In this blog post, we will explore why and how change happens based on philosopher Popper’s arguments about the causes of change and critical perspectives on his arguments.
Have you ever seen a video shot using the time-lapse technique? Time-lapse is a technique in which the frame rate is set much lower than the speed at which changes can be observed. When you watch a video shot using this technique, it feels as if time is passing quickly. It is mainly used to show flowers blooming and wilting or stars moving in a short period of time, and watching these images makes you feel that everything in this world is moving very quickly.
In fact, this world is constantly changing. Not only is technology advancing, but all matter is changing its state. From the fingers typing on the keyboard to the bicycle handlebars slowly rusting, it can be said that nothing remains unchanged. In Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper said that the root of such changes is differences in temperature. But is heat really the cause of change? Furthermore, does the cause of change even exist? I believe that there is no cause of change. Next, I will analyze Popper’s discussion of the causes of change and then discuss why I disagree with his argument.
In Conjectures and Refutations, Popper defines change as the transformation of things without losing their identity. He also said, “The familiar changes that occur in our world are associated with differences in temperature. This heat and cold cause steam and wind, and steam and wind are the driving forces behind almost all other changes.” However, he did not define the reason for the differences in temperature, which leads to an infinite regress problem regarding change.
I believe Popper had his own reasons for coming to this conclusion. Before discussing those reasons, I will define change as the transformation of energy from one form to another. We can only “recognize” that an object has changed after the fact. To understand this, let’s observe the simple motion of a ball falling. A ball at rest at a high position has only potential energy, but as it falls to the ground, that energy is converted into kinetic energy. Seeing the ball move, we say that its position has changed. After falling and bouncing off the ground, the ball eventually comes to rest. It has reached a state where it appears that no change is occurring. The actual reason the ball stops is friction. The energy possessed by the ball was converted into heat energy due to friction. The heat energy is dispersed in all directions to equalize the temperature of the surroundings. The heat energy generated by friction is not actually that large, so the small amount of heat energy dispersed in all directions does not significantly change the temperature of the surroundings. Therefore, it appears to our eyes as if the energy has disappeared.
Let’s consider another example involving various chemical changes. All chemical reactions can be classified as either exothermic or endothermic reactions. Observing the exothermic reaction between aluminum and hydrochloric acid, we see that hydrogen gas is generated, aluminum is converted to aluminum oxide, and heat is released. Observing this, it appears as if the reaction occurs as heat escapes. In the case of an endothermic reaction, it also appears as if the reaction occurs as heat enters. If we try to find the reason for the change in the chemical state of an object from what we can see, the most reasonable answer would be that the object absorbed heat. Of course, the enthalpy and free energy of the substance will also change after the chemical reaction is complete, but neither can be directly measured or observed. As in the two cases above, the end result of the change, or the final form of energy, is mostly heat energy. Since the “final form of observable energy” is heat energy, Popper would have said that the source of change is the difference in temperature.
However, if we look closely, we cannot say that all changes are caused by changes in heat energy. Heat energy is only “perceived” as the end of the cycle of change. Heat energy also comes from other forms of energy, and is not actually the end of the energy change cycle. Therefore, I think it is somewhat of a leap and inappropriate to call it the driving force of change. I would like to say that energy changes its form not because of any cause, but because it is a natural phenomenon. If we argue this way, not only will the problem of infinite regression disappear, but there will be no need to ask the question of the source of change itself. There are two reasons for my argument.
The first reason is the law of increasing entropy. Entropy is a physical quantity that describes the state of a material system in relation to heat and temperature, and is a measure of how close the state of a system is to disorder. The law of increasing entropy states that the increase in entropy in the universe is spontaneous. Here, “spontaneous” means that it occurs on its own without external interference, given enough time. I believe that an increase in disorder means change. This is because, in order for disorder to increase, some characteristic of matter must change. Furthermore, a law is something that people believe to be valid after numerous attempts to disprove it, so the existence of the law of increasing entropy means that many people already accept its contents as a matter of course.
Another reason is that heat energy eventually changes into other forms of energy. Of course, it is very difficult to utilize the heat energy that is spread throughout the air. However, this heat energy can evaporate water in the air and create rain and clouds. The resulting changes in the weather cause plants to grow, and we ultimately feel that new chemical energy has been created. The source of the chemical energy produced by plants is ultimately the scattered heat energy. For this reason, I believe that heat energy is not only the final form of the energy conversion cycle, but also that there is no source of change. All we see is energy changing its form.
As mentioned earlier, I disagree with Popper’s definition of the source of change as a difference in temperature. Of course, when we consider the reasons for his argument, we can see that it has its own validity. However, we cannot claim that the cause of all change lies in heat simply because it is the final form of energy that we can observe. Furthermore, I believe that the source of change does not exist. Therefore, there is no need to try hard to find the cause of change. Rather, it is the state of not changing that is unnatural. If you think that something is not changing, you need to look closely to see if it is really not changing. If you observe it closely, you will find that even the smallest parts are undergoing change.
