A debate for the ages and the decline of ‘Bergsonism‘
It was the clash of two intellectual titans that left behind a trail of ambiguity on the scientific and philosophical landscapes of the 20th century. It muddied the waters more than it helped clear the air surrounding the discourse about the nature and meaning of something they disagreed on: time.
Both suffered blows. Albert Einstein lost the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity (he won it for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect). At the Nobel Prize awards ceremony, the jury spokesman alluded to the epic debate: 'It's no secret that the philosopher Bergson has disputed it [the Theory of Relativity] in Paris'.
Henri Bergson, on the other hand, was widely misunderstood in the years succeeding the debate from the evening of 6 April, 1922. For him, its ripple effects were felt in the latter half of his scholarly career.
The intense debate between the Continental philosopher and his physicist counterpart at the Société française de philosophie, Paris, France, may have lasted only about 30 minutes, but the discourse over who trumped whom continues. More than a century has passed, and its final takeaway is still contended, with the gap between science and humanities ever widening.
Two notions of time
Essentially, the prevailing obscurity (concerning the nature of reality), which sparked this infamous debate, could be traced even to ancient Greek philosophy.
Philosophers spanning centuries were confronted with several dualities: mind and matter, the subjective and the objective, the collective and the personal, time and space, and being and becoming, among others.
The essence of this debate, when viewed from this context, reveals that the opposing notions of time put forth are neither wrong nor misled but are to be fitted into a unified framework.
The philosopher took exception only to science taking for granted the rather glaring sovereignty of time. It was to be felt in its passing and not to be mistaken for 'movements in space'.
As for the physicist, it was liable to measurement, moving relative to the observer, with its fluidity hinged on a relative frame of reference. The physicist brought out into the external world what the philosopher attempted to grasp from within. This spawned the mighty debate.
Yet, it is to be noted that Dr. Bergson couldn't fully develop a theory of a 'single time' as he himself was confronted with the intricacies of multiplicity and simultaneity.
Perception of time
Dr. Bergson is among the few philosophers who have conducted concerted inquiries into the nature of time and how reality manifests itself. In his doctoral thesis, Time And Free Will: An Essay On The Immediate Data Of Consciousness (1889), he turns against any deterministic approach, positing the theory of dynamism, as against mechanistic methods.
His quest for time was hinged on the impression that the moment being scrutinised would have passed before any mechanistic analysis could produce anything insightful. He went against the common notions of time that gave only 'snapshots' of an indivisible whole. What he puts forth instead is a simple and dynamic theory that attempts to grasp the autonomous nature of time as it unfolds.
As a result, time, regaining its autonomy, freed itself from the entanglement of space. He rejected the superimposition or juxtaposition of spacial elements onto time and pointed out that a certain state of mind or the gravity of a situation could influence our experience of time. This is revealed in instances such as a tense moment or when someone paces down a rail platform to catch a train. Our experience of lived time may seem to slow down or accelerate even as the clocks tick as usual, validating the unpredictability of duration.
Besides providing fresh insights into the nature of time, memories, and the mind-matter duality, Dr. Bergson's works were noted for their rich imagery and imagery. Often, he alluded to elements from the everyday to elucidate complex ideas. This was evident in the case with time too. For instance, he refers to the continuity of a musical melody to highlight the flow of time, with the highs and lows of various states corresponding to the progression of the melody.
Time dilation
It was fairly assumed that Dr. Bergson was proven wrong following the debate. This was partly because he had ostensibly misunderstood the scope of the phenomenon of time dilation, which is an aspect of Dr. Einstein's special theory of relativity.
Time dilation is a physical phenomenon in which time moves differently, in accordance with the respective states of rest and motion, for different observers.
However, Dr. Bergson contended this concept by pointing out the absence of an absolute frame of reference. For the renowned philosopher, this was more of an abstraction than a phenomenon. Years later, time dilation was experimentally proven, and Dr. Bergson's arguments couldn't wield power any longer.
Despite Dr. Bergson being proven wrong in this regard, the nature of time remained a bone of contention between physicists and philosophers and among themselves. Even though time dilation was proven to be physically real, with the twin paradox becoming its flagbearer, the fundamental argument of Dr. Bergson that real time or la durée (duration), unlike whatever was measured by a clock, was more personal and experiential, still held ground.
