Intellectual History, Liberal Arts, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Lucretius: A Conversation Between Science and Philosophy, Part Three

by Dave Seng

This concludes our series on Lucretius’s poem, The Way Things Are in which we have explored the intimate connection between science and philosophy. In this post, we will make some important concluding comments and connections.

Find part one here.

Find Part two here.

When exploring issues regarding the world we live in, both science and philosophical reflection are necessary. The distinction between essence and substance is why reflection on nature always involves both science and philosophy. Things which are composed of essence and substance have an immaterial and material character to them. Perhaps another example regarding physical reality and metaphysics, drawn from mathematics will help. The concept of numbers can be derived and abstracted from one physical object, two physical objects, etc. One can easily understand that two tables plus two tables equals four tables. However, the principles, axioms, and rules of logic which make algebra, calculus, and geometry are not strictly empirical and require a metaphysical foundation1. In both, substantial objects and mathematical realities, science and philosophy are interacting.

What is to be said of the ideas of cause and substantial change given the principles of induction, uniformity, and the conservation of energy which Lucretius points out? The principles of uniformity and conservation (among others) are properties of Being. Another property of Being is causality or the notion of cause among things that change. The notion of cause or the principle of causality, has both philosophic and scientific implications. As demonstrated, Lucretius is interested in exploring the nature of causation in physical reality. He tells us that he is interested in the causes of events (3), the causes of things (3), and the causes of movement (16) and effects which derive from natural laws (85) which we can understand to be uniformity, conservation, and causation (among other natural laws). In the realm of becoming and physical existence, it is reasonable to think that things exist in a cause and effect relationship. Linguistically, logically, and analytically it does not make any sense to speak of a cause without an effect or an effect without a cause. By definition, an effect is that which has an antecedent cause. Lucretius understands this and holds to a general theory of causation which says that that which comes into being (contingent effects) must have a cause. Events, effects, and created or living things have a cause which explains the nature or reason for their existence. This is why the law of causality is considered an extension or application of the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Actions and events cannot precede themselves just as non-being can not create Being. For something to create itself, it would have to exist prior to its existence which violates the law of noncontradiction. As Lucretius reminds us “nothing comes from nothing” (3). Philosophically and analytically, nothing is not a thing. It is a little weird to try to describe nothing ontologically because it has no existence whatsoever and is completely outside our knowledge of things in this world. The best one can do is call it pure or absolute non-being. It is impossible to think of nothing because if one tries, one is thinking of something and to think of something is not thinking of nothing. In Aristotelian terms, nothing or non-being has no act or potency.

Aristotle describes metaphysics as the study of being and the first principles and highest causes of reality. “Therefore it is of being as being that we also must grasp the first causes” explains Aristotle (Aristotle, Vol. 7, 522). Today, we can count among the first causes of reality the laws of logic, the law of causality, essence or form, the law of uniformity, mathematical truths, and many others. Strictly speaking, metaphysics is the study of transcendent realities which cannot be grasped by means of the senses. But there is an overlap between metaphysics and the physical sciences. Metaphysics points people to the logical structure of the world and in this sense, metaphysics allows people to study the world in the most general way. Metaphysics, as the study of “being as being,” is a body of knowledge about the world. Further, metaphysics shows us how truth is made coherent in any human field (all fields of knowledge want to correctly apply the law of noncontradiction, for example). Lucretius understands that there are basic laws of nature worthy of reflection. He acknowledges many important and foundational principles of reality. Upon reflection, we see that scientific laws are not strictly empirical but rely on metaphysical foundations. In this way, we understand that questions about the nature of the universe always involve both science and philosophy. Both are needed to interpret reality correctly.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Lucretius. The Way Things Are. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 11. Encyclopedia

Britannica, Inc., 1999.

1Mathematics is not always inductive or empirical. It also works deductively. Alan Turing, for example, built a calculating machine based on abstract laws of mathematics and logic (principles of metaphysics). His machine and the theory behind it laid the foundation for generalized modern computing. Metaphysics and logic can have a direct result in the physical world.

Intellectual History, Liberal Arts, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Lucretius: A Conversation Between Science and Philosophy, Part Two

by Dave Seng

In the first part of this series, we examined a few ideas regarding the intersection of philosophy and science that are raised by Lucretius’s poem The Way Things Are. In this part, we will explore the concept of Being. (Part one can be found here.)

