PAGE 4

The life sciences include all those areas of study that deal with living things. Biology is the general study of the origin, development, structure, function, evolution, and distribution of living things. Biology may be divided into botany, the study of plants; zoology, the study of animals; and microbiology, the study of the microscopic organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Many single-celled organisms play important roles in life processes and thus are important to more complex forms of life, including plants and animals.
 Genetics is the branch of biology that studies the way in which characteristics are transmitted from an organism to its offspring. In the latter half of the 20th century, new advances made it easier to study and manipulate genes at the molecular level, enabling scientists to catalogue all the genes finds in each cell of the human body. Exobiology, a new and still speculative field, is the study of possible extraterrestrial life. Although Earth remains the only place known to support life, many believe that it is only a matter of time before scientists discover life elsewhere in the universe.
 While exobiology is one of the newest life sciences, anatomy is one of the oldest. It is the study of plant and animal structures, carried out by dissection or by using powerful imaging techniques. Gross anatomy deals with structures that are large enough to see, while microscopic anatomy deals with much smaller structures, down to the level of individual cells.
 Physiology explores how living things’ work. Physiologists study processes such as cellular respiration and muscle contraction, as well as the systems that keep these processes under control. Their work helps to answer questions about one of the key characteristics of life, the fact that most living things maintain a steady internal state when the environment around them constantly changes.
 Together, anatomy and physiology form two of the most important disciplines in medicine, the science of treating injury and human disease. General medical practitioners have to be familiar with human biology as a whole, but medical science also includes a host of clinical specialties. They include sciences such as cardiology, urology, and oncology, which investigate particular organs and disorders, and pathology, the general study of disease and the changes that it causes in the human body.
 As well as working with individual organisms, life scientists also investigate the way living things interact. The study of these interactions, known as ecology, has become a key area of study in the life sciences as scientists become increasingly concerned about the disrupting effects of human activities on the environment.
 The social sciences explore human society past and present, and the way human beings behave. They include sociology, which investigates the way society is structured and how it functions, as well as psychology, which is the study of individual behaviour and the mind. Social psychology draws on research in both these fields. It examines the way society influence’s people's behaviour and attitudes.
 Another social science, anthropology, looks at humans as a species and examines all the characteristics that make us what we are. These include not only how people relate to each other but also how they interact with the world around them, both now and in the past. As part of this work, anthropologists often carry out long-term studies of particular groups of people in different parts of the world. This kind of research helps to identify characteristics that all human beings share and those that are the products of local culture, learned and handed on from generation to generation.
 The social sciences also include political science, law, and economics, which are products of human society. Although far removed from the world of the physical sciences, all these fields can be studied in a scientific way. Political science and law are uniquely human concepts, but economics has some surprisingly close parallels with ecology. This is because the laws that govern resource use, productivity, and efficiency do not operate only in the human world, with its stock markets and global corporations, but in the nonhuman world as well in technology, scientific knowledge is put to practical ends. This knowledge comes chiefly from mathematics and the physical sciences, and it is used in designing machinery, materials, and industrial processes. Overall, this work is known as engineering, a word dating back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when an ‘engine’ was any kind of machine.
 Engineering has many branches, calling for a wide variety of different skills. For example, aeronautical engineers need expertise in the science of fluid flow, because aeroplanes fly through air, which is a fluid. Using wind tunnels and computer models, aeronautical engineers strive to minimize the air resistance generated by an aeroplane, while at the same time maintaining a sufficient amount of lift. Marine engineers also need detailed knowledge of how fluids behave, particularly when designing submarines that have to withstand extra stresses when they dive deep below the water’s surface. In civil engineering, stress calculations ensure that structures such as dams and office towers will not collapse, particularly if they are in earthquake zones. In computing, engineering takes two forms: hardware design and software design. Hardware design refers to the physical design of computer equipment (hardware). Software design is carried out by programmers who analyse complex operations, reducing them to a series of small steps written in a language recognized by computers.
 In recent years, a completely new field of technology has developed from advances in the life sciences. Known as biotechnology, it involves such varied activities as genetic engineering, the manipulation of genetic material of cells or organisms, and cloning, the formation of genetically uniform cells, plants, or animals. Although still in its infancy, many scientists believe that biotechnology will play a major role in many fields, including food production, waste disposal, and medicine. Science exists because humans have a natural curiosity and an ability to organize and record things. Curiosity is a characteristic shown by many other animals, but organizing and recording knowledge is a skill demonstrated by humans alone.
 During prehistoric times, humans recorded information in a rudimentary way. They made paintings on the walls of caves, and they also carved numerical records on bones or stones. They may also have used other ways of recording numerical figures, such as making knots in leather cords, but because these records were perishable, no traces of them remain. Even so, with the invention of writing about 6,000 years ago, a new and much more flexible system of recording knowledge appeared.
 The earliest writers were the people of Mesopotamia, who lived in a part of present-day Iraq. Initially they used a pictographic script, inscribing tallies and lifelike symbols on tablets of clay. With the passage of time, these symbols gradually developed into cuneiform, a much more stylized script composed of wedge-shaped marks.
 Because clay is durable, many of these ancient tablets still survive. They show that when writing first appeared. The Mesopotamians already had a basic knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, and chemistry, and that they used symptoms to identify common diseases. During the following 2,000 years, as Mesopotamian culture became increasingly sophisticated, mathematics in particular became a flourishing science. Knowledge accumulated rapidly, and by 1000 Bc the earliest private libraries had appeared.
 Southwest of Mesopotamia, in the Nile Valley of northeastern Africa, the ancient Egyptians developed their own form of a pictographic script, writing on papyrus, or inscribing text in stone. Written records from 1500 Bc. shows that, like the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians had a detailed knowledge of diseases. They were also keen astronomers and skilled mathematicians - a fact demonstrated by the almost perfect symmetry of the pyramids and by other remarkable structures they built.
 For the peoples of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, knowledge was recorded mainly for practical needs. For example, astronomical observations enabled the development of early calendars, which helped in organizing the farming year. Yet in ancient Greece, often recognized as the birthplace of Western science, a new scientific enquiry began. Here, philosophers sought knowledge largely for its own sake.
 Thales of Miletus were one of the first Greek philosophers to seek natural causes for natural phenomena. He travelled widely throughout Egypt and the Middle East and became famous for predicting a solar eclipse that occurred in 585 Bc. At a time when people regarded eclipses as ominous, inexplicable, and frightening events, his prediction marked the start of rationalism, a belief that the universe can be explained by reason alone. Rationalism remains the hallmark of science to this day.
 Thales and his successors speculated about the nature of matter and of Earth itself. Thales himself believed that Earth was a flat disk floating on water, but the followers of Pythagoras, one of ancient Greece's most celebrated mathematicians, believed that Earth was spherical. These followers also thought that Earth moved in a circular orbit - not around the Sun but around a central fire. Although flawed and widely disputed, this bold suggestion marked an important development in scientific thought: the idea that Earth might not be, after all, the centre of the universe. At the other end of the spectrum of scientific thought, the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus of Abdera proposed that all matter be made up of indivisible atoms, more than 2,000 years before the idea became a part of modern science.
 As well as investigating natural phenomena, ancient Greek philosophers also studied the nature of reasoning. At the two great schools of Greek philosophy in Athens - the Academy, founded by Plato, and the Lyceum, founded by Plato's pupil Aristotle - students learned how to reason in a structured way using logic. The methods taught at these schools included induction, which involve taking particular cases and using them to draw general conclusions, and deduction, the process of correctly inferring new facts from something already known.
 In the two centuries that followed Aristotle's death in 322 Bc, Greek philosophers made remarkable progress in a number of fields. By comparing the Sun's height above the horizon in two different places, the mathematician, astronomer, and geographer Eratosthenes calculated Earth's circumference, producing the figure of an accurate overlay within one percent. Another celebrated Greek mathematician, Archimedes, laid the foundations of mechanics. He also pioneered the science of hydrostatics, the study of the behaviour of fluids at rest. In the life sciences, Theophrastus founded the science of botany, providing detailed and vivid descriptions of a wide variety of plant species as well as investigating the germination process in seeds.
 By the 1st century Bc, Roman power was growing and Greek influence had begun to wane. During this period, the Egyptian geographer and astronomer Ptolemy charted the known planets and stars, putting Earth firmly at the centre of the universe, and Galen, a physician of Greek origin, wrote important works on anatomy and physiology. Although skilled soldiers, lawyers, engineers, and administrators, the Romans had little interest in basic science. As a result, scientific growth made little advancement in the days of the Roman Empire. In Athens, the Lyceum and Academy were closed down in Ad 529, bringing the first flowering of rationalism to an end.
 For more than nine centuries, from about ad 500 to 1400, Western Europe made only a minor contribution to scientific thought. European philosophers became preoccupied with alchemy, a secretive and mystical pseudoscience that held out the illusory promise of turning inferior metals into gold. Alchemy did lead to some discoveries, such as sulfuric acid, which was first described in the early 1300's, but elsewhere, particularly in China and the Arab world, much more significant progress in the sciences was made.
 Chinese science developed in isolation from Europe, and followed a different pattern. Unlike the Greeks, who prized knowledge as an end, the Chinese excelled at turning scientific discoveries to practical ends. The list of their technological achievements is dazzling: it includes the compass, invented in about Ad. 270; wood-block printing, developed around 700, and gunpowder and movable type, both invented around the year 1000. The Chinese were also capable mathematicians and excellent astronomers. In mathematics, they calculated the value of π (pi) to within seven decimal places by the year 600, while in astronomy, one of their most celebrated observations was that of the supernova, or stellar explosion, that took place in the Crab Nebula in 1054. China was also the source of the world's oldest portable star map, dating from about 940 Bc.
 The Islamic world, which in medieval times extended as far west as Spain, also produced many scientific breakthroughs. The Arab mathematician Muhammad al-Khwarizmi introduced Hindu-Arabic numerals to Europe many centuries after they had been devised in southern Asia. Unlike the numerals used by the Romans, Hindu-Arabic numerals include zero, a mathematical device unknown in Europe at the time. The value of Hindu-Arabic numerals depends on their place: in the number 300, for example, the numeral three is worth ten times as much as in 30. Al-Khwarizmi also wrote on algebra (it derived from the Arab word al-jabr), and his name survives in the word algorithm, a concept of great importance in modern computing.
 In astronomy, Arab observers charted the heavens, giving many of the brightest stars the names we use today, such as Aldebaran, Altair, and Deneb. Arab scientists also explored chemistry, developing methods to manufacture metallic alloys and test the quality and purity of metals. As in mathematics and astronomy, Arab chemists left their mark in some of the names they used - alkali and alchemy, for example, are both words of Arabic origin. Arab scientists also played a part in developing physics. One of the most famous Egyptian physicists, Alhazen, published a book that dealt with the principles of lenses, mirrors, and other devices used in optics. In this work, he rejected the then-popular idea that eyes give out light rays. Instead, he correctly deduced that eyes work when light rays enter the eye from outside.
 In Europe, historians often attribute the rebirth of science to a political event - the capture of Constantinople (now Istanbul) by the Turks in 1453. At the time, Constantinople was the capital of the Byzantine Empire and a major seat of learning. Its downfall led to an exodus of Greek scholars to the West. In the period that followed, many scientific works, including those originally from the Arab world, were translated into European languages. Through the invention of the movable type printing press by Johannes Gutenberg around 1450, copies of these texts became widely available.
 The Black Death, a recurring outbreak of bubonic plague that began in 1347, disrupted the progress of science in Europe for more than two centuries. However, in 1543 two books were published that had a profound impact on scientific progress. One was De Corporis Humani Fabrica (On the Structure of the Human Body, 7 volumes, 1543), by the Belgian anatomist Andreas Vesalius. Vesalius studied anatomy in Italy, and his masterpiece, which was illustrated by superb woodcuts, corrected errors and misunderstandings about the body before which had persisted since the time of Galen more than 1,300 years. Unlike Islamic physicians, whose religion prohibited them from dissecting human cadavers, Vesalius investigated the human body in minute detail. As a result, he set new standards in anatomical science, creating a reference work of unique and lasting value.
 The other book of great significance published in 1543 was De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), written by the Polish astronomer . In it, Copernicus rejected the idea that Earth was the centre of the universe, as proposed by Ptolemy in the 1st century Bc. Instead, he set out to prove that Earth, together with the other planets, follows orbits around the Sun. Other astronomers opposed Copernicus's ideas, and more ominously, so did the Roman Catholic Church. In the early 1600's, the church placed the book on a list of forbidden works, where it remained for more than two centuries. Despite this ban and despite the book's inaccuracies (for instance, Copernicus believed that Earth's orbit was circular rather than elliptical), De Revolutionibus remained a momentous achievement. It also marked the start of a conflict between science and religion that has dogged Western thought ever since
 In the first decade of the 17th century, the invention of the telescope provided independent evidence to support Copernicus's views. Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei used the new device to remarkable effect. He became the first person to observe satellites circling Jupiter, the first to make detailed drawings of the surface of the Moon, and the first to see how Venus waxes and wanes as it circles the Sun.
 These observations of Venus helped to convince Galileo that Copernicus’s Sun-entered view of the universe had been correct, but he fully understood the danger of supporting such heretical ideas. His Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, published in 1632, was carefully crafted to avoid controversy. Even so, he was summoned before the Inquisition (tribunal established by the pope for judging heretics) the following year and, under threat of torture, forced to recant.
 Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), the first developed heliocentric theory of the Universes in the modern era presented in De Revolutioniv bus Coelestium, published in the year of Copernicus’s death. The system is entirely mathematical, in the sense of predicting the observed position of celestial bodies on te basis of an underlying geometry, without exploring the mechanics of celestial motion. Its mathematical and scientific superiority over the Ptolemaic system was not as direct as poplar history suggests: Copernicus’s system adhered to circular planetary motion and let the planets run on 48 epicycles and eccentrics. It was not until the work of Kepler and Galileo that the system became markedly simpler than Ptolemaic astronomy.
 The publication of Nicolaus Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in 1543 is traditionally considered the inauguration of the scientific revolution. Ironically, Copernicus had no intention of introducing radical ideas into cosmology. His aim was only to restore the purity of ancient Greek astronomy by eliminating novelties introduced by Ptolemy. With such an aim in mind he modelled his own book, which would turn astronomy upside down, on Ptolemy's Almagest. At the core of the Copernican system, as with that of Aristarchus before him, is the concept of the stationary Sun at the centre of the universe, and the revolution of the planets, Earth included, around the Sun. The Earth was ascribed, in addition to an annual revolution around the Sun, a daily rotation around its axis.
 Copernicus's greatest achievement is his legacy. By introducing mathematical reasoning into cosmology, he dealt a severe blow to Aristotelian commonsense physics. His concept of an Earth in motion launched the notion of the Earth as a planet. His explanation that he had been unable to detect stellar parallax because of the enormous distance of the sphere of the fixed stars opened the way for future speculation about an infinite universe. Nevertheless, Copernicus still clung to many traditional features of Aristotelian cosmology. He continued to advocate the entrenched view of the universe as a closed world and to see the motion of the planets as uniform and circular. Thus, in evaluating Copernicus's legacy, it should be noted that he set the stage for far more daring speculations than he himself could make. The heavy metaphysical underpinning of Kepler's laws, combined with an obscure style and a demanding mathematics, caused most contemporaries to ignore his discoveries. Even his Italian contemporary Galileo Galilei, who corresponded with Kepler and possessed his books, never referred to the three laws. Instead, Galileo provided the two important elements missing from Kepler's work: a new science of dynamics that could be employed in an explanation of planetary motion, and a staggering new body of astronomical observations. The observations were made possible by the invention of the telescope in Holland c.1608 and by Galileo's ability to improve on this instrument without having ever seen the original. Thus equipped, he turned his telescope skyward, and saw some spectacular sights.
 The results of his discoveries were immediately published in the Sidereus nuncius (The Starry Messenger) of 1610. Galileo observed that the Moon was very similar to the Earth, with mountains, valleys, and oceans, and not at all that perfect, smooth spherical body it was claimed to be. He also discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter. As for the Milky Way, instead of being a stream of light, it was, rather, a large aggregate of stars. Later observations resulted in the discovery of sunspots, the phases of Venus, and that strange phenomenon which would later be designated as the rings of Saturn.
 Having announced these sensational astronomical discoveries--which reinforced his conviction of the reality of the heliocentric theory--Galileo resumed his earlier studies of motion. He now attempted to construct a comprehensive new science of mechanics necessary in a Copernican world, and the results of his labours were published in Italian in two epoch-making books: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) and Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Concerning the Two New Sciences (1638). His studies of projectiles and free-falling bodies brought him very close to the full formulation of the laws of inertia and acceleration (the first two laws of Isaac Newton). Galileo's legacy includes both the modern notion of "laws of nature" and the idea of mathematics as nature's true language. He contributed to the mathematization of nature and the geometrization of space, as well as to the mechanical philosophy that would dominate the 17th and 18th centuries. Perhaps most important, it is largely due to Galileo that experiments and observations serve as the cornerstone of scientific reasoning.
 Today, Galileo is remembered equally well because of his conflict with the Roman Catholic church. His uncompromising advocacy of Copernicanism after 1610 was responsible, in part, for the placement of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1616. At the same time, Galileo was warned not to teach or defend Copernicanism in public. The election of Galileo's friend Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1624 filled Galileo with the hope that such a verdict could be revoked. With perhaps some unwarranted optimism, Galileo set to work to complete his Dialogue (1632). However, Galileo underestimated the power of the enemies he had made during the previous two decades, particularly some Jesuits who had been the target of his acerbic tongue. The outcome was that Galileo was summoned to Rome and there forced to abjure, on his knees, the views he had expressed in his book. Ever since, Galileo has been portrayed as a victim of a repressive church and a martyr in the cause of freedom of thought; as such, he has become a powerful symbol.
 Despite his passionate advocacy of Copernicanism and his fundamental work in mechanics, Galileo continued to accept the age-old views that planetary orbits were circular and the cosmos an enclosed world. These beliefs, as well as a reluctance rigorously to apply mathematics to astronomy as he had previously applied it to terrestrial mechanics, prevented him from arriving at the correct law of inertia. Thus, it remained for Isaac Newton to unite heaven and Earth in his immense intellectual achievement, the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), which was published in 1687. The first book of the Principia contained Newton's three laws of motion. The first expounds the law of inertia: everybody persists in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change such a state by an impressing force. The second is the law of acceleration, according to which the change of motion of a body is proportional to the force acting upon it and takes place in the direction of the straight line along which that force is impressed. The third, and most original, law ascribes to every action an opposite and equal reaction. These laws governing terrestrial motion were extended to include celestial motion in book 3 of the Principia, where Newton formulated his most famous law, the law of gravitation: everybody in the universe attracts any other body with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
 The Principia is deservedly considered one of the greatest scientific masterpieces of all time. Nevertheless, in 1704, Newton published his second great work, the Opticks, in which he formulated his corpuscular theory of light and his theory of colours. In later editions Newton appended a series of "queries" concerning various related topics in natural philosophy. These speculative, and sometimes metaphysical, statements on such issues as light, heat, ether, and matter became most productive during the 18th century, when the book and the experimental method it propagated became immensely popular.
 The 17th century French scientist and mathematician René Descartes was also one of the most influential thinkers in Western philosophy. Descartes stressed the importance of skepticism in thought and proposed the idea that existence had a dual nature: one physical, the other mental. The latter concept, known as Cartesian dualism, continues to engage philosophers today. This passage from Discourse on Method (first published in his Philosophical Essays in 1637) contains a summary of his thesis, which includes the celebrated phrase “I think, therefore I am.”
 Then examining attentively what I was, and seeing that I could pretend that I had no body and that there was no world or place that I [was] in, but that I could not, for all that, pretend that I did not exist, and that, on the contrary, from the very fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things, it followed very evidently and very certainly that I existed; while, on the other hand, if I had only ceased to think, although all the rest of what I had ever imagined had been true, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; I thereby concluded that I was a substance, of which the whole essence or nature consists in thinking, and which, in order to exist, needs no place and depends on no material thing; so that this “I,” that is to say, the mind, by which I am what I am, is distinct entirely from the body, and even that knowing is easier than the body, and moreover that even if the body were not, it would not cease to be all that it is.
 After this, as considered overall what is needed for a proposition to be true and certain; for, since I had just found one which I knew to be so, I thought that I ought also to know what this certainty consisted of And having noticed that there is nothing at all in this, I think, therefore I am, which assures me that I am speaking the truth, except that I see very clearly that in order to think one must exist, I judged that I could take it to be a general rule that the things we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are nevertheless some difficulty in being able to recognize for certain which are the things we see distinctly.
 Following this, reflecting on the fact that I had doubts, and that consequently my being was not perfect, for I saw clearly that it was a greater perfection to know than to doubt, I decided to inquire from what place I had learned to think of some thing perfect than myself; and I clearly recognized that this must have been from some nature which was in fact perfect. As for the notions I had of several other things outside myself, such as the sky, the earth, light, heat and a thousand others, I had not the same concern to know their source, because, seeing nothing in them which seemed to make them superior to myself. I could believe that, if they were true, they were dependencies of my nature, in as much as it. One perfection; and, if they were not, that I held them from nothing, that is to say that they were in me because of an imperfection in my nature. But I could not make the same judgement concerning the idea of a being perfect than myself; for to hold it from nothing was something manifestly impossible; and because it is no less contradictory that the perfect should proceed from and depend on the less perfect, than it is that something should emerge out of nothing, I could not hold it from myself; with the result that it remained that it must have been put into me by a being whose nature was truly perfect than mine and which even had in itself all the perfection of which I could have any idea, which is to say, in a word, which was God. To which I added that, since I knew some perfections that I did not have, I was not the only being which existed (I shall freely use here, with your permission, the terms of the School) but that there must be another perfect, upon whom I depended, and from whom I had acquired all I had; for, if I had been alone and independent of all other, so as to have had from myself this small portion of perfection that I had by participation in the perfection of God, I could have given myself, by the same reason, all the remainder of perfection that I knew myself to lack, and thus to be myself infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, all powerful, and finally to have all the perfections that I could observe to be in God. For, consequentially upon the reasonings by which I had proved the existence of God, in order to understand the nature of God as far as my own nature was capable of doing, I had only to consider, concerning all the things of which I found in myself some idea, whether it was a perfection or not to have them: and I was assured that none of those which indicated some imperfection was in him, but that all the others were. So I saw that doubt, inconstancy, sadness and similar things could not be in him, seeing that I myself would have been very pleased to be free from them. Then, further, I had ideas of many sensible and bodily things; for even supposing that I was dreaming, and that everything I saw or imagined was false, I could not, nevertheless, deny that the ideas were really in my thoughts. But, because I had already recognized in myself very clearly that intelligent nature is distinct from the corporeal, considering that all composition is evidence of dependency, and that dependency is manifestly a defect, I thence judged that it could not be a perfection in God to be composed of these two natures, and that, consequently, he was not so composed; but that, if there were any bodies in the world or any intelligence or other natures which were not wholly perfect, their existence must depend on his power, in such a way that they could not subsist without him for a single instant.
 I set out after that to seek other truths; and turning to the object of the geometers [geometry], which I conceived as a continuous body, or a space extended indefinitely in length, width and height or depth, divisible into various parts, which could have various figures and sizes and be moved or transposed in all sorts of ways—for the geometers take all that to be in the object of their study—I went through some of their simplest proofs. And having observed that the great certainty that everyone attributes to them is based only on the fact that they are clearly conceived according to the rule I spoke of earlier, I noticed also that they had nothing at all in them which might assure me of the existence of their object. Thus, for example, I very well perceived that, supposing a triangle to be given, its three angles must be equal to two right-angles, but I saw nothing, for all that, which assured me that any such triangle existed in the world; whereas, reverting to the examination of the idea I had of a perfect Being. I found that existence was comprised in the idea in the same way that the equality of the three angles of a triangle to two right angles is comprised in the idea of a triangle or, as in the idea of a sphere, the fact that all its parts are equidistant from its centre, or even more obviously so; and that consequently it is at least as certain that God, who is this perfect Being, is, or exists, as any geometric demonstration can be.
 The impact of the Newtonian accomplishment was enormous. Newton's two great books resulted in the establishment of two traditions that, though often mutually exclusive, nevertheless permeated into every area of science. The first was the mathematical and reductionist tradition of the Principia, which, like René Descartes's mechanical philosophy, propagated a rational, well-regulated image of the universe. The second was the experimental tradition of the Opticks, somewhat less demanding than the mathematical tradition and, owing to the speculative and suggestive queries appended to the Opticks, highly applicable to chemistry , biology, and the other new scientific disciplines that began to flourish in the 18th century. This is not to imply that everyone in the scientific establishment was, or would be, a Newtonian. Newtonianism had its share of detractors. Rather, the Newtonian achievement was so great, and its applicability to other disciplines so strong, that although Newtonian science could be argued against, it could not be ignored. In fact, in the physical sciences an initial reaction against universal gravitation occurred. For many, the concept of action at a distance seemed to hark back to those occult qualities with which the mechanical philosophy of the 17th century had done away. By the second half of the 18th century, however, universal gravitation would be proved correct, thanks to the work of Leonhard Euler, A. C. Clairaut, and Pierre Simon de LaPlace, the last of whom announced the stability of the solar system in his masterpiece Celestial Mechanics (1799-1825).
 Newton's influence was not confined to the domain of the natural sciences. The philosophes of the 18th-century Enlightenment sought to apply scientific methods to the study of human society. To them, the empiricist philosopher John Locke was the first person to attempt this. They believed that in his Essay on Human Understanding (1690) Locke did for the human mind what Newton had done for the physical world. Although Locke's psychology and epistemology were to come under increasing attack as the 18th century advanced, other thinkers such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Abbé de Condillac would aspire to become the Newtons of the mind or the moral realm. These confident, optimistic men of the Enlightenment argued that there must exist universal human laws that transcend differences of human behaviour and the variety of social and cultural institutions. Labouring under such an assumption, they sought to uncover these laws and apply them to the new society about which they hoped to bring.
 As the 18th century progressed, the optimism of the philosophes waned and a reaction began to set in. Its first manifestation occurred in the religious realm. The mechanistic interpretation of the world--shared by Newton and Descartes - had, in the hands of the philosophes, led to materialism and atheism. Thus, by mid-century the stage was set for a revivalist movement, which took the form of Methodism in England and pietism in Germany. By the end of the century the romantic reaction had begun (see romanticism). Fuelled in part by religious revivalism, the romantics attacked the extreme rationalism of the Enlightenment, the impersonalization of the mechanistic universe, and the contemptuous attitude of "mathematicians" toward imagination, emotions, and religion.
