"Before anything else, we need a new age of Enlightenment.

"
- Friedrich Durrenmatt
"I think we ought to have another go at the Enlightenment and use that as a
common goal to exlain and understand ourselves, to take that self-
understanding which we so sorely lack as a foundation for what we do in the
moral and olitical realm. !his is a wonderful exercise."
- E.". #ilson
Scientists score one more victory over uncertainty in quantum
physics measurements
$ichael %haman, a rofessor in the &chool of 'hysics at (eorgia !ech, oses
with otical e)uiment in his la*oratory. %haman+s research team is
exloring s)uee,ed states using atoms of Bose-Einstein condensates.
-%redit. (ary $eek/
-'hys"rg.com/ -- $ost eole attemt to reduce the little uncertainties of life
*y carrying um*rellas on cloudy days, urchasing automo*ile insurance or
hiring insectors to evaluate homes they might consider urchasing. For
scientists, reducing uncertainty is a no less imortant goal, though in the
weird realm of )uantum hysics, the term has a more seci0c meaning.
For scientists working in )uantum hysics, the 1eisen*erg 2ncertainty
'rincile says that measurements of roerties such as the momentum of an
o*3ect and its exact osition cannot *e simultaneously seci0ed with
ar*itrary accuracy. 4s a result, there must *e some uncertainty in either the
exact osition of the o*3ect, or its exact momentum. !he amount of
uncertainty can *e determined, and is often reresented grahically *y a
circle showing the area within which the measurement actually lies.
"ver the ast few decades, scientists have learned to cheat a *it on the
2ncertainty 'rincile through a rocess called "s)uee,ing," which has the
e5ect of changing how the uncertainty is shown grahically. %hanging the
circle to an ellise and ultimately to almost a line allows one comonent of
the comlementary measurements 6 the momentum or the osition, in the
case of an o*3ect 6 to *e seci0ed more recisely than would otherwise *e
ossi*le. !he actual area of uncertainty remains unchanged, *ut is
reresented *y a di5erent shae that serves to imrove accuracy in
measuring one roerty.
!his s)uee,ing has *een done in measuring roerties of hotons and
atoms, and can *e imortant to certain high-recision measurements needed
*y atomic clocks and the magnetometers used to create magnetic resonance
imaging views of structures dee inside the *ody. For the military, s)uee,ing
more accuracy could imrove the detection of enemy su*marines attemting
to hide underwater or imrove the accuracy of atom-*ased inertial guidance
instruments.
7ow hysicists at the (eorgia Institute of !echnology have added another
measurement to the list of those that can *e s)uee,ed. In a aer aearing
online Fe*ruary 89 in the 3ournal Nature Physics, they reort s)uee,ing a
roerty called the nematic tensor, which is used to descri*e the ru*idium
atoms in Bose-Einstein condensates, a uni)ue form of matter in which all
atoms have the same )uantum state. !he research was sonsored *y the
7ational &cience Foundation -7&F/.
"#hat is new a*out our work is that we have ro*a*ly achieved the highest
level of atom s)uee,ing reorted so far, and the more s)uee,ing you get, the
*etter," said $ichael %haman, a rofessor in (eorgia !ech:s &chool of
'hysics. "#e are also s)uee,ing something other than what eole have
s)uee,ed *efore."
&cientists have *een s)uee,ing the sin states of atoms for ;< years, *ut
only for atoms that have 3ust two relevant )uantum states 6 known as sin =
systems. In collections of those atoms, the sin states of the individual
atoms can *e added together to get a collective angular momentum that
descri*es the entire system of atoms.
In the Bose-Einstein condensate atoms *eing studied *y %haman:s grou,
the atoms have three )uantum states, and their collective sin totals ,ero 6
not very helful for descri*ing systems. &o %haman and graduate students
%hris 1amley, %orey (erving, !hai 1oang and Eva Book3ans learned to
s)uee,e a more comlex measure that descri*es their system of sin ;
atoms. nematic tensor, also known as )uadruole.
7ematicity is a measure of alignment that is imortant in descri*ing li)uid
crystals, exotic magnetic materials and some high temerature
suerconductors.
"#e don:t have a sin vector ointing in a articular direction, *ut there is
still some residual information in where this collection of atoms is ointing,"
%haman exlained. "!hat next higher-order descrition is the )uadruole,
or nematic tensor. &)uee,ing this actually works )uite well, and we get a
large degree of imrovement, so we think it is relatively romising."
Exerimentally, the s)uee,ing is created *y entangling some of the atoms,
which takes away their indeendence. %haman:s grou accomlishes this
*y colliding atoms in their ensem*le of some >?,??? ru*idium atoms.
"4fter they collide, the state of one atom is connected to that of the other
atom, so they have *een entangled in that way," he said. "!his entanglement
creates the s)uee,ing."
@educing uncertainty in measuring atoms could have imortant imlications
for recise magnetic measurements. !he next ste will *e to determine
exerimentally if the techni)ue can imrove the measurement of magnetic
0eld, which could have imortant alications.
"In rincile, this should *e a straightforward exeriment, *ut it turns out
that the *iggest challenge is that magnetic 0elds in the la*oratory Auctuate
due to environmental factors such as the e5ects of devices such as comuter
monitors," %haman said. "If we had a noiseless la*oratory, we could
measure the magnetic 0eld *oth with and without s)uee,ed states to
demonstrate the enhanced recision. But in our current la* environment, our
measurements would *e a5ected *y outside noise, not the limitations of the
atomic sensors we are using."
!he new s)uee,ed roerty could also have alication to )uantum
information systems, which can store information in the sin of atoms and
their nematic tensor.
"!here are a lot of things you can do with )uantum entanglement, and
imroving the accuracy of measurements is one of them," %haman added.
"#e still have to o*ey 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rincile, *ut we do have the
a*ility to maniulate it."
Are you certain, Mr. Heisenberg? New measurements deepen
understanding of quantum uncertainty
Jan !, "#"
1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty rincile is argua*ly one of the most famous
foundations of )uantum hysics. It says that not all roerties of a )uantum
article can *e measured with unlimited accuracy. 2ntil now, this has often
*een 3usti0ed *y the notion that every measurement necessarily has to
distur* the )uantum article, which distorts the results of any further
measurements. !his, however, turns out to *e an oversimli0cation. In
neutron exeriments carried out *y rofessor Bu3i 1asegawa and his team at
Cienna 2niversity of !echnology, di5erent sources of )uantum uncertainty
can now *e distinguished, validating theoretical results *y colla*orators from
Daan. !he inAuence of the measurement on the )uantum system is not
always the reason for uncertainty. 1eisen*erg:s arguments for the
uncertainty rincile have to *e revisited 6 the uncertainty rincile itself
however remains valid. !he results have now *een u*lished in the 3ournal
Nature Physics.
It is well esta*lished that some hysical )uantities cannot *e measured at
the same time. !he )uestion is, how this fact should *e interreted.
"1eisen*erg:s famous thought exeriment a*out using light light -E-rays/ to
measure the osition of an electron is still )uoted today", says Dac)ueline
Erhart from the Institute for 4tomic and &u*atomic 'hysics at the Cienna
2niversity of !echnology. !o measure the osition of a article with high
recision, light with a very short wavelength -and therefore high energy/ has
to *e used. !his results in momentum *eing transferred to the article 6 the
article is kicked *y the light. !herefore, 1eisen*erg argued, it is imossi*le
to measure *oth osition and momentum accurately. !he same is true for
other airs of hysical )uantities. 1eisen*erg *elieved that in these cases,
an error in one measurement leads to an inevita*le distur*ance of the other
measurement. !he roduct of error and distur*ance, 1eisen*erg claimed,
cannot *e smaller than an a certain threshold.
1owever, the e5ect of the measurement on the )uantum system and the
resulting distur*ance of the second measurement is not the core of the
ro*lem. "&uch distur*ances are also resent in classical hysics 6 they are
not necessarily linked to )uantum hysics", &tehan &onar -Cienna 2!/
exlains. !he uncertainty is rooted in the )uantum nature of the article.
Fuantum articles cannot *e descri*ed like a oint-like o*3ect with a well-
de0ned velocity. Instead, )uantum articles *ehave as a wave 6 and for a
wave, osition and momentum cannot *e de0ned accurately at the same
time. "ne could say that the article itself does not even "know" where
exactly it is and how fast it travels 6 regardless of the article *eing
measured or not.
"In order to descri*e the fundamental uncertainty and the additional
distur*ance due to the measuring rocess, *oth article and measurement
device have to *e treated in the framework of )uantum theory", says (eorg
&ulyok -Cienna 2!/. !his was done *y the Daanese hysicist rofessor
$asanao ",awa in 8??G, leading to a generali,ed uncertainty rincile. 1is
e)uations contain di5erent "kinds of uncertainty". "n the one hand the
uncertainty which comes from the measurement, as it distur*s the article
-this is the uncertainty descri*ed in 1eisen*erg:s thought exeriment of the
osition-momentum-measurement/, on the other hand the e)uations contain
the fundamental )uantum uncertainty, which is resent in any )uantum
system, regardless of the measurement.
4 sohisticated exerimental design now made it ossi*le to study these
contri*ution to uncertainty at the Cienna 2niversity of !echnology. Instead of
a article:s osition and momentum, the sin of neutrons was measured. !he
sin in x-direction and the sin in y-direction cannot *e measured
simultaneously, they ful0ll the uncertainty relation, in much the same way as
osition and momentum. #ith magnetic 0elds, the neutron sins were
rotated into the right direction, then the sins were measured in two
consecutive exeriments. %arrying out a large num*er of measurements with
small, well-de0ned changes in the measurement aaratus, the hysicists
could study the interlay *etween di5erent sources of uncertainty.
"!he smaller the error in one measurement, the larger the distur*ance of the
other 6 this rule still holds. But the roduct of error and distur*ance can *e
made ar*itrarily small 6 even smaller than 1eisen*erg:s original formulation
of the uncertainty rincile would allow", says rofessor Bu3i 1asegawa.
But even if two measurements hardly inAuence each other. )uantum hysics
remains "uncertain". "!he uncertainty rincile is of course still true", the
researchers con0rm. "But the uncertainty does not always come from the
distur*ing inAuence of the measurement, *ut from the )uantum nature of
the article itself."
Atom and its quantum mirror image
Apr #$, "# %y &'orian Aigner
!owards the mirror or away from the mirrorE 'hysicists create atoms in
)uantum suerosition states.
4 team of hysicists exerimentally roduces )uantum-suerositions,
simly using a mirror.
&tanding in front of a mirror, we can easily tell aart ourselves from our
mirror image. !he mirror does not a5ect our motion in any way. For )uantum
articles, this is much more comlicated. In a sectacular exeriment in the
la*s of the 1eidel*erg 2niversity, a grou of hysicists from 1eidel*erg
2nversity, together with colleagues at !2 $unich and !2 Cienna extended a
gedankenexeriment *y Einstein and managed to *lur the distinction
*etween a article and its mirror image. !he results of this exeriment have
now *een u*lished in the 3ournal Nature Physics.
(mitted )ight, *ecoi'ing Atom
#hen an atom emits light -i.e. a hoton/ into a articular direction, it recoils
in the oosite direction. If the hoton is measured, the motion of the atom
is known too. !he scientists laced atoms very closely to a mirror. In this
case, there are two ossi*le aths for any hoton travelling to the o*server.
it could have *een emitted directly into the direction of the o*server, or it
could have travelled into the oosite direction and then *een reAected in
the mirror. If there is no way of distinguishing *etween these two scenarios,
the motion of the atom is not determined, the atom moves in a suerosition
of *oth aths.
HIf the distance *etween the atom and the mirror is very small, it is
hysically imossi*le to distinguish *etween these two aths,I Diri !omkovic,
'hD student at 1eidel*erg exlains. !he article and its mirror image cannot
*e clearly searated any more. !he atom moves towards the mirror and
away from the mirror at the same time. !his may sound aradoxical and it is
certainly imossi*le in classical hyiscs for macroscoic o*3ects, *ut in
)uantum hysics, such suerositions are a well-known henomenon. H!his
uncertainty a*out the state of the atom does not mean that the
measurement lacks recisionI, DJrg &chmiedmayer -!2 Cienna/ emhasi,es.
HIt is a fundamental roerty of )uantum hysics. !he article is in *oth of
the two ossi*le states simultaneousely, it is in a suerosition.I In the
exeriment the two motional states of the atom 6 one moving towards the
mirror and the other moving away from the mirror 6 are then com*ined using
Bragg di5raction from a grating made of laser light. "*serving interference it
can *e directly shown that the atom has indeed *een traveling *oth aths at
once.
+n ,i-erent .aths at the Same /ime
!his is reminiscent of the famous dou*le-slit exeriment, in which a article
hits a late with two slits and asses through *oth slits simultaneously, due
to its wave-like )uantum mechanical roerties. Einstein already discussed
that this can only *e ossi*le if there is no way to determine which ath the
article actually chose, not even recise measurements of any tiny recoil of
the dou*le slit late itself. 4s soon as there even a theoretically ossi*le way
of determining the ath of the article, the )uantum suerosition *reaks
down. HIn our case, the hotons lay a role similar to the dou*le slitI, $arkus
"*erthaler -1eidel*erg 2niversity/ exlains. HIf the light can, in rincile, tell
us a*out the motion of the atom, then the motion is unam*iguously
determined. "nly when it is fundamentally undecida*le, the atom can *e in a
suerosition state, com*ining *oth ossi*ilities.I 4nd this fundamental
undecida*ility is guaranteed *y the mirror which takes u the hoton
momentum.
0uantum (-ect 1 2sing +n'y a Mirror
'ro*ing under which conditions such )uantum-suerositions can *e created
has *ecome very imortant in )uantum hysics. DJrg &chmiedmayer and
$arkus "*ertaler came u with the idea for this exeriment already a few
years ago. H!he fascinating thing a*out this exerimentI, the scientists say,
His the ossi*ility of creating a )uantum suerosition state, using only a
mirror, without any external 0elds.I In a very simle and natural way the
distinction *etween the article and its mirror image *ecomes *lurred,
without comlicated oerations carried out *y the exerimenter.
More accurate than Heisenberg a''ows? 2ncertainty in the presence
of a quantum memory
Ju' "!, "##
Fuantum crytograhy is the safest way to encryt data. It utili,es the fact
that transmitted information can only *e measured with a strictly limited
degree of recision. &cientists at Kudwig-$aximilians-2niversity in $unich
and E!1 Lurich have now discovered how the use of a )uantum memory
a5ects this uncertainty.
4 )uantum article is hard to gras, *ecause one cannot determine all its
roerties recisely at the same time. $easurements of certain arameter
airs such as osition and momentum remain inaccurate to a degree given
*y 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rincile. !his is imortant for the security of
)uantum crytograhy, where information is transmitted in the form of
)uantum states such as the olari,ation of articles of light.
4 grou of scientists from K$2 and the E!1 in Lurich, including 'rofessor
$atthias %hristandl, has now shown that osition and momentum can *e
redicted more recisely than 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rincile would lead
one to exect, if the reciient makes use of a )uantum memory that emloys
ions or atoms. !he results show that the magnitude of the uncertainty
deends on the degree of correlation -"entanglement"/ *etween the
)uantum memory and the )uantum article. "!he result not only enhances
our understanding of )uantum memories, it also rovides us with a method
for determining the degree of correlation *etween two )uantum articles",
says %hristandl. "$oreover, the e5ect we have o*served could yield a means
of testing the security of )uantum crytograhic systems." -Nature Physics
online, Duly 8<, 8?;?/
2nlike classical comuters, )uantum comuters oerate not with *its, *ut
with )uantum *its or )u*its, )uantum mechanical states of articles. !he
crucial feature of )u*its is that they can exist in di5erent states at once, not
3ust ? or ;, *ut also as a suerosition of ? and ;. !he a*ility to exloit
suerosition states is what makes )uantum comuters otentially so
owerful. "!he goal of our research is to work out how )uantum memories,
i.e. memory systems for )u*its, might *e utili,ed in the future and how they
a5ect the transmission of )uantum *its", exlains %hristandl, who left K$2
$unich in Dune 8?;? to take u a osition in the Institute of !heoretical
'hysics at the E!1 in Lurich.
1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rincile lays a central role in )uantum
comuting, *ecause it sets a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which a
)uantum state can *e determined. Fuantum mechanics also tells us that the
measurement of a arameter can itself ertur* the state of a article. If, for
examle, one were to measure the osition of a article with in0nite
recision, the article:s momentum would *ecome comletely uncertain.
Fuantum crytograhy uses this e5ect to encryt data, for instance *y
entangling two )uantum articles in a way that the ro*a*ility with which
the measurement of one article yields a certain value deends on the state
of the other article. Eavesdroing can thus easily *e uncovered, *ecause
any measurement will change the state of the article measured.
!he teams at K$2 and the E!1 Lurich have now shown that the result of a
measurement on a )uantum article can *e redicted with greater accuracy
if information a*out the article is availa*le in a )uantum memory. 4toms or
ions can form the *asis for such a )uantum memory. !he researchers have,
for the 0rst time, derived a formula for 1eisen*erg:s 'rincile, which takes
account of the e5ect of a )uantum memory. In the case of so-called
entangled articles, whose states are very highly correlated -i.e. to a degree
that is greater than that allowed *y the laws of classical hysics/, the
uncertainty can disaear. 4ccording to %hristandl, this can *e roughly
understood as follows ""ne might say that the disorder or uncertainty in the
state of a article deends on the information stored in the )uantum
memory. Imagine having a ile of aers on a ta*le. "ften these will aear
to *e comletely disordered -- excet to the erson who ut them there in
the 0rst lace."
""ur results not only imrove our understanding of )uantum memories, they
also give us a way of measuring entanglement", says %hristandl. "!he e5ect
could also hel us to test the security of )uantum crytograhic systems."
"ne can icture the method as a game in which layer B transmits a article
to layer 4. 4 then erforms a measurement on the article, introducing an
uncertainty. 4 su*se)uent measurement *y B will only yield the value
determined *y 4 with an uncertainty given *y 1eisen*erg:s 'rincile. "But if
B uses a )uantum memory", says %hristandl, "he can determine the correct
value and win the game."
)a.'ace3s ,emon
!here was a french scientist, 'ierre-&imon Ka'lace, who once declared in a
thought exeriment.
"We may regard the present state of the universe as the efect of its past
and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would
know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of
which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit
these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements
of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom for such
an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future !ust like the past
would be present before its eyes."
!his was essentially saying that if a *eing knew to an in0nite degree the
exact osition, velocity, mass etc. of all the articles in the universe at any
single oint in time, then it would also *e a*le to work out complete
knowledge of the ast and the future -*ased on 7ewtonian laws of motion/.
!his was a retty *allsy thought exeriment to make, since it re)uired there
*e no free will in the universe. 4ccording to Ka'lace, you may think that you
are free to make a choice, *ut your decision will have *een *ased uon your
ast exeriences, your current state of mind and other factors, which would
make it inevitable that you would make a certain decision in a given
situation. !his is the *ack*one of causal determinism.
It+s fascinating stu5, *ut was he rightE @ead on to 0nd out.
"1("D!1E&2&'E7&E.
1e wasn+tM -(4&'/
Fuantum henomena have e5ectively given this thought exeriment a
shotgun mouthwash. It is not actually ossi*le to know a article+s osition
or momentum to an in0nite degree of accuracy due to the 1eisen*erg
2ncertainty 'rincile. 4nd this isn+t 3ust due to measuring techni)ues, the
univese itself is uncertain. In e5ect, nature is not clock-like. It is cloud-like.
!here are other ways to disrove Ka'lace+s demon, with collisions of atoms
and the second theory of thermodynamics and the maximum num*er of
these *eings in any one universe and the amount of energyNinformation that
could *e held in the universe and I+d 'i4e to give them all a chance to shine,
*ut unfortunately, I want to go lay some Fa*le G now. 1oe y+all had a good
chrim*o.
.sycho'ogica' Science5 Measurement, 2ncertainty, and ,eterminism
1 .art
by Norman 6osta
Scienti7c .sycho'ogy, an +8ymoron?
In the minds of many, including scientists from the more successful sciences,
the 0eld of sychology is not a science and may never *e a science. !he
7o*el Kaureate, @ichard Feynman, was kind in his criticism of sychology as
a science when he said that we have the form Oof scienceP down, *ut we are
not roducing any laws of nature. In my view, sychology as a science has
made some imortant contri*utions to descri*ing mental life and *ehavior in
animals and humans, *ut, on the whole, I tend to agree with Feynman.
I care a*out sychology as a science, very deely. But, why should I careE
#hy should anyone careE &cienti0c sychology must care if we are to have
con0dence in our disciline as a science, in ourselves as scientists, and *e
resected *y the larger scienti0c community as colleagues on an e)ual
footing. For anyone who dou*ts that sychological science had a serious
ro*lem of credi*ility, consider the following.
;. !he 4merican 'sychological 4ssociation -4'4/ did not issue a osition
in suort of science in the classroom in the recent Dover, "1 school
case. !he case involved the integrity of the school district:s science
curriculum for teaching of the science of evolutionary *iology, and
against the introduction of faith-*ased retenses to science.
8. !he ascendancy of the 4ssociation for 'sychological &cience -4'&/ is
due, not in a small way, to the failure of mainstream sychology to
em*race the mantel of science.
G. !he de facto secession of Division ;> from 4'4 and the creation an
indeendent rofessional association, the &ociety for Industrial and
"rgani,ational 'sychology -&I"'/.
Students today are not as 9insert your own text: as when ; was a
student.
I *egan teaching sychological research methods at the undergraduate and
graduate levels after two careers in research sychology 6 one at IB$
%ororation, and another as a social science research consultant. !he new
mission I gave myself was the training of the next generation of research
sychologists. Cery )uickly, I fell in love with teaching, and I fell in love with
my students -not inaroriately, I might add./ For the father in me, it felt
like having my children *ack home again.
&o it is with some em*arrassment and guilt that I confess to entertaining the
thought that my students didn:t know anything. I couldn:t *elieve they were
as ignorant as they aeared. Is it really true that students today are not as
good as students when I was an undergraduateE
I mentioned this to a colleague and friend, more seasoned than I, who, )uite
a while *efore I did, entered college teaching after a long and successful
cororate career. In the 0rst semester of his new role as educator of the
neonate rofessional, he came to the same conclusion as I. 1e comlained to
his wife that his students were ignorant of ractically everything that
mattered. !hey didn:t know a damn thing. !he light of ersective
descended uon him when she suggested he ut himself *ack in time to
when he was an undergraduate. 1ow much did he know a*out anything that
matteredE 1e came to the conclusion that he had *een e)ually ignorant. 1e
didn:t know a damn thing either at that age. I considered myself lucky that
he assed on his wisdom to me at the time that I could *est ro0t from it.
I *ecame comforta*le with the fact that my students were as smart as I was
at their age, if not a lot smarter. If they were ignorant a*out imortant
matters in life and scienti0c sychology, then it was my 3o* to imart the
re)uisite knowledge and skills. !hey might not know a damn thing coming
into my classes, *ut they were sure as hell going to know a lot when they
went out. 4t the end of each semester, I would raise my students for the
0ne work they did. I told them, however, that I had one comlaint a*out
them. !hey did not argue enough with their teachers, including me. I didn:t
want them to *e disutatious for its own sake, rather I wanted them to
)uestion their own willing accession to :truth delivered *y the rofessor:, and
challenge ideas that didn:t make sense to them.
Academic .sycho'ogy, /oday
2nfortunately, the new found areciation for my students, and con0dence
in them were not matched in my rediscovery of academic sychology. In my
earlier H'sychological &cienceI articles, I descri*ed signi0cant shortcomings
in sychological test theory. !he ro*lems were as fundamental as they get.
;. 4 hilosohy of science that is founded on 'lato:s Ideal FormsQ
8. @egarding mathematical constructs, like the normal curve, as if they
were derived from nature and actually reresented natureQ
G. Failing to see sychological test theory as a tautology and not a real
scienti0c theoryQ
>. 4nd e)uating the high utility of statistical models to scienti0c evidence
of truth a*out nature.
!he three-fold sources of my disillusionment, the grating on my intellectual
nerves, and my uity reactions are the many errors in some sychological
research methods texts, my role as a reviewer of technical aers for one of
my rofessional associations, and the indi5erence of some of my colleagues
in various institutions. For some colleagues, the indi5erence was so forced as
to thinly veil a seething hostility. "n my art, as an examle, I suose it
didn:t hel that I was )uick to descri*e a long used and treasured text as a
:iece of cra.:
Measurement
I remem*er, very well, my frustration with the undergraduate text I was
using. I didn:t like the examles. !he *eginning of each chater seemed to
read well, *ut the later half seemed to dilute the earlier clarity and *ecame
confusing. &ome of the grahics had style elements that, I thought, were
suosed to contri*ute something to conveying meaning. !hey didn:t. !hey
were gratuitous and distracting. !here were su*stantive errors throughout
the text, and statements *y the author that were 3ust wrong.
!he moment of truth came for me in the chater on measurement scales. I
told my students that my frustration level had reached the limit, and it was
no more $r. 7ice (uy when it came to the shortcomings of the text. In the
0ve rior chaters we dealt with fundamental concets of science and
exerimental design. In chater six we were getting down to the meat and
otatoes of all scienti0c research.
F. #hat makes science di5erent from other aroaches to understanding
nature and ourselvesE
4. "*servation and the recording of data.
F. 4nd what is it a*out the recording of data from o*servation that allows
science to *e scienceE
4. !he concet of measurement.
4nd here is where the fun starts for scienti0c research.
But there was no fun in that chater on measurement. H!he mighty %asey
had struck out.I I was mad as hell and I wasn:t going to take it anymore. !he
text *ook author exounded uon di5erent tyes of measurement scales,
and the use of fre)uency distri*utions, ercentiles, measures of central
tendency, and standard scores. 7ever once did he *other to de0ne the
concet of $easurement. !here was no entry for $easurement in the *ook:s
glossary. &o what was a frustrated and imatient research methods teacher
suosed to doE
/he Made'ine /heory of Measurement
It was at this oint that I 0rst develoed my $adeline lecture on
$easurement. I oened my lecture on chater six with the oening stan,a of
the classic illustrated children:s story, H$adeline,I *y Kudwig Bemelmanns.
"In an old house in 'aris
that was covered with vines
lived twelve little girls in two straight lines.
!hey *roke their *read
and *rushed their teeth and went to *ed.
!hey left the house at half ast nine
in two straight lines in rain or shine
Rthe smallest one was $adeline."
!his wonderful children:s story catured the attention of any student, no
matter the circumstances of their u*ringing. 4lmost everyone could
associate to wonderful memories of *eing read the *ook as a child. But, my
use of the story:s oening had more of a function than eliciting childhood
memories. I focused on the oening lines, HIn an old house in 'aris that was
covered with vines...I. I *egan the su*stantive art of the lecture *y saying
that in an old government *uilding in 'aris, a half do,en levels *elow street
level, were a num*er of o*3ects that were guarded day and night, and stored
under strictly controlled conditions of temerature and humidity. 4mong
those o*3ects was a latinum rod and a metal alloy shere. !he rod was the
universal standard of length for the meter. !he metal alloy shere was the
universal standard of weight for the kilogram. !hey were deemed universal
standards as a result of international treaties going *ack centuries,
rofessional associations, industry grous, and standards committees that
work through the 2nited 7ations.
$easurement is a comarison to a standard. #ithout this understanding,
there is no measurement. !his *egs the )uestions, as to how standards are
determined, and who or what makes the determinationE 7ot a few of my
students were mi5ed, initially, at the answer to the 0rst )uestion. #e make
them uM 'art of my lecture discusses the 0rst erson to articulate the notion
of relativity. It was (alileo, and not Einstein. (alileo was the 0rst to articulate
the idea that there was no a*solute reference to osition and momentum.
'ick a oint of reference that makes sense, and you have a standard. !his
leads to some interesting examles a*out settling on a standard for length
*ased uon the distance from the Sing:s nose to the ti of his longest 0nger
on an outstretched arm. I tell my students that if they and some of your
friends agree to use some ar*itrary determination of length, as an examle,
then you have a standard. If lots of eole agree to use your standard, then
you have a unit of measurement.
Finally, I make the oint in my lecture that standards do not last. !he old
house in 'aris, that is the deository for many of the world:s standards for
measurement, will *ecome, someday, a reli)uary. Electronic and atomic level
standards are *eing develoed and adoted, and will render the old
standards o*solete.
(nter /he <raduate Students and /heir ;nstructors
4t the level of graduate study in the social sciences, and research
sychologists with doctoral degrees, the ro*lem of de0ning $easurement
can *ecome downright ludicrous, if not rofessionally em*arrassing. I see
this in the technical aers I review for rofessional conferences. !he
de0nition most often cited is from a ;T>9 aer *y &. &. &tevens, H"n the
theory of scales of measurement.I &cience, ;?G, 9UU-9V?. It reads.
[M]easurement, in the broadest sense, is defned as the
assignment of numerals to objects or events according to
rules. !". #$$%
&tevens: de0nition of $easurement is totally useless. I could go even further.
It is one of the worst de0nitions I:ve ever seen. In common arlance, HIt
really sucksMI 2on closer scrutiny, it is not a de0nition of anything that has
value or utility for the social sciences. I can assign numerals to henomena
according to :rules: that have nothing to do with comarisons to standards.
!he result would *e a collection of assigned scores that are totally
meaningless for any measurement urose in sychological research.
For examle, I aroach a erson on the street and ask if I may assign that
erson a num*er. (iven a ositive resonse, I ut my hand into a *ag full of
coins of di5erent monetary values -2. &. legal tender coinage/ and ull out a
single coin. I determine the face value of the coin and assign that numeral to
the individual. I ull out a nickel -a 2.&. 0ve-cent iece/ and say, HBou are a
0ve.I 4s I leave to aroach another erson on the street, my graduate
student assistant asks the individual to H...ick a num*er, any num*er,
*etween ; and ;?.I !he icked num*er is recorded along with the coin
num*er. 4 0nal score -a measurement/ is determined *y multilying the coin
num*er *y the icked num*er. !he icked num*er was four. &o the 0nal
measurement value is 8? -< x > W 8?./ Bes, this de0nition really sucksM
!he only way the &tevens de0nition could work, is if the :rules: involved a
comarison to a standard. I have seen a few authors who aended the idea
of :a comarison to a standard: to the &tevens de0nition. #hen that
haens, the centeriece of &tevens: de0nition, :rules:, *ecomes suerAuous.
!he de0nition reduces to, H...the assignment of numerals to o*3ects or events
according to...Oa comarison to a standard.PI
$ost authors of technical aers and *ooks, who cite the &tevens de0nition
of $easurement, do not reali,e that this is not &tevens de0nition, at all. In
fact, there is some dou*t that he accets this as a de0nition of
$easurement, or, at the very least, does not accet it as a good de0nition. !o
understand this you would have to go *ack to the work of the Ferguson
%ommittee, esta*lished *y the British 4ssociation for the 4dvancement of
&cience in ;TG8. !he urose of the committee was to determine whether or
not real scienti0c measurement was a ossi*ility for the sychological
sciences. In other words. Is sychology a real science or notE !he Ferguson
%ommittee, dominated *y 7. @. %am*ell, an imortant 0gure in the
hilosohy of science for the hysical sciences, answered the )uestion with a
resounding, H7oMI "f course, the reort ut its resonse in a highly technical
treatment, focusing on %am*ell:s theory of scienti0c measurement *ased
on hysical additivity, the structural additivity of the mathematician "tto
1older, and, in my ersonal view, the fact that %am*ell would rather die
from eating *ad shell 0sh than recogni,e sychology as a science.
&tevens: de0nition of $easurement was, as he states, a arahrasing of
%am*ell:s de0nition, although he does not give us %am*ell:s de0nition
from the 0nal %ommittee reort. In %am*ell:s view, measurement involved
the assignment of numerical values to henomenon according to scienti0c
laws. !his meant that sychologists had to conduct exeriments to
demonstrate the roerties of hysical and structural additivity in sycho-
hysical, sycho-social, and sychological measurement. 'hysical additivity
was akin to taking many one-foot rulers and laying them end-to-end along
side a much longer o*3ect to *e measured. 4dd u the num*er of rulers, and
you have a measure of the length of the o*3ect. &tructural additivity was a
set of mathematical axioms develoed *y "tto 1olding, and u*lished in
;T?;. !oday we see these axioms in our 0rst courses in alge*ra. For
examle,
;. a is e)ual to * -aW*/ or not e)ual -a X *Q a Y */.
8. For any lengths a and *, a Z * Y a.
G. "rder of oeration doesn:t matter, a Z * W * Z a.
>. 4dditive relation is indi5erent for comound oerations, a Z -* Z c/ W -
a Z * / Z c.
&tevens ignored the reort of the Ferguson %ommittee. In short, he
dismissed the matter entirely and felt that they simly got it wrong. 1e did
not *other to address the call for exeriments that would address the issues
of additivity. It fell on later sychological researchers and statisticians, in the
;T9?s, to develo the mathematical roofs that scienti0c measurement was
clearly in the domain of sycho-hysical, sycho-social, and sychological
science.
Stevens= /heory of Measurement Numerica' Sca'es
&tevens went on to develo his theory of measurement scales, that is well
known to all students of sychological research methods. "n this age is the
grahic of !a*le ; from his ;T>9 article. 1e asserted, correctly, that di5erent
tyes of measurement scales are derived from di5erent measurement
oerations that we use to roduce them. !his is of utmost imortance to
sychological science *ecause, deending uon the tye of measurement
scale a researcher is using, di5erent decisions must *e made a*out how to
analy,e the data. For examle, you can:t comute averages for nominal
measurement scales like religious a[liation. &uose the numeral :;:
reresents a &outhern Batist, :8: reresents a Len Buddhist, and :G:
reresents a &u0 $uslim. It is meaningless to comute an average religious
a[liation score for a samle of eole for which you have data.
&tevens thought he was develoing a theory of measurement that would
yield a de0nition of $easurement *ased uon the oerations re)uired to
roduce measurements. 1e was greatly inAuenced *y the concet of
oerationalism in the work of fellow 1arvard faculty, 'ercy Bridgman, a 7o*el
Kaureate in 'hysics. In the end, he did no such thing. 4 close examination of
his ta*le shows that his theory of measurement is really a self-contained,
mathematical descrition of the roerties of di5erent numerical scales.
#hat he develoed was a theory of numerical scales, not a theory and
de0nition of $easurement. 1e constrained himself to the con0nes of the
internal mathematics involved, and never ventured to examine the
relationshi of a fundamental or derived measure to a standard. 1e was
stuck on the fact that the di5ering oerations Odi5erent :rules:P that were
alied, would imute di5erent roerties to the assigned numerals. 1e was
correct, as far as it went. But, we still don:t have a de0nition of
$easurement.
!hroughout &tevens: discussions of 7ominal, "rdinal, Interval, and @atio
scales, $easurement as a comarison to a standard is imlied to the oint
that it almost 3ums out and *ites you on the nose. 1e was so focused on the
oerational asects and internal mathematical roerties of the resulting
scales, that he simly missed the essence of what he was talking a*out. 1e
couldn:t see the forest Othe concet of $easurementP for the trees Othe scale
roerties that are contingent on the oerations of measuringP. If he thought
it was too o*vious to mention, which I highly dou*t, then he should have said
it out loud. !he fact is that he already committed himself to a useless
de0nition of $easurement. &tevens redeemed himself, thankfully, *y giving
sychological and *ehavioral sciences an understanding of di5erent tyes of
numerical scales that serves us to this day.
Measurement is a comparison to a standard
E. K. !horndike, who *ridged the ;Tth and 8?th centuries, and his
contemoraries were keen on develoing the scienti0c foundations of
sychological and the *ehavioral research. 1e was the 0rst sychologist to
attemt a codi0cation of the roerties of scienti0c measurement in the
social sciences. !hough his e5ort fell short 6 he never catured the idea of
comarison to a standard, for examle 6 it was an imetus for others who
followed, and who sought to elevate sychology to a science. #e are not
there, yet. But, we can get there if we get our fundamentals in order.
1ow have we come this far without a consensus for a good de0nition of
$easurementE
Is it really true that so many of us haven:t a clue, that as a science, and
scientists, we are missing something very imortantE
"n Part # of this article, " will discuss the issues of $ncertainty, and
%eterminism in the science of psychology. " think a good subtitle for Part #
might be& '(ow Psychologists )uote (eisenberg and %rive Physicists $p the
*riggin+ Wall,-
.hank you for reading. Please /0112N., P3A"42, /3"."/"52, 4$PP03.,
%2N0$N/2, A36$2, and %2*2N% as you are inclined to do. All of your
observations help me, enormously, in developing my ideas. "+ll see you here
at 7)uarksdaily.com on 8anuary 7, #9:9. (appy (olidays and (appy New
;ear,
'osted *y 7orman %osta at ;8.?G 4$ \ 'ermalink
.sycho'ogica' Science5 Measurement, 2ncertainty, and ,eterminism
1 .art "
*y 7orman %osta
/he 9Sad: Story So &ar

Few ideas are as fundamental to sychological science, and all science, as
the concet of measurement. &cience does not exist without measurement.
Bet, many sychologists who would identify themselves as scientists do not
seem to understand the most fundamental de0nition of measurement.
$easurement is a comarison to a standard. !his does not seak well for
those who are resonsi*le for scientists-in-the-making at the undergraduate
level and esecially at the graduate level.
&tandards of measurement are inventions of the human mind, they are
ar*itrary, and they re)uire only consensus and demonstrated utility. "ver
time, standards are imroved, changed, or even discarded. For examle,
standards of measuring time have evolved from naturalistic o*servation of
the cycles of day and night, to using the oscillating roerties of the cesium
atom. &tandards for measuring sychological deression have evolved from
vague and general descritions to a tallying of seci0c *ehaviors that can *e
o*served.
&cience is an aroach to understanding nature and ourselves that has
method and content. &cience as method is the systematic o*servation of
henomena and the recording of data. #ithout measurement, there is no
recording of data from o*servation. $easuring, comaring to a standard,
takes lace on many levels from the most simle to the very comlex. !he
most *asic comarison to a standard is determining that a henomenon is
resent or not resent. "ther comarisons allow us to determine similarity or
dissimilarity. If a decision is made that something is dissimilar to a standard,
then we might determine how dissimilar, and in what direction, like more or
less. &cience as content is the organi,ation of this information into a *ody of
knowledge. For examle, we have the science of metallurgy, the science of
*iology, and the science of ver*al learning.
&o where is this academic exercise leading usE I thought you would never
ask. It is leading us to the next imortant toic associated with
measurement. Error, more seci0cally, errors of measurement. "ne of the
*iggest mistakes that scienti0c sychology makes, however, is confusing the
notion of errors of measurement with #erner 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty
'rincile.: Do you want to know why hysicists laugh themselves silly when
sychology resents itself as a scienceE Do you want to know why many
scientists in other 0elds regard scienti0c sychology as an oxymoronE 'lease
read on.
Scienti7c .sycho'ogy Su-ers from .enis 9.hysics: (nvy
In the very 0rst class of my 0rst semester of teaching undergraduate
'sychological @esearch $ethods, I assigned an article titled, 'A Possible
4olution *or .he Problem 0f .ime "n )uantum /osmology,- By &tuart
Sau5man and Kee &molin , with an introduction *y Dohn Brokman. !he most
o*vious )uestion is why I should assign such an o5-toic reading in a class
on research methods in sychology. !he answer to that )uestion lies in the
instructions I gave to my students. I asked them to focus 7"! on the
su*stantive issues of )uantum hysics, *ut on the nature of science, and the
scientists themselves. #hat could they learn, I asked them, a*out science
and scientists, who they are and what they do, from reading the articleE
OI7&E@! F"KD 4B"2! 1E@EP
4t the *eginning of the very next class we discussed the article, and my
students did not disaoint. I can still see one of my students in the next to
the last seat of the row against the wall, to my right. 1e o5ered one of the
*est o*servations made in that class on the nature of science. 1e said that
he thought the 0ndings of science were well de0ned and agreed uon, yet
this article showed that science was no such thing. In fact, there was a lot of
disagreement on what was true and what was not. I can still see his face
*ecause it was a look of confusion, dismay, and great disaointment. 1e
thought that *y this time, they Othe scientistsP would have 0gured things out
and come to a conclusion.
"thers noted that some scientists seem to like each other and some didn:t. 4
few o*served that *ig egos were involved, and there was not a little olitical
osturing going on. 4ll of the scientists aearing in the article seemed to *e
very sure of themselves as they di5ered greatly with each other. !hey
seemed to *e very cometitive. &cientists seemed to argue a great deal.
$y contri*ution to the discussion was to oint out that art of *eing a
scientist, as could *e inferred from the article, was to u*lish and u*lici,e
their 0ndings. Deending uon the venue, they might write an article, read a
aer, travel to conferences and get someone else to ay for it, challenge
other:s results, defend their own, discuss toics on a anel, call each other
nasty names, hurl insults and invectives, and even unish other scientists
they didn:t like. !here are scientists who are saints, *ut many manifest
themselves as etty, 3ealous, and vindictive in their scienti0c life.
I like comaring scienti0c sychology with sychics *ecause it disels many
false notions of science and makes room for sychology in the antheon of
science. For examle.
It disels the notion that :real: science is exact, o*3ective, and
disassionateQ 4lso, it *lunts the o*3ections of those who dismiss
sychological science as inexact, su*3ective, and self-a*sor*ed.
It disels the notion that there is such a thing as an exact scienceQ
@ather there are sciences that deal with relatively smaller errors of
measurement -hysics,/ and others that deal with relatively larger
errors of measurement -econometrics./ 'sychology lies *etween the
two in terms of the si,e of errors of measurement.
Few scientists are o*3ective and disassionate in the a*soluteQ @ather,
science, *y the way science is conducted, is self-correcting, in the long
run, and kees scientists on the straight and narrow.
&cientists are not free of *iases, reconcetions, misconcetions, and
ersonal agendasQ @ather, these can fuel the energy, motivation, and
creativity of scientists.
7o scienti0c knowledge is a*solute, unchanging, or 0nalQ @ather, all
scienti0c knowledge is roximate and rovisional, and only reresents
the *est we can roduce to this oint in time. #e can count on *etter
data in the future suerseding resent-day knowledge.
4 colleague of mine argues with me that sychology ought to get over its
hysics envy and sto trying to *olster itself with an eternal reference to
hysics. &he is correct, *ut, I think it still has *ene0ts in understanding
science in general, as I stated a*ove. 1owever, she has a very good oint
*ecause scienti0c sychology kees getting some things wrong when we try
to iggy-*ack on hysics. I:ve already discussed in 'art ; how sychology:s
attemt to gain the resect and recognition of the more successful sciences
led us to an em*arrassing failure to come u with a consistent and worka*le
de0nition of measurement. $easurement is not the only em*arrassing
*looer in a comarison of sychological science to the more successful
sciences.
2ncertainty About Heisenberg=s =2ncertainty .rincip'e=
!his one is really em*arrassing. &cienti0c sychology likes to )uote the great
7o*el Kaureates in hysics, #erner 1eisen*erg and 'ercy Bridgeman, in the
*elief that *oth are relevant to scienti0c sychology, and that *oth contain
imortant foundations to the hilosohy of science for sychology. In the
case of Bridgeman and his discussion of the hyothetical construct and
oerationalism, he is very relevant. 1owever, many in scienti0c sycholoogy
rofess a *elief in hyothetical constructs on &unday, and then *ehave as if
they don:t really matter on $onday. 4t that time we return to *ehaving as if
our hyothetical constructs -like mental health, intelligence, 3o* satisfaction,
or social anxiety/ have an actual existence in a reality that is aart from the
human mind:s a*ility to create them, concetuali,e them, and use them to
think and communicate. #e kee trying to have our cake Ohyothetical
constructsP and eat it O'lato:s Ideal Forms,P too.
In the case of 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rincile,: scienti0c sychology
kees referencing it as if it were a known, fundamental rincile of
measurement in sychology. 'sychologists who reference 1eisen*erg in their
work *elieve that his :2ncertainty 'rincile: can *e restated thusly. !he act of
measuring a henomenon changes that which is measured. !here are three
reasons it is comletely wrong to reference 1eisen*erg in any context of
measurement in sychology.
;. 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rincile: alies "7KB to )uantum hysics and
not to any other scienti0c disciline. It is not a scienti0c rincile that can *e
generali,ed, alied, or extended to any science or 0eld of measurement.
8. &cienti0c sychology, at times, mistakenly e)uates ro*a*ilities
associated with errors of measurement in sychology, with the uncertainties
associated with )uantum henomena. !hey are two comletely di5erent
ideas.
G. &cienti0c sychology assumes a deterministic model of nature Oat least
that art of nature to which sychology devotes its time and energyP, and is
an anathema to )uantum hysics: ro*a*ilistic view of nature.
!he 0rst thing we should do is look at what 1eisen*erg actually said a*out
the concet of uncertainty. !hen we can determine what he meant and how
it is aroriated, without 3usti0cation, *y scienti0c sychology. 1ere is a
)uote from '.he Physical Principles of the )uantum .heory-, By #erner
1eisen*erg, ;TG?, !ranslated *y %arl Eckart and F. %. 1oyt, and u*lished *y
Dover 'u*lications, Inc. in ;T>T. '.8?.
& '. ())*+,-.,(/0+ /f ,12 *032-,.(0,4 -2).,(/0+
,he uncertainty "rinci"le refers to the degree of indeterminateness
in the "ossible "resent 5nowledge of the simultaneous values of
various 6uantities with which the 6uantum theory deals7 it does not
restrict, for exam"le, the exactness of a "osition measurement
alone or a velocity measurement alone. ,hus su""ose that the
velocity of a free electron is "recisely 5nown, while the "osition is
com"letely un5nown. ,hen the "rinci"le states that every
subse6uent observation of the "osition will alter the momentum by
an un5nown and undeterminable amount such that after carrying
out the ex"eriment our 5nowledge of the electronic motion is
restricted by the uncertainty relation. ,his may be ex"ressed in
concise and general terms by saying that every ex"eriment destroys
some of the 5nowledge of the system which was obtained by
"revious ex"eriments. ,his formulation ma5es it clear that the
uncertainty relation does not refer to the "ast7 if the velocity of the
electron is at frst 5nown and the "osition then exactly measured,
the "osition for times "revious to the measurement may be
calculated. ,hen for these "ast times 8"86 is smaller than the usual
limiting value, but this 5nowledge of the "ast is of a "urely
s"eculative character, since it can never !because of the un5nown
change in momentum caused by the "osition measurement% be used
as an initial condition in any calculation of the future "rogress of
the electron and thus cannot be subjected to ex"erimental
verifcation. (t is a matter of "ersonal belief whether such a
calculation concerning the "ast history of the electron can be
ascribed any "hysical reality or not.
Ket:s go oint *y oint in understanding the :2ncertainty 'rincile: and how it
does not *elong in discussions of sychological measurement. First, it alies
only the henomena of )uantum hysics. ,he uncertainty "rinci"le
refers to the degree of indeterminateness in the "ossible "resent
5nowledge of the simultaneous values of various 6uantities with
which the 6uantum theory deals[.]... !here has *een 7" work, of which
I am aware, that either generali,es the :2ncertainty 'rincile: to the social
sciences, or has created a similar rincile that alies to the social sciences.
