The Analysis of Matter

causal process which we mentioned just now, namely the transmission of a process by matter. This is itself of two sorts, one illustrated by sound, the other by the conduction of an electric current. In the case of sound we have a radiation; in the other case we have a more or less linear process. In each case, however, actual pieces of matter move, and cause others to move. The former belongs to the notion of a "causal line," to which we shall return in a moment. The latter belongs to the causal laws as to the interactions of different pieces of matter, which I do not wish to consider until I have elicited the intrinsic causal laws which constitute the definition of one piece of matter. These, as we saw, have been somewhat obscured by the notion of substance, which made it plausible to take for granted certain connections[Pg 319] between events at different times, which, for us, are causal, and demand explicit recognition. It is these intrinsic laws which replace substance that I wish to consider now, leaving the interactions between different pieces of matter for a later stage. What, then, constitutes a "causal line"? In other words, what constitutes one electron? Before asking ourselves what makes us call an electron at one time the same as an electron at another time, it may be well to ask ourselves: What constitutes an electron at one time? We must find some reality for the electron, or else the physical world will run through our fingers like a jelly-fish. There is the same sort of reason, however, for not regarding an electron as an ultimate particular as there was for refusing this status to a space-time point. The electron has very convenient properties, and is therefore probably a logical structure upon which we concentrate attention just because of these properties. A rather haphazard set of particulars may be capable of being collected into groups each of which has very agreeable smooth mathematical properties; but we have no right to suppose Nature so kind to the mathematician as to have created particulars with just such properties as he would wish to find. We have, therefore, to ask ourselves: Can we construct an electron out of events, in the same sort of way in which we constructed space-time points? To this inquiry we must now address ourselves, confining ourselves, at first, to the electron at one time. When I speak of "electrons" in this discussion, I shall include "protons," since everything that is to be said about the one is to be said about the other also. We do not know much about the contents of any part of the world except our own heads; our knowledge of other regions, as we have seen, is wholly abstract. But we know our percepts, thoughts, and feelings in a more intimate fashion.[Pg 320] Whoever accepts the causal theory of perception is compelled to conclude that percepts are in our heads, for they come at the end of a causal chain of physical events leading, spatially, from the object to the brain of the percipient. We cannot suppose that, at the end of this process, the last effect suddenly jumps back to the starting-point, like a stretched rope when it snaps. And with the theory of space-time as a structure of events, which we developed in the last two chapters, there is no sort of reason for not regarding a percept as being in the head of the percipient. I shall therefore assume that this is the case, when we are speaking of physical, not sensible, location. It follows from this that what the physiologist sees when he examines a brain is in the physiologist, not in the brain he is examining. What is in the brain by the time the physiologist examines it if it is dead, I do not profess to know; but while its owner was alive, part, at least, of the contents of his brain consisted of his percepts, thoughts, and feelings. Since his brain also consisted of electrons, we are compelled to conclude that an electron is a grouping of events, and that, if the electron is in a human brain, some of the events composing it are likely to be some of the "mental states" of the man to whom the brain belongs. Or, at any rate, they are likely to be parts of such "mental states"—for it must not be assumed that part of a mental state must be a mental state. I do not wish to discuss what is meant by a "mental state"; the main point for us is that the term must include percepts. Thus a percept is an event or a group of events, each of which belongs to one or more of the groups constituting the electrons in the brain. This, I think, is the most concrete statement that can be made about electrons; everything else that can be said is more or less abstract and mathematical. We have arrived at the conclusion that an electron at an instant is a grouping of events; the question is: what sort of group is it? Obviously it includes all the events that[Pg 321] happen where the electron is. If we may regard the electron as a material point, the events constituting an electron will have the two characteristic properties of points, viz. any five are co-punctual, and not all sub-classes of four events are co-punctual with any event outside the group. I do not know whether there is any valid ground for supposing that an electron is of finite size; none of the usual arguments seem at all conclusive, since they only show the forces developed in the neighbourhood of an electron. However, it is usual to assume a finite size, and for us the matter is one of indifference. If we assume a finite size, the events belonging to the electron can be grouped into many points, not only into one; in this case, the electron is a group of points, i.e. a class of classes of events. It