 The romantic reaction, however, was not antiscientific; its adherents rejected a specific type of the mathematical sciences, not the entire enterprise. In fact, the romantic reaction, particularly in Germany, would give rise to a creative movement--the Naturphilosophie–that in turn would be crucial for the development of the biological and life sciences in the 19th century, and would nourish the metaphysical foundation necessary for the emergence of the concepts of energy, forces, and conservation
 Thus and so, in classical physics, external reality consisted of inert and inanimate matter moving in accordance with wholly deterministic natural laws, and collections of discrete atomized parts constituted wholes. Classical physics was also premised, however, on a dualistic conception of reality as consisting of abstract disembodied ideas existing in a domain separate from and superior to sensible objects and movements. The motion that the material world experienced by the senses was inferior to the immaterial world experiences by mind or spirit has been blamed for frustrating the progress of physics up too at least the time of Galileo. Nevertheless, in one very important respect it also made the fist scientific revolution possible. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton firmly believed that the immaterial geometrical mathematical ides that inform physical reality had a prior existence in the mind of God and that doing physics was a form of communion with these ideas.
 Even though instruction at Cambridge was still dominated by the philosophy of Aristotle, some freedom of study was permitted in the student's third year. Newton immersed himself in the new mechanical philosophy of Descartes, Gassendi, and Boyle; in the new algebra and analytical geometry of Vieta, Descartes, and Wallis; and in the mechanics and Copernican astronomy of Galileo. At this stage Newton showed no great talent. His scientific genius emerged suddenly when the plague closed the University in the summer of 1665 and he had to return to Lincolnshire. There, within 18 months he began revolutionary advances in mathematics, optics, physics, and astronomy.
 During the plague years Newton laid the foundation for elementary differential and integral CALCULUS, several years before its independent discovery by the German philosopher and mathematician LEIBNIZ. The "method of fluxions," as he termed it, was based on his crucial insight that the integration of a function (or finding the area under its curve) is merely the inverse procedure to differentiating it (or finding the slope of the curve at any point). Taking differentiation as the basic operation, Newton produced simple analytical methods that unified a host of disparate techniques previously developed on a piecemeal basis to deal with such problems as finding areas, tangents, the lengths of curves, and their maxima and minima. Even though Newton could not fully justify his methods--rigorous logical foundations for the calculus were not developed until the 19th century--he receives the credit for developing a powerful tool of problem solving and analysis in pure mathematics and physics. Isaac Barrow, a Fellow of Trinity College and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in the University, was so impressed by Newton's achievement that when he resigned his chair in 1669 to devote himself to theology, he recommended that the 27-year-old Newton take his place.
 Newton's initial lectures as Lucasian Professor dealt with optics, including his remarkable discoveries made during the plague years. He had reached the revolutionary conclusion that white light is not a simple, homogeneous entity, as natural philosophers since Aristotle had believed. When he passed a thin beam of sunlight through a glass prism, he noted the oblong spectrum of colours--red, yellow, green, blue, violet--that formed on the wall opposite. Newton showed that the spectrum was too long to be explained by the accepted theory of the bending (or refraction) of light by dense media. The old theory said that all rays of white light striking the prism at the same angle would be equally refracted. Newton argued that white light is really a mixture of many different types of rays, that the different types of rays are refracted at slightly different angles, and that each different type of ray is responsible for producing a given spectral colour. A so-called crucial experiment confirmed the theory. Newton selected out of the spectrum a narrow band of light of one colour. He sent it through a second prism and observed that no further elongation occurred. All the selected rays of one colour were refracted at the same angle.
 These discoveries led Newton to the logical, but erroneous, conclusion that telescopes using refracting lenses could never overcome the distortions of chromatic dispersion. He therefore proposed and constructed a reflecting telescope, the first of its kind, and the prototype of the largest modern optical telescopes. In 1671 he donated an improved version to the Royal Society of London, the foremost scientific society of the day. As a consequence, he was elected a fellow of the society in 1672. Later that year Newton published his first scientific paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the society. It dealt with the new theory of light and colour and is one of the earliest examples of the short research paper.
 Newton's paper was well received, but two leading natural philosophers, Robert Hooke and Christian Huygens rejected Newton's naive claim that his theory was simply derived with certainty from experiments. In particular they objected to what they took to be Newton's attempt to prove by experiment alone that light consists in the motion of small particles, or corpuscles, rather than in the transmission of waves or pulses, as they both believed. Although Newton's subsequent denial of the use of hypotheses was not convincing, his ideas about scientific method won universal assent, along with his corpuscular theory, which reigned until the wave theory was revived in the early 19th century.
 The debate soured Newton's relations with Hooke. Newton withdrew from public scientific discussion for about a decade after 1675, devoting himself to chemical and alchemical researches. He delayed the publication of a full account of his optical researches until after the death of Hooke in 1703. Newton's Opticks appeared the following year. It dealt with the theory of light and colour and with Newton's investigations of the colours of thin sheets, of "Newton's rings," and of the phenomenon of diffraction of light. To explain some of his observations he had to graft elements of a wave theory of light onto his basically corpuscular theory. q
 Newton's greatest achievement was his work in physics and celestial mechanics, which culminated in the theory of universal gravitation. Even though Newton also began this research in the plague years, the story that he discovered universal gravitation in 1666 while watching an apple fall from a tree in his garden is a myth. By 1666, Newton had formulated early versions of his three LAWS OF MOTION. He had also discovered the law stating the centrifugal force (or force away from the centre) of a body moving uniformly in a circular path. However, he still believed that the earth's gravity and the motions of the planets might be caused by the action of whirlpools, or vortices, of small corpuscles, as Descartes had claimed. Moreover, although he knew the law of centrifugal force, he did not have a correct understanding of the mechanics of circular motion. He thought of circular motion as the result of a balance between two forces--one centrifugal, the other centripetal (toward the centre) - than as the result of one force, a centripetal force, which constantly deflects the body away from its inertial path in a straight line.
 Newton's great insight of 1666 was to imagine that the Earth's gravity extended to the Moon, counterbalancing its centrifugal force. From his law of centrifugal force and Kepler's third law of planetary motion, Newton deduced that the centrifugal (and hence centripetal) force of the Moon or of any planet must decrease as the inverse square of its distance from the centre of its motion. For example, if the distance is doubled, the force becomes one-fourth as much; if distance is trebled, the force becomes one-ninth as much. This theory agreed with Newton's data to within about 11%.
 In 1679, Newton returned to his study of celestial mechanics when his adversary Hooke drew him into a discussion of the problem of orbital motion. Hooke is credited with suggesting to Newton that circular motion arises from the centripetal deflection of inertially moving bodies. Hooke further conjectured that since the planets move in ellipses with the Sun at one focus (Kepler's first law), the centripetal force drawing them to the Sun should vary as the inverse square of their distances from it. Hooke could not prove this theory mathematically, although he boasted that he could. Not to be shown up by his rival, Newton applied his mathematical talents to proving Hooke's conjecture. He showed that if a body obeys Kepler's second law (which states that the line joining a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times), then the body is being acted upon by a centripetal force. This discovery revealed for the first time the physical significance of Kepler's second law. Given this discovery, Newton succeeded in showing that a body moving in an elliptical path and attracted to one focus must indeed be drawn by a force that varies as the inverse square of the distance. Later even these results were set aside by Newton.
 In 1684 the young astronomer Edmond Halley, tired of Hooke's fruitless boasting, asked Newton whether he could prove Hooke's conjecture and to his surprise was told that Newton had solved the problem a full 5 years before but had now mislaid the paper. At Halley's constant urging Newton reproduced the proofs and expanded them into a paper on the laws of motion and problems of orbital mechanics. Finally Halley persuaded Newton to compose a full-length treatment of his new physics and its application to astronomy. After 18 months of sustained effort, Newton published (1687) the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), or Principia, as it is universally known.
 By common consent the Principia is the greatest scientific book ever written. Within the framework of an infinite, homogeneous, three-dimensional, empty space and a uniformly and eternally flowing "absolute" time, Newton fully analysed the motion of bodies in resisting and nonresisting media under the action of centripetal forces. The results were applied to orbiting bodies, projectiles, pendula, and free-fall near the Earth. He further demonstrated that the planets were attracted toward the Sun by a force varying as the inverse square of the distance and generalized that all heavenly bodies mutually attract one another. By further generalization, he reached his law of universal gravitation: every piece of matter attracts every other piece with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
 Given the law of gravitation and the laws of motion, Newton could explain a wide range of hitherto disparate phenomena such as the eccentric orbits of comets, the causes of the tides and their major variations, the precession of the Earth's axis, and the perturbation of the motion of the Moon by the gravity of the Sun. Newton's one general law of nature and one system of mechanics reduced to order most of the known problems of astronomy and terrestrial physics. The work of Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler was united and transformed into one coherent scientific theory. The new Copernican world-picture finally had a firm physical basis.
 Because Newton repeatedly used the term "attraction" in the Principia, mechanical philosophers attacked him for reintroducing into science the idea that mere matter could act at a distance upon other matter. Newton replied that he had only intended to show the existence of gravitational attraction and to discover its mathematical law, not to inquire into its cause. He no more than his critics believed that brute matter could act at a distance. Having rejected the Cartesian vortices, he reverted in the early 1700s to the idea that some sort of material medium, or ether, caused gravity. But Newton's ether was no longer a Cartesian-type ether acting solely by impacts among particles. The ether had to be extremely rare so it would not obstruct the motions of the planets, and yet very elastic or springy so it could push large masses toward one another. Newton postulated that the new ether consisted of particles endowed with very powerful short-range repulsive forces. His unreconciled ideas on forces and ether deeply influenced later natural philosophers in the 18th century when they turned to the phenomena of chemistry, electricity and magnetism, and physiology.
 With the publication of the Principia, Newton was recognized as the leading natural philosopher of the age, but his creative career was effectively over. After suffering a nervous breakdown in 1693, he retired from research to seek a government position in London. In 1696 he became Warden of the Royal Mint and in 1699 its Master, an extremely lucrative position. He oversaw the great English recoinage of the 1690s and pursued counterfeiters with ferocity. In 1703 he was elected president of the Royal Society and was reelected each year until his death. He was knighted (1708) by Queen Anne, the first scientist to be so honoured for his work.
 As any overt appeal to metaphysics became unfashionable, the science of mechanics was increasingly regarded, says Ivor Leclerc, as ‘an autonomous science,’ and any alleged role of God as ‘deus ex machina.’At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Pierre-Simon LaPlace, along with a number of other great French mathematicians and, advanced the view that the science of mechanics constituted a complex view of nature. Since this science, by observing its epistemology, had revealed itself to be the fundamental science, the hypothesis of God as, they concluded unnecessary.
 Pierre de Simon LaPlace (1749-1827) is recognized for eliminating not only the theological component of classical physics but the ‘entire metaphysical component’ as well. The epistemology of science requires, had that we proceeded by inductive generalisations from observed facts to hypotheses that are ‘tested by observed conformity of the phenomena.’ What was unique out LaPlace’s view of hypotheses as insistence that we cannot attribute reality to them. Although concepts like force, mass, notion, cause, and laws are obviously present in classical physics, they exist in LaPlace’s view only as quantities. Physics is concerned, he argued, with quantities that we associate as a matter of convenience with concepts, and the truths abut nature are only quantities.
 The seventeenth-century view of physics s a philosophy of nature or as natural philosophy was displaced by the view of physics as an autonomous science that was: The science of nature. This view, which was premised on the doctrine e of positivism, promised to subsume all of the nature with a mathematical analysis of entities in motion and claimed that the true understanding of nature was revealed only in the mathematical descriptions. Since the doctrine of positivism, assumed that the knowledge we call physics resides only in the mathematical formalisms of physical theory, it disallows the prospect that the vision of physical reality revealed in physical theory can have any other meaning. In the history of science, the irony is that positivism, which was intended to banish metaphysical concerns from the domain of science, served to perpetuate a seventeenth-century metaphysical assumption about the relationship between physical reality and physical theory.
 So, then, the decision was motivated by our conviction that our discoveries have more potential to transform our conception of the ‘way thing are’ than any previous discovery in the history of science, as these implications of discovery extend well beyond the domain of the physical sciences, and the best efforts of large numbers of thoughtfully convincing in others than I will be required to understand them.
 In fewer contentious areas, European scientists made rapid progress on many fronts in the 17th century. Galileo himself investigated the laws governing falling objects, and discovered that the duration of a pendulum's swing is constant for any given length. He explored the possibility of using this to control a clock, an idea that his son put into practice in 1641. Two years later another Italian, mathematician and physicist Evangelists Torricelli, made the first barometer. In doing so he discovered atmospheric pressure and produced the first artificial vacuum known to science. In 1650 German physicist Otto von Guericke invented the air pump. He is best remembered for carrying out a demonstration of the effects of atmospheric pressure. Von Guericke joined two large, hollow bronze hemispheres, and then pumped out the air within them to form a vacuum. To illustrate the strength of the vacuum, von Guericke showed how two teams of eight horses pulling in opposite directions could not separate the hemispheres. Yet the hemispheres fell apart as soon as air was let in.
 Throughout the 17th century major advances occurred in the life sciences, including the discovery of the circulatory system by the English physician William Harvey and the discovery of microorganisms by the Dutch microscope maker Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. In England, Robert Boyle established modern chemistry as a full-fledged science, while in France, philosopher and scientist René Descartes made numerous discoveries in mathematics, as well as advancing the case for rationalism in scientific research.
 However, the century's greatest achievements came in 1665, when the English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton fled from Cambridge to his rural birthplace in Woolsthorpe to escape an epidemic of the plague. There, in the course of a single year, he made a series of extraordinary breakthroughs, including new theories about the nature of light and gravitation and the development of calculus. Newton is perhaps best known for his proof that the force of gravity extends throughout the universe and that all objects attract each other with a precisely defined and predictable force. Gravity holds the Moon in its orbit around the Earth and is the principal cause of the Earth’s tides. These discoveries revolutionized how people viewed the universe and they marked the birth of modern science.
 Newton’s work demonstrated that nature was governed by basic rules that could be identified using the scientific method. This new approach to nature and discovery liberated 18th-century scientists from passively accepting the wisdom of ancient writings or religious authorities that had never been tested by experiment. In what became known as the Age of Reason, or the Age of Enlightenment, scientists in the 18th century began to apply rational thought actively, careful observation, and experimentation to solve a variety of problems.
 Advances in the life sciences saw the gradual erosion of the theory of spontaneous generation, a long-held notion that life could spring from nonliving matter. It also brought the beginning of scientific classification, pioneered by the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus, who classified close to 12,000 living plants and animals into a systematic arrangement.
 By 1700 the first steam engine had been built. Improvements in the telescope enabled German-born British astronomer Sir William Herschel to discover the planet Uranus in 1781. Throughout the 18th century science began to play an increasing role in everyday life. New manufacturing processes revolutionized the way that products were made, heralding the Industrial Revolution. In An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, British economist Adam Smith stressed the advantages of division of labour and advocated the use of machinery to increase production. He urged governments to allow individuals to compete within a free market in order to produce fair prices and maximum social benefit. Smith’s work for the first time gave economics the stature of an independent subject of study and his theories greatly influenced the course of economic thought for more than a century.
 With knowledge in all branches of science accumulating rapidly, scientists began to specialize in particular fields. Specialization did not necessarily mean that discoveries were specializing as well: From the 19th century onward, research began to uncover principles that unite the universe as a whole.
 In chemistry, one of these discoveries was a conceptual one: that all matter is made of atoms. Originally debated in ancient Greece, atomic theory was revived in a modern form by the English chemist John Dalton in 1803. Dalton provided clear and convincing chemical proof that such particles exist. He discovered that each atom has a characteristic mass and that atoms remain unchanged when they combine with other atoms to form compound substances. Dalton used atomic theory to explain why substances always combine in fixed proportions - a field of study known as quantitative chemistry. In 1869 Russian chemist Dmitry Mendeleyev used Dalton’s discoveries about atoms and their behaviour to draw up his periodic table of the elements.
 Other 19th-century discoveries in chemistry included the world's first synthetic fertilizer, manufactured in England in 1842. In 1846 German chemist Christian Schoenbein accidentally developed the powerful and unstable explosive nitrocellulose. The discovery occurred after he had spilled a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids and then mopped it up with a cotton apron. After the apron had been hung up to dry, it exploded. He later learned that the cellulose in the cotton apron combined with the acids to form a highly flammable explosive.
 In 1828 the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler showed that making carbon-containing was possible, organic compounds from inorganic ingredients, a breakthrough that opened an entirely new field of research. By the end of the 19th century, hundreds of organic compounds had been synthesized, including mauve, magenta, and other synthetic dyes, as well as aspirin, still one of the world's most useful drugs.
 In physics, the 19th century is remembered chiefly for research into electricity and magnetism, which were pioneered by physicists such as Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell of Great Britain. In 1821 Faraday demonstrated that a moving magnet could set an electric current flowing in a conductor. This experiment and others he performed led to the development of electric motors and generators. While Faraday’s genius lay in discovery by experiment, Maxwell produced theoretical breakthroughs of even greater note. Maxwell's development of the electromagnetic theory of light took many years. It began with the paper ‘On Faraday's Lines of Force’ (1855–1856), in which Maxwell built on the ideas of British physicist Michael Faraday. Faraday explained that electric and magnetic effects result from lines of force that surround conductors and magnets. Maxwell drew an analogy between the behaviour of the lines of force and the flow of a liquid, deriving equations that represented electric and magnetic effects. The next step toward Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory was the publication of the paper, On Physical Lines of Force (1861–1862). Here Maxwell developed a model for the medium that could carry electric and magnetic effects. He devised a hypothetical medium that consisted of a fluid in which magnetic effects created whirlpool-like structures. These whirlpools were separated by cells created by electric effects, so the combination of magnetic and electric effects formed a honeycomb pattern.
 Maxwell could explain all known effects of electromagnetism by considering how the motion of the whirlpools, or vortices, and cells could produce magnetic and electric effects. He showed that the lines of force behave like the structures in the hypothetical fluid. Maxwell went further, considering what would happen if the fluid could change density, or be elastic. The movement of a charge would set up a disturbance in an elastic medium, forming waves that would move through the medium. The speed of these waves would be equal to the ratio of the value for an electric current measured in electrostatic units to the value of the same current measured in electromagnetic units. German physicists Friedrich Kohlrausch and Wilhelm Weber had calculated this ratio and found it the same as the speed of light. Maxwell inferred that light consists of waves in the same medium that causes electric and magnetic phenomena.
 Maxwell found supporting evidence for this inference in work he did on defining basic electrical and magnetic quantities in terms of mass, length, and time. In the paper, On the Elementary Regulations of Electric Quantities (1863), he wrote that the ratio of the two definitions of any quantity based on electric and magnetic forces is always equal to the velocity of light. He considered that light must consist of electromagnetic waves but first needed to prove this by abandoning the vortex analogy and developing a mathematical system. He achieved this in ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field’ (1864), in which he developed the fundamental equations that describe the electromagnetic field. These equations showed that light is propagated in two waves, one magnetic and the other electric, which vibrate perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction in which they are moving (like a wave travelling along a string). Maxwell first published this solution in Note on the Electromagnetic Theory of Light (1868) and summed up all of his work on electricity and magnetism in Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in 1873.
 The treatise also suggested that a whole family of electromagnetic radiation must exist, of which visible light was only one part. In 1888 German physicist Heinrich Hertz made the sensational discovery of radio waves, a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths too long for our eyes to see, confirming Maxwell’s ideas. Unfortunately, Maxwell did not live long enough to see this vindication of his work. He also did not live to see the ether (the medium in which light waves were said to be propagated) disproved with the classic experiments of German-born American physicist Albert Michelson and American chemist Edward Morley in 1881 and 1887. Maxwell had suggested an experiment much like the Michelson-Morley experiment in the last year of his life. Although Maxwell believed the ether existed, his equations were not dependent on its existence, and so remained valid.
 Maxwell's other major contribution to physics was to provide a mathematical basis for the kinetic theory of gases, which explains that gases behave as they do because they are composed of particles in constant motion. Maxwell built on the achievements of German physicist Rudolf Clausius, who in 1857 and 1858 had shown that a gas must consist of molecules in constant motion colliding with each other and with the walls of their container. Clausius developed the idea of the mean free path, which is the average distance that a molecule travels between collisions.
 Maxwell's development of the kinetic theory of gases was stimulated by his success in the similar problem of Saturn's rings. It dates from 1860, when he used a statistical treatment to express the wide range of velocities (speeds and the directions of the speeds) that the molecules in a quantity of gas must inevitably possess. He arrived at a formula to express the distribution of velocity in gas molecules, relating it to temperature. He showed that gases store heat in the motion of their molecules, so the molecules in a gas will speed up as the gasses temperature increases. Maxwell then applied his theory with some success to viscosity (how much a gas resists movement), diffusion (how gas molecules move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration), and other properties of gases that depend on the nature of the molecules’ motion.
 Maxwell's kinetic theory did not fully explain heat conduction (how heat travels through a gas). Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann modified Maxwell’s theory in 1868, resulting in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution law, showing the number of particles (n) having an energy (E) in a system of particles in thermal equilibrium. It has the form:
n = n0 exp(-E/kT),
where n0 is the number of particles having the lowest energy, ‘k’ the Boltzmann constant, and ‘T’ the thermodynamic temperature.
 If the particles can only have certain fixed energies, such as the energy levels of atoms, the formula gives the number (Ei) above the ground state energy. In certain cases several distinct states may have the same energy and the formula then becomes:
ni = gin0 exp(-Ki/kT),
where gi is the statistical weight of the level of energy Ei, i.e., the number of states having energy Ei. The distribution of energies obtained by the formula is called a Boltzmann distribution.
 Both Maxwell’ s thermodynamic relational equations and the Boltzmann formulation to a contributional successive succession of refinements of kinetic theory, and it proved fully applicable to all properties of gases. It also led Maxwell to an accurate estimate of the size of molecules and to a method of separating gases in a centrifuge. The kinetic theory was derived using statistics, so it also revised opinions on the validity of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a colder to a hotter body of its own accord. In the case of two connected containers of gases at the same temperature, it is statistically possible for the molecules to diffuse so that the faster-moving molecules all concentrate in one container while the slower molecules gather in the other, making the first container hotter and the second colder. Maxwell conceived this hypothesis, which is known as Maxwell's demon. Although this event is very unlikely, it is possible, and the second law is therefore not absolute, but highly probable.
 These sources provide additional information on James Maxwell Clerk: Maxwell is generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist of the 1800s. He combined a rigorous mathematical ability with great insight, which enabled him to make brilliant advances in the two most important areas of physics at that time. In building on Faraday's work to discover the electromagnetic nature of light, Maxwell not only explained electromagnetism but also paved the way for the discovery and application of the whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that has characterized modern physics. Physicists now know that this spectrum also includes radio, infrared, ultraviolet, and X-ray waves, to name a few. In developing the kinetic theory of gases, Maxwell gave the final proof that the nature of heat resides in the motion of molecules.
 With Maxwell's famous equations, as devised in 1864, uses mathematics to explain the intersaction between electric and magnetic fields. His work demonstrated the principles behind electromagnetic waves created when electric and magnetic fields oscillate simultaneously. Maxwell realized that light was a form of electromagnetic energy, but he also thought that the complete electromagnetic spectrum must include many other forms of waves as well.
 With the discovery of radio waves by German physicist Heinrich Hertz in 1888 and X rays by German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895, Maxwell’s ideas were proved correct. In 1897 British physicist Sir Joseph J. Thomson discovered the electron, a subatomic particle with a negative charge. This discovery countered the long-held notion that atoms were the basic unit of matter.
 As in chemistry, these 19th-century discoveries in physics proved to have immense practical value. No one was more adept at harnessing them than American physicist and prolific inventor Thomas Edison. Working from his laboratories in Menlo Park, New Jersey, Edison devised the carbon-granule microphone in 1877, which greatly improved the recently invented telephone. He also invented the phonograph, the electric light bulb, several kinds of batteries, and the electric metre. Edison was granted more than 1,000 patents for electrical devices, a phenomenal feat for a man who had no formal schooling.
 In the earth sciences, the 19th century was a time of controversy, with scientists debating Earth's age. Estimated ranges may be as far as from less than 100,000 years to several hundred million years. In astronomy, greatly improved optical instruments enabled important discoveries to be made. The first observation of an asteroid, Ceres, took place in 1801. Astronomers had long noticed that Uranus exhibited an unusual orbit. French astronomer Urbain Jean Joseph Leverrier predicted that another planet nearby caused Uranus’s odd orbit. Using mathematical calculations, he narrowed down where such a planet would be located in the sky. In 1846, with the help of German astronomer Johann Galle, Leverrier discovered Neptune. The Irish astronomer William Parsons, the third Earl of Rosse, became the first person to see the spiral form of galaxies beyond our own solar system. He did this with the Leviathan, a 183-cm. (72-in.) reflecting telescopes, built on the grounds of his estate in Parsonstown (now Birr), Ireland, in the 1840s. His observations were hampered by Ireland's damp and cloudy climate, but his gigantic telescope remained the world's largest for more than 70 years.
 In the 19th century the study of microorganisms became increasingly important, particularly after French biologist Louis Pasteur revolutionized medicine by correctly deducing that some microorganisms are involved in disease. In the 1880's Pasteur devised methods of immunizing people against diseases by deliberately treating them with weakened forms of the disease-causing organisms themselves. Pasteur’s vaccine against rabies was a milestone in the field of immunization, one of the most effective forms of preventive medicine the world has yet seen. In the area of industrial science, Pasteur invented the process of pasteurization to help prevent the spread of disease through milk and other foods.
 Pasteur’s work on fermentation and spontaneous generation had considerable implications for medicine, because he believed that the origin and development of disease are analogous to the origin and process of fermentation. That is, disease arises from germs attacking the body from outside, just as unwanted microorganisms invade milk and cause fermentation. This concept, called the germ theory of disease, was strongly debated by physicians and scientists around the world. One of the main arguments against it was the contention that the role germs played during the course of disease was secondary and unimportant; the notion that tiny organisms could kill vastly larger ones seemed ridiculous to many people. Pasteur’s studies convinced him that he was right, however, and in the course of his career he extended the germ theory to explain the causes of many diseases.
 Pasteur also determined the natural history of anthrax, a fatal disease of cattle. He proved that anthrax is caused by a particular bacillus and suggested that animals could be given anthrax in a mild form by vaccinating them with attenuated (weakened) bacilli, thus providing immunity from potentially fatal attacks. In order to prove his theory, Pasteur began by inoculating 25 sheep; a few days later he inoculated these and 25 more sheep with an especially strong inoculant, and he left 10 sheep untreated. He predicted that the second 25 sheep would all perish and concluded the experiment dramatically by showing, to a sceptical crowd, the carcasses of the 25 sheep lying side by side.
