A metaphor does not become clearer by being joined to another metaphor.
By now we have become accustomed to asking a particular kind of question.
Not whether a metaphor is useful.
Not whether it is beautiful.
Simply this:
What picture of the world does it invite us to imagine?
In the previous essays we considered the language of clocks, flowing time, and passing time.
Each offered a different way of imagining the temporal world.
Now we encounter something rather curious.
Physics often employs another picture altogether.
Time is said to be a dimension.
At first sight this seems entirely compatible with the earlier metaphors.
Yet the more carefully we examine them, the less obvious that compatibility becomes.
What is a dimension?
We encounter dimensions every day.
A map has two dimensions.
A room has three.
A graph may have several variables, each represented by its own coordinate.
The essential feature is remarkably simple.
A dimension allows positions to be distinguished.
It provides a way of locating things.
Nothing in this idea suggests movement.
Coordinates do not flow.
They do not pass.
They simply locate.
Imagine opening an atlas.
The map contains latitude and longitude.
Cities occupy different coordinates.
Roads connect them.
Mountains and rivers have positions.
But the map itself does not flow.
Nor do its coordinates pass one another.
The coordinate system remains what it is.
Movement occurs within it.
Not to it.
Now consider a familiar statement.
"Time is the fourth dimension."
The phrase is one of the great conceptual achievements of modern physics.
It allows extraordinarily elegant mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena.
Yet let us ask our usual question.
What picture does it encourage?
It encourages us to think of time as another coordinate.
Another means of locating events.
Nothing more has yet been said.
Now compare this with the language of earlier essays.
Time flows.
Time passes.
The future approaches.
We travel through time.
Already we possess two rather different pictures.
In one, time behaves like a moving river.
In the other, it behaves like a coordinate on a map.
These are not obviously the same kind of thing.
Suppose we tried combining the metaphors quite literally.
Imagine saying that the latitude of Australia is flowing southward.
Or that longitude is passing us by.
The statements sound peculiar.
Not because coordinates are mysterious.
But because coordinates are not the sort of things that move.
They specify position.
Movement presupposes them.
Of course, defenders of the metaphor may reply that the fourth dimension differs from ordinary spatial dimensions.
Indeed it may.
But notice what has happened.
The metaphor has quietly changed.
We are no longer speaking simply of a dimension.
We are speaking of a very special kind of dimension.
One that possesses properties unlike those we ordinarily associate with dimensions.
The word remains the same.
The conceptual picture has shifted.
This is not a criticism.
Scientific language often stretches familiar concepts beyond their everyday origins.
That is one of its strengths.
The question is simply whether we notice when this stretching occurs.
If we continue using the familiar word while abandoning many of its familiar implications, we owe ourselves some clarity about what has changed.
Perhaps the most interesting feature is not that several metaphors exist.
It is that they are often employed together.
Time is a coordinate.
Time flows.
Time passes.
We move through time.
Time slows down.
Time speeds up.
Each expression serves a purpose.
Each captures an aspect of scientific or everyday reasoning.
Yet together they form not a single picture but a small gallery of pictures.
We move among them almost without noticing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
Human thought has always relied upon multiple images.
Poetry delights in them.
Ordinary language depends upon them.
Even mathematics employs analogies while new concepts are being developed.
The difficulty arises only when we unconsciously assume that all these pictures are describing precisely the same phenomenon in precisely the same way.
That assumption deserves examination.
Perhaps the most fruitful question is not,
"Which metaphor is correct?"
Perhaps it is,
"What does each metaphor allow us to see that the others do not?"
A coordinate highlights order.
A river highlights succession.
A journey highlights experience.
A clock highlights regularity.
Each illuminates something.
Each also leaves something in shadow.
Recognising this does not weaken scientific thought.
It may strengthen it.
For once we understand what each metaphor contributes, we become less tempted to ask any one of them to do all the conceptual work.
The purpose of this series has never been to dismantle familiar language.
It has been to make it visible again.
Words become most powerful when they become invisible.
We cease to hear them as metaphors.
We begin to hear them as reality.
Perhaps the first step towards greater conceptual clarity is simply to recover our ability to notice the metaphors we have forgotten we were using.
Only then can we ask what they truly reveal—and what they quietly conceal.
No comments:
Post a Comment