SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

from a polygon with a very large number of very small equal sides. With the invention of the differential and integral calculus, 'infinitesimal calculus', as it was called, the importance of the 'infinitesimal' increased, and even mathematicians used it as a fundamental notion. Finally, Weierstrass succeeded in showing the meaningless character of the 'infinitesimal', and also that the 'infinitesimal' was not structurally necessary for the calculus. Up to that date, the problem was baffling; we knew that the calculus required 'continuity', which, in turn, seemed to require 'the infinitely little', and yet no one could tell what this 'infinitely little' might represent. It was quite obviously not zero, because a sufficient number of them was able to make up a finite whole; and we knew no fraction which was not zero and yet not finite. The discovery by Weierstrass that the calculus does not require the 'infinitesimal', and that all deductions could be made without it, abolished a very serious structural, verbal, metaphysical, and semantic bugaboo. Common sense, of course, is much simpler, although unreliable in such matters, and was satisfied also.
The elimination of the 'infinitesimal' is a great semantic step forward, and helps to clarify structurally some deeply rooted, vague, fallacious notions, which are overloaded with affective components and are extremely vicious in their effects.
If there is no 'infinitesimal', there is no 'next moment'; for the interval between any two moments must be finite, and so there are always other moments in the interval between them. Also, two moments cannot be consecutive, for between any two there are always other moments, no matter how far we go; similarly, the 'present' becomes a very vague notion.
For our purpose, the most fundamental semantic application of what has been said above is in the vast field embraced by the old structural notions of 'cause' and 'effect'. These terms are of great antiquity, of a distinctly pre-scientific one-, two-valued semantic epoch. They originated in the rough experience of our race, and are firmly rooted in the habits of 'thought' and the structure of our old two-valued 'logic' and language, and because of that are even now unduly baffling. These terms, in the two-valued sense, were and are the structural assumptions of our 'private' and 'official' 'philosophies'. The unenlightened use of these terms has done much to prevent the formulation of a science of man and to build up vicious anti-scientific metaphysics of various sorts involving pathological s.r. With the new quantum mechanics, a better understanding of these notions, based on the oo-valued semantics of probability, becomes a paramount issue for all science. In daily life, the