The “cinematographic method of thought” in Bergson: Continuity by discreteness in cinematograph

The “cinematographic method of thought� in Bergson Continuity by discreteness in cinematograph, thought and mechanical motion

Vasil Penchev • Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge: Department of Logical Systems and Models, vasildinev@gmail.com o“The Real of Reality”, An International Conference in Philosophy and Film oKarlsruhe, Germany, 2-6 November 2016 oZentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie o(ZKM, Kube, 3 Nov, 11:20-12:50)

A short abstract

A short abstract • Henri Bergson (1907) utilized a metaphor borrowed from cinematograph to represent the usual way of human thought about motion and evolution in comparison with his original approach to them grounded on his concept of time as “durée” (duration) o The analogy consists in restoring the motion from a series of immovable pictures (frames) only as a subjective illusion • On the contrary, “durée” is that understanding of time, in which motion and evolution are primarily given rather than secondarily and as an auxiliary or even illusion by a series of static states

A short abstract • In the latter case, static underlies kinematic reducing it only to many static states therefore cancelling the creative essence of motion and evolution according to Bergson o Bergson’s views influenced essentially Luis de Broglie (1925), who offered in his thesis (1924) the wave interpretation of any particle and its motion in quantum mechanics • His work received the Nobel Prize in Physics (1929) “for his discovery of the wave nature of electrons”. o The wave-particle duality continues to be one of the most fundamental principles in quantum mechanics nowadays

A short abstract • The cinematograph embodied and thus made visible and obvious the fundamental way of human thought of motion o It is reflected and generalized in both philosophy of Bergson and quantum mechanics • Thus cinematograph rests on a fundamental ontological and philosophical equivalence: that of continuity (smoothness) and discreteness o Just that equivalency allows for it to represent motion by a series of static shots

The basic references: Bergson, H. (1907) L'Évolution créatrice. Paris: PUF, 298-307.

Broglie, Louis de (1925) “Recherches sur la théorie des quanta,” Thesis (Paris), 1924. Annales de Physique (Paris, 10ème série) 3, 22-128.

Kochen, S., Specker, E. (1968) The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17(1): 59‐87 .

Neumann, J. von (1932) Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer, pp. 167-173.

A few key terms • Bergson, Henry • cinematographic method of thought

o Broglie, Louis de o continuity

• discreteness o equivalence of discrete and continuous motion • motion o ontological ground of cinematograph • smoothness o wave-corpuscular duality

The thesis

The thesis • The success of cinematograph hides an ontological basis still in its fundamental principle for representation of motion by a linear (and thus well-ordered) series of static frames o That representation of motion by static frames is absolute for it rests on the ontological equivalence of discreteness and smoothness • The equivalence of discrete and smooth (continuous) motion underlies quantum mechanics as the principle of wave-particle duality offered by Louis de Broglie (1924) o Henry Bergson (1907) suggested the “cinematographic method of thought” for distinguishing “durée” (time by itself) from the transcendental limitation for it to be represented in human knowledge and cognition

The principle of cinematograph Only Illusion?

OR Ontological equivalence Time

Continuous motion

Cinematographic frames

A short comment to the thesis • There is a psychic mechanism for merging successive frames changing fast enough o Then, the principle underlying cinema seems as if be only a psychological illusion due to the imperfection of human perception • Cinema is even called “the great illusion” transforming the underlying merge of static frames into a metaphor to its ability to replace the real world with an imaginary one o On the contrary, my thesis reveals a deeper fundamental equivalence of discreteness and continuity, underlying ontologically the cinematograph, rather than a mere illusion

A short comment to the thesis • The psychic and psychological mechanism for merging fast changing static frames is not to be refuted o It exists, but it misleads to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the ontological basis of cinema as an “illusion” • In fact, the success and power of cinema should be discovered in the fundamental equivalence of both smooth motion (as it is seen by the filmviewers as observers) and discrete motion (as it is technically prepared in the footage)