&econd, scienti0c sychology e)uates ro*a*ilities associated with errors of
measurement in sychology with the uncertainties associated with )uantum
henomena. ...,hus su""ose that the velocity of a free electron is
"recisely 5nown, while the "osition is com"letely un5nown. ,hen
the "rinci"le states that every subse6uent observation of the
"osition will alter the momentum by an un5nown and
undeterminable amount such that after carrying out the ex"eriment
our 5nowledge of the electronic motion is restricted by the
uncertainty relation.... !he imortant words in this )uote are, ...alter
the momentum by an un5nown and undeterminable amount.... In
fact, the amount of change will 7ECE@ and %47 7ECE@ *e known. In
sychological science we have a concet called the measurement method
e5ect. &imly, di5erent methods emloyed to measure the same
henomenon, may roduce di5erent results. 4 related concet used in Item
@esonse !heory in sychological testing is measurement invariance.
'sychological science and statistics assume that measurement method
e5ects can *e determinedQ "r, at the very least, there is no hilosohical or
scienti0c reason why they could not *e determined. #e are talking ales
-undetermina*le measurement e5ect in )uantum hysics/ and oranges
-measurement method e5ect in sychology/, here.
&till wanna know why hysicists are still giggling at scientists in sychology,
smirking in their condescension, and *eing atroni,ing to sychology as a
scienceE
!hird, scienti0c sychology assumes a deterministic model of nature, that is
an anathema to the ro*a*ilistic view of nature in )uantum hysics. !his is
the most su*tle, and yet most rofound, di5erence *etween ro*a*ilities
associated with errors of measurement for scienti0c sychology, and the
ro*a*ilistic model of nature in )uantum hysics. For 1eisen*erg and all of
)uantum hysics, 27%E@!4I7!B I& 4 '@"'E@!B "F 74!2@E. For scienti0c
sychology, uncertainty is a function of the limitation of our measurement
tools, not a roerty of nature.
4l*ert Einstein, himself, *elieved that the uncertainties associated with
)uantum henomena were merely a function of the technology and
engineering of measurement devices. !he limitations of today:s technology
and engineering that roduce uncertain results, will give way to tomorrow:s
technology and engineering and roduce results without uncertainty.
Einstein:s view of the world was a deterministic one. Snowledge of an
outcome is certain, rovided all factors and antecedents are known. For
)uantum hysics, outcomes are uncertain -ro*a*ilistic/ *ecause uncertainty
is a roerty of nature, not a function of inade)uate measuring. Einstein:s
o*3ection to this is catured in his famous statement, 9od does not "lay
dice. In fact, (od does lay dice. (od sends the whole damn day laying
dice. 'aradoxically, Einstein, the man who gave *irth to )uantum hysics,
could not accet 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rincile: and was forever
*yassed *y science and left to doter in the *ackwater of hysics.
For scienti0c sychology, however, we have only a deterministic model of
nature. 2ncertainty in our science is a function of our technology and
cleverness. 2nlike )uantum hysics we claim no roerty of nature that is
de0ned *y indetermina*ility. #e have no hilosohical or scienti0c
foundation to assume otherwise. It is long, long ast the time that
sychosocial researchers &!"' using references to 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty
'rincile.: #e are still fooled, largely *y ourselves, that ro*a*ilities from
errors of measurement in sychology are the same thing as the uncertainties
and ro*a*ilities discussed *y 1eisen*erg. #e continue to reference
)uantum uncertainty till the cows come home, as if 1eisen*erg really meant
it to generali,e to sychosocial areas of research.
#e think we are congratulating ourselves with how clever we are. &o we
strut our stu5 in u*lic like the cock of the walk, so other scientists can see
that we are 3ust as well e)uied as those hysicists. #e u5 u our chests
thinking they are admiring our credentials. !hey are, *ut ours are so
diminutive they have to ull out their *inoculars.
(odM !his is really em*arrassingM
&o''ow>up 6are for Scienti7c .sycho'ogy
'erhas my colleague is right. #e don:t need to )uote hysics and hysicists
to ro u our sense of our selves as scientists and sychology as a science.
#14! #E 7EED !" D", however, is to get right the fundamentals of science
and the hilosohy of science for the social sciences.
#e need to sto inserting a reference to the :2ncertainty 'rincile,: in the
introductions to our technical aers, as if it were a demonstrated roof of
our claims that the act of measuring something changes that which is
measured in sychological research. !he *urden is on the teachers of
sychological research methods, text *ook authors, and review editors of
technical u*lications. It must *e acknowledged that the :2ncertainty
'rincile: *elongs "7KB to )uantum hysics. &imilarly, we have to disel any
notion that ro*a*ilities associated with errors of measurement in
sychology have any connection to )uantum uncertainty. Finally, we have to
face the fact that sychological science is redicated uon a deterministic
view of nature 6 at least until it can *e demonstrated that a di5erent view is
more aroriate.
!he :2ncertainty 'rincile: does have some value fo@ scienti0c sychology. I
use it as an analogy in teaching sychological research methods, *ut I
emhasi,e it is only an analogy. !he idea that the act of measuring can
change that which is measured, is worthy of discussion in sychological
research. !here are times when I think it might aly, and other times not.
For examle, I may want to determine to what extent a new emloyee is
satis0ed with the emloyer. I might give the emloyee a aer )uestionnaire
and ask for a satisfaction rating, from ; to ;?, with ; reresenting :Cery
Dissatis0ed:, and ;? reresenting :Cery &atis0ed.: !he emloyee might never
have considered the idea of satisfaction with the emloyer *efore resonding
to the )uestionnaire. &o the act of measuring emloyee satisfaction changed
the erson comleting the )uestionnaire. "n the other hand, I might
o*serve, uno*trusively, various *ehaviors of the emloyee that indicate level
of satisfaction. In this case, the entity *eing measured is unchanged.
!he concet of uncertainty is still a very owerful hilosohical construct for
all of science. I was watching a video rogram on )uantum hysics that was
intended for a non-scienti0c audience. 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rincile:
was discussed in the rogram:s content. 4fterward, the hysicist Keon
Kederman, 7o*el Kaureate and former head of Fermila*, discussed
uncertainty as a fundamental rincile of how eole should view the world,
in general. 1e was arguing for a sense of humility and ersective vis a vis
the natural world, knowledge, and our relationshis with each other.
4ll of this *egs some serious )uestions. Ket me take a sta* a few.
0. &hould scienti0c sychology *e content to view the world as deterministic
6 is the deterministic model su[cient for scienti0c sychologyE
A. I D"7:! S7"#. 4 deterministic model imels us to continually imrove, in
an iterative rocess, the concetuali,ation of our hyothetical constructs and
the oerational de0nitions we use to measure them. In this sense, the
iterative rocess is continually trying to imrove our record of measurement
error. !his is not a *ad model. Is there a *etter oneE $ay*e, *ut let:s
understand what we are dealing with and what can *e suorted *y science.
0. Is it true that for scienti0c sychology the act of measuring changes that
which is measuredE
A. I D"7:! S7"#. &ometimes it seems that way and sometimes it doesn:t, as
I exlained, a*ove. #e don:t have a develoed hilosohical or scienti0c
formulation to suort this notion, once we dro 1eisen*erg. If it is true, then
we need to develo it indeendently for scienti0c sychology.
0. #ill hysicists come to love us, resect us, and em*race us as scientists
on an e)ual footingE
A. #1" %4@E&M !his assumes we do what is necessary to get the science
right.
.hank you for reading. " hope you will take the time to comment and
contribute to a discussion.
"+ll see you on *ebruary :, #9:9 with a new article.
7orm %osta
'osted *y 7orman %osta at ;8.?? 4$ \ 'ermalink
.sycho'ogica' Science5 /he 9Non>:/heory of .sycho'ogica' /esting 1
.art ?
Note& 1y views in these three articles on Psychological .est .heory <P..= are
limited to psychological science, particularly what we know as the statistical
theory of psychological testing& /lassical .est .heory </..= and "tem
3esponse .heory <"3.=. While " do not cover, e>plicitly, classical infe
rential statistics in psychological research, some of my
ideas would e>tend to that domain, particularly on Plato+s "deal *orms, and
the tautological nature of some psychological statistics. " have nothing to say
about how my views apply, or not, to engineering, ?uantum physics, and
neural activity in the brain. At times, " use +overstatement+ as a rhetorical
device to make a point.
@;f a thing e8ists, it e8ists in some amountA and if it e8ists in some
amount, it can be measured.@ B
] 6E. K. !horndike -;VU>-;T>T/, "ntroduction to the .heory of 1ental and
4ocial 1easurements -;T?>/

@/hus, if we perceive the presence of some attribute, we can infer
that there must a'so be present an e8isting thing or substance to
which it may be attributed.@ BB
@&or ; free'y ac4now'edge that ; recogniCe no matter in corporea'
things apart from that which the geometers ca'' quantity, and ta4e
as the obDect of their demonstrations, E.@ BB
]] 6@ene Descartes -;<T9-;9<?/, Principles of Philosophy. I.<8 and II.9>
-;9>>/.

$ore hilosohical em*arrassments for sychology
!hese oft )uoted, or arahrased, ideas have *een unfortunate for
sychological science. E. K. !horndike:s ioneering contri*utions to
educational, social, general, and industrial sychology, and animal *ehavior
are su*stantial, without disute. 1owever, this forceful attemt to esta*lish,
with :common sense:, a 3usti0cation for sychological testing, was no more
than a restatement of 'lato:s Ideal Forms. 4t the *eginning of his illustrious
career, sychology and hilosohy were commonly administered in the same
college and university deartments. During his lifetime we saw the
ascendancy of sychological science as a disciline searate from
hilosohy, *ut with a vestige of relationshi issues from the rior marriage
of long standing.
Descartes gave us another ro*lem, frustrating when we look *ack on it,
that limited rogress in science and
hilosohy for nearly >?? years. #hen it came to mental life -thinking,
reasoning, cognition, memory/, there was a clear line of demarcation
*etween humans and the rest of entire animal world. 1umans could think,
lan, imagine, reason, and solve comlex ro*lemsQ animals functioned at
the level of instinct and *ase neural connections. !horndike reinforced this
notion *y a refusal to see the ossi*ility of human-like thought rocesses in
research on animals. !he ro*lem of mind and *ody, since Descartes,
advanced only *y utting a hyhen *etween the two words, :$ind-Body:.
Fortunately, hilosohy has stoed asking itself )uestions that can:t *e
answered.
4lright, not all scientists, and hilosohers are erfect.
!he oint I wish to make, though, is that the same hilosohical and
mathematical assumtions that hel to sur advances in sychological
science, can also limit its future develoment. If sychology, as we know it,
does not get it:s scienti0c-hilosohical-mathematical act together, it will *e
eclised *y neuro-cognitive science, f$@I, genetics, *iology, endocrinology,
harmacology, and the commercial testing industry. !he re0x :sycho: may
*e srinkled, amly, through course catalogs, *ut we might *e hard ressed
to 3ustify administering it as a searate disciline, and distri*uting research
dollars on a ar with other deartments. It is my ersonal
view that we have less than one generation to shake ourselves loose of an
entrenched failure to reform our scienti0c shortcomings.
!he @evolutions of ;V>VTT9-U
I was comletely o*livious to the oening salvos, and the *arricades, when
a few anarchist sychologists and disillusioned social science researchers
went into the streets and called for an end to sychological and inferential
statistics as we knew them. !he voices of discontent and rogress were
*attling the entrenched deartment heads who thought their own research,
and that of their students, would not reach u*lication. &e)uences of courses
were *reached, content was revised, and a few of the old guard went,
voluntarily, t o reeducation cams -re-convention
seminars/. In 4ril ;TT9, I started a social science research comany in
Brewster, 7B. I was reoccuied with hiring sta5, renting o[ce sace, *uying
e)uiment, marketing, writing roosals, and funding my own start-u
*usiness. I don:t think I read a rofessional 3ournal for a coule of years.
%ertainly, there was no time or money to send the *etter art of a week at
the annual conventions of the 4merican 'sychological 4ssociation -4'4/, and
the &ociety for IndustrialN"rgani,ational 'sychology -&I"'/.
#hen I 0nally discovered what haened, the smoke and the *arricades
were gone, and there was no o*vious trace of the *irth of an imortant
movement. I had to go looking for it. It:s always chancy when you try to in
down the one event that started it all, esecially when many factors, over
time, may have made that one moment an ausicious one. &o, here:s my
candidate for the shot heard round the world of sychological statistics. It
was an article *y Frank K. &chmidt, &tatistical &igni0cance !esting and
%umulative Snowledge in 'sychology. Imlications for !raining of
@esearchers, in 'sychological $ethods, I, ;;<-;8T. !he following year, ;TTU,
saw a great deal of focus at the 4'4 convention on some of the issues
discussed *y &chmidt. 4t the risk of over simlifying the central ideas that
were de*ated, I make the following o*servations. !he concet of the
e5ective well conducted rimary study is an illusionQ statistical testing in the
single study is virtually worthlessQ the value of the rimary or single study is
only assessed, years later, in a meta-analysis. !he revolutionaries wanted to
*an all reorting of signi0cance results. !he *rave comrades who manned
and womaned the *arricades did change some of the rules of eer reviewed
3ournals in sychology for the *etter.
#hat the hell was going on that led *ookish, nerdy researchers to take to
the streets, and ut their 3o*s and reutations on the lineE $y view is that
the fundamental suositions of sychology as a science were fatally Aawed.
!hey were not re*elling at sychology, nor were they re*elling at the science
of sychology. !hey were simly saying that what they:ve learned in
graduate school, and continued to teach their students, was frustrating their
rogress as social science researchers. !hey were wondering, in my oinion,
if sychology as a science could hold it:s own with the other more successful
sciences. I think many of the courageous warriors DID 7"! understand that
the hilosohy and statistical theories undergirding their science was
dooming them to failure. !hey didn:t areciate this ro*lem nor articulate it
this wayQ they 3ust knew it wasn:t working. !he result of *rave men and
women standing u to the tyranny of the ast and the esta*lished order of
things, was to deemhasi,e statistical tests in refereed 3ournals, and rovide
results that were more descritive rather than urely inferential.
're-revolution history
!he re-revolution history shows that this moment in time was inevita*le.
'sychology, as a science, was given a huge *oost *y the sychologists who
cut their teeth on sychological testing and sychological research in the 2.
&. 4rmy 4ir %ors during ##II. It is not an exaggeration to say that the
science of sychology in the second half of the twentieth century is inde*ted,
immeasura*ly, to the 4rmy 4ir %ors. 4mong many truly outstanding
sychologists was @o*ert K. !horndike -;T;?-;TT?/, who followed his father,
E. K. !horndike, into !eachers %ollege, %olum*ia 2niversity, in 7ew Bork %ity.
1e was one of the *est sychologists and
sychometricians of the twentieth century. Few, however, took note that he
was very clear that '!! was a tautology. $any of my colleagues will ro*a*ly
*ristle at this and 0nd it imlausi*le. 4fter all, he was one of the giants in the
0eld of '!!, and contri*uted mightily to the literature, and the texts that are
still used today. Is there a aradox or contradiction hereE 7o. 1e was
intelligent enough, and so well versed in the statistical theory of mental
tests, that he understood it for what it was. a highly useful tool for society
-as it still is/ that was *ased on a tautology.
@. K. !horndike demonstrated the tautological nature of '!! with a simle
examle. First, we need a little *ackground. !he two most imortant
cornerstones of '!! are the concets of validity and relia*ility. Calidity is a
roerty that is imuted to a sychological or educational test, if it can *e
demonstrated that it is measuring what it is intended to measure. For
examle, a school district wants to use a standardi,ed test to assess
mathematics achievement among its eighth graders. 1ow do the school
suerintendent, rincials, and arents, know that a
articular test really measures mathematics achievement as it relates to
their educational re)uirementsE !est u*lishers claim a test, in their catalog,
measures eighth grade math achievementQ uon insection it may even look
like a test of eighth grade math. Is it valid as a test of eighth grade math
achievementE It is valid -it has validity/ only if the test is su*3ected to
seci0c kinds of research and examination that are selled out in a
document called, "!he &tandards for Educational and 'sychological !esting."
@elia*ility is a roerty that is imuted to a
sychological or educational test, if it can *e demonstrated that it yields
consistent results with reeated use, all other things *eing e)ual. !he
statistical determination of the roerty of relia*ility is founded uon the
concet of arallel tests. 4chievement !est 4, and 4chievement !est B, are
arallel if the content is essentially the same with, ossi*ly, some variation.
For examle, !est 4 asks a student to solve for the unknown in the e)uation,
8> W > Z x. !est B uses the e)uation, ;G W G Z x. If there is only one test
form availa*le, the items of the single test could *e divided into two tests of
e)ual num*ers of items. !hus, we have a !est 4, and a !est B, administered
at the same time on one form, and in one sitting.
!hese arallel tests are referred to as slit-half, arallel tests. It is also
ossi*le to use a single test as its own arallel test, with two di5erent
administrations of the same test. Kike validity, the determination of a test:s
relia*ility is the result of rescri*ed research and statistics found in "!he
&tandards for Educational and 'sychological !esting." @elia*ility is an
indisensa*le, *ut not su[cient, condition for the validity of a test.
7ow, how does !horndike demonstrate the tautological nature of '!!E 1e
does it very simly. @elia*ility is de0ned in terms of arallel tests, and
arallel tests are de0ned in terms of relia*ility. If you want to determine a
test:s relia*ility, then create a arallel test and follow the recie in the
"&tandards." !ests are arallel, if they can *e used to measure relia*ility.
#hat do we haveE #e have circular reasoning, also known as a tautology.
@elia*ility cannot *e imuted without arallel tests, and arallel tests, as a
concet, do not exist aart from their use in determining relia*ility. 4ll
statements in a tautology are necessarily true.
&ome of the leading, early sychometricians recogni,ed this
tautological ro*lem as early as the ;TG?s 6 de0nitely in the ;T>?s and
;T<?s. !he *rilliant sychologist, Dane Koevinger -;T;V-8??V/, was ro*a*ly
the 0rst -and for a long time the only/ sychologist to
make a stink a*out the fact that there was no non-circular de0nition of test
relia*ility. &he was ignored *y the *ig name sychometricians of her day, *ut
her assertion stands, and has never *een challenged, successfully. 1er
ersonal history is fascinating. In site of *latant gender discrimination for
decades, hers was an excetional career as scholar, teacher, and researcher.
!@ICI4 4KE@!. Dane Koevinger singlehandedly created the academic area of
women:s studies in the university. 'lease say a rayer of thanks, or give a
moment of reAection, for her gift to all of us, women and men.
!he *iggest antecedent to the revolution
occurred GU years earlier. !he hilosoher 1. Feigl u*lished the article,
"'hilosohical Em*arrassments of 'sychology," in the 4'4:s Aagshi
u*lication, 4merican 'sychologist, ;T<T, ;>, ;;<-;8V. Feigl was one of the
most inAuential hilosohers in 4merica, following his immigration 3ust rior
to the out*reak of ##II, and his aointment at the 2niversity of $innesota.
1e is associated with ideas like hilosohical analysis, logical emiricism,
and scienti0c emiricism. #ith my enchant for over simli0cation, I would
like to say that much of his thinking, and inAuence,
were summed u in two hum*le )uestions. "#hat do you meanE" and "1ow
do you knowE" %ontinuing with great *revity, I would like to say that his
aer had two intended e5ects, and two that were unintended. Feigl
correctly ointed out the serious Aaws in the sychoanalytic traditions that
still *elieved they were doing the Kord:s work as good scientists. !heir
retenses to emirical science were 6 shall we say 6 em*arrassing. !he
second, and ro*a*ly intended, result, was to give succor, of a hilosohical
kind, to researchers who had enough with the hitherto, arrogant
sychoanalytic retenders to science. "ne of the unintended conse)uences
was to give 3usti0cation to the ositivist *ehaviorists to sei,e the o[ces of
the recently deosed, arrogant retenders. &u*se)uently, it was harder to
get your aer u*lished if it soke of cognitive function, mental rocess,
meaningful ver*al learning, and o*3ect relations theory in ego sychology.
&cienti0c seculation resulted in the 999 *randing of the foreheads of the
incorrigi*le researchers. !he second unintended result, was the cumulative
frustration, thirty-0ve years later, of the sychological research community,
after three decades of a free hand at a ositivist, reductionist research model
did not get them any closer to answering imortant )uestions. @ichard
Feynman, in an interview, summed u the lack of satisfying scienti0c
rogress in sychology, very nicely. 1e said sychology had adoted the
roer scienti0c form, *ut we were not roducing any laws of nature. 2ntil
we do, he said, sychology was a seudo-science. 'ersonally, as a
sychologist and a scientist, that hurts. !here are a few fundamental asects
a*out mental life and *ehavior that we have descri*ed, *ut, in the main I
have to agree with him. !he solution is clear. get our hilosohy and science
right *efore we go ahead. "therwise, we will lead each other down a ath to
more frustration.
#hat got us here, and how are we going to get outE
!he @evolution con0rmed the inade)uacies of the esta*lished regime.
#hat was so familiar to them in the ast, was, and still is, hard to see as
wrong. For examle, classical inferential statistics for sychological research,
aears to *e 3oined at the hi of exerimental design that we teach in
sychological research methods classes. !he
classical model resuoses an ongoing accumulation of data that stand
aart from the researcher, and who is o*3ective and disassionate. 4
Bayesian model of statistical inference comensates for many of the
limitations of classical statistical inference. I won:t go into all the goodies
associated with a Bayesian aroach. I want to focus, instead, on the ma3or
road*lock to incororating Bayesian inference *y social science researchers.
#hat is untena*le, if not downright unnatural for the classically trained, is
that the Bayesian aroach functions *y modifying the *eliefs and ro3ected
assumtions of the researcher. !he researcher is romted, constantly in the
research rocess, to take a osition on what is likely to haen, *ased on
rior data. #hat haened to the o*3ective, detached sychological
scientistE !he Bayesian focus of shaing the *elief system of the researcher
3ust doesn:t comute for most investigators in the social sciences.
!hose not familiar with a Bayesian aroach to statistical inference
assume there must *e a corollary in the classical model. !here isn:t. I gave a
talk on Bayesian samling, some years ago, to our graduate
and ost-doc interns in industrial
sychology at IB$. "ne of our very *right interns suggested that we could
change the value of alha, the ro*a*ility of making a !ye I error
-incorrectly re3ecting esta*lished knowledge when, in fact, it was true all
along/, using a classical model of statistical inference. I asked him if he would
like to reort to the executive of comensation and *ene0ts that the ercent
of emloyees who were satis0ed with their ay was GV ercent, Z or 6 >;
ercent. 1e would get thrown out of the executive:s o[ce, and asked to ack
his *ags and head *ack to the 2niversity of &outh Florida. !hat is the
conse)uence of trying to use classical inference when Bayesian is more
aroriate. It is a very di5erent rocess that sounds like make *elieve to the
uninitiated. It will *e at least a generation, if at all, for those trained in
classical inferential statistics to consider using a Bayesian aroach.
4nother thing we must do is to understand the stiAing e5ect on rogress
in sychological science *y. ;. "ur hilosohy that fails to relin)uish the
#orld of Ideal FormsQ 8. the tautology of the statistical theory of mental
testsQ and G. the assumtions that our models of the distri*ution of traits are
deictions of reality. 7o matter how closely an o*served distri*ution of a
measured sychological trait 4''E4@& !" K""S KISE a 7ormal Bell %urve, or
another ideali,ed distri*ution, we must understand that the curve is a
mathematical model, a human construction, that is used *ecause it has
utility. !he model of the 7ormal Bell %urve is no more a deiction of reality
than 'tolemy:s model of the universe.
'tolemy:s model was
acceted as the truth of reality *ecause reality, as it was erceived, 0t it
erfectly. 'tolemy:s descrition of reality allowed western civili,ation to make
very accurate calendars, and redict events that were so imortant to
sustaining civili,ation, like when to lant. "*servation 0t his ideali,ed curve,
exactly. It was so successful, and acceted as o*viously real, that it o*viated
the need to exlore a di5erent model of reality for many centuries. #hen it
was virtually synonymous with truth, as determined *y the church, the
ar*iter of all truth, investigation into new ideas was a*orted, discouraged, or
ersecuted.
!he ro*lem for '!! is not that is isn:t very useful, in the way that
'tolemy:s model of the universe was very useful 6 in fact essential to the
survival of whole eoles. !he ro*lem is that the current state of '!! limits
rogress in sychological science. 1ere:s how. Ket:s look at the hilosohical
straight-3acket that is 'lato:s Ideal Forms. "ne of the fundamental
assumtions of Forms is that, since they can:t *e o*served directly, we can
only o*serve their manifestation in the #orld of Exerience as successive
aroximations of the @E4K !1I7(, which @E4KKB E^I&!&. 'ersonal
exerience over a lifetime gets us ever closer to the truth *ecause, *y
de0nition, life is an accumulation of closer, successive aroximations. &o
what the hell is wrong with that, you ask. 'lentyM 4ssuming an u
nchanging reality that we continue to aroximate,
comletely shuts o5 the otion to chuck the whole thing, say it was all
*ullshit, and start over with something -$onty 'ython/ comletely di5erent.
!his was the )uandary that Seler and Bruno were in. &ince we all know the
earth is at the center of (od:s creation, then there must *e something wrong
with our data 6 worse still, we have to discount them as an illusion.
Ket:s take a look at Isaac 7ewton:s work on hysics and
astronomy, resulting in his 'rinciia. !he mathematical rincials of the day,
inAuenced greatly *y 4rchimedes, 'ythagoras, and 1indu and Islamic
scholars, were insu[cient for the work he was doing. &o he invented a new
system of mathematics that would work for him 6 %alculus. -%alculus was
also invented indeendently and contemoraneously *y Kei,ig./ !ry to
imagine 7ewton trying to do his research with only 'ythagorean
mathematics, *ack in the time when 'ythagoras was keeing secret his
discovery of irrational num*ers, and solid geometric constructions like the
dodecahedron. 7ewton would have nowhere to go. Imagine the %hurch
saying, this is the extent of truth, and there is nowhere else to go, anyway.
!his is the highly circumscri*ed situation we 0nd ourselves in regarding
sychological science, in general, and '!! in articular. #e accet
reresentational mo dels as actual reality. #e can:t see the
tautologies for the forest, *ecause we:ve *ecome too accustomed to using
them as if they were legitimate scienti0c theories *ased on o*servation.
Einstein:s general relativity was not an extension, ela*oration, or re0ned
aroximation of 7ewton:s work on gravity and motion. Einstein threw it all
out. 7ewton was almost comletely wrong. &ometimes scienti0c rogress is
incremental, *ut let:s not con0ne ourselves in a scienti0c rison with highly
circumscri*ed assumtions *efore we even *egin.
!hank you for taking the time to read and, hoefully, comment on my ideas.
4t another time I will return to the intricacies of '!! and discuss them in
more technical detail.1owever, that will not *e for a while. 7ext month I will
return to a more familiar genre of non-0ction. 4ll I will reveal at this time is
the title, "$y Kife as an "*server. !arget 'ractice." &ee you on &etem*er ;>,
8??T.
'osted *y 7orman %osta at ;8.?? 4$ \ 'ermalink
Fegner, for his part, presents no re'evant data from the
neurosciences Gother than )ibet3sH to suggest that the brain
processes associated with our conscious intentions are causa''y cut
o- from those that produce actions.
,o Fe Have &ree Fi''?
4rticle *y 4ndrew 7aselli 4ugust 8??T
7on-%hristians and %hristians alike often give the same answer to di[cult
)uestions like these. #hy did (od allow sin in the 0rst laceE #hy does (od
save some eole and not othersE #hy does (od send eole to hellE #hy
can living like a %hristian *e so frustratingE !he immediate solution often
suggested is simle. "free will." !o many eole, it:s a satisfying answer. ""h,
that makes sense. Beah, (od does x *ecause he has to reserve my free will.
Beah, "S. 7ext )uestion." I:d like to suggest that we re-think this imortant
issue.
!he title of this short essay is a )uestion. "Do #e 1ave a Free #illE" !hat
)uestion may *e 3arring to you *ecause it asks if something exists that most
eole assume exists. $y short answer to that )uestion is that it deends on
what you mean *y "free." !he longer answer is the rest of this essay.
#e should study "free will" *ecause it is theologically signi0cant and *ecause
many eole assume a articular de0nition of "free will" that is incorrect.
&tudying "free will" is challenging *ecause it is not de0ned in &criture.
Further, it is comlex *ecause it connects to many other larger theological
issuesQ it intersects with hilosohy, historical theology, and systematic
theology.
Fhat is @free wi''@?
#e should start *y learning the standard terminology associated with the
"free will" de*ate.
;. "#ill" means the function of choosing.
8. %onstraining causes force eole to act against their will. For examle, a
erson *eing ro**ed at gunoint is constrained in this sense. 7on-
constraining causes do not force eole to act against their will *ut are
su[cient to cause an action. For examle, if you have a fear of heights, you
ro*a*ly will not want to walk on the edge of a tall *uilding:s roofQ that fear is
a non-constraining cause.
G. Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined.
Determinism holds that everything is causally determined -i.e., that rior
events and conditions necessitate every event/.
>. Incomati*ilism holds that determinism and human freedom are
incomati*leQ it re3ects determinism and a[rms human freedom.
%omati*ilism holds that determinism and human freedom are comati*le.
<. Ki*ertarian free will is the a*ility either to do something or not. Free
agency is the a*ility to do whatever a erson wants to do -aart from
constraining causes/. !his di5erence is not a small one. For examle, do non-
%hristians have the inherent a*ility either to choose to trust %hrist or notE Is
such a decision ultimately deendent on their willE
9. (od:s general sovereignty holds that (od is in charge of everything
without controlling everything. (od:s seci0c sovereignty holds that (od
ordains everything and that he controls everything to accomlish his
uroses.
Fhat are bib'ica' and theo'ogica' reasons for compatibi'ism and
against incompatibi'ism?
;. !he Bi*le never says that humans are free in the sense that they are
autonomously a*le to make decisions that are not caused *y anything.
Ki*ertarian free will is often merely assumed *ased on common-sense
exerience *ut not roved.
8. (od is a*solutely sovereign. 1e "works all things according to the counsel
of his will" -Ehesians ;.;;/. 1e does whatever he wants, and no one can
sto him -'salm ;;<.GQ Daniel >.G>-G</.
G. 1umans are morally resonsi*le, which re)uires that they *e free. !here
is no *i*lical reason that (od cannot cause real human choices. !he Bi*le
grounds human accounta*ility in (od:s authority as our creator and 3udge,
not in li*ertarian free will.
>. Both -;/ (od:s a*solute sovereignty and -8/ human freedom and
resonsi*ility are simultaneously true. 1ere are 3ust a few of many assages
in which *oth elements are resent without any hint of contradiction. "!he
heart of man lans his way, *ut the K"@D esta*lishes his stes.... !he lot is
cast into the la, *ut its every decision is from the K"@D" -'rover*s ;9.T,
GG/. "!his Desus, delivered u according to the de0nite lan and
foreknowledge of (od, you cruci0ed and killed *y the hands of lawless men"
-4cts 8.8G/. "For truly in this city there were gathered together against your
holy servant Desus, whom you anointed, *oth 1erod and 'ontius 'ilate, along
with the (entiles and the eoles of Israel, to do whatever your hand and
your lan had redestined to take lace" -4cts >.8U- 8V/.
<. !he Bi*le condemns some eole for acts not done with a li*ertarian free
will. For examle, Dudas Iscariot was destined to *etray Desus, which means
that he did not have the a*ility either to do it or not.
Incomati*ilism - as held
*y many 4rminians
%omati*ilism - as held
*y many %alvinists
De0nition Determinism and human
freedom are
incomati*le.
Determinism and human
freedom are comati*le.
Determinism 4[rms indeterminismQ
re3ects determinism.
4[rms determinismQ
re3ects indeterminism and
fatalism.
1uman
Freedom
4[rms li*ertarian free
will
4[rms free agency
(od:s
&overeignty
4[rms (od:s general
sovereignty
4[rms (od:s seci0c
sovereignty
9. (od is omniscient -e.g., he redicts future events/. Dohn Fein*erg
o*serves, "If indeterminism is correct, I do not see how (od can *e said to
foreknow the future. If (od actually knows what will -not 3ust might/ occur in
the future, the future must *e set and some sense of determinism alies.
(od:s foreknowledge is not the cause of the future, *ut it guarantees that
what (od knows must occur, regardless of how it is *rought a*out" -"(od
"rdains 4ll !hings," in 'redestination and Free #ill. Four Ciews of Divine
&overeignty and 1uman Freedom Oed. David Basinger and @andall BasingerQ
Downers (rove. IC', ;TV9P, GG- G>/.
U. (od *reathed out &criture through humans without violating their
ersonalities. !he way that (od insired the Bi*le re)uires comati*ilism.
V. (od ena*les %hristians to ersevere. %hristians work *ecause (od works
-cf. 'hiliians 8.;8- ;G/. Indeterminism would mean that %hristians can
re3ect %hrist and lose their salvation, *ut the Bi*le teaches that all genuine
%hristians are eternally secure and will ersevere to the end *y (od:s grace.
T. (od himself does not have a free will in the li*ertarian sense. %an (od
sinE If not, then he does not have a li*ertarian free will, and thus a li*ertarian
free will is not necessary for a erson to *e genuinely free.
;?. (od:s eole do not have free wills in heaven in the li*ertarian sense.
#ill (od:s eole *e a*le to sin in heavenE If not, then they will not have a
li*ertarian free will, and thus a li*ertarian free will is not necessary for eole
to *e genuinely free.
;s 'ibertarian free wi'' the reason for the origin of sin?
&hort answer. 7o.
#hen addressing this hugely di[cult )uestion, it is helful to consider the
following.
;. (od is not the author or agent of evil, and he is not cula*le for evil.
8. &atan is not (od:s e)ual oosite -i.e., a (od-versus-&atan dualism/.
G. (od, who accomlishes all things according to the counsel of his will,
ordained that sin would enter his universe. -&ee the short essay in this series
entitled "1ow %ould a (ood (od 4llow &u5ering and EvilE"/ (od sovereignly
works through secondary causes -such as humans/ such that he is not
cula*le for evil *ut the secondary causes are.
>. &atan and then 4dam and Eve sinned *ecause they wanted to sin, and
they are morally resonsi*le to (od for it. -!he a*ility of humans to sin has
four historical stages. First, 4dam and Eve were initially a*le to sin. &econd,
after their fall, all unregenerate humans Oi.e., those who are siritually deadP
are not a*le not to sin. !hird, regenerate humans Oi.e., those whom (od has
given siritual lifeP are a*le not to sin. Fourth, glori0ed regenerate humans
are not a*le to sin./
<. !ension remains *ecause comati*ilists cannot exlain exactly how (od
can ordain all things without *eing the author or agent of evil. It is at laces
like that that your head will start sinning if you try to ut all the u,,le
ieces together -we don:t have all the iecesM/. @ather than deny exlicit
statements of &criture that suort comati*ilism, a far *etter otion is to
acknowledge that this is a mystery that we 0nite and fallen humans simly
cannot comrehend exhaustively.
9. !here is no easy answer to exlaining why (od ordained the origin of sin
in the 0rst lace. Dohn 'ier o5ers a helful astoral ersective in
&ectacular &ins and !heir (lo*al 'urose in the (lory of %hrist -#heaton.
%rossway, 8??V/. -!his is availa*le online for free as a 'DF.
htt.NNwww.desiringgod.orgNmediaNdfN*ooks_*ssN*ss.df. &ee es. . GT-
9>./ #hy doesn:t (od simly wie out &atanE 'ier concludes, "!he ultimate
answer . . . is that :all things were created through O%hristP and for O%hristP:
-%ol. ;.;9/. (od foresaw all that &atan would do if he created &atan and
ermitted him to re*el. In choosing to create him, he was choosing to fold all
of that evil into his urose for creation. !hat urose for creation was the
glory of his &on. 4ll things, including &atan and all his followers, were created
with this in view" -. >V/.
;s 'ibertarian free wi'' the u'timate reason for conversion?
%onversion consists of turning from sin -i.e., reentance/ and to (od -i.e.,
faith/. #hy do eole convert from *eing non-%hristians and *ecome
%hristiansE Is it ultimately *ecause of their li*ertarian free willsE "r is it
ultimately *ecause of (odE
#e do what we do *ecause we want to do it -as long as we are not
constrained/, *ut we are not always a*le to do something or not -i.e., we do
not always have the inherent a*ility to choose *etween otions/. 7on-
%hristians do what they want to do, and they will never want to come to
%hrist as their master unless (od 0rst changes their "wanter." 1ere:s an
analogy. if a erson is locked in a room *ut doesn:t want to get out, then
even though he can:t get out, he is not there against his will.
;. !otal Deravity. 2n*elievers are totally deraved in the sense that
deravity a5ects their entire *eing -(enesis 9.<Q Ecclesiastes U.8?Q T.GQ
Isaiah ;.9Q 9>.9Q Deremiah ;G8GQ ;U.TQ @omans ;.;V-G.8?, 8GQ Dames G.8Q ;
Dohn ;.V, ;?/ including the mind -@omans V.<-VQ ; %orinthians 8.;>Q !itus
;.;</, *ody -@omans V.;?Q Ehesians >.;U-;T/, and will -Dohn V.G>/.
8. !otal Ina*ility. !otal deravity descri*es the human condition, and total
ina*ility descri*es the result of that condition -Dohn ;.;GQ Ehesians >.;V and
E,ekiel G9.89Q 8 !imothy 8.89Q @omans 9.;U, 8?Q V.U-VQ 8 %orinthians >.>/.
2nregenerate humans are incaa*le of o*eying the gosel -$atthew U.;VQ
Dohn V.>G->>Q ;>.;UQ @omans V.U- VQ ; %orinthians 8.;>/.
G. @egeneration. %onversion is entirely a work of (od -Dohn 9.GU, >>, 9<Q
Dames ;.;V/. @egeneration transforms a human:s will and ena*les a erson to
come willingly to %hrist. @egeneration is the act where*y (od through the
1oly &irit *y means of his word instantaneously imarts siritual life to the
siritually dead -Dohn ;.;GQ !itus G.<Q ; 'eter ;.8GQ Dames ;.;V/. It is a
siritual resurrection -Ehesians 8.;-9Q %olossians 8.;G/, *irth -Dohn G.G- V/,
and creation -8 %orinthians <.;U/.
>. 1uman @esonsi*ility. !his does not mean, however, that humans are not
resonsi*le to o*ey the gosel *ecause (od may command humans to do
what they cannot do *y themselves -cf. Keviticus ;V.< with (alatians G.;8/.
1uman ina*ility and resonsi*ility are mysteriously comati*le.
<. Evangelism and 'rayer. !he (od who ordains the ends also ordains the
means, and evangelism and rayer are (od-ordained means to (od-ordained
ends. D. I. 'acker argues that you already "acknowledge that (od is sovereign
in salvation" *ecause "you ray for the conversion of others" -Evangelism
and the &overeignty of (od ODowners (rove. IC', ;T9;P, ;>-;</.
6onc'uding App'ications on the &ree>Fi'' ,ebate
;. 'raise (od for sovereignly lanning the universe and for Aawlessly
executing his lan. If you are a %hristian, raise (od for giving you siritual
life when you were siritually dead and for giving you the gifts of reentance
and faith. 'raise (od that a day is coming when (od will consummate his
lan and transform us so that we will never again want to de-god (od *ut
instead will always want to delight in the glorious (od.

8. @ecogni,e that other orthodox %hristians who disagree with you on this
issue are not the enemyM 4lthough some %hristian leaders have em*raced
what I think are errant views on free will, many of them have *een godly
men worthy of emulation -e.g., Dohn #esley/. &o disagreeing with them on
this articular issue in no way )uestions their devotion to %hrist.
G. &ince it is unlikely that all living %hristians will agree on the issue of free
will, romote unity on this issue as much as ossi*le. !his does not involve
overlooking imortant di5erences, *ut it does involve keeing such
di5erences in ersective.
>. 4s in all areas of controversial doctrine, hold your view with humility. #e
are fallen and 0nite creatures who know such a small fraction of what there
is to know -and we often can:t even remem*er the little *it we used to
knowM/. &o when you are discussing this issue with others who disagree with
you -and even when talking a*out it with eole who agree with you/, ask
(od for grace to dislay humility in your words and attitude *ecause "(od
ooses the roud *ut gives grace to the hum*le" -; 'eter <.</.
For recommended reading on free will, see htt.NNtinyurl.comNl**f9
You dont really exist, do you?
by Massimo Pigliucci
www.universaltheory.org
For some time I have been noticing the emergence of a strange trinity of beliefs among my
fellow skeptics and freethinkers: an increasing number of them, it seems, dont believe that they
can make decisions the free will debate!, dont believe that they have moral responsibility
because they dont have free will, or because morality is relative " take your pick!, and they
dont even believe that they e#ist as conscious beings because, you know, consciousness is an
illusion.
$s I have argued recently, there are sensible ways to understand human volition a much less
metaphysically loaded and more sensible term than free will! within a lawful universe %ean
&arroll agrees and, interestingly, so does my sometime opponent 'lie(er )udkowsky!. I also
devoted an entire series on this blog to a better understanding of what morality is, how it works,
and why it aint relative within the domain of social beings capable of self*reflection!. +ets talk
about consciousness then.
,he oft*heard claim that consciousness is an illusion is an e#traordinary one, as it relegates to an
entirely epiphenomenal status what is arguably the most distinctive characteristic of human
beings, the very thing that seems to shape and give meaning to our lives, and presumably one of
the ma-or outcome of millions of years of evolution pushing for a larger brain e.uipped with
powerful frontal lobes capable to carry out reasoning and deliberation.
%till, if science tells us that consciousness is an illusion, we must bow to that pronouncement and
move on though we apparently cannot escape the illusion, partly because we have no free will!.
/ut what is the e#traordinary evidence for this e#traordinary claim0 ,o begin with, there are
studies of very few! 1split brain2 patients which seem to indicate that the two hemispheres of
the brain " once separated " display independent consciousness under e#perimental
circumstances!, to the point that they may even try to make the left and right sides of the body
act antagonistically to each other.
/ut there are a couple of obvious issues here that block an easy -ump from observations on those
patients to grand conclusions about the illusoriness of consciousness. First off, the two
hemispheres are still conscious, so at best we have evidence that consciousness is divisible, not
that it is an illusion and that subdivision presumably can proceed no further than n34!. %econd,
these are highly pathological situations, and though they certainly tell us something interesting
about the functioning of the brain, they are informative mostly about what happens when the
brain does not function. $s a crude analogy, imagine sawing a car in two, noticing that the front
wheels now spin independently of the rear wheels, and concluding that the synchronous rotation
of the wheels in the intact car is an 1illusion.2 5ot a good inference, is it0
+ets pursue this illusion thing a bit further. %ometimes people also argue that physics tells us
that the way we perceive the world is also an illusion. $fter all, apparently solid ob-ects like
tables are made of .uarks and the forces that bind them together, and since thats the fundamental
level of reality well, unless you accept string theory! then clearly our senses are mistaken.
/ut our senses are not mistaken at all, they simply function at the biologically! appropriate level
of perception of reality. 6e are macroscopic ob-ects and need to navigate the world as such. It
would be highly inconvenient if we could somehow perceive .uantum level phenomena directly,
and in a very strong sense the solidity of a table is not an illusion at all. It is rather an emergent
property of matter that our evolved senses e#ploit to allow us to sit down and have a nice meal at
that table without worrying about the (illions of subnuclear interactions going on about it all the
time.
6hat about the neurobiological research that seems to show .uite conclusively that
consciousness is -ust a post*facto add*on to our decision making0 7ont we know that 1we2 dont
actually make our decisions, that its all going on subconsciously0
,o begin with, I find it bi(arre to talk as if unconscious thinking isnt part of what 1we2 do. 6ho
else is doing it0 16e2 are made of our conscious and unconscious processing of information, of
our bodies, and of our interactions with the social and physical world. ,hats who 1we2 are, and
to limit the definition of 1we2 to -ust the conscious part is misguided.
Moreover, a closer look at the evidence does not bear out the increasingly persistent myth that
1its all unconscious anyway.2 8ere very interesting work has been done by $lfred Mele at
Florida %tate 9niversity. In his 'ffective Intentions: ,he Power of &onscious 6ill, Mele
critically e#amines claims to the effect that, for instance, our brains make decisions before we
become conscious of them, or that intentions dont play a role in producing actions. 8e finds the
evidence for such e#traordinary claims e#traordinarily deficient and " to the contrary " lines
up evidence from neurobiology for the conclusion that consciousness plays a ma-or role in
some, most certainly not all! of our decisions, particularly when it comes to the sort of decisions
we normally do attribute to conscious deliberation like whether to change career, say, not -ust
when to push a button on a computer screen, a la +ibet e#periments!.
:ne more thing strikes me as strange from the point of view of the 1consciousness is an illusion2
school of thought. Its supporters have no account of why this illusion would evolve. If we take
seriously the commonsensical idea that consciousness aids deliberative reasoning, then we see
that it has a important! biological function. /ut if it is -ust an illusion, whats it for0 5ow, as a
biologist I am perfectly aware that sometimes in evolution shit -ust happens 1spandrels,2 as
%tephen ;ould and <ichard +ewontin referred to structures that seem adaptive but are in fact
byproducts of evolution!. /ut if a large amount of metabolic energy used up by the brain goes
into maintaining the illusion of consciousness surely one wants an answer to the .uestion of why
did natural selection bring this situation about or " if consciousness is a spandrel " why does it
persist in the face of what should be strong selection against it. 6e know that when organisms
dont need comple# structures=functions natural selection .uickly eliminates them for instance,
in the case of eyes for cave animals!.
It wont do to claim that the illusion of consciousness is there because that way we feel in control
and suffer less psychological stress. First, this is clearly an ad hoc and hard to test hypothesis the
evolutionary part of it, not the psychological: we do know that people become stressed by
perceived lack of control!. %econd, the problem is only removed by one step: why would we
evolve a psychological system that causes stress when we perceive a loss of control0 Most other
animal species seem to get along in life -ust well without these psychological mechanisms, so
clearly something is missing from the 1illusion2 account.
%eems to me, therefore, that the increasingly fashionable idea that consciousness is an illusion is
both too .uick and not actually supported by a careful reading of the neurobiological literature,
and skeptics and freethinkers would do well to pause and reflect on it before continuing to spread
it. :f course that assumes that you can reflect on things in a way that is conducive to decisions
implementing what your conscious will wants to do.
Does the soul weigh 21 grams?
by Massimo Pigliucci
barrymolt(.com
,his myth, reinforced by a 4>>? fictional movie by the otherwise rather cryptic title 14@ grams2
is occasionally thrown to non*supernaturalists as one more 1proof2 that we are fools, by our own
standards of reason and evidence.
It turns out that the only source for the 4@ gram figure is a discredited study carried out in @A>B
by a 8averhill, Massachusetts, doctor by the name of 7uncan Mac7ougall. 8e managed
apparently overcoming any ethical .ualms over human e#perimentation! to put si# dying people
on a bed e.uipped with sensitive springs, and claimed to have observed a sudden loss of weight C
about D of an ounce C at the e#act moment of their death. 8aving reasoned that such loss could
not be e#plained by bowel movements or evaporation, he concluded he must have measured the
weight of the soul. $ follow*up e#periment also showed that dogs which were healthy, so they
were probably poisoned on purpose by the good doctor! donEt seem to suffer the same sort of
loss, therefore they donEt have souls sorry, you canine lovers!.
,his is an e#cellent e#ample of where pseudoscience and belief go wrong, on a variety of levels.
