Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Slowly, almost unobserved, that spark of ancient Indian wisdom, which the marvelous
Rabbi had kindled to new flame beside the Jordan, flickered out; the light faded from
the re-born sun of Greece, whose rays had ripened the fruits we now enjoy.
The people no longer know anything of these things.
Erwin Schrdinger
Those general notions about human understandingwhich are illustrated by
discoveries in atomic physics are not in the nature of things wholly unfamiliar, wholly
unheard of, or new. Even in our own culture they have a history, and in the Buddhist
and Hindu thought a more considerable and central place.
J. Robert Oppenheimer
I do not believe in the possible future of mysticism in the old form. However, I do
believe that the natural sciences will out of themselves bring forth a counter pole in
their adherents, which connects with the old mystic elements.
Wolfgang Pauli
One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a
very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.
Paul Dirac
Dirac disapproves quite particularly of the dishonesty and self-deception that are far
too often coupled to religious thought. But in his abhorrence he has become a fanatic
defender of rationalism, and I have the feeling that rationalism is not enough.
Werner Heisenberg
For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory[we must turn] to those kinds of
epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu
have been confronted.
Niels Bohr
There must be thousands of young persons whose nervous systems were expanded and
opened-up in the 1960s and who have now reached positions of competence in the
sciencesWe expect the new wave of turned-on young mathematicians, physicists,
and astronomers are more able to use their energized nervous systems as tools to
provide new correlations between psychology and science.
Harvard Psychedelic Researcher and Spiritual Guru, Dr. Timothy Leary
Only Buddhists and students of Advaita Vedanta (which appears to have been heavily
influenced by Buddhism) have been absolutely clear in asserting that spiritual life
consists in overcoming the illusion of the selfthe teachings of Buddhism and
Advaita are best viewed as lab manuals and explorers logs detailing the results of
empirical research on the nature of human consciousness
Our common sense seems to be stuck somewhere in the sixteenth century. It has also
been generally forgotten that many of the patriarchs of physics in the first half of the
twentieth century regularly impugned the physicality of the universe and placed
mindor thoughts, or consciousness itselfat the very wellspring of reality.
Nonreductive views like those of Arthur Eddington, James Jeans, Wolfgang Pauli,
Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrdinger seem to have had no lasting impact.
New Atheist, Dr. Sam Harris, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion
However, there is speculation, and some evidence, that consciousness, at the most
fundamental levels, is a quantum process
If, at the quantum level, the flow of time has no meaning, and if consciousness is
fundamentally a similar process, and if we can become aware of these processes
within ourselves, then it is also conceivable that we can experience timelessness.
If we can experience the most fundamental functions of our psyche, and if they are
quantum in nature, then it is possible that the ordinary conceptions of space and time
might not apply to them at all (as they dont seem to apply in dreams). Such an
experience would be hard to describe rationally (Infinity in a grain of sand/And
eternity in an hour), but it would be very real, indeed. For this reason, reports of time
distortion and timelessness from gurus in the East and psychotropic drug users in the
West ought not, perhaps, to be discarded peremptorily.
Spiritual Guru, Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters
Preface
Political strife and upheaval, environmental disaster, the rise of religious fanaticism and
totalitarianism, the failure of modern psychiatry to alleviate the sufferings of the mentally ill, our
most afflicted and dejected membersthe modern failings of the human mind are clear.
As the spiritual successors of Einstein and Netwon, Kepler and Plato, Spinoza and
Schopenhauer, we as a society are presently in grave spiritual danger, a danger largely of our
own creation. Quantum physicist and theoretical biologist Erwin Schrdinger observed:
A sort of general atavism has set in; western man is in danger of relapsing to an earlier
level of development which he has never properly overcome: crass, unfettered egoism is
raising its grinning head, and its fist, drawing irresistible strength from primitive habits, is
reaching for the abandoned helm of our ship.
Schrdinger further traced the root of this atavism:
Most of [the people] have nothing to hold on to and no one to follow. They believe
neither in God nor gods; to them, the Church is now only a political party, and morality is
nothing but a burdensome restriction which, without the support of those no longer
credible bugbears on which it leant for so long, is now without any basis whatever.
One of the worlds first biotechnologists, Erwin Schrdinger wrote to his readers that a blood
transfusion of thought would shortly be needed to save Western science from spiritual
anemia.
The world does not have to be this way. The idea that the conclusions of modern science must be
branded atheistic or opposed to spirituality is simply incorrect and counterfactual, as unscientific
as it is anti-historical. Such assertions run contrary to the practice of science throughout history
and are generally founded on an insidious misunderstanding of the philosophy and history of our
present day sciences. We
must
therefore
ask
the
fateful
question:
what
has
modern
physics
to
say
about
its
encounter
with
human
consciousness?