 Pasteur spent the rest of his life working on the causes of various diseases, including septicaemia, cholera, diphtheria, fowl cholera, tuberculosis, and smallpox - and their prevention by means of vaccination. He is best known for his investigations concerning the prevention of rabies, otherwise known in humans as hydrophobia. After experimenting with the saliva of animals suffering from this disease, Pasteur concluded that the disease rests in the nerve centres of the body; when an extract from the spinal column of a rabid dog was injected into the bodies of healthy animals, symptoms of rabies were produced. By studying the tissues of infected animals, particularly rabbits, Pasteur was able to develop an attenuated form of the virus that could be used for inoculation.
 In 1885, a young boy and his mother arrived at Pasteur’s laboratory; the boy had been bitten badly by a rabid dog, and Pasteur was urged to treat him with his new method. At the end of the treatment, which lasted ten days, the boy was being inoculated with the most potent rabies virus known; he recovered and remained healthy. Since that time, thousands of people have been saved from rabies by this treatment.
 Pasteur’s research on rabies resulted, in 1888, in the founding of a special institute in Paris for the treatment of the disease. This became known as the Instituted Pasteur, and it was directed by Pasteur himself until he died. (The institute still flourishes and is one of the most important centres in the world for the study of infectious diseases and other subjects related to microorganisms, including molecular genetics.) By the time of his death in Saint-Cloud on September 28, 1895, Pasteur had long since become a national hero and had been honoured in many ways. He was given a state funeral at the Cathedral of Nôtre Dame, and his body was placed in a permanent crypt in his institute.
 Also during the 19th century, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel laid the foundations of genetics, although his work, published in 1866, was not recognized until after the century had closed. Nevertheless, the British scientist Charles Darwin towers above all other scientists of the 19th century. His publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 marked a major turning point for both biology and human thought. His theory of evolution by natural selection (independently and simultaneously developed by British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace) initiated a violent controversy that until it has not subsided. Particularly controversial was Darwin’s theory that humans resulted from a long process of biological evolution from apelike ancestors. The greatest opposition to Darwin’s ideas came from those who believed that the Bible was an exact and literal statement of the origin of the world and of humans. Although the public initially castigated Darwin’s ideas, by the late 1800s most biologists had accepted that evolution occurred, although not all agreed on the mechanism, known as natural selection, that Darwin proposed.
 In the 20th century, scientists achieved spectacular advances in the fields of genetics, medicine, social sciences, technology, and physics.
 At the beginning of the 20th century, the life sciences entered a period of rapid progress. Mendel's work in genetics was rediscovered in 1900, and by 1910 biologists had become convinced that genes are located in chromosomes, the threadlike structures that contain proteins and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). During the 1940's American biochemists discovered that DNA taken from one kind of bacterium could influence the characteristics of another. From these experiments, DNA is clearly the chemical that makes up genes and thus the key to heredity.
 After American biochemist James Watson and British biophysicist Francis Crick established the structure of DNA in 1953, geneticists became able to understand heredity in chemical terms. Since then, progress in this field has been astounding. Scientists have identified the complete genome, or genetic catalogue, of the human body. In many cases, scientists now know how individual genes become activated and what affects they have in the human body. Genes can now be transferred from one species to another, sidestepping the normal processes of heredity and creating hybrid organisms that are unknown in the natural world.
 At the turn of the 20th century, Dutch physician Christian Eijkman showed that disease can be caused not only by microorganisms but by a dietary deficiency of certain substances now called vitamins. In 1909 German bacteriologist Paul Ehrlich introduced the world's first bactericide, a chemical designed to kill specific kinds of bacteria without killing the patient's cells as well. Following the discovery of penicillin in 1928 by British bacteriologist Sir Alexander Fleming, antibiotics joined medicine’s chemical armoury, making the fight against bacterial infection almost a routine matter. Antibiotics cannot act against viruses, but vaccines have been used to great effect to prevent some of the deadliest viral diseases. Smallpox, once a worldwide killer, was completely eradicated by the late 1970's, and in the United States the number of polio cases dropped from 38,000 in the 1950's to less than 10 a year by the 21st century. By the middle of the 20th century scientists believed they were well on the way to treating, preventing, or eradicating many of the most deadly infectious diseases that had plagued humankind for centuries. Nevertheless, by the 1980's the medical community’s confidence in its ability to control infectious diseases had been shaken by the emergence of new types of disease-causing microorganisms. New cases of tuberculosis developed, caused by bacteria strains that were resistant to antibiotics. New, deadly infections for which there was no known cure also appeared, including the viruses that cause haemorrhagic fever and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
 In other fields of medicine, the diagnosis of disease has been revolutionized by the use of new imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Scientists were also on the verge of success in curing some diseases using gene therapy, in which the insertion of normal or genetically an altered gene into a patient’s cells replaces nonfunctional or missing genes.
 Improved drugs and new tools have made surgical operations that were once considered impossible now routine. For instance, drugs that suppress the immune system enable the transplant of organs or tissues with a reduced risk of rejection Endoscopy permits the diagnosis and surgical treatment of a wide variety of ailments using minimally invasive surgery. Advances in high-speed fiberoptic connections permit surgery on a patient using robotic instruments controlled by surgeons at another location. Known as ‘telemedicine’, this form of medicine makes it possible for skilled physicians to treat patients in remote locations or places that lack medical help.
 In the 20th century the social sciences emerged from relative obscurity to become prominent fields of research. Austrian physician Sigmund Freud founded the practice of psychoanalysis, creating a revolution in psychology that led him to be called the ‘Copernicus of the mind.’ In 1948 the American biologist Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male, which proved to be one of the best-selling scientific works of all time. Although criticized for his methodology and conclusions, Kinsey succeeded in making human sexuality an acceptable subject for scientific research.
 The 20th century also brought dramatic discoveries in the field of anthropology, with new fossil finds helping to piece together the story of human evolution. A completely new and surprising source of anthropological information became available from studies of the DNA in mitochondria, cell structures that provide energy to fuel the cell’s activities. Mitochondrial DNA has been used to track certain genetic diseases and to trace the ancestry of a variety of organisms, including humans.
 In the field of communications, Italian electrical engineer Guglielmo Marconi sent his first radio signal across the Atlantic Ocean in 1901. American inventor Lee De Forest invented the triode, or vacuum tube, in 1906. The triode eventually became a key component in nearly all early radio, radar, television, and computer systems. In 1920 Scottish engineer John Logie Baird developed the Baird Televisor, a primitive television that provided the first transmission of a recognizable moving image. In the 1920's and 1930's American electronic engineer Vladimir Kosma Zworykin significantly improved the television’s picture and reception. In 1935 British physicist Sir Robert Watson-Watt used reflected radio waves to locate aircraft in flight. Radar signals have since been reflected from the Moon, planets, and stars to learn their distance from Earth and to track their movements.
 In 1947 American physicists John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley invented the transistor, an electronic device used to control or amplify an electrical current. Transistors are much smaller, far less expensive, require less power to operate, and are considerably more reliable than triodes. Since their first commercial use in hearing aids in 1952, transistors have replaced triodes in virtually all applications.
 During the 1950's and early 1960's minicomputers were developed using transistors rather than triodes. Earlier computers, such as the electronic numerical integrator and computer (ENIAC), first introduced in 1946 by American physicist John W. Mauchly and American electrical engineer John Presper Eckert, Jr., used as many as 18,000 triodes and filled a large room. However, the transistor initiated a trend toward microminiaturization, in which individual electronic circuits can be reduced to microscopic size. This drastically reduced the computer's size, cost, and power requirements and eventually enabled the development of electronic circuits with processing speeds measured in billionths of a second
 Further miniaturization led in 1971 to the first microprocessor - a computer on a chip. When combined with other specialized chips, the microprocessor becomes the central arithmetic and logic unit of a computer smaller than a portable typewriter. With their small size and a price less than that of a used car, today’s personal computers are many times more powerful than the physically huge, multimillion-dollar computers of the 1950's. Once used only by large businesses, computers are now used by professionals, small retailers, and students to perform a wide variety of everyday tasks, such as keeping data on clients, tracking budgets, and writing school reports. People also use computers to understand each other with worldwide communications networks, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web, to send and receive E-mail, to shop, or to find information on just about any subject.
 During the early 1950's public interest in space exploration developed. The focal event that opened the space age was the International Geophysical Year from July 1957 to December 1958, during which hundreds of scientists around the world coordinated their efforts to measure the Earth’s near-space environment. As part of this study, both the United States and the Soviet Union announced that they would launch artificial satellites into orbit for nonmilitary space activities.
 When the Soviet Union launched the first Sputnik satellite in 1957, the feat spurred the United States to intensify its own space exploration efforts. In 1958 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was founded for the purpose of developing human spaceflight. Throughout the 1960's NASA experienced its greatest growth. Among its achievements, NASA designed, manufactured, tested, and eventually used the Saturn rocket and the Apollo spacecraft for the first manned landing on the Moon in 1969. In the 1960's and 1970's, NASA also developed the first robotic space probes to explore the planet’s Mercury, Venus, and Mars. The success of the Mariner probes paved the way for the unmanned exploration of the outer planets in Earth’s solar system.
 In the 1970's through 1990's, NASA focussed its space exploration efforts on a reusable space shuttle, which was first deployed in 1981. In 1998 the space shuttle, along with its Russian counterpart known as Soyuz, became the workhorses that enabled the construction of the International Space Station.
 In 1900 the German physicist Max Planck proposed the then sensational idea that energy be not divisible but is always given off in set amounts, or quanta. Five years later, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein successfully used quanta to explain the photoelectric effect, which is the release of electrons when metals are bombarded by light. This, together with Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, challenged some of the most fundamental assumptions of the Newtonian era.
 Unlike the laws of classical physics, quantum theory deals with events that occur on the smallest of scales. Quantum theory explains how subatomic particles form atoms, and how atoms interact when they combine to form chemical compounds. Quantum theory deals with a world where the attributes of any single particle can never be completely known - an idea known as the uncertainty principle, put forward by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927, whereby, the principle, that the product of the uncertainty in measured value of a component of momentum (pχ) and the uncertainty in the corresponding co-ordinates of (χ) is of the same order of magnitude as the Planck constant. In its most precise form:
    Δp2 x Δχ  ≥ h/4π
where Δχ represents the root-mean-square value of the uncertainty. For mot purposes one can assume:
    Δpχ x Δχ = h/2π
the principle can be derived exactly from quantum mechanics, a physical theory that grew out of Planck’s quantum theory and deals with the mechanics of atomic and related systems in terms of quantities that an be measured mathematical forms, including ‘wave mechanics’ (Schrödinger) and ‘matrix mechanics’ (Born and Heisenberg), all of which are equivalent.
 Nonetheless, it is most easily understood as a consequence of the fact that any measurement of a system mist disturb the system under investigation, with a resulting lack of precision in measurement. For example, if it were possible to see an electron and thus measure its position, photons would have to be reflected from the electron. If a single photon could be used and detected with a microscope, the collision between the electron and photon would change the electron’s momentum, as to its effectuality Compton Effect as a result to wavelengths of the photon is increased by an amount Δλ, where:
    Δλ = (2h/m0c) sin2 ½ φ.
This is the Compton equation, h is the Planck constant, m0 the rest mass of the particle, c the speed of light, and φ the angle between the directions of the incident and scattered photon. The quantity h/m0c is known as the Compton wavelength, symbol: λC, which for an electron is equal to 0.002  43 nm.
 A similar relationship applies to the determination of energy and time, thus:
    ΔE x Δt ≥ h/4π.
The effects of the uncertainty principle are not apparent with large systems because of the small size of h. However, the principle is of fundamental importance in the behaviour of systems on the atomic scale. For example, the principle explains the inherent width of spectral lines, if the lifetime of an atom in an excited state is very short there is a large uncertainty in its energy and line resulting from a transition is broad.
 One consequence of the uncertainty principle is that it is impossible fully to predict the behaviour of a system and the macroscopic principle of causality cannot apply at the atomic level. Quantum mechanics gives a statistical description of the behaviour of physical systems.
 Nevertheless, while there is uncertainty on the subatomic level, quantum physics successfully predicts the overall outcome of subatomic events, a fact that firmly relates it to the macroscopic world, that is, the one in which we live.
 In 1934 Italian-born American physicist Enrico Fermi began a series of experiments in which he used neutrons (subatomic particles without an electric charge) to bombard atoms of various elements, including uranium. The neutrons combined with the nuclei of the uranium atoms to produce what he thought were elements heavier than uranium, known as transuranium elements. In 1939 other scientists demonstrated that in these experiments’ Fermi had not formed heavier elements, but instead had achieved the splitting, or fission, of the uranium atom's nucleus. These early experiments led to the development of fission as both energy sources.
 These fission studies, coupled with the development of particle accelerators in the 1950's, initiated a long and remarkable journey into the nature of subatomic particles that continues today. Far from being indivisible, scientists now know that atoms are made up of 12 fundamental particles known as quarks and leptons, which combine in different ways to make all the kinds of matter currently known.
 Advances in particle physics have been closely linked to progress in cosmology. From the 1920's onward, when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that the universe is expanding, cosmologists have sought to rewind the clock and establish how the universe began. Today, most scientists believe that the universe started with a cosmic explosion some time between 10 and 20 billion years ago. However, the exact sequence of events surrounding its birth, and its ultimate fate, are still matters of ongoing debate.
 Apart from their assimilations affiliated within the paradigms of science, Descartes was to posit the existence of two categorically different domains of existence for immaterial ideas - the res extensa and the res cognitans or the ‘extended substance’ and the ‘thinking substance. Descartes defined the extended substance as the realm of physical reality within primary mathematical and geometrical forms resides and thinking substance as the realm of human subjective reality. Given that Descartes distrusted the information from the senses to the point of doubting the perceived results of repeatable scientific experiments, how did he conclude that our knowledge of the mathematical ideas residing only in mind or in human subjectivity was accurate, much less the absolute truth? He did so by making a lap of faith - God constructed the world, said Descartes, in accordance with the mathematical ideas that our minds are capable of uncovering in their pristine essence. The truth of classical physics as Descartes viewed them were quite literally ‘revealed’ truths, and it was this seventeenth-century metaphysical presupposition that became in the history of science what we term the ‘hidden ontology of classical epistemology.’
 While classical epistemology would serve the progress of science very well, It also presented us with a terrible dilemma about the relationship between ‘mind’ and the ‘world’. If there is no real or necessary correspondence between non - mathematical ideas in subjective reality and external physical reality, how do we now that the world in which ‘we live, and love, and die’ actually exists? Descartes’s resolution of this dilemma took the form of an exercise. He asked us to direct our attention inward and to divest our consciousness of all awareness of eternal physical reality. If we do so, he concluded, the real existence of human subjective reality could be confirmed.
 As it turned out, this resolution was considerably more problematic and oppressive than Descartes could have imaged. ‘I think, Therefore, I am’ may be a marginally persuasive way of confirming the real existence e of the thinking self. However, the understanding of physical reality that obliged Descartes and others to doubt the existence of this self implied that the separation between the subjective world, or the world of life, and the real world of physical reality was ‘absolute.’
 Our propped new understanding of the relationship between mind and world is framed within the larger context of the history of mathematical physics, the organs and extensions of the classical view of the foundations of scientific knowledge, and the various ways that physicists have attempted to obviate previous challenge s to he efficacy of classical epistemology, this was made so, as to serve as background for a new relationship between parts nd wholes in quantum physics, as well as similar view of the relationship that had emerged in he so-called ‘new biology’ and in recent studies of the evolution of modern humans.
 But at the end of such as this arduous journey lie two conclusions that should make possible that first, there is no basis in contemporary physics or biology for believing in the stark Cartesian division between mind and world, that some have rather aptly described as ‘the disease of the Western mind’. And second, there is a new basis for dialogue between two cultures that are now badly divided and very much un need of an enlarged sense of common understanding and shared purpose - ;et us briefly consider the legacy in Western intellectual life of the stark division between mind and world sanctioned by classical physics and formalized by Descartes.
 The first scientific revolution of the seventeenth century freed Western civilization from the paralysing and demeaning forces of superstition, laid the foundations for rational understanding and control of the processes of nature, and ushered in an era of technological innovation and progress that provided untold benefits for humanity. But as classical physics progressively dissolved the distinction between heaven and earth and united the universe in a shared and communicable frame of knowledge, it presented us with a view of physical reality that was totally alien from the world of everyday life.
 Philosophy, quickly realized that there was nothing in tis view of nature that could explain o provide a foundation for he mental, or for all that we know from direct experience cas distinctly human. In a mechanistic universe, he said, there is no privileged place or function for mind, and the separation between mind and matter is absolute. Descartes was also convinced, however, that the immaterial essences that gave form and structure to this universe were coded in geometrical and mathematical ideas, and this insight led to invent ‘algebraic geometry’.
 A scientific understanding of these ideas could be derived, said Descartes, with the aid of precise deduction, and he also claimed that the contours of physical reality could be laid out in three-dimensional co-ordinates. Following the publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica. In 1687, reductionism and mathematical modelling became the most powerful tools of modern science. And the dream that the entire physical world would be known and mastered though the extension and refinement of mathematical theory became the central feature and guiding principle of scientific knowledge.
 Descartes’s theory of knowledge starts with the quest for certainty, for an indubitable starting-point or foundation on the basis alone of which progress is possible. This is the method of investigating the extent of knowledge and its basis in reason or experience, it attempts to put knowledge upon a secure formation by first inviting us to suspend judgement on any proposition whose truth can be doubted, even as a bare possibility. The standards of acceptance are gradually raised as we are asked to doubt the deliverance of memory, the senses, and even reason, all of which are in principle capable of letting us down. The process is eventually dramatized in the figure of the evil-demon, or malin génie, whose aim is to deceive us, so that our sense, memories, and reasonings lead us astray. The task then becomes one of finding a demon-proof point of certainty, and Descartes produces this in the famous ‘Cogito ergo sum’, I think therefore I am’. It is on this slender basis that the correct use of our faculties has to be reestablished, but it seems as though Descartes has denied himself any materials to use in reconstructing the edifice of knowledge. He has a basis, but any way of building on it without invoking principles tat will not be demon-proof, and so will not meet the standards he had apparently set himself. It vis possible to interpret him as using ‘clear and distinct ideas’ to prove the existence of God, whose benevolence then justifies our use of clear and distinct ideas (‘God is no deceiver’): This is the notorious Cartesian circle. Descartes’s own attitude to this problem is not quite clear, at timers he seems more concerned with providing a stable body of knowledge, that our natural faculties will endorse, rather than one that meets the more severe standards with which he starts out. For example, in the second set of Replies he shrugs off the possibility of ‘absolute falsity’ of our natural system of belief, in favour of our right to retain ‘any conviction so firm that it is quite incapable of being destroyed’. The need to add such natural belief to anything certified by reason Events eventually the cornerstone of Hume ‘s philosophy, and the basis of most 20th-century reactionism, to the method of doubt.
 In his own time Desecrate’s conception of the entirely separate substance of the mind was recognized to give rise to insoluble problems of the nature of the causal efficacy to the action of God. Events in the world merely form occasions on which God acts so as to bring about the events normally accompanying them, and thought of as their effects, although the position is associated especially with Malebrallium, it is much older, many among the Islamic philosophies, their processes for adducing philosophical proofs to justify elements of religious doctrine. It plays the parallel role in Islam to that which scholastic philosophy played in the development of Christianity. The practitioners of kalam were known as the Mutakallimun. It also gives rise to the problem, insoluble in its own terms, of ‘other minds’. Descartes’s notorious denial that nonhuman animals are conscious is a stark illustration of th problem.
 In his conception of matter Descartes also gives preference to rational cogitation over anything derived from the senses., since we can conceive of the nature of a ‘ball of wax’ surviving changes to its sensible qualities, matter is not an empirical concept, but eventually an entirely geometrical one, with extension and motion as its only physical nature. Descartes’s thought here is reflected in Leibniz’s view, as held later by Russell, that the qualities of sense experience have no resemblance to qualities of things, so that knowledge of the external world is essentially knowledge of structure rather than of filling. On this basis Descartes erects a remarkable physics. Since matter is in effect the same as extension there can be no empty space or ‘void’, since there is no empty space motion is not a question of occupying previously empty space, but is to be thought  of in terms of vortices (like the motion of a liquid).
 Although the structure of Descartes’s epistemology, theory of mind, and theory of matter have been rejected many times, their relentless exposure of the hardest issues, their exemplary clarity, and even their initial plausibility all contrive to make him the central point of reference for modern philosophy.
 It seems, nonetheless, that the radical separation between mind and nature formalized by Descartes served over time to allow scientists to concentrate on developing mathematical descriptions of matter as pure mechanisms in the absence of any concerns about is spiritual dimension or ontological foundations. In the meantime, attempts to rationalize, reconcile, or eliminate Descartes’s stark division between mind and matter became perhaps te most cental feature of Western intellectual life.
 Philosophers in the like of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume tried to articulate some basis for linking the mathematical describable motions of mater with linguistic representations of external reality in the subjective space of mind. Descartes’ countryman Jean-Jacques Rousseau reified nature as the ground of human consciousness in a state of innocence and proclaimed that “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” are the guiding principles of this consciousness. Rousseau also made godlike the ideas o the ‘general will’ of the people to achieve these goals and declare that those who do not conform to this will were social deviants.
 Evenhandedly, Rousseau’s attempt to posit a ground for human consciousness by reifying nature was revived in a somewhat different form by the nineteenth-century Romantics in Germany, England, and the United Sates. Goethe and Friedrich Schelling proposed a natural philosophy premised on ontological monism (the idea that God, man, and nature are grounded in an indivisible spiritual Oneness) and argued for the reconciliation of mind and matter with an appeal to sentiment, mystical awareness, and quasi-scientific musing. In Goethe’s attempt to wed mind and matter, nature became a mindful agency that ‘loves illusion’. Shrouds man in mist, ‘ presses him to her heart’, and punishes those who fail to see the ‘light’. Schelling, in his version of cosmic unity, argued that scientific facts were at best partial truths and that the mindful creative spirit that unifies mind and matter is progressively moving toward self-realization and undivided wholeness.
 Descartes believed there are two basic kinds of things in the world, a belief known as substance dualism. For Descartes, the principles of existence for these two groups of things—bodies and minds—are completely different from one another: Bodies exist by being extended in space, while minds exist by being conscious. According to Descartes, nothing can be done to give a body thought and consciousness. No matter how we shape a body or combine it with other bodies, we cannot turn the body into a mind, a thing that is conscious, because being conscious is not a way of being extended.
 For Descartes, a person consists of a human body and a human mind causally interacting with one another. For example, the intentions of a human being may cause that person’s limbs to move. In this way, the mind can affect the body. In addition, the sense organs of a human being may be affected by light, pressure, or sound, external sources which in turn affect the brain, affecting mental states. Thus the body may affect the mind. Exactly how mind can affect body, and vice versa, is a central issue in the philosophy of mind, and is known as the mind-body problem. According to Descartes, this interaction of mind and body is peculiarly intimate. Unlike the interaction between a pilot and his ship, the connection between mind and body more closely resembles two substances that have been thoroughly mixed together.
 The fatal flaw of pure reason is, of course, the absence of emotion, and purely rational explanations of the division between subjective reality and external reality had limited appeal outside the community of intellectuals. The figure most responsible for infusing our understanding of Cartesian dualism with emotional content was the death of God theologian Friedrich Nietzsche. After declaring that God and ‘divine will’ did not exist, Nietzsche reified the ‘essences’ of consciousness in the domain of subjectivity as the ground for individual ‘will’ and summarily dismissed all pervious philosophical attempts to articulate the ‘will to truth’. The problem, claimed Nietzsche, is that earlier versions of the ‘will to power’ disguise the fact that all allege truths were arbitrarily created in tr subjective reality of te individual and are expression or manifestations of individual ‘will’.
 In Nietzsche’s view, the separation between mind and mater is more absolute and total than had previously been imagined. Based on the assumption that there is no real or necessary correspondences between linguistic constructions of reality in human subjectivity and external reality, he declared that we are all locked in ‘a prison house of language’. The prison as he conceived it, however, it was also a ‘space’ where the philosopher can examine the ‘innermost desires of his nature’ and articulate a new massage of individual existence founded on will.
 Those who fail to enact heir existence in this space, says Nietzsche, are enticed into sacrificing their individuality on the nonexistent altars of religious beliefs and/or democratic or socialist ideals and become, therefore, members of the anonymous and docile crowd. Nietzsche also invalidated the knowledge claims of science in the examination of human subjectivity. Science, he said, not only exalted natural phenomena and favours reductionistic examinations of phenomena at the expense of mind. It also seeks to educe mind to a mere material substance, and thereby to displace or subsume the separateness and uniqueness of mind with mechanistic description that disallow any basis for te free exerciser of individual will.
 Nietzsche’s emotionally charged defence of intellectual freedom and his radical empowerment of mind as the maker and transformer of the collective fictions that shape human reality in a soulful mechanistic inverse proved terribly influential on twentieth-century y thought. Nietzsche sought to reinforce his view of the subjective character of scientific knowledge by appealing to an epistemological crisis over the foundations of logic and arithmetic that arose during the last three decades of the nineteenth century. Though a curious course of events, attempts by Edmund Husserl, a philosopher trained in higher math and physics, to resolve this crisis resulted in a view of the character of human consciousness that closely resembled that of Nietzsche.
 Friedrich Nietzsche is openly pessimistic about the possibility of knowledge. ‘We simply lack any organ for knowledge, for ‘truth’: we ‘know (or believe or imagine) just as much as may be useful in the interests of the human herd, the species: and even what is called ‘utility’ is ultimately also a mere belief, something imaginary and perhaps precisely that most calamitous stupidity of which we shall perish some day’ (The Gay Science).
 This position is very radical, Nietzsche does not simply deny that knowledge, construed as the adequate representation of the world by the intellect, exists. He also refuses the pragmatist identification of knowledge and truth with usefulness: he writes that we think we know what we think is useful, and that we can be quite wrong abut the latter.
 Nietzsche’s view, his ‘perspectivism’, depends on his claim that there is no sensible conception of a world independent of human interpretation and to which interpretations would correspond if hey were to constitute knowledge. He sum up this highly controversial position in The Will to Power: ‘Facts are precisely what there is not. Only interpretation’.
 It is often claimed that perspectivism is self-undermining. If the thesis that all views are interpretations is true then, it is argued there is at least one view that is not an interpretation. If, on the other hand, the thesis is itself an interpretation, then there is no reason to believe that it is true, and it follows again that nit every view is an interpretation.
 But this refutation assume that if a view, like perspectivism itself, is an interpretation it is wrong. This is not the case. To call any view, including perspectivism, an interpretation is to say that it can be wrong, which is true of all views, and that is not a sufficient refutation. To show the perspectivism is actually false it is necessary to produce another view superior to it on specific epistemological grounds.
