Philosophy of Physics

Quantum Reality And Determinism

Written by Shahbaz Nihal

“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean truth lay all undiscovered before me”

I believe this statement by Sir Isaac Newton reflects, or should reflect, the sentiments or every scientist of present and future.

This report is dedicated to my family (especially to my parents) and to my friends for finding the patience and courage to listen to, despite of much interest, my philosophical interpretations on this subject. I would also like to thank my teachers and a very special thanks to my online forum friends for providing useful discussion on this subject.

Introduction Philosophy of Physics Introduction Subjects of discussion in physical philosophy • • • Philosophy of time Philosophy of space 1

2 2 2 3 3 4

Philosophy of atomism (Fundamentalism) General ideas about philosophy of physics Realism and Determinism Realism and Anti-Realism • Realism

6 6 7

• Anti-Realism Determinism Quantum Mechanics and Reality Quantum mechanical description of nature (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) EPR Paradox Hidden Variable Theory and Bell’s Theorem Hidden Variable Theory Bell’s In-equality Is Quantum Mechanics Really Violating Locality? Conclusion References

9 10

12 13

17 18 19

The purpose of this report is to introduce the reader to the subject of Philosophy of Physics and it’s in Physics. I will start with a general description of the subject and a brief description of various issues that are discussed within it and the general ideas about it. As we move along, I will focus the discussion on towards one particular area of Physical Philosophy, namely Reality and Determinism. Starting with the philosophical description of Reality and the different point of views that exist regarding its nature, I will move on to the root of debate on it and describe the physical point of view of the subject.


Philosophy of Physics
Philosophy of Physics (also known as Physical Philosophy) is the study of the fundamentality, generality and philosophical reasoning of principles of Physics. In Physical Philosophy the integrity of principles of Physics, grounds of their validity are discussed and the understanding of the physical world and/or reality, based on these principles, is debated through logical (defined in philosophy as the study of valid inference and demonstration) reasoning. Physical Philosophy is quite different from other areas of Physics, in that it has no defined premises. In Physical Philosophy there are various subjects/issues, belonging to different areas of Physics, which are discussed and their Physical understanding is debated.

Subjects of Discussion in Physical Philosophy
Some of the issues discussed under the domain of Physical Philosophy are as follows. However, since these subjects are not the main focus of this report therefore I shall not be discuss them in much depth, rather give a brief overview of them.

Philosophy of time Time is a fundamental quantity in Physics. A fundamental quantity is defined as one the idea of which cannot be derived from some more fundamental quantity. Rather the quantity must be specified in terms of some standard for example time can be described with the help of some recurrent event. The interval after which the event recurs defines a single unit of time. Currently the standard of time is the Cs-133 Atomic Clock. A second is defined as the time period in which 9192631770 radiation are emitted by Cs133 atom. The question that arises in Philosophy regarding the physical definition of time is that if is defined by a standard, set by us then, “Is there anything physical about time? Whether there really is something called “time”, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured?”


Philosophy of Space Like time, space is also a fundamental quantity, in that it cannot be defined in terms of a more fundamental entity as there nothing more fundamental presently known. The philosophical debate on the nature of space is pretty much similar to that of time: whether space is a real physical entity itself or simply a conceptual framework that humans need to think (and talk) about the world.

Philosophy of Atomism (Fundamentalism) The issue of Atomism is discussed under the domain of Fundamentalism. It is well known that originally matter was thought to be composed of discreet packets (called atoms), which are thought to be infinitesimal and indivisible. However, it was later found that atoms are not really indivisible but have a very organized and structured internal system composed of electron(s) and a nucleus. Later on the nucleus of the atom was also found to be further decomposable into protons and neutrons, which are further divisible, although under certain high energy conditions, into quarks, gluons etc. Following the same scheme, one would be temped to think that may be quarks and electrons also have a more fundamental internal system. However, so far, despite of many experiments, no such internal structure has been found for electron or quarks; even when they are subjected to conditions of extreme energy and pressure. Since “absence of evidence” does not imply “evidence of absence”, the debate mainly is based on whether the fundamental building blocks are truly fundamental or not.