Former
Transcendental
Meditation
instructor
and
New
Age
guru
Deepak
Chopra
smugly
assures
his
large,
Western
following:
The
physical
world,
including
our
bodies,
is
a
response
of
the
observer.
We
create
our
bodies
as
we
create
the
experience
of
our
world.
On
the
other
hand,
the
New
Atheists
assure
us
this
isnt
so,
as
per
the
religion-less
spirituality
advocated
by
neuroscientist
Sam
Harris,
writing
on
the
advice
of
his
friend,
theoretical
physicist
Lawrence
Krauss,
a
man
who
works
with
the
quantum
theory
for
a
living:
Authors
struggling
to
link
spirituality
to
science
generally
pin
their
hopes
on
misunderstandings
of
the
Copenhagen
Interpretation
of
quantum
mechanics,
which
they
take
as
proof
that
consciousness
plays
a
central
role
in
determining
the
character
of
the
physical
world.
If
nothing
is
real
until
it
is
observed,
consciousness
cannot
arise
from
electrochemical
events
in
the
brains
of
animals
like
ourselves;
rather,
it
must
be
part
of
the
very
fabric
of
reality.
But
this
simply
isnt
the
position
of
mainstream
physics.
It
is
true
that,
according
to
Copenhagen,
quantum
mechanical
systems
do
not
behave
classically
until
they
are
observed,
and
before
that
they
may
seem
to
exist
in
many
different
states
simultaneously.
But
what
counts
as
observation
under
the
original
Copenhagen
view
was
never
clearly
defined.
The
notion
has
been
refined
since,
and
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
consciousness.
As
neither
Chopra,
nor
Harris,
nor
Krauss
has
much
(any)
experience
dealing
with
the
Foundations
of
Physics,
this
is
quite
the
misunderstanding
indeed.
To
settle
matters,
Schrdinger
tells
us,
we
must
go
far
back.
Throughout the course of mans slow emergence on
our planet Earth, both spiritual and scientific approaches to Life have formed and will continue
to form a counter-posed but nevertheless complimentary and inseparable approach to our
understanding the natural world. This was roughly the worldview of Maxwell Planck, Albert
Einstein, Erwin Schrdinger, Carl Jung, Timothy Leary, Werner Heisenberg, and Niels Bohr,
among other visionaries of 20th century science, to shortly be explored in yet greater detail.
It is the position of Cosmic Religion, designated by Albert Einstein as a new sort of religion:
God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe
the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver
look? Certainly not like a man magnified.
As a mere biologist, Richard Dawkins is certainly not qualified to speak so authoritatively about
the God of the physicist:
There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like God is subtle but he is not
malicious or He does not play dice or Did God have a choice in creating the
Universe? are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. God does not play dice
should be translated as Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things. Did God
have a choice in creating the Universe means Could the universe have begun in any
other way? Einstein was using God in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is
Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the
language of religious metaphor.
All this is simply a truism. Language is by definition contextual; therefore, all language is to
some degree metaphor. (Remember, Dawkins authored The Selfish Gene in 1976, based largely
on his belief that the deadly blow of Darwins On the Origin of Species, combined with
Mendels genetics and the discovery of the Crick-Watson structure of DNA, removed the need
for God in biology. Chapter 3 is entitled Immortal Coils.)
Compare the words of Erwin Schrdinger, close personal friend to Albert Einstein, having had
his own troubles with the Nazis, writing in 1944 at the height of World War II about the physics
of the living organism in the aptly-named What is Life?:
Please do not accuse me of calling the chromosome fibers just the cogs of the organic
machineat least not without a reference to the profound physical theories on which the
simile is basedIt needs still less rhetoric to recall the fundamental difference between
the two and to justify the epithets novel and unprecedented in the biological case
[Among] the most striking features arethe fact that the single cog is not of coarse
human make, but is the finest masterpiece ever achieved along the lines of the Lords
quantum mechanics.
is [this] not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one
stroke[?]
If Einstein wanted to write Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things, he would have
written so. But Einstein did not write so, instead consistently re-phrasing his problem with
Bohrs Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics:
As I have said so many times, God doesnt play dice with the world.
Indeed, individual failings undermine neither the truths glimpsed by the sciences nor those by
religions. And again, this is not a statement that can be proven; rather, it is the pre-determined
belief system of a large majority of theoretical physicists and psychologists that has been largely
ignored by the prophets of New Atheism and the materialist domineers of academia. According
to particle physicist Fritjof Capras counterculture classic, The Tao of Physics:
Mystics understand the roots of the Tao but not its branches; scientists understand its
branches but not its roots. Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need
science; but man needs both.