 Perspectivism does not deny that particular views can be true. Like some versions of cotemporary anti-realism, it attributes to specific approaches truth in relation t o facts specified internally those approaches themselves. Bu t it refuses to envisage a single independent set of facts, To be accounted for by all theories. Thus Nietzsche grants the truth of specific scientific theories does, however, deny that a scientific interpretation csan possibly be ‘the only justifiable interpretation of the world’ (The Gay Science): Neither t h fact science addresses nor the methods it employs are privileged. Scientific theories serve the urposes for which hey have been devised, but these have no priority over the many other purposes of human life. The existence of many purposes and needs relative to which the value of theories is established-another crucial element of perspectivism -  is sometimes thought to imply a reason relative, according to which no standards for evaluating purposes and theories can be devised. This is correct only in that Nietzsche denies the existence of single set of standards for determining epistemic value once and for all, but he holds that specific views can be compared with and evaluated in relation to one another the ability to use criteria acceptable in particular circumstances does not presuppose the existence of criteria applicable in all. Agreement is therefore not always possible, since individuals may sometimes differ over the most fundamental issues dividing them.
 But Nietzsche would not be troubled by this fact, which his opponents too also have to confront only he would argue, to suppress it by insisting on the hope that all disagreements are in particular eliminable even if our practice falls woefully short of the ideal. Nietzsche abandons that ideal. He considers irresoluble disagreement and essential part of human life.
 Knowledge for Nietzsche i s again material ,but now based on desire and bodily needs more than social refinements Perspectives are to be judged not from their relation to the absolute but on the basis of their effects in a specific era. The possibility of any truth beyond such a local, pragmatic one becomes a problem in Nietzsche, since either a noumenal realm or an historical synthesis exists to provide an absolute criterion of adjudication for competing truth claims: what get called truths are simply beliefs that have been for so long that we have forgotten their genealogy? In this Nietzsche reverses the Enlightenment dictum that truth is the way to liberation by suggesting that trying classes in so far as they are considered absolute for debate and conceptual progress and cause rather tab alleviate backwardness and unnecessary misery. Nietzsche moves back and forth without revolution between the positing of transhistories; truth claims, sch as his claim about the will to power, and a kind of epistemic nihilism that calls into question not only the possibility of truth but the need and desire of it as well. But perhaps most importantly, Nietzsche introduces the notion that truth is a kind of human practices, in a game whose rules are contingent rather than necessary it. The evaluation of truth claims should be based on their strategic efforts, not their ability to represent a reality conceived of as separate as of an autonomous of human influence.
 Generating the view that Nietzsche expresses in approval that all truth is truth from or within a particular perspective. The perspective may be a general human pin of view, set by such things as the nature of our sensory apparatus, or it may be thought to be bound by culture, history, language, class or gender. Since there may be many perspectives, there are also different families of truth. The term is frequently applied to, of course Nietzsche’s philosophy.
 The best-known disciples of Husserl was Martin Heidegger, and the work of both figures greatly influenced that of the French atheistic existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre. The work of Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre became foundational to that of the principle architects of philosophical postmodernism, the deconstructionists Jacques Lacan, Roland Bathes, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, this direct linkage between the nineteenth-century crisis about epistemological foundations of physics and the origins of philosophical postmodernism served to perpetuate the Cartesian two-world dilemma in an even more oppressive form
 Of Sartre’s main philosophical work, Being and Nothingness, Sartre examines the relationships between Being For-itself (consciousness) and Being In-itself (the non-conscious world). He rejects central tenets of the rationalalist and empiricist traditions, calling the view that the mind or self is a thing or substance. ‘Descartes’s substantialist illusion’, and claiming also that consciousness dos not contain ideas or representations . . .  are idolist invented by the psychologists., Sartre also attacks idealism in the forms associated with Berkeley and Kant, and concludes that his account of the relationship between consciousness and the world is neither realist nor idealist.
 Sartre also discusses Being For-others, which comprises the aspects of experience pertaining to interactions with other minds.. His views are subtle: roughly, he holds that one’s awareness of others is constituted by feelings of shame, pride, and so on.
 Sartre’s rejection of ideas, and the denial of idealism, appear to commit him to direct realism in the theory of perception. This is not inconsistent with his claim to be neither realist nor idealist, since by ‘realist’ he means views which allow for the mutual independence or in-principle separability of mind and world. Against this Sartre emphasizes, after Heidegger, that perceptual experience has an active dimension, in that it is a way of interacting and dealing with the world, than a way of merely contemplating it (‘activity, as spontaneous, unreflecting consciousness, constitutes a certain existential stratum in the world’). Consequently, he holds that experience is richer, and open to more aspects of the world, than empiricist writers customarily claim:
 When I run after a streetcar . . . there is consciousness of-the-streetcar-having-to-be-overtaken, etc., . . . I am then plunged into the world of objects, it is they which constitute the unity of my consciousness, it is they which present themselves with values, with attractive nd repellent qualities  . . .
 Relatedly, he insists that I experience material things as having certain potentialities-for-me )’nothingness’). I see doors and bottles as openable, bicycles as ridable (these matters are linked ultimately to he doctrine of extreme existentialist freedom). Similarly, if my friend is not where I expect to meet her, then I experience her absence ‘as a real event’.
 These Phenomenological claims are striking and compelling, but Sartre pay insufficient attention to sch things as illusions and hallucinations, which are normally cited as problems for direct realists. In his discussion of mental imagery, however, he describes the act of imaging as a ‘transformation’ of ‘psychic material’. This connects with his view that even a physical image such as a photograph of a tree does not figure as an object of consciousness when it is experienced as a tree-representation (than as a piece of coloured cards). But even so, the fact remains that the photograph continues to contribute to the character of the experience. Given this, it is hard to see how Sartre avoids positing a mental analogue of a photograph for episodes of mental imaging, and harder still to reconcile this with his rejection of visual representations. It may be that the regards imaging as debased and derivative perceptual knowledge, but this merely raises once more the issue of perceptual illusion and hallucination, and the problem of reconciling them with direct realism
 Much of Western religion and philosophical thought since the seventeenth century has sought to obviate this prospect with an appeal to ontology or to some conception of God or Being. Yet we continue to struggle, as philosophical postmodernism attests, with the terrible prospect by Nietzsche - we are locked in a prison house of our individual subjective realities in a universe that is as alien to our thought as it is to our desires. This universe may seem comprehensible and knowable in
scientific terms, and science does seek in some sense, as Koyré puts it, to ‘find a place for everything.’ Nonetheless, the ghost of Descartes lingers in the widespread conviction that science does not provide a ‘place for man’ or for all that we know as distinctly human in subjective reality.
 Nonetheless, after The Gay Science (1882) began the crucial exploration of self-mastery. The relations between reason and power, and the revelation of the unconscious striving after power that provide the actual energy for the apparent self-denial of the ascetic and the martyred was during this period that Nietzsche’s failed relationship with Lou Salomé precipitated the emotional crisis from which Also sprach Zarathustra (1883-5, trs, as Thus Spoke Zarathustra) signals a recovery. This work is frequently regarded as Nietzsche’s masterpiece. It was followed by Jenseits von Gut and Böse (1887, trs., as Beyond Good and Evil), Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887, trs., as The Genealogy of Moral.)
 In Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883 - 85), Friedrich Nietzsche introduced in eloquent poetic prose the concepts of the death of God, the superman, and the will to power. Vigorously attacking Christianity and democracy as moralities for the "weak herd," he argued for the "natural aristocracy" of the superman who, driven by the "will to power," celebrates life on earth rather than sanctifying it for some heavenly reward. Such a heroic man of merit has the courage to "live dangerously" and thus rise above the masses, developing his natural capacity for the creative use of passion.
 Also known as radical theology, this movement flourished in the mid 1960s. As a theological movement it never attracted a large following, did not find a unified expression, and passed off the scene as quickly and dramatically as it had arisen. There is even disagreement as to who its major representatives were. Some identify two, and others three or four. Although small, the movement attracted attention because it was a spectacular symptom of the bankruptcy of modern theology and because it was a journalistic phenomenon. The very statement "God is dead" was tailor - made for journalistic exploitation. The representatives of the movement effectively used periodical articles, paperback books, and the electronic media. This movement gave expression to an idea that had been incipient in Western philosophy and theology for some time, the suggestion that the reality of a transcendent God at best could not be known and at worst did not exist at all. Philosopher Kant and theologian Ritschl denied that one could have a theoretical knowledge of the being of God. Hume and the empiricists for all practical purposes restricted knowledge and reality to the material world as perceived by the five senses. Since God was not empirically verifiable, the biblical world view was said to be mythological and unacceptable to the modern mind. Such atheistic existentialist philosophers as Nietzsche despaired even of the search of God; it was he who coined the phrase "God is dead" almost a century before the death of God theologians.
 Mid-twentieth century theologians not associated with the movement also contributed to the climate of opinion out of which death of God theology emerged. Rudolf Bultmann regarded all elements of the supernaturalistic, theistic world view as mythological and proposed that Scripture be demythologized so that it could speak its message to the modern person.
 Paul Tillich, an avowed anti supernaturalist, said that the only nonsymbiotic statement that could be made about God was that he was being itself. He is beyond essence and existence; therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him. It is more appropriate to say God does not exist. At best Tillich was a pantheist, but his thought borders on atheism. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (whether rightly understood or not) also contributed to the climate of opinion with some fragmentary but tantalizing statements preserved in Letters and Papers from Prison. He wrote of the world and man "coming of age," of "religionless Christianity," of the "world without God," and of getting rid of the "God of the gaps" and getting along just as well as before. It is not always certain what Bonhoeffer meant, but if nothing else, he provided a vocabulary that later radical theologians could exploit.
 It is clear, then, that as startling as the idea of the death of God was when proclaimed in the mid 1960s, it did not represent as radical a departure from recent philosophical and theological ideas and vocabulary as might superficially appear.
 Just what was death of God theology? The answers are as varied as those who proclaimed God's demise. Since Nietzsche, theologians had occasionally used "God is dead" to express the fact that for an increasing number of people in the modern age God seems to be unreal. But the idea of God's death began to have special prominence in 1957 when Gabriel Vahanian published a book entitled God is Dead. Vahanian did not offer a systematic expression of death of God theology. Instead, he analysed those historical elements that contributed to the masses of people accepting atheism not so much as a theory but as a way of life. Vahanian himself did not believe that God was dead. But he urged that there be a form of Christianity that would recognize the contemporary loss of God and exert its influence through what was left. Other proponents of the death of God had the same assessment of God's status in contemporary culture, but were to draw different conclusions.
 Thomas J J Altizer believed that God had actually died. But Altizer often spoke in exaggerated and dialectic language, occasionally with heavy overtones of Oriental mysticism. Sometimes it is difficult to know exactly what Altizer meant when he spoke in dialectical opposites such as "God is dead, thank God!" But apparently the real meaning of Altizer's belief that God had died is to be found in his belief in God's immanence. To say that God has died is to say that he has ceased to exist as a transcendent, supernatural being. Rather, he has become fully immanent in the world. The result is an essential identity between the human and the divine. God died in Christ in this sense, and the process has continued time and again since then. Altizer claims the church tried to give God life again and put him back in heaven by its doctrines of resurrection and ascension. But now the traditional doctrines about God and Christ must be repudiated because man has discovered after nineteen centuries that God does not exist. Christians must even now will the death of God by which the transcendent becomes immanent.
 For William Hamilton the death of God describes the event many have experienced over the last two hundred years. They no longer accept the reality of God or the meaningfulness of language about him. non theistic explanations have been substituted for theistic ones. This trend is irreversible, and everyone must come to terms with the historical - cultural - death of God. God's death must be affirmed and the secular world embraced as normative intellectually and good ethically. Indeed, Hamilton was optimistic about the world, because he was optimistic about what humanity could do and was doing to solve its problems.
 Paul van Buren is usually associated with death of God theology, although he himself disavowed this connection. But his disavowal seems hollow in the light of his book The Secular Meaning of the Gospel and his article "Christian Education Post Mortem Dei." In the former he accepts empiricism and the position of Bultmann that the world view of the Bible is mythological and untenable to modern people. In the latter he proposes an approach to Christian education that does not assume the existence of God but does assume "the death of God" and that "God is gone."
 Van Buren was concerned with the linguistic aspects of God's existence and death. He accepted the premise of empirical analytic philosophy that real knowledge and meaning can be conveyed only by language that is empirically verifiable. This is the fundamental principle of modern secularists and is the only viable option in this age. If only empirically verifiable language is meaningful, ipso facto all language that refers to or assumes the reality of God is meaningless, since one cannot verify God's existence by any of the five senses. Theism, belief in God, is not only intellectually untenable, it is meaningless. In The Secular Meaning of the Gospel van Buren seeks to reinterpret the Christian faith without reference to God. One searches the book in vain for even one clue that van Buren is anything but a secularist trying to translate Christian ethical values into that language game. There is a decided shift in van Buren's later book Discerning the Way, however.
 In retrospect, it becomes clear that there was no single death of God theology, only death of God theologies. Their real significance was that modern theologies, by giving up the essential elements of Christian belief in God, had logically led to what were really antitheologies. When the death of God theologies passed off the scene, the commitment to secularism remained and manifested itself in other forms of secular theology in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
 Nietzsche is unchallenged as the most insightful and powerful critic of the moral climate of the 19th century (and of what of it remains in ours). His exploration of unconscious motivation anticipated Freud. He is notorious for stressing the ‘will to power’ that is the basis of human nature, the ‘resentment’ that comes when it is denied its basis in action, and the corruptions of human nature encouraged by religion, such as Christianity, that feed on such resentment. But the powerful human beings who escapes all this, the Ubermensch, is not the ‘blood beast’ of later fascism: It is a human being who has mastered passion, risen above the senseless flux, and given creative style to his or her character. Nietzsche’s free spirits recognize themselves by their joyful attitude to eternal return. He frequently presents the creative artist rather than the warlord as his best exemplar of the type, but the disquieting fact remains that he seems to leave himself no words to condemn any uncaged beasts of pre y who best find their style by exerting repulsive power find their style by exerting repulsive e power over others. This problem is no t helped by Nietzsche’s frequently expressed misogyny, although in such matters the interpretation of his many-layered and ironic writings is no always straightforward. Similarly y, such
Anti-Semitism as has been found in his work is balanced by an equally vehement denunciation of anti-Semitism, and an equal or greater dislike of the German character of his time.
 Nietzsche’s current influence derives not only from his celebration of will, but more deeply from his scepticism about the notions of truth and act. In particular, he anticipated any of the central tenets of postmodernism: an aesthetic attitude toward the world that sees it as a ‘text’; the denial of facts; the denial of essences; the celebration of the plurality of interpretation and of the fragmented self, as well as the downgrading of reason and the politicization of discourse. All awaited rediscovery in the late 20th century. Nietzsche also has the incomparable advantage over his followers of being a wonderful stylist, and his perspectivism is echoed in the shifting array of literary devices - humour, irony, exaggeration, aphorisms, verse, dialogue, parody - with which he explores human life and history.
 Yet, it is nonetheless, that we have seen, the origins of the present division that can be traced to the emergence of classical physics and the stark Cartesian division between mind and bodily world are two separate substances, the self is as it happened associated with a particular body, but is self-subsisting, and capable of independent existence, yet Cartesian duality, much as the ‘ego’ that we are tempted to imagine as a simple unique thing that makes up our essential identity, but, seemingly  sanctioned by this physics. The tragedy of the Western mind, well represented in the work of a host of writers, artists, and intellectual, is that the Cartesian division was perceived as uncontrovertibly real.
 Beginning with Nietzsche, those who wished to free the realm of the mental from the oppressive implications of the mechanistic world-view sought to undermine the alleged privileged character of the knowledge called physicians with an attack on its epistemological authority. After Husserl tried and failed to save the classical view of correspondence by grounding the logic of mathematical systems in human consciousness, this not only resulted in a view of human consciousness that became characteristically postmodern. It also represents a direct link with the epistemological crisis about the foundations of logic and number in the late nineteenth century that foreshadowed the epistemological crisis occasioned by quantum physics beginning in the 1920's. This, as a result in disparate views on the existence of oncology and the character of scientific knowledge that fuelled the conflict between the two.
 If there were world enough and time enough, the conflict between each that both could be viewed as an interesting artifact in the richly diverse coordinative systems of higher education. Nevertheless, as the ecological crisis teaches us, the ‘old enough’ capable of sustaining the growing number of our life firms and the ‘time enough’ that remains to reduce and reverse the damage we are inflicting on this world ae rapidly diminishing. Therefore, put an end to the absurd ‘betweeness’ and go on with the business of coordinate human knowledge in the interest of human survival in a new age of enlightenment that could be far more humane and much more enlightened than any that has gone before.
 It now, which it is, nonetheless, that there are significant advances in our understanding to a purposive mind. Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary approach to cognition that draws primarily on ideas from cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics and logic. Some philosophers may be cognitive scientists, and others concern themselves with the philosophy of cognitive psychology and cognitive science. Since inauguration of cognitive science these disciplines have attracted much attention from certain philosophers of mind. This has changed the character of philosophy of mind, and there are areas where philosophical work on the nature of mind is continuous with scientific work. Yet, the problems that make up this field concern the ways of ‘thinking’ and ‘mental properties’ are those that these problems are standardly and traditionally regarded within philosophy of mind than those that emerge from the recent developments in cognitive science. The cognitive aspect is what has to be understood is to know what would make the sentence true or false. It is frequently identified with the truth cognition of the sentence. Justly as the scientific study of precesses of awareness, thought, and mental organization, often by means of a computer modelling or artificial intelligence research.
Contradicted by the evidence, it only has to do with is structure and the way it functioned, that is just because a theory does not mean that the scientific community currently accredits it. Generally, there are many theories, though technically scientific, have been rejected because the scientific evidence is strangely against it. The historical enquiry into the evolution of self-consciousness, developing from elementary sense experience to fully rational, free, thought processes capable of yielding knowledge the presented term, is associated with the work and school of Husserl. Following Brentano, Husserl realized that intentionality was the distinctive mark of consciousness, and saw in it a concept capable of overcoming traditional mind-body dualism. The stud y of consciousness, therefore, maintains two sides: a conscious experience can be regarded as an element in a stream of consciousness, but also as a representative of one aspect or ‘profile’ of an object. In spite of Husserl’s rejection of dualism, his belief that there is a subject-matter remaining after epoch or bracketing of the content of experience, associates him with the priority accorded to elementary experiences in the parallel doctrine of phenomenalism, and phenomenology has partly suffered from the eclipse of that approach to problems of experience and reality. However, later phenomenologists such as Merleau-Ponty do full justice to the world-involving nature of Phenomenological theories are empirical generalizations of data experience., or manifest in experience. More generally, the phenomenal aspects of things are the aspects that show themselves, than the theoretical aspects that are inferred or posited in order to account for them. They merely described the recurring process of nature and do not refer to their cause or that, in the words of J.S. Mill, ‘objects are the permanent possibilities of sensation’. To inhabit a world of independent, external objects is, on this view, to be the subject of actual and possible orderly experiences. Espoused by Russell, the view issued in a programme of translating talk about physical objects and their locations int o talk about possible experience. The attempt is widely supposed to have failed, and the priority the approach gives to experience has been much criticized. It is more common in contemporary philosophy to see experience as itself a construct from the actual way of the world, than the other way round.
 Phenomenological theories are also called ‘scientific laws’ ‘physical laws’ and ‘natural laws.’ Newton’s third law is one example. It says that every action ha an equal and opposite reaction. ‘Explanatory theories’ attempt to explain the observations rather than generalized them. Whereas laws are descriptions of empirical regularities, explanatory theories are conceptual constrictions to explain why the data exit, for example, atomic theory explains why we see certain observations, the same could be said with DNA and relativity, Explanatory theories are particularly helpful in such cases where the entities (like atoms, DNA . . . ) cannot be directly observed.
 What is knowledge? How does knowledge get to have the content it has? The problem of defining knowledge in terms of true belief plus some favoured relation between the believer and the facts begun with Plato, in that knowledge is true belief plus logos, as it is what enables us to apprehend the principle and firms, i.e., an aspect of our own reasoning.
 What makes a belief justified for what measures of belief is knowledge? According to most epistemologists, knowledge entails belief, so that to know ‘w’ that such and such is the case. None less, there are arguments against all versions of the thesis that knowledge requires having a belief-like attitude toward the known. These arguments are given by philosophers who think that knowledge and belief or facsimile, are mutually incompatible (the incompatibility thesis) or by ones who say that knowledge does not entail belief, or vice versa, so that each may exist without the other, but the two may also coexist (the separability thesis). The incompatibility thesis that hinged on the equation of knowledge with certainty. The assumption that we believe in the truth of  claim we are not certain about its truth. Given that belief always involves uncertainty, while knowledge never does, believing something rules out the possibility of knowledge knowing it. Again, given to no reason to grant that states of belief are never ones involving confidence. Conscious beliefs clearly involve some level of confidence, to suggest otherwise, that we cease to believe things about which we are completely confident is bizarre.
 A.D. Woozley (1953) defends a version of the separability thesis. Woozley’s version that deal with psychological certainty than belief per se, is that knowledge can exist without confidence about the item known, although knowledge might also be accompanied by confidence as well. Woozley says, ‘what I can Do, where what I can do may include answering questions.’ on the basis of this remark he suggests that even when people are unsure of the truth of a claim, they might know that the claim is true. We unhesitatingly attribute knowledge to people that correct responses on examinations if those people show no confidence in their answers. Woozley acknowledges however, that it would be odd for those who lack confidence to claim knowledge. Saying it would be peculiar, ‘I know it is correct.’ but this tension; still ‘I know is correct.’ Woozley explains, using a distinction between condition under which are justified in making a claim (such as a claim to know something) and conditioned under which the claim we make is true. While ‘I know such and such’ might be true even if I answered whether such and such holds, nonetheless claiming that ‘I know that such should be inappropriate for me and such unless I was sure of the truth of my claim.’
 Colin Redford (1966) extends Woozley’s defence of the separability thesis. In Redford’s view, not only in knowledge compatible with the lacking of certainty, it is also compatible with a complete lack of belief. He argues by example, in this one example, Jean had forgotten that he learned some English history years prior and yet he is able to give several correct responses to questions such as, ‘When did the Battle of Hastings occur?’ since he forgot that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066 in history, he considers his correct response to be no more than guesses. Thus when he says that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066 he would deny having the belief that the Battle of Hasting took place in 1066.
 Those who agree with Radford’s defence of the separation thesis will probably think of belief as an inner state that can be directed through introspection. That Jean lacks’ beliefs out English history are plausible on this Cartesian picture since Jean does not find himself with the belief out of which the English history when with any beliefs about English history when he seeks them out. One might criticize Radford, however, by rejecting the Cartesian view of belief. One could argue that some beliefs are thoroughly unconscious. For example, (1859), according to which having beliefs is a matter of the way people are disposed to behave (and has not Radford already adopted a behaviourist conception of knowledge?). since Jean gives the correct response when queried, a form of verbal behaviour, a behaviourist would be tempted to credit him with the belief that the battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.
 Once, again, but the jargon is attributable to different attitudinal values. AS, D. M. Armstrong (1973) makes a different task against Radford. Jean does know that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. Armstrong will grant Radford that points, which in fact, Armstrong suggests that Jean believe that 1066 is not the date the Battle of Hastings occur. For Armstrong equates the belief of such and such is just possible bu t no more than just possible with the belief that such and such is not the case. However, Armstrong insists Jean also believe that the Battle did occur in 1066. After all, had Jean been mistaught that the Battle occurred in 1066, and had he forgotten being ‘taught’ this and subsequently ‘guessed’ that it took place in 10690, we would surely describe the situation as one in which Jean’ false belief about the Battle became a memory trace that was causally responsible or his guess. Thus while Jean consciously believes that the Battle e did not occur in 1066, unconsciously he does believe it occurred in 1066. So after all, Radford does not have a counterexample to the claim that knowledge entails belief.
 Suppose that Jean’s memory had been sufficiently powerful to produce the relevant belief. As Radford says, Jan has every reason to suppose that his response is mere guesswork, and so he has every reason to consider his belief false. His belief would be an irrational one, and hence one about whose truth Jean would be ignorant.
 The attempt to understand the concepts involved in religious belief, existence, necessity, fate, creation, sun, justice, Mercy, Redemption, God. Until the 20th century the history of western philosophy is closely intertwined with attempts to make sense of aspect of pagan, Jewish or Christian religion, while in other tradition such as Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, there is even less distinction between religious and philosophical enquiry. The classic problem of conceiving an appropriate object of religious belief I that of understanding whether any term can be predicated of it: Does it make to any sense of talking about its creating to things, willing event, or being one thing or many? The via negativa of theology is to claim that God can only be known by denying ordinary terms of any application (or them); another influential suggestion is that ordinary term only apply metaphorically, sand that there is n hope of cashing the metaphors. Once a description of a Supreme Being is hit upon, there remains the problem of providing any reason for supposing that anything answering to the description exists. The medieval period was the high-water mark - for purported proofs of the existence of God, such as the Five-Ays of Aquinas, or the ontological argument of such proofs have fallen out of general favour since the 18th century, although theories still sway many people and some philosophers.
 Generally speaking, even religious philosophers (or perhaps, they especially) have  been wary of popular manifestations of religion. Kant, himself a friend of religious faith, nevertheless distinguishes various perversions: Theosophy (using transcendental conceptions that confuses reason), demonology (indulging an anthropomorphic, mode of representing the Supreme Being), theurgy (a fanatical delusion that feeling can be communicated from such a being, or that we can exert an influence on it), and idolatry, or a superstition’s delusion the one can make oneself acceptable to his Supreme Being by order by means than that of having the moral law at heart (Critique of judgement) these warm conversational tendencies have, however, been increasingly important in modern theology.
 Since Feuerbach there has been a growing tendency for philosophy of religion either to concentrate upon the social and anthropological dimension of religious belief, or to treat a manifestation of various explicable psychological urges. Another reaction is retreat into a celebration of purely subjective existential commitments. Still, the ontological arguments continue to attach attention. A modern anti - fundamentalists trends in epistemology are not entirely hostile to cognitive claims based on religious experience.
 Still, the problem of reconciling the subjective e or psychological nature of mental life with its objective and logical content preoccupied from of which is next of the problem was elephantine Logische untersuchungen (trs. as Logical Investigations, 1070). To keep a subjective and a naturalistic approach to knowledge together. Abandoning the naturalism in favour of a kind of transcendental idealism. The precise nature of his change is disguised by a pechant for new and impenetrable terminology, but the ‘bracketing’ of eternal questions for which are to a great extent acknowledged implications of a solipistic, disembodied Cartesian ego s its starting-point, with it thought of as inessential that the thinking subject is ether embodied or surrounded by others. However by the time of Cartesian Meditations (trs. as, 1960, fist published in French as Méditations Carthusianness, 1931), a shift in priorities has begun, with the embodied individual, surrounded by others, than the disembodied Cartesian ego now returned to a fundamental position. The extent to which the desirable shift undermines the programme of phenomenology that is closely identical with Husserl’s earlier approach remains unclear, until later phenomenologists such as Merleau-Ponty has worked fruitfully from the later standpoint.
