Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.

com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

Introduction Knowledge Value Free Will Mind Chance Quantum Afterword

Site Map | Glossary | The I-Phi Blog | About I-Phi | Cite this page Search Google Translate

Home > Solutions > Scientists > Jordan

Philosophers Pascual Jordan

Mortimer Adler (1902-1980)
Rogers Albritton
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Samuel Alexander
With Max Born and Werner Heisenberg, Pascual Jordan contributed to the mathematical
William Alston formulation of matrix mechanics, the first form of quantum mechanics.
G.E.M.Anscombe
Anselm At Gttingen, Jordan was an assistant to mathematician Richard Courant and later to Born.
Louise Antony
Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle
According to Max Jammer (The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, p. 161), Jordan declared,
David Armstrong with emphasis, that observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it! In
Harald Atmanspacher a measurement of position, for example, as performed with the gamma-ray microscope, "the
Robert Audi electron is forced to a decision. We compel it to assume a definite position; previously it was,
Augustine
J.L.Austin in general, neither here nor there; it had not yet made its decision for a definite position.... If by
A.J.Ayer another experiment the velocity of the electron is being measured, this means: the electron is
Alexander Bain compelled to decide itself for some exactly defined value of the velocity; and we observe
Mark Balaguer
Jeffrey Barrett
which value it has chosen. In such a decision the decision made in the preceding experiment
William Belsham concerning position is completely obliterated." According to Jordan, every observation is not
Henri Bergson only a disturbance, it is an incisive enchroachment into the field of observation: "we ourselves
George Berkeley
Isaiah Berlin
produce the results of measurement" [Wir selber rufen die Tatbestnde hervor] (Erkenntinis, 4,
Bernard Berofsky 215-252, 1934).
Robert Bishop
Max Black Jordan went further, arguing that there were times when a quantum system effectively
Susanne Bobzien
observed itself, by collapsing into a specific state rather than remaining in a superposition of
Emil du Bois-Reymond
Hilary Bok states. This does not need any "conscious observer," as had been argued by John von
Laurence BonJour Neumann and Eugene Wigner, but it does need decoherence (and collapse) of the wave
George Boole function that prevents further interference of various possibilities.
mile Boutroux
F.H.Bradley
C.D.Broad Jordan connected the decoherence with thermodynamic increase in the entropy (it is also
Michael Burke connected with the increase of information in the measurement that will be recognized by the
C.A.Campbell conscious observer). He noted that every microphysical observation leaves some sort of
Joseph Keim Campbell
Rudolf Carnap
macrophysical record (containing information). Indeed, if it did not, there would be nothing to
Carneades be observed by the conscious observer.
Ernst Cassirer
David Chalmers In more orthodox formulations of quantum mechanics one is accustomed to say that the
Roderick Chisholm process of observation (or measurement) makes the photon decide between the two
Chrysippus possibilities-or makes any other observable take one of its different eigenvalues. But I think
Cicero
that what is here called "observation," must not be interpreted as any mental process, but as a
Randolph Clarke
purely physical one; we may better call it, following Margenau (3), the preparation of a state,
Samuel Clarke
Anthony Collins chosen from those which correspond to a certain operator or observable. The essential point
Antonella Corradini seems to me to be that this process must be a macrophysical one. Macrophysics by definition
Diodorus Cronus deals with objects or processes which allow an application of the traditional concept of reality.
Jonathan Dancy It is essential that we may think of a macrophysical object as existing independently of any
Donald Davidson process of observation. Certainly we know of the planet Pluto only because we possess
Mario De Caro astronomical observatories; but we believe Pluto to have existed already in the time of homo
Democritus neandertalensis. This is what we call, in the German literature, "Objektivierung," to think of
Daniel Dennett objects as existing independently of the processes of observation. Or to put it otherwise: It
Jacques Derrida
belongs to the definition of macrophysics that we are here never faced with the characteristic
Ren Descartes
microphysical features of complementarity.
Richard Double
Fred Dretske
John Dupr
Now we have indeed in each case of microphysical observation and measurement a situation
John Earman in which the microphysical object of observation makes a track of macrophysical dimensions.
Laura Waddell Ekstrom Usually this is made possible by an avalanche process set off by the microphysical object of
Epictetus observation. To induce this track (giving a macrophysical record of the microphysical
Epicurus decision), is - I think - in some cases identical with the decision itself...

