But if force be granted this substantial and self-dependent character,
what further need is there of matter as a separate form of entity? For
does not the presence of matter consist essentially in resistance,
itself a case of force? Such reflections as these led Boscovich and
others to the radical departure of defining material particles _as
centres of force_.
[Sidenote: The Development and Extension of the Conception of Energy.]
§ 108. But a more fruitful hypothesis of the same general order is due
to the attention directed to the conception of _energy_, or capacity for
work, by experimental discoveries of the possibility of reciprocal
transformations without loss, of motion, heat, electricity, and other
processes. The principle of the conservation of energy affirms the
quantitative constancy of that which is so transformed, measured, for
example, in terms of capacity to move units of mass against gravity. The
exponents of what is called "energetics" have in many cases come to
regard that the quantity of which is so conserved, as a substantial
reality whose forms and distributions compose nature. A contemporary
scientist, whose synthetic and dogmatic habit of mind has made him
eminent in the ranks of popular philosophy, writes as follows:
"Mechanical and chemical energy, sound and heat, light and
electricity, are mutually convertible; they seem to be but
different modes of one and the same fundamental force or
_energy_. Thence follows the important thesis of the unity of
all natural forces, or, as it may also be expressed, the
'monism of energy.'"[236:8]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account