Matter is a philosophical category for designation. The category of matter and its fundamental significance for philosophy

Matter is a philosophical category, which in materialistic philosophy denotes the origin, objective reality in relation to consciousness, subjective reality. The concept of “matter” is used in two main senses: either it expresses the deepest essence of the world, its objective existence, or it is identified with everything that exists.

Historical and philosophical analysis of the genesis and development of the concept of “matter” comes down to an analysis of the three main stages of its evolution:

1. like things
2. as properties
3. like a relationship.

The first stage was associated with the search for some specific but universal thing that constitutes the fundamental basis of all existing phenomena. For the first time this method of understanding the world was used by ancient philosophers (water, apeiron and air). The next step in the transformation of the concept of matter was ancient atomism, which developed through the teaching of Anaxagoras about qualitatively different homeomeries to the ideas of Leucippus and Democritus, and then Epicurus and Lucretius Cara about atoms as the unified material basis of the world.

The second stage in the formation of the category “matter” is associated with the era of modern times, the period of the birth of classical science, based, in particular, on experience as the principle of comprehension of being. The science of this period, without qualitatively changing the idea of ​​matter as a fundamental principle, deepened it, using such a quantitative characteristic as “mass”. This identification of matter with mass is characteristic of the works of G. Galileo, I. Newton, M. Lomonosov and Lavoisier, who formulated the law of conservation of matter as the law of conservation of mass, or weight of bodies.

The second stage is characterized by:

1. definition of matter within the boundaries of the mechanistic approach as the fundamental principle of things;
2. considering it “in itself” without relation to consciousness;
3. inclusion in the concept of matter only natural world, leaving the social sphere outside this category.

However, already in modern European philosophy, the interpretation of matter goes beyond its traditional understanding, when in the definitions of D. Locke and P. Holbach it is interpreted as a relationship between subject and object, and subsequently by Marxism - as a philosophical abstraction, which determined its status within the framework of the main issue philosophy. In the conditions of the scientific revolution of the 19th - early 20th centuries, which radically changed man’s understanding of the universe and its structure, the idea of ​​matter is developing as something that, acting on our senses, causes certain sensations (G. Plekhanov), or according to the position of V. AND. Lenin, is a philosophical category to designate the only universal property of things and phenomena - to be an objective reality that exists independently of human consciousness and is reflected by it. In other words, matter is interpreted here within the framework of a system of subject-object relations.

IN modern philosophy the problem of matter either fades into the background (non-traditional directions), or the latter is interpreted as the fundamental principle of things, inextricably linked with such attributes (universal forms of being) as movement, space and time.

Movement is a concept that covers all types of changes and interactions from mechanical movement to qualitative change, realized in a nonlinear mechanism for resolving contradictions. The qualitative transformation of a moving object can have a dual focus: increasing the level of complexity of the system organization and its connections with the environment - progress (transition from lower to higher to more advanced forms, more of them high organization and evolutionary possibilities) and simplification of the internal and external structure of the object - regression (return of the object in its evolution to previously passed stages).

Each structural formation of matter corresponds to its inherent form of motion, which, based on the most important stages The development of matter is divided into three main groups. Inanimate nature is characterized by mechanical (movement in space and time), physical (movement of atoms, molecules, light phenomena) and chemical (chemical reactions) forms of movement. For living nature - biological (metabolism within a living organism), and for society - social (material and spiritual changes occurring in society) forms of movement.

The universal forms of motion of matter are space and time.

Space is the property of objects to be extended, to occupy a place among others, to border on them and to move in three main directions (in three dimensions).

Time is a concept that expresses the speed of development of processes, their rhythm and tempo. It is unidirectional and irreversible, which is especially clearly manifested in the individual life of organisms. In the depths of the microworld one can find other characteristics of time and space, and in other worlds outside our Metagalaxy there may be other material structures, and, consequently, forms of space-time unknown to us.

Within the framework of material formations known to us, time is divided into three main types:

1. natural - time of various natural phenomena and processes with which the concepts of physical, cosmological and geological time are associated in modern science;
2. biological - various biological forms of movement within the framework of self-organization of living nature;
3. social - covering various types of time associated with specific forms of human activity, the life of society and the individual.

The concretization of the concept of being is closely connected with the concept of substance, with the concept of matter. The concept of substance(something underlying) - what lies at the basis of being, i.e. substance is something that underlies all changes in existence. As you know, in ancient philosophy various substances were isolated, which were interpreted as the fundamental principle of all things (for example, water by Thales, the atom by Democritus, the world of ideas by Plato).

In the philosophy of modern times, two lines of analysis of substance were distinguished: first line - ontological - associated with the understanding of substance as the ultimate basis of being and was reduced to a description of the forms of specific things (for example, Bacon - being is a thing). Leibniz isolated many simple and indivisible substances - monads; Descartes distinguishes two substances - material, which is characterized by extension, and spiritual, which is characterized by the ability to think, activity and variability. Second line analysis of substance - epistemological. This is a cognitive understanding of the concept of substance, its necessity for scientific knowledge (Lock, Berkeley, Hegel).

The concept of substance is considered in philosophy from the side of its internal unity, regardless of all those infinitely diverse changes in and through which it actually exists. For modern science substance is only a formal concept that has meaning: the carrier of a phenomenon. Substrate is a carrier of substance. There are three points of view on the problem of substance:

1. monistic, where the whole world, all the diversity of sensory perceived phenomena is reduced to one beginning (i.e., as the unity of diversity).

2. dualistic - it affirms the existence in the world of two initial principles - material and ideal.