+et us start with Mac7ougallEs claim itself: it turns out that his data were decidedly unreliable by
any decent scientific standard. 5ot only was the e#periment never repeated by either Ma7ougall
or anyone else!, but his own notes published in $merican Medicine in March @A>B! show that of
the si# data points, two had to be discarded as 1of no value2F two recorded a weight drop,
followed by additional losses later on was the soul leaving bit by bit0!F one showed a reversal of
the loss, then another loss the soul couldnEt make up its mind, leaving, re*entering, then leaving
for good!F and only one case actually constitutes the basis of the legendary estimate of D of an
ounce. 6ith data like these, itEs a miracle the paper got published in the first place.
%econd, as was pointed out immediately by 7r. $ugustus P. &larke in a rebuttal also published in
$merican Medicine, Mac7ougall failed to consider another obvious hypothesis: that the weight
loss assuming it was real! was due to evaporation caused by the sudden rise in body temperature
that occurs when the blood circulation stops and the blood can no longer be air*cooled by the
lungs. ,his also elegantly e#plains why the dogs showed no weight loss: as is well known, they
cool themselves by panting, not sweating like humans do.
,hird, Mac7ougallEs allegedly inescapable conclusion 18ow other shall we e#plain it02! did not
derive from any theory of the soul, but was simply arrived at by e#cluding a small number of
other possibilities. In other words, the soul 1e#planation2 won by default, without having to go
through the onerous process of positive confirmation. ,his is yet another version of the 1god*of*
the*gaps2 argument so in vogue among the faithful, and that constitutes the backbone C such as it
is C of Intelligent 7esign 1theory.2
/ut perhaps most damning of all is the very idea that the soul has weight. 6hatever it is, the soul
since PlatoEs time has been understood as immaterial, i.e. without mass and, therefore,
weightless. :bviously, this in turn raises all the classic problems of dualism: how can something
immaterial interact with a material world0 8ow can ghosts walk through walls and yet 1see2
things or make noises0 8ow can the mind direct our actions C that famous conundrum that
stymied 7escartes C if it is an incorporeal 1substance2 itself an o#ymoron!0
'ven more basically: why are the so*called 1faithful2 perennially in search of scientific
confirmation of their inanities0 %houldnEt faith be enough0 Indeed, isnEt the very idea of faith as a
value that one should hold fast to it, not only despite the lack of evidence, but even in the face of
contrary evidence0 &Emon guys, IEm beginning to think that somewhere in your subconscious you
have this terrifying suspicion that you really believe in nonsense, and are therefore desperate to
get science to provide some evidence, however flimsy, that you are right after all. 6hy not shed
the superstition altogether and see what happens0 ItEs a nice, comprehensible world out here.
Socrates' seven "commandments"
$gain from ;rossE G%ocratesE 6ay,G here is what one might call his %ocratesE! seven
Gcommandments,G though most surely the ;reek philosopher would never have used that term.
&ompare them to the in!famous decalogue from the :ld ,estament to get a flavor of the
difference between real wisdom and divinely*inspired fluff. I have added .uotes from %ocrates,
taken from the book, referring to the appropriate Platonic dialogue.
@ * Hnow ,hyself. G,he une#amined life is not worth living.G from G$pologyG!
4 * $sk great .uestions. GMy way toward the truth is to ask the right .uestions.G from
GProtagorasG!
? * ,hink for yourself. G7o not be convinced by me. /e convinced by the truth.G from
%ymposiumG!
I * &hallenge convention. G6hen one is freed and gets on his feet and turns his head and walks
toward the light ** all he has seen till now was false and a trick, but now he sees more truly.G
from G<epublicG!
J * ;row with your friends. G6hen a group of friends have en-oyed fine conversation together,
you will find that suddenly something e#traordinary happens. $s they are speaking, itEs as if a
spark ignites, passing from one speaker to another, and as it travels, it gathers strength, building
into a warm and illuminating flame of mutual understanding which none of them could have
achieved alone.G from G&ritiasG!
K * %peak the truth. GIt has been my fi#ed principle to speak the truth.G from G$pologyG!
B * %trengthen your soul. G6e should strive to gain more intelligence, arrive at more knowledge
of truth, and develop finer character.G from G$pologyG!
Free will is there because no matter what the e#ternal circumstances in our life to .uote from
this piece! historically speaking, philosophers have had plenty to say on the matter. Their
ruminations have given rise to such considerations as cosmological determinism (the notion
that everything proceeds over the course of time in a predictable way, making free will
impossible), indeterminism (the idea that the universe and our actions within it are random,
also making free will impossible), and cosmological libertarianism/compatibilism (the
suggestion that free will is logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe) we
can choose how we are going to respond. Many people do not think free will is a reality because
the refuse to e#ericse it because they often are called to make difficult decisions they do not want
to do. In my view it matters not whether we are programmed, predetermined or are human beings
through spiritual e#periences to advance our soul understanding...choice is always an option.
,here is an immutable law of cause and effect that many &8::%' ignore and=or discount. :ne
does not have to be a rocket scientist to know if you keep doing the same thing in the same way
and e#pect different results people call it insanity. %o call it free will or cognitive choice making
when you change your attitude, beliefs, actions and thoughts there are different outcomes. ,hat is
all the evidence and many of us need because we are living testimonies to that reality.

$s a practitioner of /uddhist teachings hanging ourselves up with endless mind*chatter and
hypothisis keeps the mind engaged for sure. ,here is a tendency on the Internet and in life
generally for people to cherry pick ideas that support their current level of awareness. ,hat
always changes because evolution is a part of life. /eing too heavily invested in whether we
actually have free will or living within a deluded matri# is a matter of perspective and
perception. My .uestion is...so what0 6hat does that have to do with striving to love more and
live the best .uality of life possible and in so doing assist others to do the same thing whenver
and wherever possible.

Scientific evidence that you ro!a!ly dont
have free will
8umans have debated the issue of free will for millennia. /ut over the past several years, while
the philosophers continue to argue about the metaphysical underpinnings of human choice, an
increasing number of neuroscientists have started to tackle the issue head on " .uite literally.
$nd some of them believe that their e#periments reveal that our sub-ective e#perience of
freedom may be nothing more than an illusion. 8ereEs why you probably donEt have free will.
Indeed, historically speaking, philosophers have had plenty to say on the matter. ,heir
ruminations have given rise to such considerations as cosmological determinism the notion that
everything proceeds over the course of time in a predictable way, making free will impossible!,
indeterminism the idea that the universe and our actions within it are random, also making free
will impossible!, and cosmological libertarianism=compatibilism the suggestion that free will is
logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe!.
5ow, while these lines of in.uiry are clearly important, one cannot help but feel that theyEre also
terribly unhelpful and inade.uate. 6hat the debate needs is some actual science " something a
bit more...testable.
$nd indeed, this is starting to happen. $s the early results of scientific brain e#periments are
showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before weEre actually aware of them " and at
times by a significant degree. ItEs a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to
conclude that weEre less in control of our choices than we think " at least as far as some basic
movements and tasks are concerned.
$t the same time, however, not everyone is convinced. It may be a while before we can truly
prove that free will is an illusion.
%ereitschaftspotentia'
5euroscientists first became aware that something curious was going on in the brain back in the
mid @AK>s.
;erman scientists 8ans 8elmut Hornhuber and +Lder 7eecke discovered a phenomenon they
dubbed GbereitschaftspotentialG /P! " a term that translates to Greadiness potential.G ,heir
discovery, that the brain enters into a special state immediately prior to conscious awareness, set
off an entirely new subfield.
'#pand
$fter asking their sub-ects to move their fingers what were self*initiated movements!,
Hornhuber and 7eeckeEs electroencephalogram '';! scans showed a slow negative potential
shift in the activity of the motor corte# -ust slightly prior to the voluntary movement. ,hey had
no choice but to conclude that the unconscious mind was initiating a freely voluntary act " a
wholly une#pected and counterintuitive observation.
5eedless to say it was a discovery that greatly upset the scientific community who, since the
days of Freud, had mostly! adopted a strictly deterministic view of human decision making.
Most scientists casually ignored it.
/ut subse.uent e#periments by /en-amin +ibet in the @AM>s reinforced the pioneering work of
Hornhuber and 7eecke. %imilarly, +ibet had his participants move their fingers, but this time
while watching a clock with a dot circling around it. 8is data showed that the readiness potential
started about >.?J seconds earlier than participantsE reported conscious awareness.
8e concluded that we have no free will as far as the initiation of our movements are concerned,
but that we had a kind of cognitive GvetoG to prevent the movement at the last momentF we canEt
start it, but we can stop it.
From a neurological perspective, +ibet and others attributed the effect to the %M$=pre*%M$ and
the anterior cingulate motor areas of the brain " an area that allows us to focus on self*initiated
actions and e#ecute self*instigated movements.
Modern too's show the same thing
More recently, neuroscientists have used more advanced technologies to study this phenomenon,
namely fM<Is and implanted electrodes. /ut if anything, these new e#periments show the /P
effect is even more pronounced than previously thought.
For e#ample, a study by Nohn*7ylan 8aynes in 4>>M showed a similar effect to the one revealed
by +ibet. $fter putting participants into an fM<I scanner, he told them to press a button with
either their right or left inde# fingers at their leisure, but that they had to remember the letter that
was showing on the screen at the precise moment they were committed to their movement.
,he results were shocking. 8aynesEs data showed that the /P occurred one entire second prior to
conscious awareness " and at other times as much as ten seconds. Following the publication of
his paper, he told Nature News:
,he first thought we had was Ewe have to check if this is real.E 6e came up with more sanity
checks than IEve ever seen in any other study before.
,he cognitive delay, he argued, was likely due to the operation of a network of high*level control
areas that were preparing for an upcoming decision long before it entered into conscious
awareness. /asically, the brain starts to unconsciously churn in preparation of a decision, and
once a set of conditions are met, awareness kicks in, and the movement is made.
In another study, neuroscientist It(hak Fried put aside the fM<I scanner in favor of digging
directly into the brain so to speak!. ,o that end, he implanted electrodes into the brains of
participants in order to record the status of individual neurons " a procedure that gave him an
incredibly precise sense of what was going on inside the brain as decisions were being made.
8is e#periment showed that the neurons lit up with activity as much as @.J seconds before the
participant made a conscious decision to press a button. $nd with about B>> milliseconds to go,
Fried and his team could predict the timing of decisions with nearly M>O accuracy. In some
scenarios, he had as much as A>O predictive accuracy.
7ifferent e#periment, similar result.
Fried surmised that volition arises after a change in internally generated fire rates of neuronal
assemblies cross a threshold " and that the medial frontal corte# can signal these decisions
before a person is aware of them.
G$t some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness,G he told Nature,
suggesting that the conscious will might be added on to a decision at a later stage.
$nd in yet another study, this one by %tefan /ode, his detailed fM<I e#periments showed that it
was possible to actually decode the outcome of free decisions for several seconds prior to it
reaching conscious awareness.
%pecifically, he discovered that activity patterns in the anterior frontopolar corte# /$ @>! were
temporally the first to carry information related to decision*making, thus making it a prime
candidate region for the unconscious generation of free decisions. 8is study put much of the
concern about the integrity of previous e#periments to rest.
/he critics
/ut not everyone agrees with the conclusions of these findings. Free will, the skeptics argue, is
far from debunked.
/ack in 4>@>, 6. <. Hlemm published an analysis in which he complained about the ways in
which the data was being interpreted, and what he saw as grossly oversimplified
e#perimentation.
:thers have critici(ed the timing -udgements, arguing about the short timeframes between action
and movement, and how attention to aspects of timing were likely creating distortions in the
data.
ItEs also possible that the brain regions being studied, namely the pre*%M$=%M$ and the anterior
cingulate motor areas of the brain, may only be responsible for the late stages of motor planningF
itEs conceivable that other higher brain systems might be better candidates for e#erting will.
$lso, test sub-ects " because of the way the e#periments were set up " may have been
influenced by other Gchoice*predictiveG signalsF the researchers may have been measuring brain
activity not directly related to the e#periment itself.
,he -ury, it would appear, is still out on the .uestion of free will. 6hile the neuroscientists are
clearly revealing some important insights into human thinking and decision making, more work
needs to be done to make it more convincing.
6hat would really settle the issue would be the ability for neuroscientists to predict the actual
outcome of more comple# decisions prior to the sub-ect being aware of it themselves. ,hat
would, in a very true sense, prove that free will is indeed an illusion.
Furthermore, neuroscientists also need to delineate between different types of decision*making.
5ot all decisions are the sameF moving a finger or pressing a button is very different than
contemplating the meaning of life, or preparing the words for a big speech. ;iven the limited
nature of the e#periments to date which are focused on volitional physical movements!, this
would certainly represent a fruitful area for in.uiry.
%'urring science, phi'osophy, and mora'ity
Moreover, thereEs also the whole issue of how weEre supposed to reconcile these findings with
our day*to*day lives. $ssuming we donEt have free will, what does that say about the human
condition0 $nd what about taking responsibility for our actions0
7aniel 7ennett has recently tried to rescue free will from the dustbin of history, saying that
thereEs still some elbow room for human agency " and that these are still scientific .uestions.
7ennett, acknowledging that free will in the classic sense is largely impossible, has attempted to
reframe the issue in such a way that free will can still be shown to e#ist, albeit under certain
circumstances. 8e writes:
,hereEs still a lot of naPve thinking by scientists about free will. IEve been talking about it .uite a
lot, and I do my best to undo some bad thinking by various scientists. IEve had some modest
success, but thereEs a lot more that has to be done on that front. I think itEs very attractive to
scientists to think that hereEs this several*millennia*old philosophical idea, free will, and they can
-ust hit it out of the ballpark, which IEm sure would be nice if it was true.
ItEs -ust not true. I think theyEre well intentioned. ,heyEre trying to clarify, but theyEre really
missing a lot of important points. I want a naturalistic theory of human beings and free will and
moral responsibility as much as anybody there, but I think youEve got to think through the issues
a lot better than theyEve done, and this, happily, shows that thereEs some real work for
philosophers.
7ennett, who is mostly responding to %am 8arris, has come under criticism from people who
complain that heEs being epistemological rather than scientific.
Indeed, %am 8arris has made a compelling case that we donEt have it, but that itEs not a problem.
Moreover, he argues that the ongoing belief in free will needs to come to an end:
$ personEs conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of
which he is unaware. 6hat is more, they are preceded by deep causes " genes, childhood
e#perience, etc. " for which no one, however evil, can be held responsible. :ur ignorance of
both sets of facts gives rise to moral illusions. $nd yet many people worry that it is necessary to
believe in free will, especially in the process of raising children.
8arris doesnEt believe that the illusoriness of free will is an Gugly truth,G nor something that will
forever be relegated to philosophical abstractions. ,his is science, he says, and itEs something we
need to come to grips with. G<ecogni(ing that my conscious mind is always downstream from
the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that
thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life " or an
unhappy one, for that matter,G he writes.
/ut as 7ennett correctly points out, this is an issue thatEs far from being an open*and*shut case.
$dvocates of the Gfree will as illusionG perspective are still going to have to improve upon their
e#perimental methods, while also addressing the work of philosophers, evolutionary biologists
" and even .uantum physicists.
6hy, for e#ample, did humans evolve consciousness instead of (ombie*brains if consciousness is
not a channel for e#erting free will0 $nd given the nature of .uantum indeterminacy, what does
it mean to live in a universe of fu((y probability0
,hereEs clearly lots of work that still needs to be done.
Images: Shutterstock/Oliver Sved/malinx, BP grah, !dge.
"aniulating the exerienced onset of
intention after action execution#
Kau 1%, @ogers @D, 'assingham @E.
Source
9niversity &ollege +ondon, 9H. h.lauQfil.ion.ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
9sing transcranial magnetic stimulation ,M%!, we have tested the time needed for the perceived
onset of spontaneous motor intention to be fully determined. 6e found that ,M% applied over
the presupplementary motor area after the e#ecution of a simple spontaneous action shifted the
perceived onset of the motor intention backward in time, and shifted the perceived time of action
e#ecution forward in time. ,he si(e of the effect was similar regardless of whether ,M% was
applied immediately after the action or 4>> msec after. ,he results of three control studies
suggest that this effect is time*limited, specific to modality, and also specific to the anatomical
site of stimulation. 6e conclude that the perceived onset of intention depends, at least in part, on
neural activity that takes place after the e#ecution of action. $ model, which is based on the
mechanism of cue integration under the presence of noise, is offered to e#plain the results. ,he
implications for the conscious control of spontaneous actions are discussed.
9ncertainty Principle: <eadings: uncertainty
principle
%chrRSdingerEs
cat
$nti*matter
the uncertainty
rincile states
that the osition
and velocity
cannot !oth !e
measured,exactly,
at the same time
$actually airs of
osition, energy
and time%
uncertainty
rincile derives
from the
measurement
ro!lem, the
intimate
connection
!etween the wave
and article
nature of
&uantum o!'ects
the change in a
velocity of a
article !ecomes
more ill defined as
the wave function
is confined to a
smaller region
&lassical physics was on loose footing with problems of wave=particle duality,
but was caught completely off*guard with the discovery of the uncertainty
principle.
,he uncertainty principle also called the 8eisenberg 9ncertainty Principle, or
Indeterminacy Principle, articulated @A4B! by the ;erman physicist 6erner
8eisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an ob-ect cannot both be
measured e#actly, at the same time, even in theory. ,he very concepts of e#act
position and e#act velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.
:rdinary e#perience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both
the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties
implied by this principle for ordinary ob-ects are too small to be observed. ,he
complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and
velocity is e.ual to or greater than a tiny physical .uantity, or constant about @>
*
?I
-oule*second, the value of the .uantity h where h is PlanckEs constant!. :nly
for the e#ceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the
product of the uncertainties become significant.
$ny attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an
electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous
measurement of its position has no validity. ,his result has nothing to do with
inade.uacies in the measuring instruments, the techni.ue, or the observerF it
arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in
the realm of subatomic dimensions.
'very particle has a wave associated with itF each particle actually e#hibits
wavelike behavior. ,he particle is most likely to be found in those places where
the undulations of the wave are greatest, or most intense. ,he more intense the
undulations of the associated wave become, however, the more ill defined
becomes the wavelength, which in turn determines the momentum of the
particle. %o a strictly locali(ed wave has an indeterminate wavelengthF its
associated particle, while having a definite position, has no certain velocity. $
particle wave having a well*defined wavelength, on the other hand, is spread
outF the associated particle, while having a rather precise velocity, may be
almost anywhere. $ .uite accurate measurement of one observable involves a
relatively large uncertainty in the measurement of the other.
,he uncertainty principle is alternatively e#pressed in terms of a particleEs
momentum and position. ,he momentum of a particle is e.ual to the product of
its mass times its velocity. ,hus, the product of the uncertainties in the
momentum and the position of a particle e.uals h=4! or more. ,he principle
applies to other related con-ugate! pairs of observables, such as energy and
time: the product of the uncertainty in an energy measurement and the
uncertainty in the time interval during which the measurement is made also
e.uals h=4! or more. ,he same relation holds, for an unstable atom or nucleus,
between the uncertainty in the .uantity of energy radiated and the uncertainty in
the lifetime of the unstable system as it makes a transition to a more stable state.
the wave nature to
articles means a
article is a wave
ac(et, the
comosite of many
waves
many waves )
many
momentums,
o!servation ma(es
one momentum
out of many
exact (nowledge
of
comlementarity
airs $osition,
energy, time% is
imossi!le
,he uncertainty principle, developed by 6. 8eisenberg, is a statement of the
effects of wave*particle duality on the properties of subatomic ob-ects. &onsider
the concept of momentum in the wave*like microscopic world. ,he momentum
of wave is given by its wavelength. $ wave packet like a photon or electron is a
composite of many waves. ,herefore, it must be made of many momentums. /ut
how can an ob-ect have many momentums0
:f course, once a measurement of the particle is made, a single momentum is
observed. /ut, like fu((y position, momentum before the observation is
intrinsically uncertain. ,his is what is know as the uncertainty principle, that
certain .uantities, such as position, energy and time, are unknown, e#cept by
probabilities. In its purest form, the uncertainty principle states that accurate
knowledge of complementarity pairs is impossible. For e#ample, you can
measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum energy! at the same
time.
comlementarity
also means that
different
exeriments yield
different results
$e#g# the two slit
exeriment%
therefore, a single
reality can not !e
alied at the
&uantum level
$ characteristic feature of .uantum physics is the principle of
complementarity, which Gimplies the impossibility of any sharp separation
between the behavior of atomic ob-ects and the interaction with the measuring
instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena
appear.G $s a result, Gevidence obtained under different e#perimental
conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be
regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the
phenomena e#hausts the possible information about the ob-ects.G ,his
interpretation of the meaning of .uantum physics, which implied an altered
view of the meaning of physical e#planation, gradually came to be accepted
by the ma-ority of physicists during the @A?>Es.
Mathematically we describe the uncertainty principle as the following, where
T#E is position and TpE is momentum:
the mathematical
form of the
uncertainty
rincile relates
comlementary to
*lanc('s constant
(nowledge is not
unlimited, !uilt+in
indeterminacy
exists, !ut only in
,his is perhaps the most famous e.uation ne#t to '3mc
4
in physics. It basically
says that the combination of the error in position times the error in momentum
must always be greater than PlanckEs constant. %o, you can measure the position
of an electron to some accuracy, but then its momentum will be inside a very
large range of values. +ikewise, you can measure the momentum precisely, but
then its position is unknown.
5otice that this is not the measurement problem in another form, the
combination of position, energy momentum! and time are actually undefined
for a .uantum particle until a measurement is made then the wave function
collapses!.
$lso notice that the uncertainty principle is unimportant to macroscopic ob-ects
the microscoic
world, all
collases to
determinism in
the macroscoic
world
since PlanckEs constant, h, is so small @>
*?I
!. For e#ample, the uncertainty in
position of a thrown baseball is @>
*?>
millimeters.
,he depth of the uncertainty principle is reali(ed when we ask the .uestionF is
our knowledge of reality unlimited0 ,he answer is no, because the uncertainty
principle states that there is a built*in uncertainty, indeterminacy,
unpredictability to 5ature.
It is often stated that of all the theories
proposed in this
century, the silliest is quantum theory.
Some say the the only
thing that quantum theory has going for it,
in fact, is that it
is unquestionably correct.
- R. Feynman
Quantum Mechanics:
&uantum
mechanics is to
the microscoic
world what classic
mechanics and
calculus is to the
macroscoic
world
it is the
oerational
rocess of
calculating
&uantum hysics
henomenon
its rimary tas( is
to !ring order and
rediction to the
uncertainty of the
&uantum world,
its main tool is
Schrodinger's
e&uation
,he field of .uantum mechanics concerns the description of phenomenon on
small scales where classical physics breaks down. ,he biggest difference
between the classical and microscopic realm, is that the .uantum world can be
not be perceived directly, but rather through the use of instruments. $nd a key
assumption to an .uantum physics is that .uantum mechanical principles must
reduce to 5ewtonian principles at the macroscopic level there is a continuity
between .uantum and 5ewtonian mechanics!.
Uuantum mechanics was capable of bringing order to the uncertainty of the
microscopic world by treatment of the wave function with new mathematics.
Hey to this idea was the fact that relative probabilities of different possible states
are still determined by laws. ,hus, there is a difference between the role of
chance in .uantum mechanics and the unrestricted chaos of a lawless 9niverse.
'very .uantum particle is characteri(ed by a wave function. In @A4J 'rwin
%chrodinger developed the differential e.uation which describes the evolution of
those wave functions. /y using %chrodinger e.uation, scientists can find the
wave function which solves a particular problem in .uantum mechanics.
9nfortunately, it is usually impossible to find an e#act solution to the e.uation,
so certain assumptions are used in order to obtain an appro#imate answer for the
particular problem.
the (ey difference
!etween &uantum
and classical
mechanics is the
role of ro!a!ility
and chance
&uantum o!'ects
are descri!ed !y
ro!a!ility fields,
however, this does
not mean they are
indeterminit, only
uncertain
,he difference between .uantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics is the
role of probability and statistics. 6hile the uncertainty principle means that
.uantum ob-ects have to be described by probability fields, this doesnEt mean
that the microscopic world fails to conform to deterministic laws. In fact it does.
$nd measurement is an act by which the measurer and the measured interact to
produce a result. $lthough this is not simply the determination of a pree#isting
property.
,he .uantum description of reality is ob-ective weak form! in the sense that
everyone armed with a .uantum physics education can do the same e#periments
and come to the same conclusions. %trong ob-ectivity, as in classical physics,
re.uires that the picture of the world yielded by the sum total of all e#perimental
results to be not -ust a picture or model, but identical with the ob-ective world,
something that e#ists outside of us and prior to any measurement we might have
of it. Uuantum physics does not have this characteristic due to its built*in
indeterminacy.
For centuries, scientists have gotten used to the idea that something like strong
ob-ectivity is the foundation of knowledge. %o much so that we have come to
believe that it is an essential part of the scientific method and that without this
most solid kind of ob-ectivity science would be pointless and arbitrary.
8owever, the &openhagen interpretation of .uantum physics see below! denies
that there is any such thing as a true and unambiguous reality at the bottom of
everything. <eality is what you measure it to be, and no more. 5o matter how
uncomfortable science is with this viewpoint, .uantum physics is e#tremely
accurate and is the foundation of modern physics perhaps then an ob-ective
view of reality is not essential to the conduct of physics!. $nd concepts, such as
cause and effect, survive only as a conse.uence of the collective behavior of
large .uantum systems.
Schrodinger's Cat and Quantum Reality:
an examle of the
weirdness of the
&uantum world is
given !y the
famous
Schrodinger cat
aradox
In @A?J %chrodinger, who was responsible for formulating much of the wave
mechanics in .uantum physics, published an essay describing the conceptual
problems in .uantum mechanics. $ brief paragraph in this essay described the,
now famous, cat parado#.
the aradox is
hrased such that
a &uantum event
determines if a cat
is (illed or not
from a &uantum
ersective, the
whole system state
is tied to the wave
function of the
&uantum event,
i#e# the cat is !oth
dead and alive at
the same time
:ne can even set up .uite ridiculous cases where .uantum physics rebells
against common sense. For e#ample, consider a cat is penned up in a steel
chamber, along with the following diabolical device which must be secured
against direct interference by the cat!. In the device is a ;eiger counter with a
tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour
only one of the atoms decays, but also, with e.ual probability, perhaps none. If
the decay happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a
hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this
entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if
meanwhile no atom has decayed. ,he first atomic decay would have poisoned it.
,he wave function for the entire system would e#press this by having in it the
living and the dead cat mi#ed or smeared out in e.ual parts.
the aradox in
some sense is not a
aradox, !ut
instead oints out
the tension
!etween the
microscoic and
macroscoic
worlds and the
imortance of the
o!server in a
&uantum scenario
&uantum o!'ects
exist in
suerosition,
many states, as
shown !y
interference
the o!server
collases the wave
function
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the
atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can
then be resolved by direct observation. ,hat prevents us from so naively
accepting as valid a TTblurred modelEE for representing reality. In itself it would
not embody anything unclear or contradictory. ,here is a difference between a
shaky or out*of*focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks. 6e
know that superposition of possible outcomes must e#ist simultaneously at a
microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. 6e
know at least most of us know! that the cat in the bo# is dead, alive or dying
and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. 6hen and how does the
model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular
macroscopic state0 6hen and how does the fog bank of microscopic
possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite
macroscopic state. ,hat is the collapse of the wave function problem and
%chrodingerEs cat is a simple and elegant e#planation of that problem.
Macroscopic/Microscopic World Interface:
events in the
,he macroscopic world is 5ewtonian and deterministic for local events note
microscoic world
can haen
,without, cause )
indeterminacy
henomenon such
as tunneling
shows that
&uantum hysics
lea(s into the
macroscoic
world
however that even the macroscopic world suffers from chaos!. :n the other
hand, the microscopic .uantum world radical indeterminacy limits any certainty
surrounding the unfolding of physical events. Many things in the 5ewtonian
world are unpredictable since we can never obtain all the factors effecting a
physical system. /ut, .uantum theory is much more unsettling in that events
often happen without cause e.g. radioactive decay!.
5ote that the indeterminacy of the microscopic world has little effect on
macroscopic ob-ects. ,his is due to the fact that wave function for large ob-ects
is e#tremely small compared to the si(e of the macroscopic world. )our personal
wave function is much smaller than any currently measurable si(es. $nd the
indeterminacy of the .uantum world is not complete because it is possible to
assign probabilities to the wave function.
/ut, as %chrodingerEs &at parado# show us, the probability rules of the
microscopic world can leak into the macroscopic world. ,he parado# of
%chrodingerEs cat has provoked a great deal of debate among theoretical
physicists and philosophers. $lthough some thinkers have argued that the cat
actually does e#ist in two superposed states, most contend that superposition
only occurs when a .uantum system is isolated from the rest of its environment.
Various e#planations have been advanced to account for this parado#**including
the idea that the cat, or simply the animalEs physical environment such as the
photons in the bo#!, can act as an observer.
,he .uestion is, at what point, or scale, do the probabilistic rules of the .uantum
realm give way to the deterministic laws that govern the macroscopic world0
,his .uestion has been brought into vivid relief by the recent work where an
5I%, group confined a charged beryllium atom in a tiny electromagnetic cage
and then cooled it with a laser to its lowest energy state. In this state the position
of the atom and its GspinG a .uantum property that is only metaphorically
analogous to spin in the ordinary sense! could be ascertained to within a very
high degree of accuracy, limited by 8eisenbergEs uncertainty principle.
decoherence
revents a
macroscoic
Schrodinger cat
aradox
new technology
allows the
maniulation of
o!'ects at the
&uantum level
future research
will investigate
areas such as
&uantum
teleortation and
&uantum
comuting
,he workers then stimulated the atom with a laser -ust enough to change its
wave functionF according to the new wave function of the atom, it now had a J>
percent probability of being in a Gspin*upG state in its initial position and an
e.ual probability of being in a Gspin*downG state in a position as much as M>
nanometers away, a vast distance indeed for the atomic realm. In effect, the atom
was in two different places, as well as two different spin states, at the same
time**an atomic analog of a cat both living and dead.
,he clinching evidence that the 5I%, researchers had achieved their goal came
from their observation of an interference patternF that phenomenon is a telltale
sign that a single beryllium atom produced two distinct wave functions that
interfered with each other.
,he modern view of .uantum mechanics states that %chrodingerEs cat, or any
macroscopic ob-ect, does not e#ist as superpositions of e#istence due to
decoherence. $ pristine wave function is coherent, i.e. undisturbed by
observation. /ut %chrodingerEs cat is not a pristine wave function, its is
constantly interacting with other ob-ects, such as air molecules in the bo#, or the
bo# itself. ,hus a macroscopic ob-ect becomes decoherent by many atomic
interactions with its surrounding environment.
7ecoherence e#plains why we do not routinely see .uantum superpositions in
the world around us. It is not because .uantum mechanics intrinsically stops
working for ob-ects larger than some magic si(e. Instead, macroscopic ob-ects
such as cats and cards are almost impossible to keep isolated to the e#tent
needed to prevent decoherence. Microscopic ob-ects, in contrast, are more easily
isolated from their surroundings so that they retain their .uantum secrets and
.uantum behavior.
Fission/Fusion:
since &uantum
events do not have
a "cause", this
also means that all
ossi!le &uantum
events must and
will haen
without cause and
effect,
conservation laws
can !e violated,
although only on
very short
timescales $things
have to add u in
the end%
violation of
mass-energy
allowed for the
understanding of
the source of
nuclear ower in
the .niverse,
fission and fusion
:ne of the surprising results of .uantum physics is that if a physical event is not
specifically forbidden by a .uantum rule, than it can and will happen. 6hile this
may strange, it is a direct result of the uncertainty principle. ,hings that are strict
laws in the macroscopic world, such as the conversation of mass and energy, can
be broken in the .uantum world with the caveat that they can only broken for
very small intervals of time less than a Planck time!. ,he violation of
conservation laws led to the one of the greatest breakthroughs of the early 4>th
century, the understanding of radioactivity decay fission! and the source of the
power in stars fusion!.
5uclear fission is the breakdown of large atomic nuclei into smaller elements.
,his can happen spontaneously radioactive decay! or induced by the collision
with a free neutron. %pontaneously fission is due to the fact that the wave
function of a large nuclei is Efu((ierE than the wave function of a small particle
like the alpha particle. ,he uncertainty principle states that, sometimes, an alpha
particle 4 protons and 4 neutrons! can tunnel outside the nucleus and escape.
fission is the
slitting of atomic
nuclei, either
sontaneously or
!y collision
$induced%
fusion is the
merger of atomic
articles to form
new articles
Induced fission occurs when a free neutron strikes a nucleus and deforms it.
9nder classical physics, the nucleus would -ust reform. 8owever, under
.uantum physics there is a finite probability that the deformed nucleus will
tunnel into two new nuclei and release some neutrons in the process, to produce
a chain reaction.
Fusion is the production of heavier elements by the fusing of lighter elements.
,he process re.uires high temperatures in order to produce sufficiently high
velocities for the two light elements to overcome each others electrostatic
barriers.
&uantum
tunneling and
uncertainty are
re&uired for these
rocesses
and &uantum
hysics, even
though centered
on ro!a!ilities, is
our most accurate
science in its
redictions
'ven for the high temperatures in the center of a star, fusion re.uires the
.uantum tunneling of a neutron or proton to overcome the repulsive electrostatic
forces of an atomic nuclei. 5otice that both fission and fusion release energy by
converting some of the nuclear mass into gamma*rays, this is the famous
formulation by 'instein that '3mc
4
.
$lthough it deals with probabilities and uncertainties, the .uantum mechanics
has been spectacularly successful in e#plaining otherwise inaccessible atomic
phenomena and in meeting every e#perimental test. Its predictions are the most
precise and the best checked of any in physicsF some of them have been tested
and found accurate to better than one part per billion.
Antimatter:
symmetry in
&uantum hysics
lead to the
rediction of
oosite matter,
$ combination of .uantum mechanics and relativity allows us to e#amine
subatomic processes in a new light. %ymmetry is very important to physical
theories. ,hus, the e#istence of a type of ToppositeE matter was hypothesi(ed
soon after the development of .uantum physics. T:ppositeE matter is called
antimatter. Particles of antimatter has the same mass and characteristics of
regular matter, but opposite in charge. 6hen matter and antimatter come in
or antimatter
matter and
antimatter can
com!ine to form
ure energy, and
the oosite is
true, energy can
com!ine to form
matter-antimatter
airs
contact they are both instantaneously converted into pure energy, in the form of
photons.
$ntimatter is produced all the time by the collision of high energy photons, a
process called pair production, where an electron and its antimatter twin the
positron! are created from energy '3mc
4
!. $ typical spacetime diagram of pair
production looks like the following:
sacetime
diagrams rovide
a !ac(wards time
interretation for
antimatter,
symmetry in sace
and time
Positrons only survive for a short time since they are attracted to other electrons
and disintegrate. %ince .uantum mechanics states that energy, time and space
can be violated, another way of looking at pair production is to state that the
positron does not e#ist, but rather it is an electron traveling backwards in time.
%ince it is going backwards in time, its charge would be reversed and its
spacetime diagram would look like the following:
the &uantum
world leads to new
ways of loo(ing at
existence and
reality
In this interpretation, the collision of an electron and two photons causes the
electron to go backward in time till it meets another pair of photons, then
reverses itself again. ,he world of .uantum physics allows for many such
strange views of subatomic interactions.
;ntroduction5 Ferner Heisenberg
,he problems of the particle and thus the resulting parado# of the particle = wave duality, have
caused great confusion within .uantum physics over the past seventy years, as both /erner
0eisen!erg and *aul Davies e#plainF
/oth matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes e#hibit
the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. 5ow it is obvious that a thing cannot be
a form of wave motion and composed of articles at the same time * the two concepts are too
different. 0eisen!erg, :n Uuantum Mechanics, @A?>!
,he idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but the e#istence
of this wave*particle duality is not in doubt. .. It is impossible to visuali(e a wave*particle, so
donEt try. ... ,he notion of a particle being everywhere at once is impossible to imagine. Davies,
:n Uuantum Physics, @AMJ!
,he solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which e#periment lead us to form *
the one of the particles, the other of the waves * are both incomplete and have only the validity of
analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases. 0eisen!erg, :n Uuantum Mechanics,
@A?>!
+ight and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our
language.
It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring
within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the e#periences of daily
life, and these consist only of processes involving e#ceedingly large numbers of atoms.
Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these
atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and
this ability, too, is a result of daily e#perience. Fortunately, mathematics is not sub-ect to this
limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme * the .uantum theory *
which seems entirely ade.uate for the treatment of atomic processesF for visualisation, however,
we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies * the wave picture and the corpuscular
picture. 0eisen!erg, :n Uuantum Physics, @A?>!
,he most difficult problem W concerning the use of the language arises in .uantum physics.
8ere we have at first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of
ordinary language: and the only thing we know from the start is the fact that our common
concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atoms. 0eisen!erg, ,he ,ao of Physics, pJI!
,he solution to this apparent parado# is to simply e#plain how the discrete particle properties of
matter and light .uanta! are in fact caused by the %pherical %tanding 6ave %tructure of Matter.
#erner 1eisen*erg Introduction - Fuantum $echanics. 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty
'rincile - #erner 1eisen*erg Fuotes - Biograhy #erner 1eisen*erg - !o of 'age
Heisenberg=s 2ncertainty .rincip'e of 0uantum
Mechanics
Uuantum Mechanics, from @A>> to @A?>, revolutionised the foundations of our understanding of
light and matter interactions. In @A>> Ma# Planck showed that light energy must be emitted and
absorbed in discrete E.uantaE to e#plain blackbody radiation. $lbert 'instein in @A>J showed that
the energy of light is determined by its fre.uency, where '3hf. ,hen in the late @A4>s, +ouis de
/roglie and 'rwin %chrodinger introduced the concept of %tanding 6aves to e#plain these
discrete fre.uency and energy states of light and matter standing waves only e#ist at discrete
fre.uencies and thus energy states!.
$t the same time that the wave properties of matter were discovered, two further discoveries
were made by 6erner 8eisenberg and Ma# /orn that also profoundly influenced and confused!
the future evolution of modern physics and .uantum mechanicsF
/erner 0eisen!erg developed the uncertainty principle which tells us that we the
observer! can never e#actly know both the position and momentum of a particle. $s
every observation re.uires an energy e#change photon! to create the observed EdataE,
some energy wave! state of the observed ob-ect has to be altered. ,hus the
observation has a discrete effect on what we measure. i.e. 6e change the e#periment
by observing itX $ large part of their problem though was to continue to assume the e#istence of
discrete particles and thus to try to e#actly locate both their position and motion, which is
impossible as there is no discrete particleX!
Further, because both the observed position and momentum of the particle can never be e#actly
known, theorists were left trying to determine the probability of where, for e#ample, the EparticleE
would be observed.
"ax 1orn @A4M! was the first to discover by chance and with no theoretical
foundation! that the s.uare of the .uantum wave e.uations described by the 6ave
%tructure of Matter as mass*energy density of space! could be used to predict the
probability of where the particle would be found. %ince it was impossible for both
the waves and the particles to be real entities, it became customary to regard the
waves as unreal probability waves and to maintain the belief in the ErealE particle. 9nfortunately
profoundly! this maintained the belief in the particle=wave duality, in a new form where the
E.uantumE scalar standing waves had become Eprobability wavesE for the ErealE particle.
#erner 1eisen*erg Introduction - Fuantum $echanics. 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty
'rincile - #erner 1eisen*erg Fuotes - Biograhy #erner 1eisen*erg - !o of 'age
Ferner Heisenberg 0uotes
,he problems of language here are really serious. 6e wish to speak in some way about the
structure of the atoms W /ut we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language. 0eisen!erg,
:n Uuantum Physics, ,he ,ao of Physics, pJ?!
,hat every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.
0eisen!erg, ,he ,ao of Physics, p?J!
I remember discussions with /ohr which went through many
hours till very late at night an ended almost in despairF and when
at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the
neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the
.uestion: &an nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in
these atomic e#periments0 0eisen!erg, Physics and Philosophy,
@AK?!
,he world thus appears as a complicate tissue of events, in which
connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and
thereby determine the te#ture of the whole. 8eisenberg, :n
Uuantum Mechanics, Physics, and Philosophy, @AK?!
5atural science, does not simply describe and e#plain natureF it is
part of the interplay between nature and ourselves. 8eisenberg,
:n Uuantum Mechanics, Physics and Philosophy, @AK?!
6hat we observe is not nature itself, but nature e#posed to our method of .uestioning.
8eisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, @AK?!
'very word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.
0eisen!erg, Physics and Philosophy, @AK?!
,he most difficult problemW concerning the use of the language arises in .uantum theory. 8ere
we have at first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of
ordinary language: and the only thing we know from the start is the fact that our common
concepts cannot be applied o the structure of the atoms. 0eisen!erg, Physics and Philosophy,
@AK?!
,he violent reaction on the recent development of modern physics can only be understood when
one realises that here the foundations of physics have started movingF and that this motion has
caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science. 0eisen!erg, Physics and
Philosophy, @AK?!
,his application of the concept of statistical laws was finally formulated in the second half of the
last century as the so*called statistical mechanics. In this theory, which is based on 5ewtonEs
mechanics, the conse.uences that spring from an incomplete knowledge of a complicated
mechanical system are investigated. ,hus in principle it is not a renunciation of determinism.
,he incomplete knowledge of a system must be an essential part of every formulation in
.uantum mechanics. Uuantum theoretical laws must be of a statistical kind.
,his state of affairs is best described by saying that all particles are basically nothing but
different stationary states of one and the same stuff. ,hus even the three basic building*stones
have become reduced to a single one. ,here is only one kind of matter but it can e#ist in different
discrete stationary conditions. $tomic Physics and &ausal +aw, from ,he Physicists
&onception of 5ature, /erner 0eisen!erg, @AJM!
+ight and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality
arises in the limitations of our language. /erner 0eisen!erg, on
Uuantum Physics!
/oth matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of
character, as they sometimes e#hibit the properties of waves, at
other times those of particles. 5ow it is obvious that a thing
cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of articles at
the same time * the two concepts are too different. /erner 0eisen!erg, on Uuantum
Mechanics, @A?>!
,he solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which e#periment lead us to form *
the one of the particles, the other of the waves * are both incomplete and have only the validity of
analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases. /erner 0eisen!erg, on Uuantum
Mechanics, @A?>!
#erner 1eisen*erg Introduction - Fuantum $echanics. 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty
'rincile - #erner 1eisen*erg Fuotes - Biograhy #erner 1eisen*erg - !o of 'age
:erner 1eisenberg ;iogra"hy
!<=>< ? <=$#%
6erner Harl 8eisenberg 7ecember J, @A>@ C February @, @ABK! was a celebrated ;erman
physicist and 5obel laureate, one of the founders of .uantum mechanics. 8e was born in
6Lr(burg, ;ermany and died in Munich. 6erner 8eisenberg was the head of 5a(i ;ermanyEs
nuclear energy program, though the nature of his work in this capacity has been heavily debated.
0uantum mechanics
$s a student, he met 5iels /ohr in ;Yttingen in
@A44. $ fruitful collaboration developed between
the two.
6erner 8eisenberg invented matri# mechanics,
the first formali(ation of .uantum mechanics in
@A4J. 8is uncertainty principle, discovered in
@A4B, states that the determination of both the
position and momentum of a particle necessarily
contains errors, the product of these being not less
than a known constant. ,ogether with /ohr, he
would go on to formulate the &openhagen
interpretation of .uantum mechanics.
8e received the 5obel Pri(e in physics in @A?4
Gfor the creation of .uantum mechanics, the
application of which has, inter alia, led to the
discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogenG.
7uring the early days of the 5a(i regime in ;ermany, 8eisenberg was harassed as a G6hite NewG
for teaching the theories of $lbert 'instein in contrast with the 5a(i*sanctioned 7eutsche Physik
movement. $fter a character investigation that 8eisenberg himself instigated and passed, %%
chief 8einrich 8immler banned any further political attacks on the physicist.
For4 during the Far
5uclear fission was discovered in ;ermany in @A?M. 6erner 8eisenberg remained in ;ermany
during 6orld 6ar II, working under the 5a(i regime. 8e led ;ermanyEs nuclear weapon=nuclear
power program, but the e#tent of his cooperation in the development of weapons has been a
sub-ect of historical controversy.
6erner 8eisenberg revealed the programEs e#istence to /ohr at a conference in &openhagen in
%eptember @AI@. $fter the meeting, the lifelong friendship between /ohr and 8eisenberg ended
abruptly. /ohr later -oined the Manhattan Pro-ect. ;ermany did not succeed in producing an
atomic bomb.
It has been speculated that 6erner 8eisenberg had moral .ualms and tried to slow down the
pro-ect. 8eisenberg himself attempted to paint this picture after the war, and ,homas PowerEs
book 8eisenbergEs 6ar and Michael FraynEs play &openhagen adopted this interpretation. Part of
this interpretation is based on the fact that 8eisenberg did not champion the pro-ect to $lbert
%peer in a way which got it any attention or very much funding which %amuel ;oudsmit of the
$+%:% pro-ect interpreted as being partially because 8eisenberg himself was not fully aware of
the feasibility of an atomic bomb!. $t best for 8eisenberg!, he may have tried to hinder the
;erman pro-ectF at worst, he may have -ust been ignorant of how to create an atomic bomb it
has been wryly commented that one can know either 8eisenbergEs morality in this respect, or his
competence, but not both!.
In February 4>>4, a letter written by /ohr to 8eisenberg in @AJB but never sent! emerged. In it,
/ohr relates that 8eisenberg, in their @AI@ conversation, did not e#press any moral problems
with the bomb making pro-ect, that 8eisenberg had spent the past two years working almost
e#clusively on it, and that he was convinced that the atomic bomb would eventually decide the
war. ,he conte#t of this letter, however, was the publication of the -ournalist <obert NungkEs
/righter ,han a ,housand %uns, which painted 8eisenberg as having single*handedly and
purposely derailed the ;erman pro-ect. Nungk printed an e#cerpt from a personal letter from
8eisenberg ** taken out of conte#t ** to -ustify the claim in the full letter, 8eisenberg was more
demure about whether he had taken a strong moral stance!. /ohr was understandably flustered
by this apparent claim as it did not match with his own perception of 8eisenbergEs war work at
all.
%ome historians of science take this as evidence that the previous interpretation of 8eisenbergEs
resistance was wrong, but others have argued that /ohr profoundly misunderstood 8eisenbergEs
intentions at the @AI@ meeting, or an overly passionate reaction to NungkEs work. $s a piece of
evidence, it has had little effect on overall historical conclusions.
6erner 8eisenberg /iography
http:==en.wikipedia.org=wiki=6ernerZ8eisenberg
/he uncertainty princip'e refers to a concept in quantum mechanics that
asserts a fundamenta' 'imit to the precision with which certain pairs of
physica' properties of a partic'e can be 4nown. For examle, the more
recisely one knows the osition of a article, the less recisely its momentum can
*e known at the same time. 4ccording to the %oenhagen interretation of the
uncertainty rincile, the )uantum state -a series of mathematical varia*les that
descri*es a )uantum system/ merely rescri*es the way in which an exerimental
result is calculated. It calculates what the results of o*servation of a system may
*e, *ut it cannot a*solutely descri*e what the system is at a fundamental level.
4l*ert Einstein would assert that any and all erceived randomness in this regard is
due to humanity:s limited comrehension of reality. #hile he *elieved that human
*eings could never fully attain this comrehension, he *elieved a model of )uantum
mechanics could *e develoed that exlained seemingly random, non-deterministic
o*servations of hysics.
