$8.

95
. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
C'PIU"\UPl , /
I
3 5282 00454 2091

51295
ANODOS
PUBLICATIONS
ISBN-1-892160-07-2
$12.95 9 11 781892 11 160072
ALSO BY ARTHUR M. YOUNG

The Reflexive Universe

MATHEMATICS,
The Geometry of Meaning
The Bell Notes
PHYSICS
Which Way Out & Other Essays
The Brain Scale of Doctor Brun/er &REALITY
The Shakespeare/Bacon Controversy
The Foundations of Science Two Essays
Science & Astrology

BY

ARTHUR M. YOUNG j/1

Robert Briggs Associates

Portland, Oregon
 Table of Contents

Qt'JS
. Ytx
J. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Vll
l I .i.,
., . p .
·'
.}..1 INTRODUCTION 1

MATHEMATICS & REALITY 7

THE THIRD DERIVATIVE

Errors and Misconceptions
of Science 105

Copyright© 1990 by Arthur M. Young

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form, except for brief reviews,
without the written permission of the publishers.
ISBN 0-931191-11-4
First Edition, 1990

Designed by Side By Side Studios, San Francisco

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number

90-081337

Robert Briggs Associates

400 Second Street #108
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034

AP,,' ; y~_.
 Acknowledgments

It would not have been possible to write this book without

the interest and editorial help of Arthur Block, the creator
of the Murphy's Law books and an expert in piercing
through the mask of expertise that serves the elite of our
classless society. Murphy's Laws help us penetrate the
fallacy of the "new enlightenment" and pave the way for
a healthier attitude toward science.
I would also like to thank Jack Engstrom, Marshall
Pease and Bart Kelly for their advice and criticism at var-
4:~l
~~.i.; ious stages of the manuscript.

I
-'
I
Iii
I

l
(f

---
.

Vil
lil!fut~Jili

Introduction

Science could be described as a cooperative undertaking in

which the discoveries by individuals are recognized and de-
veloped by the many, either through academia and the
educational system or through industry and technology.
This institutionalization of science has become not only a
way of life in providing jobs and producing products, but
has had a civilizing influence that crosses national boun-
daries and unites countries. It provides a mutual interest
and a shared language between nations that governments
and religious dogmas would keep separate and indepen-
dent.
However, this universality is accompanied by a differ-
ent sort of division-the fragmentation of science itself
into separate disciplines. While this fragmentation, unlike
that of nations and religious sects, does not lead to war,
the peaceful coexistence of separate disciplines has the un-
fortunate result that each discipline becomes a world unto
itself, highly specialized and protected by the equivalent of
language barriers. When I tried to tell a biologist of the
contribution quantum physics could make to biology, he
said he'd rather ride a black horse off a cliff at night than
venture into quantum physics.
Currently we find ourselves facing new and greater
problems: the exhaustion of natural resources; the pollu-
tion of the environment, the atmosphere, and the soil;
overpopulation; and, even if atomic war can be avoided,

1
 2 Introduction Introduction 3

the disposal of radioactive waste. These problems are espe- Why does science ignore life? Largely because the for-
cially difficult because they are long-term. Many result mulations which have provided the basis of science-the
from major benefits. Thus public sanitation, by decreasing deterministic formulas of Newton's theory of gravitation
infectious disease, has made overpopulation a problem, and the more recent probabilistic formulations of quantum
and the automobile and other labor-saving but energy- physics-give no indication that there should be such a
dependent devices threaten exhaustion of natural re- thing as life. In fact these formulations are so successful
sources, as well as pollution of the atmosphere. that there is reason to think they will ultimately show that
We might expect that the science and technology what we call life needs no principles not already recog-
which have created these problems could now be directed nized by science. With such an assurance, science cannot
toward solving them. But it soon becomes apparent that be expected to treat life as any different from the other
the central issue is life-not just its maintenance in the marvels that it has gone to such effort to discover and ex-
scheme of things, but its significance. Life is not recog- plain.
nized by theoretical science. The central doctrine of sci- What I propose to show in the two essays that follow is
ence is that life can be reduced to molecules, molecules to that when taken together with the findings that have led to
atoms, and atoms to particles yet more fundamental. As a quantum physics, the principles that make life possible are
consequence, the final authority in science is physics, and already implied in the deterministic formulations of clas-
now nuclear physics. Nuclear physics seeks to find the sical physics. The failure to recognize these implications
answer to everything in multimillion-dollar superconduc- has made it possible for science to retain its obsolete
tive supercolliders that will take years to build. Even if a dogma that the world is exclusively objective and that
solution is found to the problem of ultimate particles everything can be reduced to particles. It is as though we
(which, incidentally, only became a problem because of had been given a flying saucer but were unable to read the
cyclotrons), the solution will have no bearing on life and directions and so could not operate it.
the ability of the planet to support life. While the scientist may object to my reference to
So, how are we to get science to put its heart to these "errors" in science, and other readers might prefer to think
problems that affect life? From its current perspective, that life has a spiritual origin and is therefore separate
motivated by fundamental questions like the Big Bang, the from science altogether, let me point out that it is to the
recession of galaxies, and the lifetime of the proton credit of science that it can make errors. Without error no
(already found to be millions of times longer than the age learning is possible; the recognition of error is the basis of
of the universe), science considers life as a mere accident progress. We should therefore not abandon science. It is
having no relation to first principles. Consciousness, if rec- the major contribution of modern civilization. We should
ognized at all, is viewed as an epiphenomenon emerging at rather take time to interpret that part of its message that
a certain stage of organization. tells us, first, where to find the basis for free will, and
 4 Introduction
Introduction 5

second, how free will through evolution develops the In any case I do not depend on this application only;
power to control matter.
the latter part of the second essay has to do with the ques-
The text that follows consists of two essays, one dealing tion of whether an electron in a circular orbit radiates
with mathematics and the other with physics. The essay on energy, and how it can do so. This does not involve con-
mathematics is based mainly on a fundamental discomfort sciousness, or does it?
about parts of mathematics which began when I was first
exposed to that subject in college in 1925. Since then more A.M.Y.
exposure to mathematical ideas has not helped, but by January 1990
thinking about the difficulties and devising alternatives-
heresies perhaps-I've relieved my conscience. When I
have tried this essay on seasoned mathematicians they
have not been impressed, but recently a much younger per-
son read it and said that he too had experienced the same
discomforts.
The essay on physics deals primarily with the third
derivative and its implications. The third derivative, while
important to my other books, has either been obscured by
other heresies or rejected for its association with con-
sciousness. A group of young physicists in Berkeley who
volunteered to critique the essay in 1989 advised me that it
would not gain scientific acceptance unless I omitted refer-
ence to consciousness.
It could also be said that the third derivative, which
can express "negative friction," deals with energy added to
or subtracted from an otherwise closed system, and since
the laws of motion apply only when energy is not added to
or subtracted from the system, science would no longer
apply if a third derivative were admitted. This I deny. The
orbit of an artificial satellite can be controlled from the
home base, but such control does not violate the laws of
nature; it is because of the laws of nature (gravitation) that
the control is effective.
 MATHEMATICS
& REALITY

~,
 Mathematics & Reality 9

Part Contents PART THREE

CANTOR'S INFINITIES 53
l'aradise Lost? 56
Rationals and Irrationals 60
THE IDEAL AND THE REAL 63
INTRODUCTION The Dedekind Cut 64
THE TRANSCENDENTALS 66

PART ONE
DIMENSION PART FOUR
18
Force
22 RIGOR MORTIS 72
ROOTS Hierarchy and Control 78
24 Modulo and Residue
Quality and Quantity 80
27
The Origin of Dimension MATHEMATICS AND MEANING 85
30
TIME AND SYMMETRY
32
Mathematics and First Cause
35 PART FIVE
Quadratic and Linear Equations
36
AFTERMATH 91

PART TWO

~ii
,:,;
DERIVATIVES
40
REFERENCES
Control and Life
43
,,i; ~
i
Higher Derivatives?
THE IMPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
44
48
Action
'~""it1
~="
50

;
8
~,;.;j/j

INTRODUCTION TO
MATHEMATICS & REALITY

"The most abstract of all the sciences is

mathematics .... Mathematics is only busied
by purely hypothetical questions. As for
what the truth of existence may be, the
mathematician does not care a straw."
-Charles Sanders Peirce

To state at the outset my reason for writing this book, I

am a lover of theory, and because I love theory, I love
mathematics. But theories may not be fully developed, or
they may be incorrect. Even if the physical world with its
recalcitrant facts, its objects that get in the way of theory,
had no other function, it would be invaluable because it
exposes the flaws in theory. It forces theory to correct itself
and invariably reveals that there is an even better theory to
be discovered.
Theory, even if it has to be revised in the face of new
facts, is always the ultimate victor. Theory grows and
builds on itself, achieving a noumenal status, whereas facts
cease to be important after their work of correcting theory
is accomplished. They remain phenomenal.
The physical sciences began with Natural Philosophy,
the recognition of the importance of this interchange be-
tween fact and theory. But as mathematics developed, it
became increasingly independent of the physical applica-