These were some of the issues that are discussed under the domain of Physical Philosophy. Among these the oldest dilemma in Physical Philosophy is that of Reality and Determinism, more appropriately, the effect of Quantum Mechanics on Reality and Determinism. The philosophical idea of Determinism and Realism will be explained in the coming sections.


General Ideas about Physical Philosophy
Many Physicists do not consider that physical philosophical reasoning should have any place in Physics at all. Among such people, include the famous Prof. Dr. Stephen Hawking. As per Dr. Hawking’s belief, a physical theory is just a mathematical model and it is pointless to argue over its physical (and philosophical) interpretations. All one should be concerned with is how much the mathematical model is successful in explaining the physical world. However, there are and have been people, like Prof. Dr. Albert Einstein, Sir Gottfried Leibniz etc. including myself, who disagree with such views and belief that it is important to have physical and philosophical interpretation of the mathematical models used to describe nature. After all Albert Einstein’s following dialogue with Robert A. Thornton clearly reflects his ideas on this issue:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

The reason for this belief is very obvious: Mathematics is a tool which when propelled by proper assumptions can be used to describe and convey physical phenomena. If this is correct then it means that an invalid assumption can lead to incorrect interpretation of Reality. Consider the following case for instance: (a – b)2 = a2– 2ab +b2 = (b – a)2 As you can see, the result of the above equation is invariant whether you choose to set a>b or b>a. Therefore it is up to ones assumption whether to assume a>b or b>a. It is obvious that making a wrong decision about the relationship between the two variables can lead to incorrect interpretation of Nature. Although this is a very simple scenario but more complex situations can be encountered. It is evident from the above example that it is equally important to examine the Physical meaning of the mathematical models, along with their experimental validity.


Furthermore, the Physical description must be verified logically (in the philosophical sense) for a more conceptually complete description of Nature.


Realism and Determinism
Realism and Anti-Realism

Realism Realism refers to the belief that reality is independent of observation and/or our perception. This means that realism implied that properties of any system should exist independent of who is measuring them or whether they are being observed at all. For example, if I a measure certain property of a physical system (say, its momentum) then Realism implies that the system had that value for momentum even before I made the measurement; even if I had not measured it at all. Einstein explains Realism in the following statement: “Moon is out there, even if you don’t see it!” People who practice Realism are called Realist. From everyday experience, Realism seems so obvious that it is very difficult to think of a situation where you might not be able to observe it. That is why almost all of Classical Mechanics is based on the Realist assumption of the universe. However, be patient, for in the coming sections you will see that the most accurate theory ever devised by humans clearly goes against something as obvious as Realism.

Anti-Realism In contrast with Realism, Anti-Realism denies the existence of an “observation independent” reality. This means, according to Anti-Realism, it is not valid to talk about any property of any system prior to making a measurement on the system for that property. In terms of the example used previously, Anti-Realist would say that the system did not have any value of momentum unless the measurement was made. If at this point you are wondering, “This is rubbish! How is this possible?” then believe me I can understand, I have had arguments with different people on this (I was once a critic as well!). The main reason one is reluctant to accept the concepts of Anti-Realism, like I mentioned earlier, is simply because from our usual experience we hardly ever think that a thing such as Anti-Realism may even exist. Erwin Schrodinger explains Anti-


Realist point of view through his famous thought experiment called Schrodinger’s Cat. Many versions of Schrodinger’s Cat currently exist, however we shall stick with the simplest one: A cat is placed inside a box along with a bottle of Cyanide and the lid of the box is closed. Now, during the course of its stay inside the box, it is possible that the cat broke the bottle of Cyanide and died. However, it is also equally possible that it did not and is still alive. How would you know, prior to making an observation (i.e. opening the box), whether it is alive or not...Confused? This is exactly the type dilemma that Anti-Realism addresses.

Determinism, as defined in Philosophy, describes the belief that past, present and future states form a chain of events where one acts as the effect caused by the previous. From a physical point of view, Determinism reflects the belief that the past, present and future state of a system are connected to each other through an underlying principle. If this underlying principle is known then given the initial (present) state of the system, its state at any future or past time can be determined with certainity. As an example, consider the motion of an object. If the forces on the object, it’s mass are its initial velocity are known at any one time then I could use Newtonian Mechanics to predict the state of the object at any future time.


