Hey everyone. Einstein's religious views are surprisingly (to us anyway) indefinate. We was a semi-mystic pantheist and personal God atheist. Anyways I was just curious as to what he means by this quote:
I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Mysticism-Mystical-Mystics.htm
What is the pure thought that he speaks of? And how does it grasp reality as the ancients dreamed (since they didnt have the scientific method)?
I dont really know at all what this quote means but I find it intriguing nevertheless. I have always loved einstein for being such an open minded scientist who never shunned spirituality only because it was spiritual. How many scientists put intuition above everything else? Anyways any insight as to what this quote means would be appreciated.
Full Version: What did Einstein mean?
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
(Albert Einstein,The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I had to add that part
(Albert Einstein,The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I had to add that part
Perhaps context would help. According to
http://www4.prossiga.br/lopes/prodcien/poi...point/doc1.html
(I have added paragraphing to enhance readability.)
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extend do justice to experience without getting to the root of the matter?
"I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenoma.
"Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of 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.".
A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 274; from a 1933 lecture at Oxford
The anthology has gone through several editions, here's one, I have not checked the accuracy of the citation.
http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/...n=9780517884409
Hope that helps.
http://www4.prossiga.br/lopes/prodcien/poi...point/doc1.html
(I have added paragraphing to enhance readability.)
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extend do justice to experience without getting to the root of the matter?
"I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenoma.
"Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of 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.".
A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 274; from a 1933 lecture at Oxford
The anthology has gone through several editions, here's one, I have not checked the accuracy of the citation.
http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/...n=9780517884409
Hope that helps.
QUOTE (eight bits @ Jun 23 2008, 05:02 AM) 
Perhaps context would help. According to
http://www4.prossiga.br/lopes/prodcien/poi...point/doc1.html
(I have added paragraphing to enhance readability.)
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extend do justice to experience without getting to the root of the matter?
"I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenoma.
"Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of 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.".
A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 274; from a 1933 lecture at Oxford
The anthology has gone through several editions, here's one, I have not checked the accuracy of the citation.
http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/...n=9780517884409
Hope that helps.
http://www4.prossiga.br/lopes/prodcien/poi...point/doc1.html
(I have added paragraphing to enhance readability.)
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extend do justice to experience without getting to the root of the matter?
"I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenoma.
"Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of 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.".
A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 274; from a 1933 lecture at Oxford
The anthology has gone through several editions, here's one, I have not checked the accuracy of the citation.
http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/...n=9780517884409
Hope that helps.
Thank you!
Could you please put in layman terms what this means for me since I am more like Jung when it comes to mathes than Einstein.
QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Jun 22 2008, 04:08 PM)
Thank you!
Could you please put in layman terms what this means for me since I am more like Jung when it comes to mathes than Einstein.
no doubt!... Could you please put in layman terms what this means for me since I am more like Jung when it comes to mathes than Einstein.
Pure thought- intelligence without the infection of self or outside opinion?
QUOTE (therion24 @ Jun 23 2008, 05:17 AM)
Pure thought- intelligence without the infection of self or outside opinion?
That is probably a big part of it.
You guys are so afraid of metaphysical thinkong, even when it slaps you right in the face. Obviously Einstein meant the same thing as Wallace Wattles speaks about:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_..._Rich/Chapter_4
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_..._Rich/Chapter_4
QUOTE
THOUGHT is the only power which can produce tangible riches from the Formless Substance. The stuff from which all things are made is a substance which thinks, and a thought of form in this substance produces the form.
Original Substance moves according to its thoughts; every form and process you see in nature is the visible expression of a thought in Original Substance. As the Formless Stuff thinks of a form, it takes that form; as it thinks of a motion, it makes that motion. That is the way all things were created. We live in a thought world, which is part of a thought universe. The thought of a moving universe extended throughout Formless Substance, and the Thinking Stuff moving according to that thought, took the form of systems of planets, and maintains that form. Thinking Substance takes the form of its thought, and moves according to the thought. Holding the idea of a circling system of suns and worlds, it takes the form of these bodies, and moves them as it thinks. Thinking the form of a slow-growing oak tree, it moves accordingly, and produces the tree, though centuries may be required to do the work. In creating, the Formless seems to move according to the lines of motion it has established; the thought of an oak tree does not cause the instant formation of a full-grown tree, but it does start in motion the forces which will produce the tree, along established lines of growth.