The historical and philosophical background • That can include: o The opposition of the discrete and continuous (motion) still since Ancient Greece during the whole history of philosophy and physics until the problem nowadays • Kant’s concept of transcendental subject o Bergson’s reinterpretation of Kant’s concept as to time and evolution and its transcendental limitation just as the “cinematographic method of thought” • Louis de Broglie’s concept of wave-particle duality o The interpretation of quantum mechanics as quantum information unifying the discrete and smooth motion

A wider horizon about that background • The equivalency of the discrete and smooth motion refers furthermore to: o The conception of infinity in mathematics, philosophy, and theology • The foundation of mathematics and thus to its consistency and completeness o The reformulation of all physics in terms of information theory • Merging and unifying physics and mathematics by means of the theory of (quantum) information

The interpretation of the cinematographic art and technics on that background • Cinema as both art and technics is an embodiment of those background and horizon o Any human being refers to them by cinema though indirectly and implicitly • However, the so-called magic of cinema rests just on its fundamental ontological background and horizon o Any one without being a philosopher or a scientist can touch the secret of the being by means of cinema • Touching the being is the magic of cinema

A few possible objections commented

A few possible objections • The thesis seems to be too speculative, “philosophical” in the bad sense o It addresses mystic feeling such as the “magic of cinema” not allowing of any rational approach • The replacement of the psychic or psychological illusion underlying the perception of cinema with that equivalence is not relevant for the equivalence refers to the Planck scale: both cinematograph and spectator are much, much bigger than that scale

Objection 1: “The thesis seems to be too speculative, “philosophical” in the bad sense” Comment: • The thesis is intendedly speculative and philosophical o Many ideas admit only philosophical formulations • The etymology of “cinematograph” addresses a ‘record of motion’ therefore implicitly questioning about the relation between ‘record’ and ‘motion’, or between the ‘record of motion and the motion itself o Henry Bergson, an exceptionally famous philosopher, has generated the tradition of the philosophical and speculative discussion of cinema a long time ago

Objection 2: “It addresses mystic feeling such as the “magic of cinema” not allowing of any rational approach” Comment:

o The “magic of cinema” is used as a metaphor meaning the generation of a specific kind of imaginary, but convincing ontology different from the analogical imaginary ontologies in other arts • That ontology is grounded just on the record of motion, right “cinematograph” hinting the record of motion as the source of any ontology o Thus the “magic of cinema” means the cinematographic ontology as both specific ontology of cinema and generation of any ontology as a way for recording motion

Objection 3: “The replacement of the psychic or psychological illusion underlying the perception of cinema with that equivalence is not relevant for the equivalence refers to the Planck scale Both cinematograph and spectator are much, much bigger than that scale”

Comment: o That is the one way of interpretation of the Planck scale. Indeed, that equivalence would be irrelevant after such an interpretation • However, the Planck scale may be also interpreted relatively, in terms of kinematics, or “cinematically”. Then, that equivalence will be valid macroscopically, in the scale of both cinematograph apparat and spectator o Both mechanism of cinematographic illusion and equivalence of the discrete and smooth are valid simultaneously referring to one and the same, but not linked to each other in any way known to science

Still a few possible objections • The equivalence of the discrete and smooth (motion) is not ultimately confirmed and scientifically established even in the domain of quantum mechanics and information o The corresponding phenomena of entanglement referring to the experimental corroboration of quantum information can be explained alternatively, without quantum information, though rather unnaturally, by means of the socalled loopholes, or “backdoors” • The cinematographic art and technics belong to human practice, and their alleged background and horizon to science. Thus they cannot be ascribed to one and the same circle