1 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

Herbert Feigl Let us first consider what might appear to be a difficulty. A silver grain in a photographic plate -
John Martin Fischer or any other object suited to allow a macrophysical track to be produced by a microphysical
Owen Flanagan decision - is nothing other than an accumulation of microphysical individuals. If we try to give a
Luciano Floridi
complete description of the silver grain, then we have to mention its atoms and their wave
Philippa Foot
functions - and we are faced again with those difficulties which we tried to avoid by
Alfred Fouille
Harry Frankfurt emphasising the macrophysical character of the silver grain.
Richard L. Franklin
Michael Frede This leads us to acknowledge that it is both possible and necessary to formulate a physical
Gottlob Frege axiom not formulated hitherto. Above we held it to be part of the definition of macrophysics, to
Peter Geach show no complications in the manner of complementarity, but to allow a complete
Edmund Gettier "objectivation" of phenomena in space and time. But usually one defines macrophysics only
Carl Ginet by stating that it deals with great numbers of microphysical individuals - and this is another
Alvin Goldman and a different definition. We need therefore a special axiom to express the empirical fact that
Gorgias these two definitions define the same thing - that really each large accumulation of
Nicholas St. John Green microphysical individuals always shows a well defined state in space and time that a stone
H.Paul Grice
never, unlike an electron, has indeterminate coordinates. One often vaguely believes this to
Ian Hacking
be guaranteed already by Heisenberg's p q > h; but in fact this relation only provides a
Ishtiyaque Haji
Stuart Hampshire possibility and not a necessity for the validity of our axiom. Let us assume that, in our
W.F.R.Hardie experiment involving the photon, the photographic plate be removed, but that we have an
Sam Harris arrangement whereby a macrophysical stone will fall according to the decision of the photon.
William Hasker Then, if we strictly assume v. Neumann's view, the stone comes to possess a wave function
R.M.Hare which makes it undecided whether it does fall or does not, and an observer has the
Georg W.F. Hegel opportunity to compel the stone to a decision by the mental process of forgetting that
Martin Heidegger interference between the two wave functions of the falling stone would be possible.
R.E.Hobart Schrdinger's famous cat is another illustration of this point.
Thomas Hobbes
David Hodgson I think we can summarize the situation by saying that indeed a new
Shadsworth Hodgson H. D. Zeh says of
feature - to be formulated by a new axiom - lies in the fact that such
Baron d'Holbach such things that "they
Ted Honderich
things do not happen; all formulations of quantum mechanics
are never observed in
Pamela Huby hitherto given do not suffice to exclude them. We are unable to make
nature."
David Hume a clock with a hand which does not always point to a definite figure
Ferenc Huoranszki on the dial. This is a well known fact, but a fact of which present
William James theory gives no sufficient account.
Lord Kames
Robert Kane It seems possible to give a still more precise meaning to our new axiom. Let us look at a
Immanuel Kant special case. The emission of an alpha particle by a nucleus (this nucleus may be assumed to
Tomis Kapitan be infinitely heavy and to be located at a definite point) is regulated by a spherical wave. Now
Jaegwon Kim it is doubtless possible that by some suitable arrangement we could cause interference
William King between alpha emissions in widely different directions, as in the case of photon emission by
Hilary Kornblith
an atom. But if we let this emission take place in a Wilson-chamber, we always get the picture
Christine Korsgaard
Saul Kripke
of a Wilson track showing the particle to have taken a well defined direction. Why is that?
Andrea Lavazza
Keith Lehrer
One will scarcely doubt that the thermal motion of the gas molecules must play a decisive role
Gottfried Leibniz in this instance. I will not discuss here the application of v. Neumann's and v. Weizscker's
Leucippus ideas to this case. My own opinion is this. We have to see the cause of the phenomenon not
Michael Levin in any "perception," nor any mental process, nor in the fact that drops of water are formed - for
George Henry Lewes surely in the absence of water (though then any direct observation would be difficult) the
C.I.Lewis particle would have a definite direction of emission and we would have tracks of ionisation in
David Lewis the gas. The decisive point seems to be that in consequence of the gas temperature all
Peter Lipton possibilities of interference between wave functions of different atoms are destroyed. For if we
C. Lloyd Morgan
were to fill the chamber not with ordinary gas but with liquid helium at the temperature T = 0, I
John Locke
do not see why interference of alpha emission over wide angles should not remain possible.
Michael Lockwood
E. Jonathan Lowe
Returning again to our photon, we may say that the Nicoll itself would be able to make the two
John R. Lucas
Lucretius waves and incoherent, provided the Nicoll had a sufficient degree of Brownian movement.
Ruth Barcan Marcus Generally we can regard Brownian movement as that factor which is suited to create
James Martineau incoherence and to destroy every possibility of interference.
Storrs McCall
Hugh McCann If this idea is correct, then we see that thermodynamics is involved in
Colin McGinn quantum mechanical observation; and this is in harmony with a fact An irreversible event
Michael McKenna showing irreversibility to be connected with observation: We draw (wave-function
Brian McLaughlin collapse) followed by
from an observation consequences about the probabilities of
John McTaggart entropy radiated away
experiments to be made afterwards; we cannot reverse this relation.
Paul E. Meehl are the two essential
Uwe Meixner steps in any
But while thermodynamics is essential for the concept of observation
Alfred Mele measurement
and measurement, this concept itself seems to me to be
Trenton Merricks
indispensable in thermodynamics and in the notion of entropy. The
John Stuart Mill
Dickinson Miller
relation of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics - especially thermodynamical statistics
G.E.Moore and quantum mechanics - has been the object of much discussion. Let us mention here only
Thomas Nagel the first and the last stages of the subject.
Friedrich Nietzsche
John Norton 1) Pauli (5) emphasised that even in quantum theory there remains the necessity of an

2 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

P.H.Nowell-Smith "hypothesis of elementary disorder," which has to be acknowledged as an additional axiom

