Waves in the hierarchy

0:00 And then, early in the war, probably about 1940, I got hold of the mathematical theory of relativity, which, of course, I found very difficult at that age, not because of the rather outlandish philosophy which occurs in some of the British classes, but just because I didn't know anything about mathematics at that time. But the difficulty was really actually isolated around about 1941, I think, when I found that he had written another book that was relative to the theory of quantum physics. I got a copy of this book, and that was much more of a shock. And the sort of shock was this, that being a very young man, I believed everything that I read in books written by great men. I had no skeptical powers at all. What was written in that book was really quite astonishing and what really got me going were numbers coming out of back at sea almost nowhere, in particular there was 137 and there was a rough approximation to the proton-electron mass ratio. There were some other numbers as well, but they were not so exciting because they involved cosmological quantities and so on, but they weren't known very actively, and in any case, a bit of hand-waving and order of magnitude would get those, but the others, the ion structure constant and the mass ratio were really things which, as you could see by the paper that I gave. I have persisted with Ling all my life. Now just a little bit of personal things. I hope I shall upstage Ted with this. As a postgraduate student in 1948, I wanted to borrow Eddington's fundamental theory from the college library and found that some fellow had had it out for months and months and not years, and so I put in a

2:30 And of course this chap was sitting in front of me now, so we got into contact over the fact that we were both trying to understand what Pedington was trying to do. And by the early 50s we got convinced that what we saw as Pedington's program ...was something worth going for, even though he hadn't really done a very good job of carrying the program out. This program was not seeing those numbers which he derived as being somehow prior to the experiments and the measurement, and then in some way casting their character on the subsequent measurements. And we were convinced that somehow that was the way to go if we wanted to go forward like that. We rejected his inconsistent way of trying to bolt the different algebras onto the orthodox theory. Now, I don't want to go through the history as I said, but we were constructing structures, Albanian groups, to try and do this in the early 50s. And we were making a little bit of progress, but the different groups of different complexity weren't connected together. And the missing link came, as far as I was concerned, that day when Ted had rung me up and said, could he bring someone for lunch at King's and see me? And that someone was Frederick. They came along and they explained that they had a wonderful piece of algebra which would produce the numbers 3, 10, 137, and a big number, and then stop, and it was the stop that really convinced me that this was something I would have to go on, because anyone could have chosen it.

5:00 Anybody with a bit of an engineer can churn out numbers, but unfortunately when you set up the machine and churn them out, it goes, it's like a sorcerer's apprentice, they get bigger and bigger, and you have to put in a clause and say, it seems that physics does not need to go any further than this or that, and so forth. Just to show you how slowly things progress, I have a term for me in... In the late term of 1963, which happened to be a very cold one indeed, the can froze over here, and I spent it in Cambridge with Ted, but at that stage we were still spending a whole lot of time on computational details which have not since proved to be of any importance at all. That's not to say they might not, but we were doing lots of... There are a number of calculations inside the machinery set up by the Frederick Hilock and we aren't making much progress because at that time I got to know John Anson, I think you knew him earlier, and he was the one who provided a lot of info. Well, it took me a long time to come round to the real problem, that is, what is the relationship of any of this physics and why is... The estimate at 137, not the right answer, but a fine structure question. An attempt to answer the first of those questions was the joint paper, which Peck and Pierre and John Anderson and I wrote, which was Pitch. That was an attempt to answer the first one, but didn't make much, made no progress. Now, he's probably well known. So, Ted was planning a small conference on that sort of thing, and as I remember, the plans fell through because wherever it was to be held in Cambridge was already booked up, or something like that, and so my wife suggested, when she heard this, that we should use our weekend cottage, to be where I now live,

7:30 For a meeting between John Hampson and Trenton. John Hampson unfortunately couldn't make it, so there were only the four of them. And that's how the heavy atmosphere of ANPAR was first generated. The reason why it turned into a society which had a statement of aims and also had always had banquet and executive council and the president and so on entirely due to Pierre who at once, although there were only four of us, organized us into an American style association which would have been ever since. And I really got hooked on it. Now, that's the kind of intellectual side of how I've managed to stick it for so long. I think there's also a number of quite accidental things which might explain things. At some stage, if you think about this, at some stage I began to think, oh, we've got another anomaly. I thought, well, I can get them to write about me. And that was at a time when we were being organized most efficiently by Haruka. And I thought, well, Haruka's doing it fine. Let them go along and talk and I'll just have some of it out here. And then Paul Haruka was taken ill and dropped out of things and suffered. And so, of course, I came again and then that gave me a new lease of life and several years of doing that. And this is why I have such enormous sympathy now.