11
 12 Mathematics & Reality
~~~i;fult.
Mathematics & Reality 13
tions so essential to physics. Mathematics differs from the
physical sciences in that there is a gift peculiar to mathe- In deriving the laws of motion it was necessarily
maticians that has enabled giants like Euler, Newton, .1ssumed that energy is not admitted or subtracted from the
Gauss and others to create whole worlds of relationships system (the closed system), and for this purpose the third
out of thin air, in which they sustain themselves like birds derivative is not required because it is dependent on the
on the wing with no need to touch the earth. It is this gift others. But the third derivative, or change of acceleration,
that justifies Peirce's statement, for it is incontrovertible is control. Because of the third derivative, we can drive a
evidence of a "higher world" that has its own laws and car. It is our option to control the car's speed or direction,
needs no validation from the world of facts. and thus reach a destination.
But the very perfection of mathematics can so captivate The existence of the third derivative, with the same for-
the minds of physical scientists that they neglect their mal status as the first and second, because it enables us to
prime mandate, to respect facts and revise theories. take advantage of the determinate laws governing inert
This brings me to the subject of the present work. matter, removes all conflict between free will and deter-
Often it is not that a theory is incorrect, but that it has minism; indeed, the reliability or determinism of the world
been misapplied. Rather than try to argue an issue that of physical objects, including our bodies, makes freedom
might require volumes and would still leave questions un- of choice effective.
settled, I will mention one example illustrating the unfor- This example shows that the laws of matter (Newton's
tunate consequences the follow when a valid mathemati- calculus), far from denying free will, not only sanction free
cal formalism is erroneously interpreted. (The subject is will but show how its scope and power are extended into
discussed in greater depth in Part Two.) the world.
Newton's calculus is a theory that makes it possible to It is often argued that science deals with only one
deal with change and thus to extend measurement to in- aspect of the world and is not concerned with freedom
clude motion and permit prediction. This was the birth of and values. But this is not the point I am making. I pro-
western science as distinct from geometry, which does not pose to show that an examination of the ideal world of
deal with motion. Thus Newton's fluxions, now called de- mathematics will indicate not that it is not ideal, but that
rivatives, were rates of change. His first derivative was the mathematics, in spite of itself, contains in addition to its
rate of change of position with respect to time, or velocity; formal elements, other aspects such as value and purpose
his second derivative was the rate of change of velocity not recognized by current science; and it owes it to itself to
with respect to time, or acceleration. develop or at least acknowledge these other functions.
But there is a third derivative, the neglect of which in I said that I was a lover of theory. Perhaps I should
physics has led to the widely-held assumption that deter- rather say, a searcher into first principles. I believe that in
minism negates free will. addition to its other duties, mathematics could, if properly
interpreted, become a science of first principles and hence
 14 Mathematics & Reality
Mathematics & Reality 15
truly queen of the sciences.
p.1rt of the century. But science and religion had the same
Francis Bacon, often credited with setting modern sci-
beginning, man's interest in his origins, and both deal with
ence on its course (and also blamed for doing so), pre-
t lie same universe. So to say they can never be reunited is
scribed the role of science as investigation into secondary
to make their division, originally a concession to conveni-
causes. First causes, he said, were the province of philoso-
phy and religion. nice and expediency, into a fundamental principle.
We could say that oil and water won't mix, but this is
But religion has increasingly concerned itself with
.11 the molecular level. At a deeper or more fundamental
ethics, and in its division into sects it has become more
level both are made of atoms; if you burn oil, you get
concerned with dogma than with first principles. Philoso- water.
phy, outdistanced by the advances in science, has been
As Ilya Prigogine writes in Order Out of Chaos
pushed into the background. In fact, the prestige of science ( 1984):
has so surpassed that of philosophy that philosophy no
longer has the courage to challenge science even on the For the ancients, nature was a source of wisdom. Medieval
matter of first principles. nature spoke of God. In modern times nature has become so
silent that Kant considered that science and wisdom, science
In any event science itself has outgrown its limitation
and truth, ought to be completely separated. We have been
to secondary causes. The major problems with which sci-
living with this dichotomy for the past two centuries. It is
ence is now concerned-the origin of the universe (cur- time for it to come to an end. (pp. 88-89)
rently referred to as the Big Bang), the nature of ultimate
particles, the mass discrepancy of galaxies, the ex- What has this to do with mathematics? Simply this-
perimental evidence of phenomena that transcend space that, as queen of the sciences, mathematics deals with
and time as in the EPR experiment-are problems that in- foundations, with first principles. It is for this reason that
volve primary causation. They are problems that will re- physics draws on mathematics for its certainty. As Hempel
quire changes in the philosophy of science, but because says in "Geometry and Empirical Science:"
they will necessarily require experimental evidence, they The most distinctive chartacteristic which differentiates
cannot be solved by philosophy alone. mathematics from the various branches of empirical science,
There can no longer be a division between mathema- and which accounts for its fame as the queen of the sciences,
tics and physics, between science and philosophy, perhaps is no doubt the peculiar certainty and necessary of its results.
even between science and religion. (quoted in The World of Mathematics, James R. Newman,
Ken Wilber, a contemporary philosopher who was ed., [1956], p. 1635)
himself at one time a scientist, takes the position in his Of course, all sciences, insofar as they do not merely
anthology, Quantum Questions (1984), that there can be catalogue facts but go further to deduce laws and draw
no wedding of science and religion. This view he supports conclusions, invoke this "peculiar certainty and necessity."
by quoting a number of prominent scientists from the first In fact it is because of such theoretical implications, which
 16 Mathematics & Reality
Mathematics & Reality 17
lead to empirical experimentation, that science can correct
its initial assumptions, and has grown from the armchair 111trinsic character of one-dimensionality versus two-
suppositions of Aristotle ("Bodies fall with speeds pro- dimensionality, with the qualitative difference between
portional to their weight") to its present status. n1uations of different degree, or with the different mean-
But there is a difference between the certainty and 111gs of the time derivatives. I will consider these differences
111 the hope of showing that they provide the potential for a
necessity of a mathematical proof and the certainty and
necessity of a law that interprets the physical universe. science of epistemology and cosmology. These distinctions
Mathematicians do not concern themselves with facts; are the seeds whose growth and unfolding produce physics
such is not their province. The statement of Charles Peirce, and the other sciences. Their neglect, especially by mathe-
given at the start of this introduction, is evidence of this, it matics, has led to confusion and error, and the time is
was written in 1856. More familiar is Bertrand Russell's ripe for their recognition.
often quoted statement, "mathematics may be defined as In the later sections, I take up the multiple infinities of
the subject in which we never know what we are talking Cantor and the related question of the number of transcen-
about, nor whether what we are saying is true." dentals, with a suggestion as to how a different definition
of number could help resolve this issue.
What we have, then, is that mathematics disclaims any
necessary connection with the real world. But this doesn't Finally, I take a mathematical notion, the concept of
stop physicists from using the formalisms of mathematics modulo and residue, and apply it to the problem of con-
to support their predisposition toward causal explana- sciousness itself. This may seem inappropriate in a book
tions, symmetry, determinism, etc. And therein lies the about mathematics, but I intend to show the profound
problem, because mathematics, which is invoked to pro- contribution mathematical thinking can make to such "un-
vide this sanction, is itself improperly understood. There scientific" questions as evolution and the purpose of life.
are many mathematical tools available, and the choices as
to which are appropriate and how they are to be inter-
preted are crucial. I will try to show that buried within
mathematics itself are the dues to how this judgment as to
application can be achieved.
To start simply, three important contributions of
mathematics will be examined in this essay: the notion of
dimension, the notion of the degree of an equation, and the
concept of derivatives. In all three areas, mathematics
tends to overlook critical distinctions, qualitative differ-
iit;,"J ences that have an important bearing on cosmology. More
ii specifically, mathematics does not concern itself with the
 Mathematics & Reality 19

PART ONE nected with the other three by hyperbolic rotations (Lorenz
Transformations); in other words, it is a time axis. (pp. 123-4)

While I agree with Eddington that the non-spatial

dimensions differ fundamentally from the spatial dimen-
sions, I don't think it follows, as is often assumed, that
they are timelike. Different from space, yes, but to say they
are timelike may be misleading. The fact is that the only
DIMENSION
dimensions that can be dealt with conceptually are space
To the mathematician dimensions are variables. Their dimensions. If we try to treat time as a dimension we have
number does not concern him, and he would be inclined to to objectify it, and this deprives it of its essential character.
say that any resemblance to the space and time of the Time brings surprises; it introduces novelty.
actual world is purely coincidental. I believe, however, that What, then, do we say to relativity, which popular
it can be shown that the three-dimensionality of the world accounts describe as involving time as the fourth dimen-
of our experience is a result of first principles, a conjecture sion? As an in-depth discussion here is not appropriate, I
that might be characterized as ontological-meaning that can only reiterate my conviction that relativity's treatment
this conjecture has a certain a priori nature in the sense of time (as a dimension like space) is an error. To suppose
in which Kant used this term to describe what precedes that the measurement of time captures its essential con-
sense experience. This subject could be said to constitute tribution would be like assuming that the merit of a novel
metaphysics, but it would be a metaphysics that takes into depended on how long it takes to read.
account the findings and implications of science. The picture given by science of the world as pure
An alternative approach would be to show mathemat- measurement, as a relationship structure with time as one
ical reasons for a precise number of dimensions. I said it of the parameters, lacks the ingredient that provides for
can be shown that there are no more than three spacelike change. But there is an alternative to treating the fourth
dimensions. Arthur Stanley Eddington said as much in dimension as time. This is to think of dimensions beyond
New Pathways in Science (1935) and in Fundamental three as interior, or internal, dimensions (described in The
Theory (1948). In the latter he wrote: Reflexive Universe [1976], Appendix II). The technique is
t based on the notion that two points determine a line, three
... there cannot be more than three mutually perpendicular points or a triangle determine a plane (two-dimensional
rotations connected by circular rotations. "Space," defined space), and four points determine a tetrahedron, which is a
as a domain in which relativity rotations are circular, is volume. If we extend this to five points we get what is
accordingly restricted to three dimensions. If we extend this
called overdetermination, or redundancy. Such overdeter-
domain to four dimensions, the fourth axis must be con-
mination would be detrimental in physical structures be-
18
 20 Mathematics & Reality
Mathematics & Reality 21
cause it would produce internal stress. On the other hand,
This leads to defining the dimension beyond that of the
if we want to store energy we must use five points. A struc-
three dimensions as stored energy, which implies reversal
ture with four points can be connected with four lines of
equal length: of entropy. The energy is stored in the extra internal
diagonal made possible with the fifth point (a fourth
a dimension).
This technique permits us to talk about still another
"dimension"-that involved when we join six points. The
resulting figure looks like an octahedron, but has three in-
ternal diagonals:

b
d

~-
~ If we add a fifth point, e, the extra line a-e must be
stretched:

The figure joining seven points has six more diagonals

or twenty one "edges."
It is not possible to go beyond seven points, for the
6(: !I )d reason that after seven the subsets can no longer be con-
nected; they divide into two groups. The rules of projective
geometry pertain here (see p. 24). Further confirmation
comes from the fact that no more than six equilateral
triangles can surround a point. We thus arrive by this sys-
tem at the conclusion that there are three external dimen-
sions (Eddington's "spacelike" dimensions) and three in-
ternal dimensions, and no more. As I will show later, tht·
e
single point in this system represents zero-dimensionality,
 22 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 23

or choice of direction. This leads to a seven-fold topology, for by defining the first dimension as force, we provide
, ,,·. y,
about which more will be said shortly. lor the inclusion of protons and electrons, and hence
, 11.irge, rather than introducing them as an ad hoc or
.-i11pirical addendum.
John A. Wheeler, in his Geometrodynamics (1962),
Force
.11tempted to account for charge solely on geometrical
This way of looking at dimension has interesting possibili- principles. He later found this impossible. "Farewell to
ties. In what follows I will stress that the restriction of gcometry" was his repeated refrain. Wheeler's problem
mathematics to an exclusively quantitative content is not was that he was attempting to account for charge with spa-
only unnecessary but prevents mathematics from exercis- tial dimensions, attempting to make it objective. Here we
ing its potential as a science of first principles. A hint of arc using one-dimensionality, with its inherent asymmetry,
this appears in physics, where, at the level of fundamental 10 introduce force, and hence charge .
particles, spatial location loses relevance, but force be- Consider what this means. I have postulated a recogni-
comes primary. tion of the one-dimensionality of force as an intrinsic prop-
Now force, as Eddington said, "is a difficult concept." erty of the world of manifestation-a property that is a
I would say it is not a concept at all; it is a given that is priori to the world of physical objects. Now, by postulat-
more basic than space. Eddington equates force with ing the fourth dimension as contained force, stored energy
indistinguishability-a rather negative definition, al- or order, we lay the theoretical basis for life, and thus
though distinguishability is a possible definition of space. tailor first principles to account for life and evolution.
Here we regard force as one-dimensional-it is scalar, one As I said at the beginning, mathematics is considered to
force is either more or less than another-and space as be independent of empirical fact: 2 + 3 = 5, independent
two-dimensional. of whether the objects counted are apples or votes. But
The first step in the ontogeny of the universe is from now we have the suggestion that force and the dimen-
a point to a line. In the physical universe it is pair sionality of space, usually considered to be empirical facts,
iir~
production-a photon creates a proton and an antiproton, can be seen as necessary features of the real world. This
between which there is an enormous force. But this is force poses the question of what kind of science it is that can
between separate things having no interior, whereas the anticipate characteristics of the world that do not depend
force in the extra diagonal of Figure 2 is internal, or self- on empirical test. Is this mathematics? If not, and we arc to
contained. continue to insist that mathematics does not tell us how
I find it most exciting that this treatment of the first many dimensions there are, or how dimensions arc to lw
dimension accommodates the substantive aspect of nature, interpreted, then we have a new science.
neglected in abstract accounts of the universe as pure The exegesis of dimension available through thi11k111p,
geometry or measure. This sounds like a "true" cosmol- of dimension as joining of points, which I have just 11111 o
 24 Mathematics & Reality
Mathematics & Reality 25
duced, is part of set theory, so it could be claimed on this 1111staking the idol for the reality.
basis that mathematics does deal with the number of
possible dimensions. One of these idols is the idea that mathematicians, be-
' .111sc "we never know what we are talking about nor
The same implication of seven-foldedness follows from whl'.ther what we are saying is true," can ignore empirical
topology, since the torus, with its connectivity richer than
l.1L"t-in other words, that they operate in an ideal world
that of the sphere, reflects an equivalent limitation, i.e., 1hat has no necessary connection with reality.
that seven points are the most that can be interconnected
Another idol is the idea that mathematics is the science
on the surface of a torus without crossing lines.
, ,t quantity. This notion has resulted in the invention of
This is also shown by the postulates of projective 11cgative numbers to replace subtraction-and subsequent-
geometry, as given by Veblen and Young in "A Mathema-
ly the invention or discovery of imaginary numbers. It is
tical Science" (1956). In this essay they explain that pos-
111y thesis that this distinction of kinds of number conceals
tulates must meet certain requirements in order to be both
.1 non-quantitative, or qualitative, factor that, if recognized
necessary and sufficient (for whatever science they are to
as such, would require that mathematics acknowledge that
form the basis). One such requirement is that postulates be 1t deals in the same distinctions required to describe
independent-that is, each postulate must not be implied totality-such as those between mental and physical or be-
by the others. In addition to the six postulates normally
tween formal and substantial, which are qualitative dis-
given for projective geometry, the authors introduce a tinctions of the most basic sort.
seventh: that there may be no more than three elements in
a subset. The term "imaginary number," which applies to the
square root of a negative quantity, has at times suggested
On my own, I had erected a "science of dimensions" to non-mathematicians that mathematics gives sanction to
with the help of the figures formed by joining n points as I imagination, or at least to an alternative to the materialist
have described. In this system, three points may not be
emphasis in science. But this suggestion is strongly re-
colinear, four points coplanar, etc. This independence is sented by mathematicians. They will assure you that com-
the same as the independence of postulates discussed by plex numbers (numbers that have a real and an imaginary
Veblen and Young, and both systems arrive at seven as part) are "merely" number pairs. Whitehead actually took
the number "necessary and sufficient." (For a more com-
time to assure the layman that in mathematics things
plete exposition, see The Reflexive Universe, Appendix II.)
meant what mathematicians intended them to mean-and
quoted Tweedledee to the same effect: "We pay them
extra."
ROOTS But complex numbers are certainly not just number
pairs. They are number pairs in which there is a very spe-
The mind can be slayer of the real. It does so in the sciences cial relationship. This relationship, first perceived by
I just as it formerly did in religion, by setting up idols and
Gauss, can be seen as geometric. The imaginaries create an

, ......._. ____ ,
~,- 26 Mathematics & Reality

axis at right angles to the real, and together the two kinds
Mathematics & Reality 27

of number create a plane: +I

I .
- I
2+2\/3

+I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-1 ~--------~--------~- +1
I
I
-1 I
I
+1 I

_l_l\/3
-! 2 2
-1

Gauss, who was a geometer as well as a mathema-

tician, devised this expedient to make sense of what had The cube roots of one are the points that divide the
previously seemed incomprehensible-the square root circle in three equal parts; the fifth roots of one divide the
of minus one (represented mathematically as i). In other circle in five parts, etc. But all these roots can be expressed
words, if we think of the minus sign as oppositeness, the in terms of square roots; that is, located by the two co-
square root of oppositeness is halfway to opposite, and if ordinates already established (see Figure 4 ).
the opposite is 180°, the diameter of a circle, then the
square root of oppositeness is 90°, or one-fourth of a Quality and Quantity
circle.
Now the interesting thing is that all roots of unity can To the mathematician this graphic display is merely a tech-
be shown on the same circle (the same plane) that displays nical device, a geometrical illustration of mathematical op-
minus one and its imaginary roots: eration. But what are roots? If we think of unity as a whole
and represent it by a circle, then the roots of unity are
 I'
.III'

i.ilii·1'I
I
28 Mathematics & Reality
!; Mathematics & Reality 29
1:li
111
directions or "signs"-plus one, minus one, and the plus There would seem to be a deep structure in this dia-
i:i1.·
:11: and minus imaginaries-and the circle is the totality of grammatic display of the relation of quantity to quality,
;11 possible directions.
!j:11
which displays quality as a plane with quantity as an axis
/,,1' I' This implies that these four different signs, which indi-
,:1 perpendicular to it. One further conjecture is that just as
ii
'I
cate different directions on the circle-different aspects- four colors suffice for a map on a plane or spherical (simp-
,11
iii are not different in quantity but different in quality. ly connected) surface, so four distinctions or two dichot-
'[I Quantity (absolute value) must be independent of sign.
i,1f/,
,,, omies suffice for qualitative analysis. The problem of the
1
,i:11
1
,11 11
If we now create another axis through the origin of the white crow in logic can be handled if we have one other
'i'I
,11
,/I I
previous diagram, an axis perpendicular to the plane of the criterion, e.g., crowness defined independently of color. By
:'I paper, we can let this axis represent quantity. The circle of four distinctions I mean, four categories of distinction (see
;i/1/ aspects we have previously considered represents quality- "Aftermath" p. 91). Thus, facts are distinguished from
/Ir that is, non-quantitative distinctions of all kinds. An ex- theories in that facts are particular, theories general. Be-
,l;I,
ample of three axes used in this way is the ~olor chart liefs are also general but can be distinguished from theories
J!il:
,1//1 found in any paint store:
'1111
in that they are projective, whereas theories are objective
1111 (can be communicated). Of course, facts might differ from
'II
·1;:/1 other facts in many ways, just as countries can differ in
1,1·11'
·1 · many ways, but mapping does not deal with the character
::fr White of countries, it purports only to distinguish divisions of a
!Ir

,ii, surface.
i Another element of this deep structure is rotation.
)I Red
Rotation occurs around one axis and produces variety in a
plane perpendicular to this axis. The axis thus has an in-
1/
1,/I
Blue
variant property in contrast to the variation possible in the
:'I plane. Moreover, there can be only two independent axes
of rotation in three dimensions.
!!I The formalism presented here provides status for qual-
111,1
111 ity as well as quantity in mathematics. Understand that
l
,11
',1i
we are not forcing quality into mathematics. Quality is
already there in the concept of the negative and imaginary
1
numbers. And note that we now include the "positiveness"
11'1!
I"I of positive numbers as a quality. The signless number
;/11
(without quality) is different from the positive number. If I
1,11
Black have a hundred sheep and one of them is lost, I can say
,,ii!
,,,,1
1
:11,
l'I'
,1,li/ll
"''I
·i:11i
'/
ilirl
 ')!
\]:
I I•
I
11·11
,Ji! 30 Mathematics & Reality
1' Mathematics & Reality 31
)/
'II,
111::I,
ninety-nine sheep are plus and one is minus, but the num- 'llll'stion of negative and imaginary numbers, I argued that
/rii
I ber of sheep is still a hundred.
1

,,/1 lhl· plus and minus signs owe their origin to the extraction
1,;11!
Whether or not this model of the plane of qualification 111 roots; thus, as we said, taking the square roots of unity

ji is adopted by mathematicians, it serves to illustrate how

mathematics could be enriched by formal inclusion of
quality in addition to quantity as within its purview.
produces plus one and minus one. Of course it could be
,1r~ucd that positive and negative numbers are a conven-
,1:1·
,1,1
tion adopted for convenience, to replace the operation of
,111
It is not difficult to see how the restriction to pure subtraction with that of adding a negative number. But we
, , ,/ I I

quantity came about. Academic professionalism has to arc still left with the question of how subtraction enters
11' divide the task of science into different disciplines, just mathematics. Is it not an undefined term? It could be said
·1~11
as libraries have to classify books according to subject; that subtraction is such an operator that minus times
·1,I,
1,1 it would be impossible to do otherwise. (Charles Fort minus equals plus, or two negatives make a positive. This
:111 proposed to eliminate the distinction between fiction makes subtraction equivalent to the extraction of square
1
111
1

and nonfiction.)
11.

roots. Moreover, square roots go farther; as I've said, the

:i:111 But when we come to fundamentals-or rather I square root of a negative number produces the imagin-
111 1
1

i
1111 should say when mathematics or physics or biology comes aries, ± v-T or ± i.
;:/,II 1 to fundamentals, as mathematics necessarily does in I conclude, therefore, that both positive-negative num-
,1 •,1 . 111/ mathematical philosophy, or as physics does in the study bers and positive-negative imaginaries come into being
of fundamental particles-the conventions and restrictions
~!1'~/
1'111
that were set up for reasons of expedience have to be
through the extraction of roots of the natural or signless
numbers. The latter, I would (with Kronecker) insist are
dropped. The physicist, whose province was established the basic "alphabet" of mathematics. Some years ago I
'~/I,II1 as restricted to observables, comes at last to the photon, consulted a mathematical text written, as I recall, by my
JI!,I the so-called "particle" of light. Realizing that the pho- instructor Alonzo Church, which stated that there were