Robert Nozick besides the "pure" quantum mechanics as formulated by the Schrdinger equation. Our
William of Ockham macrophysical axiom mentioned above stands in close connection with this axiom of
Timothy O'Connor
elementary disorder, governing each thermodynamic system; indeed, we may also say each
David F. Pears
macrophysical system.
Charles Sanders Peirce
Derk Pereboom
2) During the last years Born (1) and Green, in a series of papers, developed a fascinating
Steven Pinker
Plato account of thermodynamical statistics based upon quantum mechanics. Those results of their
Karl Popper endeavour which are related intimately to our question here may be formulated in two theses:
Porphyry
Huw Price A) Quantum mechanics in its full content implies irreversibility as a necessary consequence.
H.A.Prichard
Hilary Putnam B) But "pure" or "restricted" quantum mechanics, which applies only the Schrdinger equation
Willard van Orman Quine without the concepts of preparation of states, observation., measurement or "decision", would
Frank Ramsey not do so.
Ayn Rand
Michael Rea Point A) has been emphasised by Born himself.
Thomas Reid
Charles Renouvier Point B) requires some comment in order to show that it is really in accord with Born's
Nicholas Rescher statement and not in any contradiction with it. Born's exposition allows us to see with great
C.W.Rietdijk clarity where the concept of "decision" comes to play its role: The notion of transition
Richard Rorty probabilities is used - they are given by his formula [23], (1) which is derived from [21]. This is
Josiah Royce exactly the point in which we are interested here: It was the whole purpose of our discussion
Bertrand Russell
to show the inadequacy of the statement that the intensities of the photon waves and are
Paul Russell
Gilbert Ryle
probabilities (of transition or of decision - this is only a verbal difference), and to look for the
Jean-Paul Sartre physical process which makes these waves incoherent.
Kenneth Sayre
("On the process of measurement in quantum mechanics," Philosophy of Science, 16, 1949, pp. 269-278 (PDF)
T.M.Scanlon
Moritz Schlick
Arthur Schopenhauer Excerpts from Science and the Course of History (Tr. Forschung macht
John Searle
Wilfrid Sellars
Geschichte 1954),
Alan Sidelle THE DISCOVERY OF THE ATOMS (pp. 22-32)
Ted Sider
Henry Sidgwick
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong In the earliest beginnings of a rational approach to natural phenomena we encounter a very
J.J.C.Smart modern idea: the atomic theory was developed in antiquity; it formed the basis of a
Saul Smilansky philosophical Weltanschauung as we should call it today. Its creator was Democritus, a solitary
Michael Smith
Baruch Spinoza
thinker, understood by next to none of his contemporaries, regarded as a madman by his
L. Susan Stebbing neighbors and fellow citizens. Democritus had his philosophical precursors, and there were a
George F. Stout few successors who attempted to develop his ideas. But essentially the ancient atomic
Galen Strawson
philosophy was all his own.
Peter Strawson
Eleonore Stump
Francisco Surez We have come to take his doctrine so much for granted that we scarcely appreciate its great
Richard Taylor intellectual audacity. Democritus taught that all matter we still use the term today, but the
Kevin Timpe very concept of matter was first defined through Democritus' ideas consists of innumerable
Mark Twain
Peter Unger tiny particles, which he held to be immutable, hence indestructible and untreatable. In moving
Peter van Inwagen through empty space, colliding and exerting a mechanical action upon one another, these
Manuel Vargas particles give rise to what should be regarded as the real, objective world; our crude senses
John Venn
Kadri Vihvelin
give us only a blurred, imprecise, complexly veiled picture of this objective world of
Voltaire indestructible atoms.
G.H. von Wright
David Foster Wallace When Democritus in his solitude developed these ideas, the ancient mythological view of the
R. Jay Wallace
W.G.Ward
world was still accepted by his contemporaries, who merely shook their heads at him. They
Ted Warfield still believed in demons, nymphs, demigods and other mythological beings, to whose arbitrary
Roy Weatherford intervention they attributed all conspicuous natural phenomena. In his atomic philosophy,
William Whewell
Democritus for the first time expounded the great idea of a nature governed by law. Essentially
Alfred North Whitehead
David Widerker he was the founder and first proponent of scientific thinking.
David Wiggins
Bernard Williams Like other intellectual achievements of antiquity, the atomic philosophy was almost entirely
Timothy Williamson forgotten for many centuries. But in the age of the Renaissance, when the Western spirit
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Susan Wolf sought new inspiration in the cultural heritage of antiquity, the old atomic philosophy was
rediscovered. It has become a fruitful source of scientific ideas.
Scientists
In the centuries that have elapsed since then nearly all our physicists have derived significant
Michael Arbib
Bernard Baars guidance from the atomic theory. The history of chemistry would be scarcely conceivable
Gregory Bateson without the notion of atoms. For when such men as Boyle and Dalton strove to emerge from
John S. Bell the confusion of alchemistic doctrines, in which the facts of experience were shrouded and