Aldous Huxley, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz, completed The Perennial Philosophy, a
study of comparative religion and mysticism, in 1945. Huxley tells us that
Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of
primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a
place in every one of the higher religions. A version of this Highest Common Factor in
all preceding and subsequent theologies was first committed to writing more than twentyfive centuries ago, and since that time the inexhaustible theme has been treated again and
again, from the standpoint of every religious tradition and in all the principal languages
of Asia and Europe.
To understand Huxleys belief in inner divinity, we must recognize that though Man may be
God, God may indeed be dead. As Nietzsche phrased it in The Gay Science:
We have killed [God]. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?
What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death
under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean
ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is
not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods
simply to appear worthy of it?
Albert Einstein put the question this way:
I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem
involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human
mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a
little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in
many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It
does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are
written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious
order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the
attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a
universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only
dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
I am fascinated by Spinozas Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern
thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first
philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
One mustnt get too caught up on any single conception or definition of God. As Bohr
forewarned, We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in
poetry. Deist, Renaissance man, and American Revolutionary, Thomas Paine defined the goal
of science thusly in The Age of Reason:
That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of
which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the
power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.
As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and
of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he
has made, but in the works or writings that man has made.
Nearly two centuries later, Schrdinger would express a deep and profound concern that the
naturalism of science had becoming increasingly synonymous with the materialism of atheism:
The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual
information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly
silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a
word about the sensation of red and blue. Bitter or sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow.
It knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes
pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that
we are not inclined to take them seriously.
Science is reticent too what it is a question of the great Unity of which we somehow form
a part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God, with a
capital G. Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we have said
this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow,
if personality is cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea
that presents itself to the human mind?
Quoting
Schopenhauer
from
memory
(himself
quoting
a
poem
from
either
the
Vedanta
or
the
Bhagavadgita,
which
is
inspired
by
the
same
spirit),
Schrdinger
elaborates:
The
one
all-highest
Godhead
Subsiding
in
each
being
And
living
when
they
perish
Who
this
has
seen,
is
seeing.
For
he
who
has
that
highest
God
in
all
things
found,
That
man
will
of
himself
upon
himself
inflict
no
wound.
Einstein
had
also
read
Schopenhauer
in
his
youth,
referencing
the
philosophy
espoused
by
The
World
as
Will
and
Representation
in
The
World
as
I
See
It:
In
human
freedom
in
the
philosophical
sense
I
am
definitely
a
disbeliever.
Everybody
acts
not
only
under
external
compulsion
but
also
in
accordance
with
inner
necessity.
Schopenhauers
saying,
that
a
man
can
do
as
he
will,
but
not
will
as
he
will,
has
been
an
inspiration
to
me
since
my
youth
up,
and
a
continual
consolation
and
unfailing
well-spring
of
patience
in
the
face
of
the
hardships
of
life,
my
own
and
others.
This
feeling
mercilessly
mitigates
the
sense
of
responsibility
which
so
easily
becomes
paralyzing,
and
it
prevents
us
from
taking
ourselves
and
other
people
too
seriously;
it
conduces
to
a
view
of
life
in
which
humor,
above
all,
has
its
due
place.
Einstein
continues:
I
cannot
conceive
of
a
God
who
rewards
and
punishes
his
creatures,
or
has
a
will
of
the
type
of
which
we
are
conscious
in
ourselves.
An
individual
who
should
survive
his
physical
death
is
also
beyond
my
comprehension,
nor
do
I
wish
it
otherwise;
such
notions
are
for
the
fears
or
absurd
egoism
of
feeble
souls.
Enough
for
me
the
mystery
of
the
eternity
of
life,
and
the
inkling
of
the
marvelous
structure
of
reality,
together
with
the
single-hearted
endeavor
to
comprehend
a
portion,
be
it
never
so
tiny,
of
the
reason
that
manifests
itself
in
nature.
It
is
with
regard
to
the
juxtaposition
of
these
two
opposites
(the
eternity
of
life
and
an
individual
who
should
survive
his
physical
death)
that
one
must
consider
Schrdingers
preference
for
the
immortality
of
the
soul,
a
belief
largely
derived
from
Schopenhauer,
Parmenides,
and
the
Vedanta:
Briefly
stated,
[I
advocate]
the
view
that
all
of
us
living
beings
belong
together
in
as
much
as
we
are
all
in
reality
sides
or
aspects
of
one
single
being,
which
may
perhaps
in
Western
terminology
be
called
God
while
in
the
Upanishads
its
name
is
Brahman.
