The nature of the physical worldEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The nature of the physical world
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Physics -- Philosophy; Science -- Philosophy
The physicist may say that the addendum asked for relates to
significance, and he has nothing to do with significances; he
is only concerned that his calculations shall agree with observation.
He cannot tell me whether the phenomenon has the significance of a
happening or an unhappening; but if a clock is included in the problem
[Pg 109]
he can give the readings of the clock at each stage. There is much to
be said for excluding the whole field of significance from physics; it
is a healthy reaction against mixing up with our calculations mystic
conceptions that (officially) we know nothing about. I rather envy the
pure physicist his impregnable position. But if he rules significances
entirely outside his scope, somebody has the job of discovering
whether the physical world of atoms, aether and electrons has any
significance whatever. Unfortunately for me I am expected in these
lectures to say how the plain man ought to regard the scientific world
when it comes into competition with other views of our environment.
Some of my audience may not be interested in a world invented as a
mere calculating device. Am I to tell them that the scientific world
has no claim on their consideration when the eternal question surges
in the mind, What is it all about? I am sure my physical colleagues
will expect me to put up some defence of the scientific world in this
connection. I am ready to do so; only I must insist as a preliminary
that we should settle which is the right way up of it. I cannot read
any significance into a physical world when it is held before me upside
down, as happened just now. For that reason I am interested in entropy
not only because it shortens calculations which can be made by other
methods, but because it determines an orientation which cannot be found
by other methods.
The scientific world is, as I have often repeated, a shadow-world,
shadowing a world familiar to our consciousness. Just how much do we
expect it to shadow? We do not expect it to shadow all that is in
our mind, emotions, memory, etc. In the main we expect it to shadow
impressions which can be traced to external sense-organs. But time
makes a dual entry and thus forms an intermediate link between the
[Pg 110]
internal and the external. This is shadowed partially by the scientific
world of primary physics (which excludes time’s arrow), but fully when
we enlarge the scheme to include entropy. Therefore by the momentous
departure in the nineteenth century the scientific world is not
confined to a static extension around which the mind may spin a romance
of activity and evolution; it shadows that dynamic quality of the
familiar world which cannot be parted from it without disaster to its
significance.
In sorting out the confused data of our experience it has generally
been assumed that the object of the quest is to find out all that
really exists. There is another quest not less appropriate to the
nature of our experience—to find out all that really becomes.
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