3 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

Charles Bennett almost totally concealed by mythological, symbolic, and allegorical thinking, the concept of the
Ludwig von Bertalanffy
Susan Blackmore
atom was the thread that led them out of the labyrinth to clear ideas about the nature of
Margaret Boden chemical processes. In the field of physics, the atomic theory proved particularly fruitful when
David Bohm heat phenomena were being investigated during the age of the steam engine. With the help of
Niels Bohr brilliant mathematical analyses Maxwell in England, Boltzmann in Germany, Gibbs in America
Ludwig Boltzmann
Emile Borel showed heat to be a hidden, statistically irregular motion of the infinitesimal atoms which
Max Born constitute matter.
Satyendra Nath Bose
Walther Bothe But despite the signal success of the atomic theory in physics and chemistry, a few
Hans Briegel
Leon Brillouin outstanding physicists and chemists at the beginning of the twentieth century criticized it
Stephen Brush sharply. They pointed out that after almost two thousand years of speculation there was no
Henry Thomas Buckle really cogent proof of the existence of atoms. They admitted that the atomic hypothesis had
S. H. Burbury
Donald Campbell
provided any number of fruitful ideas, but insisted that it had never been conclusively proved.
Anthony Cashmore No one could refute their contention that the whole atomic theory was probably nothing more
Eric Chaisson than an idle speculation and an ancient fallacy, and consequently the results obtained on the
Jean-Pierre Changeux
basis of it might well be illusory.
Arthur Holly Compton
John Conway
John Cramer This was the situation at the beginning of our century: despite everything that had been
E. P. Culverwell accomplished by the atomic theory since the Renaissance, no one could say with certainty
Charles Darwin that any such things as atoms existed. It is not surprising that these outspoken critics created
Terrence Deacon
Louis de Broglie a panic among their colleagues; the very foundations of physics and chemistry, which for
Max Delbrck centuries had been regarded as secure, seemed to have been shaken.
Abraham de Moivre
Paul Dirac And yet this criticism proved beneficial. Great minds brought new zeal to what had become the
Hans Driesch
John Eccles crucial problem in physics: to prove the reality of the atoms; to devise experiments which
Arthur Stanley Eddington would show irrefutably that the atoms actually exist.
Paul Ehrenfest
Albert Einstein This problem, as we know, was solved. We cannot relate in detail how the physicists of our
Hugh Everett, III
Franz Exner
century succeeded in breaking into the realm of the atoms, how they bored their way into this
Richard Feynman profound, hidden stratum of material reality. One of the crucial proofs, in any event, was
R. A. Fisher arrived at by Einstein, who found that certain hitherto neglected experimental data ("Brownian
Joseph Fourier
Lila Gatlin
motion") lent unquestionable support to the theory developed by Maxwell, Boltzmann, and
Michael Gazzaniga Gibbs that heat was simply a motion of countless infinitesimal atoms.
GianCarlo Ghirardi
J. Willard Gibbs Another important achievement was the discovery of the electron, which was effected in
Nicolas Gisin
several steps, the most important being the investigation of cathode rays.
Paul Glimcher
Thomas Gold
A.O.Gomes But the inquiry into the reality of the atom carried on in the early part of our century
Brian Goodwin accomplished far more than to prove that Democritus was right. It also gave us a thorough
Joshua Greene knowledge of the atoms. As the physicists of our day explored this hidden stratum, a whole
Jacques Hadamard
Patrick Haggard new world opened before them and science garnered in the richest harvest of its entire
Stuart Hameroff history. Not only has the existence of atoms, doubted by excellent authorities only fifty years
Augustin Hamon ago, been securely demonstrated; but in addition the whole realm of the atoms has been
Sam Harris
Hyman Hartman
thoroughly explored and illuminated; its secrets have been unveiled, its riddles solved.
John-Dylan Haynes
Martin Heisenberg Many outstanding scientists share in the glory of these discoveries. And indeed, it would seem
Werner Heisenberg as though physics had attracted a conspicuous proportion of the outstanding minds of our age.
John Herschel
Jesper Hoffmeyer
The names are so numerous that we cannot begin to mention all of them. Suffice it to say that
E. T. Jaynes Lord Rutherford achieved epoch-making results in investigating the structure of the atom. For
William Stanley Jevons what we call an atom today has itself a structure; it is by no means an ultimate, simple
Roman Jakobson
component of matter. We habitually call the smallest unit of a chemical element an atom. But
Pascual Jordan
Ruth E. Kastner these atoms, it has been found, are themselves composed. We term their ultimate
Stuart Kauffman components "elementary particles" and it is these ultimate units of matter that correspond to
Simon Kochen Democritus' conception of "atoms."
Stephen Kosslyn
Ladislav Kov
Rolf Landauer The matter of all chemical elements consists of three varieties of elementary particles:
Alfred Land electrons, protons, and neutrons. The structure of an atom taking the concept in the
Pierre-Simon Laplace modern sense may be described as follows. In the center is the much smaller atomic
David Layzer
Benjamin Libet
nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons. Nearly the entire mass of the atom is contained
Seth Lloyd in this nucleus. But the volume of the atom is made up almost entirely of its electrons,
Hendrik Lorentz although these constitute less than one-thousandth of its mass. When atoms are combined
Josef Loschmidt

4 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

Ernst Mach into molecules through chemical processes, the nuclei of the atoms involved remain totally
Donald MacKay
Henry Margenau
unchanged; certain changes occur only in the relations between the electrons. This fact is in
James Clerk Maxwell keeping with the fundamental law of chemistry that in all chemical reactions the quantities of
Ernst Mayr the elements involved remain unchanged for the chemical nature of an atom is conditioned
Ulrich Mohrhoff by the structure of its nucleus (or more precisely, by the number of protons in the nucleus).
Jacques Monod
Emmy Noether
Howard Pattee So far everything seems perfectly simple, although these seemingly simple results required no
Wolfgang Pauli end of the most ingenious and painstaking calculation and experiment. But what is really
Massimo Pauri impressive about modern atomic research is this: that it disclosed natural laws of an entirely
Roger Penrose
Steven Pinker different order from those previously investigated in the world of larger, cruder bodies. The first
Colin Pittendrigh indication of the totally novel conditions that had so long lain undiscovered in the inaccessible
Max Planck substratum of the atomic world was detected by Max Planck at the very beginning of our
Susan Pockett
Henri Poincar
century. Compared with the conclusions that were subsequently derived from it, Planck's
Daniel Pollen discovery was only a first step. But it was the decisive step. With it physics entered on wholly
Ilya Prigogine new and unsuspected paths.
Hans Primas
Adolphe Qutelet
Juan Roederer
Planck's so-called quantum theory formulated the natural law that had to do with the peculiarly
Jerome Rothstein discontinuous reactions of atoms, electrons, protons, and so on. It was taken up by the leading
David Ruelle physicists of our time, who amplified it and through it achieved remarkable triumphs. The
Erwin Schrdinger development of the quantum theory, indissolubly linked with the atomic discoveries it has
Aaron Schurger
Claude Shannon made possible, strikes us as the most dramatic event in the history of physics since 1900.
David Shiang Einstein's theory of relativity, although not directly connected with the quantum theory, has also
Herbert Simon considerably helped the physicists who were seeking to solve the riddles raised by the
Dean Keith Simonton
B. F. Skinner
quantum jumps, by the continuous reactions of the atoms. For Einstein's example encouraged
Roger Sperry them to an unprecedented boldness of thought. Moreover, Einstein himself made revolutionary
Henry Stapp contributions to the quantum theory. And the great discoveries of other investigators in this
Tom Stonier
Antoine Suarez
field here we can mention only Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg brought astounding
Leo Szilard results.
William Thomson (Kelvin)
Peter Tse The atomic world held many surprises in store. And strangest of all, it was found that the
Heinz von Foerster
principle of causality, the basic principle of all science up until then, is no longer applicable to
John von Neumann
John B. Watson this realm, where it is replaced by general statistical laws. The quantum physicists did not
Daniel Wegner draw these far-reaching inferences until the problems connected with atomic quanta had been
Steven Weinberg solved so clearly and conclusively as to leave no possible room for doubt. Scientific thinking
Paul A. Weiss
John Wheeler had entered upon a new age. Not since Democritus had there been such an upheaval in
Wilhelm Wien scientific ideas.
Norbert Wiener
Eugene Wigner If today we think back to Democritus, it is because we are in a better position than ever before
E. O. Wilson
H. Dieter Zeh
to appreciate the towering stature of this solitary thinker. There is no similar case in the whole
Ernst Zermelo history of science: A dreamer far in advance of his time puts forth a theory which cannot be
Wojciech Zurek proved until more than two thousand years later; but then it is confirmed. And meanwhile this
Presentations
theory has influenced, inspired, shaped all scientific thought.

