SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

It is precisely here, in an improved understanding of our mental relations to nature, that the permanent contribution of relativity is to be found. We should now make it our business to understand so thoroughly the character of our permanent mental relations to nature that another change in our attitude such as that due to Einstein, shall be forever impossible.
(55)                                                                                                           P. W. BRIDGMAN
It is not my aim to expound the Einstein Theory as such. There are many excellent and competent books written on this subject. I have already explained and stressed several structural points which in the last analysis are the foundation of Einstein's work. Many 'thinkers' through the ages have felt vaguely the dangers of the structure of language and the viciousness of objectification, that is, of the delusional ascribing of objective values to verbal forms. This vague feeling, of course, is useful in individuals, but it is a private benefit, which cannot be made public without some sort of formulation. The stroke of genius of Einstein was that he produced a non-elementalistic, linguistic system of new structure. Einstein, being a physicist, decided rightly, as we understand now, to be entirely actional, behaviouristic, functional, and operational, and to stop gambling on words. The older el linguistic problems of 'matter', 'space', and 'time' were in such a mess, due to the objectification of verbal structures, that it was useless to talk any more in the old way. He decided to describe what a physicist does when he measures 'space' and 'time', and to abandon, perhaps unconsciously, the 'is' of identity.
It seems unnecessary to stress the simple fact that when we measure a piece of wood, for example, we mark it off with another piece of material which we have accepted arbitrarily as our 'unit of length'. The coincidence of our 'unit' with the intervals between the marks is again judged by an extremely complex electromagnetic-neural process, which was quite disregarded until Einstein. Our judgement is conditioned by the light rays travelling with finite velocity which excite our nervous system through the retina, this excitation in turn also travelling with finite velocity. We see that the apparently simple measurement of a 'length' is really an extremely complex process, in which the finite velocity of light and of the nerve currents plays a very important role. Naturally, if we were to assume an 'infinite' velocity of the propagation of light, our verbal speculations about 'space' and 'time' might be perhaps entertaining, but they would nevertheless be fundamentally and structurally wrong.
Similar remarks apply to the measurement of 'time'. What do we mean when we say that a train has arrived at the station at 9 o'clock? We mean no more and no less than that the arrival of the train coincided with the arrival of the pointer of a clock at a point marked 9 on the clock face. In other words,