English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper seeks to understand the relationships and exchanges between philosophy and science by analysing a specific case: Bergson’s use of Boltzmann’s argument against the reversibility or recurrence of the universe (“Zermelo’s paradox”). This argument is used by Bergson to indirectly support his conception of the irreversibility of the universe based on an elan vital. We criticize Bergson’s interpretation that turns into an “absolute impossibility” what Boltzmann states only as a “practical impossibility”. We will show that the French philosopher distorts the argument, leaving aside two fundamental points: a) Boltzmann’s particular epistemological position with respect to scientific theories and their relation to experience, b) the atomism that serves as the basis for Boltzmann’s argument, an atomism that Bergson rejects. We conclude that Boltzmann’s argument is not valid in Bergson’s metaphysical (epistemological and ontological) framework. We hope this paper contributes to a better understanding of the problems arising in the conceptual exchanges between science and philosophy. Keywords : Bergson, Boltzmann, irreversibility.

Philosophy and science: critique of Bergson’s use of Boltzmann’s argument against the reversibility of the universe