Biosemiotics But our present epoch, which has confirmed the atomic theory, also marks the end of the
Free Will scientific era dominated by Democritus' ideas. On the one hand we have established the
Mental Causation
reality of the atoms, so proving once and for all that Democritus was right; but on the other
James Symposium
hand the investigation of the atomic quanta has proved that the laws governing the atomic
world are of an entirely different nature than Democritus and his successors supposed. The
transcending of the principle of causality characterizes this century as an incomparable turning
point in the development of human thought.

By 1927 the quantum physicists, overcoming gigantic difficulties, had solved all the basic
problems relating to the electronic husks of the atoms. Since then vast efforts have been
devoted to the nuclei.

In a short time a new branch of physics has grown from small beginnings. In regard to
fundamentals, nuclear physics has registered no such revolutionary advances as the earlier
investigation of the electronic husks of the atoms. But all of us know that the technical
applications of nuclear physics have been no less revolutionary than the theoretical findings of
quantum physics. Both aspects of scientific activity, the theoretical penetration that leads to
deeper insights and the practical mastery of nature through the technical exploitation of these

5 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

insights, have been prodigiously realized in these modern developments. In this retrospective
view of the remote and recent past we have attempted to gain a profounder understanding of
our own times. Today the world is stricken with anxiety over the terrible possibilities of atomic
warfare. But at the same time the transformation that has occurred in our scientific view of the
world gives us food for reflection along entirely different lines. In the era inaugurated by
Democritus our scientific thinking was forced into a definite philosophical position. But in
recent years the dangerous one-sidedness of a mechanistic view of nature, as propounded by
Democritus, has become evident. The great turning point in scientific knowledge that we are
experiencing today opens up new perspectives for our reflection on the problems of nature
and man, world and God.

ATOMS AND ORGANISMS (pp. 97-108)

The telescope and the microscope were both invented in Holland, and almost at the same
time, at the turn of the seventeenth century. The telescope opened up the cosmic distances to
us; the whole modern development of astronomy, which has carried us so far beyond the
planetary system, would be inconceivable without it. The microscope, on the other hand, has
enabled us to look into the secrets of the small natural bodies. Beyond the smallest and finest
structures that our naked eye can see, there are still smaller ones that have gradually
emerged from their concealment since the invention of the microscope. Anton van
Leeuwenhoek, who was born in Delft in 1652, for fifty years explored this miraculous world of
the microscopic bodies, revealing new surprises at every step. And he recognized that nature
nowhere discloses such diversified, ingenious, and regular forms as in the world of organic life
both in the larger organisms whose detailed structure he began to investigate and in the
minute organisms which he discovered under the microscope and whose "delightful"
movements gave him so much pleasure.

Since then far better and sharper microscopes have been devised, and every optical advance
has enabled biologists to discover smaller structures in the organism. In this respect organic
nature differs strikingly from the inorganic world: the dead matter of a well developed crystal
reveals a high degree of uniformity, disturbed only by small accidental irregularities. But when
we closely examine the living organisms every fragment, however small, shows us ingenious
new structural details.

In recent years the electronic microscope has developed a power of enlargement far greater
than that of any optical microscope; and once more, almost as in Leeuwenhoek's day, a new
realm of more minute organic structures has been opened up to us. But we know that even the
smallest organic particles now perceptible to us involve further structural riddles; organic life is
ingeniously articulated down to the very molecules and atoms.

The incredible intricacy of a living cell is revealed not only by microscopic examination; it is
manifested, perhaps still more strikingly, in the facts of heredity. In every case a huge number
of hereditary characters must be embedded in a single tiny germ cell. We know today that the
nucleus of the germ cell is the bearer of heredity; modern genetics has led us deep into the
amazing complexity and lawfulness of the hereditary process.

The study of heredity has been combined with the study of mutations to form a single science
of impressive stature. This new science of genetics is entirely an achievement of our own
twentieth century. For it was in 1900 that the laws of heredity, previously investigated by
Mendel but disregarded by his contemporaries, were rediscovered. The new science of
genetics began its fabulous course just as Max Planck was making his great discovery which
has played so vital a role in the development of atomic physics.

The Mendelian laws were only the beginning, the gateway to this new science which has very
largely laid bare the intricacies of the hereditary process and the laws which govern its
operation. Two men chosen at random, who do not happen to be identical twins, differ in
hundreds of inherited characters; but far greater of course is the number of inherited
characters which are common to these two men but distinguish them from the various
representatives of the animal kingdom. The mechanism of heredity, residing in the nucleus of
a germ cell, must be fantastically complex to embody all these hereditary characters despite
its minuteness. To investigate and decipher this vastly intricate mechanism, invisible to the
naked eye, represented a great challenge to the restless human mind.

6 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

The geneticists concentrated their main effort on the observation of a single object, a small
species of fly known as Drosophila, and the impressive results achieved were largely due to
this astute method. Of course many other objects, both animal and vegetable, were examined;
this was the only way of making sure that the laws of heredity were all-embracing, that they
were valid for all organic life. But since, despite the universality of these laws, every animal
and vegetable species offers its own highly complex peculiarities, a thorough understanding of
heredity and its occasional changes, or mutations, could be arrived at only if a number of able
scientists concentrated on a single species that was particularly favorable for investigation.