Objection 4: “The equivalence of the discrete and smooth (motion) is not ultimately confirmed and scientifically established even in the domain of quantum mechanics and information” Comments: o It is neither confirmed nor refuted experimentally. Yet even any experiments for testing it are not offered • Anyway as an abstract principle, it is consistent to quantum mechanics and information as theories o Even being experimentally wrong, it can be utilized as to the philosophical interpretation of cinema • Its application to cinematograph assists the elucidation of its sense and how it might be tested experimentally

Objection 5: “The corresponding phenomena of entanglement referring to the experimental corroboration of quantum information can be explained alternatively, without quantum information, though rather unnaturally, by means of the so-called loopholes or backdoors” Comments: • More and more new experiments close gradually one by one all possible “loopholes” and “backdoors” of alternative explanations o The trend is to be closed practically all known ones • Though the results in any separate experiment might be alternatively explained, the only universal explanation of all of them is by means of quantum information o There is not any experiment refuting the phenomena of entanglement directly

Objection 6: “The cinematographic art and technics belong to human practice, and their alleged background and horizon to science. Thus they cannot be ascribed to one and the same circle�

Comment: o Indeed, the enumerated scientific theories cannot be considered as theories referring to cinema, its technics, art, or perception • However, cinematograph and a series of scientific theories might share one and the same ontology for all of them including cinematograph are essentially related to motion o Motion is able to unify so different areas of human activity such as technics, art, science

Direct arguments “pro� the thesis

What the thesis states • The essence of the thesis e: the cinematograph is an absolute equivalent of continuous motion rather than only a psychological or psychic illusion of motion o In other words, cinematograph replaces the continuous motion with discrete motion equivalently • Meaning Bergson’s thesis about the cinematographic method of thought as a kind of temporal transcendentalism, the thesis can be so reformulated: motion represented transcendentally is equivalent to the “motion by itself” o Then, motion can be in turn defined as what is invariant to the transformation of the transcendental and the transcendent, and cinematograph rests just on that invariance

Motion by itself Transcendent motion

Ontological equivalence

Motion defined as what is invariant after that transformation

Motion cinematically represented Transcendental motion

What kind of arguments would be direct?

They should refer to: o The equivalence of continuous and discrete motion • The equivalence of the motion represented transcendentally and the motion by itself o The definition of motion as what is equivalent to the transformation of the transcendental and the transcendent • The definition of time as an abstract fundamental and common motion corresponding to Bergson’s “durée”, to which the transcendental and the transcendent are equivalent in definition

Argument 1: The equivalence of continuous and discrete motion

• The main problem of quantum mechanics is how to be described uniformly and thus invariantly the continuous (and even smooth) motion in classical mechanics and discrete motion for the fundamental Planck constant o Quantum mechanics resolves that problem generalizing the description of motion from the usual 3D Euclidean space of classic mechanics to the infinitely dimensional, complex, and separable Hilbert space of quantum mechanics • Consequently, if description of cinematograph be generalized from the former space to the latter one, the equivalence of the real continuous motion and its representation frame by frame will be proved

A few comments on the first argument • Louis de Broglie’s conception about the wave-particle duality is historically the first formulation of the equivalence of the continuous and discrete motion as to the generalization necessary for quantum mechanics o It is directly influenced by the doctrine of Henry Bergson and particularly by the conception of the “cinematographic method of thought” • In turn, the conception of the “cinematographic method of thought” borrows the way for motion to be represented frame by frame from the cinematograph thrived just in that age

Quantum information The separable complex

Hilbert space

Continuous (smooth) motion

Discrete (quantum) motion

Quantum mechanics

Motion by itself

Cinematic Motion

Cinematographic method of thought

Argument 2: The equivalence of the transcendent and transcendental motion • The essence of Bergson’s “cinematographic method of thought” can be represented as a philosophical reflection on the cinematographic principle. That reflection consists in both: o Interpretation of the real motion, which is filmed in the movie, as transcendent motion, i.e. motion by itself • Interpretation of the movie taken frame by frame and observed by the viewers as transcendental motion, i.e. motion for us, the spectators o Utilizing Bergson’s way of interpretation and meaning the equivalence of the continuous and discrete motion according to quantum mechanics, one can deduces the equivalence of the transcendent and transcendental motion hence