The idea of Determinism is stretched as far to assume, at least theoretically, that if the underlying principle that connects our past, present and future state is known then the future state of the Universe could be predicted at any future time. There are also other definition and sub-classes of determinism but they do not concern us here.


Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Quantum Mechanical Description of Nature
Quantum Mechanics was developed in response to the inadequacies in the Classical/Newtonian formulation of Physics, majorly, through the work of Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Neil Bohr and Paul Schwinger. Ever since the formulation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainity Principle and the establishment of the four fundamental postulates (which have slightly evolved over time, however their fundamental idea remains same), QM has attacked even the most dilemmatic and complicated problems in Physics and has proved itself to be the most accurate theory every devised by humans. Although quite successful, QM has also been the centre of debate between philosophers of Physics (Realists Vs Anti-Realist) because of the rather new and different picture it paints of the Nature and/or Reality. The postulates of Quantum Mechanics imply that it is not possible to know the state of a system unless a measurement is made on it. This is because the state of any system, except that of a free particle, is a mixture of all the possible states (technically speaking, a superposition of all possible states) that the system can exist in (think about the particle in a box problem). When a measurement is made on the system, it acquires one of the possible states available to it. After the measurement is made, the system moves back into its original condition i.e. as a superposition of the possible states and nothing can be said about its state. Unless, however, the second measurement is made fast enough so that the system does not have enough time to “reset” itself. Before a measurement, the only thing one can say about the system is the individual probability of the possible states in which the system can exist but nothing can be said with 100% surety. The postulates of QM and their consequences have been rigorously confirmed by countless number of experiments performed up to date and not even a single one differs from the predictions of QM. From the above quantum mechanical 1) It is not valid to speak of the state of a system unless a measurement is made on it. 2) Universe is fundamentally probabilistic in nature i.e. one can only speak of probability associated with the possible outcomes of an experiment and nothing more.


It is obvious from the QM description of Nature that it supports the Anti-Realist point of view of reality as there is no meaning to it (since you don’t know in which state a system is in) unless a measurement is made on it. Furthermore, QM also forces us to renounce the idea of Determinism (refer to the previous section) for even if the underlying law connecting the past, present and future states of a system is known, one cannot use it to predict the future of the system as the present state of the system cannot be defined any more than the individual probability of various possible states. On macroscopic scales, the uncertainity in the state of the system is extremely small (the probability of a single state is so enormous that it essentially washes out the other possible states for the system). However, no matter how small it may be, it still exists and cannot be eliminated from the system. The probabilistic picture of the Universe rather than the deterministic one and the inability to predict the state of system upset the Realist community and the theory of Quantum Mechanics faced heavy criticism. Albert Einstein was a strong supporter of Realism and objected to the “probabilistic” nature of the Universe presented by QM. His sentiments about the newly developed theory are clearly reflected in the following dialogue: “God does not play dice with the Universe” To which Neil Bohr replied: “Quit telling God what to do!!” Unable to account for the immediate empirical and theoretical success of the theory, Realists found another way of coming around the probabilistic description implied by QM: Maybe the system does exists in one state, independent of observation, it is just that the current formulation of QM restricts us from knowing what it is. In other words, although apparently it may seem that the system is in a super-position (mixed) state whereas in reality it exists in one unique state. However, it has been proved by the work of John. S. Bell, as will be shown later, that even this Realist picture is incorrect and cannot account for the predictions of QM.

(Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) EPR Paradox
In order to prove that QM provides an incomplete description of Nature and is incompatible with Special Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein, and two of his colleagues, Doris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published a paper titled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”. The paper describes a thought experiment now known as the EPR Paradox. We shall consider


here a simplified, but equivalent, description of the paradox which was introduced by David Bohm. The description of the experiment is as follows: Consider the spontaneous decay of a neutral pion (π0) into a pair of a positron and the electron. Since the spin of a neutral pion is zero therefore the law of conservation of angular momentum requires that the spin of the two product particles must be opposite to each other at all times. Quantum Mechanics implies that unless a measurement is made on either of the particle can be either of the following two states. 1. Electron spinning up and the positron spinning down 2. Positron spinning down and electron spinning up Again, both particles cannot spin in the same direction as that is against the law of conservation of energy. Let’s say that the spin of the two particles is measured at two remote locations (call them A and B) so far away that the procedure of measurement used for one particle does not influence the other. If as a result of one particular measurement the electron is found to be spinning up then it can be said with certainty that the positron (which can, in principle, be light years away from the electron measuring apparatus) would be spinning down (as it is required by the conservation of angular momentum). Or in the language of Quantum Mechanics, collapse of the wave function of the electron (between spin up and spin down) would cause instantaneous collapse of the wave function of the positron, regardless of how far apart the two systems are. Einstein argued that such “action-at-a-distance” (so this instantaneous collapse is called) implies super-luminal (faster than light) propagation of information between the particles and is thus violating the Special Theory Relativity (particularly the Principle of Locality which states that signals cannot propagate faster than light). As a consequence of this, he said, this also implies that the current formulation of QM is an incomplete description of nature. The EPR paper concluded by saying, While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such description of exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible. He asserted that the only way to avoid this problem is to assume that both the particles had their spin orientation defined prior to making measurements. The later part of the conclusion of the paper refers to the Hidden Variable Theory, which is the subject of the next section.


Hidden Variable Theory and Bell’s Theorem

Hidden Variable Theory
One of the most fundamental and contrasting characteristic of Quantum Mechanics is the lack of determinism in it. Although there are situations in which Classical (macroscopic) systems also exhibit indeterminism such as the case of motion of molecules which can only be described on the average (Statistical Mechanics) or inherently chaotic systems like weather patterns. But classical indeterminism usually arises as a result of the lack of detailed knowledge of the system. For example, it is believed that a classical molecule has a well defined position and momentum at all times, although unknown, which makes the system deterministic, at least in principle. Similar considerations about quantum systems have led people to believe that quantum systems are not inherently in-deterministic, rather it is just a result of the fact that QM provides incomplete description of systems. In other words, quantum mechanical systems in reality do exist in a single state, independent of observation (Realism), it’s just that QM does not know about it. However, when supplemented with the certain hidden variables, the in-deterministic nature of QM would vanish. The idea of the Hidden Variable theory (the name given to this idea) is the existence of certain variable(s) associated with every quantum system, which, if found, would dissolve the anti-realist and in-deterministic (and hence non-local as mentioned in the EPR Paradox) picture of Universe that QM paints. These variable are called hidden because neither are we directly aware of the nature of these variables nor can we control them. It can be a single number or it can be a collection of numbers or some other complicated function; we do not know. It was hoped, at the time of this proposal and still hoped by some people, that some further experiment or may be some future theory would be able to determine the nature of these variables. This is exactly the type of theory of which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen spoke in the EPR paper. Over the years various types of Hidden Variable Theories have been proposed. They tend to be cumbersome and mathematically very complicated but Physics community has been unable to find any compelling reason to add them into the framework of QM. Until 1964, the idea of hidden variable at least seemed convincing enough to be pursued but in that year John. S. Bell proved a very powerful in-equality known as the Bell In-equality Theorem which applies to every Hidden Variable theory subjected to the


Principle of Locality. Using his In-equality theorem Bell showed that any version of HV Theory cannot compete with the predictions of QM.