,ii ton does not exist except in the act of its detection, he is negative and non-negative numbers. When I asked
~ forced to conclude that photons are "virtual," which is to
say non-observable.
Church, "How many legs has a horse?" he became wary
1" The mathematician, defining mathematics as the sci-
and said he would have to count them. I then asked, "How
many legs has a quadruped?" He said four. "Were they
:ii/
ence of quantity, finds it necessary to invent negative non-negative legs?" He then admitted the number in this
1l1 and imaginary numbers. He is thus led to include just what case was without any sign, and that the text he had written
i'i
'/,
was excluded in the definition of mathematics. was wrong in omitting any reference to signless (i.e., natu-
,,/1 ral) numbers.
f /, But why this fuss about the origin of numbers with
i/11 The Origin of Dimension signs? Because if we attend to what is occurring, we will
1
,i:l1 realize that the operation of extracting roots creates
'1/
:11
In "The Queen and Mr. Russell" (1980), taking up the dimension. The mathematical purists who maintain that
!!/

ii ~
 l,-1
II

/11
ii'

11',iiij 32 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 33

,;:1:
1•lli
1·'''' mathematics is "above" any reference to real things such Regarding the connection of causality with the arrow
/1:1!
1'!11; as dimensions, would maintain that dimensions belong to ol time, and the scientists who insist that it could go either
1
1!1[ geometry. But now we find, following Gauss, that the way, he says:
·1,/ '
1
mathematical operation of extracting roots creates dimen-
:1'1 sion (see Figure 4 ). The crux of the matter is that, although a change described
I!
I as sorting [of cards] is the exact opposite to a change de-
One further point: If we note that the square roots of 1 scribed as shuffling we cannot imagine a cause of sorting to
i
1, are ±1, while the square roots of -1 are ±Y-T (± i), we be the exact opposite of a cause of shuffling ... [to do so]
;i/1 can use this difference between plus and minus to establish would seem equivalent to saying that the activities of matter
:11
;ii a basic asymmetry in mathematics that provides for the and mind are related like plus and minus-which is surely
'I asymmetry of time.
1':i nonsense. (p. 93)
'i:I
While I do not think that the relation of mind to matter
II/Iii TIME AND SYMMETRY
'/' I can be expressed as simply as plus and minus, I do not feel
'1 I
that the idea is nonsense. In general Eddington says that
~1
~I
~.11·,
Now the asymmetry of time, especially as manifested in
the second law of thermodynamics, has always tormented
the world of science is objective and things like color and
IJI! beauty are subjective. But "entropy is an appreciation of
physicists. This is because what are called the equations of
~I
arrangement and organization; it is subjective in the same
11''1
fl dynamics-those laws that make possible the prediction of
'·'/ii sense that the constellation Orion is subjective." (p. 95)
!!jl planetary motion-do not tell us which way time goes. In
1,i'I Interesting as he is in his account of becoming, Edding-
~
l/11
fact, to many physicists time is symmetrical, and the
second law of thermodynamics, that entropy (the tendency
ton touches on even more profound questions. He points
out that the scientist admits entropy, but not beauty,
ij
t.,!
of energy to become more uniformly distributed) always
r;I because entropy has a metrical aspect beauty does not
' tends to increase, is not theoretical but empirical. De
"
/'I Beauregard, Prigogine, and other physicists devote much possess:
ii
attention to this issue, as did Boltzmann in the nineteenth So also entropy is admitted in its numerical aspect; if it has
:11/i
/Iii century. as we faintly suspect some deeper significance touching that
Eddington, too, gave the problem considerable atten- which appears in our consciousness as purpose (as opposed
.1 tion in The Nature of the Physical World (1930). He de- to chance), that significance is left outside. (p. 105)
~
votes a chapter of this book to becoming, which he links Despite this sensitive appraisal, Eddington does not
i111l 1

with the asymmetry of time and with entropy. A being reach a solution. Yet he comes very close to the conclusion
~1111:
'!1I I
from Mars, he says, would be able to read a clock but he I have reached-that nature does contain just those attri-
would not know from the clock which way time goes. To
,~i know this he would require an "entropy clock" -for ex-
butes we call subjective, including becoming and purpose.
The problem of time's arrow remains an issue because,
::;,/1 ample a thermometer. as I said, the basic equations of dynamics do not permit the
j)
I

~_,:1·1
1/I'.
 34 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 35
111:'
i1,i
,.,I asymmetry of time. But if we attend to extraction of roots 11111c could be thought of as made up of infinitely short in-
i11
1,1 1 we find a basis for this asymmetry in mathematics. stants. Time intervals, said Bergson, can be very short, but
ill!'
~ Note that the equations of motion are quadratic equa- they cannot be instantaneous. Now, with quantum theory,
~ tions, i.e., equations involving x 2 , and for planetary mo- it is evident that Bergson was correct. Time can be reduced
~
11 tion these equations omit linear terms. Such equations are to intervals of very short duration, but when this is done
symmetrical because they obliterate the distinction be- the energy increases and becomes infinite for infinitely
1 I!'
tween plus and minus. (If x 2 = 4, x = +2 or -2.) But these
equations do not speak for all reality; they address only
short time intervals. This complementarity, as Heisenberg
said, imposes a boundary to smallness in addition to the
II that aspect of reality that is symmetrical. boundary to bigness that is normally accepted. (We will
,,
ill

·:11,
We obtain asymmetry when we use linear equations. come back to this later when we discuss infinity.)
And with this asymmetry in mathematics we not only give The association between energy and time, discovered
ii/
I~
theoretical status to time's arrow but we provide a basis by Planck, which requires infinite energy for zero time,
~
11111,
for becoming, and for the importance of value, another
aspect of things that, like force, cannot be conceptualized.
confirms Bergson's realization, based on his experience of
time, that time cannot be reduced to instants. In this case,
:jil Concept is necessarily objective, two-dimensional; value we could say that quantum physics, which dictates the re-
,;111
,,.,., and force are projective, one-dimensional. lationship h = Energy X Time, is an empirical finding. I
I 1·
',111
1 11
1
Dirac, in predicting the positron, and hence anti- will not contest this statement, but will say that the evi-
'I•
'. .'.II'
,1111
matter, uncovered the basic ontological bifurcation that is dence from pair creation that the quantum of action is re-
I
~1'
.,1!
only partially suggested by electrical charge. This bifurca- sponsible for the generation of matter, and hence is first
1
i:[! tion makes possible the reversal of entropy which is to cause, should be sufficient to provide it with theoretical
emerge later, in life. It is related to time reversal, symbol- status as well.
'1'/il
ized in the Greek myth by Prometheus and Epimetheus.
·'II
:\,j1/1
Of course, we don't have to trouble mathematics with
1/111
such subtleties, but in view of the fact that physics is
1111! Mathematics and First Cause
already dealing with not one, but three asymmetries-
:111
charge, parity (handedness) and time-the intellectual This brings up a most interesting question. Can mathema-
II
~1: 1'111
preference for symmetry should not continue to legislate
against the world of becoming.
tics deal with first cause? Here I think we discover that
there is a higher authority than the queen herself. Up to
,'I
11
' II/'
11 111 Here a reference to Henri Bergson is pertinent. Back in this point I have argued for the authority of the queen-
,1,/ 1922 Bergson argued with Einstein against the implication that is, for the jurisdiction of mathematics in providing
;
1
/11' of relativity for the symmetry of time. Time, said Bergson, deductive principles that prescribe the entities space and

i
Ji
i I
is continually introducing novelty and hence is not sym-
metrical. He went further and criticized the concept that
time, referred to by Kant as transcendental and a priori.
However, in regard to first cause, or the quantum of
·'/'
,:1'

II
r/111
 ·Iii
11,
I
I!
',1i

~ 36 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 37

I,
'II
,:1
1,11 action, I am ready to confess that mathematics is mute. 1;1tively different measures, as in a graph of stock price
,~I"
:,11·1
First cause is not generally considered to be within the a~ainst time:
I province of mathematics; it is of a still higher order than
itl I
1111
are other first principles such as space and time. But there
::111
11111
are correlates to first cause within mathematics. One such
correlate would be a "singularity." Singularities occur
i'I j
with complex coordinates at a point where the denomina-
I
1111
tor of a fraction vanishes. This renders the function inde-
'ill
terminate and gives to this point a unique status. Price

"
11'
Another example of first cause is a prime number. The
' I.
1 occurrence of primes, which cannot be predicted and have
:/11
, 1
no antecedents, is the mathematical equivalent of novelty.
,:1 Yet another case that correlates to first cause is in-
:111··
volved in Goedel's proof of the incompleteness of logic.
'lljl Goedel demonstrated that any logic that includes the ax-
:~11 ioms of arithmetic must necessarily involve a proposition
"'~~
1·1 Time
ijll; that says it is not a proposition. This uncertainty in logic is
equivalent to novelty, and hence to first cause.
~ 11
The difficulty of talking about first cause is to be ex-
~1 pected. In fact any procedure that involves indeterminacy In Figure 7 a rotation of coordinates would produce a
'i:li violates the ground rules for formalism. Since first cause meaningless picture. The purpose of such a curve is to de-
·1~ has to be without antecedents, it cannot be contained in pict a value (the price of a stock), and value has a nature
1 the formalism. such that it can only be measured in one dimension. Spatial
•t ·11
I measures, including length, can only be measured in two
{,~ dimensions. (We have to have space to separate the ruler
,,I from the object measured.)
I,
Quadratic and Linear Equations
l
~I
I i,i I
To return to the subject of dimension, there is an impor-
This difference can be seen as the basis for the distinc-
tion between concept and value. An equivalent distinction
Ai tant aspect of this topic to which I have seen no reference in mathematics is that between quadratic and linear equa-
i11 in mathematical literature, yet which is taken for granted tions. This is the seed we are looking for-a purely mathe-
,,1... !
Ill
1d in measurement. When we use coordinates, in some in- matical source for ontological categories.
li stances the axes are the same regardless of orientation (iso- I stated earlier that quadratic equations eliminated the
I
~11
tropic), as in geometry, and in others they describe quali- distinction between positive and negative, and that Dirac

I
I
l
,1,1

~
 Mathematics & Reality 39
38 Mathematics & Reality

discovered the positron by resurrecting this distinction. Thus an equation for human perception-
Again, we could remind physicists who say that quadratic P = k +x+x2
equations indicate a symmetry to time, and who exclude
the linear term, which deals with friction, from their equa- -where k are the constants, x is the personal, and x 2 the
tions, that the general case includes the molar world where impersonal or objective.
friction is a factor. In any case this was an early notion that recognized the
Linear equations have a different function from that of l'ssential difference between linear and squared terms.
quadratic equations. The difference can be epitomized in How does this read on mathematics itself? I am sug-
that the former preserve the sign and the latter, because gesting that the difference between linear and square terms
they are squares, do not. It is this which makes linear equa- is not merely quantitative, but qualitative, and can be used
tions asymmetrical and quadratic equations symmetrical. to describe important distinctions in the real world, dis-
Years ago, long before I worked out the theory of tinctions that would be difficult to define in the absence of
process, I noticed that the difference between linear and this formalism. It is the mathematics in this case that pro-
quadratic could serve to express different kinds of human vides the important distinction, i.e., contributes meaning
judgment or interaction. First of all there are differences to the application. It was my perception of the difference in
that characterize people and remain unchanged-sex, linear and square terms that suggested the application.
heritage, age, etc. Second, there are simple judgmental in- Can we, therefore, say that mathematics doesn't know
teractions with the environment-expressions of like and what it's talking about, when the distinctions of mathema-
dislike, emotional reactions that depend on mood, etc. tics can so profitably be applied in a variety of situations?
Such are values and feelings and other projections based We can even say that mathematics, in distinguishing linear
on beliefs, prejudices and past experience. The self reacts from quadratic equations, anticipates the difference be-
in terms of its predisposition rather than in consideration tween emotion and intellect.
of what is outside itself. Such reaction can change over
time. Third, we eventually come to make an objective
assessment, which is value free. This corresponds to the
square or quadratic term.
As we said, the first types of interaction are constants.
The second are linear because they involve value and there-
fore require signs-say, plus for good, minus for bad. The
third are value free and hence are objective; they comprise
statements about the relations of the object to itself, rela-
tions that define the object.
 Mathematics & Reality 41

mechanics v [velocity] and a [acceleration] are key quanti-

PART TWO
ties, but daldt [the next derivative] plays no role at all."
The official line, in other words, is that further derivatives,
though theoretically obtainable, are of no importance. But
let us examine this assumption. The next derivative would
be change of acceleration. It is by change of acceleration
that we control a car-by applying the brakes, pushing the
DERIVATIVES accelerator pedal, or steering. These are all methods of
changing acceleration, i.e., "driving" the car. We say we
Derivatives are the basis of the calculus discovered simul- drive the car; actually it is the engine that "drives" the car,
taneously by Newton and Leibniz and are the foundation but we control the engine.
of the science of motion. A derivative with respect to time The third derivative, or change of acceleration, is not
is a rate of change. Thus, velocity is the rate of change of mentioned in physics textbooks, this despite the fact that it
position with respect to time-represented as LIT, miles is the basis for the science of cybernetics. It is mentioned in
per hour-where L designates distance and T designates advanced control system texts, and there are courses given
time. in "control" in today's colleges, but the idea of the third
The second derivative, acceleration or rate of change of derivative has not penetrated physics or philosophy. It is in
velocity, is LIT 2 • My Volkswagen can accelerate to sixty regular use in aeronautics under the title "jerk," an unfor-
miles per hour in ten seconds. Note that we divide by time tunate term based on the operation of black box control
twice: first in miles per hour, then again in mph per ten systems that are either on or off and hence not representa-
seconds. tive of the more gradual or continuous control we exercise
It is very interesting that distance and its derivatives are in life-not only in cars, but in our every motion. While
known to us through different faculties. We know position we sense position, compute velocity, feel acceleration, we
directly through the senses; we know velocity by computa- do control.
tion. (The fact that the earth is moving through space at Why is control, the third derivative, not mentioned in
fifteen miles per second is only known through observation textbooks? How does it come about that we have a vast
and careful computation with respect to the distant stars.) technology, an industrial age, based on manufacture and
Acceleration, however, we know through feeling. We feel use of controllable machines, with no mention of control
ourselves pushed to the side when the car goes around a in theoretical physics?
curve, or thrown forward when we make a quick stop. One might say that the mindset that ignores control
Are there any further derivatives? In his book Dif- may be aesthetically inspired by a need for a world reg-
ferentiation (1969), P. P. Korovkin writes, "In Newtonian ulated by exact laws. Historically such aestheticism has

40

11
 ll
I'
··1i1
11

'l:1l1i
~
il. 1i,
1

'I,
1 42 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 43
". '1''11
111
I I
lr had a strong appeal, especially for the scientist engaged in Control and Li(e
'111 I
the search for objective truth. He must study nature impar-
~1'11 In this reference to use and control, I am assuming that the
tially and investigate how it behaves when left to itself;
1111
third derivative is kept optional. The scientist would admit

i
when he weighs an object he must not put his hand on the
scales. Therefore all laws are predicated on the assumption that a planet in an elliptical orbit changes its acceleration.
that energy is not being added to or subtracted from a When the planet is close to the sun, the acceleration is
lj/ closed system, and in this way the regularities of nature are greatest, when far from the sun, the acceleration is least. So
I discovered-laws of motion, laws of gas pressure and there is in this case change in acceleration, but the accelera-
temperature, etc. The scientist is understandably impressed tion varies inversely with the square of the radius, and is
11: with the remarkable consistency that emerges and with the therefore linked to position; it is not open or optional. The
111
predictive power that rewards his labors. elliptical orbit, then, does involve the third derivative, but
I
:/,
Yet, having found that under these special conditions this is a special case.
matter behaves in this remarkably precise and orderly The governor of a steam engine or a thermostat that
!1111
i1 fashion, the theoretical scientist tends to disregard the fact has been set to a predetermined temperature are also spe-
1
111I
that he had assumed for purposes of his experiment that cial cases. The general case, however, allows control to be
'}jl no energy was added or subtracted from outside the sys- optional, subject only to the limitations of the machine.
~
11'11

tem, and he concludes there can be no addition or subtrac- (We could not expect a 40 hp car to accelerate with the
1f11i
'I, tion to mar the predictability and order. It does not occur rapidity of a 300 hp car.) It allows the householder to reset
!11

!ii to most scientists that the existence of the third derivative the thermostat, the engineer to regulate the governor of the
l steam engine, and so on.
11 1
makes possible just this addition or subtraction of energy.

~
To the mind directed at the discovery of a world order, the I emphasize the importance of the third derivative, or
mind trained to avoid human intervention or bias of any control, not only because it puts determinism in its place-
1
1

i! 11
,•

sort, it is abhorrent to turn traitor to this beautiful crea- as the servant of free will-but because it lays the basis
/! tion. Unable to put it to use, unable to take advantage of for a true science of life. The fact that man can control
I

~I
r machines enable us to recognize that he also controls his
,,, the knowledge of law so obtained, the scientist becomes
1
,il the chef who has created such a marvelous cake he cannot body. Even to stand up requires the continual, but largely
I bear to eat it. unconscious, exercise of control. And if man controls mo-
l'):[I

Thus it is that the sharp line is drawn between technol- tion, as I said before, so, too, can animals control their
!!iii
:1111, ogy and science. Technology, driven by invention, does not motions, and plants control the chemicals to store energy
·1r hesitate to eat the cake or use determinism. This is precise- and promote growth.
:11!
·1!111 ly what technology does. By using nature's laws, it creates Here, at last, life enters the picture. Hitherto life has
,Iii had no place in the scheme of determinism. Determinism is
'f/11
products, and when these products are machines, it takes
111,1
for granted that the machines can be controlled. a dead picture, a portrait of inert matter obeying fixed
I'
•.111
'I
 Iii
iii!' i
''iii,,
I '
i;'!i
1111 44 Mathematics & Reality
I' Mathematics & Reality 45
1:;1'
,,,
laws, of dead planets repeating their monotonous revolu-
11:i duce whatever new changes we wish.
1:1
tions. But with the expanded formalism permitting the
Let us examine the implications of this. If there were
,:111
addition of control, we can account for life. We realize that
11:: higher derivatives, or paths that required them for analy-
'I: nature creates creatures who, through control, use the laws
,11:
of nature for growth and self-maintenance. sis, and you were operating a vehicle and had access to
these higher derivatives, but I did not, then you could
!11 our problem here, however, is mathematics, and
,'!11 move in a path that I, equipped with control of a similar
the need to challenge that curiously perverse view of
',111'
vehicle, could not follow. But such is not the case. You,
mathematics, at once romantic and irresponsible, that de-
i:I possessed only of control, can move in any path you please
I clares that because mathematics is a pure science it has no
(subject to the maneuverability of the vehicle), and I, with
1[!1
bearing or obligation to the real world. Let us now try to
a similar vehicle, can follow you. Following is subject to
!'11
see how this idolatry of formalism has obscured the very
lag and may fail, but not because of a different derivative.
i thing that could save science.
This being the case, further derivatives-i.e., deriva-
tives beyond the third-are superfluous.
:,111
,,111
Higher Derivatives? We may illustrate the sequence of derivatives and their
'I/ contribution by the number of photos of a moving vehicle
In Chapter 5 of his book Wholeness and Implicate Order
1111
,Ii I we would have to take to know its position, velocity and
(1980), physicist David Bohm gives examples of motion acceleration:
,,,:111
1111
of increasing complexity: first, motion in a straight line;
1',11
,1, second, motion in a uniform curve; third, motion in a spi-
'I
iii ral. He goes on to say that there are higher and higher
'I
orders of complexity, which can be described by higher • One photo would suffice to show position.
,'iii
and higher "degrees of order," equivalent, I would claim,

./ ./
,11
.,,,,.,,,,,,,.·
11
,i!I to the derivatives. (A point represents position, a line
Two photos plus knowledge of the time be-
'I!
,,,1 velocity and a curve acceleration. The spiral, change of
//

tween them would show the velocity and

//
'I
'jl acceleration, is control.) According to Bohm it would ulti- direction.
:11 mately be possible to describe even the random motion of
l
,11
~ iII
Brownian movement, not as disordered, but as involving
an indefinitely high "degree of order." ,. .,,,,..--•-- - Three photos taken at equal intervals would
show the acceleration of the vehicle-that it
'i /1
,,11
But Bohrn overlooks the fact that once we reach the ~
I

is speeding up or moving in a curve.

':/!: i
;i /i! third derivative, or control, the one which changes the
1:!1

Il.i!/1:,
uniform curve to a spiral, we have reached the point of
option or choice. Thus, through control, we can produce I
/.- - -•- - -·- - Four photos at equal intervals would show
'I,,;
any spiral, steer the curve back to a straight line, or intro- ~ that the acceleration had changed-There's
I
somebody in it!
II
1

,'1 /

11

1//! !

lj

~
,ii,
 ,III' Mathematics & Reality 47
46 Mathematics & Reality
1:11!
''
I I:
This is what is called a four operator, and it tells us
I, Let us take the case where there is a fourth derivative,
that position and its three time derivatives are all the time
: Iii that is, something that governs control. As we said before,
,k·rivatives there are; after three the derivatives repeat.
control in the general case is optional. But as in driving a
Now I do not take Dr. Bohm to task for his misunder-
car, we can have a de-finite destination. This "governs" our
standing of derivatives to establish his thesis (that there is
control in the sense that when we reach the destination we
I hidden, or implicate, order). The responsibility must be
stop the car and get out; or if we were bombing a certain
rharged to mathematics, which just doesn't bother to in-
target, we would guide the airplane accordingly. Again, in
form us that the third derivative is optional-that is, it is
process control there is a product assessment, i.e., quality
control. inherently unpredictable. As I said, I do not deny that in
some cases it is linked to one of the other derivatives (ideal-
So from this we can conclude that the target, be it a
place or a quality of product, is the fourth derivative-the
ly, as in the governor of the steam engine, to velocity), but
such cases are "degenerate" -that is, they do not permit
one that governs our otherwise optional control. But a
target or destination is a position, and position is what we full scope to the function.
Perhaps mathematicians would insist that the nature of
started with. Velocity enabled us to change position, accel-
the third derivative does not concern mathematics. But if
eration to change velocity, control to change acceleration,
that is their claim, whose concern is it? Certainly not the
: 111
and position to govern control. So we have come back to
physicist's, who would not dare to question mathematics.
the starting point after four steps:
11 Physicists often refer to Poincare's dictum to the effect that
L there is a theorem in mathematics that says if we know the
T3 control value of a function and that of all its derivatives at a point
we can predict the value at all other points.
The theorum in question, the one invoked by Bohm, is
the Taylor series, which is very useful for finding the value
of the sine or cosine of an angle. But the "function" in this
case is a mathematical truism, a form of expression; it is
L position L L not a statement about the physical world.
T2 T4 Since neither the physicist nor the mathematician rec-
acceleration also ognizes that the third derivative is option, perhaps in the
position game they play "option" is out of bounds and cannot be
,i
I mentioned. If so, they are not to be trusted with cosmol-
ogy, which cannot exclude option because option is built
into the same formalism that made science possible, the
TL veloc1ty
. calculus itself.

, I

I I
 Mathematics & Reality 49
48 Mathematics & Reality

THE IMPLICATIONS OF """ different ink and form the letter slightly differently.
Such a consideration would probably have been re-
MATHEMATICS
1(,mled as trivial in any period prior to modern physics,
where the issue of identity has been clarified by the discov-
To sum up, then, we have seen several ways in which
mathematics has to be called to task for failing to appreci- rry that the ubiquitous electrons and protons that make up
ate the implication of its own formalisms. .,II matter have no identity. There is no way to tell whether
,Ill electron leaving an atom is the same electron as the one
Thus, the custom of making use of n dimensions,
that entered the atom. This is not a mere quibble, it is an
irrespective of the value of n (a custom encouraged or in-
important ontological principle. Identity, which makes
spired by the fact that the process of addition or multi-