In any case, I don:t know that I:d call $arxism deterministic, necessarily, *ut that
things should oerate *y o*serva*le laws is acceted *y the sciences. #hile it is
true that "laws" are really theoretical constructs on our art and so don:t exist in
some metahysical *ook or register that kees the universe oerating in a certain
way, the universe is fundamentally knowa*le and it aears to oerate according to
certain atterns. !hat the human mind and human society should also oerate
according to certain atterns that are o*serva*le, rather than according to the
ar*itrary whims of individuals, stands to reason.
,eterminism and 2ncertainty5..........................................
1ow is it ossi*le to have a universe in which things are uncertain and still
have things *e exactly determinedE I ersonally do not understand how such
a universe can *e ossi*le. Imagine waking u one morning and ouring
your self a *owl of cereal.
7ow imagine that you go to eat what you have oured and 0nd that it is no
longer there, *ut in another lace. Is this ossi*le, can something like this
actually haenE #ell the answer is that this sort of thing haens everyday
in the world of nuclear hysics, and why should this henomenon *e
restricted to this lower limit of o*servation. &urely what a5ects atoms and
articles should a5ect things larger, *earing in mind that they are made out
of those fundamental units. &o why shouldn+t your *owl of cereal disaearE
#ell in my oinion it shouldn+t. 4nd to comlicate things some level of
determinism can *e involved in this issue.
!he 1eisen*erg Hindeterminacy rincileI, or more commonly the
uncertainty rincile, is a rincile develoed *y a man named #erner
1eisen*erg. 1is rincile states that the more someone knows a*out the
osition, of say an electron, the less you will know a*out it+s osition. !his
haens to *e a law of nature that no one can escae. !he rincile also
works in reverse, for examle you could say the more you a know an
electrons momentum the less you will know it+s osition.
Snowing this why should this rincile only a5ect fundamental articles and
not larger matter. 'ersonally I *elieve this rincile a5ects all matter, to *ack
this notion u I would like to use a thought exeriment -*efore we go any
further I would like to make it known that what I talk a*out reresents my
views on the issue of uncertainty/. First, imagine the human *ody *eing
made u of molecules, which in turn are made u of en,ymes, which are
made u of rotein. 4nd if you were to continue to *reak these down to
atoms you would see that the atoms are made u of rotons, neutrons, and
electrons. #hich of course are made of )uarks and whatever other
fundamental articles may exist at this oint. But the oint of this long list of
slitting is to take into account the *efore mentioned 1eisen*erg uncertainty
rincile.
4t this level of an atom is where the uncertainty rincile is at work, at its
greatest. !he uncertainty rincile does not lay much of a roll in the world
of the "large". Bou do not see things oing u all over the lace in your
own *ack yard, do youE
!his is *ecause these a5ects are only o*serva*le at the small scale of
fundamental articles. &o for those who are somewhat familiar with this
concet now know why @elativity only works in the world of the "large".
7ow, when alying the uncertainty rincile to an understanding of
determinism, in a hysics sense, you 0nd that nothing can *e determined
*ecause of this rincile. 4ny theory of everything that incororates
)uantum theory has associated with it the uncertainty rincile. &uosedly,
the only way to have things exactly determined in a hysics sense is to have
a theory that exlains every asect of the universe and to *e a*le to solve
these e)uations that are associated with the theory, so as to know what it is
to haen. 4ll it would take is the measuring of every asect of a article to
an exact degree. !his is necessary so that one knows how and where it will
travel and what collisions will *e roduced in its travel. From this one
could easily determine all the motions of atoms in a human *ody and see
what will occur according to the calculations. &ounds simle enoughE !he
ro*lem, other than that of *eing a*le to solve all of the e)uations, arises
from taking into consideration )uantum hysics. 4ccording to this theory
there is a ossi*ility of deviation in the calculated movements of the
articles. If you remem*er correctly if you know one thing a*out a article
like osition then you don+t know its osition. I *elieve that all these
uncertainties add u in such a way as to make the e)uations necessary in
determining these comlex systems imossi*le. Even if the e)uations could
*e solved there would *e too much uncertainty involved, so that knowing the
exact answer would *e left to the ro*a*ility of a certain action occurring.
!here would *e too many ossi*ilities worth
worrying a*out. !he only true way for determinism to work is to have a
universe free of intelligent life. !his is *ecause without intelligent life, no
o*servations of the universe can *e made. !o understand these ideas you
must gras in some way the a5ects 1umanity has on the 2niverse.
It can *e said that the universe is as it is *ecause it was as it was. "r rather
the reason it exists is *ecause humans are here to o*serve it. #hat I mean is
does anything actually exist if human *eings are not availa*le to o*serve itE
#hether it is through sight or any other of our senses, the universe exists
*ecause we are here for it to exist. !he )uestion I ask myself is. do I want
reality to *e *ased on such unsta*le termsE I ersonally have come to a
fairly unsure conclusion that the resence of humans in the hysical universe
is what *rings a*out chaos and uncertainties. For examle, if it were not for
humans would a concet such as the uncertainty rincile existE #ould some
laws of the universe cease to aly *ecause of our nonexistenceE
!o tackle the 0rst of these two )uestions, I *elieve the only reason the
uncertainty rincile exists is *ecause we exist. 4s reviously stated the
general idea *ehind the uncertainty rincile is that if we o*serve either the
momentum or osition of a article, the other term is uncertain. !he *asis
*ehind this conclusion is the idea that we can not o*serve *oth the osition
of an o*3ect and its momentum simultaneously. !his results in us only *eing
a*le -in a general sense/ to know things to a 0fty-ercent ro*a*ility. #here
does the other 0fty ercent go and what will it result inE If one is a hysicist,
one might *e a*le to trick themselves into *elieving the dynamics of the
uncertainty rincile. For examle, studying u on the infamous dou*le slit
exeriments, which involve sending a hoton of light energy toward
something that has two slits in it. !he idea *ehind this
exeriment is that if reality were to hold u, the )uanta -light is general
assumed to consist of ackets of energy called )uanta/ of energy should
travel through only one slit. 4ccording to the laws of hysics, light radiation
comes in discrete ackets of energy called )uanta. "ne can not slit u any
of these ackets *ecause it is imossi*le. !his is why the hoton should
travel through only one of the slits. 1owever, the hoton seemingly travels
through *oth slits. !he conclusions that may *e derived from these situations
are as follows. !he article+s wave-article duality caused some wave
interference allowing the article to seemingly travel through *oth slits. "r
due to the fact that we knew the hotons velocity we did not know its
osition thus the hoton was in a state of )uantum foam allowing it to hold
many ositions in sace.
"ne might think that in order to come u with the correct answer to this
aradox as to which slit the hoton travels through we must not *e resent.
&o the laws of hysics hold true without the resence of human *eings or
other creatures to make o*servations. !he uncertainty rincile is a result of
our o*servationsQ without o*servation everything is in a state of wave
function. !his would *e a fair enough conclusion. 7o one else has a much
*etter idea as to why uncertainty exists. 'hysicists have always thought that
the universe was simle, elegant, and followed certain rules that must *e
o*eyed. (od could have set these conditions or may*e these conditions had
already existed. But what is o*vious is that everything would *e determined
if we didn:t exist. #ithout the e5ects of o*servation there is no uncertainty
rincile. !hus everything can *e deduced to an exact degree.
!he conclusion that must *e drawn is that everything is determined in a
universe lacking intelligence. 1owever, once intelligence and o*servations
are added to such a universe, uncertainty eruts all over the lace. !hus the
consistency of a simle elegant universe is destroyed. !herefore the reality is
o*viously that we exist and that uncertainty is a necessary art of the
universe that makes the ossi*ility for everything to *e determined
imossi*le. 'erhas there is another universe in which we do not exist and in
which 1eisen*erg:s uncertainty rincile is nonexistent. !his would *e a
universe that hysicists would love. 2nfortunately we can only wonder what
such a universe would *e like *ecause any o*servation we would make a*out
such a universe would cause that universe to evaorate into an element of
uncertainty. "ur understanding of the exact nature of the universe is doomed
*ecause of our existence.
%ould the *eginning of the universe have *een 1eisen*erg freeE Did
)uantum mechanics in fact exist in the early universeE
$y answer to this )uestion is that the ossi*le o*servations we make now
a5ect the ast. !he universe *eing in a state of )uantum foam may only
exist *ecause we o*serve it to exist. #ithout us looking into the ast, it is
)uite ossi*le that the uncertainty rincile would not have existed. &o, I am
saying that o*servations of the ast e5ect that ast, which would
undou*tfully e5ect the future. !he odd thing a*out this is that these
o*servations of the ast are occurring in the resent. !hus the resent
e5ects the ast, which in turn a5ects the future. !his means that we are
a5ecting the future *y looking into the universe+s ast, -our resent/ and the
universe:s future. #e in fact e5ect the ast, the resent, and the future *y
our mere resence in the universe. %onfusing, is it not -I must say that this is
a little stretch of hysics and my imagination/E
"ne more )uestion to think a*out. can we choose not to *e o*servers in the
universe and thus kee things simleE I *elieve not, for such a thing to *e
ossi*le we must not exist. "kay, now *ack to the oint I was trying to make.
Being that if we were not resent in the universe, sum over histories -refer to
a man named &tehen 1awking for this one/ and arallel -multile/
universes would not existQ neither would )uantum hysics. !his would all
come a*out *ecause we would not *e resent to make the o*servations
necessary to turn this, so called, )uantum foam into a recise history with a
location. !he multile universes would thus not exist and sum over histories
would fall victim as well. &o at what oint did the universe *ecome what it is
nowE "*viously it *ecame this way *ecause humans came along. For if we
did not exist the entire history
of the universe would have *een altered, or rather there wouldn+t *e a
universe *ecause there would only *e a wave function that would descri*e it.
&o, our existence in the universe is fairly vital. "*viously it makes things as
they areQ at least our o*servations make things as they are.
Is it o*servations that a5ect the universe or is it human *eings themselvesE
"f course it is *oth, *ecause o*servations can not *e made without someone
to make those o*servations. !he thought makes you wish there were higher
owers resent, does it notE $ay*e this higher ower exists and may*e it
does not. !he key is to *e content with the way things are. If *elieving in a
higher ower makes you hay, that is 0ne. Everyone has his or her own
*eliefs. 1owever, this will not change the outcome of the universe. I
ersonally have come to a moderate conclusion as to why we have such an
inAuence over the universe. I am relatively sure it is *ecause of our
o*servations and the uncertainty that results. "f course there is always the
ossi*ility that the universe is what a5ects us *ut this theory would not
account for why our o*servations seem to e5ect the
universe. Damn us for making the universe so comlicated, uncertain, and
making determinism imossi*le. #ell, if everything were determined, we
would live very *oring lives. @emem*er, humans are not so insigni0cant
*ecause without us to make things uncertain *y our o*servations, the
universe would not exist as it does.
2 3est to "easure 0ow 4ational You 4eally
2re
%tandard IU tests are problematic on many levels " not least, because they do very little to tell
us about the .uality of our thinking. +ooking to overcome this oversight, psychologist Heith
%tanovich has started to work on the first*ever <ationality Uuotient test. 6e spoke to him to
learn more.
Heith '. %tanovich is Professor of 8uman 7evelopment and $pplied Psychology at the
9niversity of ,oronto. ,he author of over 4>> scientific articles and seven books, he, along with
<ichard 6est, was recently given a grant by the Nohn ,empleton Foundation to create the first
comprehensive assessment of rational thinking " a test that will ultimately determine a personEs
Erationality .uotientE.
$nd indeed, the value of rationality and 1good thinking2 tends to be diminished by the
importance we place on intelligence. /ut as we learned from %tanovich, the two often have very
little to do with each other.
@elated
Fhy you=re probab'y not as rationa' as you thin4 you are I and what you
can do about it
6hen it comes to self*improvement, few people consider their reasoning skills. Most of us
simply assume * and take for granted * that under mostW <eadW
So you thin4 you=re smart? Fe'', prove it.
9nfortunately, despite nearly a century and a half of testing and decades of neuroscience, you
canEt prove youEre intelligent. :urW <eadW
Don't standard 56 tests already measure for rationality 7 and doesn't intelligence
correlate with rationality?
IU [tests\ do not at all directly assess processes of rational thinking, as they are defined by
cognitive scientists.
,his is why a separate test is needed to assess <U. 6e " my colleague <ichard 6est and I "
were led many years ago to through our longstanding interest in the heuristics and biases
research program inaugurated by 7aniel Hahneman and $mos ,versky several decades ago.
,his all got started back in 4>>4 when Hahneman won the 5obel Pri(e in 'conomics ,versky
died in @AAK!. ,he press release for the award from the <oyal %wedish $cademy of %ciences
drew attention to the roots of the award*winning work in 1the analysis of human -udgment and
decision*making by cognitive psychologists.2
Hahneman was lauded for discovering 1how human -udgment may take heuristic shortcuts that
systematically depart from basic principles of probability. 8is work has inspired a new
generation of researchers in economics and finance to enrich economic theory using insights
from cognitive psychology into intrinsic human motivation.2
:ne reason that the Hahneman and ,versky work was so influential was that it addressed deep
issues concerning human rationality. ,heir work, along with that of many others, has shown how
the basic architecture of human cognition makes all of us prone to these awful errors of -udgment
and decision making.
/ut being prone to these errors does not mean that we always make them. 'very person, on some
occasions, overrides the tendency to make these reasoning errors and instead makes the rational
response. It is not that we make errors all the time. 'ven more importantly, our research group
has shown that there are systematic differences among individuals in the tendency to make errors
of -udgment and decision making.
$nd the fact that there are systematic individual differences in the -udgment and decision making
situations studied by Hahneman and ,versky means that there are variations in important
attributes of human cognition related to rationality " how efficient we are in achieving our
goals.
,his fact is curious because most laypeople are prone to think that IU tests are tests of, to put it
collo.uially, good thinking. %cientists and laypeople alike would tend to agree that 1good
thinking2 encompasses good -udgment and decision making " the type of thinking that helps us
achieve our goals. In fact, the type of 1good thinking2 that Hahneman and ,versky studied was
deemed so important that research on it was awarded the 5obel Pri(e. )et assessments of such
good thinking are nowhere to be found on IU tests.
2re you interested in how cognitive !iases affect rationality? /hich ones should we !e
most aware of?
@elated
/he " cognitive biases that prevent you from being rationa'
,he human brain is capable of @>@K processes per second, which makes it far more powerful
than any computer currently in e#istence. /ut thatW <eadW
$bsolutely. &ognitive biases are an essential part of the modern definition of rationality in
cognitive science.
,o think rationally means taking the appropriate action given ones goals and beliefs " what we
call instrumental rationality " and holding beliefs that are in synch with available evidence, or
epistemic rationality. &ollectively, the many tasks of the heuristics and biases program " and the
even wider literature in decision science " comprise the operational definition of rationality in
modern cognitive science see my book <ationality and the <eflective Mind, 4>@@!.
+et me give you some e#amples of instrumental rationality and irrationality:
!he a*ility to dislay dis3unctive reasoning in decision making Oe.g. Either the
&un or*its the Earth, or the Earth or*its the &un. !he &un does not or*it the
Earth. !herefore, the Earth or*its the &un.P
!he tendency to show inconsistent references *ecause of framing e5ects
Oe.g. saying a `glass is half emty+ can often *e more ersuasive than
suggesting the inverseQ this is somewhat related to the negativity *iasP
!he tendency to show a default *ias Oa.k.a. the status )uo *ias in which we
hold a reference for the way things currently areP
!he tendency to su*stitute a5ect for di[cult evaluations Osometimes when
we have to answer a di[cult )uestion we actually answer a related *ut
di5erent )uestion without reali,ing a su*stitution has taken laceP
!he tendency to over-weight short-term rewards at the exense of long-term
well-*eing Owhich is also referred to as the current moment *iasP
!he tendency to have choices a5ected *y vivid stimuli Oe.g. men have *een
shown to make oor decisions in the resence of an attractive femaleP
!he tendency for decisions to *e a5ected *y irrelevant context
+ikewise, they have studied aspects of epistemic rationality and irrationality, such as:
!he tendency to show incoherent ro*a*ility assessments
!he tendency toward overcon0dence in knowledge 3udgments
!he tendency to ignore *ase-rates Oa.k.a. the *ase rate fallacyQ sometimes we
don+t take new information into account when making ro*a*ility
assessmentsP
!he tendency not to seek to falsify hyotheses
!he tendency to try to exlain chance events
!he tendency toward self-serving ersonal 3udgments
!he tendency to evaluate evidence with a myside *ias Owhere we only seek
out ersectives that are symathetic to our ownP
!he tendency to ignore the alternative hyothesis
You 'ust started a 8+year ro'ect to create the first comrehensive assessment of rational
thin(ing# /hy do we need such a thing?
$ll of the biases and processes listed above will be on our prototype measure of rational thinking
that will be the outcome of our grant from the Nohn ,empleton Foundation. It is necessary to
assess them directly on such a test because none of them are directly assessed on IU test.
8owever, there is an important caveat here. $lthough the tests fail to assess rational thinking
directly, it could be argued that the processes that are tapped by IU tests largely overlap with
variation in rational thinking ability.
Perhaps intelligence is highly associated with rationality even though tasks tapping the latter are
not assessed directly on the tests. 8ere is where empirical research comes in " some of which
has been generated by our own research group. 6e have found that many rational thinking tasks
show surprising degrees of dissociation from cognitive ability in university samples. Many
classic effects from the heuristics and biases literature " base*rate neglect, framing effects,
con-unction effects, anchoring biases, and outcome bias " are only modestly related to
intelligence if run in between*sub-ects designs.
Most rational thinking tasks correlate to some degree with intelligence, but the correlation is
almost always moderate enough .K> or so at the very highest! to still create many cases where
intelligence and rationality are out of synch. 8ence my coining of the term dysrationalia in the
early @AA>s.
2nd what do you mean !y "dysrationalia"?
I coined the term dysrationalia " an analogue of the word dysle#ia " in the early*@AA>s in
order to draw attention to what is missing in IU tests. I define dysrationalia as the inability to
think and behave rationally despite having ade.uate intelligence. Many people display the
systematic inability to think or behave rationally despite the fact that they have more than
ade.uate IUs.
:ne of the reasons that many of us are dysrationalic to some e#tent is that, for a variety of
reasons, we have come to overvalue the kinds of thinking skills that IU tests measure and
undervalue other critically important cognitive skills, such as the ability to think rationally.
6hat are some e#amples of a person e#hibiting low rationality0 6hat are some une#pected or
lesser known GrisksG of not thinking completely rationally0
In my book "hat Intelligence #ests $iss 4>>A!, I begin with a discussion of 7avid 7enby 5)
,imes writer! and Nohn Paulos math professor! making disastrous person investment decisions. I
also discuss how many feel that ;eorge 6. /ush was dysrationalic.
/ut in terms of specifics, here are some irrational thinking tendencies to consider:
'hysicians choose less e5ective medical treatments
'eole fail to accurately assess risks in their environment
Information is misused in legal roceedings
$illions of dollars are sent on unneeded ro3ects *y government and rivate
industry
'arents fail to vaccinate their children
2nnecessary surgery is erformed
4nimals are hunted to extinction
Billions of dollars are wasted on )uack medical remedies
%ostly 0nancial mis3udgments are made
5s rationality something that's innate? 9r is there hoe for eole with low 46?
<ationality is not entirely innate. It is as malleable as intelligence and possibly much more so.
<oughly one half of rationality as we define it is not process but knowledge " knowledge that
could be ac.uired by perhaps B>O or more of the population.
8eres what I mean: ,he model of individual differences in rational thought that 6est and I have
put together partitions rationality into fluid and crystalli(ed components by analogy to the ;f and
;c of the &attell=8orn=&arroll fluid*crystalli(ed theory of intelligence.
Fluid rationality encompasses the process part of rational thought " the thinking dispositions of
the reflective mind that lead to rational thought and action. &rystalli(ed rationality encompasses
all of the knowledge structures that relate to rational thought.
,hese knowledge structures are the tools of rationality probabilistic thinking, logic, scientific
reasoning! and they represent declarative knowledge that is often incompletely learned or not
ac.uired at all. /ut they can be learned by most and in this sense rationality is teachable.
<ational thinking errors due to such knowledge gaps can occur in a potentially large set of
coherent knowledge bases in the domains of probabilistic reasoning, causal reasoning,
knowledge of risks, logic, practical numeracy, financial literacy, and scientific thinking the
importance of alternative hypotheses, etc.!.
Photo of %ahneman: &ndreas 'ent(/)ett* Images for Burda $edia+
3he 0eisen!erg .ncertainty *rincile and its
4elation to Determinism
,he 8eisenberg 9ncertainty Principle states that one cannot simultaneously know the e#act
position and momentum of a particle. It serves to confirm that occurrences can take on a range of
outcomes, and thus, the future is probabilistic. ,his principle has implications in the realm of
philosophy as well as the world of physicsF it reveals that observations are not entirely
independent of the observer, as the act of observing and obtaining information can affect
physical phenomena, and that traditional determinism is not fully valid.
,he downfall of +ePlaces form of determinism" that is, all events are predetermined, fully
predictable, and fully dependent on preceding events" was disproven by the introduction of
probability into the laws of causality. In accordance with the 8eisenberg 9ncertainty Principle,
an event may have multiple outcomes. ,he probability of these outcomes can be mathematically
determined, but the outcome of each event cannot be known beforehand, and likewise,
occurrences are not completely predictable. ,his randomness is particularly prevalent within the
scope of .uantum mechanics, as the probability of varying events occurring on the .uantum level
is much greater than the probability of une#pected events occurring in the motions governed by
classical 5ewtonian mechanics, which generally have only one highly probable outcome.
From this aspect of chance arises a new breed of determinism: scientific determinism. ,his
theory posits that all events are bound by causal laws and the laws of science" that is, all events
are determined by the events that precede them, but future events cannot necessarily be
determined by e#amining past events. 8owever this element of randomness also gives rise to an
opportunity to discard the theory of determinism entirely, and leaves space for human free will.
Heisenberg the .hi'osopher?
,here is a little thing called the 8eisenberg 9ncertainty principle that can be kind of
complicated, but not always. Its one of my divine pleasures to find some way to connect weird
physics or math to life in a grander way. I wrote a paper that connected 'uclid to
apologetics=anti*theists thats right I used a slash there!. ,hat sounds weird, but it seems to work
if you really think about it. $nyway, today I thought about my friends and my own futures
respectively. ,hen, I thought about college and how we never really know where we are in life
e#cept that we do!.
5:X 5ot that 8eisenbergX
Most of us are aware that we are in college and some of us know that we are going to a graduate
school more college!. In any case, we know where our literal position is, but not where we are
in life. 6e know where we want to go most of us!, but we have no idea where we are right now.
%ounds familiar0 ,hat is an intangible version of the 8eisenberg 9ncertainty principle. 6e know
our position or we know where we are going but never both at the same time. Its funny how
math can describe some of the weirdest things.
%o, the ne#t time one of my friends has an e#istential crisis about her life, she can take comfort
in 8eisenberg. %he knows what she is doing right now even if she has no idea where she is going
after that. 6ill I get into grad school0 6ill I get into med school0 Maybe you will never find out,
but you do know that you know at least one of those things at any given time probably only
one!. I find that physics can be the most comforting thing when youre lost in the dark "lasers
aside.
Werner Heisenberg was traveling very hastily on the autobahn one day when he was pulled
over by a policeman.
The policeman asks, !o you know how fast you were traveling"#
Heisenberg replies, $o, but % know e&actly where % am'#
The policeman retorts, (ou were traveling over )*+kph'#
Heisenberg then e&claimed, ,h no' $ow %-m lost'#
6hat is mind0 6hat is consciousness0 ,here seems to be no single answer that e#plains the
phenomenon of mind. ,he contemporary views of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and
cybernetics all come up with different interpretations of mind and consciousness.
It is a bit ironic that something we claim to possess is so hard to e#plain. :bviously mind cannot
be an ob-ect of itself. :r can it0 If we should one day understand the chemical and electrical
processes in the brain completely, would this e#plain mind0 6ould this understanding account
for all faculties including intelligence, consciousness, emotion, and volition0
:n the following pages we will try to give some possible answers to this .uestion. :n the topic
of consciousness, the /ritish psychologist %tuart %utherland once wrote: G&onsciousness is a
fascinating but elusive phenomenonF it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it
evolved. 5othing worth reading has been written on it.G * 8opefully this wont keep you from
reading on.
'pistemology and psychology.
,he investigation of mind is closely related to the field of epistemology, the part of philosophy
that deals with knowledge and whose principal .uestion is: G6hat can we know0G 'pistemology
is not so much preoccupied with the process of accumulating knowledge, but with the validity of
knowledge and how we can achieve certainty about it. It includes the branch of philosophy that
the ancients called logic, which deals with language and thought. /ertrand <ussell once
remarked tellingly that the theory of knowledge is a product of doubt. ,hings seem to speak in
favour of <ussellEs view C most philosophers find it easier to determine what we cannot know
rather than what we can know. Perhaps the theory of knowledge should then be called Gtheory of
ignorance.G
,he other .uestion about knowledge is: G8ow do we know0G ,his .uestion pertains to the
mechanics of sensation, perception, cognition, memory, and physical brain processes. It also
touches upon language and thought, but it takes a more scientific approach to these issues. ,he
latter .uestion is primarily asked by psychologists and neuroscientists, although philosophers
recently took a renewed interest in the workings of the brain. %ince both approaches are
beneficial in their own way, we shall not limit ourselves to a particular one.
7efining mind.
:n the surface, the attempt to define mind seems superfluous, since it is so fundamental to us.
8owever, the e#plicit verbalisation of an intuitive understanding of mind is fairly difficult,
because it re.uires us to transform the sub-ective first*person e#perience into an ob-ective third*
person description.
,he $merican 8eritage 7ictionary of the 'nglish +anguage defines mind as follows: G#he
collective conscious and unconscious rocesses in a sentient organism that direct and influence
mental and h*sical behaviour+G ,his definition attributes mind to sentient organisms and
identifies it with processes that control behaviour. $ccording to the view of contemporary
science, these are brain and nerve processes, cognition, motor, and sensory processes.
,he faculties of mind.
,he scientific definition is in agreement with the physicalist view of mind that e.uates mental
phenomena with neuronal activity. ,he definition is also in agreement with the functionalist view
of psychology, which fre.uently divides mind into distinct faculties as shown on the right! and
then investigates those faculties individually. %ome of these functions can be mapped to
particular brain areas.
7ividing mind into faculties involves a great deal of abstraction, because in reality there are no
clear boundaries between them. For e#ample, the simple process of catching a ball involves
sensation, cognition, and reasoning processes without there being a clear separation between the
single actions of seeing the ball, calculating its speed and angle, and coordinating body
movements.
$nother more serious problem is that the scientific definition makes no reference to conscious
e#perience and its sub-ective .ualities. It is not easy to see how the e#perience of sensations and
feelings could be part of the physical world. For e#ample, how can emotions, such as love
affection, attraction! and hate aversion, repulsion! which we seem to share with some animals,
be described in terms of physical structures and processes0
Is the scientific definition viable in philosophy0
Perhaps it is necessary to ask whether science is capable of e#plaining mind at all.
9nfortunately the scientific definition falls short of one important .uality: spirit. ,he scientific
view is difficult to apply, for instance, in the conte#t of sociology where we speak of the mental
.ualities of a group or population the nationEs mind, group mind, team spirit!. It is also difficult
to apply in the conte#t of religion, where mind and spirit are associated with transcendental
concepts such as the immortal soul, the world mind, the holy spirit, etc.
,he materialist notion of mind is possibly too limited for a general philosophical discourse. It
would be e#tremely difficult to discuss topics that involve metaphysical, ontological, and
phenomenological accounts of mind. $ purely materialist understanding of mind would simply
evade these topics. More e#otic fields of knowledge, such as theology, religion, and
parapsychology do not harmonise with the scientific view of mind either. 8ence, we shall
postpone further attempts to define mind and as yet allow the largest possible meaning of the
word, perhaps in the sense of the ;erman word G;eistG, which means both mind and spirit.
Philosophy of mind.
,he philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that deals with mind and consciousness. It
falls outside the four classical branches, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics, but it
relates especially to the first two. ,he ancients did not see it as a separate discipline, although the
systematic investigation of certain aspects of mind began with the study of reason in Plato and
$ristotle. 7uring the middle ages, the philosophy of mind lingered within the confines of
&hristian epistemology. Important theoretical advances began to take shape only in the @Bth
century with 7escartes and 8obbes. ,he philosophy of mind flourished during the late @Mth and
@Ath century 8egel, 7arwin, 6undt, Names! -ust before it spawned psychology, while the
philosophical currents of the time flowed into the schools of phenomenology and e#istentialism.
Psychology has ruled the field for some time during the 4>th century, however, the philosophy of
mind e#perienced a small renaissance lately due to the appearance of computer technology and
other new disciplines such as cybernetics and the neurosciences. ,hese developments brought up
the .uestion whether a machine can emulate mind and whether it can become conscious.
JJ> /& * Pythagoras * the mathematical mind.
Pythagoras JM4*J>> /&! suggested that matter and mind are mystically connected.
+ogic, numbers, spirit, and soul were e#pressions of the same reality. 8e thought the soul to be
immortal and wandering on a path of transmigration from one body to another. ,he Pythagoreans
had a geometrical conception of the world. ,hey believed that mind is attuned to the processes of
nature, in particular to the laws of mathematics. Mathematics is seen as the true essence of mind.
IJ> /& * $na#agoras * the universal intelligence.
$na#agoras J>>*I4M /&! introduced the concept of G5ousG mind, reason! into ;reek
philosophy. 5ous, the eternal mind, transforms chaos into order and through it the material world
comes into being. ,he primordial :ne produces forms of multiplicity through dichotomisation.
,his process is originated and controlled by the power of mind, or 5ous. $ccording to
$na#agoras, mind is infinite and self*organi(ing. It is not intermi#ed with anything, but pure in
its being.
IJ> /& * $lcmaeon * the dissected brain.
,he ;reek physician $lcmaeon around IJ> /&! concluded from his studies of
dissection that the brain is the centre of intelligence. In doing so, he contradicted the mainstream
theory of his time, which held that the heart is the centre of intelligence and seat of the soul.
$lcmaeon also surmised that optic nerves conduct light from the eye to the brain and that the eye
itself contains light.
I>> /& * 8ippocrates * the four humours.
8ippocrates IK>*?BB /&!, the founder of 6estern medicine, is famous for the
8ippocratic oath. 8e invented the notion of the four humours, black bile, yellow bile, phlegm,
and sanguine, which he e.uated with the four elements. 8ippocrates thought that disease arises
from an imbalance of these four humours and that people can be healed by restoring their proper
proportions. ,he dominating humour was also thought to be responsible for the temperament
black bile 3 melancholy, yellow bile 3 bitterness and irascibility, phlegm 3 e.uanimity, and
sluggishness, sanguine 3 passionate and cheerful!.
8ippocrates correctly identified epilepsy as a brain disorder. 8e held that not only thought and
reason, but also feelings and moods originate in the brain: GMen ought to know that from the
brain, and from the brain only, arise our pleasures, -oys, laughter and -ests, as well as our
sorrows, pains, grievances, and tears. ,hrough it...we...think, see, hear, and distinguish the ugly
from the beautiful, the bad from the good, the pleasant from the unpleasant.G
I>> /& * Plato * ideal forms and reason.
Plato I4M*?IB /&! plays an important role in the history of epistemology. 8is
theory of ideas, which he presented in the famous cave allegory, can be seen as a precursor of
both medieval realism and later idealism. Plato held that all forms of the physical world are
merely instances of perfect forms in an ideal world. ,he idea of a table is the supreme form of
table of which there is only one. It contains in itself all actual tables of the physical world. ,he
knowledge of ideas, or supreme forms, provides intellectual and ethical guidance for humans.
Plato thought that perfect forms have an actual metaphysical e#istence.
Plato divided the human mind into three parts: the rational part, the will, and the appetites.
Ideally the will supports the rational element, which in turn controls the appetites. If the rational
element is not developed, the individual behaves immorally, hence immorality is a conse.uence
of ignorance. Furthermore, Plato distinguished between two kinds of conscious thought: opinion
and knowledge. 8e said that all assertions about the outside world are necessarily based on sense
e#perience, and are therefore only opinions. In contrast, he described knowledge as a higher
form of awareness, because it is gained from reason rather than from sense e#perience.
?J> /& * $ristotle * the three souls.
$ristotle ?MI*?44 /&! e.uated mind with reason and thought it to be a property of
the living soul. In contrast to Plato, who believed that body and soul are two different entities, he
held that mind and body are intertwined in all living beings and are thus inseparable. ;rowth,
purpose and direction are therefore built into nature. $ristotle proposed three forms of soul: @.
the vegetative soul possessed by plants in that they grow and decay and en-oy nutriment, but they
do not have motion and sensation, 4. the animal soul which bestows animals with motion and
sensation, and ?. the rational soul which is the conscious and intellectual soul peculiar to man.
'ach higher form possesses in full the attributes of the lower souls, which makes human beings
the only possessor of all three types. $ristotle also proposed a theory of memory surmising that
the processes involved in short term memory immediate recall! differ from those involved in
long*term memory.
?>> /& * 8erophilus * the beginning of neuroscience.
,he ;reek anatomist 8erophilus ??J*4M> /&! studied the human brain and recognised it as the
centre of the nervous system. 8e distinguished the cerebrum and cerebellum and named the brain
as the source of thought. 8erophilus also made the first contribution to the field of neuroscience
by distinguishing between sensory and motor nerves and by performing the most thorough study
of brain anatomy attempted until the <enaissance.
?>> /& * Pyrrho * scepticism as a state of mind.
,he founder of the ;reek school of scepticism, Pyrrho ?K>*4B4!, stated that human mind is
incapable of attaining true knowledge of anything, because ultimate reality is incomprehensible.
,herefore, there is no ob-ective knowledge, but only opinion. ,he best attitude one can develop
in view of this fact, is to suspend any -udgment completely, to free oneself from passions, and to
calm oneEs mind. ,he idea that no personEs -udgment is more correct than that of another goes
back to the first %ophist, Protagoras, who lived around IJ> /&. Pyrrho developed scepticism into
a more elaborate and consistent system of thought.
4J> /& * 'rasistratus * the brain and the vital spirit.
'rasistratus ?>>*4K> /&! was an anatomist who worked one century after $ristotle. 8e found
three tubular structures going to every organ of the body: an artery, a vein, and a nerve. 8e
e#panded 8erophilusEs theory of motor and sensory nerves by adding the thesis that all nerves
are connected to and controlled by the brain. 'rasistratus saw the brain as a mechanism for
distilling the pneuma the vital spirit!, which he thought was flowing from the heart up to the
brain and then down to the organs.
@J> $7 * ;alen * the great ;reek doctor.
;alen @4A*@AA $7! was the most influential physician of anti.uity, after
8ippocrates. 8e influenced medicine profoundly until about the @Bth century. ;alen synthesised
the thought of Pythagoras, Plato and $ristotle and built upon the discoveries of 8ippocrates and
'rasistratus. 8e proved that the arteries carry blood instead of air as the ;reeks formerly
presumed!F and he demonstrated that the brain controls motion and voice. ;alen further assigned
the three largest organs of the body to be the seat of the three $ristotelian soulsF the liver as the
seat of the vegetative soul, the heart as the seat of the animal soul, and the brain as the seat of the
rational soul.
For ;alen, the rational soul was divided into the faculties of imagination, reason, and memory.
8e located these three faculties in the ventricles of the brain. /ecause the function of the brain
was to distribute animal spirit throughout the body, to ;alen it seemed that the fluid filled
ventricles perform this function and thus disregarded the white and grey matter surrounding the
ventricles. $ccording to ;alen, the brain receives vital spirit pneuma! from the heart, which is
mi#ed into the sanguine humour blood!. ,he brain then separates the animal spirit out and stores
it in the ventricles, from where it is distributed throughout the body via the nerves. ,his
mechanism of circulating pneuma controls muscles, organs, and all of the bodyEs activities.
4J> $7 * Plotinus * the emanation of mind from the $bsolute.
Plotinus 4>I*4B> $7! re-ected $ristotleEs notion of the soul not being able to e#ist
without the body. /uilding mainly on Plato, he said that mind is a prisoner of the body. Plotinus
held that soul is the immortal part of mind. It survives the death of the body and enters a series of
transmigration from one body to another. &onse.uently, the soul is the only abiding reality of the
human condition. Plotinus formulated a theory of emanation according to which mind emanates
originally from the $bsolute /eing, or the :ne, and then forms 5ous, the universal intelligence,
from which the world spirit is formed in turn. 8uman mind, animal mind, vegetative mind, and
finally matter all emanate from the world spirit. ,hey are different manifestations of one
universal intelligence.
I>> $7 * %t. $ugustine * the illuminated mind.
,he church father %t. $ugustine ?JI*0 $7! had an interesting idea about mind. 8e
said that the human mind couldnEt gain knowledge from sense perception alone. 8e also re-ected
PlatoEs theory of ideas. Instead, according to $ugustine, knowledge is ac.uired on account of
divine illumination. 8e argued as follows: ,he shape of an ob-ect such as a tree can only be seen
by the eye, because the ob-ect is bathed in light. %imilarly the mind can only recognise truths,
such as the mathematical truth @]@34, because it is illuminated by the light of eternal reason.
,his light is not so much the source of ideas and knowledge, but the condition under which mind
is able to recognise the .uality of truth. In spite of the simplicity of this idea, or perhaps due to it,
$ugustine had a tremendous influence on the philosophers and theologians of the Middle $ges.
MJ> * Nohn %cotus * the flawed human mind.
Nohn %cotus 'riugena M@>*ca.MBJ! believed that human reason is flawed on account of the
original sin. 8owever, as a philosopher, he could not accept that human mind was entirely
tarnished. 8e thought that it was still capable of attaining smaller truths by contemplating visible
creatures. )et, the only infallible truth, 'riugena believed, was to be found in the %criptures. ,he
%criptures give divine revelation to human beings and illuminate their withered minds. Ideas
similar to those of Nohn %cotus were predominant in 'urope throughout the following si#
centuries.
@>J> * $nselm * faith and reason: the proven ;od.
+ike many other medieval thinkers, %t. $nselm @>??*@@>A! of &anterbury, the
founder of scholasticism, was a &hristian theologian rather than a philosopher. 8e did not
contribute much to epistemology, instead he became famous for his ontological proof the proof
that ;od e#ists!, which implied that the truth of metaphysical statements, such as the e#istence of
;od, can be established by reason. ,he proof goes as follows: @. ,he term ;od is defined as the
greatest conceivable being. 4. <eal e#istence e#istence in reality! is greater than e#istence
merely in the understanding. ?. ,herefore, the greatest conceivable being ;od! must e#ist in
reality, not -ust in the understanding. $lthough the reasoning is striking at first, its fallacy is
rather obvious. It was refuted by the monk ;aunilo, a contemporary of $nselm, and later by
Immanuel Hant. $nselmEs ontological proof led people to believe fallaciously that the e#istence
of ;od can be established as a fact on account of reason. $nselmEs proof is thus perhaps
e#emplary for the defects of medieval thought
%cholasticism * philosophy as a handmaiden of theology.
%cholasticism, the predominant philosophical movement of the Middle $ges, was not
so much concerned with finding new facts, or arriving at new knowledge, but with bringing the
e#isting ;reek knowledge, particularly $ristotle, into accordance with &hristian doctrines. ,o
put it briefly, the scholastic goal was to unify reason and faith. ,he %cholastics maintained that
because the same ;od was the source of both reason and &hristian faith, he could not contradict
himself in these two modes of thought. $lthough the overall goal of the scholastic discussion was
harmonisation, it has to be noted that the opposite was often the result. ,his became distinctively
evident in the dispute between contenders of nominalism and realism, who held opposite views
about the origin of forms and words. ,his dispute was rooted in the philosophy of Plato.
,he realists held that Plato was right and that the Platonic forms 3ideas or universals! are real in
the sense that they have a metaphysical e#istence independent of the concrete ob-ects that
embody them. ,he nominalists -ust stated the opposite, namely that ideals or universals donEt
e#ist for themselves, but are only attributes of individual ob-ects. ,he latter position is called
nominalism, because it holds that universals have no ob-ective reference other than their names.
,he nominalists said that universals are only words and have no other reality than the sound of
the spoken word Gflatus vocisG * <oscelin!.
@4>> * $.uinas * the knower is one with the known.
%t. ,homas $.uinas @44J*@4BI! opposed $nselmEs ontological proof and put
forward his own Gfive ways of knowing ;odG, which were later interpreted as ontological proofs,
although they were not originally intended as such by $.uinas. Perhaps more importantly,
$.uinas developed new ways of harmoni(ing faith and reason by drawing on $ristotle, thereby
arriving at new conclusions about mind and perception. $.uinas held that sense perception is an
active process rather than passive receiving. Instead of forms ob-ects! making impressions on
the mind like a seal makes an impression onto wa#, mind actively GscansG physical reality using
the sense organs. $.uinas made no special distinction between sensation and cognition. 8e said
that perception is immaterial and immanent, which means belonging to the inner reality of the
perceiver. 8e further said *and this is remarkable* that by perceiving, the perceiver becomes one
with the perceived form.
%ince the knowledge of physical forms consists of ac.uiring or receiving the forms through
perception, the knower becomes one with the known. 8ence, according to $.uinas, the process
of perception has no independent reality. Instead, one perceives the things directly and, therefore,
the psychological inner! and physical outer! realities are identical. ,his argument sidesteps the
epistemological problems that arise out of the supposed duality of inner and outer realities,
which has lead to such abstruse propositions as solipsism and scepticism. ,he beauty of
$.uinasEs theory of knowledge lies perhaps in the elegance of his argument, which also avoids
the scholastic conflict of nominalism and realism altogether.
@4J> * Nohn of 7uns the %cot * a mind of its own.
Nohn 7uns %cotus @4KK*@?>M! further e#panded the concept of the soul as the
immortal part of human mind. ,he same idea was previously e#pressed by Plato and Plotinus.
Nohn of 7uns held that the powers of the human mind are purposeful and necessary and that they
are not really distinct from the substance of the soul. +ike $.uinas, he held that sense perception
is not purely passive. Nohn of 7uns said that mind has the power to form ideas on its own,
independently from life e#perience or from what is inspired by ;od. $ccording to his
philosophy, the soul is united with the body for the purpose of forming the human species.
@?>> * 'ckhart * the mind seeking union with ;od.
+ike Plotinus and 'riugena, Meister 'ckhart @4K>*@?4M! was a mystic thinker. 8e saw reason as
inferior and instead stressed the faculty of feeling, particularly the feeling of piety. 8e held that
being and knowledge are one. ,he goal of human mind for 'ckhart was to seek mystic union
with ;od. 'ckhart suggested to liberate oneself from the ob-ects of the world by giving up all
attachments.
@?>> * :ckham * separating faith and reason.
$s a contender of late nominalism, 6illiam of :ckham ca. @4MJ*ca. @?IA!, asserted
that universals have no substance outside of the human mind, which he sought to prove by keen
logical argument. :ckham said that morality is not based on reason, but on will. 8e emphasised
logic and method, and separated faith from reason by showing that they are fundamentally
different aspects of human mind. :ckham maintained that the beliefs of &hristian philosophers
could not be proven through philosophical reasoning, but only through divine revelation.
@I>> * 5icolaus * the steps of knowing.
$ccording to 5icolaus von &ues @I>@*@IKI!, we arrive at knowledge about an
ob-ect by comparing it with other ob-ects and determining those .ualities that distinguish it from
other ob-ects. ,hus, the intellect is capable of seeing a network of connections between ob-ects,
but it is not able to understand their true essence. ,here are four levels of understanding: @. sense
perception sensus! which reflects the surface of things imperfectly, 4. reason ratio! which
compares the opposites, ?. intellect intellectus! which unites the opposites, and I. intuition
animus! through which a complete union of opposites can be achieved.
@JJ> * Vesalius * the illustrated brain.
,he Flemish anatomist and author $ndreas Vesalius @J@I*@JKI!, also known as
$ndreas van 6esel, made an important contribution to the field of medicine by publishing his
seminal work ,e -umanis .ororis /abrica 0On the "orkings of the -uman Bod*1, a lavishly
illustrated atlas of human anatomy. ,his seven volume book contains highly detailed drawings of
the human brain and the nerves, which makes it the first illustrated neuroscience te#tbook. 6ith
this work, Vesalius initiates a ma-or shift from the doctrines of ;alen and $ristotle, which had
been authoritative for one and a half millennia, towards a purely physical and empirical
understanding of the body. 8e relies entirely on his observations from the dissection of human
bodies. Vesalius also .uestions the prevailing doctrine that the higher functions of the brain are
located in the ventricles. 8is dissection studies show that animals have the same ventricles as
humans. 8e reasons that animals dont have a soul, and that the ventricles therefore cannot be the
key to the higher functions of the mind.
@K>> * /acon * the awakening scientific mind.
GHnowledge is powerG was Francis /aconEs @JK@*@K4K! motto. ,he knowledge he
meant was not the conventional knowledge of the medieval %cholastics, but a new kind of
knowledge, namely that of nature and all things natural. In this regard, /aconEs orientation was
truly scientific. $t the height of the 'nglish <enaissance, /acon led philosophy away from
theology towards scientific discovery. Inevitably, the same principle also underlies his
epistemology. /acon held that the mind is an ade.uate instrument for obtaining knowledge. 8e
said that the mind was originally Glike a mirror with a true and even surface, fit to reflect the
genuine way of things.G 8owever, mind is corrupted by the four idols: @. the idol of the tribe *
the false assertion that man is the measure of all things, 4. the idol of the cave * the limitations of
an untrained intellect, ?. the idol of the market * the fallacious use of words, and I. the idol of the
theatre * the creation of intellectual mirages on the basis of unverified a#ioms.
@K>> * /urton * the @Kth century view of the brain.
,he $natomy of Melancholy &over!It had more or less been established that the
brain was the seat of mind by the end of the @Kth century. ,he 'nglish physician <obert /urton
@JBB*@KI>! describes in ,he $natomy of Melancholy the then physiological picture, which still
reflects ;reek ideas: G,he brain itself is divided into two parts, the fore and hinder partF the fore
part is much bigger than the other, which is called the little brain in respect of it. ,his fore part
hath many concavities distinguished by certain ventricles, which are the receptacles of the spirits,
brought hither by the arteries of the heart, and are there refined to a more heavenly nature, to
perform the actions of the soul. :f these ventricles there are three * right, left, and middle. ,he
right and left answer to their site and beget animal spiritsF if they be in any way hurt, sense and
motion ceaseth. ,hese ventricles, moreover, are held to be the seat of the common sense. ,he
middle ventricle is a common concourse and cavity of them both, and hath two passages * the
one to receive pituita, and the other e#tends itself to the fourth creekF in this they place
imagination and cogitation, and so the three ventricles of the fore part of the brain are used. ,he
fourth creek behind the head is common to the cerebral or little brain, and marrow of the back
bone, the last and most solid of all the rest, which receives the animal spirits from the other
ventricles, and conveys them to the marrow in the back, and is the place where they say the
memory is seated.G [<. /urton\
@K>> * 8obbes * the mechanistic mind.
,homas 8obbes @JMM*@KBA! developed a mechanistic picture of the human mind.
8e held that the ob-ects of thought are bodies in motion, which adhere to the law of cause and
effect. $t the beginning of the causal chain there are sense impressions from which all other
forms of mental processes follow. +ike many of his contemporaries, 8obbes believed that
chemistry and biology can ultimately be reduced to mechanics. If one investigates chemical and
biological processes in a drill*down fashion, there would be mechanics at the root of all things.