Bell’s In-equality
In order to explain the Bell In-equality theorem we consider the EPR-Bohm thought experiment. However this time, we shall not measure the spin of both the particles along the same unit vector like we did last time. Instead, Bell proposed to measure the spin of the two particles at two remote locations (eliminating any possibility of interaction between the measuring apparatus), along different unit vectors (we will call them a and b) independently. ** [Note: Those of you wish to skip all this, rather heavy, mathematics can directly jump to page number 15] ** According to Quantum Mechanics, if a system (Ψ) is composed of two entangled components (electron and positron in our case) then the spin operator for the entire system is the product of the spin operator (along the respective direction of measurement) for the individual systems i.e. (σ1.a).(σ2.b) Where σ1, σ2 are the Pauli’s spin matrices for the electron and the positron respectively. If P(a, b) is the quantum mechanical expectation value of the above operator, then by the postulates of QM, it is given as P(a, b) = <Ψ|(σ1.a).(σ2.b)|Ψ>=-(a.b) = -cos ф where ф is the angle between unit vectors a and b. This gives you the expectation value as per the formulation of QM. In the next part Bell considered the situation from the point of view of the HV theory. Let A (a, λ) and B (b, λ) be the functions defining the spin orientation of the electron and the positron respectively. The variable λ is the proposed hidden variable. Further, ρ(λ) is the probability density of the hidden variable, λ, and like every probability density it is subjected to the condition, ∫ρ(λ) dλ =1 Under the assumption of the Hidden Variable Theory, the expectation value of the product of the spin state is given as, P(a, b) = ∫ρ(λ) A (a, λ) B (b, λ) dλ -----------------(i)


Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum requires that spin of the particle along the direction of the same unit vector must be opposite i.e. A (a, λ) = -B (a, λ) --------------------- (ii) Putting (iI) in (I), P(a, b) = -∫ρ(λ) A(a, λ) A(b, λ) dλ---------------(iii) Along any other unit vector c (located in the plane of a and b), similarly we get: P(a, c) = -∫ρ(λ) A(a, λ) A(c, λ) dλ --------------(iv) Subtracting, (iv) from (iii) P(a, b) - P(a, c) = -∫ρ(λ) [A (a, λ) A (b, λ) dλ - A (a, λ) A (c, λ)]dλ Since the value of A(a, λ) and B(b, λ) can either be +1 or -1 (as it can either spinning up or down) we get [A(b, λ)]2 = 1----------------------------(v) Above equation becomes, P(a, b) - P(a, c) = -∫ρ(λ) [1- A (b, λ) A (c, λ)] A (a, λ) A (b, λ)dλ Furthermore, from eq.(v) we can see that the maximum value for the product, A (a, λ) A (b, λ) can be +1, while the least value can be -1. This means that, |P(a, b) - P(a, c)| ≤ -∫ρ(λ) [1- A (b, λ) A (c, λ)] dλ Where the in-equality holds when the positive value of A (a, λ) A (b, λ) is chosen while the equality holds when the negative value is chosen. P(a, b) - P(a, c) ≤ ∫(ρ(λ) dλ) ∫ρ(λ)A (b, λ) A (c, λ) dλ By normalization condition of hidden variable, λ, ∫ρ(λ) dλ = 1 And noticing that, ∫ρ(λ)A (b, λ) A (c, λ) dλ = P(b, c) We get the following in-equality:


|P(a, b) - P(a, c)| ≤ 1 + P(b, c) This equation is called the Bell’s Inequality and holds for any Hidden Variable Theory subjected to the minimum requirement of being local (i.e. it should not include faster than light communication or, consequently, in other words the properties of any system, spin in our case, must be defined independent of measurement). What makes this theorem really powerful is, as you might have noticed, that no specific assumptions were made regarding the nature of the hidden variable or its distribution, ρ(λ). If there is any place for a hidden variable in the Quantum Theory then averages (expectation value) calculated from the quantum mechanical calculation (P(a,b) = -(a.b) = -cos ф) should satisfy Bell’s in-equality. It can be easily proved that spin measurement along any other vector c (take it to 45o; figure below), located in the plane formed by vectors a and b, would go against Bell’s In-equality.


45o b

So, what does all this show? All of this calculation Bell did leave one with two choices:

1) Either one can go with the HV theory and the Realist point of view (that systems have their properties independent of measurement) one must renounce, despite of heavy empirical success, the QM formulation of nature, as an HV theory cannot account for the QM results (as shown above that averages calculated from QM do not satisfy the inequality derived from hidden variable assumption), suggesting search for an alternative explanation. Or 2) If one wishes to keep his (or her) faith in QM as it is, then it is not possible to design a HV theory which can save QM from in-deterministic and apparent nonlocal behavior.