3. pluralistic - pluralism is a philosophical point of view according to which reality consists of many independent entities that do not form absolute unity. For example, the “theory of three worlds” by K. Popper, who believes that there are three kinds of being: the world of knowledge, which exists independently of the knowing subject; world mental states and the world of physical states.

Since philosophers began to realize that nature exists independently of man, they have tried to find what is common to all things, events, and processes. As you know, in ancient philosophy the search for this beginning led to the concept of matter (Latin - substance). Subsequently, the concept of matter was identified with the atom, then with the body (weight, rest mass, impenetrability, etc.). A similar approach was in the minds of philosophers and prominent natural scientists until the end of the 19th century. Materialist philosophy, the concept of matter acts as the most general, fundamental concept in which the material unity of the world and various forms of existence are recorded. Well explained how it was formed this concept F. Engels in the book “Dialectics of Nature” (1894). He wrote: “Matter is nothing more than a collection of substances from which this concept is abstracted... Words such as matter are nothing more than a contraction in which we cover according to their general properties many different sensory things. Therefore, matter...can be known only by studying individual substances and individual forms of motion." Thus, one who recognizes objective existence must develop a philosophical concept to designate this objective reality. This concept is called matter. Modern definition matter was given by V.I. Lenin in his work "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" (1909): " Matter is a philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is given to a person in his sensations, which is copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of us." The concept of matter is a scientific abstraction that reflects the universal property of all phenomena - the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our consciousness. It emphasizes that matter is primary in relation to consciousness, that it exists outside and independently of consciousness, it is knowable. Therefore, matter can be known only by studying individual objects and objects. This is an infinite variety of objects and systems that have its structure, system of organization, diversity of properties.Therefore, any scientific theory of the world will inevitably be open-ended and open to further study.

Modern materialism emphasizes that the philosophical concept of matter cannot be associated with substance. So, in late XIX At the beginning of the 20th century, physics saw the discovery of the electron (A. Thompson - 1896), X-rays (N. Roentgen - 1895), and radioactivity (Becquerel - 1897). New discoveries revealed the limitations of the mechanistic view of the world, which allowed us to further conclude: natural science will discover other types of matter, deepen our knowledge of the structure of the world, but will not change the philosophical definition of matter as an objective reality.

The concept of matter is closely related to the concept of nature. Nature in the broad sense of the word is matter, i.e. everything that exists, the whole world in the diversity of its forms, existing independently of man, develops according to its own laws. The study of nature forms a scientific picture of the world as a whole. The scientific picture of the world includes the idea of ​​the structural, systemic organization of nature, various forms of movement of matter, space, time, reflection, development.

MATTER

MATTER

One of the most ambiguous philosophies. concepts to which one (or some) of the following meanings is given: 1) something whose defining characteristics are place in space, weight, inertia, resistance, impenetrability, attraction and repulsion, or some of these properties; external sensory experience; that which constitutes “given in sensation”; stable, permanent (or relatively permanent); for many (accessible to more than one knowing subject); 2) physical or non-mental; 3) physical, bodily or non-spiritual; 4) inanimate, inanimate; 5) natural, not supernatural; 6) completely or partially undetermined; taking form or that which has such potency; that which, in conjunction with form, constitutes the individual; that which relates to content as opposed to form; the particular as opposed to the universal; 7) source of sensations; that which is given in experience as the opposite of that given by the mind; 8) what it consists of; that from which it arises or is created; 9) primary existence or original basis; 10) what is the subject of consideration.

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

The concretization of the concept of “being” is carried out, first of all, in the concept of “matter”. It is clear that the problems of matter, including its concept, were developed primarily by materialist philosophers from ancient to modern. The most complete and profound development of these problems is contained in the works of modern materialists. In materialistic philosophy, “matter” appears as the most general, fundamental category, in which the material unity of the world is recorded; various forms of being are considered as generated by matter in the course of its movement and development. The definition of the concept of “matter” was given by V.I. Lenin in his work “Materialism and Empirio-criticism” (1909).

“Matter,” wrote Lenin, “is a philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is given to man in his sensations, which is copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them.”

Let's take a closer look at this definition. The category “matter” denotes objective reality. But what does “objective reality” mean? This is all that exists outside of human consciousness and independently of it. So, the main property of the world, fixed with the help of the category “matter,” is its independent existence, independent of man and knowledge. The definition of matter essentially resolves the main question of philosophy, the question of the relationship between matter and consciousness. And at the same time the priority of matter is affirmed. It is primary in relation to consciousness. Primary in time, because consciousness arose relatively recently, and matter exists forever; It is also primary in the sense that consciousness is a historically emerging property of highly organized matter, a property that appears in socially developed people.

Matter is primary as the object of reflection is primary in relation to its reflection, as the model is primary in relation to its copy. But we know that the main question of philosophy also has a second side. This is the question of how thoughts about the world relate to this world itself, the question of whether the world is knowable. In the definition of matter we find the answer to this question. Yes, the world is knowable. Lenin in his definition focuses on sensations as the primary source of knowledge. This is due to the fact that in the named work Lenin criticizes empirio-criticism, a philosophy for which the problem of sensation was of particular importance. Although, in essence, we are talking about the problem of the cognizability of the world, the cognizability of matter. Therefore, we can give a shorter definition of matter: matter is a knowable objective reality.