Every thought of form, held in thinking Substance, causes the creation of the form, but always, or at least generally, along lines of growth and action already established.
Original Substance moves according to its thoughts; every form and process you see in nature is the visible expression of a thought in Original Substance. As the Formless Stuff thinks of a form, it takes that form; as it thinks of a motion, it makes that motion. That is the way all things were created. We live in a thought world, which is part of a thought universe. The thought of a moving universe extended throughout Formless Substance, and the Thinking Stuff moving according to that thought, took the form of systems of planets, and maintains that form. Thinking Substance takes the form of its thought, and moves according to the thought. Holding the idea of a circling system of suns and worlds, it takes the form of these bodies, and moves them as it thinks. Thinking the form of a slow-growing oak tree, it moves accordingly, and produces the tree, though centuries may be required to do the work. In creating, the Formless seems to move according to the lines of motion it has established; the thought of an oak tree does not cause the instant formation of a full-grown tree, but it does start in motion the forces which will produce the tree, along established lines of growth.
Every thought of form, held in thinking Substance, causes the creation of the form, but always, or at least generally, along lines of growth and action already established.
QUOTE
Could you please put in layman terms what this means for me since I am more like Jung when it comes to mathes than Einstein.
My own math might be just a little bit Jungian
.Partly, I think there is a professional tension among physicists between the experimentalists and the theorists. Einstein was a theorist, so no surprise that he thinks that's a good way to do physics
.Beyond that, I would guess that Einstein might be referring to how he built up his theories of relativity, a lot like Euclid in geometry, by deductions starting from "small" postulates. There is no preferred direction in space, for instance, or that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. (Don't look too carefully at that constant speed of light in a vacuum
).I think part of what Einstein is saying is that he is discovering correct physics by carefully working out the implications of intuitively appealing postulates - pure deductive thought. And those postulates are (mostly) not based on experience, but on a sense that there should be universal laws and so on.
I wonder if Einstein would have said the same thing 20 years later. We know the story of black holes. His original equations predicted them. He looked at that, and intuition untutored by experience made him think WTF? and he decided there shouldn't be black holes, so he put in a fudge factor, and black holes were gone.
Then some other people got to thinking about those black holes, and still without much in the way of experience, their intuition told them that maybe there were black holes after all. And, if the story is true, there was a meeting, and Einstein was convinced to lose the fudge factor.
We've had threads here that having direct experience of black holes is more than a little difficult. But there are some observable phenomena in the vicinity of black holes that would be "signature" events, and some of those events have been observed.
So was it intuition-with-pure-thought or experience that led to the establishment of the reality of black holes?
I think both. But "pure thought" added a great deal to the raw material of experience. That's no small thing.
Anyway, that's what I think Einstein was talking about, maybe putting it a little strongly in 1933, but not so far off the mark as to require retraction later on.
The answer might be that realism, for Einstein, is not a philosophical doctrine about the interpretation of scientific theories or the semantics of theoretical terms. For Einstein, realism is a physical postulate, one of a most interesting kind, as he explained on 18 March 1948 in a long note at the end of the manuscript of Max Born's Waynflete Lectures, Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance (1949), which Born had sent to Einstein for commentary.
QUOTE (eight bits @ Jun 23 2008, 07:47 AM)
My own math might be just a little bit Jungian .
Partly, I think there is a professional tension among physicists between the experimentalists and the theorists. Einstein was a theorist, so no surprise that he thinks that's a good way to do physics .
Beyond that, I would guess that Einstein might be referring to how he built up his theories of relativity, a lot like Euclid in geometry, by deductions starting from "small" postulates. There is no preferred direction in space, for instance, or that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. (Don't look too carefully at that constant speed of light in a vacuum ).
