The nature of the physical worldEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The nature of the physical world
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Physics -- Philosophy; Science -- Philosophy
History is not made that way. But what usually happens at the impact is
that the molecules suffer more or less random collisions and rebound
in all directions. They no longer conspire to make progress in any one
direction; they have lost their organisation. Afterwards they continue
to collide with one another and keep changing their directions of
motion, but they never again find a common purpose. Organisation cannot
be brought about by continued shuffling. And so, although the energy
remains quantitatively sufficient (apart from unavoidable leakage which
we suppose made good), it cannot lift the stone back. To restore the
stone we must supply extraneous energy which has the required amount of
organisation.
[Pg 71]
Here a point arises which unfortunately has no analogy in the
shuffling of a pack of cards. No one (except a conjurer) can throw two
half-shuffled packs into a hat and draw out one pack in its original
order and one pack fully shuffled. But we can and do put partly
disorganised energy into a steam-engine, and draw it out again partly
as fully organised energy of motion of massive bodies and partly as
heat-energy in a state of still worse disorganisation. Organisation
of energy is negotiable, and so is the disorganisation or random
element; disorganisation does not for ever remain attached to the
particular store of energy which first suffered it, but may be passed
on elsewhere. We cannot here enter into the question why there should
be a difference between the shuffling of energy and the shuffling of
material objects; but it is necessary to use some caution in applying
the analogy on account of this difference. As regards heat-energy the
temperature is the measure of its degree of organisation; the lower the
temperature, the greater the disorganisation.
Coincidences. There are such things as chance coincidences;
that is to say, chance can deceive us by bringing about conditions
which look very unlike chance. In particular chance might imitate
organisation, whereas we have taken organisation to be the antithesis
of chance or, as we have called it, the “random element”. This threat
to our conclusions is, however, not very serious. There is safety in
numbers.
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