,herefore, the principal characteristic of human mind is motion. 8obbes thought that different
faculties of mind are based on the same underlying principle. ,he ostensible differences in the
faculties are only due to different locations in the causal chain. For 8obbes, imagination was
simply decaying sensation, while memory was stored sensation. 6ords and signs are able to
recall stored sensations from memory and thus allow us to build knowledge. 8obbes held that
there are two types of knowledge: @. knowledge of empirical facts 3memory of past events!, and
4. knowledge of conse.uences. ,he latter is hypothetical or conditional, but is still based on
e#perience. $ll knowledge is thus ac.uired through the mechanics of thought, where thoughts
produce one another.
@K>> * 7escartes * the severed mind.
<en^ 7escartes @JAK*@KJ>!, famous for his saying, G&ogito ergo sum * I think,
therefore I am,G takes a prominent position in the history of the philosophy of mind. 7escartes
was convinced that knowledge must be based on the powers of human reason alone. 8e said that
human mind is naturally endowed with the faculties of deduction and intuition, on account of
which we can arrive at true knowledge of things by using of so*called rational schemes, not
unlike a pump e#tracts water from a dwell by applying a mechanical scheme. $ccording to
7escartes, from the proof of its own e#istence cogito ergo sum!, the mind can deduce the
e#istence of ;od and the e#istence of the physical world. 7escartes was more radical in his
mechanistic view of the world than most others thinkers of the @Bth century. For him the body is
a machine, which is driven by mechanic processes only, not the mind. 8e says that mind is not
connected with the body any more than a pearl is connected with the oyster that it lies in. 8e sees
animals as completely devoid of mindF they are automata without consciousness to him.
7escartes held that the brain sends humours and fluids coursing through the nerves and thus,
controls the body mechanically. 8e illustrated the function of nerves by using the analogy of the
hydraulic systems of automata then in great favour for entertainment in the pleasure gardens of
the kings and princes of 'urope. 7escartes, having reduced body and brain to pure mechanics,
located the mind in the pineal gland, a small, single, vestigial body at the base of the brain.
$lthough this view is obsolete, as we all know, the dualism of 7escartes has survived. ,he
conceptual separation of mind and body has influenced philosophy and popular culture until the
present day.
@KJ> * %pino(a * free will an illusion0
/aruch %pino(a @K?4*@KBB! viewed mind and matter as two attributes of a single,
divine substance, the oneness of ultimate reality. ,herefore, mind and body, although different in
appearance, are not really separate entities. $ccording to %pino(a, a human being is a finite
version of ;od, hence, human mind is a miniature of the universal mind. %pino(a said that
mental processes are mechanic, and thus deterministic, following a causal chain. &onse.uently,
thoughts and actions are predetermined and thus, free will is an illusion. In spite of this, mind has
a metaphysical reality beyond what is self*determined.
@KJ> * +ocke * the constructed mind.
Founder of /ritish empiricism, Nohn +ocke @K?4*@B>I!, e#amined human mind and
came to the conclusion that there are no innate ideas built into it at birth. 8ence, for +ocke, the
mind is a Gtabula rasaG at birth, unformed and featureless. 8e asked, if knowledge were innate,
why does an infant not arrive fully knowing at the world0 6hy are there the mentally ill, who are
unable to know such things as right and wrong0 6hy is it that all people of the world do not have
the same ideas0 +ocke distinguished between two sources of knowledge, or contents of mind: the
sensations ac.uired through sense e#perience, having perceived .ualities, and the reflections of
mind upon its contents, having inferred .ualities. 8e then proceeds to engage in the analysis of
the kinds of ideas and distinguishes between simple and comple# ideas. %imple ideas are the raw
material ac.uired through sense e#perience, while comple# ideas are compounds of simple ideas
put together by mind.
@B>> * /erkeley * mind creates reality.
;eorge /erkeley @KMJ*@BJ?! introduced a new psychological idea that became the
forerunner of solipsism and later idealism. 8e said that our vision never senses any spatial
aspects of ob-ects directly, such as magnitude and distance, but that the mind infers such .ualities
from visual data. 8e then argues that, because mind forms what we perceive, the things of the
physical world cannot e#ist independently of mind. /erkeley finally concludes that only the
ideas of things have a real e#istence, but not the things themselves. ,herefore, matter does not
really e#ist. /erkeleyEs philosophical system eliminated any possibility of knowledge of an
e#ternal material world and asserts that the only thing we can know, are the ob-ects of perception
esse est percipi!. $ccording to /erkeley, these ob-ects are ideas created by ;od. 8e supports his
theory by the following argument: %ince imaginary ideas are produced by finite human! minds,
perceived ideas 3 the ob-ects of perception! must be created and caused to be in us by an infinite
mind. $nd, the only possible source of the infinite mind is ;od.
@BJ> * 8ume * the caged mind.
7avid 8ume @B@@*@BBK! synthesised the ideas of +ocke and /erkeley. 8e
formulated the most forthright version of empiricism. 8ume stated that all contents of mind are
solely built from sense e#periences. +ike +ocke, he distinguished between impressions and
ideas. 8ume held that the mind associates ideas with one another on account of three .ualities:
resemblance, contiguity, and causation. 8is position was that reason and rational -udgments are
merely habitual associations of distinct sensations or e#periences. $lthough he considered the
notion of cause and effect as the basis of knowledge, he held that causality is merely inferred by
the mind: G<eason can never show us the conne#ion of one ob-ect with another, tho aided by
e#perience, and the observation of their con-unction in all past instances.G ,his e#treme
empiricism led 8ume to argue that we cannot achieve certainty about e#ternal reality, but only
about the inner world of our perceptions and thoughts. 8ence, there can neither be certitude
about the e#istence of the self, the physical world, or even ;od.
@BJ> * Hant * the &opernican revolution in epistemology.
,he time was ripe for Immanuel HantEs @B4I*@M>I! famous writing, .riti2ue of Pure
'eason, in which he investigated and criticised the epistemological propositions of 8ume and his
predecessors. Hant re-ected 8umeEs e#treme empiricism and proposed that there is more to
knowledge than bare sense e#perience. 8e distinguished between Ga posterioriG and Ga prioriG
knowledge, the former being derived from perception, hence, occurring after post! perception,
and the latter being a property of thought, independent of e#perience and e#isting before prior
to! e#perience. Hnowledge is e#pressed in -udgments, which *according to Hant* are operations
of thought that connect a sub-ect with a predicate. ,he predicate .ualifies the sub-ect in some
way. ,here are many e#amples for a posteriori -udgments, such as Gthe apple is redG or Gthe
music is loud.G %ince a posteriori -udgments are solely based on data supplied by the senses, they
can be denied without contradiction. In contrast, a priori -udgments cannot be denied without
contradiction, because they are based on logic rather than perception.
6hile all a posteriori empirical! -udgments are automatically synthetic, Hant discerned two
types of a priori -udgments, analytic and synthetic -udgments. 8e said, Gnecessity and strict
universality are sure marks of a priori knowledge.G In an analytic a priori statement, the predicate
is already contained in the sub-ect, such as in: Gall triangles have three angles,G or, Gall bodies are
e#tended.G In contrast, synthetic a priori -udgments are compound and are often found in
mathematics and science, as for e#ample: Ga straight line is the shortest connection between two
points,G and, Gfor every action there is an e.ual an opposite reaction.G ,he latter statement *the
third law of 5ewtonian mechanics* may at first be mistaken for an a posteriori statement, but it
isnEt, because we havenEt yet e#perienced every mechanical action.
Hant furthermore distinguished between concepts, which are derived from thought, and
particulars which are derived from sense e#perience. ,he idea of a winged horse is an e#ample of
a synthetic concept derived from the particulars of wings and horses. Particulars are always a
posteriori empirical!, with the e#ception of two, namely space and time, which are a priori and
thus, provide the basis for other synthetic! a priori propositions. ,here are also a priori concepts,
which Hant calls categories, of which there are twelve, namely unity, plurality, totality, reality,
negation, limitation, substance, causality, interaction, possibility, e#istence, and necessity. Hant
maintained that these concepts are not derived empirically, but that the mind applies them to all
perception and that they are therefore a priori. In this way, the a priori particulars and concepts
form the basis of knowledge. 6hat e#ists apart from them, Hant calls the Gthings in themselvesG,
the noumenal reality, which is purely intelligible and non*sensual, as opposed to the phenomenal
reality, which is perceivable. %ince the things in themselves cannot be known directly, according
to Hant, human knowledge must forever remain limited.
@M>> * ;all * the charted brain.
Fran( ;all @BJM*@M4M! began the localisation of functions in the brain. 8e
distinguished areas that he thought were responsible for speech, hearing, motor control, and so
forth. ;all maintained, Gthat the brain was composed of as many organs as the individual had
faculties, tendencies and feelings.G [$ckerknecht, @AJM, p@J>\. It was this approach from which
sprang the now discredited practice of phrenology. 5evertheless, ;all discovered a great deal
about the anatomy of the brain. 8e placed the main faculties in the corte# and established the
concept of nerve pathways. ;all described the clefts between the grey matter as nerve matrices
and the white matter as having a conductor function.
7uring the @Ath century evidence accumulated to show that the brain could continue to operate,
despite the loss of various parts of its substance. ,his was verified by the study of the
conse.uences of cutting differentiable parts of the brain in animals and through the investigation
of brain in-uries and brain diseases in humans. ,he new evidence slowly led to the view that the
mind dwelt in the whole of the brain, as opposed to particular anatomical locations, and thus,
consciousness was understood as a function of the entirety of the human brain.
@M>> * 8egel * the evolving world mind.
;eorg 6ilhelm Friedrich 8egel @BB>*@M?@! accomplished what Hant had declared
impossible. $ccording to 8egel, mind is capable of arriving at full knowledge about things in
themselves. 8e formulated a dialectical method, according to which knowledge pushes forwards
to greater certainty, and ultimately towards knowledge of the noumenal world. 8e said that
ultimate reality is absolute mind, reason, or spirit, which manifests itself in history and in the
universe. 8egel set forth the proposition, Gwhat is real is rational and what is rational is real,G and
from this he concluded that everything that is, is knowable. ,he world mind 6eltgeist! is
universalF the rational activities of individuals are therefore instances of the $bsolute. ,he self*
development of mind is the result of evolving idea systems, a process that he called the
dialectical processes of thesis and antithesis. $ccording to 8egel, an idea, a thesis, always
contains incompleteness, and thus, yields a conflicting idea, an antithesis. In a higher*level
theory, a third point of view, the synthesis, arises that provides the solution. ,he synthesis
overcomes the conflict between thesis and antithesis by reconciling the truth contained in both at
a higher level of insight. ,he synthesis then becomes a new thesis that is subse.uently
confronted by another antithesis, and so forth. /y this dialectical method, the collective mind,
namely that of a group, society, nation and ultimately the world, advances towards the perfection
of its knowledge.
@M>> * Mill * psychology takes shape.
Names Mill @BB?*@M?K!, father of Nohn %tuart Mill, investigated in his book &nal*sis of the
Phenomena of $ind topics such as feeling, sensation, consciousness, associations, and thus
became a precursor of modern psychological studies.
@MJ> * 7arwin * the evolution of our species.
&harles <obert 7arwin @M>A*@MM4! formulated the modern theory of the evolution
of species. ,he discoveries he made while aboard the 8M% /eagle on an e#pedition around the
world, impelled him to write his famous book, On the Origin of Secies. In this writing 7arwin
developed the concepts of hereditary variation, speciation, and natural selection. $lthough
7arwin did not touch upon psychology or epistemology, his influence was so fundamental that it
affected almost any branch of scienceF conse.uently, it also affected the contemporary
understanding of mind. %ince the brain is the organ of mind, it follows that the forming of mind
must have gone hand in hand with the evolution of the human brain. Mind is therefore a product
of evolution, -ust as man is.
@MJ> * ;alton * the wellborn mind.
,he /ritish inventor Francis ;alton @M44*@A@@! advocated the idea that human
traits, or properties of human mind in general, are inherited and can therefore be altered and
improved by selective breeding. 8e held that mental .ualities, such as intelligence, memory
capability, etc., can be measured ob-ectively, but failed in his efforts to provide methods for
.uantitative measurement. ;alton also coined the term Gnature and nurtureG, which is still
heatedly debated today. +aying the foundations for eugenics, he e#plained: GI have no patience
with the hypothesis occasionally e#pressed, and often implied, especially in tales written to teach
children to be good, that babies are born pretty much alike, and that the sole agencies in creating
differences between boy and boy, and man and man, are steady application and moral effort. It is
in the most un.ualified manner that I ob-ect to pretensions of natural e.uality.G
@MJ> * 8u#eley * mind caused, but not causing.
,homas 8enry 8u#eley @M4J*@MAJ! was a (oologist advocating 7arwinism. 8e regards
consciousness as a collateral effect of certain physical causes, and only an effect, but never a
cause.
@MJ> * 6undt * the father of psychology.
6ilhelm Ma# 6undt @M?4*@A4>! is often credited with establishing psychology as a
field of scientific studies independent from philosophy. 8e carried out e#tensive e#perimental
research on stimuli, perception, and feeling. 6undtEs structural psychology stresses observation
of the modes of conscious mind, rather than making philosophical inferences about the nature of
mind and, hence, takes a wholly scientific approach.
@A>> * Names * mind as a stream of consciousness.
6illiam Names @MI4*@A@>! established the $merican philosophical school of
pragmatism. 8e was a philosopher as much as a psychologist. In his pragmatic philosophy, he
emphasised the applicability and practical utility of concepts and theories. Names declared most
metaphysical theories as meaningless, because they are neither testable, nor do they deal with
e#istential problems. 8is innovative work, #he Princiles of Ps*cholog*, investigates the
functions of the brain, consciousness, conception, memory, and association. Names pointed out
that we have a sense of a personal consciousness, and that it is ours, not something that we share
with others. +ater psychologists referred to it as the GIG.
Names also held that our states of consciousness are always changing. 6e have a sense of
temporal continuity in consciousness, which leads to the conception of a stream of
consciousness. ,he mind has a function of memory that allows us to recall e#periences and ideas.
Moreover, consciousness is selective of what it pays attention to. Names formulated a
materialistic view of mind, which *in some sense* anticipates the modern view of neuroscience
and psychobiology. G,aking all such facts together, the simple and radical conception dawns
upon the mind that mental action may be uniformly and absolutely a function of brain*action,
varying as the latter varies, and being to the brain*action as effect to cause.G [Names, @MA4, ppJ*K\
@A>> * Hraepelin * psychiatry takes shape.
,he ;erman doctor 'mil Hraepelin @MJKC@A4K! pioneered 4>th century field of
psychiatry. 8e continued 6ilhelm 6undtEs scientific approach and made the disorders of human
mind the sub-ect of his clinical studies. Hraepelin did not only discover schi(ophrenia, but he
also developed the first widely accepted classification of mental disorders. ,his classification is
still in use today, with several refinements added in the course of time. It consists of @!
personality disorders, such as schi(oid, schi(otypal, paranoid, histrionic, antisocial, borderline,
avoidant, dependent, compulsive, passive*aggressive disorder, 4! psychoses, such as
schi(ophrenia and manic*depressive psychosis, ?! an#iety disorders, such as obsessive
compulsive disorder and phobia, I! physiological disorders, such as $l(heimerEs disease,
epilepsy, etc., and J! other disorders, such as neurotic depression, neurotic hysteria, and
somatoform disorders. It was a fundamental tenet of Hraepelins thought that diagnostic
formulations stand or fall on the basis of empirical validation. Hraepelin did therefore not believe
in unconscious mental activity, such as the psychoanalysts postulated.
@A>> * 8usserl * mind, meaning, and phenomena.
,he ;erman philosopher 'dmund 8usserl @MJA*@A?M! developed a school of
thought known as phenomenology. $ccording to 8usserl, mind cannot be e#plained by science.
8e held that the natural sciences have misguided people into believing that nature is essentially
physical and that the realm of mind and spirit is causally based on corporeality. 8usserl said that
the understanding of mind as a mere effect of the nervous system is a fatal pre-udice of modern
6estern culture. ,o insist that the realm of spirit can be e#plained in a scientific manner implies
that all psychology is psychophysical and that physical e#istence envelops everything, which
according to 8usserl, -ust reflects the credulity of the rational scientific mind.
8usserl denied the validity of any knowledge beyond the immediate phenomenal realm. In
particular he denied the e#istence of noumena, or HantEs things*in*themselves, whose
independent e#istence cannot be established. For 8usserl the ego is the matri# of all e#perience
and thus the source and simultaneously the limit of all knowledge. <eflections and thoughts are
intentionally applied to enhance the e#perience and understanding of phenomena, but the
resulting theories cannot provide accurate knowledge. Intentionality itself is a facet of
consciousness. 8usserl maintained that consciousness contains unchanging structures called
meanings, which determine what ob-ect the mind is directed toward at any given time. ,he mind
connects meanings with perceived ob-ects and employs various methods of contemplation to
determine the meanings of phenomena. Phenomenology thus takes a purely descriptive approach
and does not assume the e#istence of anything, e#cept phenomena. +ater in the 4>th century,
phenomenology became a ma-or source of inspiration for the e#istentialists, among them
8eidegger, Merleau*Ponty, and %artre.
@A>> * /ergson * the intuitive mind.
French Philosopher 8enri /ergson @MJA*@AI@! understood the human intellect as a
prolongation of the senses, which guides perception and bodily action. 8e held that intellect is an
inferior way of understanding. $ccording to /ergson, there are two fundamentally different ways
of knowing a thing. :ne observes the ob-ect from the outside, while the other enters the ob-ect
and views the ob-ect from the inside. ,he former he calls intellect, and the latter he calls
intuition, which he deems superior to the analytic reasoning capabilities of the intellect. /ergson
describes intuition as Gimmediate consciousnessG, a vision which is scarcely distinguishable from
the ob-ect itself. In this manner, /ergson arrives at a dualistic view of matter and spirit, in which
intellect grows out of matter, and intuition grows out of spirit, and in which he describes memory
as the intersection of mind and matter. Furthermore, /ergson held that evolution is not driven by
materialistic processes, but by a spiritual force, which he calls ^lan vital. $ccording to /ergson,
the ^lan vital is the essence of all living beingsF it is the creative power of evolution that drives
organisms toward constantly higher forms of organisation.
@A>> * Freud * the unconscious mind.
%igmund Freud @MJK*@A?A! profoundly changed the modern view of mind. 8e
proposed that childhood se#uality and unconscious motivations influence personality. 8e
developed his GpsychoanalyticG theory as a result of his e#perience with mentally disturbed
patients, who showed no apparent neurological disorder, in particular, in cases of hysteria. Freud
suggested that syndromes of this type should be treated with psychological rather than
physiological methods. 8e developed a new therapeutic method, which he called psychoanalysis.
In his clinical observations, Freud found evidence for the mental mechanisms of repression, a
device operating unconsciously to make the memory of painful or threatening events inaccessible
to the conscious mind, and resistance, the unconscious defence against awareness of repressed
e#periences.
Psychoanalysis uses hypnosis, dream interpretation, and free association as instruments to
e#plore the unconscious contents of mind of patients. Freud believed that mind is like an iceberg,
where only the conscious part is visible, while the much larger unconscious part is hidden. 8e
held that fears, passions, and desires are rooted in the unconscious and e#ert a powerful influence
on our feelings and actions. $ccording to Freud, there is also a preconscious area from which we
can retrieve memories at will into conscious awareness. $lthough FreudEs immediate influence
on psychology is declining, he has to be credited with the discovery of the unconscious. 8is
understanding of the unconscious has changed psychology forever.
@A>> * Nung * the collective mind.
,he %wiss psychiatrist &arl ;ustav Nung @MBJ*@AK@!, initially a follower and
colleague of %igmund Freud, later departed from FreudEs psychoanalysis and founded the school
of analytical psychology. 6hat he has in common with Freud is that he attributes great
importance to the unconscious. 8e says, Gmy life is a story of the self*realisation of the
unconscious. 'verything in the unconscious seeks outward manifestation.G Nung was convinced
that the human mind is more than the sum of perception, emotion, memory, and consciousness.
8e believed that the unconscious layers of mind transcend the ego and contain elements of
impersonal human knowledge and e#perience. Nung supported his theories by drawing on his
clinical practice, as well as his studies of such wide*ranging sub-ects as alchemy, 'astern
religions, astrology, mythology, and *most importantly* introspection. 8e believed that mind
strives for spiritual and intellectual wholeness in a process which he called individuation,
emphasi(ing indivisibleness of the individual.
Nung emerged from an inner -ourney of intense self*analysis with the ideas in place for his
theories on archetypes, comple#es, the collective unconscious, and the individuation process. 8e
held that mind contains an impersonal psychic realm, the collective unconscious, which contains
images, e#periences, and ideas that humanity shares. ,hese primordial psychic patterns he called
archetypes. ,hey manifest themselves symbolically in religions, myths, fantasies, and dreams.
Nung saw the mind as an inner universe of unimaginable comple#ity e.ual to that of the outer
universe. 8e distinguished between the ego, which is how one sees oneself, along with the
conscious and unconscious feelings that accompany that view, the persona, which represents!
the faces! that one consciously shows to others, revealing some part of the self while hiding
other parts, and the self, the central organi(ing principle of the psyche, which is the fundamental
and essential aspect of human personality providing purpose, meaning, cohesion, and direction to
the mind. Nung interpreted neuroses 3non*physiological mental disorders! as a state of being at
odds with oneself, caused by the conflict between instinctive drives and the ego.
@A>> * 6ittgenstein * mind and language.
,he /ritish*$ustrian +udwig 6ittgenstein @MMA*@AJ@!, famous for his saying,
Gwhereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent,G is one of the most influential
philosophers of the 4>th century. ,he above conclusion, e#pressed in his book #ractatus 3ogico4
Philosohicus, is consummated by the proposition that Gwhatever can be said at all can be said
clearly.G ,hese two statements sum up fairly well 6ittgensteinEs philosophy, which is concerned
with the usage and meaning of language, rather than with new discoveries, which 6ittgenstein
deemed the domain of science, and metaphysics, which he deemed largely a fruitless endeavour.
,his disposition marks an important turn in 4>th century thought. Philosophy is no longer
concerned with mind and human knowledge, but only with the e#pression of the latter in
language. 6ittgenstein held that the philosopherEs task to clarify the logical use of language, and
that philosophy is therefore not concerned with truth, but with meaning. 6hile he saw the chief
task of language initially in describing facts, he changed his mind later and granted that language
may indeed assume any function. 8e held that philosophyEs task is to Gbattle against the
bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.G
@AJ> * /ehaviourism * the invisible mind.
N./. 6atson @MBM*@AJM! and /.F. %kinner @A>I*@AA>! are the best known figures in the 4>th
century movement of behaviourism, a school of psychology which restricts itself to the study of
observable and .uantifiable aspects of behaviour. /ehaviourism e#plains human and animal
behaviour in terms of physiological responses to e#ternal stimuli, without regarding cognitive
processes, such as feelings or motives. In other words, mind is an undefined entity in
behaviourism, and is therefore treated as a black bo#. /ehaviourism is based on positivism and it
presupposes that behaviour is largely conditioned by learning and adaptation. 6atson and
%kinner attempted to show this through a variety of practical e#periments. ,oday, the main tenets
of behaviourism are invalidated.
@AJ> * Maslow * mind and motivation.
$merican psychologist $braham Maslow @A>M*@AB>!, leading e#ponent of
humanistic psychology, developed a theory of motivation aimed at e#plaining human behaviour.
8e proposed a hierarchy of needs, consisting of si# levels. $t the most basic level, there are the
physiological needs to satisfy thirst, hunger, and other needs of the body. $t the ne#t level, there
is a safety need, i.e. the need to feel that the environment is safe and predictable. $t the third
level is the need for love and acceptance that provides the individual with a feeling of belonging.
$t the fourth level are needs for self*esteem, achievement, recognition, and respect from others.
$t the fifth level are needs to know and understand. $t the final, si#th level is the need for self*
actualisation, i.e. the need to live up to oneEs fullest and uni.ue potential. Maslow held that lower
ranking needs must be fulfilled, before the individual can move on to satisfy higher*level needs.
Present * 5euroscience and ;enetics * the material mind.
,he 4>th century has seen a ma-or shift of thought in epistemology and philosophy of mind.
First, philosophy handed over the topic to psychology, which at the beginning of the century
attempted to make the study of mind a science. In this endeavour, psychology succeeded only
halfway. <elying chiefly on introspection and theory, psychology created e#egetic models with
practical value, but failed to provide ob-ective, falsifiable descriptions of the properties of mind
in scientific terms. Psychology did not address the demand of materialism to reduce mental
phenomena to physiological phenomena. ,he topic is now being passed to the disciplines of
neuroscience and genetics. &onsiderable advances have been made in these sciences recently,
which nurture the materialist aspiration of e#plaining mental phenomena in terms of
electrochemical processes in the brain and nervous system and in terms of genetic codification.
,he brain is probably the most ama(ing physical structure we know. 5owhere else in the
universe do we find anything comparable. People have tried to understand it for thousands of
years. ,he ancient ;reeks thought that it acts like a radiator cooling the blood. Medieval
philosophers believed that it is the abode of the soul and that it could be invaded by spirits.
,oday, we think that the brain is responsible for all faculties of mind. ,he human brain is one of
the most intensively researched items in biology, yet there are many .uestions to which we dont
have answers. For e#ample, we dont know how consciousness arises from the brain.
5evertheless, significant advances were made in brain research during the past few decades.
From classical neuroanatomy we know the different parts and structures of the brain. From
neuropsychology we know their psychological and behavioural functions. From neurophysiology
and neurochemistry we know the workings of neurons brain cells! and their connections.
)ou may find that the appearance of the human brain is .uite unimposing. It doesnt really look
like one of the worlds wonders, but rather like something you might find washed up on a beach.
,he human brain is the si(e of a large grapefruit and weighs @ C @.J kg. ,he outer visible layer,
the corte#, is part of the cerebrum. It comprises two halves, or hemispheres, of highly wrinkled
grey matter. ,he grey matter consists of the cell bodies of neurons, whereas the sub-acent white
matter consists of nerve fibres a#ons! that constitute long distance connections between
neurons. ,he two hemispheres are separated by a deep grove, the longitudinal cerebral fissure.
,hey are connected at the base by the corpus callosum, a thick layer of nerve fibres. $t the outer
sides of the hemispheres there is another deep grove, the lateral fissure or lateral sulcus, which
divides the frontal and parietal lobes from the temporal lobes. 7evelopmentally, the brain can be
divided into three main divisions, the hindbrain rhombencephalon!, midbrain mesencephalon!,
and forebrain prosencephalon!.
7ivisions of the brain.
,he three main parts of the brain can be further divided into substructures, as shown in the
illustrations. 6e will first look at these parts from an evolutionary point of view. ,he brain stem
is the oldest part of the brain. It contains the midbrain and the hindbrain minus the cerebellum. It
evolved more than J>> million years ago. /ecause it resembles the brain of a reptile, it is also
called the Greptilian brainG. ,he brainstem controls autonomic functions, such as breathing, heart
rate, and digestion. ,he cerebellum, or Glittle brainG, which is attached to the back of the
brainstem, is likewise evolutionary ancient. It contains circuits which are similar in all
vertebrates, including fish. Its function is to control and ad-ust posture and to coordinate
muscular movement. ,he e#panded human cerebellum also has a role in some cognitive
functions, such as attention.
,he limbic system is the group of structures located between the brain stem and the corte#. It
evolved between ?>> and 4>> million years ago and Csince it is most highly developed in
mammalsC it is also called the Gmammalian brainG. ,he limbic system is involved in emotion and
motivation. For e#ample, the amygdala is involved in aggression and fear, the hypothalamus is
involved in se#ual arousal, and the nucleus accumbens, the brains pleasure centre, is involved in
reward, pleasure, and addiction. Furthermore the limbic system controls a host of different
functions, including heart rate and blood pressure, hunger, thirst, the sleep and wake cycle,
memory formation, and decision making. ,he two key parts of the limbic system are the
hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, the Gmaster glandG of the body. ,he limbic system
interacts with the body through the endocrine system and the autonomic nervous systems.
Finally, there is the cerebrum, the largest part of the forebrain, which is evolutionary the most
recent and also the largest part of the brain. 6hile the forebrain of a frog is a mere bump, it
balloons into the large structure of the cerebrum in higher animals covering the brain stem and
the limbic system like the head of a mushroom. ,he most outstanding feature of the cerebrum is
the corte#, which is about two millimetres thick and, like a walnut, possesses an intricately
folded surface. ,his is a special characteristic of GhigherG mammals. ,he many grooves sulci!
and ridges gyri! create a large surface area of @,J s.uare metres allowing for ma#imum packing
of neurons. ,he corte# is involved in many high*level functions, such as visual and verbal
symbol processing, perceptual awareness, communication, language, understanding, and rational
thought.
7ivisions of the corte#.
,he cerebral corte# evolved in three stages and the resulting parts are called archicorte#,
paleocorte#, and neocorte#. ,he most recent one is the neocorte# which occupies the topmost
layer of the corte#F it is especially developed in humans. ;enerally, the cerebral corte# acts as a
processor of sensory input information, which it receives via the thalamus. ,he corte# of each
hemisphere can be divided into several different areas which are called lobes. $t the rear of each
hemisphere, the occipital lobe deals primarily with vision, hence, it is also called the visual
corte#. It processes visual information transmitted from the eye and analyses it for movement,
orientation, and position. $ person can become blind if the occipital lobe is damaged, even while
the eyes and optic nerves remain intact.
,he temporal lobes, located at the outer sides of the hemispheres near the temples, have a
number of different functions. $ part of it is responsible for hearing. ,his part is called the
auditory corte#. ,he auditory corte# sits at the lateral fissure and has the si(e of a large coin. ,he
ad-acent areas are involved in high*level auditory processing, such as language perception.
6ernickes area, which is located at the -unction of the temporal and parietal lobe, is mainly
responsible for the comprehension of spoken language. $dditional temporal lobe functions
include behavioural e#pression, the recognition of faces and scenes, as well as episodic and
declarative memory, i.e. the memory and retrieval of events and facts as in te#tbook learning.
7amage to the temporal lobes can cause aphasia, the loss of the ability to form and comprehend
language. 7amage to the right temporal lobe can result in impaired performance of spatial tasks,
for e#ample the ability to draw. If the temporal lobe is electrically stimulated, some persons
report being present at two places at the same time. ,hey are conscious of the present moment, as
well as of another event stored in memory. For e#ample, they might feel they are at the same
time in the kitchen of their home, cooking a meal.
,he parietal lobe is a relatively large area located at the back of the hemisphere -ust above the
occipital lobe. Much less is known about this lobe than about the other three lobes. It is involved
in touch, pain, and taste sensation, visual and spatial perception, and body orientation. It seems
that the parietal lobe is where we put our world together. ,he parietal lobe integrates visual
information and constructs maps and coordinate systems that represent how we see the
environment. $nother function of the parietal lobes is to combine letters into words, and words
into sentences. 7amage to the left parietal lobe can lead to ;erstmanns syndrome which
includes the confusion of left and right, impairment of with writing aphasia! and calculation
abilities acalculia!, and difficulty with recognising body parts agnosia!. 7amage to the right
parietal lobe can result in difficulties with spatial perception, such as unilateral neglect, the
limited conscious awareness of information coming from one side of the body, and
constructional apra#ia, the inability to draw or construct simple configurations.
,he frontal lobe, -ust behind the forehead, is the largest of the four cortical lobes. It controls
much of the rest of the brains functions. In particular, it is responsible for the higher functions,
such as reasoning, planning, organising, problem solving, selective attention, and personality.
,he frontal lobe is highly connected to the limbic system, which suggests that it is involved in
emotions. Moreover, it plays a key role in memory, language processing, speech production, and
movement. &ognitive maturity in adulthood is associated with the maturation of cerebral fibres
in the frontal lobe. ,he frontal lobe contains a great number of dopamine*sensitive neurons,
which are linked to pleasure, motivation, attention, problem solving and long*term memory.
/rocas area, located at the base of the frontal lobe -ust above the parietal lobe, is thought to be
responsible for the production of speech. /rain damage to this area causes e#pressive aphasia,
the inability to form sentences. If the frontal lobes are damaged, the individual may show
symptoms of dementia, such as becoming incapable of planning and e#ecuting, incapable of
comprehending situations and ideas, unable to focus attention, and being distracted by irrelevant
stimuli. :ther symptoms include impairment of short*term memory, lack of inhibition, and
difficulty in learning new information.
,he primary motor corte# is located in the precentral gyrus of the frontal lobe, running from the
longitudinal fissure at the top of the brain down to the lateral fissure. It controls movements of
specific body parts. 'lectrical stimulation of certain areas of the motor corte# results in
movement of the associated body part. From top to bottom, these are feet, legs, hip, trunk,
elbows, hands, and face. ,he areas are not represented in proportion to the si(e of these body
parts. For instance, the areas for the hand and its individual fingers, as well as the area of the face
and its different parts are larger than the areas for other body parts. ,he primary motor corte#
receives feedback from the primary somatosensory corte# to which it is intricately linked. ,he
primary somatosensory corte#, located in the postcentral gyrus behind the primary motor corte#,
is the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch. ,hese two areas wok in con-unction
with the secondary motor corte#, located before to the primary motor corte#, which prepares
movements and combines series of movements into coordinated se.uences. 7amage to the
primary motor corte# disrupts the ability to move one body part e.g. one finger! independently
of another. It can also reduce the speed and accuracy of movements, but it does not cause
paralysis.
+ateralisation and the split brain.
,he two hemispheres of the cerebrum look almost identical, but at closer inspection we find
significant differences. In @M?K, a virtually unknown French country doctor found that all of his
brain*damaged patients with speech problems suffered in-uries to the left side of the brain. ,his
early finding anticipated modern research of brain lateralisation. &linical evidence suggests that
the two sides of the cerebrum serve different functions. In-uries to the left side usually impairs
reading, writing, speaking, calculation, and understanding. In-uries to the right side have less
dramatic effects, but tend to affect spatial perception and movement. More e#tensive research
has shown that the left and right hemispheres involvement in certain functions is
disproportionate.
:eft Side Dominance ;eneral <unction 4ight Side Dominance
6ords
+etters
Vision
;eometric Patterns
Faces
'motional '#pression
+anguage %ounds $udition
5on*language %ounds
Music
,ouch ,actual Patterns /raille!
&omple# Movement Movement %patial Movement Patterns
Verbal Memory Memory 5onverbal Memory
%peech
<eading
6riting
$rithmetic
+anguage 'motional &ontent
%patial $bility
;eometry
7irection
7istance
Mental <otation of %hapes
)et, it would be wrong to speak of compartmentalisation. ,he hemispheres of the brain work in
tandem as a comple# whole. In a famous e#periment in the @AJ>s, the $merican
neuropsychologist <oger %perry separated the corpus callosum, to treat epileptics. ,he corpus
callosum is a strand of appro#. 4>> million nerve fibres connecting the left and right
hemispheres, which the brain uses to transfer signals between the hemispheres. ,he patients
remained largely normal, but each hemisphere worked independently. 8uman split brain patients
seemed to have two independent brains, each with its own abilities, memories, and emotions.
5otably, the left hemisphere of split brain patients was capable of speech, whereas the right
hemisphere was not.
$lthough the structure and organisation of the brain seems highly complicated, all the different
parts boil down to the same fundamental building block: the neuron. ,he neuron is a special type
of cell which processes and transmits information by electrochemical means. 5eurons are found
in the brain, the spinal chord, and in the nerves of the peripheral nervous system. ,hey come in a
great variety of shapes and si(es, however, most of them look like the one in the illustration
below. 5eurons are tiny. ,he cell body soma! has a diameter of only @>*4J micrometres, which
is -ust a little bit more than its cell nucleus. ,heir .uantity, however, is immense. ,he human
brain has roughly @>> billion neurons, each of them having several thousand connections to other
neurons. ,his comes up to a whopping total of J>>*@>>> trillion connections within the brain. 5o
computer on earth has that many connections or such a massively parallel organisation. $t any
rate, the often cited brain*computer analogy is inept. 5ervous systems are a far cry from the
simple feed forward input=output circuits of a contemporary computer. 9nlike a computer, the
brain is a living thingF it can grow and changeF and the processes of neural conduction is much
more comple# than signal conduction in the logical gates of a computer chip.
5eurons, or nerve cells, are eukaryotic cells which resemble all other cells in the human body
with one e#ception. ,hey are specialised in conducting information. ,he neuron has several
fundamental characteristics. It has an e#citable membrane which allows it to generate or
propagate electrical signals, a tree of dendrites which receive signals, and an a#on that transmits
signals. ,he a#on is a cable*like fibre that transmits nerve impulses from the neuron to other
neurons. $#ons are only about one micrometre across, but they can become e#tremely long. For
instance, the a#ons of the sciatic nerve in the human body may run a metre or longer from the
spine to the toes. ,his could be compared to a J> cm calibre pipeline that runs 4>>> km long. $
layer of fatty cells, the myelin sheath punctuated by the unsheathed nodes of <anvier, insulates
the a#ons of some neurons and speeds the impulses. 'ach neuron has only one a#on which
usually branches out e#tensively and passes signals to multiple target cells. ,erminal buttons at
the end of each a#on branch connect the neuron to the receiver cells via synapses. ,hus the
synapse provides the functional connection between different cells. It consists of the target area,
which may be a spine, a dendrite, or a cell body, and the synaptic gap between the a#on terminal
and the receiver cell. ,he dendrites are a branching arbour of cell pro-ections that receive signals
from terminal buttons which they conduct to the cell body.
5eural conduction
,he principle of neural conduction can be described by neural impulses and synaptic
transmission. ,hese are two complementary methods of conduction which neurons are capable
of. ,he neural impulse is either on or off, whereas synaptic conduction Cbased on the
transmission of chemicalsC is gradual. ,his can be likened to digital and analogue signal
conduction. $ neuron fires an impulse when it is stimulated by chemical messages from
connected neurons, or by pressure, heat, or light. ,his impulse, called action potential, is caused
by the depolarisation of the membrane potential of an e#citable cell. 5ormally an electrical
potential e#ists between the inside and outside of the cell. 6hen ion channels in the cell
membrane open, the e#change of ionised elements through the open channels causes an electric
discharge. ,his impulse travels through the cell membrane and the a#on hillock down to the a#on
and is then carried away from the cell. It propagates through the body at a speed of @>*@>> metre
per second, depending on the type of a#on. ,he impulse doesnt travel like an electrical signal,
but rather through successive depolarisation of ad-acent areas of the a#on membrane, much like
falling dominoes. 7uring a very brief resting pause, the neuron pumps positively charged atoms
back outside the membrane, after which the neuron is ready to fire again. ,his electrochemical
process can be repeated @>> times per second.
%ynaptic transmission is different. ,here are two type of synapses, electrical and chemical
synapses. 'lectrical synapses couple neurons electrically via gap -unctions. &hemical synapses
work through the e#change of special chemicals called neurotransmitters. ,here are some BJ
known neurotransmitters which amplify, relay, or modulate signals between neurons and other
cells. ,hese substances are produced by the soma, the chemical factory inside the neuron. ,he
neurotransmitter molecules are usually packaged in spherical vesicles. ,hese vesicles are
conveyed through the a#on towards the terminal buttons through special channels called
microtubules, which are tiny pipelines running inside the a#on. 6hen a neural impulse reaches
the knob*like terminals of the a#on it triggers a biochemical cascade which causes the vesicles to
fuse with the presynaptic membrane and release their neurotransmitters. ,he neurotransmitter
molecules then cross the synaptic gap from the presynaptic membrane to the postsynaptic
membrane within @=@>,>>>th of a second. It is like a very brief rain shower of neurotransmitters.
<eceptors on the postsynaptic membrane bind the neurotransmitter molecules. For a very brief
period, ion channels on the postsynaptic membrane open to allow ions to rush in or out. ,his
causes the transmembrane potential of the receiver cell to change. ,here are two types of
changes. 7epolarisation causes an e#citatory postsynaptic potentialF hyperpolarisation causes an
inhibitory potential.
6ith this knowledge we can understand how neurons work together in the brain. 5euron $ fires
and reaches neuron / via the synapse $/. If the postsynaptic potential is e#citatory and if it is
strong enough to reach the action potential threshold, then neuron / fires. %ynaptic strength is
defined by the change in the transmembrane potential. If the potential does not reach the
threshold value, neuron / might still fire if it simultaneously receives e#citatory messages from
other synapses. ,hus multiple weak e#citation can also trigger a postsynaptic action potential. :n
the other hand, neuron / might receive inhibitory messages from other synapses. In this case,
neuron / might not fire, even if it receives a e#citatory potential from a strong synapse. ,hus a
single neuron behaves a bit like a relay. ,his relatively simple behaviour lies at the root of neural
firing patterns. ,he neurons status is either on or off, i.e. firing, or at rest. ,he comple#ity of
neural firing patterns arises from the nature of synaptic connections. ,here is one thing we forgot
to mention, however. 6hat happens to the neurotransmitters after they are left in the synaptic
gap0 :bviously, multiple neurotransmitter releases from the terminal buttons would eventually
accumulate and clog the synapse. 8owever, this does not happen. ,here are two mechanisms that
terminate synaptic transmission: reuptake and en(ymatic degradation. ,he ma-ority of
neurotransmitters are almost immediately drawn back into the presynaptic buttons after release.
,here they are repackaged into vesicles and then recycled. ,his mechanism is known as
reuptake. :ther neurotransmitters are broken apart by en(ymes after transmission and are thus
deactivated.
5eurotransmitters and brain chemistry
5eurotransmitters are messenger substances. ,hey can be classified into five different types of
substances: amino acids, monoamines, neuropeptides, acetylcholine, and soluble gases. $mino
acids are the most common neurotransmitters. $mong them are glutamic acid and gamma*
aminobutyric acid ;$/$!, which are the principal neurotransmitters in the human brain. :ther
well*known substances include noradrenalin, dopamine, and serotonin, which belong to the
group of monoamines. ;lutamate is the most prevalent e#citatory neurotransmitter in the
mammalian central nervous system, and ;$/$ is the most prevalent inhibitory neurotransmitter.
$ neurotransmitter produces either e#citation or inhibition. :nly in rare cases, where the effect is
dependent upon the receptor subtype, a neurotransmitter causes both inhibition and e#citation.
,he receptor is the protein molecule in the postsynaptic cell that binds the neurotransmitter and
initiates a reaction. :nce again, there are different types of receptors, such as ion*channel linked
receptors, chemically activated ion channels, and ;*protein linked receptors. ,o simplify things,
we can imagine neurotransmitters as keys to certain receptor locks, which Conce unlockedC
initiate an e#citatory=inhibitory process in the postsynaptic cell.
$cetylcholine
$cetylcholine $&h! is the messenger at -unctions between motor neurons and muscle cells.
6hen $&h is released to muscle cells, the muscle contracts. If $&h release is blocked, the
muscle cannot contract. &urare, the poison used by %outh $merican Indians for hunting with
darts, blocks $&h receptors and thus paralyses the victim. &urare leads to death through
suffocation, because the victim cannot contract the respiratory muscles anymore. /y contrast, the
neuroto#in of the black widow spider triggers a synaptic flooding of $&h, and thus causes
painful contractions, convulsions, and possible death.
;lutamic acid and ;$/$
;lutamic acid glutamate! and ;amma*aminobutyric acid ;$/$! are the e#citatory and
inhibitory workhorse neurotransmitters of the nervous system. It is believed that glutamic acid is
involved in cognitive functions, such as memorising and learning, because of its role in synaptic
plasticity. ;lutamic acid overstimulation is associated with diseases like amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, lathyrism, and $l(heimerEs disease. ;lutamic acid e#cess can cause neuronal damage
and eventual cell death. ;lutamic acid is also the precursor of ;$/$ which is synthesised with
the help of an en(yme whereby the e#citatory neurotransmitter is converted into an inhibitory
one.
7opamine
7opamine is crucial to physical and mental health. It has a role in movement, cognition,
pleasure, and motivation. 5eurons containing the neurotransmitter dopamine are clustered in the
midbrain in an area called the substantia nigra. $ shortage of dopamine and the death of
dopamine neurons causes Parkinsons disease which is associated with depression and the loss of
control of movement. 7opamine in the frontal lobe regulates the information flow from other
areas of the brain which is vital to memory, attention, and problem solving. 7opamin depletion
in the prefrontal corte# is associated with attention deficit disorder and schi(ophrenia.
7isruptions of the dopamine system are also linked with psychosis. 8owever, the most
recognised role of dopamine in the brain is providing pleasure and en-oyment, hence, dopamine
has also been termed the Greward chemicalG. 7opamine is released in the course of rewarding
e#periences such as food, se#, and other stimulating e#periences.
'pinephrine and norepinephrine
'pinephrine adrenaline! and norepinephrine noradrenaline! are the bodys stress hormones
which are typically involved in fight*or*flight situations. 'pinephrine and norepinephrine are
released into the bloodstream from the ardrenal medulla. ,he secretion of these substances is the
physiological response to a threatening or e#citing situation. 'nvironmental stressors such as
bright lights, piercing noise, etc.! also cause release. ,he two substances are structurally very
similar and they function both as neurotransmitters and hormones. $s neurotransmitters they
mediate chemical communication in the sympathetic nervous system, a branch of the autonomic
nervous system. $mong the ma-or effects mediated by epinephrine and norepinephrine are
increased heart rate, blood vessel constriction and increased arterial blood pressure, dilation of
bronchioles assisting in pulmonary ventilation, stimulation of the fat burning process, dilation of
pupils, increase of metabolic rate and muscle readiness, and inhibition of non*essential function,
such as digestion.
%erotonin
%erotonin is an important neurotransmitter synthesised by so*called serotonergic neurons in the
brainstem. ,he serotonin system is the largest single system in the brain, influencing a broad
range of basic functions. %erotonin is important, because it plays a key role in the regulation of
mood, sleep, appetite, vomiting, and se#uality, and because it is associated with a host of mental
disorders, such as depression, bipolar disorder, and an#iety. %erotonin differs from other
neurotransmitters in one respect. It is able to modulate the effect of other neurotransmitters,
making it effectively a GmasterG neurotransmitter. %erotonin is known to unlock @I or more
different receptor subtypes, each of which has a distinct function in regulating impulses,
motivation, moods, and appetite. +ow moods and low motivation are associated with low
serotonin levels. ,here are antidepressants on the market, e.g. Pro(ac, _oloft, and Pa#il, which
act as serotonin reuptake inhibitors and thus increase the availability of serotonin in the brain.
:ther medications increase the serotonin reuptake and reduce serotonin levels. ,hese
medications are used to aid or tweak an imbalanced serotonin system.
,he .uestion of free will is an important .uestion in philosophy. It has occupied the minds of
philosophers for over two millennia, and *despite its simplicity* it is one of the deepest, most
pu((ling .uests in philosophy. It can be phrased as follows: 6e all believe intuitively that we
have free will. For e#ample, if we order lunch in a restaurant, we believe that we are free to
choose an item from the menu. Provided that we have money to pay for the chosen item and that
the restaurant has all the re.uired ingredients, there is no compulsion or necessity to order one
item or anotherF itEs all up to us. In fact, we make such decisions all the time. 6hile you are
reading this, for e#ample, you decide whether this topic is interesting enough to continue
reading. )ou are a free agent making a free choice. $t least so it seems.
3he *ro!lem
@. $ person acts upon his=her own free choice.
4. Free choice means the person could have acted otherwise.
?. $ctions are events.