sl·parateness possible, only emerges at the next level of
plication is not affected by the values of the numbers
added), is open to criticism. The three dimensions of space organization, when atoms themselves are formed. When
the atom enters into a combination with another atom to
cannot be dismissed as a mere "special case" -three may
form a molecule it changes only its outer electrons; its nuc-
be the only number of dimensions that a manifest world,
leus remains unchanged. This permits the atom to retain its
an actual world, can have. And the question of how many
II identity when the molecule is broken up. (If this problem
dimensions a world can have, if not a question for
I of something without identity still seems difficult, take
i
i mathematics, is a question for a higher authority, a science
yet to be established from which mathematics would take
i:omfort in the fact that the egolessness of things is a cen-
11,,
Ii its authority. tral teaching of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy.)
With the derivatives we have even more evidence that
Again returning to the question of the degree of equa-
the formal procedures of mathematics blind us to impor-
tions, mathematical formalism blindly assumes that the
II tant distinctions. In principle it is assumed there can be any
i degree of an equation (the exponent of the unknown) can
11 number of derivatives. In principle, too, the derivatives are
! have any value. But a further inquiry shows important dif-
assumed to have no inherent properties that would disting-
I ferences between linear and quadratic equations, and the
I
uish one from another. But as we have shown, the time
fact that equations of higher degree become increasingly
derivatives are known through different faculties, sensa-
insoluble and have decreasing applicability raises ques-
tion, intellect, etc, and the third derivative, in the general
tions: Is there or is there not a limit to the degree of an
case, is open or optional. If the third derivative is known or
equation? And of what pertinence are equations that are
insoluble? fixed, differentiation exhausts its repertoire and reduces to
a four operator. This again indicates a responsibility in
Related to this is the unstated assumption that logic
mathematics either to attend to the meaning of its blind
I 111 is limited to entities that have identity. Logic takes for
formalism, and to admit that its own formal procedures
granted that a = a. It would be foolish to try to deduce that
ii if a = b, and a = c, then b = c, if one could not assume that
are open, as it were, on one side, or to admit there can be a
i

a = a, notwithstanding the fact that each time I write a, I science of higher authority than mathematics.
i
I
:1

I.

I~,: l\:..&
 '11 1
'Ji:i
i !!
Iii'II Mathematics & Reality 51
50 Mathematics & Reality
:11
i
1

1
11
1 In a purely scientific exposition in The Mathematical
111!, Here again we find a parallel in logic in the Goede!
!iiII!! Tlwory of Relativity, Eddington said, "From its first intro-
paradox, mentioned earlier, which proves by logical
lir d11l"tion action has always been looked upon as something
I methods that logic is incomplete.
whose sole raison d'etre is to be varied, and moreover,
varied in such a way as to defy the laws of nature" (p.
IP). This remarkable statement was published in 1923,
Action ht'(ore Heisenberg discovered the uncertainty principle and
~ave to Planck's discovery of the quantum of action the
What we have then is that classical physics, because it does
not include uncertainty, is incomplete; logic is incomplete; wider significance it now has.
Perhaps Eddington goes too far. Action does not so
and mathematics as it is currently interpreted is incom-
much defy the laws of nature as use the laws of nature via
plete. All three of the queens lack the perfection formerly
the third derivative, control. It may take a certain amount
imputed to them. Perhaps a higher completeness can be
of energy to throw a switch or press a button, but the
provided, but such completeness would no longer be the
amount required to do so can be reduced to an arbitrarily
I
determinism of mathematics and physics or the consis-
small value. A single photon from Sirius could be made to
! tency of logic; it would be a completeness that included
the unknowable. trigger a bomb that would blow up a city. Now the photon
I
I is unpredictable; it is pure uncertainty. But it does not defy
II, Here let me anticipate the laudable objection that will
I~ I law. The law in this case is absent. What happens at the
:ill be made against the statement that there is anything in the
level of the quantum of action is indeterminate; it is not
ilf
universe that is essentially unknowable. As the philo-
111.1
implied by its antecedents. There is no law for action to
1,
sophor Peirce said of the Nominalists' statement that ac-
11:
I tion at a distance was inexplicable, "It is a poor kind of "defy."
'i This makes action equivalent to freedom. That the
ii theory that merely supposes the facts to be inexplicable."
'I quantum of action is very, very small-too small, as a
I
Well said, Mr. Peirce! But let us stop a moment to con-
sider. number of philosophers have said, "to lift one's little
'/1 finger" -is quite irrelevant, since action does not have to
I would not wish to put any limitation on the power of
/I lift anything, any more than you have to lift the elevator
explanation. But if we are to require that every act
when you press the button to have it come to your floor.
(whether at a distance or no) be predictable from antece-
What happens is a trigger effect, occurring, in the case
dents, we exclude all life; we are not talking about the real
of human decision, at the subcellular level, at the level of
world. It is the very nature of action to create novelty, to
the molecule, where decision acts to release an electron
act in a way that is not explained by antecedents; and it is a
bond and set in motion a chain or hierarchy of sub-
divine endowment of action that, when most pressured by
systems-from the bond to the nerve, from the nerve to
the necessity to account for itself, it explodes and puts
antecedents to flight. the muscle that lifts the finger.
i
II
1,l1
,:
'!i
1.

52 Mathematics & Reality

But this is not the place for a discussion of free wi 11.

i
What we are doing here is to show that mathematics,
PART THREE
rightly understood, yields a picture of reality quite unlikl'
the predictable one mathematics is supposed to support
and that leads Bohm and de Beauregard to quote mathe-
matics to support their insistence on order.

CANTOR'S INFINITIES

In the late nineteenth century, Georg Cantor devised what

was considered a formal system for dealing with infinity.
His system defined the infinity of natural numbers, and
contrasted it with the infinity of the continuum. To do this
he first developed a method whereby the rational numbers
(fractions) could be counted, i.e., put in one-to-one corre-
spondence with the integers:

/
/--
' .,..-- - --,
/
/ ,I / /

// 1 // 2 // 3 // 4 / 5
/ /
/ / / / /
I 2 2 2
2
I -
\ I ,, _/
I /
/ 2
/
// 3
/
/ 4
// / /

3 3 3
/
/ 1 / 2 / 3
/ /
/ /
/ 4 4
I
I
,~ /
-
1 / 2
'- /
/
/

5
-
/ 1
y
/
/
/

53

~~
iji
11
l1i11

Iii"I!
,,
I
Mathematics & Reality 55
I
if1! 54 Mathematics & Reality
,·1.ll'II'
i11.
:1 He then placed the rational numbers on a line repre- modern economists who proclaim that it makes no differ-
,,
I senting the continuum: l·tu.:e how much the nation goes into debt. But this kind of
objection does not refute the formalism and cannot be
used as a valid objection to Cantor's method.
0 1 1 1 2 3
Seeing the assent of authorities to Cantor's proof, I
etc. begin to feel a division that cuts me off from the pursuit of
4 3 2 3 4
mathematics, which makes me feel that there is something
misguided about the subject. This sense of uneasiness often
Cantor next said that there must be many more points, occurs when I study a new subject, and experience has
. Y2 V'3
i pomts that correspond to the numbers 2 , 2 , and so on, taught me that this negative reaction to a new teaching
j! which, being irrational, were not included in the frac- generally passes in a few months.
,1
tions already inserted. The number of such irrationals (and This happened when I first encountered some of the
I,
transcendentals), he concluded, represented a higher order facts of aerodynamics, such as the Magnus effect by which
:1
of infinity. a rotating drum causes the incident wind to divide and the

I
,Ii
The Cantor proof has never been convincing to me.
Firstly, I am bothered by the assumption that, because it
greater part of it to go around one side. It goes against
common sense that the pressure of air is less on the side
11
I
is possible to set up a procedure for putting the fractions where the greatest amount of air is passing. Ultimately I
i
:I in one-to-one correspondence with the whole numbers, was able to satisfy myself that this did make sense, thanks
i
! therefore the number of fractions is the same as the num- to the realization that the air at rest presses equally in all
ber of whole numbers. Again, we have an obligation to directions. When air is forced to move in one direction the
distinguish between numbers that have clear and distinct average motion of particles in that direction increases,
values (the fractions) and irrational numbers, which can which implies that the average motion in the sideways
1111
:11
only be approximated and which, as we will show, do not direction (at right angles to the wind) is slower (the air
I occur in nature. There is also the question of whether in- particles have a slower motion), creating less pressure or a
finity is properly a number at all. Is it not by definition that partial vacuum. This, the so-called Bernoulli effect, is the
I
I
which lacks the very property numbers denote? reason there is a vacuum on the upper surface of an air-
In any case the Cantor "proof" brushes my feelings plane wing and is the main cause of its lift.
:i aside like uninvited guests. Since it is these very feelings But for the fifty-odd years since I first encountered
111
that I depend upon to appreciate a mathematical proof- Cantor's proof, I have discovered no such salutary escape
ii from my first uneasiness.
and that in fact are the source of mathematical intuition-
111
:,!
I cannot in their absence retain my interest in the subject. The latter part of Cantor's argument, on the other
111

This does not dispose me in favor of the proof. hand, can be more easily refuted. Having put all the ratio-
I
I am left with a similar feeling when I hear of certain nal numbers in order on a line, so goes the argument, we

;,,~
 56 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 57

find that V'2 is not represented. We are thus required to mathematics have become seduced by formalism. In de-
conclude that there are gaps between the densely packed Sl"ribing Cantor's proof, even Courant and Robbins,
rational numbers, this despite the fact that there are an whose book What Is Mathematics? (1941) is the best and
infinity of rational numbers between any two that can be dearest account of the subject I have found, and who con-
named. Then, the argument continues, since there are an stantly remind the reader of the importance of intuition
infinity of gaps, and each gap can be shown to contain as and of practical application, are caught up in the current of
many points as the original gap (see Figure 12), there must the early-twentieth-century fashion for formalism. More
be a larger infinity of points on the line than have been recently, Kline's Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty
marked by the rational numbers. ( 1980) shows that these much-touted certainties arc in
One could object that since the gaps are infinitely deep trouble today. The chapter that especially deals with
,ii small, it is by no means clear that they contain an infinity this fall from grace is titled "Paradise Barred."
1i,

I' of points. But a more pertinent objection is that, accepting In Men of Mathematics (1937), Eric Temple Bell also
:II that each gap contains an infinity of points, if we stand devotes a chapter, which he called "Paradise Lost," to
back and ask ourselves what's going on, we realize that by Cantor and his proofs. Although I've read this chapter
;111
putting points in the continuum we are not -fi.lling in the many times I can't make out to which paradise Bell refers,
1

1.,i/11
continuum, we are dividing it. We began with one gap but he gives a good description of the controversy, giving a
'I
I, to fill; we now have an infinity of gaps. We must be going blow-by-blow account of objections to Cantor by Kro-
11

,11 in the wrong direction! A point is discrete. It is a discon- necker ("God made the integers, the rest were made by
';I
11 tinuity. We are reminded that the continuum is the absence man"), Hilbert and Brouwer. He includes a quotation
I,, of any point, not a plurality of points. It is as though we from Bertrand Russell that indicates the enthusiasm Can-
were trying to define an express train by saying that it tor inspired:
makes an infinity of stops, when an express train is defined
as one that makes no stops. So the number of the con- Zeno was concerned with three problems ... the infinitesi-
tinuum, if number it is to have, would be zero. mal, the infinite, and continuity. From his day to our own
There are no points on a line. the finest intellects of each generation in turn attacked these
problems, but achieved, broadly speaking, nothing.
Paradise Lost? Weierstrass, Dedekind and Cantor have completely solved
them. Their solutions ... are so clear as to leave no longer
It is not irrelevant that geometry elects to introduce point the slightest doubt of difficulty. This achievement is prob-
and line as separate undefined terms. Why then should ably the greatest of which the age can boast ... The problem
mathematics attempt to define one in terms of the other, of the infinitesimal was solved by Weierstrass, the solution
especially as points and lines are not the business of to the other two was begun by Dedekind and definitely
mathematics? I can only assume that mathematics has accomplished by Cantor. (quoted from R. E. Mortiz,
gone astray, or rather that those who attempt to logicize Memorabilia Mathematica, 1914)

iii
_I:
jl 'i 'i
''I
' ~
1':'111
,{
':11

1/,ij 't 58 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 59

'~
,,,j
il/11
l:li Bell goes on to say:
I. The line is AB, the part of the line is AB 1 • Take point 0
I ,!I
'.r
The enthusiasm of this passage warms us even today, 11111 on line AB. Draw line OB, then swing AB 1 to intersect
1,lj[
1 although we know that Russell in the second edition (1924) ( >H at D. From any point Con line AB we can project the
i~
::1 of his and A. N. Whitehead's Principia Mathematic,, r.,y OC, which intersects AD at C 1 • For any point C there
I

;1
admitted that all was not well with the Dedekind "Cut" 1s a corresponding point C 1 •

i which is the spinal cord of analysis. Nor is it well today ... But note that it makes no difference how far the line
Not one of the finalities of Russell's remarks of 1901 has AI> is from 0. We could just as well take the much shorter
1
,,I
:i[ survived ... Today for every competent expert on the side of
line ab and show that there is a point c on ab that corres-
:i/1 the prophets there is an equally competent expert against
,11 them. (p. 557) ponds to C. In fact we could carry the line ab back to 0
I!
,I
where it would vanish in the periphery of the point. But the
~!1
1
1
Rather than attempt to do justice to the history and point is dimensionless, so its periphery is zero.
changing status of Cantor's work, let me again introduce In other words an infinity of possible directions can
'/i
1l 1,,,
I' I
what I think to be the source of the controversy-the
failure to realize that a formalism cannot in principle give a
final or complete account. The formalism is a tool much as
he extended from 0. (Which recalls the much-maligned
medieval speculation: How many angels [angles] can dance
on the head of a pin?-Infinitely many.) In any case as
'I a computer is a tool; it does not answer fundamental ques- many directions extend from the point as there are points
;~ "/
1,11 tions, nor can it be expected to. This is because it must be in the line. More, in fact, since for every line OC there is a
~
I
11
objective, just as language must be objective, and this pre- line in the opposite direction which does not meet C.
cludes it from speaking to the more fundamental issues, Note that we are not saying there are an infinity of
1
11
which are projective. To illustrate the difference, let us ex-
amine just one of the items involved in Cantor's proof, the
points on the line; we are only saying that we can designate
as many points by this method as we have means to dis-
'I
l'!I one that says the number of points in a part of a line is the tinguish them.
~ ,d
,!
same as the number in the whole line: It is interesting to imagine the practical problem posed
by filling the line with points. Suppose we were to take a
J
I:/
0
I ",
line 1 cm long, which is 100,000,000 angstroms. (An ang-
I ', strom is approximately the diameter of an atom.) Suppose
I '
'I b
I
I
',
>- this line were drawn on the face of a crystal. We could
frlI
I .,,,,.,,,,. ',
I ,,,.,,,, C ', designate a point at each of the nuclei of 100 million atoms
a
I
r ,,,,- '' D
1''
'i'I I ' \',
distributed along the length, but then we would find be-
:i!
111!
I \ ', tween each nucleus a gap 100,000 times the diameter of
I C1 I ',
I I
I
I ',
each nucleus. Aside from the sheer number of points (now
I '
''
10s x 10s = 10 13 , ten trillion), we would not be able to
1,11 I
'11
I
I
',,
1,1
11
', deal with these small dimensions because the energy would
A AB, C ' B
'i/i go up as we tried to measure smaller dimensions. We
1'!1i
'I

j
I , ,,,,
,,
'!I

11,

:1111
.1,.
:11,
1,,.
::11,1 60 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 61
id 11
'I,
,!1, i
l;i:.
llr,
1
would be prevented from carrying out Cantor's program. 11~onal of the unit square) has to be transferred to the line.
11::
Of course, you say, Cantor's proof does not purport to As I said in that essay, the square root of two is an inhabi-
,:i I'I'
1:1,1
be practical, it is theoretical. This is, however, the main tant of the plane, not of the line.
ii/I point of the uncertainty principle. The increased precision I now suspect that this doesn't get to the heart of the
cannot in principle be obtained. The world is bounded by a problem, which involves the distinction between a linear
I
i:11

1111'
wall that prevents access to zero just as effectively as it dimension and the two simultaneous dimensions of a
'i' prevents access to infinity. This limitation is set by physics, plane. The fact that we can draw a line on the plane is
,.:,1
I11
I; but it depends on first principles; it is not a mere practical misleading, because the line on a plane permits compari-
!I limit, so we are not permitted to ignore it. son and measurement. If we were confined to one dimen-
11 1
,:j The same applies to Zeno's argument that the arrow at sion we could not measure, because the ruler and that
i i:1 each instant is at rest and therefore cannot move. The which it measures could not be separated. (See "A Formal-
,II arrow at each instant is not at rest, because the instant ism for Philosophy" and "Constraint and Freedom" in
"I must always have duration, and in this duration it is mov-
i Which Way Out [1980].)
/iii ing. So we must ask ourselves how we so easily made the Perhaps the simplest example of dividing the line in-
1,:111
assumption that the arrow is at rest at each instant when, volves the string of a musical instrument, which would
i' iI
to put it bluntly, there is no such thing as an instant. normally vibrate at the lowest frequency, the "fun-
,11!
1111
Is this "instantaneous view" not a pure presumption damental."
;11 1
II'' manufactured by mind? A very useful one to be sure, but
''I/'i
,11 not to be trusted in an inquiry into first principles. This
view of Zeno's paradox thus disposes of the idea of higher
'JI!
111·
Ii
infinities in much the same way that relativity disposes of -,....>< . . . . . . .
/

1"1
1
'
the idea of simultaneity. -------
:;1111
'

'I'
'.111'
Rationals and Irrationals
'I
ill When the string is restrained at its center, it will vibrate at
·'I 'I 1 11
The Cantor proof of higher infinities depends upon the twice the fundamental; when restrained one-third of the
I
notion that there is an uncountable number of irrational way, at three times the fundamental, and so on. This pro-
'I
11
1

111, 1·
numbers that can be located in the continuum as points on vides a way of creating fractional time intervals. It does not
',11 .

l(i1 a line. In "The Queen and Mr. Russell," I made the point depend on the exact distance; it is in the nature of the
that there is a fundamental distinction between putting string to vibrate at these integral values of frequency. The
:,i:1,1'

' Ill
rational fractions on a line and putting the irrational num- same thing occurs in quantum phenomena-the frequen-
'l/1/ bers on a line, in that the geometrical construction that cies of atoms are in an integral relation to one another
:I!'' produces an irrational on the plane (e.g., v'2 as the di- (eigenstates).
;Hill
1
: 1111

,ih
,'1' 1
'h,,111

1IL
 i'1
11;
62 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 63
11
11
I Another example of rational or exact fractional div, THE IDEAL AND THE REAL
::1
sion of time can be produced with gear wheels. Two shaft,,
:II
,1111,
can be caused to rotate at speeds with an exact ratio h\ l\y t·ngaging our minds in proofs and demonstrations that
,,,1
'Ii making gear wheels the number of whose teeth are in the 111t· often quite elegant, mathematics leads us to believe
r
,f, required ratio. This does not depend on the accuracy of tlw that it deals in an ideal world, one removed from the jum-
i gear teeth, just on their number. An irrational ratio cannot hlnl confusion of phenomena, a world that is unchanging
i
I be so produced. 1111d perfect. This view of mathematics as "the world of
11
This implies that there is a sense in which the irration- pure form," of "certainty of results," exemplified in the
al numbers are abstractions that are only encountered proofs of geometry and in almost all purely mathematical
through measurement or calculation-they are "compo- operations, seems to contrast sharply with the approxi-
nents" of the natural numbers. They do not themselves mate nature of human and natural constructions-the
occur in nature. Thus, instead of considering the diagonal variety and deviation from the ideal that characterizes the
of the unit square as v'2, we could consider that the sides world of physical objects.
of a square whose diagonal is 2 are v'2. But the findings of science in the last hundred years
,1:11
This is well illustrated by the device of describing the point toward an opposite conclusion. The works of nature
circle as the locus of points from which two rays at right arc, in fact, extremely precise, perhaps perfectly precise.
angles meet the ends of a line that is the diameter of the Nowhere is this precision more in evidence than in the
circle: atomic kingdom. The simplest demonstration is the fact
that all atoms have been found to be organizations of an
C integral number of proton/electron pairs, which give what
C / '' C is known as the atomic number.
/
/
''
I
I ',
',//
/
'v,,-
,,,,..,,. \
\ A further example of the extreme precision of the
II //',, ,,.,,,,..,,,,.. ' , \\
atomic world is illustrated in the Mossbauer effect, by
II // ')<,,,,.. ', \\
I // ,,,,..,,,,..,,,,. ',, ', \ which it is possible to measure a motion of a few centime-
l11 ',I I / ,,,,.. ' ' \

I I
I
/
/
,,,,.,,,,..
,,,,- ''
'
'
' \
\ ters a second by the variation in absorption of radiation
I // ,,,,.,,,,.. ', ', \
1
111
I / ,,,,..,,,,.. ', ' \ by the nucleus of the atom. This process implies an accuracy
II//,,,,..,,,,..,,,,.. ' , , ' , \\
I /
I/:,,,,.,,,..
,,,,.. ' '
',~~
\ of frequency response better than one part in ten billion, far
A B beyond our ability to measure. The nucleus of the atom
I
'II exercises this discrimination despite the fact that the
1
11
We can think of the line AB as the unit and the lines AC wavelength of the incident radiation is about six thousand
:11
and CB as "components." We only encounter irrational times greater than the diameter of the nucleus.
Ii
numbers in nature when we compute the value of such Again we have atomic clocks, which have replaced the
'i1
I components. rotation of the earth as a criterion for measuring time. The
!'i ,
::1,1
'I
\!
''ii
',11
;i'.I
 1 ,,
1,
1'!i

I!.·1
!;I
,,ii;
'/I 64 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 65
; 1i
i'1,,1

,,Il!I
I atomic clock can measure a variation in the earth's rota- so would still involve a quadratic equation, and hence two
,!l1 1
tion of less than one second per century. This exact preci- orthogonal dimensions.)
:::j
,11
sion is far beyond our ability to measure in any other way Dedekind's method depends, as did Cantor's system,
11!
and hence establishes a standard that may well be abso- on infinitely small distances or measures. And since, as we
lute. have seen, the infinitely small, whether in distance or time,
'11111 But such precision is not confined exclusively to the is only obtainable with infinite energy, it is impossible to
atomic world. The immune system of the human body has achieve.
the capacity to detect the presence of an organ trans- The standard objection to such an argument is that in
planted from any one of some four billion other inhabi- mathematics we are not concerned with practicality; we
tants of the globe, a discriminatory power on a par with are dealing in theory. (Eddington once said he would never
that of atoms. have proposed 10 79 as the number of protons in the uni-
What all this suggests is that "the world of pure form" verse if he thought anyone was going to count them.) But
is not confined to the celestial sphere. Nor is it to be found here we have the case of practice and theory merging in the
only in pure mathematics. The material world, in its own Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
way, is incredibly, perhaps infinitely, precise. The uncertainty principle is a consequence of Planck's
, 1: I discovery that action comes in whole units that cannot be
:ii/'
1':1 !

l'::i,
,, , 1 The Dedekind Cut less than a certain size, a sort of indivisible "atom" of ac-
tion. So deeply does it penetrate into the foundations of
'".I
1111

·'IllI This question of "real" perfection can help clear up the physics that the distinction between theory and practice
,!1
·1·1
difficulty surrounding one of the well known "proofs" of breaks down. A similar import could be claimed for the
1
1!
speed of light and a small number of other constants of
I

'1!1: mathematics, the so-called Dedekind cut. The Dedekind

'I I
cut involves the same problem as Cantor's proof of higher nature. These constants are at once empirical and theoret-
l.,1'/: infinities, since it proposes a system for locating irrational ical, empirical because their values are found by experi-
,,1,1
numbers in the continuum. It has, however, long been ment, and theoretical because, once found, they become
1111!
'1'

~i
questioned for its own implicit treatment of infinity. the basis for theoretical deductions.
II I
Dedekind was troubled by the problem of putting \/2 The question then becomes, does the theoretical limit
i1]jl on the line between one and two. His method was to to smallness that physics has been obliged to accept (to
,1111: assume a rule that divides all natural numbers into two its ultimate benefit) penetrate into mathematical theory?
1
/il! classes, in this case the class of rational numbers less than The ready answer, again, would be no. But insofar as
V'2 and the class of rational numbers greater than \/2. \/2 mathematics deals with first causes it can no longer indulge
is thus the "cut" or gap between these classes. (It is this separation of fact from theory. We can formulate this
assumed by some mathematicians that the Dedekind cut as a principle: An operation that cannot in practice be per-
can be achieved without reference to geometry, but doing formed should require that the theory be revised to antici-
,Iii!
'I'1/

[,1:/,

i:~I
