And then, if we do not push whimsicality so far, if we introduce only
fictitious beings having senses analogous to ours and sensible to the
same impressions, and moreover admitting the principles of our logic, we
shall then be able to conclude that their language, however different
from ours it may be, would always be capable of translation. Now the
possibility of translation implies the existence of an invariant. To
translate is precisely to disengage this invariant. Thus, to decipher a
cryptogram is to seek what in this document remains invariant, when the
letters are permuted.
What now is the nature of this invariant it is easy to understand, and a
word will suffice us. The invariant laws are the relations between the
crude facts, while the relations between the 'scientific facts' remain
always dependent on certain conventions.
CHAPTER XI
SCIENCE AND REALITY
5. _Contingence and Determinism_
I do not intend to treat here the question of the contingence of the
laws of nature, which is evidently insoluble, and on which so much has
already been written. I only wish to call attention to what different
meanings have been given to this word, contingence, and how advantageous
it would be to distinguish them.
If we look at any particular law, we may be certain in advance that it
can only be approximate. It is, in fact, deduced from experimental
verifications, and these verifications were and could be only
approximate. We should always expect that more precise measurements will
oblige us to add new terms to our formulas; this is what has happened,
for instance, in the case of Mariotte's law.
Moreover the statement of any law is necessarily incomplete. This
enunciation should comprise the enumeration of _all_ the antecedents in
virtue of which a given consequent can happen. I should first describe
_all_ the conditions of the experiment to be made and the law would then
be stated: If all the conditions are fulfilled, the phenomenon will
happen.
But we shall be sure of not having forgotten _any_ of these conditions
only when we shall have described the state of the entire universe at
the instant _t_; all the parts of this universe may, in fact, exercise
an influence more or less great on the phenomenon which must happen at
the instant _t_ + _dt_.
Now it is clear that such a description could not be found in the
enunciation of the law; besides, if it were made, the law would become
incapable of application; if one required so many conditions, there
would be very little chance of their ever being all realized at any
moment.
Then as one can never be certain of not having forgotten some essential
condition, it can not be said: If such and such conditions are
realized, such a phenomenon will occur; it can only be said: If such and
such conditions are realized, it is probable that such a phenomenon will
occur, very nearly.
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