An experiment in genetics can be conclusive only if large numbers of individuals are bred and
examined; only then can the statistical findings provide reliable answers to the many complex
questions involved. Geneticists all over the world bred several hundred million drosophilae and
examined each individual separately. The result is that today we have a detailed picture of the
mechanism governing heredity. The cell nucleus contains the so-called chromosomes, spiral-
shaped threads consisting of numerous genes, which are lined up in chains. Each individual
gene is the bearer of a single hereditary trait: every gene is a catalyst which makes it possible
for certain ferments to be produced in the life process of the cell; and these ferments in turn
are catalysts which determine and regulate very complex processes that take place when a
new organism grows from the fertilized germ cell. Before the germ cell splits in two, as it does
in the process of growth, the chromosomes double in number; thus each of the two new cells
receives its full complement of the genes that guide its vital processes.

This duplication of the chromosomes makes the new cells exact copies of the parent cell, so
assuring the faithful transmission of hereditary characters. But a gene can occasionally incur a
sudden small change, which we call a mutation. The changed, mutated form is then
duplicated; the change that has occurred in the gene is inherited a new hereditary character
has come into being.

These mutations of course attracted much attention among geneticists; if there were no
mutations at all, no science of genetics would be possible, for it is only the existence of
hereditarily dissimilar individuals that enables us to attempt crosses and so investigate the
laws of heredity. All inherited differences result ultimately from mutations in the germ cells. And
the entire development of organic life over millions of years has only been made possible by
mutations that increase the complexity of the germ cell, giving rise to higher and more
complex forms and species.

Mutations occur in all animal and plant species. But as a rule they are very infrequent, and the
most painstaking attention is needed if we are to observe them. It was a great step forward for
genetics when Muller, the Nobel prize winner, found that the frequency of mutations in
Drosophila could be appreciably increased by artificial means. When the flies are subjected to
X rays the mutations become more frequent. This applies of course not only to flies but also to
every other species whose germ cells are struck by radiation, and that is why it is dangerous
for men to work with X rays for protracted periods unless careful protective measures are
taken.

Of course the possibility of inducing mutations by radiation was very welcome to geneticists,
partly because it provided them with more abundant material for experiments and partly
because it enabled them to study the mutation process itself more closely and obtain new
information regarding the nature of the genes. In this direction important discoveries were
made by Timofeeff-Rossovsky, the Russian geneticist, who lived for many years in Germany.
He found that mutation can be induced in a gene if a single electron is detached from it.

This makes it plain that the individual gene is an extremely fine structure. Actually we must
conceive of it as a single molecule a very large molecule, of course, containing many
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of atoms, but in any event a single molecule
with a very definite architecture, a wonderfully developed edifice of atoms, in which no detail
can be changed without effecting a mutation and a change in the corresponding hereditary
character.

Even more clearly than microscopic examination, these considerations show that organic life
is as finely structured as physical possibility permits. And here we have a basic insight. To

7 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

understand this we must turn for a moment to the other great scientific achievement of our
century, the exploration of the atoms and their reactions. The two new sciences, as I have
said, were inaugurated at the same time: both modern genetics and modern atomic physics
date from the beginning of our century.

It is true that the notion of the atom as such is far older; it was worked out in ancient times by
Democritus. But although the doctrine of Democritus provided guidance for the whole
development of Western science beginning with the Renaissance, there was still disagreement
among physicists in 1900 as to whether we should take the concept of the atom quite
seriously. It is only in our century that the reality of the atoms has been proved convincingly,
that these infinitesimal basic structures of matter have been investigated experimentally.

But this advance brought about a profound and quite unsought-for change in our view of
nature. Up to our century scientists held a very definite conception of natural law, a conception
first formulated in Democritus' atomic philosophy. The following example may serve to
illustrate it.

The movements of the planets and their moons are such that we can predict them: solar
eclipses, lunar eclipses, and the entire movement of the other planets and moons can be
calculated in advance by the astronomer. Here then there is no possibility of surprising,
unforeseen events; everything operates with the certainty of clockwork. The course of things is
predetermined and immutable. Anyone familiar with the natural laws involved can calculate in
advance what will happen.

Democritus' view of nature led us to suppose that all natural processes were governed by
such necessity, that all nature operated like a machine. For Democritus taught that nature
seen in its objective reality, unclouded by our inadequate sense organs, consists in a
multiplicity of atoms moving in empty space. He conceived of these atoms as minute bodies
which, like the huge heavenly bodies, are subject to the laws of mechanics. Thus in
accordance with the laws of nature every atom must effect a predetermined motion, and like
the planetary system the total system of these atoms is subject to compelling necessity.
Nature as a whole and in every infinitesimal detail moves like clockwork, like a machine.

We shall not deny that these ideas of Democritus represented a great and fruitful
achievement. At a time when the old mythological view of nature was still very much alive
Democritus fashioned his picture of a nature governed by law, a picture so profound that the
scientists of two millennia followed him in the conviction that all natural processes are
predetermined and that there are no exceptions or gaps in this determinism.

But now that we have at last learned to look into the realm of the atoms and recognize the
atoms as realities, we can no longer let our imagination decide how these atoms are
constituted and according to what laws they react. We confront the reality and must accept
what it shows us.

The result is an almost overpowering surprise: the natural laws that govern the realm of the
atoms do not provide for an unbroken determinism; they are so entirely different from anything
that the human imagination had expected as to justify Heisenberg, the eminent physicist, in
saying that the physics of the atoms and quanta has definitively refuted the principle of
causality.

Nevertheless, these laws are perfectly clear and exact; but they are statistical laws, which
determine only the average reaction of large quantities of atoms, while within this frame each
individual atom remains inalienably free and unpredictable. If, for example, we have before us
a milligram of radium atoms a milligram will comprise innumerable atoms natural law
determines how many of them will disintegrate in the next second; for that is a statistical
question, a question applying to the mass process. But if we take a single radium atom, the
law leaves it open as to when this single atom will disintegrate perhaps today and perhaps
in thousands of years. And it is not human ignorance that makes this prediction impossible. It
is objectively uncertain when the disintegration will take place; natural law as such sets down
only statistical decrees for the atoms.