 Mathematics & Reality 67
66 Mathematics & Reality
111,

i
pate the practical limitation. that there are large classes of numbers that have been
We will come back to this issue later. proved to be transcendental in the sense that they can-
not be expressed as roots of equations, such as 1/n2 ! +
l/n3 ! ... Others, such as ab where b is irrational, are
neither constructable nor do they possess the same
THE TRANSCENDENTALS
illl empirical status as 7T or e. It can be argued that neither
I of the above classes of number "exists" apart from their
Is it possible that Cantor had a valid insight but, as is often
definition. A theoretical number such as a transcenden-
the case, distorted it by misinterpretation? Essentially what
he says is that there is something beyond infinity. tal, I would argue, must have some foundation in
Perhaps by introducing some ideas I've had for a long nature. In fact, if the prescription for a number were
sufficient to affirm its existence, one should include
time together with the conclusions we've reached here we
unicorns, griffons, manticores, and other fabulous
can arrive at a speculation that would account for Cantor's
animals in zoological classification, of which animals
inspiration and justify some of the acceptance he has been
il 1
accorded. However, these ideas, while reasonable and found in nature would be a subset.)
11
straightforward, are even more foreign to what is accepted 3. The line or continuum does not consist of an infini-
I in mathematics than were Cantor's-in fact, we could ty of points, nor of more points than can be put in
say that Cantor's error was to accommodate to the usual correspondence with the infinity of natural numbers;
11
thinking. rather the point itself makes possible the projection of
!I'1

The ideas to be put together are: an infinity of directions.

111

!11
1. Numbers can better be defined as successive divi- Proceeding from these assumptions, we will find that
I!11 sions of unity rather than as additions to unity as
the construction that would establish directions depends
iii Peano's axioms assume. (This is a point developed in
on our ability to divide the 360° circle-of which 7T is the
"The Queen and Mr. Russell." I have recently noticed
11 signature-implied by the point. (The point is a circle of
! that Eddington says the same thing in The Philosophy
II arbitrarily small radius.) Such construction would limit us
of Physical Science: "Wave mechanics thus brings the
to rational divisions of the circle.
integers [which form the whole material of our ordin-
j ary arithmetic] into its purview as the eigenvalues of
The circle represents wholeness. In the process of di-
viding we would discover that each number (or perhaps
one of its symbolic operators. Introduced in this way
1 each prime number) provided a unique division not
I the integers are concepts unassociated with the proce-
I obtainable by other divisions. For example-
1 dure of counting." [p. 173])
1 1 1 1 1
I 2. There is but one transcendental number, 7T, or two
if you count e as independent of 7T. (e is related to 7T by
3 = 4 + 42 + 43 • • • 4°
-an infinite series of smaller and smaller terms.
I the formula: e1ri = -1. I should acknowledge the fact
I,
,,
11· '

~ t;~
 :111
,:ill
;'Iii
,1:
111
!Iii
68 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 69
:''li!I:
!111

'iii' "infinite" in the sense that an infinite series is required to

I' Note that if we replace one of the 1/4's, for however
I
•Iii small a term (i.e., however high a power of the denomina- rxpress one number in terms of another.
1111

I tor), by 1/3, the infinite series collapses into an identity. We thus associate 1r with an infinity of infinities, and
Thus: since 1r is transcendental, we could say that Cantor cor-
1 1 1 1 1 1 rectly perceived that transcendental numbers are " beyond
I 3 = 4 + 42 + 43 ... 4(n-l) X 3 infinity." But two misinterpretations confused Cantor's
fundamental insight: 1) that infinity is a very large quanti-
To define 1r in terms of an infinite series we use Euler's
formula: ty; and 2) that what is beyond infinity is a still larger
quantity-i.e., that there are an uncountably infinite num-
1r
- = 1 - -1 + -1 - -1 + -1 - etc ber of transcendental numbers.
11
'I
4 3 5 7 9 .
1,: To put this in perspective, it could be said we have
In other words, 1r is unique. Unlike the integers, which
inverted Cantor and even Peano. Peano defined number as
1
are expressible in terms of one other number, 1r's expres-
i.1 1
successive additions to one. This fails to bring out that a
111
sion requires all the numbers (or all the odd numbers).
number is not just a collection of n units, it is a unity of n
:ii: Other examples share this propersity:
parts; that is, any number, say five, is both a collection of

I
I!' five units and a unit of five parts. Once this is recognized,
7r2 1 1 1
6 = l2 + 22 + 32 ... the definition of number as successive divisions can be
appreciated.
1r 2244668 The inversion of Cantor is justified because there does
2 = I x 3 x 3 x 5 x 5 x 7 x 7 ... etc.
1 not, in fact, appear to be an infinity of transcendental num-
:11

'II can also be expressed as an infinite nesting of square roots. bers. Among numbers having any application to the real
:fl
'I world, 1r and e alone have been proved to be transcenden-
;:11
Passing beyond technical considerations, such as whether
! these are the best or most general expressions of the princi- tal. These two numbers are intimately related, and it is
111
1il
ple, to an interpretation of the principle, we could say 1r possible that they are not "different" numbers but aspects
ij1! incorporates (or implies) all the natural numbers. And of the same "non-number." Since we define numbers as
since each number can be expressed as an infinite series of divisions of the whole, and 1r is not a division but the
II inverse powers of the next higher number, 1r can be repre- whole itself, it is not a number.
i Thus, while preserving Cantor's distinction between
sented as an infinite series of infinite series.
II However, 1r is not quantitatively infinite. In Euler's ex- transcendental and other numbers, we view 1T as the tran-
pression (given above) addition and subtraction alternate, scendental number. It is preeminent not because it is one of
and the sum approaches a certain value between 2/3 and a higher infinity, but because it is unique.
unity. So 1r is quantitatively finite, but includes an infinity We may in fact think of 1T as a super number, the
of qualifications (natural numbers), each of which is itself source of all of the other numbers. We can say this because

~•
 1;,

'
·111,
.d

~
~ 70 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 71
~
.1 .• 1
.Ii 1I

~ 7T represents the circle, a symbol for wholeness. The inte-

gers can be defined as the angular division of the circle.
first principles; or alternatively, if mathematics is to deal
with first principles-if it is to be queen of the sciences-it
:l,'I.'
111

~ This also provides a definition for fractions, since given the must recognize that which is not quantitative, which we
~II
1
concept of division-that the whole can be divided into n
parts-each one of these is 1/nth of the whole. The real
hl·re call quality.
The transcendental number 7T is one way in which the
il1 numbers can be accommodated or defined as trigo- limitation of quantity shows up. 7T is neither large nor
l ,I,
nometric functions, i.e., -YY- is twice the sine of 45°, and small, but it cannot be expressed in finite terms.
so on. (This might comfort the ghost of Pythagoras.) I Cantor's mistake was to find preeminence in the quan-
l,11
11JI .I

111
do not know whether all algebraic numbers could be ex- tity of transcendental numbers, whereas it is the quality
I
l,il pressed as trigonometric functions, but a plane surface of the transcendental itself that makes it unique, that
I
!1
does accommodate solutions to equations. makes it the "origin" capable of any direction. There is a
~ Whether or not this approach to number is more cor-
ii: oneness beyond everything that cannot be described be-
~Ii
::11
rect than the one now in use, it is safe to say that the cur-
rent interpretation of natural numbers as a mere subset of
cause it is beyond everything. This oneness includes all that
i/. can be described .
t1
·11 larger classes of numbers is not a useful one. If the question
':11
is one of elegance or aesthetics, which are valid criteria in
;f.11i
mathematics especially, then I regard the descent of all
1
111
numbers from the unity of 7T as the more elegant descrip-
J!r,
11! tion.
111
Philosophically, too, it is better to think of the universe
1:1
i 1
il as unity with infinite diversity than as an infinite collection,
countable or uncountable. This notion, as we've pointed
,'1.·11~
i
out, allows for quality as well as quantity. I suspect this
11i
'I!
issue is involved in Bohr's complementarity principle,
~;j! which is generally interpreted to mean that for one mea-
sure to be made precisely, another measure must be impre-
~I
Iii cise. We would extend this to read that any measurement
,It: must be complemented by a quality that is different from
•:11
,i! measure. Measurement of size, for example, is incomplete
111
without a reference to an actual object to provide scale.
1
'i
::if,
In other words, quantitative measurement is in princi-
ple incomplete. Applied to mathematics, this implies that if
::i
i: mathematics is the science of quantity, it cannot deal with
1
11

(I~

I'
1i'!'

~ .. .
 i:
11
1 Mathematics & Reality 73
1,1ij
,'1
11 1,1
!l1t1all number e; then I show that I can find a value Ly (6.
!!11
i!1'1
PART FOUR 111l"ans a small increment) in the ratio Ly/ Lx such that Ly
,11
i':
1; is less than e; then the derivative Ly/ Lx can be said to
1
,approach a definite limit dy!dx, which is the derivative.
i!11
: This was not convincing, because it permitted me to
i
i' have the last word. It was as if I could prove the validity of
i'.i'II a signature by requiring you to name the permissible devia-
'I tion from a genuine signature; then I would only have to
l RIGOR MORTIS
111 produce a signature that deviated less than the permitted
amount, and you would be obliged to accept it as valid.
,ii In What is Mathematics? Courant and Robbins comment
In any case it distracted from the main issue, which
on the swing from intuitive mathematics in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries to the emphasis on formalism in was to see the great power of the calculus and use it. It was
11'/lf
I" the nineteenth and twentieth. The emphasis on formalism not until years later, when I could use calculus in practical
111
is credited with contributing increased rigor to what were problems, that I felt comfortable with the subject.
1111
1l formerly intuitive insights. The assumption that the derivative at a point can be
111
reached by successive approximations, as with the Cauchy
illi Systematic deduction disappeared in the 17th and 18th cen-
f:ii
turies. Logically precise reasoning starting from clear defini-
tions and non-contradictory "evident axioms" seemed im-
proof, applies only for so-called analytic functions. This
limitation would exclude certain curves-for example, a
material to the new pioneers of mathematical science. In a curve with a break at a point S:
,Iii
veritable orgy of intuitive guesswork ... they conquered
i
'I, a mathematical world of immense riches. Gradually the s
ecstasy of progress gave way to a spirit of critical self con-
trol ... the 19th century not only became a period of new
advances but was characterized by a successful return to the
classical ideal of precision and rigorous proof. (p. xvi)

As an example of this new rigor in mathematics, in

1925, when I was in college, there was great emphasis
placed on the Cauchy proof of the existence of a derivative
of a function at a point. This made calculus difficult, for it
made what seemed obvious, that a line had a slope at a
point, become dubious and hard to understand; moreover,
it struck me at the time that it was not a "proof." The
Cauchy technique depends on your first selecting a very This curve has no definite tangent at this point and hence

72

Ill
 i
~~
~
ii1,'
'I· Mathematics & Reality 75
!II I 74 Mathematics & Reality

i: :ii no derivative. Another more complex example is the frnll ~11l"ha curve has a derivative. (Each of the following curves
~ l'ortrays the rate of change of the previous curve):
11'''
tion
i
,,ill:
y
. 1
= x sme -:
X

JI
:1111
,,:1i1

l.1

:1111 i
The direction of the car changes, say, from due west to
'I' northwest. What is the second derivative?
Iii

:111 I The curve

·,1,
, I
, ; I

11:
·,•11i

,; ! When I read such accounts in the past I usually thought

of them as exceptions, and rather artificial ones at that,
1'1~1i!
which could be ignored. But now I realize that there are
,II'. situations that are not artificial but that at the same time
do not profit from this sort of mathematical treatment. In
The 1st derivative
l,~
1

1.1
fact, some interesting positive consequences arise if we
II' free ourselves from this misguided obligation to provide
111
mathematical rigor and heed instead the obligation to re-
1
,,1"1
!,I spect the workings of nature.
111 Consider this curve, representing a person driving a car
'I'
llji and turning a corner:
ill
:,1'
,1,'
h The 2nd derivative
11:

~
tjjil
111

~11
11:11

11:11:

11.!!11
I
,,111

Ii
!!I ii
 76 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 77

The 3rd derivative quake, it cannot be predicted by study of tides in the past.
It comes without warning and is not predictable-not sub-
ject to analysis-and is furthermore useless for predicting
future tides or tsunamis.
Let us see what this means. Analysis for the most part
consists in a recognition of the factors that contribute to a
situation on the assumption that these factors have always
been in operation. In the case of tides these factors are
cyclic-the position of the moon, the position of the sun,
and such other variables that continue through time. These
The 4th derivative variables change, but their change is periodic and can be
predicted. This could be called a conservation law; the fac-
tors involved do not arise spontaneously and do not vanish
spontaneously. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
On the other hand there are, as I said, phenomena that
cannot be predicted by the analysis of cyclic components,
e.g., volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. This latter class
of events has been ignored by theoretical science for much
the same reason that discontinuous functions have been
ignored by mathematics-they do not lend themselves to
and so on. The derivatives become increasingly complex mathematical treatment. (Recent efforts to predict earth-
ard serve no useful purpose since the analysis of the rate of quakes by careful study of the earth disturbance immedi-
change does not simplify our treatment of the motion. ately prior are not an exception. Such study is advanced
What gives the first curve its "non-analytic" quality is warning rather than analysis. Even if predicted, the erup-
that the driver has decided to turn. Decision is not predict- tion is a unique phenomenon, with a beginning and ending
able. And if this seems unfair, there are situations or phe- in time.)
nomena in nature that yield the same result. But uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. The
One example would be a tsunami (a so-called tidal provision of absolute rigor within mathematics, admired
wave). Ordinary tides can be analyzed into a number of by Courant, does not address the more awkward question
cyclic components, and if we find what these components of applicability. The fascination with rigor has in fact re-
are by study of tides in the past, we can make a prediction sulted in the assumption that all nature must be subject to
of their behavior in the future. Not so with a tsunami. If analysis by rigorous approach. Again in physics, the insis-
caused by an underwater volcanic eruption or an earth- tence on objectivity of method has led to the dogma that

lill 1 1
,'

I, Ui
 78 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 79
;Iii
I nature is exclusively object.
But nature hasn't studied continuous functions a11d
goes ahead with its discontinuities-not only earthquake~,
but people making decisions. Any decision has a compo
nent of initiative, and hence of what has no antecedent.

Hierarchy and Control

It becomes useful, then, to distinguish aspects of nature
that can be analyzed from those that cannot. The formal-
ism can deal with the former, often with impressive re-
sults, but we must not become so attached to formalism as
to regard it as a first principle. Formalism is a means.
Whatever it is that can employ formalism to produce re-
sults that are seemingly at odds with the laws described by Many phenomena in nature involve these cycles within
the formalism-such as when a bird or a flying machine cycles. The animal organism is subject to a hierarchy of
"defies" the law of gravity-has a more basic status than cycles: waking and sleeping, breathing, heartbeat, brain
the formalism itself. Purpose, or intention, can be so desig- waves, on down to the range of frequencies involved in
nated and thus qualifies as first cause, as distinct from for- cellular and biochemical processes, which themselves
malism, which is secondary. cover a vast spectrum, from extra-long (ELF) waves to the
Our problem is to set up a formal system that admits infrared frequencies of photons exchanged in cell division.
first cause; call it a super-formalism. This is where science, Since the organism begins from division of a single cell and
by its exclusion of purpose from its methodology, and grows to an organization of trillions of cells, the process of
mathematics, by its self-limitation to formalism, both dis- building the organism must require the simultaneous erec-
,,''I qualify themselves from the discussion. Even philosophers tion of a chain of command by which the entire hierarchy
have to remain silent on this ultimate question, for any is controlled. Even if we do not accept the validity of such
attempt to describe the ineffable involves a self-contra- super-normal abilities as fire walking, or disregard such
diction. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak well-established phenomena as the ability under hypnosis
one must remain silent." to produce burns, we still have the problem of how we
Nature, however, offers a clue that enables us to get to can lift even one finger or produce any voluntary action.
the root of the problem rather than remain entangled in Voluntary action and even action controlled by instinct re-
,,,1
I the limitations of language. quire an elaborate hierarchy.
I
,,I Mathematics & Reality 81
!
80 Mathematics & Reality
1,
,I

One salient point emerges. Considering the wholi- In the decimal system. Such counting consists of running
!I
, :1 range of frequencies involved, from that of the alph.1 through the numbers zero to nine, then continuing with
'I' 1
tmt· followed by each of these digits, then two followed by
I:! rhythm (10 per second) to that involved in metabolis111
(trillions per second), we can reasonably surmise that till' r11rh digit and so on. The term modulo is applied to the
lower frequencies characterize the larger "organon." (A number of units of 10, and the term residue to that which
term I employ to indicate any self-organizing entity, no1 rrmains after division by 10. Thirteen, then, is modulo 1,
necessarily biological.) rrsidue 3. Twenty-seven is modulo 2, residue 7. And so on.
It is also obvious that the larger organon could nol We thus distinguish the number of completed cycles as
have evolved from a single cell without being able to con- modulo and the final incomplete cycle as residue.
trol and coordinate the activities of its constituent parts. We reckon time in this way when we give the date; say,
This implies that the lower frequency controls the higher the 26th of February, 1985. 1985 is the modulo or number
frequencies. This is difficult to accept, because the higher of completed years; February, the second month, implies
frequencies involve greater energy exchange. However, all the completion of January and 26th the completion of 25
man-made machinery involves control of energy, and if the days. Still further precision would be supplied by specify-
energy controlled were not greater than the energy needed ing the hour, minute and second.
to control the machine, machinery would be useless. Whether we simply name the current date or describe
This is consistent with the relationship between energy history, the distinction between what has occurred and
and time decreed by Planck's Constant, in which energy is what is still in process is fundamental. We can only con-
inversely proportional to time (e x t = h); that is, if we ceptualize or name that which has already taken place. We
reduce the energy, the period increases. The significance of cannot so deal with the future or the present until after the
this is that the organon which spans the longer time con- cycle of which it is a part is completed.
trols processes that span the shorter time. Put in terms of Thus, as I write and form the letters of the word
human actions, you can only control a process shorter "word," I am continually incorporating the present into
than your attention span. the past; what is now present tense becomes past tense. I
But how does control function? Process goes through a act only in the present. I can also think in the present, but
cycle, and control selects the phase or stage in the process the object of thought is not in the present, the now, and my
it desires. The gardener picks the fruit when it ripens rather present activity is never the object of thought. This distinc-
than letting it go to seed; the photographer snaps the pic- tion is intrinsic in language. Applied to sentence forma-
ture when the sitter smiles, etc. This is correct timing. tion, the verb in the present tense is the residue, and the
i object of the sentence is the modulo.
Modulo and Residue In general, the distinction between modulo and residue
I will now introduce the notion of modulo and residue. is the same one we made earlier in our discussion of
This idea describes, for example, the process of counting quantity and quality .

.
82 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 83

So far, however, the distinction we have drawn (be- science hangs on two things. First, the discovery or inven-
tween modulo and residue) is based only on whether or tion of tools such as the telescope, the microscope and the
not a cycle has been completed. What we should now rec- spectroscope, which extend the senses and expand the
ognize is that as the process of repeated cycles continues, database of empirical fact. And second, the discovery or
we become conscious of larger cycles. Thus in counting invention of mathematical tools like the number system,
we first can be aware of units of 10, then of units of 100, probability theory and the calculus, which extend the
then of 1,000 and so on. In life our awareness is enriched power of theoretical analysis.
by the perception of long-term trends or variation; if we The development of the computer has already spawned
have lived through the changes of the twentieth century, a new school of philosophy, which, recognizing the differ-
the fashions and tastes we have witnessed lose the hold ence between the hardware and the software of the compu-
ter as analogous to the difference between the brain and its I
they once had on us. We become more able to think inde- I

pendently, to distinguish lasting from transitory values, function, seeks to account for the mind-body problem.
and thus to set long-term goals. This can be a valuable contribution, but it can also in-
This in turn affords a clue as to how the hierarchy of a crease the already serious imbalance that has accompanied
living organism comes about. The long period cycle of con- technical progress. In fact, the computer, the functions of
sciousness comes into existence because of the passage of which duplicate formal logic, is a device limited by just the
time. This could be a valid instance of emergence, a notion mathematical formalism I am criticizing in this essay.
that is often evoked to "explain" consciousness. While we What we need, then, is a formalism that gives legal sta-
would still insist that the concept of emergence is not suffi- tus to life, or perhaps rather to the innovating and creative
cient to account for consciousness, the view expressed here aspect of life, its purposive thrust, since it is this aspect that
does explain how consciousness can expand to take into is neglected in the computer analogy because it resides in
consideration "larger" issues-actually issues of longer the person using or programming the computer. The no-
duration-and thus increase its scope from that of a bac- tion of residue as used here addresses this issue by provid-
terium to that of a higher animal. This, in fact, could be a ing for an ongoing creative activity in the present moment.
critical difference between the human and the animal con- We have already stressed the importance of the third
sciousness. The average human life span is more than four derivative as that which allows for control, and hence
time that of the higher animals. This longer period, which makes it possible for will to use the laws of nature to effect
has no genetic advantage for man as a species (since the results. But the recognition of control is not enough. The
genes are not influenced by acquired experience), does in- vital principle, or life spark, that evolves by use of control
fluence the evolution of individual persons. must also be acknowledged. Quantum physics goes part
It is generally assumed that science cannot deal with way to this acknowledgement by recognizing the role of
such questions as the evolution of consciousness. But if we the observer. What it fails to acknowledge is that the
attend to the history of science, we find the development of observer also acts; in fact, in any cycle of action, acts

ill
 i,!1·
ll
I 11;

!ti
;1!1 Mathematics & Reality 85
84 Mathematics & Reality
ij
MATHEMATICS AND MEANING
;l/1: twice, the first action being inquisitive and the last bci111•.
with knowledge of consequences. The "observation,"
:ii In the last year of my college life my younger brother died.
' Ill which the physicist acknowledges, takes place in betwce1,
;,1:11
,11
The event produced a profound impact on me. It called my
these acts. Applied to the physicist, the cycle of action then
attention to the fact that time brought surprises and that
reads:
:;ii 11
formal theories of cosmology, such as relativity, which
1'11,
treated time as a dimension like space, and hence as essen-
·,l'i tially predictable, failed in an important respect.
,:111
4. Apply what is learned The so-called Cretan Paradox, which Russell had writ-
ten about (so and so says that all Cretans are liars, but so
and so is a Cretan), impressed me as being a paradox only
because the importance of time was neglected in logic. The
illi
'!1
statement implies a judgment "that everything so and so
;,[
I has said is a lie." It cannot apply to the statement itself
,I because the statement hasn't yet been completed. (The
,1
1. Set up 3. Observe
experiment results statement itself is residue, not modulo.)
This recognition of the importance of time, and of
the fact that logic and other formal structures cannot en-
compass the change or flow of time, led me to change the
theory of cosmology I wanted to construct from a theory
of structure, which is what I first called it, to a theory of
2. Something process, which is the theme of The Reflexive Universe.
happens My emphasis in the present work is not just the im-
portance of time, but the importance in mathematics of
meaning. I have already done what I can in The Reflexive
Universe to correct the error of the neglect of time implied
111,1:
Such a cycle occurs in the plane of qualification, i.e., it by the emphasis on relationship structure and "objectiv-
11
:11,1
has four phases which are categorically different. The ity." I now want to stress interpretation and meaning.
1j: repetition of this learning cycle accumulates as memory or Here I am not content to have meaning, or if you like phi-