Of course, such a definition is very general and does not indicate any other properties of matter other than its existence outside and independent of consciousness, as well as its cognition. However, we have the right to talk about some properties of matter that have the nature of attributes, that is, properties that are always and everywhere inherent in both all matter and any material objects. These are space, time and movement. Since all things exist in space, move in space, and at the same time the very existence of a person and the things around him takes place in time, the concepts of “space” and “time” were formulated and used quite a long time ago.

The categories “space” and “time” are among the fundamental philosophical and general scientific categories. And naturally, they are such primarily because they reflect and express the most general state being.

Time characterizes, first of all, the presence or absence of existence of certain objects. There was a time when I, writing these lines (as well as you, dear reader), simply did not exist. Now we are. But the time will come when you and I will not be there. The sequence of states: non-existence – existence – non-existence is fixed by the category of time. The other side of existence is the simultaneous existence of different objects (in our simple example this is mine and yours, reader), as well as their simultaneous non-existence. Time also fixes the relative periods of existence, so that for some objects it can be greater (longer), and for others it can be smaller (shorter). In the famous parable from " The captain's daughter"A.S. Pushkin determined the lifespan of a raven to be three hundred years, and that of an eagle to be thirty. In addition, time allows us to record periods in the development of a particular object. Childhood - adolescence - youth - adulthood - old age - all these phases in human development have their own time frame. Time is coming integral part into the characteristics of all processes of existence, change, movement of objects, without being reduced to any of these characteristics. It is this circumstance that makes it difficult to understand time as a universal form of existence.

The situation with the understanding of space is somewhat simpler if it is taken in the ordinary sense, as the container of all things and processes. More complex problems associated with the evolution of physical concepts of space and time will be considered below.

We find a philosophical analysis of the problems of space, time and motion in ancient philosophy. These problems began to be considered and discussed in more detail in science in the 17th century, in connection with the development of mechanics. At that time, mechanics analyzed the movement of macroscopic bodies, that is, those that were large enough to be seen and observed both in the natural state (for example, when describing the movement of the Moon or planets) and in experiment .

The Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was the founder of experimental-theoretical natural science.

He examined in detail the principle of relativity of motion. The movement of a body is characterized by speed, i.e., the size of the path traveled per unit of time. But in the world of moving bodies, speed turns out to be a relative quantity and dependent on the reference system. So, for example, if we are traveling in a tram and pass through the cabin from the back door to the driver’s cabin, then our speed relative to the passengers sitting in the cabin will be, for example, 4 km per hour, and relative to the houses the tram passes by, it will be will be equal to 4 km/h + tram speed, for example, 26 km/h. That is, the definition of speed is associated with a reference system or with the definition of a reference body. Under normal conditions, for us such a body of reference is the surface of the earth. But as soon as you go beyond its limits, the need arises to establish that object, that planet or that star, relative to which the speed of movement of the body is determined.

Considering the problem of determining the motion of bodies in general view, the English scientist Isaac Newton (1643-1727) followed the path of maximum abstraction of the concepts of space and time, expressing the conditions of motion. In his main work, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (1687), he poses the question: is it possible to indicate a body in the Universe that would serve as an absolute body of reference? Newton understood that not only the Earth, as it was in the old geocentric systems of astronomy, cannot be taken as such a central, absolute body of reference, but also the Sun, as was accepted in the Copernican system, cannot be considered such. An absolute reference body cannot be specified. But Newton set the task of describing absolute motion, and not limiting himself to describing the relative speeds of motion of bodies. In order to solve such a problem, he took a step that was apparently as ingenious as it was erroneous. He put forward abstractions that had not previously been used in philosophy and physics: absolute time and absolute space.

“Absolute, true, mathematical time by itself and by its very essence, without any relation to anything external, flows uniformly and is otherwise called duration,” wrote Newton. In a similar way, he defined absolute space: “Absolute space, by its very essence, regardless of anything external, always remains the same and motionless.” Newton contrasted sensory observed and recorded relative types of space and time with absolute space and time.

Of course, space and time as universal forms of existence of matter cannot be reduced to certain specific objects and their states. But one cannot separate space and time from material objects, as Newton did. A pure container of all things, existing on its own, a kind of box in which you can put the earth, planets, stars - that’s what Newton’s absolute space is. Since it is motionless, any fixed point of it can become a reference point for determining absolute motion; you just need to check your watch with absolute duration, which again exists independently of space and any things located in it. Things, material objects studied by mechanics, turned out to be adjacent to space and time. All of them in this system act as independent, not influencing each other in any way, constituent elements. Cartesian physics, which identified matter and space and did not recognize emptiness and atoms as forms of existence of things, was completely rejected. Advances in explaining nature and the mathematical apparatus of new mechanics ensured Newton's ideas for a long reign, which lasted until the beginning of the 20th century.

In the 19th century began fast development other natural sciences. In physics, great success was achieved in the field of thermodynamics, the doctrine of the electromagnetic field developed; The law of conservation and transformation of energy was formulated in general form. Chemistry progressed rapidly and a table was created chemical elements based on the periodic law. Biological sciences received further development, and Darwin's theory of evolution was created. All this created the basis for overcoming previous, mechanistic ideas about movement, space and time. A number of fundamental fundamental provisions about the movement of matter, space and time were formulated in the philosophy of dialectical materialism.

In his polemics with Dühring, F. Engels defended the dialectical-materialist concept of nature. “The basic forms of being,” wrote Engels, “are space and time; being outside of time is the same greatest nonsense as being outside of space.”

In his work “Dialectics of Nature,” Engels examined in detail the problem of motion and developed a doctrine of forms of motion that corresponded to the level of development of science of that time. “Movement,” wrote Engels, “considered in the most general sense of the word, that is, understood as a way of existence of matter, as an attribute inherent in matter, embraces all the changes and processes occurring in the universe, starting from simple movement and ending with thinking.”