 Pythagoras established and was the central figure in school of philosophy, religion, and mathematics: He was apparently viewed by his followers as semi-divine. For his followers the regular solids (symmetrical three - dimensional forms in which all sides are the same regular polygon) with ordinary language.  The language of mathematical and geometric forms seem closed, precise and pure. Providing one understood the axioms and notations, and the meaning conveyed was invariant from one mind to another. The Pythagoreans following which was the language empowering the mind to leap beyond the confusion of sense experience into the realm of immutable and eternal essences. Tis mystical insight made Pythagoras the figure from antiquity must revered by the creators of classical physics, and it continues to have great appeal for contemporary physicists as they struggle with the epistemological of the quantum mechanical description of nature.
 Pythagoras (570 Bc) was the son of Mn esarchus of Samos ut, emigrated (531 Bc) to Croton in southern Italy. Here he founded a religious society, but were forces into exile and died at Metapomtum. Membership of the society entailed self - disciplined, silence and the observance of his  taboos, especially against eating flesh and beans. Pythagoras taught the doctrine of metempsychosis or te cycle of reincarnation, and was supposed ale to remember former existence. The soul, which as its own divinity and may have existed as an animal or plant, can, however gain release by a religious dedication to study, after which it may rejoin the universal world-soul. Pythagoras is usually, but doubtfully, accredited with having discovered the basis of acoustics, the numerical ratios underlying the musical scale, thereby y intimating the arithmetical interpretation of nature. This tremendous success inspired the view that the whole of the cosmos should be explicable in terms of harmonia or number. the view represents a magnificent brake from the Milesian attempt to ground physics on a conception shared by all things, and to concentrate instead on form, meaning that physical nature receives an intelligible grounding in different geometric breaks. The view is vulgarized in the doctrine usually attributed to Pythagoras, that all things are number. However, the association of abstract qualitites with numbers, but reached remarkable heights, with occult attachments for instance, between justice and the number four, and mystical significance, especially of the number ten, cosmologically Pythagoras explained the origin of the universe in mathematical terms, as the imposition of limit on the limitless by a kind of injection of a unit. Followers of Pythagoras included Philolaus, the earliest cosmosologist known to have e understood that the earth is a moving planet. It is also likely that the Pythagoreans discovered the irrationality of the square root of two.
 The Pythagoreans considered numbers to be among te building blocks of the universe. In fact, one of the most central of the beliefs of Pythagoras mathematihoi, his inner circle, was that reality was mathematical in nature. This made numbers valuable tools, and over time even the knowledge of a number’s name came to be associated with power. If you could name something you had a degree of control over it, and to have power over the numbers was to have power over nature.
 One, for example, stood for the mind, emphasizing its Oneness. Two was opinion, taking a step away from the singularity of mind. Three was wholeness (a whole needs a beginning, a middle and its  ending to be more than a one - dimensional point), and four represented the stable squareness of justice. Five was marriage - being the sum of three and two, the first odd (male) and even (female) numbers. (Three was the first odd number because the number one was considered by the Greeks to be so special that it could not form part of an ordinary grouping of numbers).
 The allocation of interpretations went on up to ten, which for the Pythagoreans was the number of perfections. Not only was it the sum of the first four numbers, but when a series of ten dots are arranged in the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . each above the next, it forms a perfect triangle, the simplest of the two-dimensional shapes. So convinced were the Pythagoreans of the importance of ten that they assumed there had to be a tenth body in the heavens on top of the known ones, an anti-Earth, never seen as it was constantly behind the Sun. This power of the number ten, may also have linked with ancient Jewish thought, where it appears in a number of guised the ten commandments, and the ten the components are of the Jewish mystical cabbala tradition.
 Such numerology, ascribed a natural or supernatural significance to number, can also be seen in Christian works, and continued in some new-age tradition. In the Opus majus, written in 1266, the English scientist-friar Roger Bacon wrote that: ‘Moreover, although a manifold perfection of number is found according to which ten is said to be perfect, and seven, and six, yet most of all does three claim itself perfection.’
 Ten, we have already seen, was allocated to perfection. Seven was the number of planets according to the ancient Greeks, while the Pythagoreans had designated the number as the universe. Six also has a mathematical significance, as Bacon points out, because if you break it down into te factor that can be multiplied together to make it - one, two, and three - they also add up to six:
    1 x 2 x 3 = 6 = 1 + 2 + 3
Such was the concern of the Pythagoreans to keep irrational numbers to themselves, bearing in mind, it might seem amazing that the Pythagoreans could cope with the values involved in this discovery. After all, as the square root of 2 can’t be represented a ratio, we have to use a decimal fraction to write it out. Indeed, it would be amazing, were it rue that the Greeks did have a grasp for the existence of irrational numbers as a fraction. In fact, though you might find it mentioned that the Pythagoreans did, to talk about them understanding numbers in its way, totally misrepresented the way they thought.
 At this point, as occupied of a particular place in space, and giving the opportunity that our view presently becomes fused with Christian doctrine when logos are God’s instrument in the development (redemption) of the world. The notion survives in the idea of laws of nature, if these conceived of as independent guides of the natural course of events, existing beyond the temporal world that they order. The theory of knowledge and its central questions include the origin of knowledge, the place of experience in generating knowledge, and the place of reason in doing so, the relationship between knowledge and certainty, not between knowledge and the impossibility of error, the possibility of universal scepticism, sand the changing forms of knowledge that arise from new conceptualizations of the world and its surrounding surfaces.
 As, anyone group of problems concerns the relation between mental and physical properties. Collectively they are called ‘the mind-body problem ‘ this problem is of its central questioning of philosophy of mind since Descartes formulated in the three centuries past, for many people understanding the place of mind in nature is the greatest philosophical problem. Mind is often thought to be the last domain that stubbornly resists scientific understanding, and philosophers differ over whether they find that a cause for celebration or scandal, the mind-body problem in the modern era was given its definitive shape by Descartes, although the dualism that he espoused is far more widespread and far older, occurring in some form wherever there is a religious or philosophical tradition by which the soul may have an existence apart from the body. While most modern philosophers of mind would reject the imaginings that lead us to think that this makes sense, there is no consensus over the way to integrate our understanding people a bearer s of physical proper ties on the one hand and as subjects of mental lives on the other.
 As the motivated convictions that discoveries of non-locality have more potential to transform our conceptions of the ‘way things are’ than any previous discovery, it is, nonetheless, that these implications extend well beyond the domain of the physical sciences, and the best efforts of many thoughtful people will be required to understand them.
 Perhaps the most startling and potentially revolutionary of these implications in human terms is the view in the relationship between mind and world that is utterly different from that sanctioned by classical physics. René Descartes, for reasons of the moment, was among the first to realize that mind or consciousness in the mechanistic world-view of classical physics appeared to exist in a realm separate and the distinction drawn upon ‘self-realisation’ and ‘undivided wholeness’ he lf within the form of nature.  philosophy quickly realized that there was nothing in this view of nature that could explain or provide a foundation for the mental, or for all that we know from direct experience and distinctly human. In a mechanistic universe, he said, there is no privileged place or function for mind, and the separation between mind and matter is absolute. Descartes was also convinced, however, that the immaterial essences that gave form and structure to this universe were coded in geometrical and mathematical ideas, and this insight led him to invent algebraic geometry.
 Decanters’ theory of knowledge starts with the quest for certainty, for an indubitable starting-point or foundation on the basis alone of which progress is possible, sometimes known as the use of hyperbolic (extreme) doubt, or Cartesian doubt. This is the method of investigating how much knowledge and its basis in reason or experience used by Descartes in the first two Meditations. This is eventually found in the celebrated ‘Cogito ergo sum’: I think therefore I am. By finding the point of certainty in my own awareness of my own self, Descartes gives a first-person twist to the theory of knowledge that dominated the following centuries in spite of various counter - attacks for social and public starting-point. The metaphysic associated with this priority is the famous Cartesian dualism, or separation of mind and matter into two different but interacting substances. Descartes rigorously and rightly understands the presence of divine dispensation to certify any relationship between the two realms thus divided, and to prove the reliability of the senses invoked a ‘clear and distinct perception’ of highly dubious proofs of the existence of a benevolent deity. This has not met general acceptance: As Hume drily puts it, ‘to have recourse to the veracity of the supreme Being, to prove the veracity of our senses, is surely making a very unexpected circuit.’
 In his own time Descartes’s conception of the entirely separate substance of the mind was recognized to precede to insoluble problems of nature of the causal connection between the two systems running in parallel. When I stub my toe, this does not cause pain, but there is a harmony between the mental and the physical (perhaps, due to God) that ensure that there will be a simultaneous pain; when I form an intention and then act, the same benevolence ensures that my action is appropriate to my intention. The theory has never been wildly popular, and in its application to mind-body problems many philosophers would say that it was the result of a misconceived ‘Cartesian dualism,’ it of ‘subjective knowledge’ and ‘physical theory.’
 It also produces the problem, insoluble in its own terms, of ‘other minds.’ Descartes’s notorious denial that nonhuman animals are conscious is a stark illustration of the problem. In his conception of matter Descartes also gives preference to rational cogitation over anything derived from the senses. Since we can conceive of the matter of a ball of wax surviving changes to its sensible qualities, matter is not an empirical concept, but eventually an entirely geometrical one, with extension and motion as its only physical nature. Descartes’ s thought is reflected in Leibniz’s view, held later by Russell, that the qualities of sense experience have no resemblance to qualities of things, so that knowledge of the external world is essentially knowledge of structure than of filling. On this basis Descartes builds a remarkable physics. Since matter is in effect the same as extension there can be no empty space or ‘void,’ since there is no empty space motion is not a question of occupying previously empty space, but is to be thought of through vortices (like the motion of a liquid).
 Although the structure of Descartes’s epistemology, theory of mind, and theory of matter have been rejected often, their relentless exposures of the hardest issues, their exemplary clarity, and even their initial plausibility, all contrive to make him the central point of reference for modern philosophy.
 A scientific understanding of these ideas could be derived, said, Descartes, with the aid of precise deduction, and he also claimed that the contours of physical reality could be laid out in three - dimensional coordinates. Following the publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica in 1687, reductionism and mathematical modelling became the most powerful tools of modern science. The dream that the entire physical world could be known and mastered through the extension and refinement of mathematical theory became the central feature and principle of scientific knowledge.
 The radical separation between mind and nature formalized by Descartes served over time to allow scientists to concentrate on developing mathematical descriptions of matter as pure mechanisms without any concerns about its spiritual dimensions or ontological foundations. Meanwhile, attempts to rationalize, reconcile or eliminate Descartes’s stark division between mind and matter became the most central feature of Western intellectual life.
 Philosophers like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume tried to articulate some basis for linking the mathematical describable motions of matter with linguistic representations of external reality in the subjective space of mind. Descartes’ compatriot Jean - Jacques Rousseau reified nature as the ground of human consciousness in a state of innocence and proclaimed that ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternities’ are the guiding principals of this consciousness. Rousseau also given rythum to cause an endurable god - like semblance so that the idea of the ‘general will’ of the people to achieve these goals and declared that those who do no conform to this will were social deviants.
 The Enlightenment idea of deism, which imaged the universe as a clockwork and God as the clockmaker, provided grounds for believing in a divine agency at the moment of creation. It also implied, however, that all the creative forces of the universe were exhausted at origins, that the physical substrates of mind were subject to the same natural laws as matter, and that the only means of mediating the gap between mind and matter was pure reason. Traditional Judeo-Christian theism, which had previously been based on both reason and revelation, responding to the challenge of deism by debasing rationality as a test of faith and embracing the idea that the truths of spiritual reality can be known only through divine revelation. This engendered a conflict between reason and revelation that persists to this day. It also laid the foundation for the fierce competition between the mega-narratives of science and religion as frame tales for mediating relations between mind and matter and the manner in which the special character of each should be ultimately defined.
 Rousseau’s attempt to posit a ground for human consciousness by reifying nature was revived in a different form by the nineteenth - century Romantics in Germany, England, and the United States. Goethe and Friedrich Schelling proposed a natural philosophy premised on ontological monism (the idea that God, man, and nature are grounded in an indivisible spiritual Oneness) and argued for the reconciliation of mind and matter with an appeal to sentiment, mystical awareness, and quasi-scientific musings. In Goethe’s attempt to wed mind and matter, nature becomes a mindful agency that ‘loves illusion,’ ‘shrouds man in mist,’ ‘presses him to her heart,’ and punishes those who fail to see the ‘light.’ Schelling, in his version of cosmic unity, argues that scientific facts were at best partial truths and that the mindful dualism spirit that unites mind and matter is progressively moving toward self-realization and undivided wholeness.
 The flaw of pure reason is, of course, the absence of emotion, an external reality had limited appeal outside the community of intellectuals. The figure most responsible for infusing our understanding of Cartesian dualism with emotional content was the death of God theologian Friedrich Nietzsche after declaring that God and ‘divine will’ does not exist, verifiably, literature puts forward, it is the knowledge that God is dead. The death of God he calls the greatest events in modern history and the cause of extremer danger. Yet, the paradox contained in these words. He never said that there was no God, but the Eternal had been vanquished by Time and that the Immortal suffered death at the hands of mortals. ‘God is dead’. It is like a cry mingled of despair and triumph, reducing, by comparison, the whole story of atheism agnosticism before and after him to the level of respectable mediocrity and making it sound like a collection of announcements who in regret are unable to invest in an unsafe proposition: - this is the very essence of Nietzsche’s spiritual core of existence, and what flows is despair and hope in a new generation of man, visions of catastrophe and glory, the icy brilliance e of analytical reason, fathoming with affected irreverence those depths until now hidden by awe and fear, and side-by-side, with it, ecstatics invocations of as ritual healer.
 Nietzsche reified for ‘existence’ of consciousness in the domain of subjectivity as the ground for individual ‘will’ and summarily dismissed all previous philosophical attempts to articulate the ‘will to truth.’ The problem, claimed Nietzsche, is that earlier versions of the ‘will to truth’ disguise the fact that all alleged truths were arbitrarily created in the subjective reality of the individual and are expressions or manifestations of individual ‘will.’
 In Nietzsche’s view, the separation between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ is more absolute and total had previously been imagined. Based on the assumptions that there are no really necessary correspondences between linguistic constructions of reality in human subjectivity and external reality, he declared that we are all locked in ‘a prison house of language.’ The prison as he conceived it, however, was also a ‘space’ where the philosopher can examine the ‘innermost desires of his nature’ and articulate a new message of individual existence founded on will.
 Those who fail to enact their existence in this space, says Nietzsche, are enticed into sacrificing their individuality on the nonexistent altars of religious beliefs and/or democratic or socialist ideals and become. therefore, members of the anonymous and docile crowd. Nietzsche also invalidated the knowledge claims of science in the examination of human subjectivity. Science, he said, not only exalted natural phenomena and favours reductionistic examinations of phenomena at the expense of mind. It also seeks to reduce mind to a mere material substance, and by that to displace or subsume the separateness and uniqueness of mind with mechanistic descriptions that disallow a basis for the free exercise of individual will.
 Nietzsche’s emotionally charged defence of intellectual freedom and his radical empowerment of mind as the maker and transformer of the collective fictions that shape human reality in a soulless scientific universe proved terribly influential on twentieth - century thought. Nietzsche sought to reinforce his view on subjective character of scientific knowledge by appealing to an epistemological crisis over the foundations of logic and arithmetic that arose during the last three decades of the nineteenth century. As it turned out, these efforts resulted in paradoxes of recursion and self - reference that threatened to undermine both the efficacy of this correspondence and the privileged character of scientific knowledge.
 Nietzsche appealed to this crisis in an effort to reinforce his assumption that, in the absence of onotology, all knowledge (including scientific knowledge) was grounded only in human consciousness. As the crisis continued, a philosopher trained in higher mathematics and physics, Edmund Husserl, attempted to preserve the classical view of correspondence between mathematical theory and physical reality by deriving the foundation of logic and number from consciousness in ways that would preserve self-consistency and rigour. It represented a direct link between these early challenges and the efficacy of classical epistemology and the tradition in philosophical thought that culminated in philosophical postmodernism.
 Since Husserl’s epistemology, like that of Descartes and Nietzsche, was grounded in human subjectivity, a better understanding of his attempt to preserve the classical view of correspondence not only reveals more about the legacy of Cartesian duality. It also suggests that the hidden onotology of classical epistemology was more responsible for the deep division and conflict between the two cultures of humanists-social scientists and scientists-engineers than we has preciously imagined. The central question in this late-nineteenth-century debate over the status of the mathematical description of nature as the following: Is the foundation of number and logic grounded in classical epistemology, or must we assume, in the absence of any ontology, that the rules of number and logic are grounded only in human consciousness? In order to frame this question in the proper context, it should first examine in more detail that intimate and ongoing dialogue between physics and metaphysics in Western thought.
 Through a curious course of events, attempts by Edmund Husserl, a philosopher trained in higher math and physics to resolve this crisis resulted in a view of the character of human consciousness that closely resembled that of Nietzsche.
 For Nietzsche, however, all the activities of human consciousness share the predicament of psychology. There can be, for him, no ‘pure’ knowledge, only satisfaction, however sophisticated, of te ever-varying intellectual needs of the will to know. He therefore demands that man should accept moral responsibility for the kind of questioned he asks, and that he should realize what values are implied in he answers he asks - and in this he was more Christian than all our post-Faustian Fausts of truth and scholarship. ‘The desire for truth,’ he says, ‘is itself in need of critique. Let this be the definition of my philosophical task. By way of excrement, I shall question for one the value of truth.’ and does he not. He protests that, in an age that is as uncertain of its values as is his and ours, the search for truth will issue in either/or trivialities or - catastrophe. We might wonder how he would react to the pious hope of our day that the intelligence and moral conscience of politicians will save the world from the disastrous products of our scientific explorations and engineering skills. It is perhaps not too difficult to guess; for he knew that there was a fatal link between the moral resolution of scientists to follow the scientific search wherever, by its own momentum, it will take us, and te moral debility of societies not altogether disinclined to ‘apply’ the results, however catastrophic, believing that there was a hidden identity among all the expressions of the ‘Will to Power’, he saw the element of moral nihilism in the ethics of our science: Its determination not to let ‘higher values’ interfere with its highest value - Truth (as it conceives it). Thus he said that the goal of knowledge pursued by the natural sciences means perdition.
 In these regions of his mind dwells the terror that he may have helped to bring about the very opposite of what he desired. When this terror comes to the force, he is much afraid of the consequences of his teaching. Perhaps, the best will be driven to despair by it, the very worst accept it? And once he put into the mouth of some imaginary titanic genius what is his most terrible prophetic utterance: ‘Oh grant madness, your heavenly powers, madness that at last I may believe in myself . . . I am consumed by doubts, for I have killed the Law. . . .If I am not more than the Law, then I am the most abject of all men’.
 Still ‘God is dead,’ and, sadly, that he had to think the meanest thought: He saw in the real Christ an illegitimate son of the Will to power, a flustrated rabbi sho set out to save himself and the underdog human from the intolerable strain of importantly resending the Caesars - not to be Caesar was now proclaimed a spiritual disjunction - a newly invented form of power, the power to be powerless.
 It is the knowledge that God is dead, and suffered death at the hands of mortals: ‘God is dead’: It is like a cry mingled of despair ad triumph, reducing the whole story of theism nd agnosticism before and after him to the level of respectable mediocrity nd masking it sound like a collection of announcement. Nietzsche, for the nineteenth century, brings to its perverse conclusion a line of religious thought and experience linked with the names of St. Paul, St. Augustin, Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Dostoevsky, minds for whom God was not simply the creator of an order of nature within which man has his clearly defined place, but to whom He came rather in order to challenge their natural being, masking demands that appeared absurd in the light of natural reason. These men are of the family of Jacob: Having wrestled with God for His blessing, they ever after limp through life with the framework of Nature incurably out of joint. Nietzsche is just a wrestler, except within him the shadow of Jacob merges with the shadow of Prometheus. Like Jacob, Nietzsche too believed that he prevailed against God in that struggle, and won a new name for himself, the name of Zarathustra. Yet the words he spoke on his mountain to the angle of the Lord were: ‘I will not let thee go, but thou curse me.’ Or, in words that Nietzsche did in fact speak: ‘I have on purpose devoted my life to exploring the whole contrast to a truly religious nature. I know the Devil and all his visions of God.’ ‘God is dead,’ is the very core of Nietzsche’s spiritual existence, and what follows is despair and hope in a new greatness of man.
 Further to issues are the best - known disciple that Husserl was Martin Heidegger, and the work of both figures greatly influenced that of the French atheistic existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre. His first novel, La Nausée, was published in 1938 (trs. as, Nausea, 1949). Lʹ̀Imginaire (1940, trs. as The Psychology of the Imagination, 1948) is a contribution to phenomenal psychology. Briefly captured by the Germans, Sartre spent the ending of war years in Paris, where Lʹ Être et le néant, his major purely philosophical work, was published in 1945 (trs. as, Being and Nothingness, 1956). The lecture Lʹ Existentialisme est un humanisme (1946, trs. as Existentialism is a Humanism, 1947) consolidated Sartre’s position as France’s leading existentialist philosopher.
 Sartre’s philosophy is concerned entirely with the nature of human life, and the structures of consciousness. As a result it gains expression in his novels and plays as well as in more orthodox academic treatises. Its immediate ancestors is the phenomenological tradition of his teachers, and Sartre can most simply be seen as concerned to rebut the charge of idealism as it is laid at the door of phenomenology. The agent is not a spectator of the world, but, like everything in the world, constituted by acts of intentionality. The self constituted is historically situated, but as an agent whose own mode of finding itself in the world makes for responsibility and emotion. Responsibility is, however, a burden that we cannot frequently bear, and bad faith arises when we deny our own authorship of our actions, seeing then instead as forced responses to situations not of our own making.
 Sartre thus locates the essential nature of human existence in the capacity for choice, although choice, being equally incompatible with determinism and with the existence of a Kantian moral law, implies a synthesis of consciousness (being for-itself) and the objective(being in-itself) that is forever unstable. The unstable and constantly disintegrating nature of free-will generates anguish. For Sartre our capacity to make negative judgement is one fundamental puzzles of consciousness. Like Heidegger he took the ‘ontological’ approach of relating to the nature of nonbeing, a move that decisively differentiated him from the Anglo-American tradition of modern logic.
 The work of Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre became foundational to that of the principal architects of philosophical postmodernism, Deconstructionists Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacqures Derrida. This direct linkage between the nineteenth - century crisis about the epistemological foundations of mathematical physics and the origins of philosophical postmodernism served to perpetrate the Cartesian two world dilemmas in an even more oppressive form.
 The American envisioned a unified spiritual reality that manifested itself as a personal ethos that sanctioned radical individualism and bred aversion to the emergent materialism of the Jacksonian era. They were also more inclined than their European counterpart, as the examples of Thoreau and Whitman attest, to embrace scientific descriptions of nature. However, the Americans also dissolved the distinction between mind and natter with an appeal to ontological monism and alleged that mind could free itself from all the constraint of assuming that by some sorted limitation of matter, in which such states have of them, some mystical awareness.
 Since scientists, during the nineteenth century were engrossed with uncovering the workings of external reality and seemingly knew of themselves that these virtually overflowing burdens of nothing, in that were about the physical substrates of human consciousness, the business of examining the distributive contribution in dynamic functionality and structural foundation of mind became the province of social scientists and humanists. Adolphe Quételet proposed a ‘social physics’ that could serve as the basis for a new discipline called sociology, and his contemporary Auguste Comte concluded that a true scientific understanding of the social reality was quite inevitable. Mind, in the view of these figures, was a separate and distinct mechanism subject to the lawful workings of a mechanical social reality.
 But, still, even like Planck and Einstein understood and embraced hoboism as an inescapable condition of our physical existence. According to Einstein’s general relativity theory, wrote Planck, ‘each individual particle of a system in a certain sense, at any one time, exists simultaneously in every part of the space occupied by the system’. And the system, as Planck made clear, is the entire cosmos. As Einstein put it, ‘physical reality must be described in terms of continuos functions in space. The material point, therefore, can hardly be conceived any more as the basic concept of the theory.’
 More formal European philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, sought to reconcile representations of external reality in mind with the motions of matter-based on the dictates of pure reason. This impulse was also apparent in the utilitarian ethics of Jerry Bentham and John Stuart Mill, in the historical materialism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and in the pragmatism of Charles Smith, William James and John Dewey. These thinkers were painfully aware, however, of the inability of reason to posit a self - consistent basis for bridging the gap between mind and matter, and each remains obliged to conclude that the realm of the mental exists only in the subjective reality of the individual.
 The mechanistic paradigm of the late nineteenth century was the one Einstein came to know when he studied physics. Most physicists believed that it represented an eternal truth, but Einstein was open to fresh ideas. Inspired by Mach’s critical mind, he demolished the Newtonian ideas of space and time and replaced them with new, ‘relativistic’ notions.
 As for Newton, a British mathematician , whereupon the man Hume called Newton, ‘the greatest and rarest genius that ever arose for the ornament and instruction of the species.’ His mathematical discoveries are usually dated to between 1665 and 1666, when he was secluded in Lincolnshire, the university being closed because of the plague His great work, the Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, usually referred to as the Principia), was published in 1687.
 Yet throughout his career, Newton engaged in scientific correspondence and controversy. The often-quoted remark, ‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giant’s occurs in a conciliatory letter to Robert Hooke (1635-1703). Newton was in fact echoing the remark of Bernard of Chartres in 1120: ‘We are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants’. The dispute with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus is his best - known quarrel, and certainly the least edifying with Newton himself appointing the committee of the Royal Society that judged the question of precedence, and then writing the report, the Commercium Epistolicum, awarding himself the victory. Although was himself of the ‘age of reason,’ Newton was himself interested in alchemy, prophesy, gnostic, wisdom and theology,
 Philosophical influence of Principia was incalculable, and from Locke’s Essay onward philosophers recognized Newton’s work as a new paradigm of scientific method, but without being entirely clear what different parts reason and observation play in the edifice. Although Newton ushered in so much of the scientific world view, overall scholium at the end of Principia, he argues that ‘it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions’ and hence that his discoveries pointed to the operations of God, ‘to discourse of whom from phenomena does certainly belong to natural philosophy.’ Newton confesses that he has ‘not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena’: Hypotheses non fingo (I do not make hypotheses). It was left to Hume to argue that the kind of thing Newton does, namely place the events of nature into law-like orders and patterns, is the only kind of thing that scientific enquiry can ever do
 An ‘action at a distance’ is a much contested concept in the history of physics. Aristotelian physics holds that every motion requires a conjoined mover. Action can therefore never occur at a distance, but needs a medium enveloping the body, and of which parts befit its motion and pushes it from behind (antiperistasis). Although natural motions like free fall and magnetic attraction (quaintly called ‘coition’) were recognized in the post-Aristotelian period, the rise of the ‘corpusularian’ philosophy. Boyle expounded in his Sceptical Chemist (1661) and The Origin and Form of Qualifies (1666), held that all material substances are composed of minutes corpuscles, themselves possessing shape, size,. And motion. The different properties of materials would arise different combinations and collisions of corpuscles: chemical properties, such as solubility, would be explicable by the mechanical interactions of corpuscles, just as the capacity of a key to turn a lock is explained by their respective shapes. In Boyle’s hands the idea is opposed to the Aristotelean theory of elements and principles, which he regarded as untestable and sterile. His approach is a precursor of modern chemical atomism, and had immense influence on Locke, however, Locke recognized the need for a different kind of force guaranteeing the cohesion of atoms, and both this and the interaction between such atoms were criticized by Leibniz. Although natural motion like free fall and magnetic attraction (quality called ‘coition’) were recognized in the post-Aristotelian period , the rise of the ‘corpusularian’ philosophy again banned ‘attraction; or unmediated action at a distance: the classic argument is that ‘matter cannot act where it is not again banned ‘attraction’, or unmediated action at a distance: The classic argument is that ‘matter cannot act where it is not’.