The twin paradox
According to the twin paradox, the brother who stays behind on Earth would have aged more than his twin who travelled through space.
But neither of the twins feels any remarkable changes in the working of their minds by virtue of the elapsed time and the travelling twin has to return to earth to realise that more time has passed for his brother. Thus, the twin paradox turns out to be observational and not absolutely experiential. This is where the Bergsonian notion of time triumphs.
Moreover, the differences in elapsed time among the twins occur within a common framework, which, in turn, is fleeting.
The common ground
Dr. Bergson accords to the 'uninterrupted continuity of an unforeseeable novelty'. This is more in line with the famous quote attributed to Heraclitus: 'One cannot enter the same river twice'. The specific time intervals noted by a clock and the dilation experienced happen within the limits of this 'fleeting' framework.
Therefore, instead of determining whether the physicist or the philosopher won the 1922 debate, it might be ideal to conceive a comprehensive framework that could fit in both notions -- the quantitative and the qualitative -- of time, without contradiction.
Even though Dr. Bergson's philosophy went under the radar over time, at its peak it influenced philosophers in the likes of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Gilles Deleuze, and even had a lasting effect on the works of Thomas Mann and Marcel Proust. However, some of his critics have charged him with the decline of contemporary philosophy.
Recent efforts to revive 'Bergsonmannia', which had once taken the world by storm, have paid off to a certain extent.
While Dr. Bergson steered intellectual discourses at the break of the 20th century, his theories blew over and missed the dawn of the 21st. With every stride made in technology and the scientific world, the works of Dr. Einstein, on the other hand, continue to intrigue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
A debate for the ages and the decline of ‘Bergsonism‘
It was the clash of two intellectual titans that left behind a trail of ambiguity on the scientific and philosophical landscapes of the 20th century. It muddied the waters more than it helped clear the air surrounding the discourse about the nature and meaning of something they disagreed on: time. Both suffered blows. Albert Einstein lost the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity (he won it for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect). At the Nobel Prize awards ceremony, the jury spokesman alluded to the epic debate: 'It's no secret that the philosopher Bergson has disputed it [the Theory of Relativity] in Paris'. Henri Bergson, on the other hand, was widely misunderstood in the years succeeding the debate from the evening of 6 April, 1922. For him, its ripple effects were felt in the latter half of his scholarly career. The intense debate between the Continental philosopher and his physicist counterpart at the Société française de philosophie, Paris, France, may have lasted only about 30 minutes, but the discourse over who trumped whom continues. More than a century has passed, and its final takeaway is still contended, with the gap between science and humanities ever widening. Two notions of time Essentially, the prevailing obscurity (concerning the nature of reality), which sparked this infamous debate, could be traced even to ancient Greek philosophy. Philosophers spanning centuries were confronted with several dualities: mind and matter, the subjective and the objective, the collective and the personal, time and space, and being and becoming, among others. The essence of this debate, when viewed from this context, reveals that the opposing notions of time put forth are neither wrong nor misled but are to be fitted into a unified framework. The philosopher took exception only to science taking for granted the rather glaring sovereignty of time. It was to be felt in its passing and not to be mistaken for 'movements in space'. As for the physicist, it was liable to measurement, moving relative to the observer, with its fluidity hinged on a relative frame of reference. The physicist brought out into the external world what the philosopher attempted to grasp from within. This spawned the mighty debate. Yet, it is to be noted that Dr. Bergson couldn't fully develop a theory of a 'single time' as he himself was confronted with the intricacies of multiplicity and simultaneity. Perception of time Dr. Bergson is among the few philosophers who have conducted concerted inquiries into the nature of time and how reality manifests itself. In his doctoral thesis, Time And Free Will: An Essay On The Immediate Data Of Consciousness (1889), he turns against any deterministic approach, positing the theory of dynamism, as against mechanistic methods. His quest for time was hinged on the impression that the moment being scrutinised would have passed before any mechanistic analysis could produce anything insightful. He went against the common notions of time that gave only 'snapshots' of an indivisible whole. What he puts forth instead is a simple and dynamic theory that attempts to grasp the autonomous nature of time as it unfolds. As a result, time, regaining its autonomy, freed itself from the entanglement of space. He rejected the superimposition or juxtaposition of spacial elements onto time and pointed out that a certain state of mind or the gravity of a situation could influence our experience of time. This is