Since 1972 a large number of experiments, with ever increasing accuracy, have been performed on variety of entangled systems and the results have found to be completely compatible with the QM prediction and violation of the Bell’s inequality.


Is Quantum Mechanics Really Violating Locality?

Success of Bell’s theorem had severe effects on the Physics and Realists community. Not only because it supported the QM formulation of nature and thus implied that Nature is fundamentally in-deterministic. But because it implied that QM systems behave non-locally. By now you must be pretty tempted to ask, “What exactly is wrong if QM system can communicate faster than light, isn’t it a good thing that one can communicate so rapidly?” The problem is the Principle of Causality. It states that causes cannot precede effects or in other words, “something” is caused by “something-else” and if this “something-else” does not cause anything then “something” will not happen. If information can travel faster than light then causality is violated and the only way explain the violation of causality is to assert that time is flowing backwards, as that is the only way effect can precede its cause. This cannot be a possibility as time flows only in one direction (you may say that may be it is time travel but that is not possible as it has its own issues which are not directly relevant to our discussion here). Although one would be easily convinced from the EPR experiment that instantaneous collapse of wave function within entangled systems implies that information travels instantaneously within such systems. However, a more careful inspection of the situation will lead you to conclude that in reality no actual (or “useful”) information is being transmitted at super-luminal speed; or transmitted at all. Let: A person A stand at the electron detector and a person B at the positron detector. Let’s, for clarity, assume that the detectors are arranged so that the electron reaches A before the positron reaches B. In order to predict the state of the positron, B needs to know the state of the electron at A which can only be done if a sub-luminal (slower than light) signal is sent from A to B after A has performed its spin measurement through some conventional method. As far as A is concerned, it takes only as much time as his “Quantum sense” to predict that the positron will be spinning in the opposite direction, which is of course subluminal. So over all there is no information transfer faster than light and hence no violation of special theory of relativity.


In this report we considered different philosophical ideas about the nature of Reality and described the concept of Determinism in philosophy and Physics. It was shown that while the Classical/Newtonian formulation of Physics assumes that nature is realistic and deterministic by default, advance formulation of Physics supports neither Realism nor Determinism. Although, like any other topic in Philosophy, it is more of a matter of opinion whether one believes in Anti-Realism or a Realism, all empirical and theoretical progress in the field of Physics so far implies that Anti-Realism is the only tenable point of view of the physical world. In other words, Nature is inherently in-deterministic. This means that the future state of any system (including the universe itself!) cannot be defined any more than the probability of various outcomes. This can have consequences for the Theory of Everything (ToE). Theory of Everything, for Philosophers, means a complete description of the Universe. For Physicist the equivalent meaning is the unification of all fundamental forces (Strong Force, Electroweak force and Gravity). I would also like to empathize on the importance of conceptual reasoning in Physics. IN the previous discussion, one would be easily convinced, following the EPR paradox, that the formulation and postulates of QM imply that information is propagating faster then light and thus the Principle of Locality and Special Theory of Relativity is being violated. However through a closer inspection of the situation it became obvious that in reality neither the Principle of Locality nor the Special Theory of Relativity is being violated in their correct context. It is obvious that such deep insight about Nature cannot be obtained from the Mathematical formulation alone and must be supplemented with Physical and Philosophical reasoning and discussion. Like I mentioned in the beginning, similar cases can arise where because of incorrect assumptions can lead to invalid deductions about Reality


• • • • • • • Introductory Quantum Mechanics, Richard L. Liboff Quantum Mechanics (Second Edition), B.H. Bransden & C.J. Joachain Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Second Edition), David. J. Grifiths John Bell and Bell’s Theorem, Detlef Durr, Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka and Nino Zanghi (December 27, 2004) Causality in Physics, A.M. Fox, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University Sheffield. On The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, John. S. Bell, Physics I, 195-200 (1964) Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?, A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Institute of for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey (Physics Review 47, 777, March 25, 1935) • • • Against ‘Realism’, Travis Norsen, Marlboro College The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Roger Penrose Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.