Engels considered simple movement in space to be the most general form of movement of matter, on top of which, as in a pyramid, other forms are built. These are physical and chemical forms of motion of matter. Carrier physical fitness, according to Engels, are molecules, and chemicals are atoms. Mechanical, physical and chemical forms of motion form the foundation of a higher form of motion of matter - biological, the carrier of which is living protein. And finally, the highest form of movement of matter is the social form. Its carrier is human society.

“Dialectics of Nature” was published only in the late 20s and early 30s. of our century and therefore could not influence science at the time when it was created. But the methodological principles that were used by Engels in developing the classification of forms of motion of matter retain their significance up to the present day. Firstly, Engels brings into correspondence the forms of motion and the forms or types of structural organization of matter. With the advent of a new type of structural organization of matter, the new kind movements. Secondly, the classification of forms of movement contains a dialectically understood principle of development. Different forms of movement are genetically related to each other; they not only coexist, but also arise from each other. At the same time, higher forms of motion include lower ones as components and conditions necessary for the emergence of a new, higher form of motion of matter. And finally, thirdly, Engels strongly objected to attempts to reduce completely qualitatively unique higher forms of movement to lower forms.

In the 17th and 18th centuries. there was a strong tendency to reduce all laws of nature to the laws of mechanics. This trend is called “mechanism.” But later the same word began to denote attempts to reduce biological and social processes, for example, to the laws of thermodynamics. With the emergence of Darwinism, sociologists appeared who were inclined to explain the phenomena of social life by one-sidedly interpreted biological laws. All these are manifestations of mechanism.

Here we are faced with contradictions inherent in the process of development of cognition, when the features inherent in one type of structural organization of matter are transferred to other types. However, it should be kept in mind that during the study different types organization of matter and various forms of motion, some general, previously unknown circumstances and patterns are revealed that are characteristic of the interaction of different levels of organization of matter. As a result, theories arise that cover a wide range of objects belonging to different levels of organization of matter.

The end of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th century. became a time of a sharp change in ideas about the world - a time when the mechanistic picture of the world, which had dominated natural science for two centuries, was overcome.

One of the most important events in science was the discovery by the English physicist J. Thomson (1856-1940) of the electron, the first intra-atomic particle. Thomson studied cathode rays and found that they consist of particles with an electrical charge (negative) and very low mass. The mass of the electron, according to calculations, turned out to be more than 1800 times less than the mass of the lightest atom, the hydrogen atom. The discovery of such a small particle meant that the “indivisible” atom cannot be considered as the last “building block of the universe.” Research by physicists, on the one hand, confirmed the reality of atoms, but on the other hand, they showed that a real atom is not at all the same atom that was previously considered an indivisible chemical element, of which all are composed. known to man that time things and bodies of nature.

In fact, atoms are not simple and indivisible, but consist of some kind of particles. The electron was the first to be discovered. Thomson's first model of the atom was humorously called "raisin pudding." The pudding corresponded to a large, massive, positively charged part of the atom, while the raisins corresponded to small, negatively charged particles - electrons, which, according to Coulomb's law, were held on the surface of the “pudding” by electrical forces. And although this model was fully consistent with the ideas of physicists that existed at that time, it did not become long-lived.

Soon it was supplanted by a model that, although it contradicted the usual ideas of physicists, nevertheless corresponded to new experimental data. This is the planetary model of E. Rutherford (1871-1937). The experiments in question were carried out in connection with another fundamentally important discovery - the discovery at the end of the 19th century. radioactivity phenomena. This phenomenon itself also indicated the complex internal structure of the atoms of chemical elements. Rutherford used bombardment of targets made of foil of different metals with a stream of ionized helium atoms. As a result, it turned out that the atom has a size of 10 to the -8 power of cm, and the heavy mass carrying a positive charge is only 10 to the power of 12 cm.

So, in 1911, Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus. In 1919, he bombarded nitrogen with alpha particles and discovered a new intra-atomic particle, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, which he called the “proton.” Physics has entered a new world - the world of atomic particles, processes, relationships. And it immediately became clear that the laws of this world differ significantly from the laws of the macroworld we are accustomed to. In order to build a model of the hydrogen atom, it was necessary to create a new physical theory– quantum mechanics. Note that in a short historical period, physicists have discovered a large number of microparticles. By 1974, there were almost twice as many of them as chemical elements in periodic table Mendeleev.

In search of the basis for the classification of such large quantity microparticles, physicists have turned to the hypothesis that the diversity of microparticles can be explained if we assume the existence of new, subnuclear particles, various combinations of which act as known microparticles. This was a hypothesis about the existence of quarks. It was expressed almost simultaneously and independently of each other in 1963 by theoretical physicists M. Gell-Mann and G. Zweig.

One of unusual features quarks should be that they will have a fractional (when compared with an electron and a proton) electric charge: either -1/3 or +2/3. The positive charge of the proton and the zero charge of the neutron are easily explained by the quark composition of these particles. True, it should be noted that physicists were unable to detect individual quarks either in experiment or in observations (in particular, astronomical ones). It was necessary to develop a theory explaining why the existence of quarks outside hadrons is now impossible.