Being can be understood as all there is, or the totality of reality. That which is, or Being, can not be denied. As Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) taught us, something must exist, because it is impossible to doubt one’s own existence (Descartes, Vol. 28, 275-276). If I exist, something exists with certainty. In addition, when our cognitive faculties are working correctly, perception is always the apprehension of something that has existence in reality. Being, or reality, cannot be denied and is a first principle for both metaphysics and science. It is a natural impulse, then, to explore the nature and foundational principles of Being. Early in his poem, Lucretius points us to one of his first principles of Being. Lucretius asserted that his philosophical starting point is “nothing comes from nothing” (3) and explains:

… As for us,

Once we have seen that Nothing comes from

nothing,

We shall perceive with great clarity

What we are looking for, whence each thing

comes,

How things are caused, and no “gods’ will”

about it. (Italics in original, Lucretius 3)

In this short passage, we see that Lucretius develops important questions about the first principles of reality. He wants to know the nature of existence in light of the fact that nothing comes from nothing, the causes of events or “how things are caused,” and whether or not a god is involved in the creation of the universe1. Nonetheless, it is important to examine a couple of other basic positions that Lucretius believes to be foundational and which speak to the ultimate principles of physical reality and Being. Throughout The Way Things Are, Lucretius makes the claim, nothing comes from nothing, which is his logical point of departure (3). He grounds this starting point in two basic ideas or assumptions. The first is what can be called the uniformity of nature. Lucretius explains:

Now, if things come from nothing, all things

could

Produce all kinds of things; nothing

would need

Seed of its own. (3)

Lucretius believed that there is a regular order to physical nature which accounts for the uniformity of events such as like producing like, and things coming from their own seed or source. If there is an order to physical nature, then it is reasonable to think that events will have the same degree of inter-connectivity and predictability in the future as they demonstrated in the past or in the present.2 The general idea is, if an acorn is planted into nourishing soil, and nothing prevents it from flourishing, it will grow into an oak tree. There seems to be a regular or general order to nature. According to Lucretius, if there is no order and uniformity to nature, things would be completely unpredictable and chaotic.

Lucretius asserts his second point:

Our second axiom is this, that nature

Resolves each object to its basic atoms

But does not ever utterly dissolve it. (4)

And also,

But matter,

As I have proved before, can never be

Reduced to nothing, so, nor things created

From nothing. (12)

Lucretius’s second axiom is extremely thoughtful and prescient for his day. It seems to correspond with the notion that energy can neither be created; nor destroyed in a closed system, what is often called the scientific principle of conservation. In other words, the total energy of a closed system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. It is fascinating that Lucretius understood this principle long before it was articulated by classical (Newtonian) physicists. Lucretius points out that change can be a mysterious thing. Being always involves becoming or change and yet even among change, there is that which abides. In philosophical terms, temporal things change in the realm of becoming (change is a synonym for Becoming, and is in antithesis to Being—that which is immutable or permanent). Change and the cause of change is still worthy of investigation in light of the fact that there is something which remains throughout the process of change.

This is what Lucretius means when he says,

But if throughout this history, there

have been

Renewals, and the sum of things can stay,

Beyond all doubt, there must be things possessed

Of an Immortal essence. Nothing can

Disintegrate entirely into nothing. (4)

Lucretius recognizes that changing things in the physical world perdure in one form or another but do not disintegrate into nothing. It is important to note that Lucretius draws philosophic insights from empirical induction. He looks at normal everyday objects found in this world and draws ontological conclusions based on their particular objective existence and secondary properties. Here, the Aristotelian philosophical distinction between substance and essence is helpful with understanding what Lucretius is getting at. When substance changes, or what is called substantial change, a thing changes in its manner of being (what is called a “mode of being”) such as when a cat dies and becomes a corpse. The mode of being changes for the animal, but it does not go into non-being due to the principle of conservation. Accidental change occurs when the cat is born, grows, moves around, and changes in shape, color, or breaks a leg due to a fall. Accidental change is dependent on the substantial reality of the cat. When Lucretius speaks of an “immortal essence” of a thing he is highlighting the idea that there is a basic nature or “whatness” to something (such as a cat) that makes it the kind of thing it is. A cat, has basic properties that make it essentially a cat and not a dog or something else, things shared by all cats such as a love for milk, a penchant for chasing mice, and meowing when they want attention. When a cat dies, the essence or “catness” is not destroyed. This is due to the fact that substance is not essence and essence is not substance. This is why Lucretius declares that, in philosophic terms, essence is immortal. When things change accidentally in quality, quantity, or space, they do not completely go away or into absolute non-being. If, however, all reality (Being) were to experience a change into non-being, it would be a negation of all that is, not a substantial change in the mode or manner of Being.

Works Cited:

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Lucretius. The Way Things Are. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 11. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

1Sometimes philosophers in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas use Lucretius’s principle that “nothing comes from nothing” as ground for positing a first cause type of argument for the cosmos. As noted in the first part of this series, it is unclear how strict an atomist Lucretius was. For example, he referred to the goddess Venus as the “creatress” in the first page of the poem and continues to refer to her throughout the work.

2Some philosophers of science call this the principle of predictive uniformity.

Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Newton’s Constant and The Plague

by Dave Seng

The more I investigate metaphysics the more I become interested in the philosophy of science. As I write this, my university is closed although instruction has moved online.

Nonetheless, I came across this interesting post from MIT mathematician Cal Newport. By way of introduction, it is important to think about how we can apply ourselves to innovative thinking during these difficult times resulting from our own experience with the COVID-19 outbreak.

As it turns out, Isaac Newton did just that. In 1666, due to the Black Plague, Newton found himself self-quarantined in one of his family estates because Cambridge closed down for about eighteen months. (I sure hope our present situation does not last that long!)

Anyway, here’s how James Trefil, author of Reading the Mind of God: In Search of the Principle of Universality describes the situation and how Newton discovered the principle of universal gravity and what has become known as Newton’s constant:

It is hard to say when this notion of separateness of the earth and the heavens began to break down. In his later years, Newton claimed that the incident of the apple took place in 1666, when Cambridge University was closed because of the plague and he was spending eighteen months in isolation on the family estates. His findings were published in final form in 1687, in his monumental three-volume Principia Mathematica. Somewhere between these two dates, then, the separation of earth and sky, which had ruled men’s minds for a millenium and a half, finally disappeared. (Trefil, 9)

The end result of Newton’s formulation (along with developing an advanced form of calculus) is that the older Greek cosmologies were overturned. Newton discovered the principle of universal gravity which laid the foundation for the principle of uniformity now considered a foundational and indispensable postulate of science. We now understand that objects in space do not conform to different scientific laws than the earth, as the Greek cosmologists believed.

And all of this came because Cambridge was closed due to the plague. I wonder if any of our students today, bored at home, will come up with a similar innovation? I certainly hope so.

For some excellent quarantine reading, I highly recommend James Trefil’s book entitled Reading the Mind of God: In Search of the Principle of Universality.

And here is Cal Newport’s post. Enjoy!

Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Epilogue: A Twenty-First Century Meditation on First-Philosophy

by Dave Seng

[Note: As July quickly approaches, I will not be making many posts on this blog. I will have my two beautiful daughters with me for the month and much of my time will be spent with my family. These are the times I rediscover that love is the primary matter which holds our family together.]

At any rate, here are some initial and unfinished thoughts regarding physics and metaphysics. The more I delve into the concept of Being, the further I seem to go into the philosophy of science and the existential import of what it means to be and become in this temporal world. I remain impressed by how the classical categories of Western thought (specifically, act and potency, accepted by both neo-Platonists and Aristotelians) hold up and have stood the test of time.

Part two of my essay on Heisenberg’s appeal to Aristotelian metaphysics can be found here.

I probably won’t be able to explicate these further until August, but here are a few rough and undeveloped reflections that came to me when thinking about the intersection of science and the philosophical first principles of reality. Post below if you have anything to add or something which you think needs further discussion.

1. The Copenhagen School interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to indicate that we can say nothing about the properties of an atom or sub-atomic particles. All scientists can do is provide the results of experiments on them. Would it be better to say that the strange behavior of quantum mechanics demonstrates the classical nature of potential waiting to be put into act? Perhaps that is the nature or essence of quantum physics?

2. The mystery of causality. Predictability in the quantum realm may not hold in particular cases. That does not mean, however, that there is no efficient cause or sufficient reason for its action. An efficient cause may be unpredictable but that does not mean it does not exist.

3. The actual world we live in is alive with potentialities from the smallest elements of matter to human individuals. This is what we mean when we speak of “human potential.” Our world is charged with real potentialities, relationships, and interactions between real beings.

4. Many of the early scientists and mathematicians working on quantum phenomena such as Planck, Heisenberg, and Bohr were not strict materialists. Neither were other influential thinkers of the time such as Bergson, Einstein, Whitehead, and Hardy. They all understood that something more is going on in our world than matter, energy, and motion. In other words, they would have rejected the undue and uncritical acceptance of the scientific method as it is applied to every other field of inquiry such as philosophy, history, or the humanities.

5. Perhaps Einstein’s formula regarding the convertibility of matter and energy (Energy = the mass x the speed of light squared), points to Aristotle’s “primary matter”? (It may of itself have no form but must always be structured by some form or essence?)

6. The classic question of the one and many. Heraclitus was only half correct when he stated that all reality is in flux. Our world is not in total or complete flow or chaos. Even Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle is not infinite. There must be something that perdures or there would be no sense of continuity. In this regard, quantum physics point to the classical question of the one and many (which also speaks to the nature of relationships).

7. The great conversation regarding act and potency which was started by Aristotle, accepted by Plotinus, elaborated by Aquinas, and rediscovered by Heisenberg needs to be explored, developed, and integrated for our time. Metaphysics is about recovering the first principles of Being.