At first sight this discovery in the field of physics has nothing to do with biology. But considered

8 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

in conjunction with it, the findings of genetics open up totally unexpected perspectives. When
a mutation occurs in the gene of a germ cell, this is an event of far-reaching consequence: on
the basis of this mutation the organism growing from the germ cell may deviate very materially
from the form it would otherwise have assumed; for the organism this mutation is of fateful
importance and may entirely change its life. But researches in genetics have taught us that the
gene in which the mutation has occurred is only a single molecule. If we consider this in the
light of what has just been said about the world of atoms, it becomes clear that our mutation
lies outside the mechanical course of natural events; considered as an individual occurrence
in the realm of atomic physics, it is not predetermined.

Thus the great discovery of atomic physics, the discovery of natural processes which are not
subject to mechanical necessity, reaches over into biology; the new view of nature at which we
arrived through modern physics leads our thinking into entirely new paths.

CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT (pp. 108-119 )

The scientific materialism that has become one of the most powerful intellectual forces in the
modern world began its triumphant march in the second half of the last century. Ernst Haeckel,
as one of the leading scientists to profess the materialist philosophy, was its most successful
propagandist.

But the doctrines of scientific materialism are historically much older. They begin with the
atomic philosophy of Democritus; and they were fully developed in the Western world two
hundred years ago when the physician and philosopher La Mettrie published his sensational
book, L'homme machine "Man Is a Machine."

With ruthless logic La Mettrie drew the consequences from the view of nature which had been
conceived by Democritus and which had seemed to find increasing confirmation as scientific
inquiry advanced. The essence of this view is that all events in nature are prescribed and
predetermined by law, and that this determinism is complete and unbroken. We actually
observe such predetermination in the movements of the planetary system; and the calculation
of the planetary movements, particularly by Newton, did much to encourage and advance
scientific thinking. All the triumphs of physics and chemistry up to the end of the last century
strengthened the conviction, born in the days of Democritus, that natural law is synonymous
with unbroken determinism.

La Mettrie accepted this view of natural law. Carrying it to its utmost logical consequence, he
inevitably came to regard man as a machine or a cog in a machine. Convinced that man was
not excepted from the validity of the natural laws, he concluded that every human action is
absolutely determined by the events that went before it, and that there is no break in this chain
of determination. Every atom is subject to law, whether it is a component of a lifeless stone or
of a human brain; every atom of the human body must therefore move according to
unswerving mechanical necessity; its behavior, like the motion of the planets, is clocklike and
predetermined. How a man will act, what he will say, what facial expression he will assume, all
this is determined by the mechanics of the atoms that make up his body.

This doctrine of La Mettrie contains the core of the materialistic view of nature. If we wish to
know what scientific materialism is, we need merely read this book that appeared in the year
1748, for in it the fundamental tenets of materialism are set forth with the utmost clarity. To be
sure, these doctrines did not attract wide support until much later, in Haeckel's day; but in this
book they are fully formulated. All nature is predetermined, a gigantic clockwork; man is part of
the clockwork, he too is a mechanism, a machine this is the essence of the materialistic
philosophy.

When Democritus developed his atomic philosophy, he denied the pagan gods: the world he
outlined, a world in which the atoms move according to their own mechanical law, left no room
for the intervention of gods and demons. When La Mettrie, following in Democritus' footsteps,
defined the materialist view of nature, he denied the creator God of the Christian religion; he
also denied the human soul and freedom of the human will. A nature operating according to
mechanical law suffers no intervention of creative power; man conceived as a machine has no
free will.

9 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

It is perfectly understandable that a wave of irreligion should have passed over the world once
Darwin's discoveries had shown that the development of organic life is a process governed by
natural law. Even without Haeckel's impassioned materialism, many men would have drawn
the same conclusion.

It was not until our century that this Democritean view of nature was replaced by something
very different. Democritus' picture of the world was a product of bold imagination and
penetrating philosophical thought; it guided and fructified natural science for two thousand
years, because it contained profound truths. And yet in crucial points it proved to be not only
inadequate but actually misleading. The new view of nature that has arisen in our century is
not a product of human invention, it was found in reality. The old concept of natural law was
too narrow and specialized. True, there is such a lawfulness in nature and it is very important.
But everything is not governed by laws of this kind, by natural laws which determine the
course of events in every detail. Only observation, only large bodies and quantities of matter,
consisting of huge numbers of atoms, disclose a seemingly perfect, unbroken determinism,
because statistical laws wholly fixate the average event. But when we look more sharply when
we observe the individual atoms that make up the huge bodies and quantities of matter, we
find on all sides free individual decisions which are not determined by natural law.

This modified view of nature broadens the scope of biology. Such essential factors in the
biological process as the occurrence of mutations prove to be acts of decision outside of any
predetermined clockwork. Organic life partakes then of the same freedom and spontaneity that
physicists have found at the root of material being.

This negates the scientific foundation of La Mettrie's thesis that man is a machine. The very
basis of the materialist doctrine proves to be a fallacy resulting from a narrow and obsolete
concept of natural law.

It was not until a hundred and fifty years later that La Mettrie's ideas were widely publicized by
Haeckel and critically influenced the beliefs of large numbers of people. And it will be a long
time before today's new insights become a common possession, before they can exert their
full effect on men's ideas and attitudes. Today we shall do well to be cautious in judging the
philosophical implications of the new knowledge, to avoid anticipating the future. But even so,
we cannot help feeling that our epoch has achieved momentous insights which set a term to
an intellectual development that has been in progress for two thousand years, and will guide
our thinking into new channels. From an intellectual point of view the scientific refutation of
materialism is surely as overwhelming an accomplishment as the invention of the atom bomb.

We may say then that the attempt to prove man a machine, to deny him free will, has been
refuted by the sheer facts of science. But this still does not solve the problem which Darwin's
theory of evolution raises for the religious man. It is a problem which is not to be evaded, but
to be considered in all seriousness.