 Cartesian physical theory also postulated ‘subtle matter’ to fill space and provide the medium for force and motion. Its successor, the a ether, was populated in order to provide a medium for transmitting forces and causal influences between objects that are not in directorially contact. Even Newton, whose treatment of gravity might seem to leave it conceived of a action to a distance, opposed that an intermediary must be postulated, although he could make no hypothesis as to its nature. Locke, having originally said that bodies act on each other ‘manifestly by impulse and nothing else’. But changes his mind and strike out the words ‘and nothing else,’ although impulse remains ‘the only way that we can conceive bodies operate in’. In the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science Kant clearly sets out the view that the way in which bodies impulse each other is no more natural, or intelligible, than the way inn that they act at a distance, in particular he repeats the point half-understood by Locke, that any conception of solid, massy atoms requires understanding the force that makes them cohere as a single unity, which cannot itself be understood in terms of elastic collisions. In many cases contemporary field theories admit of alternative equivalent formulations, one with action at a distance, one with local action only.
 Two theories unveiled and unfolding as their phenomenal yield held by Albert Einstein, attributively appreciated that the special theory of relativity (1915) and, also the tangling and calculably arranging affordance, as drawn upon the gratifying nature whom by encouraging the finding resolutions upon which the realms of its secreted reservoir in continuous phenomenons, in additional the continuatives as afforded by the efforts by the imagination were made discretely available to any the unsurmountable achievements, as remain obtainably afforded through the excavations underlying the artifactual circumstances that govern all principle ‘forms’ or ‘types’ in the involving evolutionary principles of the general theory of relativity (1915).
 Where the special theory gives a unified account of the laws of mechanics and of electromagnetism, including optics. Before 1905 the purely relative nature of uniform motion had in part been recognized in mechanics, although Newton had considered time to be absolute and postulated absolute space. In electromagnetism the ether was supposed to give an absolute bases respect to which motion could be determined. The Galilean transformation equations represent the set of equations:
χʹ = χ ‒ vt
yʹ = y
zʹ = z
tʹ = t
They are used for transforming the parameters of position and motion from an observer at the point ‘O’ with co-ordinates (z, y, z) to an observer at Oʹ with co-ordinates (χʹ, yʹ, zʹ). The axis is chosen to pass through O and Oʹ. The times of an event at ‘t’ and tʹ in the frames of reference of observers at O and Oʹ coincided. ‘V’ is the relative velocity of separation of O and Oʹ. The equation conforms to Newtonian mechanics as compared with the Lorentz transformation equations, it represents a set of equations for transforming the position-motion parameters from an observer at a point O(χ, y, z) to an observer at Oʹ(χʹ, yʹ, zʹ), moving compared with one another. The equation replaces the Galilean transformation equation of Newtonian mechanics in reactivity problems. If the x-axes are chosen to pass through Oʹ and the time of an event are t and tʹ in the frame of reference of the observers at O and Oʹ respectively, where the zeros of their time scales were the instants that O and Oʹ supported the equations are:
     χʹ = β(χ ‒ vt)
     yʹ = y
     zʹ =z
     tʹ = β(t ‒ vχ/c2),
Where ‘v’ is the relative velocity of separation of O, Oʹ, c is the speed of light, and ‘β’ is the function:
     (1 ‒ v2/c2)-½.
Newton’s laws of motion in his ‘Principia,’ Newton (1687) stated the three fundamental laws of motion, which are the basis of Newtonian mechanics. The First Law of acknowledgement concerns that all bodies persevere in its state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line, but in as far as it is compelled, to change that state by forces impressed on it. This may be regarded as a definition of force. The Second Law to acknowledge is, that the rate of change of linear momentum is propositional to the force applied, and takes place in the straight line in which that force acts. This definition can be regarded as formulating a suitable way by which forces may be measured, that is, by the acceleration they produce:
     F = d(mv)/dt
    i.e., F = ma = v( dm/dt ),
Of where F = force, m = masses, v = velocity, t = time, and ‘a’ = acceleration, from which case, the proceeding majority of quality values were of non - relativistic cases: dm/dt = 0, i.e., the mass remains constant, and then:
     F = ma.
The Third Law acknowledges, that forces are caused by the interaction of pairs of bodies. The forces exerted by ‘A’ upon ‘B’ and the force exerted by ‘B’ upon ‘A’ are simultaneous, equal in magnitude, opposite in direction and in the same straight line, caused by the same mechanism.
 Appreciating the popular statement of this law about significant ‘action and reaction’ leads too much misunderstanding. In particular, any two forces that happen to be equal and opposite if they act on the same body, one force, arbitrarily called ‘reaction,’ are supposed to be a consequence of the other and to happen subsequently, as two forces are supposed to oppose each other, causing equilibrium, certain forces such as forces exerted by support or propellants are conventionally called ‘reaction,’ causing considerable confusion.
 The third law may be illustrated by the following examples. The gravitational force exerted by a body on the earth is equal and opposite to the gravitational force exerted by the earth on the body. The intermolecular repulsive forces exerted on the ground by a body resting on it, or hitting it, is equal and opposite to the intermolecular repulsive force exerted on the body by the ground. More general system of mechanics has been given by Einstein in his theory of relativity. This reduces to Newtonian mechanics when all velocities compared with the observer are small compared with those of light.
 Einstein rejected the concept of absolute space and time, and made two postulates (i) The laws of nature are the same for all observers in uniform relative motion, and (ii) The speed of light in the same for all such observers, independently of the relative motions of sources and detectors. He showed that these postulates were equivalent to the requirement that co-ordinates of space and time used by different observers should be related by Lorentz transformation equations. The theory has several important consequences.
 The transformation of time implies that two events that are simultaneous according to one observer will not necessarily be so according to another in uniform relative motion. This does not affect the construct of its sequence of related events so does not violate any conceptual causation. It will appear to two observers in uniform relative motion that each other’s clock runs slowly. This is the phenomenon of ‘time dilation’, for example, an observer moving with respect to a radioactive source finds a longer decay time than found by an observer at rest with respect to it, according to:
    Tv = T0/(1 ‒ v2/c2) ½
Where Tv is the mean life measurement by an observer at relative speed ‘v’, and T is the mean life maturement by an observer at rest, and ‘c’ is the speed of light.
 This formula has been verified in innumerable experiments. One consequence is that no body can be accelerated from a speed below ‘c’ with respect to any observer to one above ‘c’, since this would require infinite energy. Einstein educed that the transfer of energy δE by any process entailed the transfer of mass δm where δE = δmc2, so he concluded that the total energy ‘E’ of any system of mass ‘m’ would be given by:
     E = mc2
 The principle of conservation of mass states that in any system is constant. Although conservation of mass was verified in many experiments, the evidence for this was limited. In contrast the great success of theories assuming the conservation of energy established this principle, and Einstein assumed it as an axiom in his theory of relativity. According to this theory the transfer of energy ‘E’ by any process entails the transfer of mass m = E/c2. Therefore, the conservation of energy ensures the conservation of mass.
 In Einstein’s theory inertial and gravitational masses are assumed to be identical and energy is the total energy of a system. Some confusion often arises because of idiosyncratic terminologies in which the words mass and energies are given different meanings. For example, some particle physicists use ‘mass’ to mean the rest-energy of a particle and ‘energy’ to mean ‘energy other than rest-energy’. This leads to alternate statements of the principle, in which terminology is not generally consistent. Whereas, the law of equivalence of mass and energy such that mass ‘m’ and energy ‘E’ are related by the equation E = mc2, where ‘c’ is the speed of light in a vacuum. Thus, a quantity of energy ‘E’ has a mass ‘m’ and a mass ‘m’ has intrinsic energy ‘E’. The kinetic energy of a particle as determined by an observer with relative speed ‘v’ is thus (m ‒ m0)c2, which tends to the classical value ½mv2 if ≪ C.
 Attempts to express quantum theory in terms consistent with the requirements of relativity were begun by Sommerfeld (1915), eventually. Dirac (1928) gave a relativistic formulation of the wave mechanics of conserved particles (fermions). This explained the concept of spin and the associated magnetic moment, which had been postulated to account for certain details of spectra. The theory led to results very important for the theory of standard or elementary particles. The Klein-Gordon equation is the relativistic wave equation for ‘bosons’. It is applicable to bosons of zero spin, such as the ‘pion’. In which case, for example the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian describes a single spin-0, scalar field:
 L = ½[∂t∂t‒ ∂y∂y‒ ∂z∂z] ‒ ½(2πmc/h)22
Then:
    ∂L/∂(∂) = ∂μ
leading to the equation:
    ∂L/∂ = (2πmc/h)22+
and therefore the Lagrange equation requires that:
   ∂μ∂μ + (2πmc/h)2 2 = 0.
Which is the Klein-Gordon equation describing the evolution in space and time of field ‘’? Individual ‘’ excitation of the normal modes of particles of spin -0, and mass ‘m’.
 A mathematical formulation of the special theory of relativity was given by Minkowski. It is based on the idea that an event is specified by there being a four-dimensional co-ordinates, three of which are spatial co-ordinates and one in a dimensional frame in a time co-ordinates. These continuously of dimensional coordinate give to define a four-dimensional space and the motion of a particle can be described by a curve in this space, which is called ‘Minkowski space - time.’ In certain formulations of the theory, use is made of a four-dimensional coordinate system in which three dimensions represent the spatial co-ordinates χ, y, z and the fourth dimension are ‘ict’, where ‘t’ is time, ‘c’ is the speed of light and ‘I’ is √ - 1, points in this space are called events. The equivalent to the distance between two points is the interval (δs) between two events given by the Pythagoras law in a space-time as:
    (δs)2 = ij ηij δ χi χj
Where:
χ = χ1, y = χ2, z = χ3 . . . , t = χ4 and η11 (χ) η33 (χ) = 1? η44 (χ) = 1.
Where components of the Minkowski metric tensor are the distances between two points are variant under the ‘Lorentz transformation’, because the measurements of the positions of the points that are simultaneous according to one observer in uniform motion with respect to the first. By contrast, the interval between two events is invariant.
 The equivalents to a vector in the four-dimensional space are consumed by a ‘four vector’, in which has three space components and one of time component. For example, the four-vector momentum has a time component proportional to the energy of a particle, the four-vector potential has the space co-ordinates of the magnetic vector potential, while the time co-ordinates corresponds to the electric potential.
 The special theory of relativity is concerned with relative motion between Nonaccelerated frames of reference. The general theory reals with general relative motion between accelerated frames of reference. In accelerated systems of reference, certain fictitious forces are observed, such as the centrifugal and Coriolis forces found in rotating systems. These are known as fictitious forces because they disappear when the observer transforms to a Nonaccelerated system. For example, to an observer in a car rounding a bend at constant velocity, objects in the car appear to suffer a force acting outward. To an observer outside the car, this is simply their tendency to continue moving in a straight line. The inertia of the objects is seen to cause a fictitious force and the observer can distinguish between non - inertial (accelerated) and inertial (Nonaccelerated) frames of reference.
 A further point is that, to the observer in the car, all the objects are given the same acceleration despite their mass. This implies a connection between the fictitious forces arising from accelerated systems and forces due to gravity, where the acceleration produced is independent of the mass. Near the surface of the earth the acceleration of free fall, ‘g’, is measured with respect to a nearby point on the surface. Because of the axial rotation the reference point is accelerated to the centre of the circle of its latitude, so ‘g’ is not quite in magnitude or direction to the acceleration toward the centre of the earth given by the theory of ‘gravitation’, in 1687 Newton presented his law of universal gravitation, according to which every particle evokes every other particle with the force, ‘F’ given by:
    F = Gm1 m2 / χ2,
Where ‘m’ is the masses of two particles a distance ‘χ’ apart, and ‘G’ is the gravitational constant, which, according to modern measurements, has a value:
   6.672 59 x 10-11 m3 kg -1 s -2.
For extended bodies the forces are found by integrations. Newton showed that the external effect of a spherical symmetric body is the same as if the whole mass were concentrated at the centre. Astronomical bodies are roughly spherically symmetrical so can be treated as point particles to a very good approximation. On this assumption Newton showed that his law was consistent with Kepler’s Laws. Until recently, all experiments have confirmed the accuracy of the inverse square law and the independence of the law upon the nature of the substances, but in the past few years evidence has been found against both.
 The size of a gravitational field at any point is given by the force exerted on unit mass at that point. The field intensity at a distance ‘χ’ from a point mass ‘m’ is therefore Gm/χ2, and acts toward ‘m’ Gravitational field strength is measured in the newton per kilogram. The gravitational potential ‘V’ at that point is the work done in moving a unit mass from infinity to the point against the field, due to a point mass. Importantly, (a) Potential at a point distance ‘χ’ from the centre of a hollow homogeneous spherical shell of mass ‘m’ and outside the shell:
     V = ‒ Gm/χ
The potential is the same as if the mass of the shell is assumed concentrated at the centre, (b) At any point inside the spherical shell the potential is equal to its value at the surface:
     V = ‒ Gm/r
Where ‘r’ is the radius of the shell, thus there is no resultant force acting at any point inside the shell and since no potential difference acts between any two points potential at a point distance ‘χ’ from the centre of a homogeneous solid sphere as for it being outside the sphere is the same as that for a shell:
     V = ‒ Gm/χ
(d) At a point inside the sphere, of radius ‘r’:
    V = ‒ Gm(3r2 ‒ χ2)/2r3
The essential property of gravitation is that it causes a change in motion, in particular the acceleration of free fall (g) in the earth’s gravitational field. According to the general theory of relativity, gravitational fields change the geometry of space and time, causing it to become curved. It is this curvature of space and time, produced by the presence of matter, that controls the natural motions of matter, that controls the natural motions of bodies. General relativity may thus be considered as a theory of gravitation, differences between it and Newtonian gravitation only appearing when the gravitational fields become very strong, as with ‘black holes’ and ‘neutron stars’, or when very accurate measurements can be made.
 Accelerated systems and forces due to gravity, where the acceleration produced are independent of the mass, for example, a person in a sealed container could not easily determine whether he was being driven toward the floor by gravity or if the container were in space and being accelerated upward by a rocket. Observations extended in space and time could distinguish between these alternates, but otherwise they are indistinguishable. This leads to the ‘principle of equivalence’, from which it follows that the inertial mass is the same as the gravitational mass. A further principle used in the general theory is that the laws of mechanics are the same in inertial and non - inertial frames of reference.
 Still, the equivalence between a gravitational field and the fictitious forces in non - inertial systems can be expressed by using Riemannian space-time, which differs from Minkowski Space-time of the special theory. In special relativity the motion of a particle that is not acted on by any force is represented by a straight line in Minkowski Space-time. Overall, using Riemannian Space-time, the motion is represented by a line that is no longer straight, in the Euclidean sense but is the line giving the shortest distance. Such a line is called geodesic. Thus, a space-time is said to be curved. The extent of this curvature is given by the ‘metric tensor’ for space-time, the components of which are solutions to Einstein’s ‘field equations’. The fact that gravitational effects occur near masses is introduced by the postulate that the presence of matter produces this curvature of the space-time. This curvature of space-time controls the natural motions of bodies.
 The predictions of general relativity only differ from Newton’s theory by small amounts and most tests of the theory have been carried out through observations in astronomy. For example, it explains the shift in the perihelion of Mercury, the bending of light or other electromagnetic radiations in the presence of large bodies, and the Einstein Shift. Very close agreements between the predications of general relativity and their accurately measured values have now been obtained. This ‘Einstein shift’ or ‘gravitation redshift’ hold that a small ‘redshift’ in the lines of a stellar spectrum caused by the gravitational potential at the level in the star at which the radiation is emitted (for a bright line) or absorbed (for a dark line). This shift can be explained in terms of either the speed or . In the simplest terms, a quantum of energy hv has mass hv/c2. On moving between two points with gravitational potential difference φ, the work done is φhv/c2 so the change of frequency δv is φv/c2.
 Assumptions given under which Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) stretches toward its central position are (i) inertial frameworks are equivalent for the description of all physical phenomena, and (ii) the speed of light in empty space is constant for every observer, despite the motion of the observer or the light source, although the second assumption may seem plausible in the light of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which failed to find any difference in the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s rotation or when measured perpendicular to it, it seems likely that Einstein was not influenced by the experiment, and may not even have known the results. Because of the second postulate, no matter how fast she travels, an observer can never overtake a ray of light, and see it as stationary beside her. However, near her speed approaches to that of light, light still retreats at its classical speed. The consequences are that space, time and mass turn relative to the observer. Measurements composed of quantities in an inertial system moving relative to one’s own reveal slow clocks, with the effect increasing as the relative speed of the systems approaches the speed of light. Events deemed simultaneously as measured within one such system will not be simultaneous as measured from the other, forthrightly time and space thus lose their separate identity, and become parts of a single space-time. The special theory also has the famous consequence (E = mc2) of the equivalences of energy and mass.
 Einstein’s general theory of relativity (1916) treats of non - inertial systems, i.e., those accelerating relative to each other. The leading idea is that the laws of motion in an accelerating frame are equivalent to those in a gravitational field. The theory treats gravity not as a Newtonian force acting in an unknown way across distance, but a metrical property of a space-time continuum curved near matter. Gravity can be thought of as a field described by the metric tensor at every point.  The first serious non - Euclidean geometry is usually attributed to the Russian mathematician N.I. Lobachevski, writing in the 1820's, Euclid’s fifth axiom, the axiom of parallels, states that through any points not falling on a straight line, one straight line can be drawn that does not intersect the fist. In Lobachevski’s geometry several such lines can exist. Later G.F.B. Riemann (1822-66) realized that the two - dimensional geometry that would be hit upon by persons coffined to the surface of a sphere would be different from that of persons living on a plane: for example, π would be smaller, since the diameter of a circle, as drawn on a sphere, is relatively large compared with the circumference.  Generalizing, Riemann reached the idea of a geometry in which there are no straight lines that do not intersect a given straight line, jus t as on a sphere all great circles (the shortest distance between two points) intersect.
 The way then lay open to separating the question of the mathematical nature of a purely formal geometry from a question of its physical application. In 1854 Riemann showed that space of any curvature could be described by a set of numbers known as its metric tensor. For example, ten numbers suffice to describe the point of any four-dimensional manifold. To apply a geometry means finding coordinative definitions correlating the notion of the geometry, notably those of a straight line and an equal distance, with physical phenomena such as the path of a light ray, or the size of a rod at different times and places. The status of these definitions has been controversial, with some such as Poincaré seeing them simply as conventions, and others seeing them as important empirical truths. With the general rise of holism in the philosophy of science the question of status has abated a little, it being recognized simply that the coordination plays a fundamental role in physical science.
 Meanwhile, the classic analogy of curved space-time is when a rock sitting on a bed. If a heavy objects where to be thrown across the bed, it is deflected toward the rock not by a mysterious force, but by the deformation of the space, i.e., the depression of the sheet around the object, a called curvilinear trajectory. Interestingly, the general theory lends some credit to a vision of the Newtonian absolute theory of space, in the sense that space itself is regarded as a thing with metrical properties of it is. The search for a unified field theory is the attempt to show that just as gravity is explicable because of the nature of a space-time, are the other fundamental physical forces: The strong and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force. The theory of relativity is the most radical challenge to the ‘common sense’ view of space and time as fundamentally distinct from each other, with time as an absolute linear flow in which events are fixed in objective relationships.
 After adaptive changes in the brains and bodies of hominids made it possible for modern humans to construct a symbolic universe using complex language system, something as quite dramatic and wholly unprecedented occurred. We began to perceive the world through the lenses of symbolic categories, to construct similarities and differences in terms of categorical priorities, and to organize our lives according to themes and narratives. Living in this new symbolic universe, modern humans had a large compulsion to encode and recode experiences, to translate everything into representation, and to seek out the deeper hidden and underlying logic that eliminates inconsistencies and ambiguities.
 The mega-narratives or frame tale served to legitimate and rationalize the categorical oppositions and terms of relations between the myriad number of constructs in the symbolic universe of modern humans were religion. The use of religious thought for these purposes is quite apparent in the artifacts found in the fossil remains of people living in France and Spain forty thousand years ago. These artifacts provided the first concrete evidence that a fully developed language system had given birth to an intricate and complex social order.
 Both religious and scientific thought seeks to frame or construct reality as to origins, primary oppositions, and underlying causes, and this partially explains why fundamental assumptions in the Western metaphysical tradition were eventually incorporated into a view of reality that would later be called scientific. The history of scientific thought reveals that the dialogue between assumptions about the character of spiritual reality in ordinary language and the character of physical reality in mathematical language was intimate and ongoing from the early Greek philosophers to the first scientific revolution in the seventeenth century. However, this dialogue did not conclude, as many have argued, with the emergence of positivism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was perpetuated in a disguise form in the hidden ontology of classical epistemology - the central issue in the Bohr-Einstein debate.
 The assumption that a one - to - one correspondence exists between every element of physical reality and physical theory may serve to bridge the gap between mind and world for those who use physical theories. Still, it also suggests that the Cartesian division be real and insurmountable in constructions of physical reality based on ordinary language. This explains in no small part why the radical separation between mind and world sanctioned by classical physics and formalized by Descartes (1596-1650) remains, as philosophical postmodernism attests, one of the most pervasive features of Western intellectual life.
 Nietzsche, in subverting the epistemological authority of scientific knowledge, sought of a legitimate division between mind and world much starker than that originally envisioned by Descartes. What is not widely known, however, is that Nietzsche and other seminal figures in the history of philosophical postmodernism were very much aware of an epistemological crisis in scientific thought than arose much earlier, that occasioned by wave-particle dualism in quantum physics. This crisis resulted from attempts during the last three decades of the nineteenth century to develop a logically self - consistent definition of number and arithmetic that would serve to reinforce the classical view of correspondence between mathematical theory and physical reality. As it turned out, these efforts resulted in paradoxes of recursion and self - reference that threatened to undermine both the efficacy of this correspondence and the privileged character of scientific knowledge.
 Nietzsche appealed to this crisis to reinforce his assumption that, without ontology, all knowledge (including scientific knowledge) was grounded only in human consciousness. As the crisis continued, a philosopher trained in higher mathematics and physics, Edmund Husserl 1859-1938, attempted to preserve the classical view of correspondences between mathematical theory and physical reality by deriving the foundation of logic and number from consciousness in ways that would preserve self-consistency and rigour. This afforded effort to ground mathematical physics in human consciousness, or in human subjective reality, was no trivial matter, representing a direct link between these early challenges and the efficacy of classical epistemology and the tradition in philosophical thought that culminated in philosophical postmodernism.
 Since Husserl’s epistemology, like that of Descartes and Nietzsche, was grounded in human subjectivity, a better understanding of his attempt to preserve the classical view of correspondence not only reveals more about the legacy of Cartesian dualism. It also suggests that the hidden and underlying ontology of classical epistemology was more responsible for the deep division and conflict between the two cultures of humanists-social scientists and scientists-engineers than was previously thought. The central question in this late-nineteenth-century debate over the status of the mathematical description of nature was the following: Is the foundation of number and logic grounded in classical epistemology, or must we assume, in the absence of any ontology, that the rules of number and logic are grounded only in human consciousness? In order to frame this question in the proper context, we should first examine a more detailing of the intimate and on - line dialogue between physics and metaphysics in Western thought.
 The history of science reveals that scientific knowledge and method did not emerge as full - blown from the minds of the ancient Greek any more than language and culture emerged fully formed in the minds of ‘Homo sapient’s sapient. ‘ Scientific knowledge is an extension of ordinary language into grater levels of abstraction and precision through reliance upon geometric and numerical relationships. We speculate that the seeds of the scientific imagination were planted in ancient Greece, as opposed to Chinese or Babylonian culture, partly because the social, political and an economic climate in Greece was more open to the pursuit of knowledge with marginal cultural utility. Another important factor was that the special character of Homeric religion allowed the Greeks to invent a conceptual framework that would prove useful in future scientific investigation. Nevertheless, it was only after this inheritance from Greek philosophy was wedded to some essential features of Judeo-Christian beliefs about the origin of the cosmos that the paradigm for classical physics emerged.
 The philosophical debate that led to conclusions useful to the architects of classical physics can be briefly summarized, such when Thale’s fellow Milesian Anaximander claimed that the first substance, although indeterminate, manifested itself in a conflict of oppositions between hot and cold, moist and dry. The idea of nature as a self - regulating balance of forces was subsequently elaborated upon by Heraclitus (d. after 480 BC), who asserted that the fundamental substance is strife between opposites, which is itself the unity of the whole. It is, said Heraclitus, the tension between opposites that keeps the whole from simply ‘passing away.’
 Parmenides of Elea (Bc 515 BC) argued in turn that the unifying substance is unique and static being. This led to a conclusion about the relationship between ordinary language and external reality that was later incorporated into the view of the relationship between mathematical language and physical reality. Since thinking or naming involves the presence of something, said Parmenides, thought and language must be dependent upon the existence of objects outside the human intellect. Presuming a one - to - one correspondence between word and idea and actual existing things, Parmenides concluded that our ability to think or speak of a thing at various times implies that it exists at all times. So the indivisible One does not change, and all perceived change is an illusion.
 These assumptions emerged in roughly the form in which they would be used by the creators of classical physics in the thought of the atomists. Leucippus : l. 450-420 Bc and Democritus (460-c. 370 Bc). They reconciled the two dominant and seemingly antithetical concepts of the fundamental character of being -. Becoming, (Heraclitus) and unchanging Being (Parmenides) - in a remarkable simple and direct way. Being, they said, is present in the invariable substance of the atoms that, through blending and separation, make up the thing of changing or becoming worlds.