I. 'very event has a cause.
J. If an event or act is caused, then it is causally determined.
K. If an act that is causally determined, then actor could not have acted otherwise.
B. ,herefore free choice doesnEt e#ist.
Determinism
I could hold against it that you are not making any free choice at all, but that your choices are
already determined by the time you make it. ,hey are determined by the present conditionsF that
is outer conditions, such as environmental factors, events in your world, e#ternal necessities and
inner conditions such as your genes, mental state, preferences, habits, and so on. I can also argue
from a physicalist point of view: $ll decisions happen in your brain. )our brain is a physical
ob-ect and the processes inside your brain are ultimately physical processes which have causal
relationships. ,his means that a decision can be viewed as a volitional impulse, or a certain brain
state ,E at a time tE preceded by another brain state , at a time t, and which is e#plained by the
causal relationship ,**` ,E.
,his view is called determinism. If you prefer a less abstract account, you could say that
determinism views the universe as a giant machine. 'very event in the universe is caused by
antecedent events, which are themselves caused by other events, which are again caused by other
events. 'very event or phenomenon has thus infinite causal tentacles attached to it and each of
these tentacles reach endlessly into the spacetime history of the universe. 8uman beings
including me and you are simply parts of this machine. 6hatever you do, whether you sit down
on a chair, scratch your head, or blow your nose, is fully determined by antecedent causes and
could therefore not have happened otherwise. 8ence, free will is an illusion.
&ausal determinism argues from the premise that the future is determined by the past. ,his view
is anchored in a mechanistic world view that understands the universe in terms of causal
relations. It is illustrated most clearly in the thought e#periment of 1+aplaceEs demon2 which is
named after the @Ath century French scientist Mar.uis de +aplace. ,he Mar.uis said in his !ssai
hilosohi2ue sur les robabilit5s, 16e may regard the present state of the universe as the effect
of its past and the cause of its future. $n intellect which at a certain moment would know all
forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this
intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single
formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atomF for
such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future -ust like the past would be present
before its eyes.2
:i!ertarianism
$lthough +aplaceEs idea of an 1iron block universe2 is now obsolete, the determinist argument is
still compelling. It is difficult to evade the logic of a linked chain of causes. )et, a clever debater
may -u#tapose the causal chains of determinism with chains of free decisions and construct a
history of free will. ,o illustrate this, letEs go back to the restaurant e#ample. I could say that my
choice of lunch is completely free, e#cept for the limitations given by the menu. For e#ample, I
would not be able to order a pi((a in a sushi restaurant. ,he limiting factor can be attributed to
my antecedent free choice, namely the choice of the restaurant. )et, this choice was also partly
determined by e#ternal factors, such as the pro#imity of the restaurant and the opening hours.
$gain, I could argue that I have previously chosen my location as well as the time to appear at
the location, and so on. 6hat I am doing here, is viewing the same events from a perspective that
emphasises volition rather than the e#ternal circumstances. I am implying that decisions emanate
from me, rather than me being caused to act in a certain way. In other words, my premise is that
my decisions are self*caused. &ausality cannot be traced back beyond my inner world. ,he buck
stops here. ,his view is called libertarianism, or rather metah*sical libertarianism in order to
distinguish it from olitical libertarianism.
Metaphysical libertarianism is founded on two assumptions: @! that human beings are rational
agents who posses the capacity of freely choosing one action among various alternativesF 4! that
human beings are either e#empted from causal determinism, or that causal determinism is not
applicable to the mind. ,here are a few things which speak in favour of this position. For
e#ample, it assigns the capabilities of deliberation, self*control, self*moderation, self*guidance,
and even self*mastery to human beings. 6ithout these capabilities, human beings would be
pretty much like mindless buoys who believe they can swim, while they are really -ust bobbing
up and down in a deterministic ocean. Most importantly, libertarianism assigns moral
responsibility for their actions to human beings. 6ithout moral responsibility, there would be no
point in punishing or praising people for their actions. ,here would be no need for laws. ,hus
libertarians often defend their position by deconstructing determinism:
8ard determinism, which re-ects free will altogether, results in several absurdities. First, the
absence of free will contradicts our direct e#perience. 6e e#perience the act of making choices
as e#ercising control over future events. <ationality would be impossible without the capacity of
choice. %econd, the deterministic view invalidates moral .uality of actions and ethical choices,
since humans follow a plot and are therefore not more responsible for their acts as a machine is
responsible for processing a program. $ compassionate human being is then simply a
compassion machine, while a murderer is a murder machine. ,hird, the deterministic view does
not accommodate recursion well, such as self*awareness and reflection. If we act following a
causal behaviour pattern, we can say we are trapped in this pattern until we become aware of it.
:nce we become aware of the cause and effect of our own behaviour, however, this awareness
influences our behaviour, and possibly even changes it persistently. 7eterminism does not
account for this phenomenon. It cannot e#plain the .uantum leap in consciousness re.uired for
self*awareness. More generally, it cannot account for the phenomenon of awareness itself.
*ro!lems of li!ertarianism and indeterminism
$s we can see, hard determinism has some flaws. 6hat about its antithesis, libertarianism0 C ,he
biggest challenge for libertarians is to e#plain uncaused volition, that is how decision making e#
nihilo actually happens. +ibertarians usually choose to argue from either a supernatural or a
naturalistic position. ,he supernatural position is based on the idea that the human mind is
e#empt from ordinary causality. ,his is achieved by posing an entity, such as a soul or mind,
which e#ists apart from the causal machinery of the universe. ,his position amounts to dualism
and therefore suffers from the same shortcomings as dualism.
,he naturalistic position avoids dualism by claiming that the universe itself is not completely
deterministic and that there are indeterministic phenomena *such as .uantum phenomena* with
unpredictable outcomes, which afford human beings freedom of choice. ,his argument is not
terribly coherent, because even if we assume that the nature of mind is indeterministic at some
level, there is nothing gained in terms of freedom. $ choice that is in no way determined, is
simply a random event. $n indeterministic decision is therefore -ust as unfree as a deterministic
decision. For e#ample, an indeterministic! .uantum computer is -ust a far from making a free
choice, as a conventional deterministic! computer. ,his means that indeterminism raises e#actly
the same problems as determinism. In both cases, choices are the result of an anonymous
process, rather than the result of the deliberation of a rational agent.
=omati!ilism
$ solution for this problem was suggested by the /ritish philosopher 7avid 8ume @B@@*@BBK!.
8e championed the view that there is no fundamental contradiction between determinism and
free will and that both concepts are compatible. 8e begins with re-ecting the notion of reason
acting upon volition. In his #reatise of -uman Nature he states, 1%ince reason alone can never
produce any action, or give rise to volition, I infer, that the same faculty is as incapable of
preventing volition, or of disputing the preference with any passion or emotion.2 For 8ume it is
rather passion, desire, and emotion which cause volition and he concludes *in accordance with
the deterministic view* that these are caused and determined by the character, beliefs, and the
overall psychological makeup of a person. 8owever, he makes the important distinction that
human beings have free will on account of the h*othetical abilit* to chose differently under
different circumstances.
,his means: for any given situation, if one either has a different psychological disposition or if
the e#ternal circumstances are different, then the outcome of the decision will also be different.
$ccording to 8ume, this is what free will really means, as opposed to coercion, meaning acts
brought about through the application of force. '#amples for unfree acts would be handing over
your money to a robber who holds a gun to your head, or a mentally insane person who acts upon
the imposition of hallucinations. More than a century earlier, ,homas 8obbes @JMM*@KBA! had
made a similar argument. 8e stated .uite simply that a person acts freely if that person willed the
act while having been able to do otherwise. 8obbes adds that will itself is not free, but only the
person e#ercising it is. ,he notion that free will e.uals uncoerced choice is also present in
8obbes argument. ,hus for the classical compatibilists, the causal mental factors that effectuate
choice are simply a non*issue. 6hether they are deterministic or indeterministic in nature doesnEt
matter, since they are wholly owned by the person who e#ercises will and makes choices.
5ncomati!ilism
5eedless to say that this argument did not satisfy everyone. Uuite a few determinists and
libertarians see compatibilism merely as a rhetoric device that evades the problem of free will by
shifting perspective to a modal argument without referring to the inner reality of the decision
maker. 8ence, incompatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are mutually
e#clusive. ,he incompatibilist agrees that absence of coercion is necessary for free will, but
denies that it is sufficient. $ccording to incompatibilism, free will e#ists only if @! there are
alternative paths of actions available to the agent, and if 4! the agent is not in any way
predetermined to choose one of these paths. ,his does of course lead back to the .uestion of the
nature of decision making: what mental processes are involved in decision making and whether
they can be e#plained with strict causal models.
2 "odern >iew
6e have discussed the classical views on free will and determinism. In the meantime, science
has gained more insight into the psychological and physiological aspects of decision making.
,he classical arguments of determinism and libertarianism are still valid, but they neither shed
much light on the psychology of decision making, nor on the internal neural workings of
decision making. $n important modern concept is the subconscious. ,he subconscious is the part
of the mind that operates and processes information outside the focus of awareness. :ver the past
decades, psychologists have collected convincing evidence not only for its e#istence, but also for
the fact that the vast ma-ority of information that our bodies receive is processed subconsciously,
which means without us being aware of it. ,he subconscious mind can thus be likened to a
workhorse with massive parallel processing power and the conscious mind can be likened to a
narrowly focused high*energy beam. /oth parts of mind are thoroughly connected and operate
together as a whole. 7ecision making can take place either consciously or subconsciously, or
perhaps also semi*consciously. 6hat does this imply in view of free will0
Intuitively we might say that subconscious decisions are unfree or to a lesser degree free than
conscious decisions. 6e tend to think that only conscious decisions can be called free, because
only these involve reasoning processes, or what we call rational thought. %ince rational thinking
does not take place subconsciously, subconscious decisions happen mechanically and are
therefore in some way predetermined by the e#isting mental programs and memories. In this
regard, subconscious decisions arenEt much different from the heartbeat and from other
autonomic functions. /ut what about conscious decision making0 /efore we discuss this
.uestion, we must first ask another .uestion, namely whether decisions generally originate
consciously or subconsciously. 6hat about conscious behaviour, like moving an arm, for
e#ample0 /rain studies have shown that movement, which is controlled by the motor corte#, is
preceded by the build*up of an electrical potential in the brain called 1readiness potential2.
5otably, this readiness potential builds up before the person becomes aware of their intention to
move. ,his observation suggests that volition to move a body part! takes its beginning in the
subconscious mind. :nly when there is a sufficient potential becomes the volitional impulse
conscious. 6hat are the implications0 7o all decisions originate unconsciously0 $re we
causality*driven robots with the lu#ury of e# post awareness0
=onscious Self+4eflection 2nd 2lternative 4ealities
,he answer to this .uestion lies in the nature of consciousness. ,here are certainly many
mechanical actions we perform with minimal awareness. /reathing, blinking, scratching an itch,
walking, or even hitting a se.uence of keys on a keyboard to produce a certain word are typical
e#amples of low*level actions, which are often though not always! performed unconsciously.
'motions, feelings, and volitions all arise subconsciously. :nce these mental events rise to the
surface and enter the light of consciousness, however, things suddenly change. ,hey take on a
different .uality on account of being observable. 8ere is an e#ample: +et us say we get angry
about something. $s the anger rises within us, we might feel the impulse to bang our fist on the
table. /efore the table banging action is e#ecuted by the body, however, we become aware of our
anger as well as of our intention to bang our fist on the table. In a split second, we decide that
this is not an appropriate reaction to the situation, because it would offend and irritate people.
&onsciousness thus steps in, vetoes the decision, and orders the motor corte# to loosen the fist.
5ow what happened0 7id we e#ercise free will0
,he key to understanding this lies is in the phrase 1becoming aware2. $t the very moment we
self*reflect and become aware of our internal state, that same state is inevitably modified. It isnEt
us modifying our internal state willingly. ,here is no agent. It is -ust consciousness affecting our
internal processing. $s long as we are unaware and not self*reflecting, things take their linear
machine*like course. ,here is only one outcome with near @>>O probability, which is acting on
the impulse. If there is no awareness of our internal state and of the conse.uences of our actions,
then we can only act on the impulse. $wareness changes this. ,o use a metaphor from .uantum
mechanics, one could say that the reverse of a wave collapse occurs. Instead of a single outcome
with @>>O probability, there are suddenly several superposed possible outcomes, each with nO
probability. ,hese are possible courses of action which suddenly become available and accessible
to our mind on account of awareness. ,hese alternatives .uickly collapse again into a single
reality as soon as the mind makes a decision. 8owever, the outcome of that decision may be
crucially different from the outcome without self*reflection.
In the above e#ample, consciousness performs the function of a watchful policeman, observing
mental events as they move outward from the inner to the outer physical world. $nalogously,
consciousness stands guard at the doors of perception in the other direction, from the outer to the
inner world. For e#ample, audiovisual consciousness may alert us about an approaching vehicle
and help us to determine whether body movements are re.uired to avoid collision. 8owever,
consciousness does not have the capability to change events on its own. ,he energy will! needed
to alter the course of events and actions comes from a different source. ,he role of consciousness
is not to intervene, but to create alternative possibilities. %trictly speaking, consciousness does
not even create these possibilities. It -ust reveals them to us. :nce the alternative possibilities are
revealed, volitional energy might take a different course in the same way as a river might take a
different course when it hits upon a newly found channel or trench. $s this results in an alteration
of the flow of internal mental! and e#ternal physical! events, it affords us the impression of free
will. )et, it is neither free will in the classical sense, since there is no agent involved, nor is it a
strictly mechanical process as suggested by classical determinism.
Many regard consciousness as the final frontier of
science. $lthough science has produced a great deal of knowledge about the brain and the
nervous system, it did not yet! produce a viable theory of consciousness. ,here is the seemingly
intractable problem that consciousness cannot be measured, detected, or .uantified in any way.
,o further complicate things, consciousness is about inner first*person! e#perience and its
sub-ective .ualities, whereas science relies on ideas and e#periences that can be observed and
verified by third parties. ,he investigation of inner phenomena involves sub-ective, idiothetic
accounts, whereas the investigation of outer phenomena involves ob-ective, verifiable accounts.
It would seem that the scientific method, which relies on repeatable e#periments to test a
hypothesis, reaches its limits when dealing with consciousness. :ne must therefore ask whether
science is able to e#plain consciousness at all.
%cientists have responded to these problems in two ways. :ne group claims that consciousness is
not a scientific concept to begin with, that its is too vague, and that claims involving
consciousness are unverifiable. ,his position was taken to the e#treme by the 4>th century
behaviourist movement, which simply ignores consciousness. It tends to see the mind as a
hypothetical construct, disregarding internal states entirely, only considering e#ternal states
behaviour!. ,he other group of scientists acknowledges the e#istence of internal conscious states
and claims that these can be fully e#plained by neuroscience. ,here is a variety of such views,
known as materialism, reductionism, functionalism, and biological naturalism. %ome proponents
of these views assert that consciousness is a 1bag of tricks2 7ennett! and that *by and large* it
has already been e#plained by neuroscience.
/ut perhaps this is -umping to conclusions. %cience postulates a materialist understanding of
consciousness, but there are significant gaps in this understanding. ,he materialist view
occasionally appears like that of the mythical tribesman who discovered a ,V set. $lthough
ignorant of the e#istence of radio waves, he is confident that he understands the origin of the
voices and images in the ,V. $fter he has carefully disassembled the ,V, he is able to
demonstrate that applying a voltage to certain points produces an audible noise in the speaker, or
a dot of light on the screen. 8e has even worked out how the electron beam can be modulated to
create a matri# of dots. :n account of these discoveries, he triumphantly declares that the voices
and pictures are produced inside the electronic circuits of the ,V set and that the operating
principle of the ,V set can be e#plained without invoking 1supernatural2 radio waves. )et, his
fellow tribesmen are not .uite satisfied with this e#planation. It seems too mechanical to them
and they keep wondering why the voices and images in the ,V set appear so real. ,he tribal
scientist -ustifies himself: 16e have not worked out all the details yet, but we understand the
principle.2
,his situation is perhaps analogous to present day consciousness research. Mainstream scientists
and philosophers believe that consciousness is based on and produced by the brain. ,his might
be compared to the idea that ,V images and sounds are produced inside the ,V set. :bviously, in
case of the ,V set, it is only half the truth. ,he ,V images and sounds are neither local to the ,V
set, nor do they have a life of their own. ,hey are produced elsewhere and transmitted by radio
waves. 6e all know that a ,Vs have an antenna and a receiver that pick up radio waves and
translate them into voltages to generate images and sounds.
6hat if the brain and nervous system relate to consciousness like the ,V set to radio signals0
+etEs call this the nonlocal model of consciousness. If we accept the nonlocal model of
consciousness provisionally, we can compare ,V reception to sense perception. 6e can compare
.ualia conscious e#perience! to ,V images and soundsF we can compare memories to the
recording function, thoughts to the playback and edit functions, and mental chatter to audiovisual
noise. Furthermore, if the nervous system=brain functions as receiver=modulator of consciousness
rather than its producer, it follows that consciousness is not based on the brain, but that the brain
is based on consciousness. ,here are a number of theoretical considerations and phenomena that
point in this direction. ,hese phenomena show the limits of the current mainstream
materialistic! understanding of consciousness and provide theoretical support for the nonlocal
model of consciousness. In the remainder of this section, we will look at five such points: a! the
epistemic gap in materialism, b! the absence of a neural correlate of consciousness, c! out*of*
body e#periences :/'s!, d! near*death e#periences 57's!, and e! the measurement problem
in .uantum physics.
3he eistemic ga
,he epistemic gap, also known was the e#planatory gap, is the gaping hole in materialist
ontology. It is the failure to e#plain how something immaterial, such as conscious e#perience,
arises from something material, such as the brain. ,he epistemic gap can also be phrased as
follows: 8ow does sub-ective e#perience arise from electrochemical processes in the brain0
%ub-ective e#perience *or .ualia* seems to be entirely nonphysical. 5o scientist has managed to
e#plain how .ualia arise and why they arise. $fter all, we can perfectly well imagine an
organism responding to e#ternal signals and stimuli without being conscious of them.
Materialism offers two different approaches to deal with the 1problem2 of mind: reductionism
and emergentism. <eductionism argues that it is principally possible to reduce higher*order
systems to lower*order systems. It postulates that mind is a higher*order system that can be
reduced *in principle* to the biological system of the human brain and body. ,he biological
system can in turn be reduced to chemistry, which can again be reduced to physics. ,herefore
*according to reductionism* mind is ultimately physical. ,he problem with this approach is that
reductionism cannot point out the causal relationships involved in each step of the reduction. :n
this account, reductionism fails.
,he non*reductionist approach *known as emergentism* holds that the higher*order system
emerges from the lower*order system on account of supervenience. ,he concept of
supervenience is defined as follows: $ set of properties $ is said to supervene upon another set /
if no two things can differ with respect to $*properties without also differing with respect to their
/*properties. In other words, any difference in the higher*order system implies a difference in the
lower order*system. It is said that mind supervenes on the biological system and that mind
displays new emergent properties which are not intrinsic to the underlying system. 9pon closer
inspection, we find that emergentism suffers from the same problem as reductionism. It fails to
account for the causal relationships between higher and lower order systems. %upervenience
cannot e#plain why properties are related as they appear. 8ence, invoking supervenience is a bit
like appealing to magic. It is not an e#planation at all. ,his strongly suggests that the epistemic
gap cannot be bridged by materialism.
2!sence of a neural correlate of consciousness
,he French philosopher <en^ 7escartes held that the soul was located in the pineal gland and
that consciousness emanates from it. ,his is often cited as the first attempt to relate
consciousness to a biological structure. 6hile the study of the brain can be traced back to ancient
'gypt, modern neuroscience began in the latter half of the 4>th century. %ince then,
neuroscientific research has produced a massive amount of data and knowledge about the brain
which is still growing at a fascinating pace. :ne of the goals of neuroscience is to correlate
mental states with biophysical states, systems and processes in the brain. ,his effort has only
partly been successful. For e#ample, we can correlate the capacity of speech to the 6ernicke and
/roca areas. 6e can correlate motor action to the motor corte#, vision to the optical nerve and
the visual corte#, certain feelings such as arousal, pleasure, and e#citement to neurotransmitters.
8owever, the search for the neural correlate of consciousness has come up empty. 7ecades of
research did not produce what was originally envisioned by neuroscientists C the correlate or
substrate of phenomenal consciousness. $t the beginning of the 4@st century, conscious
e#perience remains as enigmatic as ever. ,his is not to say that it eludes neuroscience
completely. Many epiphenomena of conscious e#perience *from brainwaves and brain chemistry
to neural activity* have been e#plored and can be matched to certain types of e#perience. )et, it
is phenomenal e#perience itself that pu((les scientists. ,here is no causal e#planation that leads
from brain states to .ualia. ,here are no neural correlates for thought, beliefs, and ideas. In fact,
most neuroscientists have given up the search for the neural correlate of conscious e#perience.
,hey feel that it is the wrong approach. ,he absence of a neural correlate suggests that
consciousness does not originate or reside in the brain at all.
9ut+of+!ody exeriences
:ut*of*body e#periences :/'s! are ostensibly based on the separation of consciousness from
the body. ,hose who e#perience an :/' report that they see their own body from the outside,
that they float through space, and that they can penetrate solid ob-ects. 6ith a prevalence of JO*
@>O, :/'s are more common than generally believed. $lthough an :/' often occurs
spontaneously, or as a conse.uence of body trauma, it can also be self*induced. '#perienced out*
of*body travellers can prolong the e#perience and travel at will. ,here are two theories about it:
one says that there is something that leaves the bodyF the other says nothing leaves the body and
that :/'s are comple# hallucinations caused by non*ordinary brain states. /oth theories are
problematic, because the first relies on the paranormal concept of an 1astral body2, and the
second theory cannot account for the comple#ity of the e#perience and its veridical aspects.
,here are many reports of so*called veridical :/'s. ,hese involve correct accounts of remote
ob-ects, events, or people which are later verified by a third person. For e#ample, the sub-ect
might report about people in another room, or things that are outside the field of vision and
cannot possibly be perceived through the sense organs. %everal veridical :/'s have occurred
under laboratory conditions. 7r. Michael %abom reported ?4 cases of cardiac arrest patients who
were able to describe their resuscitation in great detail. 7r. Pim van +ommel and 7r. Henneth
<ing have published similar studies with well over @>> cases of veridical :/'s. 7r. &harles ,art
has conducted an e#periment where the sub-ect has correctly identified a J*digit number that was
placed on top of a shelf *invisible to the sub-ect* after an :/'. Mainstream science cannot
e#plain these findings. Veridical :/'s can be e#plained if we assume that consciousness is
nonlocal to the brain.
?ear+death exeriences
5ear*death e#periences 57's! are reported by @>O*@JO of all people who find themselves in a
life*threatening situation due to critical surgery, cardiac arrest, an accident, or some other cause.
%ince most of these people end up in a hospital, the conditions for scientific study are favourable.
,he first case studies were published by '. HLbler*<oss, <. Moody et al in the @AB>s. %ince then
a large amount of reports and studies with thousands of cases have been collected, more recently
by /. ;reyson, M. Morse, %. Parnia, P. v. +ommel and others. 57's are conscious e#periences
at impending death that have recognisable features, such as a sense of well*being, love, and
peace, movement through a tunnel or a passage, a bright spiritual light, meeting deceased
relatives and friends and=or spiritual beings. ,he most astounding observation is that
consciousness continues after clinical death. <ecent studies have shown that these e#periences
can occur even when neuronal activity in the brain has ceased, so that *according to
neuroscience* there should not be any conscious e#perience at all.
%ceptics argue that 57's are caused by physiological processes in the dying brain. For e#ample,
they hold that the e#perience of a tunnel and bright light is caused by the loss of cell function in
the visual system due to ano#ia lack of o#ygen!. 8owever, while every patient with cardiac
arrest e#periences ano#ia, not everyone e#periences an 57' and not every 57' features a
tunnel e#perience, which .uestions the causal connection. :ther sceptics argue that the
e#perience is caused by the release of dimethyltryptamine 7M,! or endorphines in the brain.
$gain, 7M, release does not necessarily result in an 57'. 7M, is also released at night time
during sleep, though in smaller .uantities, and it does not have the life*changing effect that
57's are known for. Furthermore, if 57's were a drug*induced, one would e#pect the
e#perience to have personal random contents, much like a dream or an +%7 trip. <eports of
congenitally blind people who were suddenly able to e#perience vision in an 57' make
biological e#planations even harder. %o far, there is no coherent physiological e#planation for the
57' phenomenon.
7r. Pim Van +ommel writes in his paper &bout #he .ontinuit* Of Our .onsciousness:
1$ccording to our concept, grounded on the reported aspects of consciousness e#perienced
during cardiac arrest, we can conclude that our consciousness could be based on fields of
information, consisting of waves, and that it originates in the phase*space. [W\ %uch
understanding fundamentally changes ones opinion about death, because of the almost
unavoidable conclusion that at the time of physical death consciousness will continue to be
e#perienced in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world, the phase*space, in
which all past, present and future is enclosed. <esearch on 57' cannot give us the irrefutable
scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an 57' did not .uite die, but they all
were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain.2
"easurement ro!lem in &uantum mechanics
In short, the measurement problem in .uantum mechanics is the problem how and why
%chrYdingerEs wave function collapses upon measurement. ,he word 1collapse2 describes a
transition from a superposition of different states of a particle, as described by %chrYdingerEs
wave function, to a single state upon interaction. ,he measurement of physical .uantum system
always results in a definite state, whereas the wave function describes the evolution of the same
system as a multitude of superposed states, each with a certain probability. In abstract terms, the
wave function collapse describes the reduction of a system of potentialities to a single definite
state. %ince it is impossible to observe the collapse directly, a number of different interpretations
e#ist. ,hese interpretations revolve around several key .uestions, namely how nature behaves at
the subatomic level, whether nature is deterministic or non*deterministic, and whether the
observer plays a causal role in the wave function collapse.
,he &openhagen interpretation is one of the more popular interpretations of the measurement
problem. It was first formulated by 8eisenberg and /ohr in the @A4>s, and it became later
synonymous with indeterminism and /ohrEs correspondence principle. ,oday, there are several
variations of this interpretation. %ince it asserts collapse upon measurement, one particular
version of the &openhagen interpretation posits that collapse is caused by a conscious observer,
which implies that consciousness plays a participatory role in the measurement. 8ence, it is
called the Particiator* &nthroic Princile P$P!, following N.$. 6heelerEs $nthropic
Principle. 6hile P$P is considered speculative, many scientists feel that the classical paradigm
of a separate observer can be .uestioned and that the role of consciousness needs to be
reevaluated in view of .uantum mechanics. ,he idea of consciousness interacting non*locally
with physical systems could therefore be an important element in understanding how reality
works at the subatomic level.
.HJS;6S
G7o not take the lecture too seriously . . . -ust rela# and en-oy it. I am going to tell you what
nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find
her a delightful, entrancing thing. 7o not keep saying to yourself G/ut how can it be like that0G
because you will get . . . into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. 5obody knows
how it can be like that.G
<ichard Feynman introducing a lecture about .uantum theory!
5atural sciences always had a great influence on philosophy and on the way we see the world.
9ntil the age of the <enaissance there was no clear distinction between philosophy and science.
%peculations about physics and astronomy were among the favourite topics of the natural
philosophers of anti.uity and continued to flourish until the time of &opernicus. ,he desire to
e#plore the starry heavens and to reveal its secrets is probably as old as mankind itself. 8owever,
notable advances in this discipline were made only fairly recently, after the invention of the
telescope in the @Bth century. ,his section deals with the accomplishments of 4>th century
physics in the world of the largest structures, such as gala#ies and stars, and that of the smallest
structures, such as atoms and particles. 6e take a closer look at <elativity and Uuantum Physics
in particular, both of which have given us ama(ing new insights into what we call creation.
5ewton: the three laws of motion.
In the eyes of physics, the world used to be a predictable place. $ristotle and Ptolemy laid the
foundation for the scientific understanding of the universe, which remained authoritative for one*
and*a*half thousand years. 9ntil the time of ;alileo, the ;reeks were undisputed in natural
science and astronomy. ;alileo, &opernicus, and 5ewton changed this. Isaac 5ewton @KI4*
@B4B! revolutionised physics with his proposition that all bodies are governed by the three laws
of motion. ,he first law of motion states that a body continues in a state of rest or continues to be
moving uniformly in a straight line unless a force is applied to the ob-ect. ,he second law states
that the force applied to an ob-ect is proportional to its mass multiplied by acceleration F3ma!.
,he third law states that for every action there is an e.ual opposite reaction.
6ith these three simple laws, 5ewton created a whole new model of the universe, superseding
PtolemyEs model of epicycles. 'ighty years before, ;alileo @JKI*@KI4! had pointed out that the
'arth rotates around the %un. ,he mechanics developed by 5ewton and ;alileo provided the
basis for @Bth to @Ath century cosmology. In this view, planets revolved in well*defined orbits
around stars, where the rotational force is balanced by the gravitational force. $ccording to the
universal law of gravitation, bodies attract each other with a force F3m@am4=rb, which means
that the force increases with mass and decreases s.uared! with distance.
+aplace: the mechanistic universe.
;iven these natural laws, mankind derived a picture of the universe that accounts neatly for
mass, position, and the motion of the celestial bodies while it interprets the latter as dynamic
elements of a celestial apparatus, not unlike that of a mechanical apparatus. It is therefore called
the mechanistic worldview. It was elaborated in its purest form by Mar.uis de +aplace @BIA*
@M4B! in his writing M^cani.ue &^leste. ,he mechanistic view sees the universe as an
arrangement in which stars and planets interact with each other like springs and cogs in a
clockwork, while ;od is watching from above. If the initial positions and states of all ob-ects in a
mechanically determined universe are known, all events can be predicted until the end of time,
simply by applying the laws of mechanics. It was further thought that this kind of knowledge is
available only to an omniscient ;od.
,he mechanistic view does not make any statements about the creation of the universe. ,hings
were taken as preestablished by the creator. From a mechanistic standpoint, solar systems like
our own are in a delicate balance, because only a slight increase or decrease in mass or velocity
of the planets would let the planets either spiral into the %un or wander into outer space. ,here
had to be a construction plan. ,here was a necessity for a creator ;od who initially put balance
into the universe. 5eedless to say that the church was comfortable with this theory, despite the
earlier .uarrels with ;alileo, and in spite of the fact that it generally viewed scientific progress
with great suspicion.
7iscovery of the speed of light.
In @KBK the 7anish astronomer :le <oemer @KII*@B@>! announced a remarkable discovery. 8e
observed seasonal variations in the disappearances of NupiterEs moons behind Nupiter. /ecause the
distance between 'arth and Nupiter varies with the seasons, while the 'arth travels on its path
around the %un, this means that the light from NupiterEs moons travels either shorter or longer
distances throughout the year. ,he changes in <oemerEs observation corresponded with the
distances between 'arth and Nupiter, which implied that the speed of light is finite. <oemerEs
observation did, however, not directly contradict the mechanistic worldview. In the mechanistic
view, light waves travel through the ether, -ust as sound waves travel through air. * )et, there was
a problem with the concept of GetherG. Its e#istence could never be detected.
$t the end of the @Ath century, the mechanistic view was in trouble. $stronomers noticed that
MercuryEs perihelion the closest point to the %un in its orbit! changed slightly with every orbit.
,his observation shattered the notion of immutable orbits. $stronomers tried to solve this
problem by predicting a mystery planet they called Vulcan, which would account for the
observed gravitational variations. 5eedless to say that it was never found.
,he $merican physicists Michelson and Morley brought the mechanistic worldview into even
more trouble. In an e#periment, which was designed to measure the velocity of the earth, they
found that the speed of light is constant, contrary to what they had e#pected. ,hey found this
characteristic of light to be in disagreement with the ;alilean velocity addition formula
vE3v@]v4, which means their observation contradicted classical mechanics.
'instein changes everything.
$t the beginning of the 4>th century, a formerly unknown clerk of the %wiss patent office by the
name of $lbert 'instein thought to himself: GFalling ob-ects donEt feel gravity.G 8e imagined
what it would be like to ride through space on a beam of light and came to the conclusion that
space and time can be visualised as coordinate systems, or Greference framesG, relative to the
observer. ,his was the basis for his <elativity ,heory. $t about the same time, other physicists
pondered on e.ually fundamental problems, which concerned interactions of matter and
radiation, but came to totally different conclusions than 'instein. ,he result of their collective
thought, .uantum theory, e#plained the behaviour of subatomic particles.
6ith this being written in the year @AAA it is safe to say that <elativity was the single most
influential physical theory of the 4>th century for the way it has changed our view of the
universe. 5ot that other discoveries in physics were less significant, but few of them have been
so well received by the general public. <elativity has grabbed peopleEs imagination and sparked
discussions in philosophy and religion which last until the present day. Uuantum physics,
although perhaps more pertinent to daily life, is a close second.
Is causality .uestioned by modern physics0
<elativity and Uuantum ,heory have implications on cosmology, epistemology, and
metaphysics. 6e only begin to understand their impact on our traditional ways of seeing the
world. 8ow does ;od fit into our new picture of the universe0 &an the stuff the world is made of
be e#plained by physics alone0 6hat is space and time0 7oes .uantum physics contradict
causality0 ,o find out more about these .uestions and to learn about the findings of 'instein,
8eisenberg, and others, take a closer look at the fascinating world of modern physics.
,he notion of relativity is not as revolutionary as many believe. In fact, spatial relativity is part
of our everyday e#perience. %patial relativity, also called ;alilean relativity in honour of ;alileo
who first formulated the concept of relative motion, is often confused with 'insteinEs theories.
;alileo simply described the fact that an observer in motion sees things differently from a
stationary observer, because he has a different spatial coordinate system, or Greference frameG in
<elativity speak. It might sound more complicated than it actually is. &onsider the following
e#ample:
;alilean relativity: the train e#ample courtesy of %tephen 8awking!.
,wo people riding on a train from 5ew )ork to %an Francisco play a game of ping*pong in the
sport compartment of the train. +ets say, the train moves at @>> km per hour 3 4B.M m=s! and the
two players hit the ball at a speed of two meters per second. In the reference frame of the players,
the ball moves back and forth at this particular speed. For a stationary observer standing beside
the railroad, however, things look .uite different. In his reference frame the ball moves at 4A.M
m=s when it is played forward in the direction where the train is heading, while it moves at 4J.M
m=s in the same direction when it is played backwards. ,hus he doesnEt see the ball moving
backward at all, but always moving towards %an Francisco. For an observer in outer space,
things look again totally different because of the 'arthEs rotation, which is opposite to the trainEs
movementF therefore the outer space observer always sees the ball moving 'ast.
'insteinEs new concept of relativity.
'insteinEs <elativity differs from classical relativity, because of the way he looked at time.
/efore 'instein, people thought time to be absolute, which is to say that one big clock measures
the time for the entire universe. &onse.uently one hour on 'arth would be one hour on Mars, or
one hour in another gala#y. 8owever, there was a problem with this concept. In an absolute time
frame the speed of light cannot be constant. <oemer found that the speed of light is finite and has
a certain, .uantifiable velocity usually abbreviated with GcG!, which at first implies ;alilean
relativity. ,his would mean that while the 'arth rotates at a velocity of v, light emitted in the
direction of the 'arth rotation must be c ] v, while light emitted in the opposite direction would
travel at c * v, relative to an outside observer.
In @MM@, $. Michelson conducted an e#periment which proved that this is not the case. 6ith the
help of an apparatus that allowed measuring minute differences in the speed of light by changes
in the resulting interference patterns, Michelson observed that the speed of light is always the
same. 5o changes whatsoever. ,he e#periment has been repeated later with greater precision by
Michelson and '.6. Morley.
%pecial <elativity published in @A>J.
5umerous attempts were made at reconciling these discrepancies, yet they were all unsuccessful,
until 'instein solved the dilemma with his famous paper On the !lectrod*namics of $oving
Bodies in @A>J, in which he developed his %pecial <elativity ,heory. %pecial <elativity is an
e#tremely elegant construct that deals with things moving near or at the speed of light.
%urprisingly, the new concept of space and time that arises from <elativity is based only on two
simple postulates: @. ,he laws of physics are the same in all inertial 3non*accelerating!
reference frames, and 4. ,he speed of light in free space is constant.
It is a matter of common e#perience that one can describe the position of a point in space by
three numbers, or coordinates. For the purpose of e#plaining the relativistic model, 'instein
added time as a fourth component to the coordinate system, and the resulting construct is called
spacetime. Nust as there is an infinite number of ?*7 reference frames in ;alilean relativity, there
is an infinite number of I*7 spacetime reference frames in 'insteinEs theory. ,his is to say that
'instein put an end to absolute time. ,he revolutionary insight lies in the conclusion that the flow
of time in the universe does indeed differ depending on oneEs reference frame.
$lbert 'instein @MBA*@AJJ!
;erman physicist $lbert 'instein published his papers on <elativity ,heory between @A>J and
@A@K. 8e became internationally noted after @A@A and was awarded the 5obel Pri(e in @A4@.
'instein emigrated to the 9%$ when 8itler came to power in ;ermany.
'instein: G<elativity teaches us the connection between the different descriptions of one and the
same reality.G
In his usual humble way, 'instein e#plained how he reinvented physics: GI sometimes ask myself
how it came about that I was the one to develop the theory of <elativity. ,he reason, I think, is
that a normal adult stops to think about problems of space and time. ,hese are things which he
has thought about as a child. /ut my intellectual development was retarded, as a result of which I
began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up.G :n <elativity, he
said: G<elativity teaches us the connection between the different descriptions of one and the same
reality.G
,his view of <elativity, that there are different realities, has been picked up unanimously by the
public, and hence, has taken on a far greater meaning than that of the original scientific theory,
the focus of which was *strictly speaking* on mechanics and electrodynamics. ,his astonishing
success was at least in part due to 'insteinEs personality. 8e understood himself as a philosopher
as much as a scientist, and he was ready to discuss philosophical issues at any time, particularly
matters involving <elativity. ,he philosophical aspect of <elativity forced people to think
differently about the universe. %uddenly, the cosmos was not a ;od*created clockwork anymore,
but a totality of disparate realities with the same basic natural laws.
'3mcb * 'nergy e.uals mass times the speed of light s.uared.
$n outstanding feature of %pecial <elativity is its mass*energy relation, which is e#pressed in the
well*known formula: '3mcb.
&lick on this button to hear 'instein e#plaining his famous formula '3mcb .au, I4K kb!
'instein derived this relation in an attempt to reconcile Ma#wellEs electromagnetic theory with
the conservation of energy and momentum. Ma#well said that light carries a momentum, which
is to say that a wave carries an amount of energy. 7ue to the principle of conservation of
momentum, if a body emits energy in the form of radiation, the body loses an e.uivalent amount
of mass that is given by '=cb. ,his describes the relation between energy and mass.
$ccording to the conservation principle, in a closed system the sum of mass and its energy
e.uivalent is always the same. ,he mass*energy relation tells us that any change in the energy
level of an ob-ect necessarily involves a change in the ob-ectEs mass and vice*versa. ,he most
dramatic conse.uences of this law are observed in nature, for e#ample in nuclear fission and
fusion processes, in which stars like the %un emit energy and lose mass. ,he same law also
applies to the forces set free in the detonation of an atomic bomb.
6as 'instein involved in the development of the atomic bomb0
'instein was not directly involved in the creation of the atomic bomb, as some people assume.
8is credits are rather being the one who provided the theoretical framework. In @A?A, 'instein
and several other physicists wrote a letter to President Franklin 7. <oosevelt, pointing out the
possibility of making an atomic bomb and the peril that the ;erman government was embarking
on such a course. ,he letter, signed only by 'instein, helped lending urgency to efforts in the
creation of the atomic bomb, but 'instein himself played no role in the work and knew nothing
about it at the time.
;eneral <elativity published in @A@K.
'leven years after On the !lectrod*namics of $oving Bodies, 'instein published his second
groundbreaking work on ;eneral <elativity, which continues and e#pands the original theory. $
preeminent feature of ;eneral <elativity is its view of gravitation. 'instein held that the forces of
acceleration and gravity are e.uivalent. $gain, the single premise that ;eneral <elativity is based
on is surprisingly simple. It states that all physical laws can be formulated so as to be valid for
any observer, regardless of the observerEs motion. &onse.uently, due to the e.uivalence of
acceleration and gravitation, in an accelerated reference frame, observations are e.uivalent to
those in a uniform gravitational field.
,his led 'instein to redefine the concept of space itself. In contrast to the 'uclidean space in
which 5ewtons laws apply, he proposed that space itself might be curved. ,he curvature of
space, or better spacetime, is due to massive ob-ects in it, such as the sun, which warp space
around their gravitational centre. In such a space, the motion of ob-ects can be described in terms
of geometry rather than in terms of e#ternal forces. For e#ample, a planet orbiting the %un can be
thought of as moving along a GstraightG tra-ectory in a curved space that is bent around the %un.
:n the following pages we will e#amine spacetime and other fascinating aspects of <elativity in
some detail and see how <elativity leads us to new insights about the structure and the creation
of the universe.
:ne of the most enthralling aspects of <elativity is its new understanding of time. ,he term
Gtime dilationG might evoke images of %alvadore 7aliEs timepieces hanging on twigs, however,
time dilation is all but surrealistic. $s stated earlier, if the speed of light is constant, time cannot
be constant. In fact, it doesnEt make sense to speak of time as being constant or absolute, when
we think of it as one dimension of spacetime. %pecial <elativity states that time is measured
according to the relative velocity of the reference frame it is measured in. 7espite of the
simplicity of this statement, the relativistic connection between time and space are hard to
fathom. ,here are numerous ways to illustrate this:
,he four dimensions of spacetime.
In <elativity the world has four dimensions: three space dimensions and one dimension that is
not e#actly time but related to time. In fact, it is time multiplied by the s.uare root of *@. %ay, you
move through one space dimension from point $ to point /. 6hen you move to another space
coordinate, you automatically cause your position on the time coordinate to change, even if you
donEt notice. ,his causes time to elapse. :f course, you are always travelling through time, but
when you travel through space you travel through time by less than you e#pect. &onsider the
following e#ample:
,ime dilationF the twin parado#.
,here are two twin brothers. :n their thirtieth birthday, one of the brothers goes on a space
-ourney in a superfast rocket that travels at AAO of the speed of light. ,he space traveller stays on
his -ourney for precisely one year, whereupon he returns to 'arth on his ?@st birthday. :n 'arth,
however, seven years have elapsed, so his twin brother is ?B years old at the time of his arrival.
,his is due to the fact that time is stretched by factor B at appro#. AAO of the speed of light,
which means that in the space travellers reference frame, one year is e.uivalent to seven years
on earth. )et, time appears to have passed normally to both brothers, i.e. both still need five
minutes to shave each morning in their respective reference frame.
,ime in the moving system will be observed by a stationary observer to be running slower by the
factor tE:
$s it can be seen from the above function, the effect of time dilation is negligible for common
speeds, such as that of a car or even a -et plane, but it increases dramatically when one gets close
to the speed of light. Very close to c, time virtually stands still for the outside observer.
,ime e#pands, space contracts.
Interestingly, while time e#pands from the perspective of the stationary observer, space contracts
from the perspective of the moving observer. ,his phenomenon is known as +orent( contraction,
which is e#actly the reciprocal of the above time dilation formula: lE3las.r@*vb=cb!. ,hus the
space traveller passing by 'arth at a speed of >.AAc would see itEs shape as an ellipsis with the
a#is parallel to his flight direction contracted to a seventh of its original diameter. ,hat is of
course, if he sees it at all, given the enormous speed. ,herefore, space travel is shortened with the
velocity of the traveller. $ -ourney to the I.? light*years distant $lpha &entauri &, the closest star
to our %un, would take only B.I months in a space ship moving at >.AAc.
,he effect of time dilation has been e#perimentally confirmed thanks to very precise caesium
clocks that can measure e#tremely small periods of time. 9nfortunately, time dilation is
completely outside of human e#perience, because we have not yet devised a way of travelling at
speeds where relativistic effects become noticeable. 'ven if you spent your whole life in a -et
plane that moves at supersonic speed, you would barely win a second over your contemporaries
on the ground. $nd, not even todayEs astronauts can perceive the +orent( contraction. Imagine
you are a cosmonaut on board of space station Mir, moving at BB>> meters per second relative to
'arth. +ooking down upon 'urope from space, you would see the entire 4B> kilometre east to
west e#tent of %wit(erland contracted by a mere >.>M millimetres.
&an we travel at the speed of light0
,he hope that one day mankind will be able to travel at near*to*speed*of*light velocities seems
farfetched, because of the incredible amounts of energy needed to accelerate a spacecraft to these
speeds. ,he forces are likely to destroy any vehicle before it comes even close to the re.uired
speed. In addition, the navigational problems of near*to*speed*of*light travel pose another
tremendous difficulty. ,herefore, when people say they have to hurry in order to Gwin timeG, they
probably dont mean it in a relativistic way.
Hant: %pace and time are properties of thought.
,he ;erman philosopher, Immanuel Hant @B4I*@M>I!, maintained that time and space are a
priori particulars, which is to say they are properties of perception and thought imposed on the
human mind by nature. ,his subtle position allowed Hant to straddle the well*known differences
about the reality of space and time that e#isted between 5ewton and +eibni(. 5ewton held that
space and time have an absolute reality, in the sense of being .uantifiable ob-ects. +eibni( held
against this that space and time werenEt really GthingsG, such as cup and a table, and that space
and time have a different .uality of being. HantEs position agrees with 5ewton in the sense that
space and time are absolute and real ob-ects of perception, hence, science can make valid
propositions about them. $t the same time, he agrees with +eibni( by saying that time and space
are not Gthings in themselves,G which means they are fundamentally different from cups and
tables. :f course, this view of space and time also introduces new problems. It divides the world
into a phenomenal inner! reality sphere and an noumenal outer! reality sphere. From this
academic separation arise many contradictions in epistemology. 6e will, however, not deal with
this particular problem at this point.
+ife in a spacetime cubicle.
From <elativity we learn that time and space is seemingly independent of human e#perience, as
the e#ample of time dilation suggests. %ince our own perception of time and space is bound to a
single reference frame, time appears to be constant and absolute to us. Physics teaches us that
this is an illusion and that our perception deceived us within living memory. ,hanks to 'instein,
we are now able to draw relativistic spacetime diagrams, compute gravitational fields, and
predict tra-ectories through the four*dimensional spacetime continuum. %till, we are hardly able
to visualise this spacetime continuum, or deal with it in practical terms, because human
consciousness is bound to the human body, which is in turn bound to a single reference frame.
6e live within the confinements of our own spacetime cubicle.
&onsidering that in <elativity, spacetime is independent of human perception, the Hantian
understanding of space and time as a priori particulars seems to be obsolete. ,hey are no longer
properties of perception, but properties of nature itself. /ut, there is more trouble looming for
Hant. <elativity stretches the distinction between phenomenal reality, i.e. that which can be
e#perienced, and noumenal reality, i.e. that which is purely intelligible and non*sensory, to a
degree where these concepts almost appear grotes.ue. For e#ample, the .uestion arises, whether
time dilation falls into the noumenal or phenomenal category0 %ince it can be measured, it must
be phenomenal, however, since human perception is bound to a single reference frame, it must
also be noumenal. ,he distinction between noumenon and phenomenon is thus blurred and
possibly invalidated.
6e can attempt to imagine relativistic models with the help of appropriate mathematical models,
but cannot e#perience it directly, at least not until someone builds a near*to*speed*of*light
spacecraft. ,hanks to 'instein, we are able to look beyond the phenomenal reality of space and
time, and we understand that there is more to it than commonsense perception tells us. In a way,
'instein has freed our minds from the spacetime cubicle.