Another fundamental discovery of the 20th century, which had a huge impact on the entire picture of the world, was the creation of the theory of relativity. In 1905, a young and unknown theoretical physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) published an article in a special physics journal under the discreet title “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.” This article outlined the so-called private theory relativity. Essentially, this was a new concept of space and time, and new mechanics were developed accordingly. Old, classical physics was quite consistent with practice that dealt with macrobodies moving at not very high speeds. And only research electromagnetic waves, fields and other types of matter associated with them forced us to take a fresh look at the laws of classical mechanics.

Michelson's experiments and Lorentz's theoretical works served as the basis for a new vision of the world of physical phenomena. This concerns, first of all, space and time, the fundamental concepts that determine the construction of the entire picture of the world. Einstein showed that the abstractions of absolute space and absolute time introduced by Newton should be abandoned and replaced by others. First of all, we note that the characteristics of space and time will appear differently in systems that are stationary and moving relative to each other.

So, if you measure a rocket on Earth and establish that its length is, for example, 40 meters, and then from Earth determine the size of the same rocket, but moving at high speed relative to the Earth, it turns out that the result will be less than 40 meters. And if you measure the time flowing on Earth and on a rocket, it turns out that the clock readings will be different. On a rocket moving at high speed, time, in relation to earthly time, will flow more slowly, and the slower the higher the rocket’s speed, the closer it approaches the speed of light. This entails certain relationships that, from our usual practical point of view, are paradoxical.

This is the so-called twin paradox. Let's imagine twin brothers, one of whom becomes an astronaut and goes on a long mission. space trip, the other remains on Earth. Time passes. Spaceship returns. And between the brothers there is something like this conversation: “Hello,” says the one who remained on Earth, “I’m glad to see you, but why haven’t you changed almost at all, why are you so young, because thirty years have passed since the moment you flew away.” “Hello,” the astronaut replies, “and I’m glad to see you, but why are you so old, I’ve only been flying for five years.” So, according to the earth's clock, thirty years have passed, but according to the astronauts' clocks, only five. This means that time does not flow the same throughout the Universe; its changes depend on the interaction of moving systems. This is one of the main conclusions of the theory of relativity.

The German mathematician G. Minkowski, analyzing the theory of relativity, came to the conclusion that we should completely abandon the idea of ​​space and time as existing characteristics of the world separately from each other. In fact, Minkowski argued, there is a single form of existence of material objects, within which space and time cannot be isolated or isolated. Therefore, we need a concept that expresses this unity. But when it came to denoting this concept with a word, a new word was not found, and then a new one was formed from the old words: “space-time.”

So, we need to get used to the fact that real physical processes occur in a single space-time. And it itself, this space-time, appears as a single four-dimensional manifold; three coordinates characterizing space and one coordinate characterizing time cannot be separated from each other. But in general, the properties of space and time are determined by the cumulative effects of some events on others. Analysis of the theory of relativity required clarification of one of the most important philosophical and physical principles– the principle of causality.

In addition, the theory of relativity encountered significant difficulties when considering the phenomenon of gravity. This phenomenon could not be explained. It took a lot of work to overcome the theoretical difficulties. By 1916, A. Einstein developed the “General Theory of Relativity!” This theory provides for a more complex structure of space-time, which turns out to be dependent on the distribution and movement of material masses. The general theory of relativity became the basis on which later they began to build models of our Universe. But more on that later.

Astronomy has traditionally played a large role in the formation of a general view of the world. The changes that took place in astronomy in the 20th century were truly revolutionary. Let us note some of these circumstances. First of all, thanks to the development of atomic physics, astronomers learned why stars shine. Discovery and exploration of the world elementary particles allowed astronomers to construct theories that reveal the process of evolution of stars, galaxies and the entire Universe. The ideas about unchanging stars that existed for thousands of years are forever lost in history. The developing Universe is the world of modern astronomy. The point here is not only in the general philosophical principles of development, but also in the fundamental facts that were revealed to humanity in the 20th century, in the creation of new general physical theories, primarily the general theory of relativity, in new instruments and new observation possibilities (radio astronomy, extraterrestrial astronomy) and, finally, , is that humanity has taken its first steps into outer space.

Based on the general theory of relativity, models of our Universe began to be developed. The first such model was created in 1917 by Einstein himself. However, this model was later shown to have shortcomings and was abandoned. Soon the Russian scientist A. A. Friedman (1888-1925) proposed a model of the expanding Universe. Einstein initially rejected this model because he believed it contained faulty calculations. But later he admitted that Friedman’s model as a whole is quite well founded.

In 1929, the American astronomer E. Hubble (1889-1953) discovered the presence of the so-called red shift in the spectra of galaxies and formulated a law that allows one to determine the speed of motion of galaxies relative to the Earth and the distance to these galaxies. Thus, it turned out that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda is a galaxy whose characteristics are close to the one in which our Solar system is located, and the distance to it is relatively small, only 2 million light years.

In 1960, the spectrum of a radio galaxy was obtained and analyzed, which, as it turned out, is moving away from us at a speed of 138 thousand kilometers per second and is located at a distance of 5 billion light years. The study of galaxies led to the conclusion that we live in a world of expanding galaxies, and some joker, apparently remembering Thomson's model, proposed an analogy with a raisin pie that is in the oven and slowly expands, so that each raisin -the galaxy moves away from all others. However, today such an analogy can no longer be accepted, since computer analysis of the results of observations of galaxies leads to the conclusion that in the part of the Universe known to us, galaxies form some kind of network or cellular structure. Moreover, the distribution and densities of galaxies in space differ significantly from the distributions and densities of stars inside galaxies. So, apparently, both galaxies and their systems should be considered different levels of structural organization of matter.