1111 modulo. The last cycle, which is always incomplete and losophy, put in a department by itself, with mathemati-
!1
1II
il1I always growing, is the residue. This is the one in the pres- cians (and by their example other scientists as well) dis-
ent tense; it is also the one that cannot be made the object
l!I' claiming responsibility for meaning by saying that they
of consciousness and can never be certain, cannot be ex- "don't know what they are talking about nor whether what
111.1
'11 plained, does not in fact exist, though it always is.

-
I'
II

111
Ill
 ,l
i!li
1

1
11 11

1111 Mathematics & Reality 87

86 Mathematics & Reality
:11:

'II they are saying is true." No, I believe this attitude has out lit-r, physicists cite the theorem in mathematics that states
111

worn its usefulness; it is time for a change. Such a change, if you know a function and all its derivatives at one point
which I trust will not be a reform of mathematics but a you can predict it for all other points. But is this a correct
challenge to greater achievement, is indicated not merely interpretation of the derivatives? Most physicists would say
because philosophy and religion as the search for truth yes. Most mathematicians would not comment. But since
have deteriorated until they no longer inspire and sustain the third derivative is control, which makes prediction
us, but because mathematics itself has lost its vitality. theoretically impossible, and since derivation is a mathe-
The formalism Courant was still able to extol in 1939, matical concept, I believe it is the business of mathematics
to put correct labels on the products it turns out. It cannot
despite shortcomings that had turned up, is now in greater
straits. As I've mentioned, Morris Kline documents the retain its authority as queen of the sciences if it declines to
current status of the subject in detail in Mathematics: The say what its formulations mean. Someone has to interpret
Loss of Certainty. Kline shows that most of the much the third derivative. Engineers who work with control sys-
touted "rigor" has not held up; as his title suggests, uncer- tems know; but engineering is not high on the totem pole.
tainty has risen from its ashes. If it is the job of physicists to interpret the third derivative,
I am of two opinions about this loss of certainty, both then why do Bohm and de Beauregard, who are good
of which view it as beneficial-the one because it might physicists, not recognize the implication?
well put an end to the pious nonsense of logical positivism It's clear that there is a problem. How has it come
that has been in vogue for the last fifty years or so (or a about? Note that what makes the problem difficult is that
hundred if we go back to Cantor), and the other because it results directly from the division of science into separate
the factor of uncertainty is not undesirable. Uncertainty is disciplines. It even goes back to the division between
what makes life alive. It may be difficult to deal with, but if church and state, between the world of spirit (in which I
there were no basic uncertainty, there would be no life and list free will) and the world of matter, the study of which is
no freedom. As I have shown at length in The Reflexive the business of science.
I Universe, the quantum of action, i.e., uncertainty, is re- In the past four hundred years we have seen the prodi-

I sponsible for the initiation of life and evolution. To under- gious growth of science and its increased prestige, so much
stand this positive contribution of uncertainty we need to so that the well-informed or well-educated person today
go back to our discussion of the derivatives. takes science rather than religion as the touchstone of
;1!i
The third derivative bears the label "With this key you truth. If he does retain some misgivings about science he
:II certainly would not challenge Bohm's assertion that there
Iii can make determinism serve free will." Physics on the
'i other hand is interpreted to imply that all macro objects are scientific formulae that can predict the shape of curves.
It would not occur to him that the act of driving a car
obey strict laws of determinism and there can be no free
i will. invalidated the premise of determinism.
In short, we have the public, and the educated public
Why is physics so interpreted? Because, as I said ear-
11

i
'

1111
11
!I
11
··1··
1:I
I111I Mathematics & Reality 89
1
88 Mathematics & Reality
If'III
11
1

The Reflexive Universe tells this story in terms of

i especially, not only accepting the findings of science h,11
physics-the quantum of uncertainty, the equivalence of
!
believing its dogma. The protests of a few philosophn •,
thr ll·arning cycle to the cycle of action, the primacy of
and writers against letting science bulldoze our hum.111
forrl'S and their priority to matter, the fact that fun-
aspirations into highways and airports are as futile .1·.
d;uncntal particles have no identity, the negentropy of liv-
beating on the bulldozer with bare fists.
lllV, ncatures, etc. It is a reinterpretation of physics, chem-
But what if there were within science, embedded in tlH·
h1try and biology to provide a unified theory of process
same formalism that is advertised as determinism, the vn\
thing that inverts that determinism? Is it not incumbent 011
in which life, far from being "a green scum on a minor
planet," is the main purport of cosmology. Such, then, is
science to let it be known? If control is part of the formal
my brief. I have presented the case at the court of physics
ism, why is it not recognized? Tell it to the judge, says the
.in<l have received little reply. Such few physicists as have
scientist, reverting to his role as policeman enforcing till"
,:ommented have told me that what I have to say is not
laws. Who is the judge? I think we have to turn to mathc
ma tics. physics, it is philosophy.
In the present work I take the case to a higher court,
But I am arguing the case in too negative a manner. Let
that of mathematics, but not because the subject is more
me stress the positive side of what I am calling the signif-
titted to mathematics. It is probably even further removed
icance of mathematics, or, if you like, of physics.
from the actual practice of mathematics than it is from the
Understand that I am not, as was Jacob Bronowski,
practice of physics. I appeal to mathematics rather because
arguing for the creativity, the poetry, the beauty that the
the question of first principles is my most basic interest. It
:I scientist experiences when engaged in scientific discovery. I
:j was this interest that led me to major in mathematics when
,,.
am talking about the interpretation of science by its prac-
l went to college. Physics fascinated me; it always has. But
titioners, who insist that science consists only of state-
despite my interest in making things, it has been the light
ments of relationship-of an abstract formalism that maps
of abstraction shining through practical experiment that
I reality and has no reference to value and to creativity, to
emotion and free will. has most deeply motivated me.
11I,
I would prefer not to drag in the notion of God at this
What is significant is that the most important findings
juncture, not only because the age has turned away from
of science do not have to do only with statements of rela-
the outworn dogma of most religion, but because any men-
tionship. Science has discovered the non-objective to be
tion of the ineffable is self defeating; what is sacred cannot
even more fundamental than the objective, uncertainty to
be talked about. I do know there is something beyond
be more fundamental than certainty. It has, in short, dis-
myself, something higher than anyone or anything I've
covered that what it formerly insisted had no relevance to
known. I know this not only because the best efforts I can
science is fundamental. In other words it has discovered
contrive point toward it, but because something far
' the intangible and non-objective equivalent of spirit at the
i beyond me has guided me. I make this statement not as a
heart of matter.

•
 ::!

;111.:
11,1

ii'ti'I'
'I'
11•

,II11 90 Mathematics & Reality

I
il11:
,11
claim on behalf of my fallible efforts, but because it is thl' PART FIVE
blood and life that prods me to seek.
:II
But this is not physics, I'm told. Then what has in
11
spired physicists? And if it is not mathematics, then wh:11
1:11 have mathematicians attuned themselves to? And if it i.\
II neither, who is minding the store?
I,
ii.I I'm sure that many people, today especially, seek thi-.
11
light. They will tell me it is not to be found in science. But, AFTERMATH
I ask, why not? Can it be found in today's art? In writing? I
will tell you where I see it. I see it in what science and In anticipation of the criticism that I am making an irres-
mathematics hide from themselves-not the order that sci- ponsible attack on the foundations of mathematics, offer-
ence seems so insistent is there-the order that it claims ing nothing in its place, I would like to put my cards on the
governs chance, the precision with which it calculates what table. Let the reader assess for himself whether my critique
happened nanoseconds after the Big Bang-but in the fact has a sound basis, and whether it is not therefore capable
of life and its spontaneous origin, its self-maintenance, its of reinforcing mathematics in areas currently shaky-and
self-transcendence. I see it in people, each one of whom is perhaps, by directing our attention to the meaning of its
different from all others, no two of whom will agree, even formalisms, of making mathematics even better.
though truth is one. I see it in time, which produces the Essentially what I have done is to point out certain
unexpected. I see it in what is beyond my comprehension, distinctions-between the degree of an equation, the order
not because it is incomprehensible but because its very in- of a derivative, the different types of number and so on.
comprehensibility promises comprehension. I court mys- My perception of these distinctions was made possible
tery so that I will have more mystery. I would solve prob- when, having been exposed to the wisdom of ancient
lems to prepare myself for greater problems. In short, I teachings-the pre-Greek, Egyptian, American Indian,
evolve; and because I am evolving, I am. biblical and others-I realized that the gods of the four
:Iii! directions, the four elements, the four sons of Horus and
.,I,
11
other "fours" to which these teachings refer constituted a
I
;1
profound and comprehensive analytical tool, a classifica-
tion comparable to what was initiated but not completed
i
"'I:1' in modern times by Bertrand Russell's "logical types."
I" (Russell's logical types were incomplete because he per-
:1
ceived only two: "The class of elephants," he said, "is not
!j]1
an elephant.")
1
These types or categories were rediscovered by Aristo-
11

I 91

•
:11

111

11.:
i!
 1111,,

!],

l1i

rl
:11 Mathematics & Reality 93
i! 92 Mathematics & Reality
1,.1,

·:,1
l•!I mathematics assumes directions to be isotropic, that is, the
tie in his four causes. They have been in part revived 111
the coordinate system-the complex coordinate systrn1 directions of space are of the same nature.
tlii
especially-but have been deprived of much of their crn, The difference between the four elements-or between
i

tent by the restriction of their use to measure. the four causes, or the four functions-is crucial; it consti-
II The fourfold system emerges again in the four fmK tlltes their contribution. Thus Aristotle's final cause is the
purpose, or function (of, say, a chair or a machine); the
111
tions of Jung-intuition, emotion, intellect and sensa
tion-which are easily recognized distinctions but which material cause is the material of which it is made; the for-
Jung elevated into a formalism by emphasizing their mutual mal cause is the plan or blueprint; and the efficient cause
opposition and complementarity. (from facio, to make) is the work of making it.
Another example is in Newton's calculus, specifically At the risk of some confusion, best noted at the outset,
the derivatives of position with respect to time, which we the material cause can also be the need for something, need
showed earlier to be a four operator. As we said, these are being distinguished from purpose in that it is phenomenal,
known through different faculties: we sense position, com- that is, changing, whereas the purpose is noumenal. Thus
pute velocity, feel acceleration and do control. the need for food diminishes when food is supplied, where-
In geometry we have point, line, plane and solid; in as the purpose of food doesn't change.
mathematics we have four kinds of transformation of The four elements, fire, water, air and earth, would
coordinates-rotation, scale, inversion and linear transla- seem to be a reference to the four states of matter-
tion. (Inversion is x' = 1/x, as occurs when the points out- plasma, liquid, gaseous and solid-which is how they
side a unit circle are put in correspondence with the points were interpreted by Greek philosophers. But this inter-
,J
11
inside the unit circle; this puts infinity at the center.) Also pretation is too literal; their true meaning is much closer,
in mathematics we have quadratic equations, so called indeed identical, to the four causes, showing that Aristotle
because they involve four roots of unity, displayed on could not have understood the four elements or he would
complex coordinates (see p. 26). Of course, there are not have invented the four causes. Be that as it may, we can
!I cubic, quintic, and other power of equations, but the get a grasp of their meaning from their common usage in
cubic is solved by reducing it to quadratic form. Again the our language. Thus "to fire" is to start, as to ignite a fire, to
:i:I

unit circle can be divided equally into three, five or six spark an endeavor; it can also mean to project or throw
1·11.1
parts (or multiples thereof) by the use of square roots, that out, as in projecting a goal, or firing a person from a job.
,11

j1I! is, by solving quadratic equations. Fire, as the initiating cause, is thus best translated as pur-
1
1,:
So what? This merely restates what is already obvious pose .
1!,'i
to mathematics. Why is this important? Water is difficult, but through its connection with feel-
111'

To show more general significance I have to go back to ing as well as the fact that water is substantial but devoid
lI
':11
the four elements, or "the gods of the four directions," to of fixed form, it corresponds to material cause and to emo-
111
each of which were assigned a different meaning, whereas tion and need. Thus, Eve introduces desire into cosmology
1
I
11
,1

111

11!

'il
1,I
1

.a
ii\
j
~
I~
~
:1~
i Mathematics & Reality 95
94 Mathematics & Reality
'11
lij

I!,1 and becomes "the mother of all living." Another of thesl' dimensional, like a point. The "point" is also synono-
,1
I. prerational or preconceptual correlations is that matter mous with "purpose."
'I has the same root, mater, as "mother," and again, we say Water is energy, desire, need, or the charge that pro-
11
11, something "matters" when we mean that we value it. pels the bullet. Its measure is one-dimensional (the
i.1',
Ii Water then is best translated as value. amount of energy is denoted by one number), like the
Air as an element stands for the mental or conceptual line, one constraint.
aspect of things. Thus we "air" our opinion, or put it on
the air, that is, communicate and make known. Air is spa- Air describes the space occupied and hence form; it de-
tial relationship, concept, and is best translated as form. fines, limits, and must have two axes. It depicts propor-
,1111
Earth is the combination of substance (water) and tion, the relationship structure, as does a blueprint,
form (air), or "formed substance;" when used as a verb, to and is two-dimensional, like the plane.
earth means to put into practice, make practical. It repre- Earth, formed objects, has volume or three dimen-
sents the tangible, objective aspect and can best be trans- sions, like a solid.
lated as object.
The correlation of the elements with the four causes is In the above, dimensions are thought of as constraints.
obvious, and with the four functions is fairly so-fire with (Three specifications are necessary to locate a point in
intuition, water with emotion (which according to Jung three-space.) Of course, in mathematics there can be as
evaluates), air with intellect, and earth with sensation. But many dimensions as we please, but in such usage dimen-
I want to show the relevance to mathematics of the four sions are rather variables and the notion of four categories
elements as categories of meaning, and this provokes the is not applicable .
charge that the elements are of anthropomorphic origin A richer example of the four distinctions, which gets
and therefore not suitable for the abstract science of pure closer to the ontological implications of measurement, was
thought. While it could well be argued that "pure introduced in a previous essay, "Constraint and Freedom"
thought" is but one aspect of human functioning (air), I (1980). There I showed that the most generally used coor-
will sidestep this issue and translate the four elements into dinate system, the Cartesian, with its three axes x, y, and z,
II
dimensionality and thus eliminate their "anthropomor- while ideal for describing objects-as in architectural or
:111

phic contamination." We can then show their relevance to mechanical drawings-does not portray important aspects
11: I.
If mathematics. such as scale and orientation (except with reference to
1
i1
I, other objects). In manufacture, orientation is provided by
Fire is centrifugal, exploding out from a point like a what is called the next assembly drawing, which shows
bullet fired from a gun; it has no constraint. The choice how the part is fitted into the rest of the machine. Scale is
:11
1'
of direction is not predetermined; it is the option that provided in drawings and in maps by a line on the same
starts any process. We can therefore say it is zero- sheet of paper, or by a statement "ten miles to the inch," or

•
 lh
,;11 1
:11111
111111

1
11111

::1·11
96 Mathematics & Reality Mathematics & Reality 97
'i11:
!!11:

i1'[II the like, which is a reference to a physical object-either above, which can be properly thought of as four levels.
,ill! the mark on the map or the standard inch. The mathematician may continue to object that these
:11,

!:\I A more inclusive method, the spherical coordinate sys references and examples are of lower dignity than mathe-
Ii' terns, has its origin at the observer, and hence does provide matics itself, which he may still regard as operating
,,,111
scale and orientation: in an ideal world. But my argument in the present work is
::i:11
1 that such reality conditions as the three-dimensionality of
'I space and the asymmetry of time are not mere contingen-
cies of this particular universe, but clues to a theoretical
'
.:.11.il• ' \
I
science that belongs in the province of mathematic as
I, I I
I queen of the sciences. Again, when we can show that the
I
,Ii I extraction of roots can be interpreted as creating space, we
I
I
I
cannot put geometry aside as inferior; it literally has its
"'I'I I
I "roots" in mathematics.
1wnl But let me get back to the four levels through another
approach. While the enthusiasm for logicizing mathema-
' ', tics has perhaps had its demise, it has never been replaced,
' I
' even though Goedel developed a formalism by which he
was able to prove that logic was incomplete. I must say
that I am disappointed that more has not been developed
,i11m
It maps, say, the stars in terms of latitude and longitude from this start. Instead, Goedel's demonstration is pre-
(measures analogous to the two dimensions of a map), and served like the leaning tower of Pisa, as a tourist attraction,
also gives scale in the measure R, or "distance away" from something interesting in an otherwise tedious subject.
the origin. Orientation is provided in that the measure- Goedel's proof applies to logic only if logic is extended
·lil,,,I 1
ments of longitude and latitude are from the same origin to include arithmetic. In order to include arithmetic the
:,, Peano axioms are added to the axioms of logic. In a pre-
II for all maps. This makes it possible for maps of a small
sector of the heavens or of the earth's surface to be located vious paper, "Postulates and Logic" (1962), I distin-
in the whole picture-the whole surface of the earth. guished postulates from definitions, requiring of the former
illlr
111,1 Of course, the fact that the map is not the territory still that they must have a meaningful negation. I pointed out
1111

holds for spherical coordinates. The relationship between that the postulates of propositional logic as given by
1:1 jl Church, when stripped of what are essentially definitions,
11, 1 points on the map, together with scale that requires a phy-
111111 sical object, the orientation, which for a map is a compass, reduce to two: that every proposition has an antecedent
1

·1·1 and the territory, are the four different categories described and that every proposition is general. We then add the
11·1

!.1I;
1
11

I'i~ ,,
,,
"
1i111

i:111 -a
 ;ii
:I,

:i'Ii' Mathematics & Reality 99

11: 98 Mathematics & Reality
,11

il Lastly, there are propositions, such as first cause, that

Peano axioms to extend logic to include arithmetic. These
111
axioms set forth the undefined concepts number, successor are particular and have no antecedent. The clearest exam-
11: and zero. ple of such would be the unpredictable "probabilistic"
!,I changes of state within the atom. At the human level,
111

Ii • Zero is a number and zero has no predecessor. events whose antecedents are not sufficient to account for
i! • Zero has a successor (one) and the successor of zero the effect, such as intuition, invention, mutation of genes,
ii has a successor (two) and so on. etc., are all examples of this domain. I would add prime

~
l·I numbers but will not attempt to prove it.
But what have we done? By the admission of zero, de-
fined as having no predecessor, we have violated the axiom Now, I do not myself consider the "dignity" of logic
of logic that every proposition has an antecedent. We have to be of a higher or even equal dignity to mathematics.
also violated the axiom of generality in that zero is unique; Nevertheless the fact that it was at one time considered
it is the only number that has no predecessor, and each possible to logicize mathematies (and the Principia Mathe-
other number is unique because it is the only (immediate) matica 1925-27 of Russell was directed to that end), and
successor of the previous number. No wonder logic breaks the fact that there has been no official statement that
down when we admit entities in violation of its two ros- mathematics cannot be logicized, puts mathematics under
tulates. obligation to state its reaction to logic (either to exclude it
So it is not that logic per se is at fault. The cause is or to include it).
rather in a mistaken ideology, a kind of wedding with no Clearly the situation requires that mathematics recog-
consummation between logic and mathematics. I don't nize logic as one element, but any problem involving logic
think mathematics was aware that it had been married to must necessarily include purpose, hypothesis and fact in
logic, and the result of the attempt to logicize mathemat- addition to logic-a logical proof would be useless if it did
ics, symbolic logic, has been used as a substitute for not have a purpose, make a hypothesis and end with a
meaning rather than to express it. conclusion to be confirmed by fact. The four domains thus
The trouble lies in trying to extend logic where it does introduced-logic, hypothesis, purpose and fact-will be
not, by its own definition, apply. The implication is that found to correspond with the four levels already discussed.
there is such a domain to which logic does not apply; in In the following chart, try, by reading the words in one
fact, there are precisely three such domains. column, to discern the common element in that column
One is postulate or hypothesis, i.e., propositions that and its relation to the common elements of the other col-
are general but have no antecedent. A postulate is a belief, umns. Then observe how the four elements of each row
requiring commitment, and draws on the world of value. represent mutually independent and necessary aspects of
Another domain is facts, i.e., propositions that are par- any subject or situation. Be aware that words alone are
ticular and have an antecedent. Facts are implied by and often ambiguous. Thus, "object" can mean purpose.
require the physical world. "Mind" can mean purpose, or obey, or opinion, or con-

~
 Mathematics & Reality 101
100 Mathematics & Reality
Mathematics encounters a similar difficulty in the ex-
trol. "Matter" can mean physical substance or value.
pression x 2 = -1, but resolves the problem by creating a
11 "Substance" can mean almost anything. The listing ol
second axis perpendicular to the plus-minus axis, the so-
111
words in columns, each column representing a different
...:alled imaginary axis. This imaginary axis, when inter-
domain or logical type, is essentially a formal device t1,
Ii assign meaning less ambiguously than common usage per preted as time, has application to a wide range of time-
mits. dependent phenomena-oscillations-from the negative
I
energy states of the atom and the nucleus to the periodic
11;

motion of the planets.

Fourfold Analysis in Terms of Logical Types The two dichotomies, consistent-inconsistent and true-
11
II III IV false, can be placed on the four levels as follows: I) incon-
Elements Fire Water Air Earth sistent, II) false, III) consistent, IV) true. (The merit of in-
General Purpose Value Concept Object consistency is novelty, and the merit of fiction is that it is
Geometry Point Line Plane Solid not true.) "Consistency," said Emerson, "is the hobgoblin
Jung Intuition Emotion Intellect Sensation
Aristotle's causes Final Material Formal Efficient
of little minds."
Domains of discourse Purpose Hypothesis Logic Fact
Transformation of Rotation Scale Inversion Translation
coordinates
Map Orientation Scale Map itself Terrain
Spherical geometry Orientation Radius Longitude and Radius x
latitude longitude
and latitude
,I
I
Let me close with a suggestion to indicate how the
greater scope of mathematics can deal with what in logic is
regarded as a paradox. The Cretan paradox (see p. 85)
was disposed of by Russell with his distinction between
logical types, which ruled that a statement cannot apply to
itself.
Logic is two-valued; but it confuses the dichotomy true
versus false with the dichotomy consistent versus inconsis-
tent. In the case of the Cretan paradox both dichotomies
are involved. It is because of the issue of consistency that
the statement, "All Cretans are liars," when uttered by a
Cretan, is a paradox.

.a
 1111

111
11
1

:111

l! 1i 1 References 103
,1·11.1

;1!1

,,11111!
REFERENCES Veblen, Oswald and John W. Young. "A Mathematical Sci-
ence." In James R. Newman, ed. The World of Mathema-
'i!I
1!11'
tics. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.
Wheeler, John A. Geometrodynamics. New York: Academic
;11
Press, 1962.
Wilber, Ken. Quantum Questions. Boston: Shambala, 1984.
i Young, Arthur M. "Postulates and Logic." In Main Currents 18,
111 3 (January-February 1962).
Bell, Eric Temple. Men of Mathematics. New York: Simon and - - - - T h e Geometry of Meaning. San Francisco: Robert
Schuster, 1937. Briggs Associates, 1976.
l"ill
!•I
'·I Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: - - - - T h e Reflexive Universe. San Francisco: Robert Briggs
I

Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980. Associates, 1976.

Courant, Richard, and Herbert Robbins. What is Mathematics? ----"Constraint and Freedom," "A Formalism for Phi-
New York: Oxford University Press, 1941. losophy," and "The Queen and Mr. Russell." In Which Way
Eddington, Arthur. Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Cam- Out. San Francisco: Robert Briggs Associates, 1980.
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923.
---Nature of the Physical World. New York: Macmillan
Co., 1930.
---New Pathways in Science. New York: Macmillan