 The last remaining feature of what would become the paradigm for the first scientific revolution in the seventeenth century is attributed to Pythagoras (570 Bc). Like Parmenides, Pythagoras also held that the perceived world is illusory and that there is an exact correspondence between ideas and aspects of external reality. Pythagoras, however, had a different conception of the character of the idea that showed this correspondence. The truth about the fundamental character of the unified and unifying substance, which could be uncovered through reason and contemplation, is, he claimed, mathematical in form.
 Pythagoras established and was the cental figure in a school of philosophy, religion and mathematics; He was apparently viewed by his followers as semi-divine. For his followers the regular solids (symmetrical three - dimensional forms in which all sides are the same regular polygons) and whole numbers became revered essences of sacred ideas. In contrast with ordinary language, the language of mathematics and geometric forms seemed closed, precise and pure. Providing one understood the axioms and notations, and the meaning conveyed was invariant from one mind to another. The Pythagoreans felt that the language empowered the mind to leap beyond the confusion of sense experience into the realm of immutable and eternal essences. This mystical insight made Pythagoras the figure from antiquity most revered by the creators of classical physics, and it continues to have great appeal for contemporary physicists as they struggle with the epistemological implications of the quantum mechanical description of nature.
 Yet, least of mention, progress was made in mathematics, and to a lesser extent in physics, from the time of classical Greek philosophy to the seventeenth century in Europe. In Baghdad, for example, from about A.D. 750 to A.D. 1000, substantial advancement was made in medicine and chemistry, and the relics of Greek science were translated into Arabic, digested, and preserved. Eventually these relics reentered Europe via the Arabic kingdom of Spain and Sicily, and the work of figures like Aristotle (384-32 BC) and Ptolemy (127-148 AD) reached the budding universities of France, Italy, and England during the Middle Ages.
 For much of this period the Church provided the institutions, like the reaching orders, needed for the rehabilitation of philosophy. Nonetheless, the social, political and an intellectual climate in Europe was not ripe for a revolution in scientific thought until the seventeenth century. Until later in time, lest as far into the nineteenth century, the works of the new class of intellectuals we called scientists, whom of which were more avocations than vocation, and the word scientist do not appear in English until around 1840.
 Copernicus (1473-1543) would have been described by his contemporaries as an administrator, a diplomat, an avid student of economics and classical literature, and most notable, a highly honoured and placed church dignitary. Although we named a revolution after him, his devoutly conservative man did not set out to create one. The placement of the Sun at the centre of the universe, which seemed right and necessary to Copernicus, was not a result of making careful astronomical observations. In fact, he made very few observations while developing his theory, and then only to ascertain if his prior conclusions seemed correct. The Copernican system was also not any more useful in making astrological calculations than the accepted model and was, in some ways, much more difficult to implement. What, then, was his motivation for creating the model and his reasons for presuming that the model was correct?
 Copernicus felt that the placement of the Sun at the centre of the universe made sense because he viewed the Sun as the symbol of the presence of a supremely intelligent and intelligible God in a man-centred world. He was apparently led to this conclusion in part because the Pythagoreans believed that fire exists at the centre of the cosmos, and Copernicus identified this fire with the fireball of the Sun. the only support that Copernicus could offer for the greater efficacy of his model was that it represented a simpler and more mathematical harmonious model of the sort that the Creator would obviously prefer. The language used by Copernicus in ‘The Revolution of Heavenly Orbs,’ illustrates the religious dimension of his scientific thought: ‘In the midst of all the sun reposes, unmoving. Who, indeed, in this most beautiful temple would place the light-giver in any other part than from where it can illumine all other parts?’
 The belief that the mind of God as Divine Architect permeates the working of nature was the principle of the scientific thought of Johannes Kepler (or, Keppler, 1571-1630 ). Therefore, most modern physicists would probably feel some discomfort in reading Kepler’s original manuscripts. Physics and metaphysics, astronomy and astrology, geometry and theology commingle with an intensity that might offend those who practice science in the modern sense of that word. Physical laws, wrote Kepler, ‘lie within the power of understanding of the human mind; God wanted us to perceive them when he created us of His own image, in order . . .‘ that we may take part in His own thoughts. Our knowledge of numbers and quantities is the same as that of God’s, at least insofar as we can understand something of it in this mortal life.’
 Believing, like Newton after him, in the literal truth of the words of the Bible, Kepler concluded that the word of God is also transcribed in the immediacy of observable nature. Kepler’s discovery that the motions of the planets around the Sun were elliptical, as opposed perfecting circles, may have made the universe seem a less perfect creation of God on ordinary language. For Kepler, however, the new model placed the Sun, which he also viewed as the emblem of a divine agency, more at the centre of mathematically harmonious universes than the Copernican system allowed. Communing with the perfect mind of God requires as Kepler put it ‘knowledge of numbers and quantity.’
 Since Galileo did not use, or even refer to, the planetary laws of Kepler when those laws would have made his defence of the heliocentric universe more credible, his attachment to the god - like circle was probably a more deeply rooted aesthetic and religious ideal. However, it was Galileo, even more than Newton, who was responsible for formulating the scientific idealism that quantum mechanics now force us to abandon. In ‘Dialogue Concerning the Two Great Systems of the World,’ Galileo said about the following about the followers of Pythagoras: ‘I know perfectly well that the Pythagoreans had the highest esteem for the science of number and that Plato himself admired the human intellect and believed that it participates in divinity solely because understanding the nature of numbers is able. And I myself am inclined to make the same judgement.’
 This article of faith - mathematical and geometrical ideas mirror precisely the essences of physical reality was the basis for the first scientific law of this new science, a constant describing the acceleration of bodies in free fall, could not be confirmed by experiment. The experiments conducted by Galileo in which balls of different sizes and weights were rolled simultaneously down an inclined plane did not, as he frankly admitted, their precise results. And since a vacuum pumps had not yet been invented, there was simply no way that Galileo could subject his law to rigorous experimental proof in the seventeenth century. Galileo believed in the absolute validity of this law lacking experimental proof because he also believed that movement could be subjected absolutely to the law of number. What Galileo asserted, as the French historian of science Alexander Koyré put it, was ‘that the real are in its essence, geometrical and, consequently, subject to rigorous determination and measurement.’
 The popular image of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is that of a supremely rational and dispassionate empirical thinker. Newton, like Einstein, could concentrate unswervingly on complex theoretical problems until they yielded a solution. Yet what most consumed his restless intellect were not the laws of physics. Beyond believing, like Galileo that the essences of physical reality could be read in the language of mathematics, Newton also believed, with perhaps even greater intensity than Kepler, in the literal truths of the Bible.
 For Newton the mathematical languages of physics and the language of biblical literature were equally valid sources of communion with the eternal writings in the extant documents alone consist of more than a million words in his own hand, and some of his speculations seem quite bizarre by contemporary standards. The Earth, said Newton, will still be inhabited after the day of judgement, and heaven, or the New Jerusalem, must be large enough to accommodate both the quick and the dead. Newton then put his mathematical genius to work and determined the dimensions required to house the population, his precise estimate was ‘the cube root of 12,000 furlongs.’
 The point is, that during the first scientific revolution the marriage between mathematical idea and physical reality, or between mind and nature via mathematical theory, was viewed as a sacred union. In our more secular age, the correspondence takes on the appearance of an unexamined article of faith or, to borrow a phrase from William James (1842-1910), ‘an altar to an unknown god.’ Heinrich Hertz, the famous nineteenth - century German physicist, nicely described what there is about the practice of physics that tends to inculcate this belief: ‘One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and intelligence of their own that they are wiser than we, wiser than their discoveries. That we get more out of them than was originally put into them.’
 While Hertz said that without having to contend with the implications of quantum mechanics, the feeling, the described remains the most enticing and exciting aspects of physics. That elegant mathematical formulae provide a framework for understanding the origins and transformations of a cosmos of enormous age and dimensions are a staggering discovery for bidding physicists. Professors of physics do not, of course, tell their students that the study of physical laws in an act of communion with thee perfect mind of God or that these laws have an independent existence outside the minds that discover them. The business of becoming a physicist typically begins, however, with the study of classical or Newtonian dynamics, and this training provides considerable covert reinforcement of the feeling that Hertz described.
 Perhaps, the best way to examine the legacy of the dialogue between science and religion in the debate over the implications of quantum non-locality is to examine the source of Einstein’s objections tp quantum epistemology in more personal terms. Einstein apparently lost faith in the God portrayed in biblical literature in early adolescence. But, as appropriated, . . . the ‘Autobiographical Notes’ give to suggest that there were aspects that carry over into his understanding of the foundation for scientific knowledge, . . . ‘Thus I came  -despite the fact that I was the son of an entirely irreligious [Jewish] Breeden heritage, which is deeply held of its religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt end at the age of 12. Though the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence waw a positively frantic [orgy] of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the stat through lies that it was a crushing impression. Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience. . . . It was clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt ti free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal’. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of the given possibilities swam as highest aim half consciously and half unconsciously before the mind’s eye.’
 What is more, was, suggested Einstein, belief in the word of God as it is revealed in biblical literature that allowed him to dwell in a ‘religious paradise of youth’ and to shield himself from the harsh realities of social and political life. In an effort to recover that inner sense of security that was lost after exposure to scientific knowledge, or to become free again of the ‘merely personal’, he committed himself to understanding the ‘extra-personal world within the frame of given possibilities’, or as seems obvious, to the study of physics. Although the existence of God as described in the Bible may have been in doubt, the qualities of mind that the architects of classical physics associated with this God were not. This is clear in the comments from which Einstein uses of mathematics, . . . ‘Nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover, by means of purely mathematical construction, those concepts and those lawful connections between them that furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience remains, of course, the sole criteria of physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.’
 This article of faith, first articulated by Kepler, that ‘nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas’ allowed for Einstein to posit the first major law of modern physics much as it allows Galileo to posit the first major law of classical physics. During which time, when the special and then the general theories of relativity had not been confirmed by experiment. Many established physicists viewed them as at least minor theorises, Einstein remained entirely confident of their predictions. Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider, who visited Einstein shortly after Eddington’s eclipse expedition confirmed a prediction of the general theory(1919), described Einstein’s response to this news: ‘When I was giving expression to my joy that the results coincided with his calculations, he said quite unmoved, ‘but I knew the theory was correct’ and when I asked, ‘what if there had been no confirmation of his prediction,’ he countered: ‘Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord - the theory is correct.’
 Einstein was not given to making sarcastic or sardonic comments, particularly on matters of religion. These unguarded responses testify to his profound conviction that the language of mathematics allows the human mind access to immaterial and immutable truths existing outside the mind that conceived them. Although Einstein’s belief was far more secular than Galileo’s, it retained the same essential ingredients.
 What continued in the twenty-three-year-long debate between Einstein and Bohr, least of mention? The primary article drawing upon its faith that contends with those opposing to the merits or limits of a physical theory, at the heart of this debate was the fundamental question, ‘What is the relationship between the mathematical forms in the human mind called physical theory and physical reality?’ Einstein did not believe in a God who spoke in tongues of flame from the mountaintop in ordinary language, and he could not sustain belief in the anthropomorphic God of the West. There is also no suggestion that he embraced ontological monism, or the conception of Being featured in Eastern religious systems, like Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The closest that Einstein apparently came to affirming the existence of the ‘extra-personal’ in the universe was a ‘cosmic religious feeling’, which he closely associated with the classical view of scientific epistemology.
 The doctrine that Einstein fought to preserve seemed the natural inheritance of physics until the approach of quantum mechanics. Although the mind that constructs reality might be evolving fictions that are not necessarily true or necessary in social and political life, there was, Einstein felt, a way of knowing, purged of deceptions and lies. He was convinced that knowledge of physical reality in physical theory mirrors the preexistent and immutable realm of physical laws. And as Einstein consistently made clear, this knowledge mitigates loneliness and inculcates a sense of order and reason in a cosmos that might appear otherwise bereft of meaning and purpose.
 What most disturbed Einstein about quantum mechanics was the fact that this physical theory might not, in experiment or even in principle, mirrors precisely the structure of physical reality. There is, for all the reasons we seem attested of, in that an inherent uncertainty in measurement made, . . . a quantum mechanical process reflects of a pursuit that quantum theory in itself and its contributive dynamic functionalities that there lay the attribution of a completeness of a quantum mechanical theory. Einstein’s fearing that it would force us to recognize that this inherent uncertainty applied to all of physics, and, therefore, the ontological bridge between mathematical theory and physical reality - does not exist. And this would mean, as Bohr was among the first to realize, that we must profoundly revive the epistemological foundations of modern science.
 The world view of classical physics allowed the physicist to assume that communion with the essences of physical reality via mathematical laws and associated theories was possible, but it did not arrange for the knowing mind. In our new situation, the status of the knowing mind seems quite different. Modern physics distributively contributed its view toward the universe as an unbroken, undissectable and undivided dynamic whole. ‘There can hardly be a sharper contrast,’ said Melic Capek, ‘than that between the everlasting atoms of classical physics and the vanishing ‘particles’ of modern physics as Stapp put it: ‘Each atom turns out to be nothing but the potentialities in the behaviour of others. What we find, therefore, are not elementary space-time realities, but rather a web of relationships in which no part can stand alone, every part derives its meaning and existence only from its place within the whole’’
 The characteristics of particles and quanta are not isolatable, given particle-wave dualism and the incessant exchange of quanta within matter-energy fields. Matter cannot be dissected from the omnipresent sea of energy, nor can we in theory or in fact observe matter from the outside. As Heisenberg put it decades ago, ‘the cosmos is a complicated tissue of events, in which connection of different kinds alternate or overlay or combine and by that determine the texture of the whole. This means that a pure reductionist approach to understanding physical reality, which was the goal of classical physics, is no longer appropriate.
 While the formalism of quantum physics predicts that correlations between particles over space-like separated regions are possible, it can say nothing about what this strange new relationship between parts (quanta) and whole (cosmos) was by means an outside formalism. This does not, however, prevent us from considering the implications in philosophical terms, as the philosopher of science Errol Harris noted in thinking about the special character of wholeness in modern physics, a unity without internal content is a blank or empty set and is not recognizable as a whole. A collection of merely externally related parts does not constitute a whole in that the parts will not be ‘mutually adaptive and complementary to one and another.’
 Wholeness requires a complementary relationship between unity and differences and is governed by a principle of organization determining the interrelationship between parts. This organizing principle must be universal to a genuine whole and implicit in all parts that make up the whole, although the whole is exemplified only in its parts. This principle of order, Harris continued, ‘is nothing really by itself. It is the way parts are organized and not another constituent addition to those that form the totality.’
 In a genuine whole, the relationship between the constituent parts must be ‘internal or immanent’ in the parts, as opposed to a mere spurious whole in which parts appear to disclose wholeness due to relationships that are external to the parts. The collection of parts that would allegedly make up the whole in classical physics is an example of a spurious whole. Parts were some genuine wholes when the universal principle of order is inside the parts and by that adjusts each to all that they interlock and become mutually complementary. This not only describes the character of the whole revealed in both relativity theory and quantum mechanics. It is also consistent with the manner in which we have begun to understand the relation between parts and whole in modern biology.
 Modern physics also reveals, claims Harris, a complementary relationship between the differences between parts that constituted content representations that the universal ordering principle that is immanent in each part. While the whole cannot be finally revealed in the analysis of the parts, the study of the differences between parts provides insights into the dynamic structure of the whole present in each of the parts. The part can never, nonetheless, be finally isolated from the web of relationships that disclose the interconnections with the whole, and any attempt to do so results in ambiguity.
 Much of the ambiguity in attempted to explain the character of wholes in both physics and biology derives from the assumption that order exists between or outside parts. But order in complementary relationships between differences and sameness in any physical event is never external to that event -, the connections are immanent in the event. From this perspective, the addition of non-locality to this picture of the dynamic whole is not surprising. The relationship between part, as quantum event apparent in observation or measurement, and the inseparable whole, revealed but not described by the instantaneous, and the inseparable whole, revealed but described by the instantaneous correlations between measurements in space-like separated regions, is another extension of the part-whole complementarity to modern physics.
 If the universe is a seamlessly interactive system that evolves to a higher level of complexity, and if the lawful regularities of this universe are emergent properties of this system, we can assume that the cosmos is a singular point of significance as a whole that shows of the ‘progressive principal order’ of complementary relations its parts. Given that this whole exists in some sense within all parts (quanta), one can then argue that it operates in self-reflective fashion and is the ground for all emergent complexities. Since human consciousness shows self-reflective awareness in the human brain and since this brain, like all physical phenomena can be viewed as an emergent property of the whole, concluding it is reasonable, in philosophical terms at least, that the universe is conscious.
 But since the actual character of this seamless whole cannot be represented or reduced to its parts, it lies, quite literally beyond all human representations or descriptions. If one chooses to believe that the universe be a self-reflective and self-organizing whole, this lends no support whatever to conceptions of design, meaning, purpose, intent, or plan associated with any mytho-religious or cultural heritage. However, If one does not accept this view of the universe, there is nothing in the scientific descriptions of nature that can be used to refute this position. On the other hand, it is no longer possible to argue that a profound sense of unity with the whole, which has long been understood as the foundation of religious experience, which can be dismissed, undermined or invalidated with appeals to scientific knowledge.
 While we have consistently tried to distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical speculation based on this knowledge - there is no empirically valid causal linkage between the former and the latter. Those who wish to dismiss the speculative assumptions as its basis to be drawn the obvious freedom of which id firmly grounded in scientific theory and experiments there is, however, in the scientific description of nature, the belief in radical Cartesian division between mind and world sanctioned by classical physics. Seemingly clear, that this separation between mind and world was a macro-level illusion fostered by limited awarenesses of the actual character of physical reality and by mathematical idealization extended beyond the realm of their applicability.
 Thus, the grounds for objecting to quantum theory, the lack of a one - to - one correspondence between every element of the physical theory and the physical reality it describes, may seem justifiable and reasonable in strictly scientific terms. After all, the completeness of all previous physical theories was measured against the criterion with enormous success. Since it was this success that gave physics the reputation of being able to disclose physical reality with magnificent exactitude, perhaps a more comprehensive quantum theory will emerge to insist on these requirements.
 All indications are, however, that no future theory can circumvent quantum indeterminancy, and the success of quantum theory in co-ordinating our experience with nature is eloquent testimony to this conclusion. As Bohr realized, the fact that we live in a quantum universe in which the quantum of action is a given or an unavoidable reality requires a very different criterion for determining the completeness or physical theory. The new measure for a complete physical theory is that it unambiguously confirms our ability to co-ordinate more experience with physical reality.
 If a theory does so and continues to do so, which is certainly the case with quantum physics, then the theory must be deemed complete. Quantum physics not only works exceedingly well, it is, in these terms, the most accurate physical theory that has ever existed. When we consider that this physics allows us to predict and measure quantities like the magnetic moment of electrons to the fifteenth decimal place, we realize that accuracy per se is not the real issue. The real issue, as Bohr rightly intuited, is that this complete physical theory effectively undermines the privileged relationship in classical physics between ‘theory’ and ‘physical reality’.
 In quantum physics, one calculates the probability of an event that can happen in alternative ways by adding the wave function, and then taking the square of the amplitude. In the two-slit experiment, for example, the electron is described by one wave function if it goes through one slit and by another wave function it goes through the other slit. In order to compute the probability of where the electron is going to end on the screen, we add the two wave functions, compute the absolute value of their sum, and square it. Although the recipe in classical probability theory seems similar, it is quite different. In classical physics, we would simply add the probabilities of the two alternate ways and let it go at that. The classical procedure does not work here, because we are not dealing with classical atoms. In quantum physics additional terms arise when the wave functions are added, and the probability is computed in a process known as the ‘superposition principle’.
 The superposition principle can be illustrated with an analogy from simple mathematics. Add two numbers and then take the square of their sum. As opposed to just adding the squares of the two numbers. Obviously, (2 + 3)2 is not equal to 22 + 32. The former is 25, and the latter are 13. In the language of quantum probability theory
  | ψ1 + ψ2 | 2 ≠ | ψ1 | 2 + | ψ2 | 2
Where ψ1 and ψ2 are the individual wave functions. On the left - hand side, the superposition principle results in extra terms that cannot be found on the right - hand side. The left - hand side of the above relations is the way a quantum physicist would compute probabilities, and the right - hand side is the classical analogue. In quantum theory, the right - hand side is realized when we know, for example, which slit through which the electron went. Heisenberg was among the first to compute what would happen in an instance like this. The extra superposition terms contained in the left - hand side of the above relations would not be there, and the peculiar wave - like interference pattern would disappear. The observed pattern on the final screen would, therefore, be what one would expect if electrons were behaving like a bullet, and the final probability would be the sum of the individual probabilities. But when we know which slit the electron went through, this interaction with the system causes the interference pattern to disappear.
 In order to give a full account of quantum recipes for computing probabilities, one has to examine what would happen in events that are compound. Compound events are ‘events that can be broken down into a series of steps, or events that consists of a number of things happening independently.’ The recipe here calls for multiplying the individual wave functions, and then following the usual quantum recipe of taking the square of the amplitude.
 The quantum recipe is | ψ1 • ψ2 | 2, and, in this case, it would be the same if we multiplied the individual probabilities, as one would in classical theory. Thus, the recipes of computing results in quantum theory and classical physics can be totally different. The quantum superposition effects are completely nonclassical, and there is no mathematical justification per se why the quantum recipes work. What justifies the use of quantum probability theory is the coming thing that justifies the use of quantum physics  -it has allowed us in countless experiments to extend our ability to co-ordinate experience with the expansive nature of unity.
 A departure from the classical mechanics of Newton involving the principle that certain physical quantities can only assume discrete values. In quantum theory, introduced by Planck (1900), certain conditions are imposed on these quantities to restrict their value; the quantities are then said to be ‘quantized’.
 Up to 1900, physics was based on Newtonian mechanics. Large - scale systems are usually adequately described, however, several problems could not be solved, in particular, the explanation of the curves of energy against wavelengths for ‘black-body radiation’, with their characteristic maximum, as these attemptive efforts were afforded to endeavour upon the base-cases, on which the idea that the enclosure producing the radiation contained a number of ‘standing waves’ and that the energy of an oscillator if ‘kT’, where ‘k’ in the ‘Boltzmann Constant’ and ‘T’ the thermodynamic temperature. It is a consequence of classical theory that the energy does not depend on the frequency of the oscillator. This inability to explain the phenomenons has been called the ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’.
 Planck tackled the problem by discarding the idea that an oscillator can attain or decrease energy continuously, suggesting that it could only change by some discrete amount, which he called a ‘quantum.’ This unit of energy is given by ‘hv’ where ‘v’ is the frequency and ‘h’ is the ‘Planck Constant,’ ‘h’ has dimensions of energy ‘x’ times of action, and was called the ‘quantum of action.’ According to Planck an oscillator could only change its energy by an integral number of quanta, i.e., by hv, 2hv, 3hv, etc. This meant that the radiation in an enclosure has certain discrete energies and by considering the statistical distribution of oscillators with respect to their energies, he was able to derive the Planck Radiation Formulas. The formulae contrived by Planck, to express the distribution of dynamic energy in the normal spectrum of ‘black-body’ radiation. It is usual form is:
   8πchdλ/λ 5 (exp[ch/kλT] ‒ 1.
Which represents the amount of energy per unit volume in the range of wavelengths between λ and λ + dλ? ‘c’ = the speed of light and ‘h’ = the Planck constant, as ‘k’ = the Boltzmann constant with ‘T’ equalling thermodynamic temperatures.
 The idea of quanta of energy was applied to other problems in physics, when in 1905 Einstein explained features of the ‘Photoelectric Effect’ by assuming that light was absorbed in quanta (photons). A further advance was made by Bohr(1913) in his theory of atomic spectra, in which he assumed that the atom can only exist in certain energy states and that light is emitted or absorbed as a result of a change from one state to another. He used the idea that the angular momentum of an orbiting electron could only assume discrete values, i.e., was quantized? A refinement of Bohr’s theory was introduced by Sommerfeld in an attempt to account for fine structure in spectra. Other successes of quantum theory were its explanations of the ‘Compton Effect’ and ‘Stark Effect.’ Later developments involved the formulation of a new system of mechanics known as ‘Quantum Mechanics.’
 What is more, in furthering to Compton’s scattering was to an interaction between a photon of electromagnetic radiation and a free electron, or other charged particles, in which some of the energy of the photon is transferred to the particle. As a result, the wavelength of the photon is increased by amount Δλ. Where:
Δλ = ( 2h / m0 c ) sin 2 ½.
This is the Compton equation, ‘h’ is the Planck constant, m0 the rest mass of the particle, ‘c’ the speed of light, and the photon angle between the directions of the incident and scattered photons. The quantity ‘h/m0c’ and  is known to be the ‘Compton Wavelength,’ symbol λC, which for an electron is equal to 0.002 43 nm.
 The outer electrons in all elements and the inner ones in those of low atomic number have ‘binding energies’ negligible compared with the quantum energies of all except very soft X- and gamma rays. Thus most electrons in matter are effectively free and at rest and so cause Compton scattering. In the range of quantum energies 105 to 107 electro volts, this effect is commonly the most important process of attenuation of radiation. The scattering electron is ejected from the atom with large kinetic energy and the ionization that it causes plays an important part in the operation of detectors of radiation.
 In the ‘Inverse Compton Effect’ there is a gain in energy by low-energy photons as a result of being scattered by free electrons of much higher energy. As a consequence, the electrons lose energy. Whereas, the wavelength of light emitted by atoms is altered by the application of a strong transverse electric field to the source, the spectrum lines being split up into a number of sharply defined components. The displacements are symmetrical about the position of the undisplaced lines, and are prepositional of the undisplaced line, and are propositional to the field strength up to about 100 000 volts per. cm. (The Stark Effect).
 Adjoined alongside with quantum mechanics, is an unstretching constitution taken advantage of forwarded mathematical physical theories - growing from Planck’s ‘Quantum Theory’ and deals with the mechanics of atomic and related systems in terms of quantities that can be measured. The subject development in several mathematical forms, including ‘Wave Mechanics’ (Schrödinger) and ‘Matrix Mechanics’ (Born and Heisenberg), all of which are equivalent.
 In quantum mechanics, it is often found that the properties of a physical system, such as its angular moment and energy, can only take discrete values. Where this occurs the property is said to be ‘quantized’ and its various possible values are labelled by a set of numbers called quantum numbers. For example, according to Bohr’s theory of the atom, an electron moving in a circular orbit could occupy any orbit at any distance from the nucleus but only an orbit for which its angular momentum (mvr) was equal to nh/2π, where ‘n’ is an integer (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.) and ‘h’ is the Planck’s constant. Thus the property of angular momentum is quantized and ‘n’ is a quantum number that gives its possible values. The Bohr theory has now been superseded by a more sophisticated theory in which the idea of orbits is replaced by regions in which the electron may move, characterized by quantum numbers ‘n’, ‘I’, and ‘m’.