Analysis of the internal mutual connection between the world of “elementary” particles and the structure of the Universe directed the thoughts of researchers along this path: “What would happen if certain properties of elementary particles differed from those observed?” Many models of Universes have appeared, but it seems that they all turned out to be the same in one thing - in such Universes there are no conditions for living things, similar to the world of living, biological creatures that we observe on Earth and to which we ourselves belong.

The hypothesis of an “anthropic” Universe arose. This is our Universe, the successive stages of development of which turned out to be such that the prerequisites were created for the emergence of living things. Thus, astronomy in the second half of the 20th century. encourages us to look at ourselves as a product of the multibillion-year development of our Universe. Our world is the best of all worlds, but not because, according to the Bible. God created it this way and saw for himself that it was good, but because in it such relationships were formed within the systems of material bodies, such laws of their interaction and development that in certain parts of this world conditions could have developed for the emergence of life, man and mind. At the same time, a number of events in the history of the Earth and solar system can be assessed as “happy accidents”.

American astronomer Carl Sagan proposed a visual, human-oriented model of the development of the Universe over time. He proposed to consider the entire existence of the Universe as one ordinary earthly year. Then 1 second of a cosmic year will be equal to 500 years, and the entire year will be equal to 15 billion earth years. It all starts with big bang, as astronomers call the moment when the history of our Universe began.

So, according to Sagan’s model, out of a whole year of the development of the Universe, our human history accounts for only about an hour and a half. Of course, the question immediately arises about other “lives”, about other places in the Universe where life, this special form of organization of matter, could exist.

The problem of life in the Universe is most fully posed and discussed in the book of the Russian scientist I. S. Shklovsky (1916-1985) “The Universe. Life. Mind,” the sixth edition of which was in 1987. Most researchers, both natural scientists and philosophers, believe that in our Galaxy and in other galaxies there are many oases of life, that there are numerous extraterrestrial civilizations. And, naturally, before the advent of a new era in astronomy, before the beginning space age on Earth, many considered the nearest planets of the solar system to be habitable. Mars and Venus. However, neither the devices sent to these planets nor American astronauts who landed on the Moon did not find any signs of life on these celestial bodies.

So the planet should be considered the only inhabited planet in the solar system. Considering the closest stars to us within a radius of about 16 light years, which may have planetary systems that satisfy some general criteria possibility of the emergence of life on them, astronomers have identified only three stars near which there may be such planetary systems. In 1976, I. S. Shklovsky published an article that was clearly sensational in its focus: “On the possible uniqueness of intelligent life in the Universe.” Most astronomers, physicists and philosophers do not agree with this hypothesis. But in recent years, no facts have appeared to refute it, and at the same time, it has not been possible to detect any traces of extraterrestrial civilizations. Except that sometimes “eyewitness accounts” appear in newspapers who have established direct contact with aliens from outer space. But this “evidence” cannot be taken seriously.

The philosophical principle of the material unity of the world underlies the idea of ​​the unity of physical laws operating in our Universe. This encourages us to look for such fundamental connections through which the variety of physical phenomena and processes observed in experience could be derived. Soon after the creation of the general theory of relativity, Einstein set himself the task of unifying electromagnetic phenomena and gravity on some unified basis. The problem turned out to be so difficult that Einstein did not have enough time to solve it throughout the rest of his life. The problem was further complicated by the fact that during the study of the microworld, new, previously unknown relationships and interactions were revealed.

So a modern physicist has to solve the problem of combining four types of interactions: strong, due to which nucleons are pulled together into an atomic nucleus; electromagnetic, repelling like charges (or attracting unlike ones); weak, registered in the processes of radioactivity, and, finally, gravitational, which determines the interaction of gravitating masses. The strengths of these interactions are significantly different. If we take strong as one, then electromagnetic will be 10 to the power of -2, weak - 10 to the power of -5. and gravitational – 10 to the power of -39.

Back in 1919, a German physicist suggested to Einstein that he introduce the fifth dimension to unify gravity and electromagnetism. In this case, it turned out that the equations that described the five-dimensional space coincided with Maxwell’s equations that described the electromagnetic field. But Einstein did not accept this idea, believing that the real physical world is four-dimensional.

However, the difficulties that physicists face in solving the problem of unifying the four types of interaction force them to return to the idea of ​​​​space-time of higher dimensions. Both in the 70s and 80s. Theoretical physicists turned to calculating such space-time. It was shown that at the initial moment of time (defined by an unimaginably small value - 10 to the power of -43 s from the beginning of the Big Bang), the fifth dimension was localized in a region of space that is impossible to visualize, since the radius of this region is defined as 10 to the power of -33 cm.

Currently, at the Institute of Graduate Studies in Princeton (USA), where Einstein lived in the last years of his life, a young professor, Edward Whitten, works, who created a theory that overcomes the serious theoretical difficulties that quantum theory and general relativity have hitherto encountered. He managed to do this by adding… six more dimensions to the known and observable four-dimensional space-time.

Thus, we got something similar to an ordinary, but only completely unusual, ten-dimensional world, the properties of which determine the entire known world of elementary particles and gravity, and, consequently, the macroworld of things that are ordinary for us, and the megaworld of stars and galaxies. The point is “small”: we need to find a way that expresses the transition from the 10-dimensional to the 4-dimensional world. And since this problem has not yet been solved, many physicists view Whitten's theory as a game of imagination, mathematically flawless, but not consistent real world. Well aware of the complexity and unusualness of the theory, called string theory, Whitten says that string theory is a part of 21st century physics that accidentally ended up in the 20th. Apparently, it is the physics of the 21st century. will pronounce its verdict on string theory, just as XX physics pronounced its verdict on the theories of relativity and quantum theory.

