Bergson and the evolution of physics

364 Pages·1969·8.688 MB·English

by  Pete A.Y. Gunter

• >.
'
• X /
•••V:;
Vs

A**" .V c.

•■. 1 ••

■ •
■••
' .
. ' i ; .
- k
•- •. :-V
X& r
. • r ./■•L *
• ! .
4 *
'
- ••.„
v ••
-•_'k. ,
\V n %
■ -
■■ :
T- . ■ 'V. •- ■ ■ ? X, : x' ' xv; ' \ • V

• *■V'X"■ Xa.:.-, .*• .X .- .-..V - - '•«- .V\>•-'
• :-K X' V,Xl>- ••
.
....
•u V; v A Y V- ' *
*
W '■X -
'X >
l !
\■
.
X '••••. • -:V \r< X, *■> •>
■ k j.'
■
\v X;% '' '.'w'.: . , . X: - -X v- -, -s ‘ a •- -rV *' ■ . ' ,.; rr ' X;v.. -> - ' X; ,... . -

X -
t ■ ■
. ' .
-
s'. Y -•
.
■: Y fY V . '
■ • . ■ i * v?
:
■
y
•

-/V
•>
-V-
I
V
v. \ ' ? ' •v •'

i . -
•■
1 vjV *•" rr -
-*r*
•r
.
V'
\ V
'
- %
71.- '-■>
... ■ ;—- " ,
, .-r
-V ■ H

'*X.
^. 4^
-.“t -v<
v:\;r %
v V - -. .
V* -
•v. /-** - ' - ■ : fSil4
3
T ,:;:y * - -M
r-: • • >-/ -. ■ •. .... *’ • - 'i-ryjT ..V r ■» I
.
.
__

BERGSON
AND THE EVOLUTION

OF PHYSICS

Edited and translated by T?A.Y. Qunter

KNOXVILLE tp THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE PRESS
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 77-77844
STANDARD BOOK NUMBER 87049-092-3
Copyright © 1969 by The University of Tennessee Press. All Rights Reserved.
Manufactured in the United States of America. First edition.
*-----
MVM 102 0595689
f mn m

m tt i* 1 it«fi#
PREFACE
The twentieth century has witnessed a striking and as yet
unfinished series of revolutions in every branch of physics.
It is clear in retrospect that Henri Bergson considered such con­
ceptual revolutions in physics inevitable and, further, that he was
able schematically to foresee certain of their most important the­
oretical consequences. This is a remarkable achievement, parti­
cularly considering Bergson’s reputation as an “anti-scientific” or
“literary” intellect; yet, at the present time Bergson’s interpreta­
tion of the physical sciences remains one of the least understood,
least discussed, and least appreciated aspects of his thought. The
present collection is an attempt to remedy this unfortunate situa­
tion by making clear both the extent of Bergson’s insight into the
basic concepts of physics and the relevance of his insights to living
issues in the philosophy of science.
In the introduction to this volume, I have taken a first step to­
ward suggesting the contemporaneity of Bergson’s philosophy of
physics by analyzing, at length, his philosophical method and ex­
plaining how this method, in spite of appearances, could have
been expected to lead to scientifically prophetic insights. The
charge of anti-scientific intentions with' which Bergson has been
saddled is seen to be not merely misleading, but radically false:
Bergson’s philosophy of intuition is the affirmation, not the nega­
tion, of science. Hopefully this realization will serve to unify, in a
general way, the readings which follow.
Most of the readings presented below appeared originally in
European scholarly journals and have been translated for the
first time from French and German.1 They represent a stimulat-
1 De Broglie’s essay “The Concepts of Contemporary Physics and Bergson’s
V
BERGSON AND THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS
ing and highly informative philosophical-scientific literature, but
one which, apart from studies like the present, would not only be
inaccessible to the average reader interested in contemporary
scientific thought, but also would remain little, if at all, known
among English-speaking philosophers. The physicists and phi­
losophers whose views are expressed in this book are by no means
in complete agreement, either among themselves or with Bergson’s
ideas. Nonetheless, their essays gain in depth and impact when
viewed as an interrelated body of opinion. Besides suggesting
Bergson’s contemporaneity, then, this collection makes available
a coherent literature relating to his work.
Though the essays presented here were written at different
times and from diverse viewpoints, it has been possible to divide
them roughly into four categories. The first, introduced by Louis
de Broglie, the originator of the wave theory of matter, concerns
the relevance of Bergson’s thought to quantum physics, partic­
ularly to the problems raised by quantum indeterminacy, the
wave-particle duality, and the problem of “time-reversal invari­
ance” (i.e.y the problem of whether temporal series can be re­
versed). The second, which begins with a discussion between
Bergson and Albert Einstein, concerns the basic conclusions of
relativity physics, particularly those relating to the question of
the status of the multiple time series and the “dislocations of simul­
taneity” required in the special theory of relativity. The third in­
volves the consideration of Bergson’s concept of time from the
viewpoint of Zeno’s famous paradoxes. The fourth and last sec­
tion consists in Professor Milic Capek’s masterful survey of Berg­
son’s contributions to our understanding of modem physics as a
whole.
One final word: the scientists and philosophers in this collection
are concerned with Bergson’s reflections for other than mere
“academic” reasons. These writers seek, by analyzing Bergson’s
criticisms and claims, to clarify their understanding of basic con­
cepts involved in the evolution of physics. It can be argued that
Ideas on Time and Motion” appears (in translation) as a chapter of his Physics
and Microphysics; the translation, however, is fragmentary, and omits some of de
Broglie’s most significant conclusions. My own translation is complete.
vi
PREFACE
Bergson’s insights might prove useful not only in giving a co­
herent and intellectually satisfying interpretation of the basic
concepts of contemporary physics, but also, as one of the au­
thors translated here has stated elsewhere,2 in suggesting further
theoretical advances in that science.
I would like to thank Dr. David A. Sipfle and Mary-Alice Sipfle
for their very helpful suggestions concerning difficulties encoun­
tered in translating several articles and for collaborating with
me in the translation of both Professor O. Costa de Beauregard’s
essay, “Certain Aspects of the Irreversibility of Time in Classical
and Quantum Physics,” and the dispute between Henri Bergson
and Andre Metz over the interpretation of the special theory of
relativity. Dr. John C. Osborne of the Department of Germanic
and Slavic Languages of The University of Tennessee is to be
thanked for helping me to render a more accurate “complete
paraphrase” of Gunther Pflug’s passages on inner time and the
relativity of motion than would otherwise have been the case.
I would also like to thank William K. Sipfle, formerly of the
physics department of Ripon College, Richard J. Noer, assistant
professor of physics, Carleton College, and Dr. John Mowat of
the physics department of Auburn University for technical ad­
vice and information concerning Professor Costa de Beauregard’s
“Certain Aspects of the Irreversibility of Time in Classical
and Quantum Physics.” Finally, I would like to express my
gratitude to Professor Mili£ Capek and Professor Robert Blanche
for carefufly correcting my translations of their essays, and to
Professor Capek for suggesting important corrections to the text
of certain other translations. The Journal of the History of Phi­
losophy is to be thanked for releasing Dr. David A. Sipfle’s article,
“Henri Bergson and the Epochal Theory of Time,” thus making
it possible for it to appear here for the first time.
2 Milic Capek, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (New
York: D. Van Nostrand, 1961). Capek’s thesis, that modern science has relied too
uncritically on visual and spatial concepts for its models and conceptual schemes,
in many respects parallels Bergson’s attitude toward scientific thought.
vii
(
'
*
■