revealed in instances such as a tense moment or when someone paces down a rail platform to catch a train. Our experience of lived time may seem to slow down or accelerate even as the clocks tick as usual, validating the unpredictability of duration. Besides providing fresh insights into the nature of time, memories, and the mind-matter duality, Dr. Bergson's works were noted for their rich imagery and imagery. Often, he alluded to elements from the everyday to elucidate complex ideas. This was evident in the case with time too. For instance, he refers to the continuity of a musical melody to highlight the flow of time, with the highs and lows of various states corresponding to the progression of the melody. Time dilation It was fairly assumed that Dr. Bergson was proven wrong following the debate. This was partly because he had ostensibly misunderstood the scope of the phenomenon of time dilation, which is an aspect of Dr. Einstein's special theory of relativity. Time dilation is a physical phenomenon in which time moves differently, in accordance with the respective states of rest and motion, for different observers. However, Dr. Bergson contended this concept by pointing out the absence of an absolute frame of reference. For the renowned philosopher, this was more of an abstraction than a phenomenon. Years later, time dilation was experimentally proven, and Dr. Bergson's arguments couldn't wield power any longer. Despite Dr. Bergson being proven wrong in this regard, the nature of time remained a bone of contention between physicists and philosophers and among themselves. Even though time dilation was proven to be physically real, with the twin paradox becoming its flagbearer, the fundamental argument of Dr. Bergson that real time or la durée (duration), unlike whatever was measured by a clock, was more personal and experiential, still held ground. The twin paradox According to the twin paradox, the brother who stays behind on Earth would have aged more than his twin who travelled through space. But neither of the twins feels any remarkable changes in the working of their minds by virtue of the elapsed time and the travelling twin has to return to earth to realise that more time has passed for his brother. Thus, the twin paradox turns out to be observational and not absolutely experiential. This is where the Bergsonian notion of time triumphs. Moreover, the differences in elapsed time among the twins occur within a common framework, which, in turn, is fleeting. The common ground Dr. Bergson accords to the 'uninterrupted continuity of an unforeseeable novelty'. This is more in line with the famous quote attributed to Heraclitus: 'One cannot enter the same river twice'. The specific time intervals noted by a clock and the dilation experienced happen within the limits of this 'fleeting' framework. Therefore, instead of determining whether the physicist or the philosopher won the 1922 debate, it might be ideal to conceive a comprehensive framework that could fit in both notions -- the quantitative and the qualitative -- of time, without contradiction. Even though Dr. Bergson's philosophy went under the radar over time, at its peak it influenced philosophers in the likes of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Gilles Deleuze, and even had a lasting effect on the works of Thomas Mann and Marcel Proust. However, some of his critics have charged him with the decline of contemporary philosophy. Recent efforts to revive 'Bergsonmannia', which had once taken the world by storm, have paid off to a certain extent. While Dr. Bergson steered intellectual discourses at the break of the 20th century, his theories blew over and missed the dawn of the 21st. With every stride made in technology and the scientific world, the works of Dr. Einstein, on the other hand, continue to intrigue.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business Standard
Dark energy discovery changed understanding of universe: Nobel laureate
Dark matter pulls the universe and dark energy pushes, both mysteries that endure. And the discovery that a majority of the universe is made up of stuff that makes gravity push rather than pull was a gamechanger, says Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt. The US-born Australian astronomer along with Adam Riess and Saul Perlmutter from the US discovered the stuff, later termed dark energy, in 1998. The three won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. Explaining the significance of their discovery that changed the understanding of how the universe functions, Schmidt told PTI, "Dark energy is really saying (that) there is energy tied to space itself. If we didn't have dark energy, the universe would be curved and the universe wouldn't accelerate -- and that changes how cosmic objects, such as galaxies, looks. It really makes a difference," the astronomer, who was visiting Ashoka University for the Lodha Genius Programme, added. The term dark energy is intentionally similar to dark matter. Dark matter refers to particles in the universe that hold galaxies and other structures in space (the cosmos) together. It is said to have peculiar properties, such as being invisible, as it does not interact with light. However, while "dark matter and atoms (that make up ordinary matter) are pulling the universe, dark energy is pushing the universe. There's a balance at any given time of who's winning the war -- dark energy has won the war, it seems now and is pushing the universe apart", Schmidt explained. That's because dark energy had a density