I think part of what Einstein is saying is that he is discovering correct physics by carefully working out the implications of intuitively appealing postulates - pure deductive thought. And those postulates are (mostly) not based on experience, but on a sense that there should be universal laws and so on.
I wonder if Einstein would have said the same thing 20 years later. We know the story of black holes. His original equations predicted them. He looked at that, and intuition untutored by experience made him think WTF? and he decided there shouldn't be black holes, so he put in a fudge factor, and black holes were gone.
Then some other people got to thinking about those black holes, and still without much in the way of experience, their intuition told them that maybe there were black holes after all. And, if the story is true, there was a meeting, and Einstein was convinced to lose the fudge factor.
We've had threads here that having direct experience of black holes is more than a little difficult. But there are some observable phenomena in the vicinity of black holes that would be "signature" events, and some of those events have been observed.
So was it intuition-with-pure-thought or experience that led to the establishment of the reality of black holes?
I think both. But "pure thought" added a great deal to the raw material of experience. That's no small thing.
Anyway, that's what I think Einstein was talking about, maybe putting it a little strongly in 1933, but not so far off the mark as to require retraction later on.
.Partly, I think there is a professional tension among physicists between the experimentalists and the theorists. Einstein was a theorist, so no surprise that he thinks that's a good way to do physics
.Beyond that, I would guess that Einstein might be referring to how he built up his theories of relativity, a lot like Euclid in geometry, by deductions starting from "small" postulates. There is no preferred direction in space, for instance, or that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. (Don't look too carefully at that constant speed of light in a vacuum
).I think part of what Einstein is saying is that he is discovering correct physics by carefully working out the implications of intuitively appealing postulates - pure deductive thought. And those postulates are (mostly) not based on experience, but on a sense that there should be universal laws and so on.
I wonder if Einstein would have said the same thing 20 years later. We know the story of black holes. His original equations predicted them. He looked at that, and intuition untutored by experience made him think WTF? and he decided there shouldn't be black holes, so he put in a fudge factor, and black holes were gone.
Then some other people got to thinking about those black holes, and still without much in the way of experience, their intuition told them that maybe there were black holes after all. And, if the story is true, there was a meeting, and Einstein was convinced to lose the fudge factor.
We've had threads here that having direct experience of black holes is more than a little difficult. But there are some observable phenomena in the vicinity of black holes that would be "signature" events, and some of those events have been observed.
So was it intuition-with-pure-thought or experience that led to the establishment of the reality of black holes?
I think both. But "pure thought" added a great deal to the raw material of experience. That's no small thing.
Anyway, that's what I think Einstein was talking about, maybe putting it a little strongly in 1933, but not so far off the mark as to require retraction later on.
Thank you. Einstein in some areas was a true enigma. Shame he isnt alive today. I wonder what he would have thought of Bell's theorem actually tested in the lab. That thing about black holes is cool. I wonder how many amazing truths einstein discarded in his ponderings that he never wrote down and were probably profound insights.
maybe it's just me but I think it's creativity , thinking outside the box . letting go .......... kinda like painting without thinking about what your doing ... it flows so easily and yet 'your' not there at all.. it's like automatic pilot.
or as a professor used to say ..... don't think too much just do it. we have the answers we need really .
or as a professor used to say ..... don't think too much just do it. we have the answers we need really .
I am inclined to think this as well. Grrrrrrrr Pure thought......as the ancients dreamed..... so bloody enigmatic!
QUOTE
I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
to me this is saying that in today's world (or indeed Einstein's of 1954)
we have far to much clutter in our minds, so much in fact that we are constantly living in the past or future
never really having the time or inclination to live in the now
( yes i am aware that this is close to eckhart tolle's the power of now)
now i would imagine that for the ancients the now would of been the most important time
and the only clutter would of been,
have i got enough food?
am i warm?
have i got shelter?
and only after they had acquired that days food and warmth that they may of dreamed
as to what there gods purpose for them was
so to me Einsteins quote is telling us to free ourselves of past and future
and of all the clutter they bring with it.
as we are only as complicated as we allow ourselves to be
Interesting thread, and a rather enigmatic quote.