From the preceding reflections on time dilation, we learn that $lbert 'instein has overthrown
commonsense assumptions about space and time that were valid for centuries. <elative to the
observer, distances appear to contract while clocks tick more slowly when moving at velocities
close to the speed of light. ,hese are the practical conse.uences of %pecial <elativity, the work
for which 'instein became famous. 'instein did not stop at this point. In @A@K, he published his
;eneral <elativity, which further challenged conventional wisdom. ,he paper proposed that
matter causes spacetime to curve. ;ravitation is understood as the warping of spacetime, not a
force acting at a distance, as 5ewton had suggested.
$ massive ob-ect causes spacetime to curve, which is often illustrated with the picture of a
bowling ball lying on a stretched rubber sheet:
&ontrary to appearance, the diagram does not depict the three*dimensional space of everyday
e#perience. Instead it shows how a 4*7 slice through familiar ?*7 space is curved downwards
when embedded in flattened hyperspace. 6e cannot fully envision this hyperspace. Flattening it
to ?*7 allows us to represent the curvature and helps us visualise the implications of 'insteinEs
;eneral ,heory of <elativity.
;ravitation bends light rays.
%ince light has no mass, it is not sub-ect to 5ewtonEs law of gravity, and hence, in 5ewtonian
physics gravity has no effect on light. If space is curved, however, it follows that a ray of light
seemingly moving in a straight line really travels in a curved line following the curvature of
space. ,his is comparable, in some way, to the itinerary of a plane. /ecause the earth is a sphere,
the shortest path between two points on earth is described by a geodesic, a curved line. 6hile
moving along the geodesic it would appear to the passengers of the plane that they are moving in
a straight line, although they are not. %imilarly, the light of distant stars travels through the
curved geometry of space before it reaches 'arth. ,his proposition is supported by observation.
6hen the light of a star passes close to the %un, it is deflected by the %unEs gravitational field,
which causes it to appear slightly displaced. ,he star appears to be farther from the %un than it
should be. ,he displacement has been measured by photographing the apparent position of stars
during a solar eclipse and comparing these positions with those observed in the night some time
later. $pparent shifts of less than 4 seconds per arc have been measured this way, in close
agreement with the predictions of ;eneral <elativity. +ikewise, the mentioned deviation in the
orbit of Mercury when the planet reaches its perihelion 3closest position to the %un!, which is in
contradiction with the laws of 5ewton, can be e#plained with 'insteinEs model of curved space.
;ravitation is not a force, but a property of spacetime.
$ccording to 'instein, not only are time and space relative, but the geometry of space is different
from what we e#perience in daily life. 8yperspace is a mathematical construct that we can use to
describe gravitational effects in terms of geometry, rather than by the postulation of attracting
and repelling forces.
'instein arrived at this idea by looking at gravity and acceleration. 8e thought that a falling
ob-ect does not GfeelG any gravitational force, while an ob-ect being accelerated does. For this
reason, he suggested to e.uate gravitational mass with inertial mass. 8e postulated that if a frame
of reference is uniformly accelerated relative to a ;alilean one, then we can consider it to be at
rest by introducing the presence of uniform gravitational field relative to it. ,his is known as the
principle of e.uivalence.
,he principle says that a uniform acceleration is e.uivalent to a uniform gravitational field, like
the one on 'arth.
%uppose the elevator in picture @! is located in
space and is accelerated upwards by e#actly ?4 feet per second s.uared. ,he person feels a
downward pull that is e.uivalent to the pull of the gravitational field on 'arth.
%uppose the elevator in picture 4! is located on 'arth and is in the state of free fall. ,he person
in the cabin feels no gravity, because the gravitational field of the 'arth is cancelled by the
opposite acceleration of the elevator.
In both cases, the person cannot tell the difference between the pull of acceleration and gravity,
or respectively the weightlessness felt in space and on 'arth.
,ime dilated by matter.
If acceleration is e.uivalent to gravitation, it follows that the predictions of %pecial <elativity
must also be valid for very strong gravitational fields. ,he curvature of spacetime by matter
therefore not only stretches or shrinks distances, depending on their direction with respect to the
gravitational field, but also appears to slow down the flow of time. ,his effect is called
gravitational time dilation. In most circumstances, such gravitational time dilation is minuscule
and hardly observable, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive
ob-ect, such as a black hole.
$ black hole is the most compact matter imaginable. It is an e#tremely massive and dense ob-ect
in space that is thought to be formed by a star collapsing under its own gravity. /lack holes are
black, because nothing, not even light, can escape from its e#treme gravity. ,he e#istence of
black holes is not yet firmly established. Ma-or advances in computation are only now enabling
scientists to simulate how black holes form, evolve, and interact. ,hey are betting on powerful
instruments now under construction to confirm that these e#otic ob-ects actually e#ist.
6hat happens if an astronaut falls into a black hole0
,he gravitational time dilation effect a black hole produces is e.ual to that of an ob-ect moving
near the speed of light. For e#ample, an observer far from a black hole would observe time
passing e#tremely slowly for an astronaut falling through the holeEs boundary. In fact, the distant
observer would never see the hapless victim actually fall in. 8is or her time, as measured by the
observer, would appear to stand still.
From the perspective of the unlucky astronaut, things would, of course, look .uite different.
$fter having passed the black holeEs event hori(on, the point in space from which nothing can
escape its pull, there is no way back. 6hile approaching the centre, the gravitational pull on the
astronautEs head and feet differs so strongly that the body would be stretched out Glike spaghettiG
%tephen 8awking!. 8ence, it may be a good idea to stay away from black holes, should they
actually e#ist.
<elativity supersedes $ristotle and 5ewton.
6hat are the philosophical conse.uences of 'insteinEs <elativity ,heory0 $round ?J> /&,
$ristotle put forward the view that mechanical ob-ects prefer the state of rest. ,his proposition
was derived from the observation that mechanical systems come to rest if there is no e#ternal
force sustaining motion. <elativity proves this wrong. ,he motion of all ob-ects is relative to
each other, and it is really a matter of convention to define one reference frame as being at rest.
,hough this insight comes from ;alilean relativity alone, 'instein added that the same applies to
the time dimension. ,herefore, commonsense notions of congruity and simultaneity do not apply
to the processes and events taking place in the large*scale structure of the universe. $ lifespan on
'arth may be -ust one second in another gala#y and vice versa. ,here is a multitude of spacetime
reference frames, and a multitude of realities throughout the universe.
7oes relativity disprove empiricism0
,he four*dimensional, non*'uclidean spacetime used in relativistic computations defies
visualisation and lies beyond human perception. 6e cannot imagine three*dimensional space
being curved, or moving around in a four*dimensional coordinate system. In fact, contemporary
physics is only intelligible with the help of mathematics. It cannot be visualised, and it looks as if
we have to accept the limitations of our own mind in this regard. ,his raises an interesting
.uestion in epistemology. 8ow do the findings of <elativity fit with 7avid 8umeEs @B@@*@BBK!
famous proposition that all contents of mind, all ideas, concepts, and thoughts are derived from
sense e#periences0 6ould 8ume be able to uphold his radical empiricism0
Perhaps not. ,he notion of spacetime in %pecial and ;eneral <elativity is obviously not derived
from sense e#perience. :ne would also be hard*pressed to e#plain the making of <elativity
merely in terms of derived and recombined sense impressions and associations. <elativity cannot
be deduced from empirical -udgements, but it is derived from mathematical propositions, or
respectively from what Hant had coined Gsynthetic a priori -udgementsG. <elativity marks a turn
in science away from practical laboratory and field study towards purely theoretical fields.
8eraclitus prevails.
Finally, the findings of 'instein may also have put an end to classical controversy between the
;reek schools of 8eraclitus and Parmenides. ,he latter philosopher held that all is :ne and that
motion is an illusion, while 8eraclitus stated -ust the opposite, namely that motionlessness is an
illusion and that everything is always in a permanent state of motion and change. 6hile the
Parmenidean argument may be given some credit for using clever metaphors from an arrowEs
perspective the archer is moving away!, it is now firmly established that the physical world looks
much more 8eraclitean than Parmenidean. 'ven if an ob-ect appears to be at rest in a designated
reference frame, it still travels through time.
Uuantum theory evolved as a new branch of theoretical physics during the first few decades of
the 4>th century in an endeavour to understand the fundamental properties of matter. It began
with the study of the interactions of matter and radiation. &ertain radiation effects could neither
be e#plained by classical mechanics, nor by the theory of electromagnetism. In particular,
physicists were pu((led by the nature of light. Peculiar lines in the spectrum of sunlight had been
discovered earlier by Noseph von Fraunhofer @BMB*@M4K!. ,hese spectral lines were then
systematically catalogued for various substances, yet nobody could e#plain why the spectral
lines are there and why they would differ for each substance. It took about one hundred years,
until a plausible e#planation was supplied by .uantum theory.
Uuantum theory is about the nature of matter.
In contrast to 'insteinEs <elativity, which is about the largest things in the universe, .uantum
theory deals with the tiniest things we know, the particles that atoms are made of, which we call
GsubatomicG particles. In contrast to <elativity, .uantum theory was not the work of one
individual, but the collaborative effort of some of the most brilliant physicists of the 4>th
century, among them 5iels /ohr, 'rwin %chrYdinger, 6olfgang Pauli, and Ma# /orn. ,wo
names clearly stand out: Ma# Planck @MJM*@AIB! and 6erner 8eisenberg @A>@*@ABK!. Planck
is recognised as the originator of the .uantum theory, while 8eisenberg formulated one of the
most eminent laws of .uantum theory, the 9ncertainty Principle, which is occasionally also
referred to as the principle of indeterminacy.
PlanckEs constant: 'nergy is not continuous.
$round @A>>, Ma# Planck from the 9niversity of Hiel concerned himself with observations of
the radiation of heated materials. 8e attempted to draw conclusions from the radiation to the
radiating atom. :n basis of empirical data, he developed a new formula which later showed
remarkable agreement with accurate measurements of the spectrum of heat radiation. ,he result
of this formula was so that energy is always emitted or absorbed in discrete units, which he
called .uanta. Planck developed his .uantum theory further and derived a universal constant,
which came to be known as PlanckEs constant. ,he resulting law states that the energy of each
.uantum is e.ual to the fre.uency of the radiation multiplied by the universal constant: '3fah,
where h is K.K? a @>'*?I Ns. ,he discovery of .uanta revolutionised physics, because it
contradicted conventional ideas about the nature of radiation and energy.
,he atom model of /ohr.
,o understand the gist of the .uantum view of matter, we have to go back to the @Ath centuryEs
predominant model of matter. %cientists at the time believed *like the ;reek atomists* that matter
is composed of indivisible, solid atoms, until <utherford proved otherwise.
,he /ritish physicist 'rnest <utherford @MB@*@A?B! demonstrated e#perimentally that the atom
is not solid as previously assumed, but that it has an internal structure consisting of a small,
dense nucleus about which electrons circle in orbits.
5iels /ohr @MMJ*@AK4! refined <utherfordEs model by introducing
different orbits in which electrons spin around the nucleus. ,his model is still used in chemistry.
'lements are distinguished by their Gatomic numberG, which specifies the number of protons in
the nucleus of the atom. 'lectrons are held in their orbits through the electrical attraction
between the positive nucleus and the negative electron. /ohr argued that each electron has a
certain fi#ed amount of energy, which corresponds to its fi#ed orbit. ,herefore, when an electron
absorbs energy, it -umps to the ne#t higher orbit rather than moving continuously between orbits.
,he characteristic of electrons having fi#ed energy .uantities .uanta! is also known as the
.uantum theory of the atom.
,he above model bears a striking similarity with the 5ewtonian model of our solar system.
'lectrons revolve around the nucleus, -ust as planets revolve around the %un. It is therefore not
surprising that physicists tried to apply classical mechanics to the atomic structure. ,he forces
between nucleus and electrons were e.uated with the gravitational forces between celestial
bodies. ,his idea worked .uite well for the hydrogen atom, the simplest of all elements, but it
failed to e#plain the behaviour of more comple# atoms.
If matter is not infinitely divisible, why should energy be0
,he idea that energy could be emitted or absorbed only in discrete energy .uanta seemed odd,
since it could not be fitted into the traditional framework of physics. ,he .uantum behaviour of
electrons in atoms contradicted not only classical mechanics, but also Ma#wellEs electromagnetic
theory, which re.uired it to radiate away energy while orbiting in a .uantum energy state. 'ven
Ma# Planck, who was a conservative man, initially doubted his own discovery. ,he traditional
view was that energy flows in a continuum like a smooth, unbroken stream of water. ,hat there
should be gaps between the discrete entities of energy seemed wholly unreasonable. In fact,
PlanckEs idea only gained credence when 'instein used it in @A>J to e#plain the photoelectric
effect. * $fter all, if matter is not infinitely divisible, why should energy be0
In the course of time, physicists descended deeper into the realm of the atom. /ohrEs atom model
was remarkably successful in describing the spectrum of the hydrogen atom by using PlanckEs
formula to relate different energy levels of electrons to different fre.uencies of light radiation.
9nfortunately, it did not work well for more comple# atoms, and so a more sophisticated theory
had to be developed. ,he problem seemed to be rooted in the assumption that an electron rotates
around the nucleus like a massive ob-ect revolves around a centre of gravity. 7e /roglie,
%chrYdinger, and 8eisenberg showed that classical mechanics had to be abandoned in order to
describe the subatomic world ade.uately. In an inference not less dramatic than PlanckEs
discovery of .uanta, they stated that particles donEt really have a tra-ectory or an orbit, much less
do they behave like a ball that is shot through a corridor or is whirled around on the end of a
cord.
,he wave*particle duality.
Nust as light is thought to have a dual nature, sometimes showing the characteristic of a wave,
and sometimes that of a particle photon!, .uantum theory attributes a similar dual wave*particle
nature to subatomic particles. 'lectrons that orbit around the nucleus interact with each other by
showing interference patterns, not unlike those of wave interference. If the velocity of the
electron is thought of as its wavelength, the crests of neighbouring electron waves amplify or
cancel each other, thereby creating a pattern that corresponds to /ohrEs allowed orbits.
/ohrEs model of the atom was superseded by the probability cloud
model that describes physical reality better. ,he orbital clouds are mathematical descriptions of
where the electrons in an atom are most likely to be found, which means the model shows the
spatial distribution of electrons. ,he simplified! picture to the left shows electron probability
clouds in a water molecule.
'ven cloud models are only appro#imations. ,he computation of the actual distribution of
electrons in an atom is e#tremely laborious and the result is too complicated to be illustrated in a
single layer ?7 model.
$bout misbehaved electrons, or: the probability cloud model.
,he nature of electrons seems odd. %eemingly they e#ist in different places at different points in
time, but it is impossible to say where the electron will be at a given time. $t time t@ it is at point
$, then at time t4 it is at point /, yet without moving from $ to /. It seems to appear in different
places without describing a tra-ectory. ,herefore, even if t@ and $ can be pinpointed, it is
impossible to derive t4 and / from this measurement. In other words: ,here seems to be no
causal relation between any two positions. ,he concept of causality cannot be applied to what is
observed. In case of the electrons of an atom, the closest we can get to describing the electronEs
position is by giving a number for the probability of it being at a particular place. Moreover,
particles have other GdisturbingG properties: ,hey have a tendency to decay into other particles or
into energy, and sometimes *under special circumstances* they merge to form new particles.
,hey do so after indeterminate time spans. $lthough we can make statistical assertions about a
particleEs lifetime, it is impossible to predict the fate of an individual particle.
6hat does .uantum physics say about the universe0
&an we derive any new knowledge about the universe from .uantum physics0 $fter all, the
entire universe is composed of an unimaginable large number of matter and energy. It seems to
be of great importance to understand .uantum theory properly in view of the large*scale structure
of the cosmos. For e#ample, an interesting .uestion in this conte#t is why the observable matter
in the universe is packed together in gala#ies and is not evenly distributed throughout space.
&ould it have to do with the .uantum characteristics of energy0 $re .uantum effects responsible
for matter forming discrete entities, instead of spreading out evenly during the birth of the
universe0 ,he answer to this .uestion is still being debated.
If cosmological conclusions seem laboured, we might be able to derive philosophical insights
from .uantum physics. $t least Frit-of &apra thinks this is possible when he describes the
parallels between modern physics and ancient 'astern philosophy in his book ,he ,ao of
Physics. 8e holds that in a way, the essence of modern physics is comparable to the teachings of
the ancient 'astern philosophies, such as the &hinese ,ao ,e &hing, the Indian 9panishads, or
the /uddhist %utras. 'astern philosophies agree in the point that ultimate reality is indescribable
and unapproachable, not only in terms of common language, but also in the language of
mathematics. ,hat is, science and mathematics must fail at some stage in describing ultimate
reality. 6e see this e#emplified in the 9ncertainty Principle, which is elucidated in the following
section.
Molecules and atoms cannot be split into independent units. $ll parts interact at all levels.
,he oriental scriptures agree in the point that all observable and describable realities are
manifestations of the same underlying GdivineG principle. $lthough many phenomena of the
observable world are seemingly unrelated, they all go back to the same source. ,hings are
intertwined and interdependent to an unfathomable degree, -ust as the particles in an atom are.
$lthough the electrons in an atom can be thought of as individual particles, they are not really
individual particles, because of the complicated wave relations that e#ist between them. 8ence,
the electron cloud model describes the atomic structure more ade.uately. ,he sum of electrons in
an atom cannot be separated from its nucleus, which has a compound structure itself and can
neither be regarded a separate entity. ,hus, in the multiplicity of things there is unity. Matter is
many things and one thing at the same time.
,he 'astern scriptures say that no statement about the world is ultimately valid G,he ,ao that
can be told is not the eternal ,ao.G ,ao ,e &hing, Verse @!, since not even the most elaborate
language is capable of rendering a perfect model of the universe. %cience is often compared to a
tree that branches out into many directions. ,he disposition of physics is that it follows the tree
upward to its branches and leaves, while meta*physics follows it down to the root. 6hether the
branches of knowledge stretch out indefinitely is still a matter of debate. 8owever, it appears that
most scientific discoveries do not only answer .uestions, but also raise new ones.
,he ;erman philosopher, Friedrich8egel formulated an idea at the beginning of the @Ath century
that describes this process. 8e proposed the dialectic triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, in
which an idea thesis! always contains incompleteness and thus yields a conflicting idea
antithesis!. $ third point of view synthesis! arises, which overcomes the conflict by reconciling
the truth contained in both, thesis and antithesis, at a higher level of understanding. ,he synthesis
then becomes a new thesis, generates another antithesis, and the process starts over. In the ne#t
section, we shall see how 4>th century physics embodies 8egelEs dialectical principle. 6e will
also take a close look at the philosophical implications of 8eisenbergEs 9ncertainty Principle.
$t a time when 'instein had gained international recognition, .uantum theory culminated in the
late @A4>s statement of the 9ncertainty Principle, which says that the more recisel* the
osition of a article is determined, the less recisel* the momentum is known in this instant, and
vice versa. ,he above phrasing of the principle is a succinct version of the mathematically
precise uncertainty relation that 8eisenberg published in @A4B. %ince the momentum of a particle
is the product of its mass and velocity, the principle is sometimes stated differently, however, its
meaning remains the same: ,he act of measuring one magnitude of a particle, be it its mass, its
velocity, or its position, causes the other magnitudes to blur. ,his is not due to imprecise
measurements. ,echnology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements.
,he blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature.
&lick on this button to hear 8eisenberg e#plaining his uncertainty principle. .au, @BK kb!
,he uncertainty relation describes the GblurG between the measurable .uantities of a particle in
mathematical terms. +ike much of the math in .uantum theory, it is not for the faint of heart,
which is to say it is completely unintelligible to most people. ,herefore we restrict ourselves to a
brief account on the underlying ideas and how they developed into the G&openhagen
InterpretationG, which 5iels /ohr and 6erner 8eisenberg -ointly elaborated as a complete and
consistent view of .uantum mechanics the &openhagen Interpretation refers to /ohrEs place of
birth!.
8eisenberg: G6hat %chrYdinger writes about the visualisability of his theory [...\ is crap.G
$round @A4J there were two competing mathematical theories that both attempted to e#plain
electron orbits. Matri# mechanics developed by 8eisenberg interprets the electron as a particle
with .uantum behaviour. It is based on sophisticated matri# computations, which introduce
discontinuities and .uantum -umps. In contrast, wave mechanics developed by 'rwin
%chrYdinger interprets the electron as an energy wave. /ecause wave mechanics entails more
familiar concepts and e.uations, it .uickly gained popularity among scientists.
%chrYdinger and 8eisenberg were no too fond of each otherEs competing works. %chrYdinger says
about matri# mechanics: GI knew of [8eisenbergEs\ theory, of course, but I felt discouraged, not
to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which appeared difficult to me, and by
the lack of visualisability.G 8eisenbergEs comment on wave mechanics was: G,he more I think
about the physical portion of %chrYdingerEs theory, the more repulsive I find it. [...\ 6hat
%chrYdinger writes about the visualisability of his theory Eis probably not .uite right,E in other
words itEs crap.G
,he &openhagen Interpretation.
7espite the differences, %chrYdinger published a proof in @A4K, which showed that the results of
matri# and wave mechanics are e.uivalentF they were in fact the same theory. $ccording to the
&openhagen Interpretation, the wave and particle pictures of the atom, or the visual and causal
representations, are GcomplementaryG to each other. ,hat is, they are mutually e#clusive, yet
-ointly essential for a complete description of .uantum events. :bviously in an e#periment in the
everyday world an ob-ect cannot be both a wave and a particle at the same timeF it must be either
one or the other, depending on the situation. In later refinements of this interpretation, the wave
function of the unobserved ob-ect is a mi#ture of both, the wave and particle pictures, until the
e#perimenter chooses what to observe in a given e#periment.
,he ;erman physicist 6erner 8eisenberg @A>@*@ABK! received the 5obel Pri(e in physics in
@A?4 for his work in nuclear physics and .uantum theory. ,he paper on the uncertainty relation is
his most important contribution to physics.
8eisenberg impressed his teachers with his ambition and brilliance. 8e
never produced other grades than straight $Es, e#cept on one occasion: 7uring his doctorate,
professor 6ien of the university of Munich gave him an F in e#perimental physics, because he
handled the laboratory e.uipment clumsily. <eportedly this left 8eisenberg so disconcerted that
he did not speak to anyone for days.
Fate had it that a few years later, 8eisenberg demonstrated the very limitations of e#perimental
physics, which un.uestionably constituted a setback for its advocates, including Professor 6ien.
,he observer becomes part of the observed system.
,he notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in
physics. In .uantum physics, the observer is no longer e#ternal and neutral, but through the act
of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. ,his marks the end of the
neutrality of the e#perimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of science:
certain facts are no longer ob-ectifiable in .uantum theory. If in an e#act science, such as
physics, the outcome of an e#periment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this
imply for other fields of human knowledge0 It would seem that in any faculty of science, there
are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these
interpretations are in conflict with each other. 7oes this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable0
,he results of .uantum theory, and particularly of 8eisenbergEs work, left scientists pu((led.
Many felt that .uantum theory had somehow Gmissed the pointG. $t least $lbert 'instein did so.
8e was an outspoken critic of .uantum mechanics and is often .uoted on his comment regarding
the 9ncertainty Principle: G,he :ld :ne ;od! doesnEt play dice.G 8e also said: GI like to believe
that the moon is still there even if we donEt look at it.G In particular, 'instein was convinced that
electrons do have definite orbits, even if we cannot observe them. In a conversation with
8eisenberg he said:
$ conversation between 'instein and 8eisenberg.
8eisenberg: G:ne cannot observe the electron orbits inside the atom. [...\ but since it is
reasonable to consider only those .uantities in a theory that can be measured, it seemed natural
to me to introduce them only as entities, as representatives of electron orbits, so to speak.G
'instein: G/ut you donEt seriously believe that only observable .uantities should be considered in
a physical theory0G
GI thought this was the very idea that your <elativity ,heory is based on0G 8eisenberg asked in
surprise.
GPerhaps I used this kind of reasoning,G replied 'instein, Gbut it is nonsense nevertheless. [...\ In
reality the opposite is true: only the theory decides what can be observed.G
translated from G7er ,eil und das ;an(eG by 6. 8eisenberg!
6e can easily see the rift between 'insteinEs intuitive and 8eisenbergEs empirical approach.
$lthough 'insteinEs argumentation appears tricky, it is clear that he believes in a reality
independent of what we can observe, which is in essence the view of realism. HantEs Gthing in
itselfG comes to mind. * In contrast, 8eisenberg believes that reality is what can be observed. If
there are different observations, there must be different realities, which depend on the observer.
Insofar 8eisenberg can be regarded as an advocate of philosophical idealism, which states that
the ob-ects of perception are identical with the ideas we have about them. ,he idealist view
denies that any particular thing has an independent real essence outside of consciousness.
Is the moon still there when nobody is looking at it0
,he two philosophies seem incompatible at first. 8eisenberg is in good company with famous
contenders of idealistic positions, such Plato, %chopenhauer, and 8usserl, but so is $lbert
'instein. If we take 8eisenbergEs view for granted, strict causality is broken, or better: the past
and future events of particles are indeterminate. :ne cannot calculate the precise future motion
of a particle, but only a range of possibilities. Physics loses its grip. ,he dream of physicists, to
be able to predict any future event in the universe based on its present state, meets its certain
death.
If we regard reality as that which can be observed by all, we have to find that there is no
ob-ective movement of an electron around the nucleus. ,his viewpoint would imply that reality is
created by the observerF in other words: if we take 8eisenberg literally, the moon is not there
when nobody is looking at it. 8owever, we must consider the possibility that there is a subatomic
reality independent of observation and that the electron may have an actual tra-ectory which
cannot be measured. ,he moon may be there after all. ,his conflict is the philosophical essence
of the 9ncertainty Principle.
<elativity and .uantum theory are inconsonant up to the present day, despite great efforts in
creating a unified theory capable of accommodating both views. $fter having published his
papers on <elativity, 'instein dedicated the rest of his life to working on such a unified field
theory, yet without success. ,he physicists who followed his lead developed a new model called
string theory during the @AB>s and @AM>s. %tring theory was successful to some e#tent in
providing a mathematical model that integrates the strong and the weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism, and gravitation. In spite of this, it cannot yet be called a breakthrough,
because @! the theory has not been corroborated thoroughly by observational evidenceF and 4!
there is not one, but five competing string theories. ,he latter point has recently been addressed
by M*theory, a theory that unites e#isting string theories in @@ dimensions.
,he _en of Uuantum ,heory.
6e shall leave the problem of theoretical unification to the physicists and instead briefly
consider a philosophical unification of <elativity and .uantum theory. Is this possible0
&ontemplating the subatomic realm seems like a _en e#ercise. ,he nuclear reality embodies
duality and multiplicity, such as is evident in the complicated structure of atoms and particles. It
transgresses the narrow world of opposites. 6e have to realise that in spite of the different parts
and components, the subatomic world in actuality is an undivided whole, where the boundary
between the observer and the observed is blurred. :b-ect and sub-ect have become inseparable,
spatial and temporal detachment is an illusion. 6hen the $merican physicist N.<. :ppenheimer
@A>4*@AKB! describes the structure of probability clouds, he almost sounds like a _en Master:
GIf we ask, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we have to say no. If we ask,
whether the position of an electron changes with the course of time, we have to say no. If we ask,
whether the electron is in a state of rest, we have to say no. If we ask, whether the electron is in
motion, we have to say no.G
In the beginning, the 'arth was flat. $t least it appeared so to its first observers, hunters and
gatherers, and members of early civilisations. 5ot totally unreasonable, one would think, because
the curvature of our planetEs surface is not immediately apparent. )et we know, and it must have
been not totally inconceivable even to the archaic tribesmen, that our senses occasionally deceive
us. ,he 'arth being flat brings about the problem that it must end somewhere, unless we imagine
it to e#tend infinitely. Infinity is a rather unfathomable conception and, hence, right down to the
Middle $ges people were afraid of the possibility of falling off the 'arthEs boundaries.
'arly cosmogonies.
6hat lies beyond these boundaries was largely unknown and open to speculation. ,he starry
heavens were a source of endless wonder and inspiration. Peoples from all parts of the world
created their own myths, inspired by the skies and the celestial bodies. ,heir cosmogonies can be
seen as an attempt to e#plain their own place in the universe. %i# thousand years ago, the
%umerians believed that the 'arth is at the centre of the cosmos. ,his belief was later carried into
the /abylonian and ;reek civilisations.
$ccording to the history books, it was the ;reeks who first put forward the idea that our planet is
a sphere. $round ?I> /&, the ;reek philosopher $ristotle made a few good points in favour of
this theory in :n the 8eavens. First, he argued that one always sees the sails of a ship coming
over the hori(on first and only later its hull, which suggests that the surface of the ocean is
curved. %econd, he realised that the eclipses of the Moon were caused by the 'arth casting its
shadow on the moon. :bviously, the shadow would not always appear round, if the 'arth was a
flat disk, unless the %un was directly under the centre of the disk. ,hird, from their travels to
foreign countries, the ;reeks knew that the 5orth %tar appears higher on the northern firmament
and lower in the south. $ristotle e#plained this correctly with the parallactic shift that occurs
when moving between two observation points on a spherical ob-ect. $mong the ;reeks, the
heliocentric system was proposed by the Pythagoreans and by $ristarchus of %amos ca. 4B>
/&!. 8owever, $ristotle dismissed the case for heliocentrism.
PtolemyEs geocentric model of the cosmos.
,he influence of $ristotle was significant. $round @J> $7, &laudius Ptolemaeus Ptolemy!
elaborated $ristotleEs ideas into a complete cosmological model. 8e thought that the 'arth was
stationary at the centre of the universe and that the %un, the stars, and all planets revolve around
it in circular orbits, hence, the model is sometimes referred to as the geocentric system. Ptolemy
was aware that the postulation of perfect circular orbits contradicted observation, because the
planetsE motion, si(e and brightness varied with time. ,o account for the observed deviations, he
introduced the idea of epicycles, smaller circular orbits around imaginary centres on which
planets were supposed to move while describing a revolution around 'arth. ,his enabled
astronomers to make reasonably accurate predictions about the movement of the celestial bodies,
and conse.uently the Ptolemaic model was a great success. ,he system was later adopted by the
&hristian &hurch and became the dominant cosmology until the @Kth century.
PtolemyEs model of the universe was that of an onion with the
'arth at its centre and stars arranged in layers around it. ,he outer layer was thought to be like a
crystal to which the fi# stars were attached. ,he hypothesis of epicycles accounted for the
observable deviations.
&opernicus.
In @J@I the Polish astronomer 5icolaus &opernicus @IB?*@JI?! put forward an alternative
model, referred to as the heliocentric system, in which the %un is at the centre of the universe,
and all planets, including 'arth, revolve around it. ,he further apart a planet is from the %un, the
longer it takes to complete a revolution. &opernicus said that the ostensible movement of the %un
is caused by the 'arth rotating around its north*to*south a#is. ,he heliocentric system got rid of
PtolemyEs obscure epicycles, whose main weakness was that they did neither account for the
observed backward motion of Mars, Nupiter, and %aturn, nor for the fact that Mercury and Venus
never moved more than a certain distance from the %un. 9nfortunately, the &opernican system
was not inherently simpler than the geocentric systemF and it did not immediately render more
accurate calculations of the planetEs motion.
;alileo.
,he end of the Ptolemaic theory came with the invention of the telescope. 6ith the help of this
device, ;alileo ;alilei @JKI*@KI4! discovered the four largest Nupiter moons. ,he e#istence of
these moons demonstrated beyond doubt that not all celestial bodies revolve around the 'arth,
contrary to Ptolemys theory. ;alileo confirmed the &opernican model and thus initiated a
scientific revolution of great importance, much to the discontent of the <oman &atholic &hurch.
9nsurprisingly, ;alileo struggled with church authorities during much of his lifetime. In @JAI
the ;erman astronomer Nohannes Hepler @JB@*@K?>! refined the heliocentric model in his book
Mysterium &osmographicum by showing that planets move on elliptical, rather than circular
orbits. Hepler also prepared the idea of gravity by e#plaining that the %un e#erts a force on
planets that diminishes inversely with distance and causes them to move faster on their orbits, the
closer they come to the %un. ,his theory finally allowed predictions that matched observations.
Hepler and 5ewton: ,he parado# of the collapsing universe.
Heplers model became the accepted @Bth century cosmology, until Isaac 5ewton further refined
HeplerEs notion of the forces between celestial bodies. 5ewton postulated the law of universal
gravitation that applied to all bodies, whether in space or on 'arth, and he supplied the
mathematical foundation for it. $ccording to 5ewton, bodies attract each other proportionally
with their si(e and inverse proportionally with the s.uare of the distance between them. 8e went
on to demonstrate that according to this law, planets move on elliptical orbits, as previously
assumed by Hepler. 9nfortunately, one conse.uence of this theory is that the stars of the universe
attract each other and thus must eventually collapse onto each other. 5ewton was not able to give
a plausible e#planation for why this did not happen.
,o counter this parado#, it was inferred that the universe is infinite in space, and thus contains an
infinite number of evenly distributed stars, which would on the whole create a gravitational
e.uilibrium. ,his assumption, however, would still imply instability. If the balance is disturbed
in one region of space, the nearest stars collapse and the gravitational pull of the resulting more
massive body draws in the ne#t cluster of stars. &lusters would collapse like a house of cards and
eventually draw in the entire universe. ,oday we know that this is not the case, because the
universe is not static as 5ewton thought. ,he cosmos is in a state of e#pansion and therefore,
gravitational collapse is prevented.
Is the universe infinite in space and time0
,he .uestion of whether the universe has boundaries in time and space has captivated the
imagination of mankind since early times. %ome would say the universe had e#isted forever,
while others would say that the universe was created and thus had a beginning in time and space.
,he second thesis immediately raises the .uestion what e#ists beyond its temporal and spatial
bounds. &ould it be nothingness0 /ut then, what is nothingness0 ,he absence of matter, or the
absence of space and time itself0 ,he ;erman philosopher Immanuel Hant @B4I*@M>I! dealt
intensively with this .uestion. In his book &riti.ue of Pure <eason he came to the conclusion
that the .uestion cannot be answered reliably within the limits of human knowledge, since thesis
and antithesis are e.ually valid. Hant thought instead of time and space as fundamental aspects
of human perception.
/ig /ang * the birth of our universe.
Fast forward: 7espite HantEs doubts thereto, it appears that modern cosmology has answered the
above .uestion. ,he universe we can observe is finite. It has a beginning in space and time,
before which the concept of space and time has no meaning, because spacetime itself is a
property of the universe. $ccording to the /ig /ang theory, the universe began about twelve to
fifteen billion years ago in a violent e#plosion. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a
second, the universe was an infinitely dense and infinitely hot fireball. $ peculiar form of energy
that we donEt know yet, suddenly pushed out the fabric of spacetime in a process called
GinflationG, which lasted for only one millionth of a second. ,hereafter, the universe continued to
e#pand but not nearly as .uickly. ,he process of phase transition formed out the most basic
forces in nature: first gravity, then the strong nuclear force, followed by the weak nuclear and
electromagnetic forces. $fter the first second, the universe was made up of fundamental energy
and particles like .uarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and other less familiar particles.
$bout ? seconds after the /ig /ang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning
to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first
@>>,>>> years after the initial hot e#plosion there was no matter of the form we know today.
Instead, radiation light, c rays, and radio waves! dominated the early universe. Following the
radiation era, atoms were formed by nuclei linking up with free electrons and thus matter slowly
became dominant over energy. It took 4>> million years until irregularities in the primordial gas
began to form gala#ies and early stars out of pockets of gas condensing by virtue of gravity. ,he
%un of our solar system was formed out of such a pocket of gas in a spiral arm of the Milky 6ay
gala#y roughly five billion years ago. $ vast disk of gas and debris swirling around the early %un
gave birth to the planets, including 'arth, which is between I.K and I.J billion years old. ,his is
*in short* the history of our universe according to the /ig /ang theory, which constitutes todayEs
most widely accepted cosmological viewpoint.
6hat speaks in favor of the /ig /ang theory0
$ number of different observations corroborate the /ig /ang theory. 'dwin 8ubble @MMA*@AJ?!
discovered that gala#ies are receding from us in all directions. 8e observed shifts in the spectra
of light from different gala#ies, which are proportional to their distance from us. ,he farther
away the gala#y, the more its spectrum is shifted towards the low red! end of the spectrum,
which is in some way comparable to the 7oppler effect. ,his redshift indicates recession of
ob-ects in space, or better: the ballooning of space itself. ,oday, there is convincing evidence for
8ubbleEs observations. Pro-ecting gala#y tra-ectories backward in time means that they converge
to a high*density state, i.e. the initial fireball.
If two intelligent life forms in two different gala#ies look at each others gala#y, they perceive
the same thing. ,he light of the other gala#y appears redshifted in comparison to nearer ob-ects.
,his is caused by ballooning space that stretches the wavelength of emitted light. ,he magnitude
of this effect is proportional to the distance of the observed gala#y.
$ccording to the &opernican cosmological principle, the universe appears the same in every
direction from every point in space, or in more scientific terms: ,he universe is homogeneous
and isotropic. ,here is overwhelming evidence for this assertion. ,he best evidence is provided
by the almost perfect uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. ,his observed radiation is
isotropic to a very high degree and is thought to be a remnant of the initial /ig /ang e#plosion.
,he background radiation originates from an era of a few hundred thousand years after the /ig
/ang, when the first atoms where formed. $nother piece of evidence speaking in favour of /ig
/ang is the abundance of light elements, like hydrogen, deuterium heavy hydrogen!, helium,
and lithium. /ig /ang nucleosynthesis predicts that about a .uarter of the mass of the universe
should be helium*I, which is in good agreement with what is observed.
6ill the universe e#pand forever0
:n basis of our understanding of the past and present universe, we can speculate about its future.
,he prime .uestion is whether gravitational attraction between gala#ies will one day slow the
e#pansion and ultimately force the universe into contraction, or whether it will continue to
e#pand and cool forever. ,he current rate of e#pansion 8ubble &onstant! and the average
density of the universe determine whether the gravitational force is strong enough to halt
e#pansion. ,he density re.uired to halt e#pansion 3critical density! is @.@ a @>d*4K kg per cubic
meter, or si# hydrogen atoms per cubic meterF the relation Gactual densityG = Gcritical densityG is
called :mega. 6ith :mega less than @, the universe is called GopenG, i.e. forever e#panding. If
:mega is greater than @ the universe is called GclosedG, which means that it will contract and
eventually collapse in a /ig &runch. In the unlikely event that :mega 3 @, the e#pansion of the
universe will asymptotically slow down until it becomes virtually imperceptible, but it wonEt
collapse.
/ig /ang * /ig &runch0
%ome scientists think it not impossible that the universe is oscillating between eras of e#pansion
and contraction, where every /ig /ang is followed by a /ig &runch. %tephen 8awking born
@AI4! pointed out the possibility that such an oscillating universe must not necessarily start and
end in singularities, i.e. .uestionable points in spacetime where physical theories, such as
;eneral <elativity, break down while energy and density levels appro#imate infinity. $lthough
everything points towards /ig /ang, the future reversal and contraction of the universe is rather
uncertain. /ig &runch is at most a hypothesis, because only about @=@>>th of the matter needed
for :mega3@ can be observed.
In spite of this, gala#ies and star clusters behave as if they would contain more matter than we
can see. It is almost as if these ob-ects were engulfed by invisible matter. ,his Gdark matterG that
cannot be accounted for is one of the open .uestions in cosmology. 7ark matter makes is thought
to make up 4?O of the universe.
/ig <ipX
,oday, most cosmologists believe there is not enough matter in the universe to halt and revert
e#pansion. <obert &aldwell of 7artmouth 9niversity has recently suggested a third alternative
for the fate of the universe. 8is /ig <ip scenario is based on astronomical observations made in
the late @AA>s according to which a mysterious force, labelled dark energy, is responsible for the
e#pansion of the universe. 7ark energy makes up B?O of the universe. If the rate of acceleration
increases, there will be a point in time at which the repulsive force becomes so strong that it
overwhelms gravity and the other fundamental forces. $ccording to &aldwell, this will happen in
4> billion years. G,he e#pansion becomes so fast that it literally rips apart all bound ob-ects,G
&aldwell e#plains. GIt rips apart clusters of gala#ies. It rips apart stars. It rips apart planets and
solar systems. $nd it eventually rips apart all matter.G 'ven atoms would be torn apart in the last
@>*@A seconds before the end of time. C6hether or not this scenario will become true is to be
decided by future research. 9ntil then, the field is open to speculation.
Physics has answered many .uestions about space, time, and matter. ,hanks to technological
advances, we have been able to look deeper and deeper into the large*scale structure of the
universe and the small*scale structure of matter. From the invention of the telescope to the time
of particle accelerators, insight and understanding have grown. )et, there are still many unsolved
mysteries. ,he contemporary models of matter, space, and time are incomplete and our picture of
the world still has holes. %ome of todayEs most challenging .uestions in physics are:
6hat is dark matter0
,here seems to be a halo of mysterious invisible material engulfing gala#ies, which is commonly
referred to as dark matter. %cientists infer the e#istence of dark 3invisible! matter from the
observation of its gravitational pull, which causes the stars in the outer regions of a gala#y to
orbit faster than they would if there was only visible matter present. $nother indication is that we
see gala#ies in our own local cluster moving towards each other.
,he $ndromeda gala#y *about 4.4 million light years away from the Milky 6ay* is speeding
toward us at 4>>,>>> miles per hour. ,his motion can only be e#plained by gravitational
attraction, even though the mass we observe is not nearly great enough to e#ert that kind of pull.
It follows there must be a large amount of unseen mass causing the gravitational pull *roughly
e.uivalent to ten times the si(e of the Milky 6ay* lying between the two gala#ies.
$stronomers have no idea what the dark matter is that supposedly makes up 4?O of all matter in
our universe. /lack holes and massive neutrinos are two possible e#planations. 7ark matter must
have played an important role in gala#y formation during the evolution of the cosmos. /ut, even
taking into account all known and suspected black holes, there seems to be much more matter
out there than we can presently see or e#trapolate.
6hat is dark energy0
7ark energy is perhaps even more mysterious than dark matter. ,he discovery of dark energy
goes back to @AAM when a @>*year study of supernovae took an astonishing turn. $ group of
scientists had recorded several do(en supernovae, including some so distant that their light had
started to travel towards 'arth when the universe was only a fraction of its present age. ,he
groupEs goal was to measure small changes in the e#pansion rate of the universe, which in turn
would yield clues to the origin, structure, and fate of the cosmos. &ontrary to their e#pectation,
the scientists found that the e#pansion of the universe is not slowing, but accelerating.
,he acceleration is supposedly due to the anti*gravitational properties of the so*called dark
energy. 6hile the e#act nature of this energy is presently unknown, scientists agree that dark
energy is the dominant constituent of our universe, which means that it is larger than the sum of
visible and dark matter. 'instein already postulated an anti*gravitational force at the beginning of
the 4>th century. 8e acknowledged that the observed matter would lead to gravitational collapse,
and hence, introduced a cosmological constant to bring <elativity into line with observation.
$fter it was discovered by 8ubble that the universe is e#panding, 'instein called his
cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life.
)et, at the beginning of the 4@st century it seems that anti*gravity is coming back with
vengeance. $ possible e#planation is that the energy content of a vacuum is non*(ero with a
negative pressure. ,his negative pressure of the vacuum would grow in strength as the universe
e#pands and it would cause the e#pansion to accelerate. If the acceleration does not stop, this
will lead to the /ig <ip scenario suggested by &aldwell, in which the universe will be literally
torn apart by the anti*gravitational force in several billion years.
8ome did the universe come into being0
%tephen 8awking says in the foreword of ,he &osmos '#plained &ambridge, Nuly 4M, @AAB!:
G$t the /ig /ang, the universe and time itself came into e#istence, so that this is the first cause.
If we could understand the /ig /ang, we would know why the universe is the way it is. It used to
be thought that it was impossible to apply the laws of science to the beginning of the universe,
and indeed that it was sacrilegious to try. /ut recent developments in unifying the two pillars of
twentieth*century science, 'insteinEs ;eneral ,heory of <elativity and the Uuantum ,heory, have
encouraged us to believe that it may be possible to find laws that hold even at the creation of the
universe. In that case, everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science. %o
if we understood those laws, we would in a sense be masters of the universe.G
It is uncertain whether mankind is able to develop such a theory in the near future, and it may be
even more .uestionable whether this knowledge would indeed help us to become masters of the
universe, as %tephen 8awking connotes. :bviously it is difficult to speculate on a theory that has
not been developed yet. ,he theory might as well have no practical value at all. ,he great 4>th
century physical theories showed us that comple#ity and abstraction are growing, while
intelligibility and practical applicability are decreasing. From a unified physical theory we can
e#pect a more complete picture of matter, space, and time and a better understanding of the
beginning of the universe. It may satisfy our curiosity in view of some big philosophical
.uestions. $ny practical value beyond this is rather uncertain.
9nified theories: 8ow does gravity fit into the big picture0
,he theory of gravity as formulated by 'instein is incompatible with the rules of .uantum
mechanics. Physicists encounter serious difficulties when trying to construct a .uantum version
of gravity. In the later years of his life, 'instein tried but failed to devise a theory that unifies
gravity with .uantum theory. In the @AK>s, the weak nuclear force was united with
electromagnetism to form the electroweak theory, which was subse.uently verified in particle
accelerator e#periments. ,he ne#t step is to create a model that unites the other fundamental
forces.
,heorists are working on such a model, which they call grand unified theory ;9,!. It
amalgamates electromagnetism with the weak and strong nuclear interaction, but omits gravity.
From ;9, we e#pect the answer to why particles have the masses we observe. $lthough we
observe the masses of electrons, protons, and neutrons generated through what is called
Gelectroweak breaking,G we donEt know how this breaking mechanism works. ;9, should be
able to interpret the electroweak breaking process and thus provide an e#planation for the mass
of a particle.
/eyond ;9,, there is a theory that accounts for all four fundamental forces in nature, including
gravity. ,he greatest endeavour of physics is to draw hitherto unrelated and incompatible
theories together into a single unified theory. ,he advantage of such a system is obvious: It
would account for all currently known phenomena without leaving theoretical holes and it may
point towards future areas of study. It is hypothesised that such a theory could create a new
fundamental understanding of nature. %tring theory, supersymmetry, and M*theory are some
candidates currently considered.
$re .uarks and leptons actually fundamental, or are they made up of even more fundamental
particles0
Presently it is not known whether .uarks and leptons are elementary or compound particles. It
seems that physicists have become more careful with announcing the fundamentality of particles
after having learned that atoms, atom cores, and finally protons and neutrons are divisible. 6hat
is more, .uarks and leptons are so small that they may be thought of as geometrical points in
space with no spatial e#tension at all. ,his is perhaps not as miraculous as it first sounds, because
after having learned from <utherfordEs model that the volume of an atom is mostly made of
GemptyG space, it would not be too surprising to find out that matter is in fact nothing but empty
space.
6hile the commonly accepted standard model of matter provides a very good description of the
phenomena observed in e#periments, the model is still incomplete. It can e#plain the behaviour
of particles fairly well, but it cannot e#plain why some particles e#ist as they do. For e#ample, it
has been impossible to predict the mass of the top .uark accurately from theoretical inference
until it was determined e#perimentally. $s mentioned before, the standard model of matter does
not provide any mathematical model that allows us to calculate the observed mass.