set at the time of the Big Bang, said the 58-year-old former president of the Australian National University and currently a distinguished professor of astronomy. The Big Bang, believed to have given birth to the universe, happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Dark matter is among the particles formed immediately after the event, gravity exerted from which is said to produce a slowing effect on the universe's evolution. "And (dark energy) stayed at that density. But as the universe expanded, and the density of atoms and dark matter dropped over time, the two crossed about 6.5 billion years back -- and that crossing meant the dark energy could take over and accelerate the universe," Schmidt said. Work on the discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and that dark energy is the driving force began in 1994. Schmidt and colleagues intended to look at distant objects and measure how fast the universe was expanding in the past, and then look at nearer objects to see how it slowed down over time. "And if we measured the universe slowing down really quickly, then we'd know that the universe was heavy and you're gonna get a Gnab Gib -- the Big Bang in reverse. But if the universe was slowing down slowly, then we'd know the universe is light and it's gonna exist forever. So that's what we were going to do." Three and a half years later came the answer. What we saw was the universe was expanding slower in the past and it sped up. So instead of slowing down, it's actually the other way -- it's speeding up," the Nobel laureate said. In 1917, physicist Albert Einstein first imagined dark energy as a concept -- only he did not think of it in those exact words but instead accounted for it in his equations of general relativity as a 'lambda' term. Einstein is said to have considered the lambda term irrelevant, even denouncing it as his greatest blunder. "When we made our discovery of the acceleration (of the universe), it was the only sensible way of making it happen. So that thing (the lambda term), that he (Einstein) brought in 1917 and then later discarded as being irrelevant, that seems to (be validated from) what we discovered," Schmidt continued. "In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings...," states the press release dated October 4, 2011, announcing the recipients for the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2011. The 1998 model has since been scrutinised through experiments, mainly aimed at understanding the nature of dark energy -- is it constant or does it vary? "We put in some extra knobs in the model of 1998, where we allow dark energy to change over time. The models with the most recent data seem to prefer a dark energy that changes," Schmidt said. But he is sceptical. "I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I need better data to be convinced they're right. He said he is also glad that someone else is working on it. Schmidt leads the 'SkyMapper Telescope Project' for which he conducted a survey of the southern sky as seen from Australia, focussed on looking at the "oldest, first stars in the galaxy". "We could see essentially what the chemistry of the universe was back really close to the Big Bang -- because if a star was formed right after the Big Bang, it's made up of the stuff that was in the universe at the time. "And so, we found the most chemically pure stars that have ever been discovered, ones that were almost certainly not formed from the remnants of the Big Bang, but from a single exploding star after the Big Bang. That just gives us a sense of what the first stars look like," said Schmidt, who has published his findings in several journals, including Nature. Schmidt, who addressed high schoolers and others on science as a potential career at the university, advised them to get the skills that seem useful for life by working on something that interests them. Not knowing what to do in life and the fact that he enjoyed astronomy made Schmidt pursue the field. "In learning astronomy, I'd learned math, I'd learned physics, I'd learned computing, I'd learned some engineering. And (while) I didn't think it was likely that I would get a job to be an astronomer, I knew math, engineering, physics, and computing liable to give me a good job doing something. And of course, I did end up being an astronomer," he said. "You don't really know how all of this is going to come together in your life, but if you work on something you're interested in, with a set of skills that seem useful for life, then don't overthink your life, don't overplan your life," Schmidt said.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Push and pull: Dark energy discovery changed understanding of universe, says Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt
