Greek philosopher Heraclitus stated many centuries ago that “you cannot step into the same river twice”. This can be interpreted as a theory that supports change as the only thing that doesn’t change. But then, an old problem arises: how can we attain some…identity when the properties we own are so fleeting? And from that, an even more serious one; can we explain identity and matter as part of a whole? Does it even make sense to mix metaphysics with physics? It seems like these questions form more mysteries than answers.
Many have thought that Heraclitus believed that the “river” changed because the water flowing into the exact position stepped into for the second time, was not the same one flowing before. To me, this is a very simple interpretation of poor Heraclitus. Even though he had no clue of the ideas brought to light by the atomists, I believe his view was much more advanced than thinking about just water. Let’s say we do assume that he saw water as the river’s major constituent, and take it away from the equation. If we eliminate water, there are still an infinite amount of factors that are still continually changing (even though they seem static, i.e. rocks). For example, marine life. Inside of the marine life category there are, again, even more levels of classification. The specific organisms alive at a specific point in time, their exact age and size, the place where they are located, etc. Basically, if we use the knowledge of today to analyze the “water” situation, it can be said that even protons, neutrons and electrons are moving within the ever-in-motion atoms.
The terms motion, change and infinity are mentioned quite a lot while referring to Heraclitus. What would famous atomist Democritus think about this? Blasphemy! Not really. Democritus did believe in a basic subunit for matter, but he also believed that this subunit was never in repose. He properly called these subunits atoma (indivisible) and concluded that they were indestructible. If Heraclitus and Democritus were contemporaries, I think that the only thing they would seriously argue about would concern the existence of a “soul”. Heraclitus was trying to explain how the universe works and came to be. Heraclitus was more concerned with earlier philosophical infants, not the soul! Meanwhile, Democritus thrives to protect it the soul and enjoys just having one.
An interesting consequence of seeing change as constant is the almost obligatory lack of a beginning. The fact that motion is continuous makes a real definite beginning virtually impossible. No beginning means no creator, no creator means no “god”. This is a rather dangerous thing to say during the 5th century b.c. yet I agree. Now, I don’t want to be misunderstood. I just believe that us Homo sapiens regard ourselves as such a superior race. Maybe in relation to all other animals on this planet, but not mighty and superior enough for our brains to even begin to comprehend eternity nor physical infinitism. Although trying to think that one must be resigned in terms of wanting knowledge of eternity seems like the most realistic option, it can easily inflict a sense of melancholy. For some reasons, it is just easier for Homo sapiens to believe in a god.
The most important thing to take from this discussion is that whenever we, currently physical beings composed of a finite number of atoms, try to fuse metaphysics with physics, we fail. Usually, movements that think they have succeded are mere mythological story authors or self-proclaimed geniuses that cannot recognize that “all I know is that I know nothing”. The only time when there is some possibility of finding out if this world is really (and I underline “really”) changing, static or whatever, is when we die. When there is a slight possibility that we can separate this legendary “soul” from the confines of matter, then we might know. And, what can we do once we have no more control over this physical world? Nothing.
By,
Me.