$nother .uestion concerns the fact that there are three families of .uarks and leptons. :f the
three families or generations! of particles, only the first is stable, namely that of up=down
.uarks, e*neutrinos, and electrons. ,here seems to be no need for the other two generations in the
natural world, yet they e#ist. ,heoretical physics has no e#planation for the e#istence of the two
unstable generations. +ikewise, the .uestion why there is hardly any antimatter in the observable
universe remains unaccounted for. %ince there is an almost perfect symmetry between matter and
antimatter, one would e#pect some regions of the universe to be composed of matter and others
of antimatter, yet almost all mass we can observe is composed of conventional matter.
Is our universe uni.ue, or are there many universes0
$ndrei +inde at %tanford has brought forward the cosmological model of a multiverse, which he
calls the Gself*reproducing inflationary universe.G ,he theory is based on $lan ;uthEs inflation
model, and it includes multiple universes woven together in some kind of spacetime foam. 'ach
universe e#ists in a closed volume of space and time. +indeEs model, based on advanced
principles of .uantum physics, defies easy visualisation. Uuite simplified, it suggests .uantum
fluctuations in the universeEs inflationary e#pansion period to have a wavelike character. +inde
theorises that these waves can Gfree(eG atop one another, thus magnifying their effect.
,he stacked*up .uantum waves can in turn create such intense disruptions in scalar fields *the
underlying fields that determine the behaviour of elementary particles* that they e#ceed a critical
mass and start procreating new inflationary domains. ,he multiverse, +inde contends, is like a
growing fractal, sprouting inflationary domains, with each domain spreading and cooling into a
new universe.
If +inde is correct, our universe is -ust one of the sprouts. ,he theory neatly straddles two ancient
ideas about the universe: that it had a definite beginning, and that it had e#isted forever. In
+indeEs view, each particular part of the multiverse, including our part, began from a singularity
somewhere in the past, but that singularity was -ust one of an endless series that was spawned
before it and will continue after it.
6ill a complete physical model of the world help us to understand ultimate reality0 &an we
understand ultimate reality at all through science0
%ome physicists believe that a complete physical model can e#plain everything we observe. ,hey
hold that once the fundamental laws are known and powerful computers allow us to compute
models of the world by applying these laws, we can eventually deduce e#planations for all
phenomena. In other words, physics can lead us to understanding ultimate reality. Is this really
possible0
:ne may doubt it. 'ven if we give physicists credit for their remarkable discoveries, we have to
realise that their research takes place in an isolated field of knowledge. Physics does not concern
itself with issues outside its own domain. For e#ample, the sub-ects of biology, life, and
chemistry, as well as the phenomena of mind and consciousness cannot be e#plained in physical
terms. In addition, the following fundamental .uestions arise:
@. Physics deals only with what can be measured. $ complete physical model must therefore
necessarily produce a materialistic view of reality. $lthough materialists usually deny the
possibility that phenomena e#ist which cannot be measured or somehow .uantified, they may
actually e#ist.
4. ,here are limits to what can be measured, as demonstrated by the 9ncertainty Principle.
?. ,he materialist view is generally allied with reductionism. Materialists often claim that high*
level phenomena, such as biological or psychological phenomena, can be reduced to physical
phenomena. 8owever, this is far from being obvious. For e#ample, there is no generally accepted
reductionist theory of consciousness. <eductionism fails in most practical cases. For e#ample, it
is practically impossible to describe the process of 75$ replication in terms of subatomic
properties.
I. $dvanced physical models are abstract to the degree of being unintelligible to most people.
Modern physics is based on higher mathematics and can hardly be put into common language,
much less can it be imagined. ,he multidimensional worlds of <elativity and string theory, for
e#ample, are elusive to plastic imagination. ,he value of any science depends on how useful its
models are for the thoughts and actions of humanity as a whole, hence, its usefulness leans partly
on intelligibility.
6hat is light0
+ight is a phenomenon that has particle and wave characteristics. Its carrier particles are called
photons, which are not really particles, but massless discrete units of energy.
6hat is the speed of light0
,he speed of light is 4AA,BA4,IJM m=s in a vacuum. ,he symbol used in <elativity for the speed
of light is GcG, which probably stands for the +atin word GceleritasG, meaning swift.
Is the speed of light really constant0
,he speed of light is constant by definition in the sense that it is independent of the reference
frame of the observer. +ight travels slightly slower in a transparent medium, such as water, glass,
and even air.
&an anything travel faster than light0
5o. In <elativity, c puts an absolute limit to speed at which any ob-ect can travel, hence, nothing,
no particle, no rocket, no space vehicle can go at faster*than*light 3superluminal! speeds.
8owever, there are some cases where things appear to move at superluminal speeds, such as in
the following e#amples: @. &onsider two spaceships moving each at >.Kc in opposite directions.
For a stationary observer, the distance between both ships grows at faster*than*light speed. ,he
same is true for distant gala#ies that drift apart in opposite directions of the sky. 4. $nother
e#ample: &onsider pointing a very strong laser on the moon so that it pro-ects a dot on the
moonEs service and then moving the laser rapidly towards 'arth, so that it points on the floor in
front of you. If you accomplish this in less than one second, the laser dot obviously travelled at
superluminal speed, seeing that the average distance between the 'arth and the Moon is ?MI,I>?
km.
6hat is matter0
,he schoolbook definition would be: Matter is what takes up space and has mass. Matter as we
know it is composed of molecules, which themselves are built from individual atoms. $toms are
composed of a core and one or more electrons that spin around the core in an electron cloud. ,he
core is composed of protons and neutrons, the former have a positive electrical charge, the latter
are electrically neutral. Protons and neutrons are composed of .uarks, of which there are si#
types: up=down, charm=strange, and top=bottom. Uuarks only e#ist in composite particles,
whereas leptons can be seen as independent particles. ,here are si# types of leptons: the electron,
the muon, the tau and the three types of neutrinos. ,he particles that make up an atom could be
seen as a stable form of locked up energy. Particles are e#tremely small, therefore
AA.AAAAAAAAAAAAO or maybe all! of an atomEs volume is -ust empty space. $lmost all visible
matter in the universe is made of up=down .uarks, electrons and e*!*neutrinos, because the other
particles are very unstable and .uickly decay into the former.
8ow fast does an electron spin0
$n electron in a hydrogen atom moves at about 4.4 million m=s. 6ith the circumference of the
n3@ state for hydrogen being about >,??#@>*A m in si(e, it follows that an n3@ electron for a
hydrogen atom revolves around the nucleus K,JKA,?B4 billion times in -ust one second.
$re .uarks and leptons all there is0
5ot really. Fist of all, .uarks always appear in composite particles, namely hadrons baryons and
mesons!, then there is antimatter, and finally there are the four fundamental forces.
6hat is antimatter0
,he e#istence of antimatter was first predicted in @A4M by Paul 7irac and has been
e#perimentally verified by the artificial creation of the positron e]! in a laboratory in @A??. ,he
positron, the electronEs antiparticle, carries a positive electrical charge. 5ot unlike the reflection
in a mirror, there is e#actly one antimatter particle for each known particle and they behave -ust
like their corresponding matter particles, e#cept they have opposite charges and=or spins. 6hen a
matter particle and antimatter particle meet, they annihilate each other into a flash of energy. ,he
universe we can observe contains almost no antimatter. ,herefore, antimatter particles are likely
to meet their fate and collide with matter particles. <ecent research suggests that the symmetry
between matter and antimatter is less than perfect. %cientists have observed a phenomenon called
charge=parity violation, which implies that antimatter presents not .uite the reflection image of
matter.
6hat are the four fundamental forces0
,he four fundamental forces are gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the weak and strong
nuclear forces. $ny other force you can think of magnetism, nuclear decay, friction, adhesion,
etc.! is caused by one of these four fundamental forces or by a combination of them.
'lectromagnetism and the weak nuclear force have been shown to be two aspects of a single
electroweak force.
6hat is gravity0
;ravity is the force that causes ob-ects on 'arth to fall down and stars and planets to attract each
other. Isaac 5ewton .uantified the gravitational force: F 3 mass@ a mass4 = distanceb. ;ravity is
a very weak force when compared with the other fundamental forces. ,he electrical repulsion
between two electrons, for e#ample, is some @>dI> times stronger than their gravitational
attraction. 5evertheless, gravity is the dominant force on the large scales of interest in
astronomy. 'instein describes gravitation not as a force, but as a conse.uence of the curvature of
spacetime. ,his means that gravity can be e#plained in terms of geometry, rather than as
interacting forces. ,he ;eneral <elativity model of gravitation is largely compatible with
5ewton, e#cept that it accounts for certain phenomena such as the bending of light rays
correctly, and is therefore more accurate than 5ewtonEs formula. $ccording to ;eneral <elativity,
matter tells space how to curve, while the curvature of space tells matter how to move. ,he
carrier particle of the gravitational force is the graviton.
6hat is electromagnetism0
'lectromagnetism is the force that causes like*charged particles to repel and oppositely*charged
particles to attract each other. ,he carrier particle of the electromagnetic force is the photon.
Photons of different energies span the electromagnetic spectrum of # rays, visible light, radio
waves, and so forth. <esidual electromagnetic force allows atoms to bond and form molecules.
6hat is the strong nuclear force0
,he strong force acts between .uarks to form hadrons. ,he nucleus of an atom is hold together
on account of residual strong force, i.e. by .uarks of neighbouring neutrons and protons
interacting with each other. Uuarks have an electromagnetic charge and another property that is
called colour charge, they come in three different colour charges. ,he carrier particles of the
strong nuclear force are called gluons. In contrast to photons, gluons have a colour charge, while
composite particles like hadrons have no colour charge.
6hat is the weak nuclear force0
6eak interactions are responsible for the decay of massive .uarks and leptons into lighter .uarks
and leptons. It is the primary reason why matter is mainly composed of the stable lighter
particles, namely up=down .uarks and electrons. <adioactivity is due to the weak nuclear force.
,he carrier particles of the weak force are the 6], 6*, and the _ bosons.
8ow are carrier particles different from other particles0
,he photon, gluon, and the graviton carrier particles are thought to be massless and having no
electrical charge. :nly the 6 and _ particles, mediators of the weak nuclear force, are massive,
and the 6] and 6* particles carry charge. Force carrier particles can only be absorbed or
produced by a matter particle which is affected by that particular force. ,hese particles allow us
to e#plain interactions between matter.
8ow old is the universe0
,odayEs most widely accepted cosmology, the /ig /ang theory, states that the universe is limited
in space and time. ,he current estimate for the age of the universe is @?.B billion years. ,his
figure was computed from the cosmic microwave background &M/! radiation data that the
6ilkinson Microwave $nisotropy Probe 6M$P! captured in 4>>4.
6hat came before the /ig /ang0
,he /ig /ang model is singular at the time of the /ig /ang. ,his means that one cannot even
define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the oscillating universe, suggested
by %tephen 8awking, the e#panding universe is -ust one of many phases of e#pansion and
contraction. :ther models postulate that our own universe is -ust one bubble in a spacetime foam
containing a multitude of universes. ,he GmultiverseG model of +inde proposes that multiple
universes recursively spawn each other, like in a growing fractal. 8owever, until now there is no
observational data confirming either theory. It is indeed .uestionable, whether we will ever be
able to gain empirical evidence speaking in favor these theories, because nothing outside our
own universe can be observed directly. 8ence, the .uestion can currently not be answered by
science.
8ow big is the universe0
,he universe is constantly e#panding in all directions, therefore its si(e cannot be stated.
%cientists think it contains appro#imately @>> billion gala#ies with each gala#y containing
between @>> and 4>> billion star systems. :ur own gala#y, the Milky 6ay, is average when
compared with other gala#ies. It is a disk*shaped spiral gala#y of about @>>,>>> light*years in
diameter.
6hat is the universe e#panding into0
,his .uestion is based on the popular misconception that the universe is some curved ob-ect
embedded into a higher dimensional space, and that the universe is e#panding into this space.
,here is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything
about this larger space. 'verything that we measure is within the universe, and so we see neither
edge nor boundary nor centre of e#pansion. ,hus the universe is not e#panding into anything that
we can see or measure.
6hy is the sky dark at night0
If the universe were infinitely old, and infinite in e#tent, and stars could shine forever, then every
direction you looked would eventually end on the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be
as bright as the surface of the %un. ,his is known as :lbersEs parado#, named after 8einrich
6ilhelm :lbers [@BJB*@MI>\ who wrote about it in @M4?*@M4K. $bsorption by interstellar dust
does not circumvent this parado#, since dust reradiates whatever radiation it absorbs within a few
minutes, which is much less than the age of the universe. 8owever, the universe is not infinitely
old, and the e#pansion of the universe reduces the accumulated energy radiated by distant stars.
'ither one of these effects acting alone would solve :lbersEs parado#, but they both act at once.
If the universe is only @?.B billion years old, how can we see ob-ects that are ?> billion light*
years away0
,his .uestion is essentially answered by %pecial <elativity. 6hen talking about the distance of a
moving ob-ect, we mean the spatial separation now, with the positions of us and the ob-ect
specified at the current time. In an e#panding universe, this distance is now larger than the speed
of light times the light travel time due to the increase of separations between ob-ects, as the
universe e#pands. It does not mean that any ob-ect in the universe travels faster than light.
0eisen!erg's .ncertainty *rincile
:ne of the biggest problems with .uantum e#periments is the seemingly unavoidable tendency
of humans to influence the situation and velocity of small particles. ,his happens -ust by our
observing the particles, and it has .uantum physicists frustrated. ,o combat this, physicists have
created enormous, elaborate machines like article accelerators that remove any physical
human influence from the process of accelerating a particleEs energy of motion.
%till, the mi#ed results .uantum physicists find when e#amining the same particle indicate that
we -ust canEt help but affect the behavior of &uanta ** or .uantum particles. 'ven the light
physicists use to help them better see the ob-ects theyEre observing can influence the behavior of
.uanta. Photons, for e#ample ** the smallest measure of light, which have no mass or electrical
charge ** can still bounce a particle around, changing its velocity and speed.
,his is called 0eisen!erg's .ncertainty *rincile. 6erner 8eisenberg, a ;erman physicist,
determined that our observations have an effect on the behavior of .uanta. 8eisenbergEs
9ncertainty Principle sounds difficult to understand ** even the name is kind of intimidating. /ut
itEs actually easy to comprehend, and once you do, youEll understand the fundamental principle of
.uantum mechanics.
Imagine that youEre blind and over time youEve developed a techni.ue for determining how far
away an ob-ect is by throwing a medicine ball at it. If you throw your medicine ball at a nearby
stool, the ball will return .uickly, and youEll know that itEs close. If you throw the ball at
something across the street from you, itEll take longer to return, and youEll know that the ob-ect is
far away.
,he problem is that when you throw a ball ** especially a heavy one like a medicine ball ** at
something like a stool, the ball will knock the stool across the room and may even have enough
momentum to bounce back. )ou can say where the stool was, but not where it is now. 6hatEs
more, you could calculate the velocity of the stool after you hit it with the ball, but you have no
idea what its velocity was before you hit it.
,his is the problem revealed by 8eisenbergEs 9ncertainty Principle. ,o know the velocity of a
.uark we must measure it, and to measure it, we are forced to affect it. ,he same goes for
observing an ob-ectEs position. 9ncertainty about an ob-ectEs position and velocity makes it
difficult for a physicist to determine much about the ob-ect.
:f course, physicists arenEt e#actly throwing medicine balls at .uanta to measure them, but even
the slightest interference can cause the incredibly small particles to behave differently.
,his is why .uantum physicists are forced to create thought e#periments based on the
observations from the real e#periments conducted at the .uantum level. ,hese thought
e#periments are meant to prove or disprove interretations ** e#planations for the whole of
.uantum theory.
In the ne#t section, weEll look at the basis for .uantum suicide ** the Many*6orlds interpretation
of .uantum mechanics.
$ man sits down before a gun, which is pointed at his head. ,his is no ordinary gunF itEs rigged to
a machine that measures the spin of a &uantum article. 'ach time the trigger is pulled, the spin
of the .uantum particle ** or &uar( ** is measured. 7epending on the measurement, the gun will
either fire, or it wonEt. If the .uantum particle is measured as spinning in a clockwise motion, the
gun will fire. If the .uark is spinning counterclockwise, the gun wonEt go off. ,hereEll only be a
click.
5ervously, the man takes a breath and pulls the trigger. ,he gun clicks. 8e pulls the trigger
again. &lick. $nd again: click. ,he man will continue to pull the trigger again and again with the
same result: ,he gun wonEt fire. $lthough itEs functioning properly and loaded with bullets, no
matter how many times he pulls the trigger, the gun will never fire. 8eEll continue this process for
eternity, becoming immortal.
;o back in time to the beginning of the e#periment. ,he man pulls the trigger for the very first
time, and the .uark is now measured as spinning clockwise. ,he gun fires. ,he man is dead.
/ut, wait. ,he man already pulled the trigger the first time ** and an infinite amount of times
following that ** and we already know the gun didnEt fire. 8ow can the man be dead0 ,he man is
unaware, but heEs both alive and dead. 'ach time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two.
It will continue to split, again and again, each time the trigger is pulled [source: ,egmark\.
,his thought e#periment is called &uantum suicide. It was first posed by then*Princeton
9niversity theorist Ma# ,egmark in @AAB now on faculty at MI,!. $ thought exeriment is an
e#periment that takes place only in the mind. ,he .uantum level is the smallest level of matter
weEve detected so far in the universe. Matter at this level is infinitesimal, and itEs virtually
impossible for scientists to research it in a practical manner using traditional methods of
scientific in.uiry.
6uantum *hysics
Instead of using the scientific method ** investigating empirical evidence ** to study the
.uantum level, physicists must use thought e#periments. $lthough these e#periments are only
carried out hypothetically, theyEre rooted in the data observed in .uantum physics.
6hat science has observed at the .uantum level has raised more .uestions than it has answered.
,he behavior of .uantum particles is erratic, and our understanding of probability becomes
.uestionable. For e#ample, hotons ** the smallest measure of light ** have been shown to e#ist
in both particle and wave states. $nd the direction of particles is thought to travel in both
directions at the same time, rather than in only one direction at different times. %o when we
e#amine the .uantum world, we are outsiders to the knowledge it holds. $s a result, our
understanding of the universe as we know it is challenged.
,his has led some to believe that our grasp of .uantum physics is as basic as the understanding
of ancient 'gyptian astronomers centuries ago, who claimed that the sun was a god. $ few
scientists believe further investigation into .uantum systems will reveal order and predictability
within what we currently see as chaos. /ut is it possible that .uantum systems canEt be
understood within the traditional models of science0
In this article, weEll look at what .uantum suicide reveals about our universe, as well as other
theories that either support or contradict it.
/ut first, why canEt a physicist simply measure the particles heEs attempting to study0 In the ne#t
section, weEll learn about this fundamental flaw of .uantum observation, as e#plained by
8eisenbergEs 9ncertainty Principle.
3he "any+/orlds 3heory
,he .uantum suicide thought e#periment is based on and seeks to prove what has become an
increasingly accepted interpretation of .uantum physics, the Many*6orlds theory. ,his theory
was first proposed in @AJB by a doctoral student at Princeton 9niversity named 8ugh 'verett III.
,he theory was scorned for decades until fellow Princetonian Ma# ,egman created the .uantum
suicide e#periment, which lends support to the interpretation [source: ,he ;uardian\.
$ccording to the Many*6orlds theory, for each possible outcome to an action, the world splits
into a copy of itself. ,his is an instantaneous process 'verett called decohesion# ItEs kind of like
a choose*your*own*adventure book, but rather than choosing between either e#ploring the cave
or making off with the treasure, the universe splits in two so that each action is taken.
:ne vital aspect of the Many*6orlds theory is that when the universe splits, the person is
unaware of himself in the other version of the universe. ,his means that the boy who made off
with the treasure and ends up living happily ever after is completely unaware of the version of
himself who entered the cave and now faces great peril, and vice versa.
,his is the same case with .uantum suicide. 6hen the man pulls the trigger, there are two
possible outcomes: the gun either fires or it doesnEt. In this case, the man either lives or he dies.
'ach time the trigger is pulled, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. 6hen
the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. ,he
possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued death. /ut with life there are still two
chances that remain: ,he man continues living or the man dies.
6hen the man pulls the trigger and the universe is split in two, however, the version of the man
who lived will be unaware that in the other version of the split universe, he has died. Instead he
will continue to live and will again have the chance to pull the trigger. $nd each time he does
pull the trigger, the universe will again split, with the version of the man who lives continuing
on, and being unaware of all of his deaths in arallel universes. In this sense, he will be able to
e#ist indefinitely. ,his is called &uantum immortality.
%o why arenEt all of the people who have ever attempted to kill themselves immortal0 6hatEs
interesting about the Many*6orlds interpretation is that according to the theory, in some parallel
universe, they are. ,his doesnEt appear to be the case to us, because the splitting of the universe
isnEt dependent on our own life or death. 6e are bystanders or observers in the case of another
personEs suicide, and as observers weEre sub-ect to probability. 6hen the gun finally went off in
the universe ** or version ** we inhabit, we were stuck with that result. 'ven if we pick up the
gun and continue shooting the man, the universe will remain in a single state. $fter all, once a
person is dead, the number of possible outcomes for shooting a dead person is reduced to one.
/ut the Many*6orlds theory stands in contradiction to another .uantum theory, the &openhagen
interpretation. In the ne#t section, weEll look at this theory and see why it changes the rules of
.uantum suicide.

Page
I
J
K
B

8ow%tuff6orks
3he =oenhagen 5nterretation
,he Many*6orlds theory of .uantum mechanics supposes that for each possible outcome of any
given action, the universe splits to accommodate each one. ,his theory takes the observer out of
the e.uation. 5o longer are we able to influence the outcome of an event simply by observing it,
as is stated by the 8eisenberg 9ncertainty Principle.
/ut the Many*6orlds theory turns a widely accepted theory of .uantum mechanics on its ear.
$nd in the unpredictable .uantum universe, this is really saying something.
For the better part of the last century, the most accepted e#planation for why the same .uantum
particle may behave in different ways was the =oenhagen interretation. $lthough itEs getting
a run for its money from the Many*6orlds interpretation lately, many .uantum physicists still
assume the &openhagen interpretation is correct. ,he &openhagen interpretation was first posed
by physicist 5iels /ohr in @A4>. It says that a .uantum particle doesnEt e#ist in one state or
another, but in all of its possible states at once. ItEs only when we observe its state that a .uantum
particle is essentially forced to choose one probability, and thatEs the state that we observe. %ince
it may be forced into a different observable state each time, this e#plains why a .uantum particle
behaves erratically.
,his state of e#isting in all possible states at once is called an ob-ectEs coherent suerosition.
,he total of all possible states in which an ob-ect can e#ist ** for e#ample, in a wave or particle
form for photons that travel in both directions at once ** makes up the ob-ectEs wave function.
6hen we observe an ob-ect, the superposition collapses and the ob-ect is forced into one of the
states of its wave function.
/ohrEs &openhagen interpretation of .uantum mechanics was theoretically proven by what has
become a famous thought e#periment involving a cat and a bo#. ItEs called %chrYdingerEs cat, and
it was first introduced by the Viennese physicist 'rwin %chrYdinger in @A?J.
In his theoretical e#periment, %chrYdinger put his cat in a bo#, along with a bit of radioactive
material and a ;eiger counter ** a device for detecting radiation. ,he ;eiger counter was
designed so that when it sensed the decay of the radioactive material, it triggered a hammer
which was poised to break a flask containing hydrocyanic acid, which, when released, would kill
the cat.
,o eliminate any certainty regarding the catEs fate, the e#periment was to take place within an
hour, long enough so that some of the radioactive material could possibly decay, but short
enough so that it was also possible none would.
In %chrYdingerEs e#periment, the cat was sealed in the bo#. 7uring its stay there, the cat came to
e#ist in an unknowable state. %ince it could not be observed, it could not be said whether the cat
was alive or dead. It e#isted instead in the state of both life and death. ItEs sort of like .uantum
physicsE answer to the old _en .uestion: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear
it, does it make a sound0
%ince the &openhagen interpretation says that, when observed, an ob-ect is forced to take one
state or another, the .uantum suicide e#periment doesnEt work according to this theory. %ince the
direction of the .uark measured by the trigger can be observed, eventually the .uark will be
forced to take the clockwise direction that will fire the gun and kill the man.
/ut isnEt all of this -ust silly0 7o these thought e#periments and .uantum interpretations really
teach us anything0 In the ne#t section, weEll look at some of the possible implications of these
ideas.
3he 5mlications of 6uantum *hysics
6hen compared to classical science and 5ewtonian physics, the theories proposed to e#plain
.uantum physics seem insane. 'rwin %chrYdinger himself called his cat e#periment G.uite
ridiculousG [source: ;oldstein, %heldon\. /ut from what science has been able to observe, the
laws that govern the world we see every day donEt hold true on the .uantum level.
Uuantum physics is a relatively new discipline, dating back only to @A>>. ,he theories that have
been posed on the sub-ect are all -ust theories. 6hatEs more, there are competing theories that
give different e#planations for the peculiar happenings that take place on the .uantum level.
6hich one will history show is the correct one0 Perhaps the theory that proves to be the true
e#planation for .uantum physics hasnEt been posed yet. ,he person who poses it may not have
even been born yet. /ut given the logic that this field of study has established, is it possible that
all theories e#plaining .uantum physics are all e.ually true at the same time ** even the ones that
contradict each other0
5iels /ohrEs &openhagen interpretation of .uantum physics is perhaps the most comforting
theory put forth. /y e#plaining that particles e#ist in all states at once ** in coherent
superposition ** our understanding of the universe is put slightly askew, but still remains
somewhat comprehensible. /ohrEs theory is additionally comforting because it makes us humans
the cause for an ob-ect to take a determined shape. $lthough scientists find a particleEs ability to
e#ist in more than one state frustrating, our observations affect the particle. $t least it doesnEt
continue to e#ist in all states while weEre looking at it.
Much less comforting is 'verettEs Many*6orlds interpretation. ,his theory takes out of our hands
any power over the .uantum universe. Instead, we are merely passengers of the splits that take
place with each possible outcome. In essence, under the Many*6orlds theory, our idea of cause
and effect goes out the window.
,his makes the Many*6orlds interpretation somewhat disturbing. If itEs true, then in some
universe parallel to the one we currently inhabit, $dolf 8itler was successful in his campaign to
con.uer the world. /ut in the same token, in another universe, the 9nited %tates never dropped
atomic bombs on 8iroshima and 5agasaki.
,he Many*6orlds theory also certainly contradicts the idea of 9ccam's ra@or, that the simplest
e#planation is usually the correct one. 'ven stranger is the implication by the Many*6orlds
theory that time doesnEt e#ist in a coherent, linear motion. Instead, it moves in -umps and starts,
e#isting not as a line, but as branches. ,hese branches are as numerous as the number of
conse.uences to all of the actions that have ever been taken.
ItEs tough not to imagine what our understanding of the .uantum world will prove to be. ,he
theoretical field has already progressed tremendously since its inception more than a century ago.
$lthough he had his own interpretation of the .uantum world, /ohr may have accepted the later
theory that 8ugh 'verett introduced concerning the Many 6orlds. $fter all, it was /ohr who
said, G$nyone who is not shocked by .uantum theory has not understood it.G
=an you ma(e time stand still?
+etEs say you are in plane flying westward around the 'arthEs e.uator. $t the e.uator, the time
(ones are a little over @,>>> miles @,K>A km! apart, so to cross one every hour, your plane would
have to fly at over @,>>> miles per hour @,K>A kph!.
If you started flying at @4:>> noon, at @:>> p.m. according to your watch! you would cross a
time (one, making it @4:>> noon again. ,his process would continue for as long as your plane
could stay in the air: $s soon as your watch passed @4:JA, youEd have to turn it back to @4:>>
again. For your entire westward trip around the 'arth, the time would be between @4:>> noon
and @:>> p.m.
6hat you are really doing is maintaining your position on the 'arth relative to the sun. )ou are
flying at the same speed as the 'arth is rotating, but in the opposite direction, so the sun is
always in the same part of the sky. 6e know that at noon the sun is appro#imately overhead, so
on this -ourney the sun would always be over the plane. In effect, you are chasing noon around
the world. If you prefer sunsets, you could watch a perpetual sunset by departing on your
westward -ourney -ust as the sun is setting.
6hat if your plane could stay in the air for days, or even weeks0 6ould you stand still in time
forever0 ,he answer is that the time of day would always be the same, but the date would
continue to change. ,he time would always be between @4:>> noon and @:>> p.m., but each time
you crossed the International 7ate +ine, it would instantly become @4:>> noon the ne#t day.
,he International 7ate +ine runs from the 5orth Pole to the %outh Pole, through the Pacific
:cean. It is on the opposite side of the world from the Prime Meridian which is in ;reenwich,
'ngland!.
/efore the establishment of the International 7ate +ine, Portuguese e#plorer Ferdinand
Magellan, who was the first to circumnavigate the 'arth, found that when he arrived back, he
was one full day behind. 8is crew had kept careful track of each day in their -ournals, and it
turned out that over the course of the almost*three*year voyage, they had seen one less sunrise
and sunset than those on land.
3o A /ays to ;et Smarter
$l 'instein made .uite a name for himself in the smarts department. %ee more
6hat is smart0 %ome people -udge smarts by standard benchmarks like test scores and grade
point averages. :thers think common sense, problem solving abilities and Gstreet smartsG define
intelligence. %tandardi(ed testing scores have proven unreliable and biased along racial and
socioeconomic lines, and cramming for classes can lead to ;P$s that arenEt a true indicator of
intelligence.
6hile we canEt all agree on a standard for intelligence, we can agree that the human brain is the
key to all of them. It has a great capacity to adapt, rewire and grow. 5eural networks e#pand and
strengthen through learning e#periences. %timuli make the brain stronger and more vital. ,his
reinforcement of the brainEs power affects intelligence across all standards, from street smarts to
testing scores. 8ere are five ways you can increase your brainEs capacity to take in and store new
data. :r, said more simply, hereEs how you can get smarter.
"editate
For thousands of years, weEve known the benefits of meditation. ,he practice of meditation can
be different for each person, but it generally involves .uiet, focused breathing e#ercises in which
the practitioner is able to achieve a state of mental calm. <egardless of whether you believe that
this mental calm is an enlightened state of consciousness, no one can deny the benefits of
rela#ed, focused breathing. FM<I scans have revealed that regular meditation also affects the
actual structure of the brain. <esearchers believe that memory, function, attention span and focus
all benefit from meditation. :ne study showed that regular daily meditation can even increase
the si(e of parts of the cerebral corte#. 5ot surprisingly, some of the worldEs leading and forward*
thinking corporations offer meditation classes for their employees.
Bxercise Your 1rain
e
Figuring out two across is a great mental workout.
Imagno=;etty Images
,he brain, like many parts of the human body, needs regular e#ercise in order to maintain
strength and vitality. %ome more common brain strengthening e#ercises include fun activities
like crossword pu((les, %udoku, and other word* and number*based brain teasers. ,here are
other more academic ways as well, like completing math word problems and e#ercises relating to
spatial relationships and geometry. 'ven simply reading this article gives your brain a slight
workout. If these ideas are a little too scholarly for you, try simple things like mi#ing up your
routine. Nust brushing your teeth with the opposite hand or walking a different way to work
forces your brain to work harder than usual, which is ultimately what you want to do.
;ngest %acteria
In Nune 4>@>, researchers at ,he %age &olleges presented findings that show certain types of
bacteria commonly found in dirt made mice Gsmarter.G ,he mice given $*cobacterium vaccae
performed better in ma(e tests and showed fewer signs of an#iety and higher levels of serotonin
in the forebrain, the area that takes care of higher*order thinking. ,he bacteria seem to promote
the growth of neurons as well. ,his doesnEt mean that we should all go out and start shoveling
dirt in our mouths: )ou can actually ingest it by doing yard work, gardening and even by simply
taking a walk through the woods.
<et Some S'eep
#akeful exercises for the *rain are great and necessary to hel imrove *rain
function so you can get smarter. But what a*out sleeE 7ot a whole lot is known
a*out slee, *ut we know now that scientists were wrong for years with the *elief
that the *rain simly shut down during slee to recharge. @esearch now indicates
that the *rain may actually do a little nighttime 0ling during slee. !he information
from the revious day is catalogued and ut in the roer mental folders so it can
make the 3ourney from short-term memory to long-term. &leeing ro*lems have
*een known to exacer*ate other *rain issues, so it makes sense that a good night:s
slee can hel increase the *rain:s function and a*ility to focus. It varies from
erson to erson, *ut *etween six and eight hours of slee for adults is generally
recommended.
/a4e care of your body5
,he human body is all connected, so you canEt take care of one part of it without benefiting some
other part. Physical e#ercise is important for good health, for both the body and the brain. %imply
increasing your blood flow kicks up the o#ygen and glucose levels in the brain. ,he coordination
it takes to perform e#ercises also gives the brain a workout, especially if youEre trying something
new. '#ercise also means youEre battling sedentary lifestyle, or one free from mental stimuli.
Food is also important. ,here are many foods that have been associated with brain health,
including fish oil, eggs, protein and dark green vegetables. ;reen tea, herbal tea and nuts are also
good Gbrain food.G 'ating right, getting the re.uired amount of sleep and e#ercises, both mental
and physical, are the keys to improving memory and overall brain function.
3ime's 9rigins
6ebsterEs 5ew 6orld &ollege 7ictionary Fourth 'd.! defines time as:
II. a eriod or interval. ;. the eriod *etween two events or during which
something exists, haens or actsQ measured or measura*le interval
$t its core, time is fairly elusive. 6e canEt see it or sense it ** it -ust happens. 8uman beings have
therefore come up with ways to measure time that are totally arbitrary and also fairly interesting
from a historical perspective.
,he day is an obvious starting point for time. $ day consists of a period of sunlight followed by
night. :ur bodies are tuned in to this cycle through sleep, so each morning we wake up to a new
day. 5o matter how primitive the culture, the concept of a day arises as an obvious and natural
increment.
6e use clocks to divide the day into smaller increments. 6e use calendars to group days together
into larger increments. /oth of these systems have very interesting origins that weEll find out
about in the course of this article.
"easuring 3ime
,he measurement of time covers an incredible range. 8ere are some common time spans, from
the shortest to the longest.
picosecond -one-trillionth of a second/ - !his is a*out the shortest eriod
of time we can currently measure accurately.
nanosecond -one-*illionth of a second/ - 8 to > nanoseconds is the length
of time that a tyical home comuter sends executing one software
instruction.
microsecond -one-millionth of a second/
mi''isecond -one-thousandth of a second/ - !his is the tyical fastest time
for the exosure of 0lm in a normal camera. 4 icture taken in ;N;,???th of a
second will usually sto all human motion.
centisecond -one-hundredth of a second/ - !he length of time it takes for
a stroke of lightning to strike
decisecond -one-tenth of a second/ - 4 *link of an eye
second - 4n average erson:s heart *eats once each second.
K# seconds - "ne minuteQ a long commercial
" minutes - 4*out as long as a erson can hold his or her *reath
$ minutes - 4*out as long as anyone can stand waiting at a red light
K# minutes - 4n hourQ a*out as long as a erson can sit in a classroom
without gla,ing over
L hours - !he tyical workday in the 2nited &tates, as well as the tyical
amount of slee a erson needs every night
"M hours - "ne dayQ the amount of time it takes for the lanet Earth to rotate
one time on its axis
! days - "ne week
M# days - 4*out the longest a erson can survive without food
?K$."M days - "ne yearQ the amount of time it takes for the lanet Earth to
comlete one or*it around the sun
# years - "ne decade
!$ years - !he tyical life san for a human *eing
$,### years - !he san of recorded history
$#,### years - !he length of time 1omo saiens has existed as a secies
K$ mi''ion years - !he length of time dinosaurs have *een extinct
"## mi''ion years - !he length of time mammals have existed
?.$ to M bi''ion years - !he length of time that life has existed on Earth
M.$ bi''ion years - !he age of lanet Earth
# to $ bi''ion years - !he susected age of the universe since the *ig
*ang
G*(A);/J AN, ;/S +*,(*H
7"!E - I am working on this essay today -;8NGN8?;8/ - will *e online laterMM
If the word "reality" means nothing other than the totality of the connections
that ervade and carry our life, then it is ro*a*ly true that there must exist
very di5erent areas or layers of reality.
#e simly wish to comrehend the whole world as a single, coherent nexus
of related henomena.
1owever, it was in this very )uestion that the scienti0c exloration of nature
during the last decades comelled a change of ercetion. For us the
redicta*le course of natural henomena in sace and time is no longer the
0rm skeleton of the world *ut only one nexus among others that *ecomes
searated from the we* of relations that we call the world *y the way we
examine it, *y the )uestions we ose to nature. !his view resulted from the
insight into the laws of nature, gained with the advances of natural science,
according to which henomena can no longer *e reduced to rocesses in
sace and time.
!hus, 0nally, we must ersist until we gain an understanding of reality that
comrehends the diverse coherent relationshis as art of a single
meaningfully ordered world."f course, it is not only as a result of recent
scienti0c develoments that reality came to *e descri*ed as a we* of diverse
relations.
1owever, it was in this very )uestion that the scienti0c exloration of nature
during the last decades comelled a change of ercetion. For us the
redicta*le course of natural henomena in sace and time is no longer the
0rm skeleton of the world *ut only one nexus among others that *ecomes
searated from the we* of relations that we call the world *y the way we
examine it, *y the )uestions we ose to nature. !his view resulted from the
insight into the laws of nature, gained with the advances of natural science,
according to which henomena can no longer *e reduced to rocesses in
sace and time.
!hat imoses anew the task of ordering, understanding and determining the
diverse connections or "areas of reality" in their mutual relations. !hey need
to *e related anew to the searation of the world into an "o*3ective" and a
"su*3ective" reality. !he *oundaries of those areas have to *e determined
and it must *e discovered how the one conditions the other. !hus, 0nally, we
must ersist until we gain an understanding of reality that comrehends the
diverse coherent relationshis as art of a single meaningfully ordered world.
"f course, it is not only as a result of recent scienti0c develoments that
reality came to *e descri*ed as a we* of diverse relations. "n the contrary,
what we have here is the renewed consideration of ancient, often exlored
chains of ideas. !he 3usti0cation to reeat what had *een said often *efore is
*ased only in the fact that the develoment of natural science in the ast
decades has thrown a uni)ue new light on this view.
'erhas this develoment 3usti0es the hoe that it must *e ossi*le to
determine more accurately than *efore the mutual relations of the diverse
areas of reality. It is likely that much of the confusion in the thinking a*out
reality results from the fact that every single thing articiates
simultaneously in diverse we*s of connection, 3ust as every word relates
simultaneously to diverse contexts. #e need roof that a clear searation is
at all ossi*le, given these circumstances. "nly an examle that can
demonstrate with mathematical clarity the mutual relations of two areas of
reality will convince the reader that it is ossi*le to order the various layers
of reality clearly and to deict their *oundaries.
4 comlete and exact deiction of reality can never *e achieved.
(enerally seaking, every attemt to seak a*out reality will have *oth
"static" and "dynamic" features at one and the same time. %lear, urely
static thinking is in danger of deteriorating into form without content.
Dynamic thinking can *ecome vague and incomrehensi*le.1ere, a sentence
can, generally seaking, not *e "right" or "wrong". But one may call a
sentence "true" when it fruitfully leads to an a*undance of other ideas. !he
oosite of a "right" sentence is a "false" one. But the oosite of a "true"
sentence will often *e another "true" one. !he most famous systematic
formulation of this "dynamic" reresentation of reality is 1egel:s dialectics.
4 comlete and exact deiction of reality can never *e achieved.
Every domain of reality can 0nally *e deicted in language. !he a*yss that
searates di5erent domains cannot *e *ridged *y logical reasoning or
coherent linear develoment of language.
!he a*ility of human *eings to understand is without limit. 4*out the
ultimate things we cannot seak.!he 'ythagoreans: studies of the rational
relations of harmonic vi*rations of musical strings, 'lato:s ideas a*out
symmetrical *odies, testify to the signi0cance assigned to the mathematical
form in the understanding of nature. Exact natural science since 7ewton is
*ased on the silent resuosition that it must always *e ossi*le to order
the areas of nature accessi*le to our exerience according to strict laws that
can *e exressed mathematically. Even if one carefully analy,es other
reresentations of reality as well, such as music or the creative arts, which
are far removed from the natural sciences, they will reveal internal orders
that are very closely related to mathematical laws. !hose orders can *e as
clearly discerned as in a Bach fugue, for examle, or in a symmetrical ri**on
ornamentQ they might *e noticed initially through a uni)ue *alanced )uality,
through the immediately evident *eauty of a melody line such as that of the
famous su*-theme in the 0rst movement of Beethoven:s D ma3or violin
concerto. %loser examination always shows simle mathematical symmetries
comara*le to those mathematics deals with in grou theory. !hus,
mathematics is order ar excellence, in its urest form, freed from all
content.!he 'ythagoreans: studies of the rational relations of harmonic
vi*rations of musical strings, 'lato:s ideas a*out symmetrical *odies, testify
to the signi0cance assigned to the mathematical form in the understanding
of nature. Exact natural science since 7ewton is *ased on the silent
resuosition that it must always *e ossi*le to order the areas of nature
accessi*le to our exerience according to strict laws that can *e exressed
mathematically. Even if one carefully analy,es other reresentations of
reality as well, such as music or the creative arts, which are far removed
from the natural sciences, they will reveal internal orders that are very
closely related to mathematical laws. !hose orders can *e as clearly
discerned as in a Bach fugue, for examle, or in a symmetrical ri**on
ornamentQ they might *e noticed initially through a uni)ue *alanced )uality,
through the immediately evident *eauty of a melody line such as that of the
famous su*-theme in the 0rst movement of Beethoven:s D ma3or violin
concerto. %loser examination always shows simle mathematical symmetries
comara*le to those mathematics deals with in grou theory. !hus,
mathematics is order ar excellence, in its urest form, freed from all
content.!he core domain from which we create reality ourselves constitutes
for scienti0c language the in0nitely remote singularity that even though it is
indeed decisive for order in the 0nite shere it can never *e reached.
%onversely, the language of faith cannot do 3ustice to the domain of reality
that is o*3ecti0a*le and detached from us. For the words of that language
have o*tained their meaning recisely through their relation to us.
@eligion alone can seak of the meaning of life. For "meaning" signi0es that
it is we who are addressed here, - this is the oint to which science cannot
advance. !hat is why in science:s language a*out the meaning of life one can
only say with Bohr. "!he meaning of life consists in that it is meaningless to
assert that life has no meaning". &cience o5ers so little comfort for that
reason. But exactly that insight o5ers enough comfort to the wise erson
who has come to know that all ideas through which we seek to fathom life:s
meaning circle *ack to the oint where they started.
!he concets "o*3ective" and "su*3ective" designate two oles from which an
order of reality can take its *eginning. !hey also descri*e two sides of reality
itself. &till, it would *e a crude oversimli0cation to divide the world into an
o*3ective and a su*3ective reality. !his merely *lack and white reresentation
created much inAexi*ility in hilosohy of the last few centuries. !he
evaluation of these two sides of reality also di5ered a great deal at di5erent
times. 4t times, one side would have only *een regarded almost as a
decetive aearance. !o our age it seems more natural not to raise the
issue of evaluation at all here and, instead, to strive for a more re0ned and
clearer classi0cation of reality. &ince that classi0cation is to *e scienti0c, it
will roceed ste *y ste from the o*3ective to the su*3ective. !he
descrition and delimitation of the individual domains of reality is carried out
with the greatest of care, as is aroriate to the natural science as it has
develoed over many centuries.
"4ll e5ects we *ecome aware of through exerience, in whatever form they
are, are connected in the most coherent fashionQ they Aow one into the other
and undulate from the 0rst to the last like waves. !hat eole searate them
from and contrast them with one another and mix them together is
unavoida*le. But this had to give rise to an endless conAict in science. @igid,
divisive edantry and *lurry mysticism *oth *ring a*out the same disastrous
results. But those activities, from the most *asic to the no*lest, from that of
the *rick falling o5 the roof to the radiant insight of the sirit that dawns on
you or that you share with others. they are linked together." -(oethe/
From the oint of view of recent natural science, it is not ossi*le in general
to dissociate the concet of su*stance from that of the rules of nature. If one
follows the develoment of the concet of matter in modern hysics, matter,
3ust like force, 0nally aears to *e a kind of structure of sace. !hat
structure is su*3ect to the laws of nature and, as a result of certain features
of "invariance" in those laws, the word "matter" may *e used in the
descrition of rocesses. 1owever, it is not matter *ut the law that remains
constant as henomena evolve.
"nly when this ste has *een taken and it has *een recogni,ed that there is
no "su*stance" that follows seci0c laws, *ut only comlexes of connections
which we can exerience and that when we descri*e them we also
occasionally use words like su*stance or matter - only then we may correctly
understand the sentence that the sought-for classi0cation is one that orders
reality according to those connections.
By "domain of reality" - if the word domain is used in the secial sense of
classi0cation - we mean a totality of comlexes of con0gurations governed
*y laws. "n the one hand, such a totality must resent a solid unity,
otherwise one could not 3usti0a*ly seak of a "domain". "n the other, that
totality must *e caa*le of *eing exactly delimited from totalities so that a
classi0cation of reality actually *ecomes ossi*le. !his raises the )uestion
how a totality of laws can *ecome comlete in itself and exactly delimited
from laws of a di5erent kind.
But, in the end, we must always *ear in mind that the reality of which we can
seak is never reality "er se" *ut a erceived reality even, in many cases,
one we ourselves have shaed. It may *e o*3ected that this last statement
concedes that there still is, after all, an o*3ective world wholly indeendent
of us and of our thinking, a world that runs or can run without our hel, which
we really envisage in our research. "ne must rely to this at 0rst so lausi*le
o*3ection that the hrase "there is" itself already derives from human
language, for which reason it cannot roerly signify something that would
not *e related to our a*ility to comrehend. For us, "there is" simly only the
world in which the hrase "there is" has meaning.
6In a time of universal deceit 4 telling the truth is a revolutionar* act+6
0)eorge Orwell1
6-ell is #ruth Seen #oo 3ate+6
0#homas -obbes1
,he natural laws formulated mathematically in .uantum theory no longer deal with the
elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them.
" 6erner 8eisenberg
,he atoms or the elementary particles are not realF they form a world of potentialities and
possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
" 6erner 8eisenberg
,he .uestion of whether from a complete knowledge of the past we can predict the future, does
not arise because a complete knowledge of the past involves a self*contradiction.
" 6erner 8eisenberg
/hat government is best which ma4es itse'f unnecessary.
/rue enDoyment comes from activity of the mind and e8ercise of the
bodyA the two are ever united.
/he interdependence of word and idea shows c'ear'y that 'anguages
are not actua''y means of representing a truth a'ready 4nown, but
rather of discovering the previous'y un4nown. /heir diversity is not
one of sounds and signs, but a diversity of wor'd perspectives
9:eltansichten:. E /he sum of the 4nowab'e, as the 7e'd to be ti''ed
by the human mind, 'ies among a'' 'anguages, independent of them,
in the midd'e. Man cannot approach this pure'y obDective rea'm
other than through his cognitive and sensory powers, that is, in a
subDective manner.
<overnmenta' regu'ations a'' carry coercion to some degree, and
even where they don=t, they habituate man to e8pect teaching,
guidance and he'p outside himse'f, instead of formu'ating his own.
How a person masters his fate is more important than what his fate
is.
; am more and more convinced that our happiness or our
unhappiness depends far more on the way we meet the events of
'ife than on the nature of those events themse'ves.