 Properties of [Standard] elementary particles are also described by quantum numbers. For example, an electron has the property known a ‘spin’, and can exist in two possible energy states depending on whether this spin set parallel or antiparallel to a certain direction. The two states are conveniently characterized by quantum numbers + ½ and ‒ ½. Similarly properties such as charge, Isospin, strangeness, parity and hyper-charge are characterized by quantum numbers. In interactions between particles, a particular quantum number may be conserved, i.e., the sum of the quantum numbers of the particles before and after the interaction remains the same. It is the type of interaction - strong electromagnetic, weak that determines whether the quantum number is conserved.
 The energy associated with a quantum state of an atom or other system that is fixed, or determined, by given set quantum numbers. It is one of the various quantum states that can be assumed by an atom under defined conditions. The term is often used to mean the state itself, which is incorrect accorded to: (i) the energy of a given state may be changed by externally applied fields (ii) there may be a number of states of equal energy in the system.
 The electrons in an atom can occupy any of an infinite number of bound states with discrete energies. For an isolated atom the energy for a given state is exactly determinate except for the effected of the ‘uncertainty principle’. The ground state with lowest energy has an infinite lifetime hence, the energy, in principle is exactly determinate, the energies of these states are most accurately measured by finding the wavelength of the radiation emitted or absorbed in transitions between them, i.e., from their line spectra. Theories of the atom have been developed to predict these energies by calculation. Due to de Broglie and extended by Schrödinger, Dirac and many others, it (wave mechanics originated in the suggestion that light consists of corpuscles as well as of waves and the consequent suggestion that all [standard] elementary particles are associated with waves. Wave mechanics are based on the Schrödinger wave equation describing the wave properties of matter. It relates the energy of a system to wave function, usually, it is found that a system, such as an atom or molecule can only have certain allowed wave functions (eigenfunction) and certain allowed energies (Eigenvalues), in wave mechanics the quantum conditions arise in a natural way from the basic postulates as solutions of the wave equation. The energies of unbound states of positive energy form a continuum. This gives rise to the continuum background to an atomic spectrum as electrons are captured from unbound states. The energy of an atom state sustains essentially by some changes by the ‘Stark Effect’ or the ‘Zeeman Effect’.
 The vibrational energies of the molecule also have discrete values, for example, in a diatomic molecule the atom oscillates in the line joining them. There is an equilibrium distance at which the force is zero. The atoms repulse when closer and attract when further apart. The restraining force is nearly prepositional to the displacement hence, the oscillations are simple harmonic. Solution of the Schrödinger wave equation gives the energies of a harmonic oscillation as:
    En = ( n + ½ ) h.
Where ‘h’ is the Planck constant,  is the frequency, and ‘n’ is the vibrational quantum number, which can be zero or any positive integer. The lowest possible vibrational energy of an oscillator is not zero but ½ h. This is the cause of zero-point energy. The potential energy of interaction of atoms is described more exactly by the ‘Morse Equation,’ which shows that the oscillations are anharmonic. The vibrations of molecules are investigated by the study of ‘band spectra’.
 The rotational energy of a molecule is quantized also, according to the Schrödinger equation, a body with the moment of inertial I about the axis of rotation have energies given by:
   EJ = h2J ( J + 1 ) / 8π 2I.
Where J is the rotational quantum number, which can be zero or a positive integer. Rotational energies originate from band spectra.
 The energies of the state of the nucleus are determined from the gamma ray spectrum and from various nuclear reactions. Theory has been less successful in predicting these energies than those of electrons because the interactions of nucleons are very complicated. The energies are very little affected by external influence but the ‘Mössbauer Effect’ has permitted the observations of some minute changes.
 In quantum theory, introduced by Max Planck 1858-1947 in 1900, was the first serious scientific departure from Newtonian mechanics. It involved supposing that certain physical quantities can only assume discrete values. In the following two decades it was applied successfully by Einstein and the Danish physicist Neils Bohr (1885-1962). It was superseded by quantum mechanics in the tears following 1924, when the French physicist Louis de Broglie (1892-1987) introduced the idea that a particle may also be regarded as a wave. The Schrödinger wave equation relates the energy of a system to a wave function, the energy of a system to a wave function, the square of the amplitude of the wave is proportional to the probability of a particle being found in a specific position. The wave function expresses the lack of possibly of defining both the position and momentum of a particle, this expression of discrete representation is called as the ‘uncertainty principle,’ the allowed wave functions that have  described stationary states of a system
 Part of the difficulty with the notions involved is that a system may be in an indeterminate state at a time, characterized only by the probability of some result for an observation, but then ‘become’ determinate (the collapse of the wave packet) when an observation is made such as the position and momentum of a particle if that is to apply to reality itself, than to mere indetermincies of measurement. It is as if there is nothing but a potential for observation or a probability wave before observation is made, but when an observation is made the wave becomes a particle. The wave-particle duality seems to block any way of conceiving of physical reality - in quantum terms. In the famous two-slit experiment, an electron is fired at a screen with two slits, like a tennis ball thrown at a wall with two doors in it. If one puts detectors at each slit, every electron passing the screen is observed to go through exactly one slit. But when the detectors are taken away, the electron acts like a wave process going through both slits and interfering with itself. A particle such an electron is usually thought of as always having an exact position, but its wave is not absolutely zero anywhere, there is therefore a finite probability of it ‘tunnelling through’ from one position to emerge at another.
 The unquestionable success of quantum mechanics has generated a large philosophical debate about its ultimate intelligibility and it’s metaphysical implications. The wave-particle duality is already a departure from ordinary ways of conceiving of tings in space, and its difficulty is compounded by the probabilistic nature of the fundamental states of a system as they are conceived in quantum mechanics. Philosophical options for interpreting quantum mechanics have included variations of the belief that it is at best an incomplete description of a better-behaved classical underlying reality ( Einstein ), the Copenhagen interpretation according to which there are no objective unobserved events in the micro - world (Bohr and W. K. Heisenberg, 1901-76), an ‘acausal’ view of the collapse of the wave packet (J. von Neumann, 1903-57), and a ‘many world’ interpretation in which time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures, so that different states of the same system exist in different parallel universes (H. Everett).
 In recent tars the proliferation of subatomic particles, such as there are 36 kinds of quarks alone, in six flavours to look in various directions for unification. One avenue of approach is superstring theory, in which the four-dimensional world is thought of as the upshot of the collapse of a ten-dimensional world, with the four primary physical forces, one of gravity another is electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, becoming seen as the result of the fracture of one primary force. While the scientific acceptability of such theories is a matter for physics, their ultimate intelligibility plainly requires some philosophical reflection.
 A theory of gravitation that is consistent with quantum mechanics whose subject, still in its infancy, has no completely satisfactory theory. In controventional quantum gravity, the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle, called the ‘graviton’. The internal degrees of freedom of the graviton require hij (χ) represent the deviations from the metric tensor for a flat space. This formulation of general relativity reduces it to a quantum field theory, which has a regrettable tendency to produce infinite for measurable qualitites. However, unlike other quantum field theories, quantum gravity cannot appeal to renormalizations procedures to make sense of these infinites. It has been shown that renormalization procedures fail for theories, such as quantum gravity, in which the coupling constants have the dimensions of a positive power of length. The coupling constant for general relativity is the Planck length,
   Lp = ( Gh/c3 )½ ≡ 10 ‒35 m.
Supersymmetry has been suggested as a structure that could be free from these pathological infinities. Many theorists believe that an effective superstring field theory may emerge, in which the Einstein field equations are no longer valid and general relativity is required to appar only as low energy limit. The resulting theory may be structurally different from anything that has been considered so far. Supersymmetric string theory (or superstring) is an extension of the ideas of Supersymmetry to one - dimensional string-like entities that can interact with each other and scatter according to a precise set of laws. The normal modes of super-strings represent an infinite set of ‘normal’ elementary particles whose masses and spins are related in a special way. Thus, the graviton is only one of the string modes - when the string-scattering processes are analysed in terms of their particle content, the low-energy graviton scattering is found to be the same as that computed from Supersymmetric gravity. The graviton mode may still be related to the geometry of the space-time in which the string vibrates, but it remains to be seen whether the other, massive, members of the set of ‘normal’ particles also have a geometrical interpretation. The intricacy of this theory stems from the requirement of a space-time of at least ten dimensions to ensure internal consistency. It has been suggested that there are the normal four dimensions, with the extra dimensions being tightly ‘curled up’ in a small circle presumably of Planck length size.
 In the quantum theory or quantum mechanics of an atom or other system fixed, or determined by a given set of quantum numbers. It is one of the various quantum states that an atom can assume. The conceptual representation of an atom was first introduced by the ancient Greeks, as a tiny indivisible component of matter, developed by Dalton, as the smallest part of an element that can take part in a chemical reaction, and made very much more precisely by theory and excrement in the late-19th and 20th centuries.
 Following the discovery of the electron (1897), it was recognized that atoms had structure, since electrons are negatively charged, a neutral atom must have a positive component. The experiments of Geiger and Marsden on the scattering of alpha particles by thin metal foils led Rutherford to propose a model (1912) in which nearly, but all the mass of an atom is concentrated at its centre in a region of positive charge, the nucleus, the radius of the order 10 -15 metre. The electrons occupy the surrounding space to a radius of 10-11 to 10-10 m. Rutherford also proposed that the nucleus have a charge of ‘Ze’ and is surrounded by ‘Z’ electrons (Z is the atomic number). According to classical physics such a system must emit electromagnetic radiation continuously and consequently no permanent atom would be possible. This problem was solved by the development of the quantum theory.
 The ‘Bohr Theory of the Atom,’ 1913, introduced the concept that an electron in an atom is normally in a state of lower energy, or ground state, in which it remains indefinitely unless disturbed. By absorption of electromagnetic radiation or collision with another particle the atom may be excited - that is an electron is moved into a state of higher energy. Such excited states usually have short lifetimes, typically nanoseconds and the electron returns to the ground state, commonly by emitting one or more quanta of electromagnetic radiation. The original theory was only partially successful in predicting the energies and other properties of the electronic states. Attempts were made to improve the theory by postulating elliptic orbits (Sommerfeld 1915) and electron spin (Pauli 1925) but a satisfactory theory only became possible upon the development of ‘Wave Mechanics,’ after 1925.
 According to modern theories, an electron does not follow a determinate orbit as envisaged by Bohr, but is in a state described by the solution of a wave equation. This determines the probability that the electron may be located in a given element of volume. Each state is characterized by a set of four quantum numbers, and, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, not more than one electron can be in a given state.
 The Pauli exclusion principle states that no two identical ‘fermions’ in any system can be in the same quantum state that is have the same set of quantum numbers. The principle was first proposed (1925) in the form that not more than two electrons in an atom could have the same set of quantum numbers. This hypothesis accounted for the main features of the structure of the atom and for the periodic table. An electron in an atom is characterized by four quantum numbers, n, I, m, and S. A particular atomic orbital, which has fixed values of n, I, and m, can thus contain a maximum of two electrons, since the spin quantum number ‘s’ can only be + | or ‒ |. In 1928 Sommerfeld applied the principle to the free electrons in solids and his theory has been greatly developed by later associates.
 Additionally, an effect occurring when atoms emit or absorb radiation in the presence of a moderately strong magnetic field. Each spectral; Line is split into closely spaced polarized components, when the source is viewed at right angles to the field there are three components, the middle one having the same frequency as the unmodified line, and when the source is viewed parallel to the field there are two components, the undisplaced line being preoccupied. This is the ‘normal’ Zeeman Effect. With most spectral lines, however, the anomalous Zeeman effect occurs, where there are a greater number of symmetrically arranged polarized components. In both effects the displacement of the components is a measure of the magnetic field strength. In some cases the components cannot be resolved and the spectral line appears broadened.
 The Zeeman effect occurs because the energies of individual electron states depend on their inclination to the direction of the magnetic field, and because quantum energy requirements impose conditions such that the plane of an electron orbit can only set itself at certain definite angles to the applied field. These angles are such that the projection of the total angular momentum on the field direction in an integral multiple of h/2π (h is the Planck constant). The Zeeman effect is observed with moderately strong fields where the precession of the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum of the electrons about each other is much faster than the total precession around the field direction. The normal Zeeman effect is observed when the conditions are such that the Landé factor is unity, otherwise the anomalous effect is found. This anomaly was one of the factors contributing to the discovery of electron spin.
 Statistics that are concerned with the equilibrium distribution of elementary particles of a particular type among the various quantized energy states. It is assumed that these elementary particles are indistinguishable. The ‘Pauli Exclusion Principle’ is obeyed so that no two identical ‘fermions’ can be in the same quantum mechanical state. The exchange of two identical fermions, i.e., two electrons, does not affect the probability of distribution but it does involve a change in the sign of the wave function. The ‘Fermi-Dirac Distribution Law’ gives E the average number of identical fermions in a state of energy E:
    E = 1/[eα + E/kT + 1],
Where ‘k’ is the Boltzmann constant, ‘T’ is the thermodynamic temperature and α is a quantity depending on temperature and the concentration of particles. For the valences electrons in a solid, ‘α’ takes the form -E1/kT, where E1 is the Fermi level. Whereby, the Fermi level (or Fermi energy) E F the value of E is exactly one half. Thus, for a system in equilibrium one half of the states with energy very nearly equal to ‘E’ (if any) will be occupied. The value of EF varies very slowly with temperatures, tending to E0 as ‘T’ tends to absolute zero.
 In Bose-Einstein statistics, the Pauli exclusion principle is not obeyed so that any number of identical ‘bosons’ can be in the same state. The exchanger of two bosons of the same type affects neither the probability of distribution nor the sign of the wave function. The ‘Bose-Einstein Distribution Law’ gives E the average number of identical bosons in a state of energy E:
    E = 1/[eα + E/kT - 1].
The formula can be applied to photons, considered as quasi-particles, provided that the quantity α, which conserves the number of particles, is zero. Planck’s formula for the energy distribution of ‘Black-Body Radiation’ was derived from this law by Bose. At high temperatures and low concentrations both the quantum distribution laws tend to the classical distribution:
     E = Ae-E/kT.
Additionally, the property of substances that have a positive magnetic ‘susceptibility’, whereby its quantity μr ‒ 1, and where μr is ‘Relative Permeability,’ again, that the electric-quantity presented as Єr ‒ 1, where Єr is the ‘Relative Permittivity,’ all of which has positivity. All of which are caused by the ‘spins’ of electrons, paramagnetic substances having molecules or atoms, in which there are paired electrons and thus, resulting of a ‘Magnetic Moment.’ There is also a contribution of the magnetic properties from the orbital motion of the electron, as the relative ‘permeability’ of a paramagnetic substance is thus greater than that of a vacuum, i.e., it is slightly greater than unity.
 A ‘paramagnetic substance’ is regarded as an assembly of magnetic dipoles that have random orientation. In the presence of a field the magnetization is determined by competition between the effect of the field, in tending to align the magnetic dipoles, and the random thermal agitation. In small fields and high temperatures, the magnetization produced is proportional to the field strength, wherefore at low temperatures or high field strengths, a state of saturation is approached. As the temperature rises, the susceptibility falls according to Curie’s Law or the Curie-Weiss Law.
 Furthering by Curie’s Law, the susceptibility (χ) of a paramagnetic substance is unversedly proportional to the ‘thermodynamic temperature’ (T): χ = C/T. The constant ’C is called the ‘Curie constant’ and is characteristic of the material. This law is explained by assuming that each molecule has an independent magnetic ‘dipole’ moment and the tendency of the applied field to align these molecules is opposed by the random moment due to the temperature. A modification of Curie’s Law, followed by many paramagnetic substances, where the Curie-Weiss law modifies its applicability in the form
     χ = C/(T ‒ θ).
The law shows that the susceptibility is proportional to the excess of temperature over a fixed temperature θ: ‘θ’ is known as the Weiss constant and is a temperature characteristic of the material, such as sodium and potassium, also exhibit type of paramagnetic resulting from the magnetic moments of free, or nearly free electrons, in their conduction bands? This is characterized by a very small positive susceptibility and a very slight temperature dependence, and is known as ‘free-electron paramagnetism’ or ‘Pauli paramagnetism’.
 A property of certain solid substances that having a large positive magnetic susceptibility having capabilities of being magnetized by weak magnetic fields. The chief elements are iron, cobalt, and nickel and many ferromagnetic alloys based on these metals also exist. Justifiably, ferromagnetic materials exhibit magnetic ‘hysteresis’, of which formidable combination of decaying within the change of an observed effect in response to a change in the mechanism producing the effect. (Magnetic) a phenomenon shown by ferromagnetic substances, whereby the magnetic flux through the medium depends not only on the existing magnetizing field, but also on the previous state or states of the substances, the existence of a phenomenon necessitates a dissipation of energy when the substance is subjected to a cycle of magnetic changes, this is known as the magnetic hysteresis loss. The magnetic hysteresis loops were acceding by a curved obtainability from ways of which, in themselves were of plotting the magnetic flux density ‘B’, of a ferromagnetic material against the responding value of the magnetizing field ’H’, the area to the ‘hysteresis loss’ per unit volume in taking the specimen through the prescribed magnetizing cycle. The general forms of the hysteresis loop fore a symmetrical cycle between ‘H’ and ‘- H’ and ‘H - h, having inclinations that rise to hysteresis.
 The magnetic hysteresis loss commands the dissipation of energy as due to magnetic hysteresis, when the magnetic material is subjected to changes, particularly, the cycle changes of magnetization, as having the larger positive magnetic susceptibility, and are capable of being magnetized by weak magnetic fields. Ferro magnetics are able to retain a certain domain of magnetization when the magnetizing field is removed. Those materials that retain a high percentage of their magnetization are said to be hard, and those that lose most of their magnetization are said to be soft, typical examples of hard ferromagnetic are cobalt steel and various alloys of nickel, aluminium and cobalt. Typical soft magnetic materials are silicon steel and soft iron, the coercive force as acknowledged to the reversed magnetic field’ that is required to reduce the magnetic ‘flux density’ in a substance from its remnant value to zero in characteristic of ferromagnetisms and explains by its presence of domains. A ferromagnetic domain is a region of crystalline matter, whose volume may be 10-12 to 10-8 m3, which contains atoms whose magnetic moments are aligned in the same direction. The domain is thus magnetically saturated and behaves like a magnet with its own magnetic axis and moment. The magnetic moment of the ferrometic atom results from the spin of the electron in an unfilled inner shell of the atom. The formation of a domain depends upon the strong interactions forces (Exchange forces) that are effective in a crystal lattice containing ferrometic atoms.
 In an unmagnetized volume of a specimen, the domains are arranged in a random fashion with their magnetic axes pointing in all directions so that the specimen has no resultant magnetic moment. Under the influence of a weak magnetic field, those domains whose magnetic saxes have directions near to that of the field flux at the expense of their neighbours. In this process the atoms of neighbouring domains tend to align in the direction of the field but the strong influence of the growing domain causes their axes to align parallel to its magnetic axis. The growth of these domains leads to a resultant magnetic moment and hence, magnetization of the specimen in the direction of the field, with increasing field strength, the growth of domains proceeds until there is, effectively, only one domain whose magnetic axis appropriates to the field direction. The specimen now exhibits tron magnetization. Further, increasing in field strength cause the final alignment and magnetic saturation in the field direction. This explains the characteristic variation of magnetization with applied strength. The presence of domains in ferromagnetic materials can be demonstrated by use of ‘Bitter Patterns’ or by ‘Barkhausen Effect.’
 For ferromagnetic solids there are a change from ferromagnetic to paramagnetic behaviour above a particular temperature and the paramagnetic material then obeyed the Curie-Weiss Law above this temperature, this is the ‘Curie temperature’ for the material. Below this temperature the law is not obeyed. Some paramagnetic substances, obey the temperature ‘θ C’ and do not obey it below, but are not ferromagnetic below this temperature. The value ‘θ’ in the Curie-Weiss law can be thought of as a correction to Curie’s law reelecting the extent to which the magnetic dipoles interact with each other. In materials exhibiting ‘antiferromagnetism’ of which the temperature ‘θ’ corresponds to the ‘Néel temperature’.
 Without discredited inquisitions, the property of certain materials that have a low positive magnetic susceptibility, as in paramagnetism, and exhibit a temperature dependence similar to that encountered in ferromagnetism. The susceptibility increased with temperatures up to a certain point, called the ‘Néel Temperature,’ and then falls with increasing temperatures in accordance with the Curie-Weiss law. The material thus becomes paramagnetic above the Néel temperature, which is analogous to the Curie temperature in the transition from ferromagnetism to paramagnetism. Antiferromagnetism is a property of certain inorganic compounds such as MnO, FeO, FeF2 and MnS. It results from interactions between neighbouring atoms leading and an antiparallel arrangement of adjacent magnetic dipole moments, least of mention. A system of two equal and opposite charges placed at a very short distance apart. The product of either of the charges and the distance between them is known as the ‘electric dipole moments. A small loop carrying a current I behave as a magnetic dipole and is equal to IA, where A being the area of the loop.
 The energy associated with a quantum state of an atom or other system that is fixed, or determined by a given set of quantum numbers. It is one of the various quantum states that can be assumed by an atom under defined conditions. The term is often used to mean the state itself, which is incorrect by ways of: (1) the energy of a given state may be changed by externally applied fields, and (2) there may be a number of states of equal energy in the system.
 The electrons in an atom can occupy any of an infinite number of bound states with discrete energies. For an isolated atom the energy for a given state is exactly determinate except for the effects of the ‘uncertainty principle’. The ground state with lowest energy has an infinite lifetime, hence the energy is if, in at all as a principle that is exactly determinate. The energies of these states are most accurately measured by finding the wavelength of the radiation emitted or absorbed in transitions between them, i.e., from their line spectra. Theories of the atom have been developed to predict these energies by calculating such a system that emit electromagnetic radiation continuously and consequently no permanent atom would be possible, hence this problem was solved by the developments of quantum theory. An exact calculation of the energies and other particles of the quantum state is only possible for the simplest atom but there are various approximate methods that give useful results as an approximate method of solving a difficult problem, if the equations to be solved, and depart only slightly from those of some problems already solved. For example, the orbit of a single planet round the sun is an ellipse, that the perturbing effect of other planets modifies the orbit slightly in a way calculable by this method. The technique finds considerable application in ‘wave mechanics’ and in ‘quantum electrodynamics’. Phenomena that are not amendable to solution by perturbation theory are said to be non-perturbative.
 The energies of unbound states of positive total energy form a continuum. This gives rise to the continuos background to an atomic spectrum, as electrons are captured from unbound state, the energy of an atomic state can be changed by the ‘Stark Effect’ or the ‘Zeeman Effect.’
 The vibrational energies of molecules also have discrete values, for example, in a diatomic molecule the atoms oscillate in the line joining them. There is an equilibrium distance at which the force is zero, and the atoms deflect when closer and attract when further apart. The restraining force is very nearly proportional to the displacement, hence the oscillations are simple harmonic. Solution of the ‘Schrödinger wave equation’ gives the energies of a harmonic oscillation as:
    En = ( n + ½ ) hƒ
Where ‘h’ is the Planck constant, ƒ is the frequency, and ‘n’ is the vibrational quantum number, which can be zero or any positive integer. The lowest possible vibrational energy of an oscillator is thus not zero but ½hƒ. This is the cause of zero-point energy. The potential energy of interaction of atoms is described more exactly by the Morse equation, which shows that the oscillations are slightly anharmonic. The vibrations of molecules are investigated by the study of ‘band spectra’.
 The rotational energy of a molecule is quantized also, according to the Schrödinger equation a body with moments of inertia I about the axis of rotation have energies given by:
    Ej = h2J(J + 1 )/8π2 I,
Where ‘J’ is the rotational quantum number, which can be zero or a positive integer. Rotational energies are found from ‘band spectra’.
 The energies of the states of the ‘nucleus’ can be determined from the gamma ray spectrum and from various nuclear reactions. Theory has been less successful in predicting these energies than those of electrons in atoms because the interactions of nucleons are very complicated. The energies are very little affected by external influences, but the ‘Mössbauer Effect’ has permitted the observation of some minute changes.
 When X - rays are scattered by atomic centres arranged at regular intervals, interference phenomena occur, crystals providing grating of a suitable small interval. The interference effects may be used to provide a spectrum of the beam of X - rays, since, according to ‘Bragg’s Law,’ the angle of reflection of X - rays from a crystal depends on the wavelength of the rays. For lower-energy X - rays mechanically ruled grating can be used. Each chemical element emits characteristic X - rays in sharply defined groups in more widely separated regions. They are known as the K, L’s, M, N. etc., promote lines of any series toward shorter wavelengths as the atomic number of the elements concerned increases. If a parallel beam of X - rays, wavelength λ, strikes a set of crystal planes it is reflected from the different planes, interferences occurring between X - rays reflect from adjacent planes. Bragg’s Law states that constructive interference takes place when the difference in path-lengths, BAC, is equal to an integral number of wavelengths
     2d sin θ = nλ,
In which ‘n’ is an integer, ‘d’ is the interplanar distance, and ‘θ’ is the angle between the incident X - ray and the crystal plane. This angle is called the ‘Bragg’s Angle,’ and a bright spot will be obtained on an interference pattern at this angle. A dark spot will be obtained, however, if be 2d sin θ = mλ. Where ‘m’ is half-integral. The structure of a crystal can be determined from a set of interference patterns found at various angles from the different crystal faces.
 A concept originally introduced by the ancient Greeks, as a tiny indivisible component of matter, developed by Dalton, as the smallest part of an element that can take part in a chemical reaction, and made experiment in the late-19th and early 20th century. Following the discovery of the electron (1897), they recognized that atoms had structure, since electrons are negatively charged, a neutral atom must have a positive component. The experiments of Geiger and Marsden on the scattering of alpha particles by thin metal foils led Rutherford to propose a model (1912) in which nearly all mass of the atom is concentrated at its centre in a region of positive charge, the nucleus is a region of positive charge, the nucleus, radiuses of the order 10-15 metre. The electrons occupy the surrounding space to a radius of 10-11 to 10-10 m. Rutherford also proposed that the nucleus have a charge of ‘Ze’, is surrounded by ‘Z’ electrons (‘Z’ is the atomic number). According to classical physics such a system must emit electromagnetic radiation continuously and consequently no permanent atom would be possible. This problem was solved by the developments of the ‘Quantum Theory.’
 The ‘Bohr Theory of the Atom’ (1913) introduced the notion that an electron in an atom is normally in a state of lowest energy (ground state) in which it remains indefinitely unless disturbed by absorption of electromagnetic radiation or collision with other particle the atom may be excited  -that is, electrons moved into a state of higher energy. Such excited states usually have short life spans (typically nanoseconds) and the electron returns to the ground state, commonly by emitting one or more ‘quanta’ of electromagnetic radiation. The original theory was only partially successful in predicting the energies and other properties of the electronic states. Postulating elliptic orbits made attempts to improve the theory (Sommerfeld 1915) and electron spin (Pauli 1925) but a satisfactory theory only became possible upon the development of ‘Wave Mechanics’ 1925.