10:00 Sympathy for Mary, who did this for a while, and for Peter and Arletta, who are doing it now, because I know just how awful MPs are who never fulfil the requirements about deadlines and change their mind at the last moment and so on. Anyway, that kept me going, it kept me going over a sort of stigma patch when I thought that I ought to be doing something for him. And they all just kept going and sitting. So that's my personal statement of how it is I'm still in the beauty now. Ted, Pierre has asked if you'd come next. Well, it's not a matter of Pierre Chirac staging me. What he's done is to jump 20 years. There's 20 years left out, and it's a great account, and I find that I've been kind to him, particularly at the philosophical level, and so I've got far more to say than I possibly can, but I've stopped. But now, like him, I would stop if he had read them and his calculations of numbers done. What Eddington did to get numbers at all was to use the numbers of dimensions in well-known structures, space-time structure, have it square, let it go out of opening up, energy-momentum tensor, and fiddle about for a minute in a sort of plausible way, where it would appear that it doesn't work. But underlying that, we said, Can you take this number and use it to calculate it? Then it led to another question. What is a dimension? What would mean when we say space is three-dimensional? We spent quite a long time trying to work to sort that out, running into a very small problem, because otherwise we'd take time. And, well, anyway, to cut a long story short, we said, well, when we say space is three-dimensional, we're drawing attention. There is a symmetry here, which remains true however you look at it.

12:30 However you rewrite the equation or substitute it, in other words, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, it is unique, Two of these didn't represent this basic origin, so we started with the termic group, except that now sometimes the termic group shows that this is known. Well, so we called that relationship, that was in time symmetry, similarity of position, and then we said, well, how does this apply to the world? So it would be better than nothing. Theory language. As we said, we use an underlying structure of some kind, which is in a way prior to applications we make of it, but it remains there. It's a separable bit or more fundamental, an underlying thing, and the theory language. And we've got tremendous impact there, at least I did, from the writings of Eddington, which seem to justify sometimes Wittgenstein's studies from that period called the Logical-Physiological Factors, I'm so afraid to use them, and are more or less the right word.

15:00 The challenge, and why it attracted us, is shown to power a long section of individual translation. For example, consider the statement, The essential nature of the propositional sign becomes very clear when we imagine it made up of spatial objects, such as tables, chairs, books, etc. Because, you see, we were saying this three-dimensionality is the fact that that's how we use things. It's not that the world is three-dimensional so much as the fact that we draw attention to the structure of the world as we speak by putting, using the symmetry to build our talk up. There was a different picture that was in an academic act. Well then, moving on a bit, it seemed to me that this was, maybe this idea of a separable piece of people underlying theory. So that you could, as it were, have something which you could lift off its application to the world and say, here's the structure, there's the world, do they fit? Because you can't say that. If your structure is essentially metrical, then this is what's not metrical. But if it's essentially metrical, you can't just ask whether it fits. Of course it fits, but how could it not fit if you built it up to be metrical? Now, this has been coming up this week, when we realized that we need to have something which is still physics, even when you're up against the Big Bang or any other thing, there still is a structure. This is not by any means the way most people or some people, many people, look at it. It's controversial. But in my mind, it's been controversial in my back for a few days, and not again. It just happens about the basis of relativity. Is it still true? I mean, with doubts being cast on the precise results of the Michael Boring experiment, can we still use special relativity? Well, I think the thing is, I don't know if I should ask this question.

