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

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.

There is no essential distinction between scientific measures and the measures of the senses. In either case our acquaintance with the external world comes to us through material channels; the observer's body may be regarded as part of his laboratory equipment.

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.

An ocean traveler has even more vividly the impression that the ocean is made of waves than that it is made of water.

A society of learned fishes would probably agree that phenomena were best described from the point of view of a fish at rest in the ocean.

It is impossible to trap modern physics into predicting anything with perfect determinism because it deals with probabilities from the outset.