according to stages which vary according to the degree of analysis done.Now take "matter" as a basic concept, and I think it is enough for the time being.My idea of ​​each "thing" is that it occupies some space-time, that it overlaps with countless other things, that other things partially but not entirely occupy the same part of space-time.A mathematician who wants to use point-moment calculations can use mathematical logic to construct point-moments from a collection of overlapping events, but that is only for his technical purpose, and we can ignore it for now.What happens in any fraction of space-time is not unrelated to what happens elsewhere.

On the contrary, if a negative can photograph a certain star, it is because something is happening on the negative that is connected to that star by what may be called heredity.And if the base image is photographed, it will be the source of another descendant.Mathematical physics is only interested in the most abstract aspects of what it is about. In mathematical physics, the various processes mentioned above seem to be the paths that "energy" takes.That's because mathematical physics is extremely abstract, and its world seems to be very different from our daily life.But the difference between the two is not so much real as it is superficial.Suppose you study demography, and those listed in the item have almost completely lost the character they had before they were entered in the census.But in this case, since the process of abstraction has not gone very far, we do not find it very difficult to restore it in our imagination.But in the example of mathematical physics, the journey from the abstract to the concrete is long and difficult, and from ennui we are tempted to rest on the way and give a concrete reality to the semi-abstract, which in fact There is no such concrete truth.

Further analysis is also possible.In this further analysis, "things" are no longer the final living material.However, in the present discussion, I do not want to discuss this. We have seen that, for purely physical reasons, events of many different places and times can often be gathered into several families from one ancestor, as light from one star radiates in all directions.The successive generations of such a branch of the family are similar to each other to varying degrees depending on the environment.The distance traveled by the light from the star to our atmosphere, and what happens in it, vary very slowly and very little.This is why these events can be thought of as the travel of a single entity called a photon. This itinerary can be considered constant.But when light reaches our atmosphere, it encounters increasingly strange things.Fog or clouds can block it or change it.It can hit a bottle of water and thus reflect or refract light, it can hit a negative and become a black spot of interest to astronomers.Finally, it can accidentally catch a person's eye.When this happens, the results are very mixed.A series of events take place between the eye and the brain.These things are studied by physiologists.These things have no more resemblance to photons in the outside world than radio waves have to an orator's speech.Finally, the change that takes place in the nerves (which the physiologists have tracked down) reaches the proper part of the brain, and the person with that brain finally sees the star.This is puzzling, since seeing stars seems to be very different from the processes physiologists have discovered in the optic nerve. But, obviously, that person would not have seen that star without those experiences. So there seems to be a gap between mind and matter, and there is a kind of mystery.It was considered somewhat impious to demystify this.As far as I am concerned, I believe that it is no more mysterious than that of electromagnetic waves turned into sound in radio. Mystique arises, I think, from a false idea of ​​the physical world, from a fear of reducing the mental world to the level of the supposedly inferior physical world. The world we talked about earlier is completely an inferred world. We cannot perceive the entities mentioned in physics.Moreover, if the physical world is made of these entities, we cannot see the eyes and optic nerves.For, if the physicists are to be believed, the eye and the optic nerve are formed of the same strange, hypothetical entities with which the theoretical physicists have made us acquainted.However, since the plausibility of these entities comes from inference, and people explain these entities only to the extent that they can be inferred, there is no need to think that the simplicity of electrons, protons, neutrons, mesons, photons, etc. authenticity.At best they have the kind of authenticity that "London" has. "London" is a convenient word to use.But every fact described with this word can be explained without it, although the explanation is more cumbersome.However, there is one difference between London and electrons, and this difference is very important: we can see the parts of which London is made.Moreover, we have a more immediate awareness of the parts than of the whole.As for electrons, we are imperceptible.We are imperceptible to anything we know to be its constituents.We only know that it is a hypothetical entity that can be used for doctrinal purposes.As far as theoretical physics is concerned, anyone who can have these uses can be regarded as an electron.It can be simple or complex.And, if it is complex, it can be made of any components that give the resulting structure the necessary properties.All this applies not only to the inanimate world, but also to the eyes, the other senses, the nerves, and the brain. But our world is not entirely a matter of inference.There are some things we can know without asking the opinions of scientists.If you feel too hot or too cold, you can fully feel that fact without asking physicists what heat and cold mean.When you see someone's face, you have an experience that cannot be doubted.But this experience does not come from seeing what the theoretical physicists say.You see other people's eyes and you believe they see yours too.As far as the visual thing is concerned, it belongs to that part of the world that is inferred, although the inference is quite reliable because of the proof of mirrors, photographs and your friends.Inferring that your own eyes are visual things is basically in the same category as physicists infer electrons and so on.If you were to deny the reliability of a physicist's inferences, you would have to also deny that you knew you had seeing eyes—which, in Euclid's terms, is absurd. We may call "stuff" everything that I perceive without inference, and this includes all perceived senses—sight, hearing, touch, and so on.Common sense holds that it is reasonable to assume that many of our sensations are caused by causes outside our bodies.Common sense does not believe that the room you are in ceases to exist when you close your eyes or sleep.Common sense does not believe that common sense wives and children are just figments of the imagination.All of this, we agree with the common sense table.But where common sense errs is in imagining that inanimate things are similar in nature to the perceptions they arouse. To believe this is as unreasonable as to think that the phonograph is similar to the music it produces, but my main emphasis is not on the difference between the material world and the material world.Instead, I think it is important to see that there may be much closer analogies