will save circumlocution to speak of the electron as a point, and leave it to the reader to make the necessary verbal alterations for adaptation to the hypothesis of finite size. But it should be remembered that in Heisenberg's theory the electron is neither a point nor of finite size, since ordinary spatial conceptions are inapplicable to it. For the moment, we will, however, confine ourselves to the older theory of the electron. If the electron is a point, it is a material point, and thus differs from points in empty space. This difference, I believe, does not consist in anything characteristic of the electron at an instant, but in its causal laws. What distinguishes a material point from a point of empty space-time is that we can recognize a series of earlier and later material points as all parts of the history of one electron. In the Newtonian theory, one could say the same of a point of absolute space; but with the abandonment of absolute space we have become unable to regard a point at one time as in any sense the same as a point at another time, except in the case of a material point. The existence of this connection may be taken as the definition of "matter"; and obviously the connection is causal. [Pg 322] In order to develop this further, we must return to the view suggested in connection with perception, that events occur, usually, in groups arranged about centres. These centres may be taken to be places where there is matter. It is found that, given events arranged about a centre at one time, there are generally similar events arranged about neighbouring centres at slightly earlier or later times. By taking the centre very small, and by continually diminishing the time-like interval concerned, this statement can be made more and more nearly true; in the limit, when stated in the language of differentials, it may be exactly true, except where quantum phenomena are concerned. In their case, continuity is not the criterion, at least not continuity in all respects. There is continuity in some respects, and in others there is a jump of a definite amount connected with the quantum theory. This case shows, however, that continuity is not the essence of material identity; the essence is inferribility of a group of phenomena at one time from a group at another, when both groups are arranged about centres.[68] The time must be very short, and the inference is only approximate, except in the limit, as the time tends towards zero. Moreover, the time of the group is not any of the times at which the several members of the group occur, but the calculated time at which the group began to be propagated from the centre. The centre is "where the piece of matter is," and the route of the piece of matter is determined by the differential equations which result from the above principle. But as to what are the actual events at the centre, we know nothing except what follows from the fact that our percepts and "mental states" are among the events which constitute the matter of our brains. Thus each material unit is a causal line whose neighbouring[Pg 323] points are connected by an intrinsic differential law. The simplest form of such a law is the first law of motion, from which it follows that if a body covers a given distance in a very short time, it will cover a very nearly equal distance in the next very short time. I conceive—though this is conjectural—that, given any event anywhere in space-time, there is usually some qualitatively very similar event in a neighbouring place in space-time, and that, if there is any measurable relation between the two events, the "velocity" of the change varies continuously, so that at a third neighbouring point there will be an event differing from the second by very nearly the same amount as that by which the second differed from the first, provided the interval between the second and third points is equal to that between the first and second. This, together with the fact that events can be grouped about centres by the sort of laws which we have called "perspective," seems to explain the utility of matter in stating the causal laws of the physical world. But there is need of caution owing to quantum phenomena, as explained in the preceding paragraph. Continuity is the rule, but it may have exceptions. So long as the exceptions are subject to ascertainable laws, they do not make the whole system impossible. So far, I have said nothing about extrinsic causal laws, i.e. those which we naturally regard as exemplifying the influence of one piece of matter upon another. Einstein's theory of gravitation has thrown a new light upon these; but this is matter for a new chapter. FOOTNOTES: [68] In this case, however, if Heisenberg is right, we cannot identify an electron at one time with an electron at another. This would be a difficulty if an electron were conceived as a substance, but for us it is merely an empirical limitation of the empirical conception of a causal line. [Pg 324] CHAPTER XXXI EXTRINSIC CAUSAL LAWS I MEAN by an "extrinsic" causal law any formula in which one piece of matter is mentioned as concerned in the behaviour of another. Newtonian gravitation afforded a perfect example of an extrinsic causal law, but Einsteinian gravitation, prima facie, does not. The question I want to consider is: Can we, in the last analysis, dispense with such laws altogether, and regard each piece of matter as completely self-determined? Or must we admit them, and, if so, in what form? And what are we to say of such matters as the emission and absorption of light? Let us first consider Einsteinian gravitation. The theory consists in ascribing to every region