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 the blooming and wilting of flowers or the movement of stars in a short period of time, and when you watch these videos, you get the impression that everything in this world is moving very quickly.
In fact, the world is constantly changing. Not only is technology advancing, but all matter is changing its state. From the fingers tapping on the keyboard to the bicycle handlebars slowly rusting away, it can be said that nothing remains unchanged. In Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Karl Popper said that the root cause of these 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. I will analyze Popper’s discussion of the causes of change and then discuss why I disagree with his argument.
In “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge,” Popper defines change as the transformation of things without losing their identity. He also states, “The familiar changes that occur in our world are associated with differences in temperature. This heat and cold are the causes of 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 difference in temperature, which raises the problem of infinite regress 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 us briefly observe the motion of a falling ball.
The ball, which was stationary at a high position, had only potential energy, but as it fell to the ground, that energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing the movement of the ball, we say that the position of the ball has changed. The ball, which fell and bounced off the ground, eventually came to a stop. It reached a state where it appeared that no change was occurring. The actual reason why the ball stopped was 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 great, so the small amount of heat energy dispersed in all directions does not significantly change the ambient temperature. 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 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, upon closer examination, it cannot be said that all changes are caused by changes in heat energy. Heat energy is merely what “appears” to be the end of the cycle of change.
Thermal energy also comes from other forms of energy, and it 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 occurrence. 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 origin 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 a hypothesis that has undergone numerous attempts to disprove it and is ultimately believed by people to be valid. Therefore, the existence of the law of increasing entropy means that many people already accept the content of the law as a matter of course.
Another reason is that thermal energy is ultimately converted into other forms of energy. Of course, it is very difficult to utilize the thermal energy that is dispersed in the air itself. However, this thermal 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 was ultimately the scattered heat energy. For this reason, I believe that heat energy is not only the final form of the energy cycle, but also that there is no source of change. What we see is simply 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 claim, we can see that it has its own validity. However, just because the final form of energy that we can observe is heat, we cannot claim that it is the cause of all change. 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.