than a first look at physics would suggest. I think that my opinion will be made clearer by comparing it with that of Leibniz.Leibniz believed that the universe is made of monads.Each monad is a little mind, reflecting the universe like a mirror.There are degrees of precision with which these monads map.The best lists show the least blurred pictures of the universe.Misguided by Aristotle's subject-predicate logic, Leibniz thought that these monads did not influence each other, and that their continued reflection of the same universe could be explained by a predetermined harmony.This part of his doctrine is totally unacceptable.We reflect the world (if we reflect the world) only because external causal activities are imposed on us.But there are other aspects of his doctrine which agree with what I advocate.One of the most important aspects is about space.Leibniz believed (although he never made it clear on this point) that there were two kinds of spaces.One space is in the private world of each monad.The monad analyzes and arranges the material, and without assuming anything other than the material, the world can be known.But there is another kind of space.Leibniz said that each monad reflects the world from its own point of view.The difference in point of view is similar to the difference in perspective.The arrangement of the whole pile of viewpoints gives us another kind of space.This space is different from the space in the private world of each monad.In this common space, each monad occupies a point, or at least a small part.Although there is a private space in the partial world, this space is enormous from the standpoint of partiality.When the monad is placed among other monads, the maximal size shrinks into a tiny needlepoint.The space in the material world of each monad can be called "private" space; the space formed by different viewpoints of different monads can be called "physical" space.As far as monads correctly reflect the world, the geometric properties of private space are similar to those of physical space. Much of this statement may be used unchanged to exemplify the doctrine I advocate.There is space in my perception. There is also space in physics.As far as Leibniz and I are concerned, the whole space in my perception occupies only a tiny fraction of physical space.There is, however, an important difference between my theory and Leibniz's.This difference is related to the different views on cause and effect, and is also related to the consequences caused by the theory of relativity.I think that the space-time order in the physical world is closely related to causality.This is closely related to the irreversibility of physical procedures.In classical physics, everything is reversible.If you move every little piece of matter backwards at the same speed as before, the entire history of the universe will unfold backwards.Starting from the second law of thermodynamics, modern physics has abandoned the above view not only in thermodynamics, but also elsewhere.Radioactive atoms can be disassembled and will not bring themselves back together again.In general, processes in the physical world have a certain direction.This orientation creates a distinction between cause and effect that is absent in classical mechanics.I think the space-time order in the physical world contains such directional causality.It is for this reason that I have an assertion which astonishes all other philosophers, namely, that the human mind is in the human head.The light from a star passes through the intervening space, causing changes in the optic nerve, and finally something happens in the brain.What I'm claiming is that what's happening in the brain? It's a vision.In fact I maintain that the brain is made of thoughts—and I use the word "thought" in its broadest sense, as Descartes used it.To this, people will reply: "Nonsense! I can see the brain through a microscope, and I know that the brain is not made of thought, but of matter, just as tables and chairs are of matter. "It was purely wrong. When you look at your mind, what you see under the microscope is part of your private world.What you say you are watching is the result of a long process of cause and effect within you that begins in the brain.No doubt the brain you are looking at is part of the physical world, but it is not the brain that is the stuff of your experience, that brain is a distant consequence of the physical brain.If, as I maintain, events in physical space-time can be known where they are through causality, then the perception you have after events in the eyes and nerves leading to the brain must be located. is in your head.I can quote H.The title of an article by Mr. Husson to illustrate the point of difference between my opinion and that of most philosophers.His title is "Why We Can't See or Observe What's Going 'In Our Heads'".What I'm claiming is that we can see or observe what's going on in our heads.I also maintain that we see nothing and observe nothing anywhere else. We can also get the same result by another way.When we said earlier that the film photographed part of the starry sky, we knew that this involved many things happening on the film, that is, for every object that could be photographed, at least one thing happened.I deduced that at every small place in time-space there is an infinite number of overlapping events, each of which is connected by a line of cause and effect to some earlier source of time, though at an infinitesimally small earlier time.Put a sensitive instrument (say, a negative) anywhere, and in a sense it is the object that "perceives" those causal lines from which they come.We don't use the word "perceived" unless the device is a human brain.But that's because the place where the living brain resides has certain special relationships to what happens there, the most important of which is memory.Wherever these special relations exist, we say that there is a feeler.We speak of the "mind" as a collection of things, which are connected back and forth by memory chains.A collection of such things—the collection of things that constitute ourselves—we know more intimately and immediately than anything else in the world. We know not only the abstract logical structure of what happens to us, but we also know its properties, that is, the properties of sound different from color, or red from green.In the physical world, such things are beyond our knowledge. There are three main points in the doctrine mentioned above.The first is that entities in mathematical physics are not the stuff the world is made of, but only the things they are built from. These constructed things are made of things, and for the convenience of the mathematician take those entities as units.The second is that all that we perceive without reasoning belongs to our private world.In this respect, I agree with Berkeley.The starry sky as we know it in vision is within us.The outer starry sky we believe in is derived by reasoning.The third point is that the lines of cause and effect through which we perceive things (even though there are some such lines everywhere) are like rivers on sand, which tend to fade away.This is why we cannot perceive all kinds of things all the time. I do not claim that the above theory can be proved.What I insist on is that, like some theories in physics, my theory is unprovable, and my theory can answer many questions that were difficult for the old theorists to solve.I do not think any prudent man can demand more from any doctrine than this.