We now know that the behavior of an individual organism regardless of whether animal or
man is not exclusively determined by mechanical necessity; we can no longer, with La
Mettrie, forbid the soul or the will to intervene in the fixed and predetermined movements of
the body's atoms. But what of the long history of organic life on our earth, the course of
development which in millions of years has brought forth our present wealth of forms from the
lowly one-cell organisms? If we restrict ourselves to scientific truth, must we look on this vast
history of organic development as mechanically conditioned and determined, as a
self-contained process closed to the intervention of any creator? Or can we once again find
gaps in the chain of determination and show that events outside the realm of mechanical
necessity are requisite to the actual development?

This is a strictly scientific question that must be solved independently of philosophical

presuppositions. But our answer will have philosophical as well as scientific implications. Of
course we cannot expect the scientist to prove either that phylogeny, the history of organic
development, is independent of a creator or that the divine hand definitely entered into it. The
two scientific possibilities are these: either, as was formerly believed, the course of phylogeny
is a matter of mechanical necessity; or else the history of organic development is conditioned
by events which demonstrably lie outside the realm of mechanical determination.

10 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

If inquiry should lead us to the second of these conclusions, a religious man might, without
coming into conflict with science, regard these "events outside the realm of mechanical
determination" as a creative intervention.

The statistical nature of the laws that have now been revealed to us makes it seem difficult to
give this second answer scientific support. Even if we must grant the individual organism a
certain freedom to make unpredictable decisions, the decisions remain within the framework of
statistical law; as soon as we consider numerous organisms, such as a large herd of animals,
the average behavior will be prescribed by the statistical laws; individual freedom of decision
will be submerged by the statistical mass. Must, then, the destinies of the largest existing
groups of similar animals or plants, namely the species as a whole, be governed almost
entirely by predetermined necessity?

If this is not the case, it is because the most insignificant events in the reproductive activity of
plants and animals can multiply like snowballs and produce tremendous effects. A certain
mutation, which gives an organism an appreciable head start over the rest of its species, need
occur but once, and conceivably this one organism will multiply stupendously, giving rise to a
new and superior species that will assert itself on the stage of phylogenetic history and affect
its course for millions of years to come.

But are there actually such cases? The scientists investigating Drosophila know that in this
species certain mutations occur over and over again. Among a million flies which reproduce
we find a very definite, statistically calculable frequency of mutated progeny; this frequency of
course is predetermined. As we have said, it can be influenced experimentally by X rays, and
this effect too is determined by law.

These frequent mutations, whose frequency makes them subject to statistical laws, play a
great part in phylogenetic development; the modern efforts to provide a secure foundation for
Darwin's theory of natural selection and to define it more closely draw on the entire knowledge
of modern genetics.

But now we must ask: Are there also instances of extremely rare mutations, which have
occurred only a few times throughout the millions of years of a species' lifetime with all the
innumerable individuals this represents, or which perhaps have occurred but once?

This is only the first half of the question; the other half will follow. But first it should be
remarked that this first half of the question is addressed not so much to the biologist as to the
physicist, the student of molecules and quanta. And the physicist can give a very simple
answer: It is certain that the various mutations will occur with every conceivable degree of
frequency; there must also be very infrequent mutations, including those which occur but once
in the entire history of a species.

And now comes the second half of the question: Can we maintain and prove or are we at
least justified in presuming that such extremely rare mutations have played a decisive role
in the phylogenetic history of life? It is assuredly a theoretical possibility; but in so weighty a
question we must not judge hastily real proofs are required.

We cannot yet prove this hypothesis. We may only say that for the present nothing argues
against it, while various facts support it. Consider for example the strange experience of the
American fruit growers who were attempting to combat certain insect pests with poison.
Suddenly a new strain of insects immune to the poison made its appearance and spread over
a large region. If we look into the observations recorded at the time, we find substantial reason
to suppose that this new strain of insects developed from the offspring of a single individual
that the mutation which produced the new strain occurred but once in the space of several
decades among many millions or billions of individuals.

To this example we might add several others, equally favorable to our hypothesis but the
scientific decision in this important question is reserved for the future. There is only one point
in which we may be almost certain of the truth of our hypothesis.

In the first section of this chapter we followed the history of organic life back to the remote
past. We saw the earth as it was 500 million years ago. Organic life was then limited to the

11 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM
Pascual Jordan http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/jordan/

waters; the plants had not yet developed beyond the stage of marine algae; the animal world
was represented by the archaic trilobites, while vertebrates were entirely lacking. When we
look still further back into the past and attempt to investigate epochs prior to the Cambrian,
fossil remains become less and less frequent. But even so there must have been a long period
of organic development before the Cambrian; the creatures then alive were very primitive and
simple compared to later species, but they were complex enough to presuppose a long
preceding history covering millions of years. The investigation of these early developments
holds an irresistible fascination. For the deeper we can penetrate into the nebulous past, the
closer we come to that mysterious event which constituted the starting point of all organic
development on our earth: the origin of life itself.

A consideration of these questions will take up a part of our last section; and in this connection
we shall come back to the question we have just been discussing. But we must still regard it
as a hypothesis strongly supported but not definitively proved that phylogeny, the history
of the development of organic life on our planet, was affected and guided at decisive points by
events lying outside the realm of mechanical determination. If future scientific inquiry should
definitively prove this assumption, we shall be able to say that creation and evolution are no
longer conflicting, antithetical conceptions that a religious man may fully accept the
Darwinian theory and still see the Creator at work in the wonderful development that has taken
place over millions of years of the earth's history.

Chapter 1.5 - The Philosophers Chapter 2.1 - The Problem of Knowledge

Home Part Two - Knowledge

Normal | Teacher | Scholar

Contact Us Site Map Powered by skyBuilders Creative Commons Attribution License

12 of 12 17-04-23 4:49 PM