Dark matter pulls the universe and dark energy pushes, both mysteries that endure. And the discovery that a majority of the universe is made up of "stuff" that makes gravity push rather than pull was a gamechanger, says Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt . The US-born Australian astronomer along with Adam Riess and Saul Perlmutter from the US discovered the "stuff", later termed dark energy, in 1998. The three won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. Explaining the significance of their discovery that changed the understanding of how the universe functions, Schmidt told PTI, "Dark energy is really saying (that) there is energy tied to space itself." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play this game for 3 minutes, if you own a mouse Undo "If we didn't have dark energy, the universe would be curved and the universe wouldn't accelerate -- and that changes how cosmic objects, such as galaxies, looks. It really makes a difference," the astronomer, who was visiting Ashoka University for the Lodha Genius Programme, added. The term dark energy is intentionally similar to dark matter. Live Events Dark matter refers to particles in the universe that hold galaxies and other structures in space (the cosmos) together. It is said to have peculiar properties, such as being invisible, as it does not interact with light. However, while "dark matter and atoms (that make up ordinary matter) are pulling the universe, dark energy is pushing the universe. There's a balance at any given time of who's winning the war -- dark energy has won the war, it seems now and is pushing the universe apart", Schmidt explained. That's because dark energy had a density set at the time of the Big Bang , said the 58-year-old former president of the Australian National University and currently a distinguished professor of astronomy. The Big Bang, believed to have given birth to the universe, happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Dark matter is among the particles formed immediately after the event, gravity exerted from which is said to produce a slowing effect on the universe's evolution. "And (dark energy) stayed at that density. But as the universe expanded, and the density of atoms and dark matter dropped over time, the two crossed about 6.5 billion years back -- and that crossing meant the dark energy could take over and accelerate the universe," Schmidt said. Work on the discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and that dark energy is the driving force began in 1994. Schmidt and colleagues intended to look at distant objects and measure how fast the universe was expanding in the past, and then look at nearer objects to see how it slowed down over time. "And if we measured the universe slowing down really quickly, then we'd know that the universe was heavy and you're gonna get a Gnab Gib -- the Big Bang in reverse. But if the universe was slowing down slowly, then we'd know the universe is light and it's gonna exist forever. So that's what we were going to do." Three and a half years later came the answer. "What we saw was the universe was expanding slower in the past and it sped up. So instead of slowing down, it's actually the other way -- it's speeding up," the Nobel laureate said. In 1917, physicist Albert Einstein first imagined dark energy as a concept -- only he did not think of it in those exact words but instead accounted for it in his equations of general relativity as a 'lambda' term. Einstein is said to have considered the lambda term irrelevant, even denouncing it as his "greatest blunder". "When we made our discovery of the acceleration (of the universe), it was the only sensible way of making it happen. So that thing (the lambda term), that he (Einstein) brought in 1917 and then later discarded as being irrelevant, that seems to (be validated from) what we discovered," Schmidt continued. "In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings...," states the press release dated October 4, 2011, announcing the recipients for the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2011. The 1998 model has since been scrutinised through experiments, mainly aimed at understanding the nature of dark energy -- is it constant or does it vary? "We put in some extra knobs in the model of 1998, where we allow dark energy to change over time. The models with the most recent data seem to prefer a dark energy that changes," Schmidt said. But he is sceptical. "I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I need better data to be convinced they're right." He said he is also glad that someone else is working on it. Schmidt leads the ' SkyMapper Telescope Project ' for which he conducted a survey of the southern sky as seen from Australia, focussed on looking at the "oldest, first stars in the galaxy". "We could see essentially what the chemistry of the universe was back really close to the Big Bang -- because if a star was formed right after the Big Bang, it's made up of the stuff that was in the universe at the time. "And so, we found the most chemically pure stars that have ever been discovered, ones that were almost certainly not formed from the remnants of the Big Bang, but from a single exploding star after the Big Bang. That just gives us a sense of what the first stars look like," said Schmidt, who has published his findings in several journals, including Nature. Schmidt, who addressed high schoolers and others on science as a potential career at the university, advised them to get the skills that seem useful for life by working on something that interests them. Not knowing what to do in life and the fact that he enjoyed astronomy made Schmidt pursue the field. "In learning astronomy, I'd learned math, I'd learned physics, I'd learned computing, I'd learned some engineering. And (while) I didn't think it was likely that I would get a job to be an astronomer, I knew math, engineering, physics, and computing liable to give me a good job doing something. And of course, I did end up being an astronomer," he said. "You don't really know how all of this is going to come together in your life, but if you work on something you're interested in, with a set of skills that seem useful for life, then don't overthink your life, don't overplan your life," Schmidt said.
