Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Becoming is interpreted by various sciences. The exact sciences, physics, and chemistry, interpret this universal becoming or change of all things on the model of mathematical equations. In such an equation of quantities or magnitudes, one side always balances the other. We call such a process “circular”. Numbers may be subdivided or contracted, they may change their places or positions, but the sum total of the whole equation remains immutably the same. In this manner mechanics constructs change as a change of positions of unchanging particles in a continuous but divisible space and in a continuous but divisible time. Chemistry constructs qualitative change as a change of unchanging elements in such a fashion that the sum total of the elements involved in such transactions is always completely accounted for. But in the twentieth century becoming entered these closed systems. There are no unchanging atoms now, and no unchanging chemical elements. Both the physical atom and the chemical element, thought immutable before, are now seen to disintegrate, to radiate, to change their character according to their position in the “field” of energy in which they occur.
1 Henry Adams: The Degradations of the Democratic Dogma.
2 Against the false but popular conception of the Platonic Idea as static object and as separate from becoming. c. f. Mueller, What Plato Thinks, Open Court, 1937, Chap. VI on Dialectial Idealism. Jowett's mistranslation, particularly his frequent use of the term “absolute” where Plato never uses it, is an important source of this misconception.