The Analysis of Matter

that the place of , so defined, is identical with the place of as an observer in the space of points of view.[45] The correlation of the times of different percipients offers no difficulty, since, as before observed, our percipients are all on the earth. The usual method of light-signals can be employed. But here we come upon one of the arguments for the causal theory of perception, as against both common sense[Pg 209] and phenomenalism. (We may define phenomenalism, at least for the moment, as the view that there are only percepts.) Suppose a gun on a hilltop is fired every day at twelve o'clock: many people both see and hear it fired, but the further they are from it the longer is the interval between seeing and hearing. This makes it very difficult to accept a naively realistic view as to the hearing, since, if that view were correct, there would have to be a fixed interval of time (presumably zero) between the sight and the sound. It also makes it natural to adopt a causal view of sound, since the retardation of the sound depends upon the distance, not upon the number of intermediate percipients. But hitherto our space was purely "ideal" except where there were percipients; it seems odd, therefore, that it should have an actual influence. It is much more natural to suppose that the sound travels over the intervening space, in which case something must be happening even in places where there is no one with ears to hear. The argument is perhaps not very strong, but we cannot deny that it has some force. Much stronger arguments, however, are derivable from other sources. Suppose a room arranged with a man concealed behind a curtain, and also a camera and a dictaphone. Suppose two men came into the room, converse, dine, and smoke. If the record of the dictaphone and the camera agrees with that of the man behind the curtain, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that something happened where they were which bore an intimate relation to what the hidden man perceived. For that matter, one might have two cameras and two dictaphones, and compare their records. Such correspondences, which are only more extreme forms of those with which primitive common sense is familiar, make it inconceivably complicated and implausible to suppose that nothing happens where there is no percipient. If the dictaphone and the hidden man give the same report of the conversation, one[Pg 210] must suppose some causal connection, since otherwise the coincidence is in the highest degree improbable. But the causal connection is found to depend upon the position of the dictaphone at the time of the conversation, not upon the person who hears its record. This seems very strange, if its record does not exist until it is heard, as we shall have to suppose if we confine the world to percepts. I will not emphasize the more obvious oddities of such a world, as, e.g., the one once brought forward by Dr G. E. Moore, that a railway train would only have wheels when it is not going, since, while it is going, the passengers cannot see them. Before accepting such arguments, however, we must see what could be said against them by a phenomenalism. Let us, therefore, proceed to state the case for phenomenalism. It may be suggested that our argument is, after all, not so strong as it looks, since all the facts can be interpreted by means of "ideal" percipients. The doubt I have in mind is suggested by a certain kind of construction, of which a good example is the introduction of "ideal" points, lines, and planes in descriptive geometry.[46] For our purposes, "ideal" points will suffice. The process by which they are constructed is as follows. Take all the straight lines which pass through a given point; these form a group of lines having other notable properties besides that of all possessing a common point. These other properties belong also to certain groups of lines which have no point in common—e.g. in Euclidean geometry, to the group consisting of all lines parallel to a given line. We then define a group of lines possessing these properties as an "ideal" point.[47] Thus some "ideal" points correspond to[Pg 211] real points, while others do not. In this way, by proceeding to "ideal" lines and planes, we arrive at last at a projective geometry, in which any two planes have a common line, and any two lines in a plane a common point, which immensely simplifies the statement of our propositions. The analogy with our problem is perhaps closer than might be thought. We have, in the first place, real percepts, collected into groups each of which is defined by the characteristic that common sense would call all its members percepts of one physical object. These real percepts, as we saw, vary from one percipient to another in such a way as to allow us to construct a space of percipients, and to locate physical objects in this space. Let us, for the moment, adopt the view that nothing exists except percepts, our own and other people's. We shall then observe that the percepts forming a given group can always be arranged about a centre in the space of percipients, and we can fill out the group by interpolating "ideal" percepts, continuous in quality with actual percepts, in regions where there are no actual percipients. (A region of space which is "ideal" at one moment may be actual at another owing to motion of a percipient. The successive positions of an observer watching Cleopatra's Needle from a passing tram form a sensibly continuous series.) If a number of people hear a gun fired, there are differences in the loudness and the time of their percepts; we can fill out the actual percepts by "ideal" noises varying continuously from one actual one to another. The same can be