The Analysis of Matter

a class whose cardinal number is less than or equal to . Some of these may be important, but most must be unimportant. Some conditions can be laid down. In the first place, the members of the class concerned may be obviously capable of an order which is causally important. If we take all the patches of colour that ever have been or will be perceived, they have in the first place an order in space-time, which is obviously important causally; in this order, no two of them occupy the same position—i.e. the relations concerned are all asymmetrical. But they have also an order as shades of colour and as of varying brightness. In this order there are symmetrical transitive relations—e.g. between two patches of exactly the same shade. Physics professes to correlate also these further characteristics of colours with spatio-temporal quantities such as wave-lengths. This would not be plausible if continuous alterations of quality were not correlated with continuous alterations in the correlated physical quantities. Whenever we notice a qualitative series, such as that of colours of the rainbow, we assume that it must have causal importance, and we insist that numbers used as measures shall have the same order as the qualities which they measure. The former is a postulate, the latter a convention. Both have proved highly successful, but neither is an a priori necessity. There are orders which are obviously of no causal importance—e.g. alphabetical order among human beings. Human beings, like colours, have various orders that are causally important—the space-time order, order of height.[Pg 116] weight, income, intelligence as measured by Professor X's tests, etc. But alphabetical order would never be thought important; no one would hope to found a biometric calculus upon a system in which a human being had co-ordinates depending upon the alphabetical order of his name. Generally speaking, it would seem that the simplest relations are the most important. Here I am using a purely logical test of simplicity: taking propositions in which the given relation occurs, there will be some having the smallest number of constituents compatible with the mention of that relation; and again, a relation may be a molecular compound of other relations—i.e. a disjunction, conjunction, negation, or complex of all these. A relation which is molecular has always a certain definite number of atoms; a relation which is not molecular is called atomic, and has then a definite number of terms in the simplest propositions in which it occurs. An atomic relation is simpler in proportion to the fewness of its terms; a molecular relation, in proportion to the fewness of its atoms. There is much empirical reason to think that the laws of a science become more important and comprehensive as the relations involved become simpler. The relation of a man to his name is of immense complexity, whereas we may suppose that the relation upon which interval depends is fairly simple. And the qualitative order of colours alluded to above is also simple, so long as we are thinking of colours as given in perception, not as interpreted in physics. Such simple relations should, as far as possible, be the basis for systems of measurement. There is a traditional distinction between extensive and intensive quantities, which is somewhat misleading when taken seriously. The theory is that extensive quantities are composed of parts and intensive quantities are not. The only truly extensive quantities are numbers and classes. Where finite classes are concerned, the number of their terms may be taken[Pg 117] as a measure of them, and they have parts corresponding to all smaller numbers. But in geometry we are never concerned with quantities which have parts. The number of points in a volume, whether large or small, is always in the usual kinds of geometry; thus magnitude has nothing to do with number. Interval, as we have seen, is a relation, and smaller intervals are not parts of it. If and are equal intervals in a straight line, we say that the interval is double of each, and we think of it as the "sum" of and . But it is only by a convention, though an almost irresistible one, that we assign as the measure of a number double that which we assign as the measure of or of . And to say that is the "sum" of and is to say something very ambiguous, since the word "sum" has many meanings. When and are considered as vectors, we may say that is their sum even when they are not in one straight line. Again, given suitable definitions, we may say that the points between and are the sum (in the logical sense) of the points between and , and between and ; this will only hold if is a straight line. But the distance between and , considered as a relation, is not properly the "sum," in any recognized sense, of the distances , . Thus all geometrical quantities are "intensive." This shows that the distinction of intensive and extensive is unimportant. In connection with interval, it is worth while to compare its formal characteristics with those of similarity. We saw that, in the generalized geometry with which Eddington ends, we want a relation of four neighbouring points, expressing the fact that they form a parallelogram. But we met with certain difficulties owing to the fact that this is only supposed to be possible for an infinitesimal quadrilateral, which is a figment of the mathematical imagination, and that it was not wholly easy to see how to substitute a procedure by means of limits. We were led to the suggestion that, instead of saying "[Pg 118] is a parallelogram," we should have to say " is more nearly a parallelogram than ." Perhaps this could be somewhat simplified. Suppose we say: " is more nearly a parallelogram than ." And perhaps this could be still further simplified so as to take the form: " is more like than is." We here suppose that between any two points there is a relation, which we will not call distance, but (say) "separation," and that this relation, like a shade of colour, is capable of a greater or less resemblance to another of the same kind. In a Euclidean space, two finite separations finitely separated may be exactly similar in the relevant respects; we then have a finite parallelogram. But in the generalized geometry that we are considering, we shall say that no two separations are exactly alike, though they are capable of indefinite approximation to exact likeness. Let us see how far this will take us. In the case of similarity, we have a relation which is capable of degrees, and may be called "quasi-transitive"—i.e. if is very like , and is very like , then must be rather like . This is just the sort of thing required for Weyl's geometry. Consider four points, , , , , and suppose that is rather like . Take a series of points forming a continuous route from to , without loops; this can be done by purely ordinal methods to be explained later. Suppose that among these points there are some, such as which make more like than is. We may suppose that these points have a limit or last term, which we will call . We can then similarly proceed along to a point which gives more like than for any other point on . We have then done nearly as well as possible, if not quite, with the three points , , as starting-points. By means of suitable postulates, we could[Pg 119] insure that a construction of the above sort, carried out repeatedly without changing the points , , , should at last end with a definite point such that is more like than any other distance from is. We may call the figure a "quasi-parallelogram." Now let , , ... , ... be a series of points on a route from to . Then proceed to take points , , ... between and on some route, and form the quasi-parallelograms having one corner at , one corner at and one at , the fourth being called . If, as Weyl assumes, infinitesimal distances which have one end in common are comparable, this must be taken to mean that two small finite distances are capable of a resemblance which may be called "quasi-equality," which grows more nearly complete resemblance as the distance grows smaller. We may assume, as before, that, given a point and a definite route from to , there will be one definite point on this route such that is more nearly equal to than is any other distance by on the route in question. We shall then say that and are "quasi-equal." Take also ... quasi-equal, and , ... quasi-equal. In this way we can construct a co-ordinate mesh with axes , . And we can now construct what will be in effect straight lines through : take all the points which are the corners opposite to of quasi-parallelograms , for different initial points , subject to quasi-equality between and . These points may be regarded as forming the quasi-straight line whose equation is . (Irrationals can be dealt with by the usual methods.) This quasi-straight line will start from in a[Pg 120] certain direction, and may, for differential purposes, be regarded as really a straight line. It is not worth while to proceed further, since it is obvious that we have the necessary material. Degrees of similarity may be, in a sense, measured by quasi-transitiveness. Suppose that , , , ... each have quasi-equality with the next. It may or may not happen that has quasi-equality with . One may presume that this will happen if and are very small and is not very large. Similarly, or rather a fortiori, we cannot infer that has quasi-equality with . The larger the value of for which such an inference remains true, the closer is the resemblance between and or between and . It is to be assumed that, by continually diminishing and the number of steps for which the inference is permitted can be increased without finite limit. If the above is in any degree valid, it would seem that, if space-time is continuous, spatio-temporal measurement depends theoretically upon qualitative similarity, capable of varying degrees, between relations of pairs of points. It is not suggested that the analysis cannot be carried further, but only that this is a valid stage in the process of explaining what is meant by the quantitative character of intervals and by their measurement as numerical multiples of units.