The Indestructibility of Matter §52. Not because the truth is unfamiliar, is it needful here to assertthe indestructibility of Matter; but partly because the symmetry of our argumentdemands enunciation of this truth, and partly because the evidence on whichit is accepted must be examined. Could it be shown, or could it with reasonbe supposed, that Matter, either in its aggregates or in its units, everbecomes nonexistent, it would be needful either to ascertain under what conditionsit becomes non-existent, or else to confess that Science and Philosophy areimpossible. For if, instead of having to deal with fixed quantities and weights,we had to deal with quantities and weights which are apt, wholly or in part,to be annihilated, there would be introduced an incalculable element, fatalto all positive conclusions. Clearly, therefore, the proposition that matteris indestructible must be deliberately considered.
So far from being admitted as a self-evident truth, this would, in primitivetimes, have been rejected as a self-evident error. There was once universallycurrent, a notion that things could vanish into nothing, or arise out ofnothing. If men did not believe this in the strict sense of the word (whichwould imply that the process of creation or annihilation was clearly representedin consciousness), they still believed that they believed it; and how nearly,in their confused thoughts, the one was equivalent to the other, is shownby their conduct. Nor, indeed, have dark ages and inferior minds alone betrayedthis belief. In its dogmas respecting the beginning and end of the world,the current theology clearly implies it; and it may be questioned whetherShakespeare, in his poetical anticipation of a time when all things shalldisappear and "leave not a wrack behind," was not under its influence.
The accumulation of experiences, however, and still more the organizationof experiences, has slowly reversed this conviction. All apparent proofsthat something can come out of nothing, a wider knowledge has one by onecancelled. The comet which is suddenly discovered and nightly waxes larger,is proved not to be a newly-created body but a body which was until latelybeyond the range of vision. The cloud formed a few minutes ago in the sky,consists not of substance that has just begun to be, but of substance thatpreviously existed in a transparent form. And similarly with a crystal ora precipitate in relation to the fluid depositing it. Conversely, the seemingannihilations of matter turn out to be only changes of state. It is foundthat the evaporated water, though it has become invisible, may be broughtby condensation to its original shape. Though from a discharged fowling-piecethe gunpowder has disappeared, there have appeared in place of it certaingases which, in assuming a larger volume, have caused the explosion. Not,however, until the rise of quantitative chemistry, could the conclusion suggestedby such experiences be harmonized with all the facts. When, having ascertainednot only the combinations formed by various substances, but also the proportionsin which they combine, chemists were enabled to account for the matter thathad made its appearance or become invisible, scepticism was dissipated. Andof the general conclusion thus reached, the exact analysis daily made, bywhich the same portion of matter is pursued through numerous disguises andfinally separated, furnish never-ceasing confirmations.
Such has become the effect of this specific evidence, joined to that generalevidence which the continued existence of familiar objects gives us, thatthe Indestructibility of Matter is now held by many to be a truth of whichthe negation is inconceivable. §53. This last fact rises the question whether we have any higherwarrant for this fundamental belief than the warrant of conscious induction.
Before showing that we have a higher warrant, some explanations are needful.
The consciousness of logical necessity, is the consciousness that a certainconclusion is implicitly contained in certain premises explicitly stated.
If, contrasting a young child and an *****, we see that this consciousnessof logical necessity, absent from the one is present in the other, we aretaught that there is a growing up to the recognition of certain necessarytruths, merely by the unfolding of the inherited intellectual forms and facilities.
To state the case more specifically: -- Before a truth can be known asnecessary, two conditions must be fulfilled. There must be a mental structurecapable of grasping the terms of the proposition and the relation allegedbetween them; and there must be such definite and deliberate mental representationof these terms, as makes possible a clear consciousness of this relation.
Non-fulfilment of either condition may cause non-recognition of the necessityof the truth. Let us take cases.
The savage who cannot count the fingers on one hand, can frame no definitethought answering to the statement that 7 and 5 are 12; still less can heframe the consciousness that no other total is possible.
The boy adding up figures inattentively says to himself that 7 and 5 are11; and may repeatedly bring out a wrong result by repeatedly ****** thiserror.