17:30 We must hold on to that. It's part of the structure. To hell with whether it applies precisely or not. You should be able to discuss the application, the fundamental thing that's driving you separately from its application to the world. And I find that this clears up an awful lot of things we've been talking about this week. You know, we tend to speak as though so much we speak as though our fundamental structure... The theoretical structure is the same as the description of the world, but we can't separate them even though we need to. So the world is, as it were, flat, just spreading out of the conglomerate, or flat, as far as the best theory is concerned, and it's not. Right, now back to the fifties. This idea of discussing extrapolation, which is the way I put it, I've structured a confusing motion of time back through the big bang, through the big bang. You've got the most terrible ones. You can see them lay trapped in themselves. That's the limit to it that I've described as the limit to extrapolation. And I have always been surprised that people wouldn't... Think about this need for something separate that I've described, but I found that the idea, you couldn't get the idea across, people just didn't get it, the resistance seemed to be a sensible argument, but it didn't take on. However, the theory language was a description of what I've described. Now, okay, so there's your beginnings. Now how do you, since this is not naturally defined, how do you introduce a metric?

20:00 Well, we thought of going to more complicated structures at the same time, which would have an absolutely critical relationship with this one, and the next structure would include it tremendously, necessarily, and we used to think a lot about building up the theory from test particles. That was popular at the stage, it's still popular. Well, a Newtonian desktop is quite cool. It accelerates, accelerates, and that's all it does by itself. But supposing you want a destruction which asserts that it does this instead in response to a field, not in response to an encrusted form. We want, of course, to prove that which is not in the plane of the accelerator, which is a driving force, that there is a new bridge to the language or context as well as the elements of course, that is what the trial part feels, I feel, because of that integration into the form. And it reacts good, just the... And they can make some justice in this new course, and it's something that I expect to take up at the end of the term. So, we've got a set of test models called reaction algorithms, which have accelerators out of line with the original one. And so in this way, the idea of a nest or a nesting of theory language is increasingly effectively followed. And that's the notion of a hierarchy.

22:30 The independent description, when you first have one, you first describe things in terms of one, and then you advance to the more complicated description, and thus the topology of the entire argument, of course, because sometimes, you know, we do concern ourselves, death is not an event of life, death is not lived. Well, you could have said, well, I don't know, it's not lived through me. And I think they've made that a sign, and you don't particularly get to contemplate that it could be lived through, but anyway, the picture was there. And that's like, that's something you can't answer when you say, what's time like in the Big Bang? It could be put in standard phrase, time is not, the event of the Big Bang is not an event of time, because the Big Bang is not lived through. And as you get nearer and nearer to it, you've got this curious essence of it. And then again, I know a little bit more about mathematics, but I think you don't need to ask a great deal about mathematics. The first entrance in which I've done this is, I'd like them to talk very shortly. It's the wrong kind of program. Event ist alles, was der Fall. Now, this is lamely translated quite often, or whatever it was, as well as everything that is the case, quite static, but you notice the German language, of course, is to introduce a dynamic term there, it's no accident, I mean, however you say it, how it can be translated, it's no accident, but the notion of forwarding is there, it's given to them, and I don't know whether you are, I'm certainly a bit of a person to first think about it, however you may translate it.

25:00 How do you translate the whole thing? I can't do better than that. The world is everything. It is the case. It's the received translation. But the world is as it falls, however it falls. How does that make sense in German also? I will hear the German speaker behind us. I'd love to hear what Kurt thinks. What does Dan think about that? How German? I'm sorry. Doesn't mean anything other than the novel translation would be the case. It is a part in the injustice. This is a fall. Someone goes to court and passes all his case and so it's a correct translation but it's true that fall, of course, has another etymology than case since the English language is direct of Latin and the German not as much. And so there is this, of course, etymologically, the fall of the case, the fall has something to do with something happening. Yes, yes. Thank you. Anyway, that was a digression taken up rather long time. How much time do I have left? Nine or five minutes? Yes, of course. I'll say one second. That would be one of the words written. It happens to be a transverse subject of a physical concept. Well of course, there was no idea of the state of how this and that, but how you would actually get all the measurable nonsense. That was a long story, and we hardly begun at the time of it, because it was the first time we had done it. So, people at that time used to speak of regulative principles. There was a sort of turn-throw between the positivists and people who were trying to get a more elastic tone of term.