A short comment on the second argument • There exist two fundamental and equivalent ways of representing motion corresponding exactly to the Hamilton and Lagrange approach in classical and quantum mechanics o The Hamilton approach separates disjunctively, as independent of each other variables of motion, the dynamic variables such as energy and momentum from the static ones such as space position in time • The Lagrange approach unifies them interpreting the former variables as derivatives of the latter ones o The equivalence of the continuous as transcendent motion and the discrete as transcendental motion can be also deduced from the equivalence of both approaches in mechanics

Motion as being Bergson’s conception of

time as “durée”

Transcendent motion

Transcendental motion

Bergson’s conception of motion as evolution

Motion by itself

Cinematic Motion

Cinematographic method of thought

Argument 3: Motion as the equivalence of the transcendental and the transcendent

• The argument is a philosophical generalization of the theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics (Neumann 1932; Kochen, Specker 1968) implied by a few properties of the separable complex Hilbert space o The theorems can be furthermore interpreted as the fundamental identity of model and reality in quantum mechanics: indeed, any mismatch of model and reality would mean one or more “hidden variables” being out of the model but within reality • Then, the relation of model and reality corresponding to the relation of the transcendental and the transcendent implies the equivalence of the latter ones

A short comment to the third argument • Anything describable as a quantum system, i.e. by a wave function (an element of the separable complex Hilbert space), should be considered as a motion o Motion is also correspondingly understood as the equivalence of the discrete and the continuous furthermore unifying them • The argument generalizes the previous one (Argument 2) complementing to that equivalence of the discrete and the continuous and of the transcendental and the transcendent o It corresponds to Hegel’s dialectic conception of motion understood philosophically as a generalization of Kant’s transcendentalism

Motion Transcendental Model

Transcendent Reality

The theorem about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics

Argument 4: Time as an abstract and fundamental motion • The representation in the separable complex Hilbert space may be also interpreted in terms of Fourier transformation, straight and reverse, and thus as the invariance to both time (đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą) and frequency (ω = đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą −1 ) o That invariance implies the uniform representation of the discrete and continuous motion as well as the arrow of time interpreted as the indistinguishability of the straight and reverse course of time • Then, time as an abstract and fundamental motion can be mathematically defined in turn by means of those invariances as the identity of the separable complex Hilbert space and its dual counterpart

A short comment to the fourth argument • The cinematograph divides the film footage of frames (as many discrete positions in equal intervals of time) from the velocity of reproduction (i.e. the speed, with which the footage moves trough the projecting ray) o That velocity is constant and equal to the speed, by which the footage is filmed • That constant velocity corresponds also to the normal course of time of what is filmed o Than one can interpret the normal course of time as the identical velocity of the fundamental motion of both continuous and discrete, or of both transcendental and transcendent

Multiplicative group

1

đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą −1 = đ?œ”đ?œ” đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą

0

Additive group Any doubled well-ordering is a group −đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą = lnđ?œ”đ?œ” đ?œ”đ?œ” đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą

Hilbert space unifies both symmetries and well-ordering 1 1 2 2 3 3 ‌‌‌. n n ‌‌‌.

Conclusions • The cinematograph rests on a fundamental ontological principle about the equivalence of the discrete and continuous motion rather than only a psychic or psychological illusion o That principle a much larger horizon of human practice and cognition • Bergson was the first who pay attention to that horizon philosophically by its conception of “cinematographic method of thought” o Broglie’s wave particle duality won the Nobel Prize in physics is maybe the most eminent theory in the same horizon

You may find the presentation or the paper taping the title, The “cinematographic method of thought� in Bergson in any search engine such as Google, Bing, etc.

Thank you very much for your kind attention!