Co., 1935.
---The Philosophy of Physical Science. London: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1938.
---Fundamental Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1948.
Hemple, Carl G. "Geometry and Empirical Science" and "On
the Nature of Mathematical Truth." In James R. Newman,
ed. The World of Mathematics. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1956.
Kline, Morris. Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1980.
Korovkin, P. P. Differentiation. New York: Gordon and Breach,
1969.
Peirce, Charles S. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Ed. J. Buch-
ler. Gloucester: P. Smith, 1963.
Prigogene, Ilya. Order Out of Chaos. New York: Bantam, 1984.
Russell, Bertrand and Alfred N. Whitehead. Principia Mathemat-
ica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925-1927.

102

•
11:1
1,,
111
,1

11,
:11::.

:Ii
'i
,,'I
THE THIRD
'I
DERIVATIVE
l1
Errors and Misconceptions
in Science

Ill
 The Third Derivative 107

136
(;ravitons
Part Contents Virtual Photons
136

PART SIX
139
SUBSISTING BLIND SPOTS
139
Quantum Versus Molar Physics
PART ONE 140
The Trigger Effect
145
NEWTON'S DERIVATIVES 109 Summary

PART TWO

MAXWELL AND THE REVOLVING ELECTRON 116

PART THREE

PLANCK'S QUANTUM OF ACTION 122

The Minuteness of the Quantum of Action 125

PART FOUR

RELATIVITY AND ITS NEGLECTED

IMPLICATIONS 127
Rotation 130

PART FIVE

MORE RECENT CONFUSIONS 132

Particles to Explain Forces 133

106

;it
 PART ONE

NEWTON'S DERIVATIVES

Modern science had its origin in Isaac Newton's extension

of geometry to include motion. Until then geometry had
been a science of position. The first order of motion was
velocity, the rate of change of position with respect to
time, or, as Newton called it, a fluxion. The second order
of motion was the ratio of change of velocity to time, or
acceleration. Gottfried Leibniz made the same discovery,
and his name for these ratios, derivatives, is the term now
used. Through the use of these derivatives Newton defined
force as mass times acceleration, and momentum as mass
times velocity. Energy, or work, was later found to be dis-
tance times force-or feet (distance) times pounds (force).
Power was the rate of doing work, the derivative of energy.
These quantities, most of which are derivatives with
respect to time constituting the measure formulae of phy-
sics, have become the basic vocabulary of the science of
motion. They make it possible to describe and predict the
motion not only of the planets but of any inert body. This
'
111 led to the philosophy of determinism, the theory that an
all-knowing mathematician, the LaPlace mathematician,
knowing the velocity and position of all the particles in the

109

Ml
110 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 111

universe, could predict their future. control a mechanical device-by adding or subtracting
Note that these measure formulae, made possible hy energy from the system-that this interference does not
the concept of derivatives, with the exception of power, do involve any violation of nature's laws.
not go beyond the second derivative. Energy is ML2/T' Thus it is possible to control nature and make it do
(the famous E = MC2 ), and power is ML2/T3, the third what you want it to do. While it would not be practical to
derivative of moment of inertia. Are there other third and cause Mars to change its orbit, it has been possible to con-
higher derivatives? While in theory they would exist, such trol an orbiting satellite to fly past Mars, to visit Jupiter,
derivatives are not used, and have been ignored by theore- and by guiding the satellite to take advantage of Jupiter's
tical science. To see why, we must remember that the laws gravitational field, to get the extra impetus to carry it to
of motion are considered to apply only when energy is not Saturn and beyond .
added to or subtracted from the system. Thus the laws of But how, if the laws of nature are inviolate, can they be
motion prescribe that a pendulum will swing indefinitely taken advantage of? How do we square this opportunism
provided there is no friction. Science thus deals with a with Newton? How can creatures, themselves the product
hands-off or ideal case. Newton thought the orderly mo- of laws, produce results that could not occur in nature as
tion of the planets was evidence of God, but Pierre LaPlace interpreted by science?
told Napoleon that their orderly motion made the hypoth- To answer this question consider the derivatives
esis of God unnecessary. There began to be a split between beyond the first and second. What would the third deriva-
science and free will, with science holding to the view that tive be? The first, or velocity, is rate of change of position
the laws of motion, which correctly predicted the behavior (governs position). The second, acceleration, is rate of
of most bodies, could also account for living organisms. As change of velocity. It follows that the third is the rate of
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi put it, "As scientists we cannot be- change of acceleration. Now change of acceleration is
lieve that the laws of nature lose their validity at the sur- what we do when we drive a car, by pushing more or less
face of the skin." Szent-Gyorgyi didn't leave it at that, but on the accelerator pedal, pushing the brake pedal, or steer-
went on to show that something else, some drive, was ing. It is our control of the car, and is effected either by
needed. adding energy to the system or by withdrawing it. Control
This split becomes apparent in the difference between is a free option, to be used by the driver.
science and engineering. The scientist tends to think of the So the laws of nature, so often invoked to support de-
laws of nature as inviolate; the engineer thinks of the laws terminism, do nothing of the kind. The third derivative, or
of nature as something to be used to make machines that control, has the same right to status as velocity and accel-
work. It does not occur to either of them that when they eration. It is not so much one of the laws of nature as it is

•
 The Third Derivative 113
112 The Third Derivative

an implicit permission to use nature's laws. production. Instinct is not due to laws of gravitation and
But why is control ignored by theoretical science? It is electromagnetism.
true that since it is an option, it cannot be measured as can While we cannot release the behaviorist from some re-
velocity and acceleration. It may also be true that it does sponsibility for his interpretation of instinct as equivalent
not contribute to the edifice of exact laws so respected by to Newton's laws, the real blame falls on the theoretical
science. This does not justify the neglect of control in cos- physicist who draws his credo, his dogma, from a partial
mology in the old sense, one that includes life, where the reading of the derivatives.
belief in determinism would make self-maintenance, or Of course the physicist is entitled to define his own dis-
control, an illusion. Surely plants grow and store energy cipline, and if he wants to base this discipline on the first
against entropy by controlling their metabolism; and two derivatives only, he is at liberty to do so. By the same
animals, while subject to instinctive drives, must use con- token, he cannot claim to know the workings of a universe
trol in pursuit of prey or to avoid capture. that includes life.
Here we might take time to answer the claims of be- What about the derivatives beyond the third? It might
haviorism, whose prestige is based on the assertion that be thought that since the third derivative is an option,
living creatures are subject to "drives" just as inert bodies there is no point in going further. We cannot even measure
are subject to laws, and that therefore consciousness is a free option, much less find its derivative, but a closer scru-
superfluous or erroneous notion. But hold on a minute. Let tiny shows that there is the equivalent of a fourth deriva-
us admit that when, say, a seal migrates northward in tive. What is it that changes (governs) control? While con-
summer for breeding purposes, it does so in response to a trol is an option, or at least not mechanically determined,
drive triggered by the seasons. Even if this were interpreted it is also not completely free. If a child runs in front of the
to mean the seal has no free will, note that the seal is an car, we steer to the side or put on the brakes. If the road
organization of many trillions of cells, and each cell an curves, we steer accordingly. Our control of the car is con-
organization of trillions of molecules. This enormously tinually governed by its position relative to other cars and
complex association of molecules behaves in unitary objects. In fact, our destination is the ultimate governing
fashion, and not according to the Newtonian determinism factor.
that would apply to the individual molecules if they were Our destination is a position-not the position we
not so organized. How does the seal control all those mole- started with, but the same kind of measure. It is something
cules in a way that Newton's laws would not? Even if we we observe-it is not velocity, which we can compute, nor
say the seal has no free will, it does have control of its own acceleration, which we feel; nor is it control, which we
metabolism, of its musculature, of its growth and self re- exercise. If the fourth derivative takes us back to position,

IA
 ii The Third Derivative 115
114 The Third Derivative
'i
;!11
which was the zeroth derivative, we have what is called .1 equations for oscillation, such as the Schroedinger equa-
i
four-operator. After four 90° steps, we get back to tlll' tion. When multiplied by itself four times, i returns to it-
:I
starting point, position. self:
1. t
2. i Xi= -1
L
control TJ 3. -1Xi=-i
4. -iXi=+l
T=90"
The fact that physics has so far stopped midway
through the cycle at T2 (in both the second derivative,
acceleration, and in the quadratic formula for space-time)
is an omission of crucial importance. It means that
acce1!:atior1 ( ( I } )positi~n = I physics-and the rest of science following its lead-has
tended to regard time as fundamentally linear, rather than
L
T2 cyclic.

.
2) velocity TL

This concept has important implications for science. Not

only does it limit the time derivatives to four, but it permits
an important step in finding a definition of dimension in
~! 1
terms of angle. Since dividing by time four times brings us
1!'
back to the start, we can equate division by time to a rota-
1111

!i tion of 90 degrees. (Elsewhere I have shown that mass has

II! the angular dimension of 120°, and length 30°, thus pro-
·, viding a quantifiable relation between M, L, and T.)
11.'
The correlation of time to 90° is confirmed by the fact
i that v=T, or i, is used as a coefficient of time in the
II quadratic formula for interval in relativity, as well as in

I
Ill •
!ii
,,I I

,'
i,

:1:
The Third Derivative 117
ii
'Ii
PART TWO tury of a division of science, mainly because of Maxwell's
I
ii dictum that the revolving electron radiated electromagnet-
Ii
:I ic energy.
I do not wish to detract from Maxwell's remarkable
l prediction of radio waves and other forms of electro-
magnetic radiation. However, it strikes me as absurd that
11
even without the problem of the revolving electron a mo-
I, MAXWELL AND THE REVOLVING ment of attention to known facts would have shown Max-
ELECTRON well to be in error. A DC magnet involves electrons mov-
i ing in a circular orbit around the coil of the magnet, and
'1I In every college text I can find it is stated that James Clerk such a magnet does not radiate electromagnetic energy!
I
I Maxwell said the revolving electron radiates electro- On the other hand, in a radio circuit that radiates elec-
I
I magnetic energy. In fact this was the general consensus tromagnetic energy, the electrons do not revolve in a circu-
,,,111
when the idea came up of the atom as a nucleus sur- lar orbit; they oscillate, that is, reverse their direction mil-
II rounded by revolving electrons. The objection was raised lions of times per second (the frequency of the radio wave).
111
that because the revolving electron radiates, the electron The essential feature of an oscillating circuit it that it con-
1
1
sists of a coil like the DC magnet, but the continuity of the
1

,[
must soon lose its energy and fall into the nucleus. This
11
enigma remained until in 1913 Niels Bohr explained that circuit is interrupted by a condenser, essentially two metal
in the atom the revolving electron does not radiate unless it plates, one connected to each end of the coil and insulated
jumps into a new orbit with different angular momentum from the other with a non-conductor like glass or mica.
(different ML2, or area), and that this resultant radiation
would be in quanta, i.e., units of angular momentum.
Since Max Planck in 1900 had discovered that radiation metal

I
from a black body (i.e., radiation in general) occurred only
in quanta, this was a confirmation of quantum theory and
explained the facts.
Bohr's explanation had an even more drastic implica- ◄
glass
tion: the laws of quantum theory and the laws of classical
physics were different! Molar matter (matter made up of
billions of atoms) followed the laws of Newton and quan-
tum phenomena another set of laws. This set Albert Ein-
stein on his quest for a unified field theory, which has still
not been found. Thus we have had three-quarters of a cen-

116

IA
 118 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 119

The electrons cannot jump across the condenser, so they Electrostatic force is similar. An electric charge creates
have to reverse their direction-back and forth, back and a force, but it doesn't radiate energy. To help with the dis-
forth. The importance of this reversal of electron motion is tinction, suppose you pulled on the string of a musical in-
that it reverses the magnetic field in the coil-very rapidly strument. This would require a force, and energy so stored
in the case of a radio, and even more so in a TV. would not be radiated until the string was released and
Still higher frequencies, which require shorter circuits, vibrated. Then energy would radiate as sound.
require much smaller antennas, but there is an advantage Similarly if you pulled a bow string, that would require
in that the shorter wave length can be reflected and a force. If you then released it to shoot an arrow, the arrow
directed, as are radar waves by radar antennas. These would convey energy to a distant target. This bow-and-
"antennas" in turn merge into the reflectors of electric arrow image has become a symbol for action at a distance,
heaters and the reflectors for auto headlights and flash- which also describes the quantum of action, now known to
lights. be responsible for all conveyance of energy from atom to
Let us return to the DC magnet. Since it does produce a atom. (When two objects collide, their atoms don't touch
magnetic field filling all space, why does this field not con- because the atom is 99.99 percent pure space. Their force
stitute radiation of electromagnetic energy? How does the fields interpenetrate and photons are created.)
production of a field differ from the transmission of elec- Alternating current makes possible another example
tromagnetic energy? One difference is that it takes almost of radiation because with it we can use a transformer to
no energy to create a field. When the current in the magnet change voltage-for example, to reduce the voltage of the
is turned on there is a minute expenditure of energy; but power lines (2000 volts) to that suitable for household ap-
the maintenance of this field doesn't require additional pliances, electric lights, etc. (110 volts). Such a transformer
energy and doesn't radiate energy. It does create a force, consists of two coils whose turns differ by the same ratio as
but a force is not energy. the reduction of voltage. Or again, transformers are used
A familiar example of this difference is the Cadillac to reduce the house current from 110 volts to 1-1/2 volts
stuck in the mud. The farmer comes along with his horse for charging batteries. For long-distance transmission,
and pulls the Cadillac out of the mud. How can the one- transformers raise the voltage to 200,000 volts, making it
ill
horsepower horse pull more than the Cadillac? The horse possible to carry a lot of energy through a relatively thin
::11
!11 can pull about 600 pounds of force for a distance of 10 feet wire.
:11
and get the Cadillac out of the mud. Doing this in about 10
!IIiii
seconds would mean doing 600 foot pounds of energy per
ii
I'
second, which is about one horsepower. The Cadillac can-
Few turns Many turns
not exert this force because its wheels slip in the mud. On low voltage high voltage
'!/1
the highway it can produce a force (its own drag) of 200
lbs. at, say, 100 ft. per second, thus doing 20,000 ft. lbs.
per second of work, or 40 horsepower.

,
 The Third Derivative 121
120 The Third Derivative

I
The alternating current in one coil induces in the other by time would be electromagnetic energy, but this is
I
,1
coil an alternating current of different voltage. This is not power-foot pounds per second, or ML 2 /T3 • To obtain
I
possible with DC current. AC was invented by Nikola Tes- MUIT, or action (which is what is radiated), we must di-
la and was an improvement over the DC used by Thomas vide MU by time. What is MU? It is called moment of
Edison. The point is that DC current, which consists of inertia-as in a flywheel, which smooths out (governs) the
electrons moving in a circle, does not radiate even from intermittent explosions of the gasoline engine. Since MU
one coil to another, whereas alternating current, in which involves U it is an area; divided by time it means change of
the electrons do not revolve but oscillate, does radiate area with respect to time and confirms the rule that an
energy from one coil of the transformer to the other and electron in an atom must change the area of its orbit to
:11
can do so only if the direction of the current alternates at a radiate electromagnetic energy. Thus an electron in the
frequency, in current practice 60 cycles per second. ground state cannot radiate because its "orbit" has no
All radiation is at a certain frequency. For radio the area .
frequency is about one million cycles per second, or one
million Hertz; for light it is 10 15 , or about one quadrillion
Hertz; for the lBEV (one billion electron-volt) photons
that create particles it is 10 22 , or ten quintillion Hertz.
Now frequency is the rate at which the magnetic field
reverses, and since the field depends on the direction of
rotation of the electron which must slow down, stop, and
reverse direction, it must change its acceleration. The cor-
rect statement of Maxwell's law should therefore be that a
,1
change of acceleration of the electron causes radiation (or
absorption) of energy. Such a law would conform to the
facts that:
I 1. a revolving electron, whether in an atom or in a DC
magnet, does not radiate;
iiII, 2. in a radio circuit the electrons do not go around in
11
one direction, but must oscillate at a frequency;
3. all radiation is a frequency, that is, involves
periodic change.

Frequency (cycles per second) is division by time. But

what do we divide? We might expect that energy divided

•
 The Third Derivative 123

effect, would not accept quantum theory: "God does not

PART THREE
play dice with the universe."
As I have heard it, Newton thought the regularity of
the planets' motion was evidence for God. Others say that
Newton thought that it would sometimes be necessary for
God to readjust their motion. In any case LaPlace said he
had accounted for their motion and made God an unneces-
PLANCK'S QUANTUM OF ACTION sary hypothesis. The same issue-God as regularity versus
God as chance-was the subject of a 4000-year-old Egyp-
Because it led to quantum physics, the discovery by Planck tian myth. The myth relates that in former times there were
in 1900 that light is radiated in whole units, or quanta of 360 days in the year, and that the Supreme God decreed
action, is probably the most important discovery made by that there should be no gods born on any day of the year.
science since its inception about four hundred years ago. Then the moon played dice with the sun and won from it
Another reason for its importance, in my opinion, is that it five extra days, on which were born Horus and his four
provided scientific sanction for the idea that what is most sons. Again, in Genesis we have both that God gave man
basic is not material particles but activity. It is not hard to dominion over the beasts, implying free will, and that he
i,11 think of a particle having energy due to its motion. It is forbade man's eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
1·
I hard to think of activity with no particle. Of course you good and evil, which man did eat, so he must have had free
I

!1 can think of the quantum of action as a particle, but shorn will to disobey God .
of its energy there is nothing there. This is why if one per- Thus there has been a 4000-year-old confusion be-
111
I, son sees a photon, or "particle" of light, it is annihilated tween the notion of God as perfect regularity, order and
ii
,11 and no one else can see it. We never do see objects; we see certainty, and God as spontaneous creativity, accident and
l•I
11
the light reflected from them. uncertainty. We fear uncertainty when we pay fees for in-
1I
11 What does this do to the objectivity of the photon? Is surance against unforeseen losses, and ask for it when we
something objective which can only be seen once? It's no buy lottery tickets in hope of a quick gain. I suppose most
I/
wonder that Planck had to wait nineteen years for physi- people think of uncertainty as to be avoided, but the virgin
i'I'I cists to accept his thinking. This is the period given, but I birth, which is an event without a cause, is a symbol in
Ill almost all religions of salvation-the birth of the hero (the
don't think there was any general acceptance until 1926,
when Werner Heisenberg showed that our uncertainty god in man) who conquers the forces of evil and attains
I
11!1
about the position and momentum of a particle is equal to divine status. Another such interpretation of uncertainty
Planck's constant. Even Planck found it hard to believe his is The Cloud of Unknowing, one of the great religious
'11i
1
1 own theory, and Einstein, despite his getting the Nobel books, which tells us that in all other subjects we should
·I use discretion, but in the religious quest, none. We should
Prize for using Planck's theory to explain the photoelectric
122

•
 The Third Derivative 125
124 The Third Derivative

go about with a cloud of unknowing over our heads. olism, growth and reproduction. In other areas science
i,
,Ii How could Einstein use God's regularity to exclmli- dings to its now obsolete dogma of determinism.
~ uncertainty if LaPlace could use regularity to make God
:i
,1
unnecessary? The point is that there could be no novelty,
:/ no creativity, in a universe with no uncertainty. This merit
j The Minuteness of the
of uncertainty, novelty, contrasts sharply with the inter-
Quantum of Action
pretation of the quantum of action as an inevitable defect
of observation, but it does not conflict with the interpreta-
i tion of the quantum as spontaneous creativity or freedom. Another important misconception is to view the minute-

!,I "Don't hitch your wagon to a cement fence post," it says;

"hitch your wagon to a star!"
Such references as I've cited above might seem in-
ness of energy in the quantum of action as grounds for its
confinement to the micro world of quantum physics, and
thus for its unimportance in general. This view overlooks
111 appropriate to our topic, "The Errors and Misconceptions the trigger effect, by which a minute energy can control a
'j large-scale event. A single photon can open the supermar-
of Science," but they can help delineate the province of
science. Science is the quest for certainty, but science can ket door, or blow up a city. Presumably an aberrant
III,,
,I only find it in what is less than ourselves. Uncertainty is photon displaced a gene in Queen Victoria's germ plasm
i I,i what characterizes what is greater than ourselves. Why that caused the Tsarevich to become hemophiliac, hence
I
!II then is uncertainty and its interpretation important for sci- precipitating the Russian Revolution.
ence? Because science discovered uncertainty! After 4000 Another important point about the quantum of action,
years of speculation about uncertainty, there followed the or photon, is one I cannot describe either as an error or a
belief up to 100 years ago that science would put an end to misconception; it is rather an oversight. This is the slight
it. But science now admits that uncertainty is not only in- attention given to the fact that the quantum of action, in
evitable, it is the most basic ingredient-the photon, or the process called pair production, creates protons and
quantum of action. electrons, the two particles that constitute atoms and
What remains is for science to see this uncertainty in a hence all organized matter. Current physics has devoted
'I
better light-as spontaneous creativity, the source of life most of its attention to the hypothetical constituents of
' 'II.,.
I,
and the drive that sustains evolution in its ten-billion-year baryons, heavy particles that decay into protons, and lep-
'I
quest to surpass itself. tons, which disintegrate into electrons. This work may be
l11.1
11,1
j' Science is halfway to this recognition already, especial- very important, but it ends up with a greater variety than
ly in biochemistry, in which more and more evidence is the variety it started with-quarks and subquarks with
'I
showing how photons or quanta of action initiate and sus- differences in "color" and "flavor," (up, down, strange,
:Iii tain the molecular changes that constitute cellular metab- charm, top and bottom)-all of which distracts us, as in

lj
 126 The Third Derivative

the old nursery rhyme-

PARTFOUR
I As I was going to St. Ives
I!,
I
I
I met a man with seven wives
,1'11 Each wife had seven sacks
I
Each sack had seven cats
!I Each cat had seven kits
d
-from the answer to the final question: "How many were
•.!111

II going to St. Ives?" RELATIVITY AND

If all these sacks with cats with kits are necessary to ITS NEGLECTED IMPLICATIONS
!II
create protons, how can photons do so with no evidence of
,II
these intermediaries, some of which are heavier than pro- Sixty-two years ago, while an undergraduate at Princeton,
.:111.1 tons? The top quark is now thought to be 60 times heavier I had the good fortune to have my request granted for a
'I' than the proton! course in relativity, and for two years I became the sole
ii'
11 But even admitting the validity of the baryon-quark- student of Oswald Veblen, called by John Von Neuman
1'11
subquark approach, that's no excuse for the tendency to the father of American mathematics. My debt to Veblen,
,11 ignore pair creation by photons. Thus the quantum of ac- with whom I kept in contact over the years until his death
i'i
11
tion (i.e., a photon) underlies and creates the proton and in 1960, was considerable. Even after his death I derived
:I
electron, and hence all matter. great help from an essay of his that I had not known about
before his death. This essay, "A Mathematical Science,"
deals with the postulates of projective geometry. It and
Ill
I
some of my other interactions with Veblen are discussed in
'II Appendix II of my book, The Reflexive Universe.
:ii But I also had another debt to relativity. When I started
111
on my own theory in 1927 my dissatisfaction with relativ-
ifji' ity's treatment of time proved a stimulus to a different
1!1
11 approach. What relativity did was to extend the geome-
i trization of space to include time. This seemed to me to
deprive time of its principal feature-to introduce novel-
'I
'll.'11

11
ty and surprise, or as I then put it, discontinuity. This in-
;ji duced me to change my own theory, which I first called a
theory of structure, to a theory of time structure, and even-
tually to a theory of process. At the time I did not know of
I Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality, published

,
II
I 127
i1