This
is
hardly
a
different
view
from
that
of
Spinoza
(also
a
profound
intellectual
influence
on
Schrdinger),
for
[whom]
the
human
body
is
a
modification
of
the
infinite
substance
(God),
in
so
far
as
it
is
expressed
in
the
attribute
of
extension,
and
the
human
mind
is
that
same
modification,
but
expressed
in
the
attribute
of
thought.
Consider
Einstein:
I
believe
in
Spinoza's
God,
who
reveals
Himself
in
the
lawful
harmony
of
the
world,
not
in
a
God
who
concerns
Himself
with
the
fate
and
the
doings
of
mankind.
Now,
as
Schrdinger
sees
it:
The
structure
of
what
I
call
my
higher
spiritual
self
is
indeed
essentially
the
direct
consequence
of
ancestral
events,
but
not
exclusively
nor
principally
within
the
limits
of
my
physical
ancestors.
If
what
follows
is
to
seem
anything
more
than
a
bold
piece
of
rhetorical
trickery,
it
is
necessary
to
be
clear
on
one
point
concerning
the
two
factors
which
determine
an
individuals
course
of
development,
namely
(a)
the
special
arrangement
of
his
genes,
and
(b)
the
special
pattern
of
the
environment
which
works
on
him;
it
is
necessary,
I
say,
to
realize
that
these
two
factors
are
of
quite
the
same
nature,
in
that
the
special
arrangement
of
the
genes,
with
all
the
possibilities
of
development
which
it
contains,
has
developed
under
the
influence
of
and
in
essential
dependence
on
earlier
environments.
Therefore,
it
ought
follow
quite
naturally
that
The
Self
is
not
so
much
linked
with
what
happened
to
its
ancestors,
it
is
not
so
much
the
product,
and
merely
the
product,
of
all
that,
but
rather,
in
the
strictest
sense
of
the
word,
the
SAME
THING
as
all
that:
the
strict,
direct
continuation
of
it,
just
as
the
Self
aged
fifty
is
the
continuation
of
the
Self
aged
forty.
The
logical
and
ultimate
conclusion
of
this
train
of
thought,
as
Schrdinger
sees
it,
is
nothing
less
than
immortality,
since
the
concept
of
time
is
ultimately
a
creation
of
the
Self:
It
is
rather
remarkable
that
whereas
western
philosophy
has
almost
universally
accepted
the
idea
that
the
death
of
the
individual
does
not
put
an
end
to
anything
that
is
of
the
essence
of
life,
it
has
(with
the
exception
of
Plato
and
Schopenhauer)
bestowed
hardly
a
thought
on
this
other
idea,
much
deeper
and
more
intimately
joyful,
which
logically
goes
hand
in
hand
with
it:
the
idea
that
the
same
thing
applies
to
individual
birth,
at
which
what
happens
is
not
that
I
am
created
for
the
first
time
but
that
I
slowly
awaken
as
though
from
a
deep
sleep.
Then
I
can
see
my
hopes
and
strivings,
my
fears
and
cares
as
the
same
as
those
thousands
who
have
lived
before
me,
and
I
may
hope
that
future
centuries
may
bring
fulfillment
to
my
yearnings
of
centuries
ago.
No
seed
of
thought
can
germinate
in
me
except
as
the
continuation
of
some
forebear;
not
really
a
new
seed
but
the
predetermined
unfolding
of
a
bud
on
the
ancient,
sacred
tree
of
life.
Only
now
can
we
truly
envisage
what
was
at
stake
in
Einsteins
qualm
to
Bohr
about
whether
God
can
be
said
to
play
dice
with
the
universe.
If
quantum
event
are
truly
random,
then
thought
can
and
does
in
fact
germinate
without
continuation,
and
the
concept
of
a
predetermined
unfolding
of
a
bud
on
the
ancient,
sacred
tree
of
life
is
therefore
rendered
meaningless
and
antiquated.
Schrdinger
and
Einstein
both
thought
that
Copenhagen
was
nave
with
its
interjection
of
quantum
jumps
and
quantum
randomness,
though
neither
man
was
ultimately
able
to
present
a
more
successful
theoretical
model.
We are thus left asking: what do quantum physics, the New Atheists, the psychedelic movement,
and Indian poetry have in common?
