// by Arthur Eddington | Philosophy Department at St. Anselm College //

Something unknown is doing we don't know what.

The ultimate elements in a theory of the world must be of a nature impossible to define in terms recognizable to the mind.

What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.

It is a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in a theory until it has been confirmed by observation. I hope I shall not shock the experimental physicists too much if I add that it is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they have been confirmed by theory.

It would be unreasonable to limit our thought of nature to what can be comprised in sense-pictures.

Space exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness.

Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me... I should like to find a genuine loophole.

All the familiar terms of physics -- length, duration of time, motion, force, mass, energy, and so on -- refer primarily to this relative knowledge of the world; and it remains to be seen whether any knowledge of them can be retained in a description of the world which is not relative to a particular observer.

In science we study the linkage of pointer readings with pointer readings. The terms link together in endless cycle with the same inscrutable nature running through the whole.

I am afraid the knockabout comedy of modern atomic physics is not very tender towards our aesthetic ideals. The stately drama of stellar evolution turns out to be more like the hair-breadth escapades in the films. The music of the spheres has a painful suggestion of -- jazz.