Science in the 20th century has advanced so far that many theories of modern scientists, confirmed by practice, would seem just fantasies to scientists of the 19th century. and seem fantastic to most people who are not involved in science. This also applies to general physical theories that describe space, time, causality in different spheres of the material world, at different stages of the structural organization of matter and at different stages of the evolution of the Universe.

So, we see that in the process of development of scientific knowledge, ideas about matter and its attributes: space, time and movement significantly change, expand and become more complex. At each level of the structural organization of matter, its own characteristics in the movement and interaction of objects, its own specific forms of spatial organization and the course of time processes are revealed. Therefore in Lately more and more often they began to pay attention to these features and talk about different “times” and different “spaces”: space-time in physical processes, space and time in biological processes, space and time in social processes. But the concepts of “biological time” and “social time” must be accepted with reservations. After all, time is a form of existence of matter, expressing the duration of existence and the sequence of changes in states in any material systems, and space is a form of existence of matter, characterizing the extension, structure, topology of any material systems. And in this sense, space, time and movement are as general and abstract concepts as matter, which, of course, does not exclude specific conditions of relationships in material systems various types. Just as higher forms of organization are built up over simpler ones in the process of development, not excluding the latter, but including them, so the corresponding forms of movement, becoming more complex, give rise to new types of relationships in these more complex material systems. When building a hierarchy of systems, we distinguish first of all the microworld, macroworld and megaworld.

And on our Earth, in addition, there is the world of living beings, which are the bearer of a new, biological form of movement of matter, and the world of man - society, with its characteristics and its own specific laws.

(Latin materia - substance)

“...a philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is given to a person in his sensations, which is copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them” (V. I. Lenin, Complete collection works, 5th ed., vol. 18, p. 131). M. is an infinite set of all objects and systems existing in the world, the substrate of any properties, connections, relationships and forms of movement. Mathematics includes not only all directly observable objects and bodies of nature, but also all those that, in principle, can be known in the future on the basis of improving the means of observation and experiment. The entire world around us is a moving material in its infinitely varied forms and manifestations, with all its properties, connections and relationships. The Marxist-Leninist understanding of philosophy is organically connected with the dialectical-materialist solution to the fundamental question of philosophy (See The Basic Question of Philosophy); it proceeds from the principle of the material unity of the world, the primacy of material in relation to human consciousness, and the principle of the knowability of the world on the basis of a consistent study of the specific properties, connections, and forms of movement of material (see Materialism).

In pre-Marxist philosophy and natural science, materialism as a philosophical category was often identified with certain specific types of it, for example, with matter and atoms chemical compounds, or with such a property of material as mass, which was considered as a measure of the amount of material. In reality, matter does not cover all material, but only those objects and systems that have a non-zero rest mass. There are also types of magnetism in the world that do not have rest mass: the electromagnetic field and its quanta - photons, the gravitational field (gravitational field (See Gravity)), and neutrinos.

The reduction of mathematics as an objective reality to some of its particular states and properties has caused crisis situations in the history of science. This was the case in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the inappropriateness of identifying material with indivisible atoms and matter was discovered, and in connection with this, some idealistic physicists concluded that “matter has disappeared,” “materialism is now refuted,” and so on. These conclusions were erroneous, but overcoming the methodological crisis of physics required the further development of a dialectical-materialist understanding of materialism and its basic properties.

The term “antimatter” is often used in the literature, which refers to various Antiparticles - antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons and others, micro- and macrosystems made up of them. This term is not precise; in fact, all of the indicated objects are special types of magnetism, antiparticles of matter, or antimatter. There may be many other types of microbes still unknown to us in the world with unusual specific properties, but all of them are elements of objective reality that exist independently of our consciousness.

Within the framework of pre-Marxist materialism, materialism was often defined as the substance (the basis) of all things and phenomena in the world, and this view was opposed to the religious-idealistic understanding of the world, which accepted as the substance the divine will, the absolute spirit, and human consciousness, which was separated from the brain and subjected to absolutization and deification. At the same time, material substance was often understood as primordial matter, reduced to primary and structureless elements, which were identified with indivisible atoms. It was believed that while various items and material formations can arise and disappear, substance is uncreated and indestructible, always stable in its essence; only the specific forms of its existence, quantitative combination and relative arrangement of elements, etc. change.

In modern science, the concept of substance has undergone radical changes. Dialectical materialism recognizes the substantiality of materialism, but only in a very specific sense: in terms of a materialist solution to the main question of philosophy and revealing the nature of various properties and forms of movement of bodies. It is M., and not consciousness or imaginary deities, spirit that is the substance of all properties, connections and forms of movement that actually exist in the world, the ultimate basis of all spiritual phenomena. No property or form of movement can exist on its own; they are always inherent in certain material formations, which are their substrate. The concept of substance in this sense is also equivalent to the concept of the material substrate of various processes and phenomena in the world. Recognition of the substantiality and absoluteness of materialism is also equivalent to the principle of the material unity of the world, which is confirmed by the entire historical development of science and practice. However, it is important to take into account that M. itself exists only in the form of an infinite variety of specific formations and systems. In the structure of each of these specific forms of material there is no primary, structureless and unchanging substance that would underlie all the properties of material. Each material object has an inexhaustible variety of structural connections and is capable of internal changes and transformations into qualitatively different forms of material. “The “essence” of things or “substance,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is also relative; they express only the deepening of human knowledge of objects, and if yesterday this deepening did not go further than the atom, today - beyond the electron and ether, then dialectical materialism insists on the temporary, relative, approximate nature of all these milestones in the knowledge of nature by the progressive science of man. The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite...” (ibid., p. 277). At the same time, for the progress of scientific knowledge and the refutation of various idealistic concepts, it is always important to identify the material substrate that underlies the phenomena, properties and forms of movement of the objective world being studied in a given period. Thus, historically it was of great importance to identify the substrate of thermal, electrical, magnetic, optical processes, various chemical reactions, etc. This led to the development of the theory atomic structure substances, theories electromagnetic field, quantum mechanics. Modern science is faced with the task of revealing the structure of elementary particles, in-depth study the material foundations of heredity, the nature of consciousness, etc. The solution of these problems will advance human knowledge to new, deeper structural levels of M. “Human thought endlessly deepens from the phenomenon to the essence, from the essence of the first, so to speak, order, to the essence of the second order, etc. without end" (ibid., vol. 29, p. 227).