Unfortunately for New Atheism, the process of answering this single question will significantly
undermine the worldview of academic materialism. But that is indeed for the collateral benefit of
the rest of us. As Lawrence Krauss embarrassingly botches epistemology and metaphysics in his
2012 book, A Universe From Nothing:
If the laws of nature are stochastic and random, then there is no prescribed cause for
our universeWhy is there something rather than nothing? Ultimately, this question may
be no more significant or profound than asking why flowers are red and some are blue.
Something may always come from nothing. It may be required, independent of the
underlying nature of reality.
This simply begs the question, however. Required by whomus? If thats the case, why should
our collective pseudo-desire to inhabit some cosmos culminate in the existence of such an astral
plane? He blunders metaphysics in the epilogue even more embarrassingly:
A God or a Nature that could encompasses a multiverse would be as constrained in the
creation of a universe in which Einstein could ask the question as either would be if there
is only one choice of a consistent physical reality.
I find oddly satisfying the possibility that, in either scenario, even a seemingly
omnipotent God would have no freedom in the creation of our universe. No doubt
because it further suggests that God is unnecessaryor at best redundant.
Schrdinger deemed this mere silliness. We can only imagine how Einstein or Planck would
have advocated for a similar worldview:
Now we are asked to believe that this special modification in the evolution of the higher
mammals [the emergence of the brain as a highly specialized phenomenon] had to
happen in order that the world should dawn itself in the light of consciousness; whereas,
if it had not emerged, this world would have remained nothing but a drama played to an
empty house, not present to anyone and hence not in the real sense present at all.
If this is really the ultimate wisdom to which we can attain in this question, then to me it
seems the utter bankruptcy of our picture of the world. And we ought at least to
acknowledge it, and not act as though it did not matter to us, or jeer, in our rationalistic
wisdom, at those who try to find a way out, however desperate.
For Schrdinger, an atomic physicist, the atomic theory postulated a world of mere phantoms or
archetypes, reminiscent of Platos Allegory of the Cave:
In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of familiar lifeThe frank
realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most
significant of recent advances.
Further clarifying that the atomic theory had [its shadowy character] ever since Democritus of
Abdera and even before, but we were not aware of it, Schrdinger claims that
The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, mind,
out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it; obviously, therefore, it can neither act on it
nor be acted on by any of its parts.
And again,
The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing, in so far as both are
constituted by the same primitive elements. But we are then hardly even using a different
formula whether we express the essential community of these elements in all individuals
by saying that there is only one external world or that there is only one consciousness.
We have then forgotten who we are. The Dancing Wu Li Masters defines our conflict succinctly:
Physics has become a branch of psychology, or perhaps the other way round.
Carl Jung, the Swiss psychologist, wrote:
The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it
happens outside, as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided
and does not become conscious of his inner contradictions, the world must
perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposite halves.
Jungs friend, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, put it this way:
From an inner center the psyche seems to move outward, in the sense of an
extraversion, into the physical world
If these men are correct, then physics is the study of the structure of consciousness.
Again, we must consider the Ethics of Einsteins favorite philosopher, Spinoza:
The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it
remains which is eternal.
Einsteins pseudo-religious qualms about the inadmissibility of quantum theory as science
cannot be logically separated from his statements about God and philosophy since his entire
worldview was rested on the premise that human creativity was rationally infinite, each human
mind a subset of the infinite Mind of God:
Scientists such as Einstein and Poincare had insisted on the importance of intuition in
creative thinking. Logic alone cannot lead to the discovery of scientific theories, they
said.
Understood in light of the more recent suggestion that human consciousness is a non-algorithmic
or quantum process, this is a telling statement indeed.
Wolfgang Pauli saw the issue in yet older light: because [Johannes Kepler] looks at the sun and
the planets with this archetypal image in the background he believes with religious fervor in the
helio-centric system[It is his religious belief that impels] him to search for the true laws of
planetary motion.
Kepler himself saw the universe as a triumph of geometry, the discipline which to him ranked
highest among the sciences, the helio-centric model an embodiment of the very image of the
Holy Trinity (interestingly, the image of both the Christian Trinity and the Indian Brahman will
come up together on yet a later day, pertaining also to the lessons of atomic physics):
Drawing inspiration from his intellectual progenitor, Pauli quoted Johannes Kepler, jotting:
The Mind of God, whose copy is here [on earth] the human mind, from its archetype
retains the imprint of the geometrical data from the very beginnings of mankind.
And again,
Reason is eternal. Therefore the geometrical figures are eternal; and in the Mind of God it
has been true from eternity that, for example, the square of the side of a square equals
half the square of the diagonal. Therefore, the quantities are the archetype of the world.