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

Schrodinger's theory is now enjoying the full tide of popularity, partly because of intrinsic merit, but also, I suspect, partly because it is the only one of the three that is simple enough to be misunderstood.

We do not defend the validity of seeing beauty in a natural landscape; we accept with gratitude the fact that we are so endowed as to see it that way.

The quest of the absolute leads into the four-dimensional world.

All authorities seem to be agreed that at, or nearly at, the root of everything in the physical world lies the mystic formula qp-pq=ih/2pi. We do not yet understand that; probably if we could understand it we should not think it so fundamental.

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

The mathematics is not there till we put it there.

The man in the street is always making this demand for concrete explanation of the things referred to in science; but of necessity he must be disappointed. It is like our experience in learning to read. That which is written in a book is symbolic of a story in real life.

We are left with the indisputable but irritating conclusion: 0 = 0. This is a favourite device that mathematical equations resort to, when we propound stupid questions.

Science aims at constructing a world which shall be symbolic of the world of commonplace experience. It is not at all necessary that every individual symbol that is used should represent something in common experience or even something explicable in terms of common experience.

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.