Material objects always have internal order and systemic organization. Order is manifested in the regular movement and interaction (See Interaction) of all elements of matter, thanks to which they are combined into systems. A system is an internally ordered set of interconnected elements. The connection between the elements in the system is stronger, more significant and internally necessary than the connection of each of the elements with environment, with elements of other systems. Human knowledge of the structural organization of structure is relative and changeable, depending on the ever-expanding possibilities of experiment, observation, and scientific theories. But it concretizes and complements the philosophical understanding of M. as an objective reality. Modern science knows the following types of material systems and the corresponding structural levels of material: elementary particles and fields (electromagnetic, gravitational, and others); atoms, molecules, macroscopic bodies various sizes, geological systems, Earth and other planets, stars, intragalactic systems (diffuse nebulae, star clusters and others), Galaxy, systems of galaxies, Metagalaxy, the boundaries and structure of which have not yet been established. Modern borders knowledge of the structure of M. extends from 10 -14 cm until 10 28 cm(approximately 13 billion light years); but even within this range there may exist many still unknown types of matter. In the 60s, objects such as Quasars, Pulsars and others were discovered.

Living M. and socially organized M. are known so far only on Earth. Their emergence is the result of the natural and logical self-development of material, as inseparable from its existence as movement, structure and other properties. Living microorganisms are the entire set of organisms capable of self-reproduction with the transmission and accumulation of genetic information during the process of evolution (See Genetic information). Socially organized mathematics is the highest form of life development, a collection of individuals and communities at various levels who think and consciously transform reality. All these types of M. also have a systemic organization. The structure of social systems also includes various technical material systems created by people to achieve their goals.

At each stage of cognition, it would be wrong to identify the philosophical understanding of materialism as an objective reality with specific natural scientific ideas about its structure and forms. Then all other still unknown, but really existing objects and systems would be excluded from the structure of materialism, which is incorrect and contradicts the principle of the material unity of the world. This unity has many specific forms of manifestation, consistently revealed by science and practice. It manifests itself in the universal connection and mutual conditionality of objects and phenomena in the world, in the possibility of mutual transformations of some forms of moving material into others, in the connection and mutual transformations of types of movement and energy, in the historical development of nature and the emergence of more complex forms of movement and movement on earth. based on relatively less complex forms. The material unity of the world is also manifested in the mutual connection of all structural levels of materialism, in the interdependence of the phenomena of the micro- and megaworld (see Space). It is also expressed in the presence of a complex of universal properties and dialectical laws of structural organization, change, and development in mathematics. The universal properties of material include its non-creation and indestructibility, the eternity of existence in time and infinity in space, and the inexhaustibility of its structure. M. is always characterized by movement and change, natural self-development, manifested in various forms, the transformation of one state into another.

The universal forms of existence of material are space and time, which do not exist outside of material, just as there cannot be material objects that do not have spatiotemporal properties. The universal property of materialism is the determinism of all phenomena, their dependence on structural connections in material systems and external influences, from the causes and conditions that give rise to them (see Causality). Interaction leads to mutual change of bodies (or their states) and reflection (See Reflection) of each other. Reflection, which manifests itself in all processes, depends on the structure of interacting systems and the nature of external influences. The historical development of the property of reflection leads, with the progress of living nature and society, to the emergence of its highest form - abstract and constantly improving thinking (See Thinking), through which material, as it were, comes to an awareness of the laws of its existence and to its own purposeful change. The universal properties of materialism are also manifested in the universal laws of its existence and development: the law of unity and struggle of opposites, mutual transitions of quantitative and qualitative changes, the law of causality, and other important aspects of material existence, revealed by dialectical materialism and all modern science.

Lit.: Engels F., Anti-Dühring, dept. first, Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 20; his, Dialectics of Nature, ibid.; Lenin V.I., Materialism and empirio-criticism, Complete Works, 5th ed., vol. 18; him, Karl Marx, ibid., vol. 26; Arkhiptsev F. T., Matter as a philosophical category, M., 1961; Dialectics in the sciences of inanimate nature, M., 1964, section 2; Philosophical problems of elementary particle physics, M., 1963; Melyukhin S. T., Matter in its unity, infinity and development, M., 1966; his, Material unity of the world in the light of modern science, M., 1967; Structure and forms of matter, M., 1967; Kedrov B. M., Lenin and the revolution in natural science of the 20th century, M., 1969; Research on general systems theory, M., 1969; Lenin and modern natural science, M., 1969; Gott V.S., Philosophical questions modern physics, M., 1972.

S. T. Melyukhin.