Given the context eight-bits put this in, I would suggest Einstein was referring to pure thought in the 'sense' of mathematics. That being that mathematics is not 'real', we cannot touch numbers and equations but only consider them intellectually. Thus, for Einstein, the truth of reality was (perhaps wholly, perhaps in part) mathematical and so, in this sense, understandable as pure thought. I'm not certain Einstein was 'mystically inclined' in the sense those who believe in mysticism would like to portray him, but that he was of the opinion the true nature of reality was, effectively, 'unreal' mathematics.
Just my opinion, going by the expanded context in the quote provided by eight-bits.
As for him being a 'semi-mystic pantheist', I'd venture his reference to divinity with respect to science was along the lines of many other scientists in that he did not view divinity as some conscious entity, but as the underlying structure of reality/the cosmos. He might have appeared pantheistic in expressing his views, but I'd be very interested if there was some quote attributed to him that quite clearly showed him as being an actual pantheist.
Given the context eight-bits put this in, I would suggest Einstein was referring to pure thought in the 'sense' of mathematics. That being that mathematics is not 'real', we cannot touch numbers and equations but only consider them intellectually. Thus, for Einstein, the truth of reality was (perhaps wholly, perhaps in part) mathematical and so, in this sense, understandable as pure thought. I'm not certain Einstein was 'mystically inclined' in the sense those who believe in mysticism would like to portray him, but that he was of the opinion the true nature of reality was, effectively, 'unreal' mathematics.
Just my opinion, going by the expanded context in the quote provided by eight-bits.
As for him being a 'semi-mystic pantheist', I'd venture his reference to divinity with respect to science was along the lines of many other scientists in that he did not view divinity as some conscious entity, but as the underlying structure of reality/the cosmos. He might have appeared pantheistic in expressing his views, but I'd be very interested if there was some quote attributed to him that quite clearly showed him as being an actual pantheist.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ Jun 23 2008, 07:13 PM)
As for him being a 'semi-mystic pantheist', I'd venture his reference to divinity with respect to science was along the lines of many other scientists in that he did not view divinity as some conscious entity, but as the underlying structure of reality/the cosmos. He might have appeared pantheistic in expressing his views, but I'd be very interested if there was some quote attributed to him that quite clearly showed him as being an actual pantheist.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einst...on-theology.htm
Spinoza was a mystic pantheist:
Except God no substance can be granted or conceived. .. Everything, I say, is in God, and all things which are made, are made by the laws of the infinite nature of God, and necessarily follows from the necessity of his essence. (Spinoza, Ethics)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-S...Philosopher.htm
However this doesnt mean that Einstein shared all of Spinoza's views but just his general theme that God is nature, nature God and that this nature expresses itself through whatever variety of laws. There is no personal benevolent creator or infinite immanent as well as transcendent consciousness connotation with Einstein's 'God'. I would be curious however to know what he means when he says:
To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
Hence I thought ''semi-mystic pantheist' was an appropriate title.
I myself agree that Einstein was pantheist insofar that everything is perhaps interconnected via certain laws but I also agree that Einstein wasnt mystically inclined in the same way that lets say a Hindu mendicant is or Buddhist is. Hence I said he was a 'semi-mystic pantheist' because he didnt as far as I know believe in a personal conscious universe/divinity but in feelings mystical in a way of intuition and such feelings. Einstein isnt definitive about his religious views (except personal creator Gods) and I dont feel he got into the perennial philosophy.
II cant see how anyone can believe in a spinoza's God and not be at least partially pantheist.
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I share the pantheist religion / philosophy of Albert Einstein that All is One and Interconnected (Nature, God), of which we humans are an inseparable part. Perhaps I am a romantic, but it is my hope that in the future Humanity will live by the truth, with greater harmony between different people, their religions and cultures, and to life in all its complex beauty.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einst...on-theology.htm
Though in saying all this I agree that it has probably to do more with mathes than anything else. But what ancients are there that dreamed in such a way? Is he refering to Pythagoras or Euclid?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.