[,
I
'i
 128 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 129

in 1929, nor did I know that Henri Bergson had made the ence. Einstein went even further by treating force as a cur-
same objection to Einstein in 1922. vature of space-time, and the success of this approach to
I am still trying to do justice to time, but to keep to cosmology has led to an unfortunate situation: the geogra-
essentials I will confine myself here to my most recent phy department has taken over the history department.
effort to describe the difference between space, or the It has taken me over sixty years to view the geometriza-
space-time of relativity, and time in its full implications. I tion of space-time as a limitation. Even in school geometry
would liken this difference to that between geography and had a mental fascination that was not supplied by history,
history. The theory of relativity is an extension of geom- whose appeal was temporary and emotional. The edifice of
etry; by making time like an extra-space dimension, it im- geometry, expanded and extended to include motion, is a
plies a totality which can be surveyed in simultaneity. The permanent structure and object of veneration, whereas his-
extra dimension it supplies, while complicated by curva- tory, which changes day by day, year by year, depends on
ture, exists and is not essentially different from other content for interest. But however impressive the laws of
dimensions. History, on the other hand, while it might science, it cannot replace history. History's emphasis on
enumerate events as does relativity, concerns itself not change of state, with succession, gives importance to the
with events per se, or their location in space-time, but with direction of time. Relativity and its extensions-GUT
the change of state that the events produce. It has to do (Grand Unification Theories) and TOE (theories of
!
with our experience of time as a process of change. We can everything)-dismiss life as an epiphenomenon, evolution
i as chance, and do not stop to think that a theory of every-
I
think of the Civil War as an event, but to history the Unit-
ed States as a whole was different after the Civil War thing should apply to life. With the possible exception of
from what it was before. So too the American Revolution fractals, mathematics has no conceptual tools for dealing
was an event, but its importance was that it created a new with self-integration, with cumulative phenomena such as
nation. This kind of difference, change of state, is not con- life, memory or consciousness, nor even with values and
sidered by relativity, which deals with location in time and value judgment. Let that suffice for what I regard as the
space of events rather than with growth, or with changes misinterpretation of time.
II

1;1
of state. Relativity treats time as symmetrical. A point about the theory of relativity that has been
,:I,
II One would not think of history as a science, perhaps noted by others, so I will not dwell on it here, is that it is
::1 because unlike science it does not follow the exact laws not primarily about relativity, but is the search for in-
l'i variants. The theory pointed out that position, a datum of
ii that are the basis of science. This certitude of science, the
I'I,' exactness of laws, was the basis of geometry in Greek· sense experience, is relative. The position of an object is
:11 times. Geometry is a collection of theorems and proposi- different for different observers; what is to my right may be
'ill
tions whose truth could be proved. Newton, as I said, ex- to your left. Similarly with velocity; the passengers on a jet
11
l·l.111,
tended geometry, a science of position, to include motion, plane are at rest with respect to one another, they are mov-
1
11
11
acceleration, forces, energy and other formulas used by sci- ing 600 miles an hour with respect to the earth's surface,
!I
:1

1
:1 1

II ~
 130 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 131

and the good old earth, in whose bosom we expect to rest, order than the invariants of relativity. In fact it is choice
is moving through space at 18 miles per second. that can establish invariants. Thus the gold standard is an
On the other hand acceleration is not relative, and the invariant by which the value of money is measured. But
gravitational constant which predicts the force between the President can decide to go off the gold standard, as
)
,i1

bodies due to their gravity is an invariant and thus is based Roosevelt did in 1933.
on acceleration. Another invariant is the speed of light. This is not so outrageous as might first be thought. To
!1, 1
Both of these are the same for all observers. But as I said, me it was another clue to the interpretation of the quan-
1
this has been noted before; the misconception in this case tum of action, because it rotates, as freedom or choice. I
:11
I is the widely held public view of the theory as justifying the mention rotation not as an error of science, but as a basic
thesis that everything is relative. principle whose absolute nature, established by relativity,
:'Ill
is neglected by science.
1:

Rotation

i A consideration that to me is important is the invariance

of rotation. This has been noted by Einstein and by
i1I
Eddington, who don't make further reference to it. Percy
,,Ili1 Bridgeman wrote a book about rotation, but he doesn't
j,,lj.i seem to know what to do with it, and the invariance of
,1,
rotation has not been incorporated in the theory of relativ-
!I
ity. In my own effort to pursue the matter further I stum-
I!
i bled on a paradox. Yes, rotation is an invariant; if you get
,!!I
l'I up from your chair and turn 360 degrees and sit down, you
,,'11 are not entitled to say the universe turned around you, be-
•'I1i' cause if the universe turned around you in the second or so
Yi
'II
it took you to turn, even the nearest stars, some six light
il years away, would have to travel 21r x 6, or 36 light years
1111
per second-about 200 million times the speed of light.
:,11
Because matter cannot travel faster than light, the remote
:II stars establish rotation as an invariant. The paradox comes
:1
about because you are free to turn yourself as you please.
111 So the invariance of rotation does not prevent your rota-
11
tion! This can only mean that free choice is of a higher

•
 The Third Derivative 133
!

,·.·.·
said in part II, requires the rapid reversal of a magnetic
PART FIVE
I.

field-oscillation of the electrons, reversal of their motion.

t~
.d
+
H
This reversal produces photons or quanta of action, which
convey this energy at the speed of light over great
distances-"action at a distance." Action at a distance has
i always been an enigma, explained at one time as due to
J.!,~
vibrations in a medium (the wave theory of light). This
~ medium was called the ether, but the fact that its prop-
MORE RECENT CONFUSIONS
erties had to be so outrageous-it could have no mass, yet
In part II on Maxwell, I questioned the term electromagnet- must possess a rigidity a million times that of steel-as
ic force. There are two distinct forces: electrostatic, exem- well as the fact that motion through the ether could not be
plified when we rub a comb with a silk handkerchief and detected, led physicists to abandon the concept.
have it pick up several bits of paper, and magnetic, when
with a magnet we pick up iron filings. Particles to Explain Forces
A very important application of electrostatic force is
made in the photocopier. The surface of the blank paper is But giving up one thing may mean giving in to another,
charged, then the image of the paper to be copied is pro- and the difficulty of explaining force, which also acts at a
jected on the charged surface of the blank paper and the distance, may account for the quite unjustified notion that
light discharges the charge except where there is black ink. since the photon conveys energy it could also be said to
Then the paper, now charged only where there was ink on carry force. If you wanted to break a window you could do
the original, is brought in contact with powdered ink, it with a hammer, thus producing a force. In fact the no-
which it picks up and retains as a duplicate of the original. tion of air pressure was first explained by saying that the
The magnetic force is used to turn electric motors; it is molecules of air are in constant motion, and their confine-
also the basis of both audio and video tape recorders. ment by the walls of a container, as in a tire, caused pres-
Magnetic imprinting is used to identify checks, credit cards sure. But as more was learned and it became evident that
and supermarket items. the atom was 99.99 percent pure space (actually only one-
The two forces are different, and I don't see how the trillionth solid), it was realized that the air pressure was
term electromagnetic force is justified. The electrostatic due to the force fields of the molecules of air interacting
force is due to concentration of electrons, and the magnetic with the force fields of the molecules in the wall of the
force is due to motion of electrons in a closed circuit, as in container, not to particles hitting one another.
the coil of a magnet. Neither force alone can radiate Photons do exert this kind of force in the phenomenon
energy. known as light pressure, exemplified by the fact that the
The radiation of energy (electromagnetic energy), as I "tail" of a comet, as it leaves the sun, goes ahead of the

132

•
134 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 135

comet, not behind, and is therefore called a beard. In other obsession. It is true that all matter is made of molecules,
words, when the sunlight hits the dust particles that sur- and it is true that molecules are made up of atoms. Thus
round a comet it pushes them away from the sun. But this the atomic theory has been one of the greatest and most
pressure of light has nothing to do with the electromagnet- elegant accomplishments of science, accounting for the
ic energy of the light. The light by which we can see this properties of 100-odd different kinds of atom as due only
dust is reflected back to earth and only then gives up this to the number of proton-electron pairs, from one to 100.
energy to the photographic plate or to the eye. Besides, the But as we leave atoms and come to protons and elec-
light pressure pushes the dust, whereas the electrical or trons, the notion of a particle becomes inappropriate. The
magnetic force to be explained is an attraction or a repul- electron dissolves into a probability fog. Both proton and
s10n. electron have no identity; in one respect they behave as
Let me illustrate the difference between light pressure waves. Moreover, they are poles of a force, 1039 times
of the photon and its electromagnetic energy by an exam- gravity. If we were to illustrate the size of this number we
ple. You go to the store and buy a battery for your would have to compare the size of the smallest particle in
flashlight. You carry it home and put it in the flashlight, the universe, 10- 13 cm, with the diameter of the universe
where it does its job. You could also throw the battery at itself, 1027 cm. In other words, the concept of the universe
the window and create a force which would break the win- made up of concrete things works well up to a point. Mat-
dow. But this would not discharge the electromagnetic ter is composed of molecules, and molecules of atoms, but
energy of the battery, which would still be available. Such when we go further we get into forces. Are forces matter?
is the case with the photon; like the battery it conveys ener- They are certainly not due to particles, because particles
gy. It can also, like the battery, cause a mechanical force are ultimately force fields .
on an object it hits. Scientists, by saying the photon is the Perhaps I should not presume to tell science how to run
carrier of the electromagnetic force, wrongly interpret the its business or to make what are essentially value judg-
phenomenon-first, in lumping together the two electrical ments. It is enough to point out the absurdity of saying the
forces; second, in confusing them with light pressure; and photon carries the electromagnetic force when
third, in making this misconception a basis for the
1. There is no electromagnetic force; there is the elec-
hypothetical graviton. And if the graviton were like the
photon, where would it get the energy? We would have to trostatic force and the magnetic force, neither of which
say that a particle of matter radiates its energy (mass) and is carried or produced by photons.
eventually disappears. All of this to explain force as due to 2. The photon conveys (electromagnetic) energy. To
particles! convey something is to take it from one point to
What do we gain by this comedy of errors? It seems as another, much as a letter conveys a message. True, a
if the success of the idea that matter consists ultimately of bullet conveys momentum and when brought to a stop
particles (the "atom" of Democritus) had become an the abrupt change in momentum creates a force, but

.
:
136 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 137

since this force acts over a distance, and since force exchanged. This photon causes the paths of the two parti-
times distance equals energy, the bullet, like the cles to curve so that they shoot off in different directions.
photon, actually conveys energy. This is shown in a Feynmann diagram as two solid curves
representing the particles joined by a wavy line, represent-
So why not let it go at that? I cannot because there is
ing the photon.
more to tell-involving the usual difficulty conceptualizing
force. The conceptualization of force, like the spatial-
ization of time, deprives force of its essential character. It
requires a different faculty than the mind to appreciate its
nature. We must experience it, feel it. Whitehead spoke of
"misplaced concreteness." We should also recognize that
there is misplaced objectivity.

Gravitons
I mentioned that the photon is made the precedent for pre-
dicting the graviton. The graviton is a hypothetical particle
that would convey the gravitational force as the photon
the electrical force. Meanwhile in another part of the
forest, the proponents of relativity explain the gravitation-
al force as the curvature of space-time.
But to stay with the graviton favored by particle physi-
cists: because the precedent for the graviton is the photon,
it must be radiated from every massive body including the
especially massive black hole. But a black hole is so mas- As this implies the spontaneous creation of photons,
sive that light cannot escape it (hence the name), and if and physicists don't permit spontaneous creation, they
light cannot radiate from it how can gravitons do so? And answer that the photons are not created. They claim each
if they could not radiate, how could the black hole con- particle carries a cloud of "virtual" photons with it, await-
tinue to attract matter into it? ing such encounters.
The question comes up, do these virtual photons pos-
sess the energy they are to convey? If they do, they would
Virtual Photons
add so much inertia (or mass) to the particle that carries
It is now recognized that whenever particles such as elec- them that the particle would behave quite differently from
trons pass another particle, proton or electron, a photon is what its known mass would predict. So the virtual photon

rl
138 The Third Derivative

could not have any energy. Now what is a photon shorn of PART SIX
its energy? It is nothing. That is the unique feature of the
photon; it is an atom of energy of a certain frequency-
strictly, an atom of action, nothing else. To suggest that an
electron is carrying an unlimited assortment of virtual
photons about with it is like saying that a baseball player,
who might carry his own baseball glove and his favorite
bat, would also carry an unlimited quantity of virtual SUBSISTING BLIND SPOTS
home runs in his suitcase.
This inability to appreciate that the universe includes
Quantum Versus Molar Physics
activity as well as particles, motion as well as matter,
creativity as well as cause and effect, is a defect in under- Because single entities such as atoms, nuclear particles and
standing, a failure to appreciate the non-material aspect of photons cannot be predicted, whereas molar objects-
the universe. made up of millions of atoms or molecules-obey the laws
of determinism and therefore can be predicted, science di-
vides its province into the quantum world and the molar
world. Quantum theory applies to the quantum world,
relativity and classical physics to the molar world.
An unquestioned assumption is that living creatures,
being made up of billions of molecules, are molar objects
and obey classical determinism. This implies no free will,
and, because there is no scientific basis for it, no conscious-
ness.
In light of what we know about living creatures, this is
certainly a thoughtless and superficial assumption. In the
first place all living creatures start as a single fertilized cell,
itself constructed by DNA, the single complex molecule
created by the union of the DNA of its two parents. This
DNA orchestrates the growth of the organism to maturity
and its self-maintenance. The DNA itself is activated
by molecular bonds, which are in turn activated by quanta
of action (low-energy photons). Like all photons, these
photons are not observable except by their effects, and

139

I
140 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 141

together with the DNA they activate, belong in the quan- trigger effect, by which a small energy can control a large
tum world. energy. Thus when we drive a car we are controlling some
Life can only occur in a temperature range from freez- 50-200 horsepower and 3000 pounds of matter at practi-
ing to the so-called pasteurizing temperature, somewhat cally finger touch. Power steering, power brakes, or the
above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Only within such a temper- butterfly valve of the carburetor trigger energy much
ature range can the metabolism or chemical activity of life greater than is required from the driver. It is not a diff-
occur, because in this temperature range there is a bath of erent form of energy, as vitalism is interpreted to imply,
free energy to fuel the photons whose activity can direct but rather control of energy that makes this possible. In
this energy. The metabolism of cold-blooded animals is no case is there any violation of the laws of nature. Such
quite dependent on temperature of environment and time control is only possible because of such laws and their con-
of day, and that of vegetation on the seasons. Warm- trol by the third derivative. (see part I)
blooded animals, mammals and birds, have evolved inter- Evidence for this is the plant's control of its own meta-
nal temperature regulation that widens their habitat. We bolism or the animal's control of digestion and voluntary
don't find alligators in the polar regions. motion. Even if we ignore man himself, we have evidence
Though all metabolism depends on photon exchange, of control in the vast quantity of tools and machines, vehi-
not all the self-regulation of living things, plants and anim- cles, devices for communication and regulation of temper-
als, need be quantum-regulated. Much of it can be con- ature which technology makes available to him. Even the
ducted by subsystems within the organism. Thus threat or metaphor used to dismiss free will and purpose, which
pursuit releases adrenalin in the blood, pheromones stimu- likens man to a machine, loses its force when we pull off its
late sexual impulse, and other semi-autonomous responses wrapping and look inside. There never was a machine that
are similarly elicited. The point is that these subsystems, didn't have a purpose; and as I said elsewhere, there never
plus the hierarchy of the body itself-chemicals activate was a purpose that didn't require a machine to carry it out.
nerves, nerves control muscles, muscles produce move- Why this universal reluctance of modern enlightenment
ment-have been constructed by the organism much as a to recognize the very function that most characterizes us
business organization grows and creates different depart- as human-our control of our environment (including our
ments for different functions-management, sales, produc- destruction of it)? We can't blame it all on scientists. The
tion, public relations, etc. These departments, created by fealty the scientist once swore to experimental fact has
and for the organization itself, remain under central been replaced by the more intellectually satisfying doctrine
management. of determinism, with its promise of ultimate certainty. This
is scientific ideal, right or wrong, and does not justify our
The Trigger Effect
making an idol of determinism. Is it because the use of
But there is a complementary principle on which the orga- control is so universal, like water to the fish, that we don't
nization of systems and subsystems depends, namely the see it? Is it because we don't want to admit control because

•
142 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 143

it would imply responsibility? Or is it because if we were to But the discovery by science that activity precedes matter,
admit control, then this would imply the freedom of others or is more basic than matter-like "man bites dog!" -is
to control us? news. Again the quantum of action, while unpredictable
It is not the purpose of this essay to answer these ques- and intangible, is a definite formulation, a distinct function
tions of value judgment. I mention them only to call atten- with explanatory power. It cannot be dismissed as senti-
tion to an error in science, which is especially important ment and morality, sermonized, idolized, and a source of
because the meaning of science-which we have made a hypocrisy.
religion-would be quite different if these errors were cor- Of course the quantum of action is not just an isolated
rected. fact; it was the core finding that created quantum physics,
There remains an important link, perhaps the keystone a major revolution in science whose implications beyond
of my whole argument. We can be certain there is a third that field are yet to be felt.
derivative, and the evidence shows that life uses this third This brings us to the crucial step. Granted the third
derivative to control the laws of nature, not all at once, but · derivative, and granted that the quantum of action is
in steps. The first step is that made by plants of storing responsible for all chemical interaction as well as the
energy and moving against entropy. Entropy is the tenden- creation of protons and electrons, can we turn our-
cy of energy in molar matter to become more distributed, selves around and, instead of thinking of the quantum of
more unavailable-the tendency of stones to roll downhill, action as the uncertainty of the observer, think of it as the
hot objects to cool, and everything to average out. It is the spontaneous (hence unpredictable) origin of the acts of the
concentration of energy in water under pressure, in fossil observed?
fuel, in food, that supplies the fuel for machines and for
living creatures. The next step is the control of this energy
by animals. Objection: The quantum of action involves much too
But what is it that uses this energy? How do we answer minute an energy to do anything to bodies larger than
the scientist who says there is no evidence for anything that atoms, or rather than electrons within atoms.
could use such control?
Answer: The hierarchy of living organisms, together
Here we return to the quantum of action. Recall that I
with the trigger effect, makes possible the control of
said at the beginning of part III that the reason for the
large energies by the minute energy of the quantum.
importance of Planck's discovery is that it was science it-
self that established that activity is more basic than matter. Objection: Even so, how can this unpredictable action,
The quantum of action uses the control. It is "spirit." indistinguishable from random activity, perform the
We might expect that a non-scientist, a spiritual precise functions necessary to life?
teacher or a philosopher, would emphasize that spirit was
prior to matter, or that consciousness was the origin of all. Answer: Because photons have a precise frequency,

it
144 The Third Derivative The Third Derivative 145

each photon has a precise function. Other factors Summary

are necessary, such as the free bath of energy at the
Looking back we can now see that it was at the very begin-
temperatures in which life operates, but this energy is
ning of modern science, with the failure to recognize the
directed by the quantum of action.
third derivative, that things went wrong. The discovery of
Objection: Why does the random nature of all motion the laws of motion was indeed a great step, and made
at this temperature not cancel the performance of any possible the unique contribution of modern science, but
definite function? This bath of random energies would this blinded us to the gift of freedom that the knowledge
produce noise, not a bath of free energy. gave us and the responsibility that goes with it. Scientific
discovery, continually pressured to strive for complete ob-
Answer: The random movement of molecules, involv- jectivity, and realizing that to learn the laws of nature one
ing an energy of about 1/40 of an electron volt, pro- must stand aside and make no effort to interfere with the
vides a source of energy for the making and breaking outcome of an experiment, inevitably led to a picture of
of bonds in DNA and the proteins it creates. The DNA nature as a structure frozen in time and space. Like the
with its superconductive core, agitated by this random surface of a pond freezing into ice, it gradually closed in on
energy, resonates at its own precise frequencies, much man himself and left him a helpless prisoner. Like the
as a wind instrument or organ pipe uses the movement activity of the particles he studied, his actions were the re-
of air to produce its own frequency, and like a radio sult of causes not his own. He too was an object.
oscillator can entrain the DNA in adjacent cells to This was of course before Planck's discovery of the
coordinate their metabolism and growth. quantum of action and the realization that it introduced a
germ of uncertainty which could provide a loophole in the
Objection: These are speculations and do not conform
law, but still this "soft determinism" was not for the
to the well-founded principle that everything has a
strong of heart. In this parade of fortitude-in the name of
natural and objective cause.
perfected science-no one thought to look back at where it
Answer: It is just this principle that is under scrutiny. all began, with the derivatives which had launched this
It does not hold in quantum phenomena, and should grand undertaking. And no one thought to attend to the
not be expected to hold for life, because, as was said, message of the third derivative-that the laws of nature
life starts at the quantum level. The spontaneity of the were not a barrier to free will, but the very thing that made
quantum of action, alias uncertainty, may be a source free will possible.
of irritation to the scientist as accountant, but without Now it is ironic, if not strange, that all the time, with-
it there would be no activity in the universe. In fact, out admitting it to himself, man has been using control-
since light creates particles, there would be no uni- benefiting from the body's control of its own metabolism,
verse. learning to stand up, to walk, and to drive automobiles,

I
146 The Third Derivative

controlling machines and controlling nature-and always

without violating nature's laws but by using them. Yet the
mind of man, like a mirror in which you cannot see the
back of your head, did not reveal this truth. The world is
not just objects, it is a place for man to grow, to grow up.

I,
3 5282 00454 2091

In addition to trade books, Robert Briggs Associates pub-

lishes Broadside Editions to provide the concerned individ-
ual with commentary and criticism that for reason of length
or topic are not readily available. For a complete catalog,
write: Robert Briggs Associates, 400 Second Street, #108,
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034.

I,