done with correlated visual percepts; also with smells. We will call a group thus extended by interpolation and extrapolation a "full" group: its members are partly real, partly ideal. Each group has a centre in the space of percipients; this centre is real if occupied by a percipient, while otherwise it is ideal. (Our space is not assumed to be a smooth geometrical space, and the centre may be a finite volume.) As a rule, even when the[Pg 212] centre is occupied by a percipient, it nevertheless contains no member of the group, not even an ideal member: "the eye sees not itself." A group, that is to say, is hollow: when we get sufficiently near to its centre it ceases to have members. This is a purely empirical observation. A full group which contains any real members will be called a "real" group; a group whose members are all ideal will be called "ideal." It remains to show how we are to define an ideal group. In addition to the laws correlating percepts forming one group—which may be called, in an extended sense, laws of I perspective—there are also laws as to the manner in which percepts succeed one another. These are causal laws in the ordinary sense; they are included in the usual laws of physics. When we know a certain number of members of a full group, we can infer the others by the laws of perspective; it is found that some exist and some do not, but all that do exist are members of the calculated full group. In like manner, when we are given a sufficient number of full groups, we can calculate other full groups at other times. It is found that some of the calculated full groups are real, some ideal, but that all real groups are included among those calculated. (I am assuming an impossible perfection of physics.) Two groups belonging to different times may, in virtue of causal relations which we shall explain when we come to discuss substance, be connected in the way which makes us regard them as successive states of one "thing" or "body." (The time of a full group, by the way, is not exactly the time at which its members occur, but slightly earlier than the earliest real member—or much earlier, in the case of a star. The time of a full group is the time at which physics places the occurrence supposed to be perceived.) The whole series of groups belonging to a given "thing" is called a "biography." The causal laws are such as to allow us sometimes to infer "things." A thing is "real"[Pg 213] when its biography contains at least one group which is "real," i.e. contains at least one percept; otherwise a thing is "ideal." This construction is closely analogous to that of "ideal" points, lines, and planes in descriptive geometry. We have to ask ourselves whether there are any reasons for or against it. The above construction preserves the whole of physics, at least formally; and it gives an interpretation, in terms of percepts and their laws, to every proposition of physics which there is any empirical reason to believe. "Ideal" percepts, groups, and things, in this theory, are really a shorthand for stating the laws of actual percepts, and all empirical evidence has to do with actual percepts. The above account, therefore, preserves the truth of physics with the bare minimum of hypothesis. Of course there should be also rules for determining when a calculated percept is real and when it is ideal; but this is difficult, since such rules would have to contain a science of human actions. It may be known that you will see certain things if you look through a telescope, but it is difficult to know whether you will look through it. This completion of our science is therefore not possible at present; but that is no argument against the truth of our science so far as it goes. It is obvious that the method might be extended so as to make all perceptions except one's own "ideal"; we should then have a completely solipsistic interpretation of physics. I shall, however, ignore this extension, and consider only that form of the theory in which all percepts are admitted. The metaphysic which we have been developing is essentially Berkeley's: whatever is, is perceived. But our reasons are somewhat different from his. We do not suggest that there is any impossibility about unperceived existents, but only that no strong ground exists for believing in them. Berkeley believed that the grounds against them were conclusive; we only suggest that the grounds in their favour are[Pg 214] inconclusive. I am not asserting this: I am proposing it as a view to be considered. The great difficulty in the above theory of "ideal" elements is that it is hard to see how anything merely imaginary can be essential to the statement of a causal law. We have to explain the dictaphone which repeats the conversation. We will suppose that it was seen in place before and after the conversation, but not during it. Consequently, on the view we are examining, it did not exist at all during the conversation. Causal laws, stated without fictitious elements, will thus involve action at a distance in time and space. Moreover, our percepts are not sufficient to determine the course of nature: we derive causal laws from close observation, and preserve them in other cases by inventing "ideal" things. This would not be necessary if percepts sufficed for the causal determination of future percepts. Thus the view we are examining is incompatible with physical determinism, in fact though not in form. We could multiply difficulties of this kind indefinitely. No one of them is conclusive, but in the aggregate they suffice to account for the fact that it is almost impossible to compel oneself to believe such a theory. Perhaps continuity (not in a strict mathematical sense) is one of the strongest objections. We