27:30 Regulative principles, a term you have to describe how it is that one needs something to lay down the kind of picture one's aiming for. Particularly, as I said, in extrapolation, before I put together the experimental piece, the experimental piece of information to get the form, as I demonstrate, I always talk about the big bang and the state of state, probably the state of the universe on a very large scale, but this kind of critique still keeps coming up. It would be right to think of the state-to-state theory as a regular transport on the ground net, run you into incomprehensibility as the way the big bang theory did, and you could still have it, you could still apply it, you'd still need something to apply, like you'd have to find another one to incorporate the big bang, which I think has to be very challenging, which didn't convince you in this way of speaking in the same way. However, I didn't get anywhere with Maltese. He was too much endued with what I call Plotterism, the idea that things have to be true or to be false. I think it was actually that he and I had a new translation of Plotter's book at that time, and it was on a fold overnight. So it may not be the same now. So, you can see that I've been trying to fill in the rather philosophical at that time, but I was just trying to mention one other. There was what was called structuralism, structuralism, the belief that structures, and particularly group structures, represent reality direct, that they describe the essential interrelations of life.

30:00 And you could use them directly. Eddington's very much at that school, very much indeed. And something I related to him, say, 15 years after the time it happened, I got to work with him about what all this discussion was taking place in the, I don't know what journal, between Eddington and Braithwaite, because Braithwaite, the following Hewlett said, well, if the structure is all you know, then all you can ever tell you is the number, the number of elements in the structure, because anything else is going to be something which depends on, against your hypothesis, which is more subtle than I'm able to describe it briefly. That was the French, in these, those papers that were published in St. Helens. Twenty detailed, very simple sections. But the idea did impinge on the related idea, which was, could be said to be structural, that's what I call structural. Knowing what we now know, I would say... There wasn't really any danger of this because general opinion is that Breckway actually was right about mathematics, that it was wrong, that it was covered, not guilty of structuralism, because we never came together for it, but our structures were direct, they were the guiding principles.

32:30 These terms are something we knew quite not quite well, but which we would now say consisted of a complication of a concept, and the further we get to those concepts, the nearer you get to, but as we get to the first one, it's hard to get to at that stage. Probably are not in your consciousness or on the public record a lot of it. That was our take. I want to share with you, the first thing that became clear, particularly in Ken's talk, is I have a very different intellectual background, and this should be taken into account. I was interested in evolution, paleontology, when I was a little freshman in high school. When I was a sophomore in high school, Spanish Republic. We're fighting our battle against fascism and with the trade, in my view, both by the neutrality of my own country and by the Catholic powers in the West. And so I identified with the cause of this vacuum book when I was 14. I wasn't quite old enough to go to Spain and help do it, and I took over. So I don't know, one of many times I'm still here with you. But until I became, rather than, okay, another thing that's relevant, my father, my eldest half-brother, my father was born in 1857, he was one of the first internet chemists in my country. His eldest son,

35:00 The only surviving scientist, the first one, was not satisfied until he had won all the honors in chemistry. My father had. He was one up on the old man when he got a post-reparatory job at age 65 and then he began to learn. He was my second half-brother and other half-brother than the first in my own. Although he was forced to take chemistry in college, he was still really interested in a literary career, and he graduated at 18, and since then supported my older brother who got discharged from France after he finished A.D.F. He said that if supporting him, he could support people of other views in Paris, so he went back to Paris. He wrote three novels and one of the ones we wrote before he was banned from appearing. He was the bad one in the family. And as I say, my politics were, at that time, not as prevalent as his, but I did not see what was going on. So when I went to Harvard, I went and ended up going to a science. And I had a very good history teacher. My grandfather on my mother's side was in fact one of the founders of the study field of science in the United States. So that, I have this very good background, put it mildly. And it's not a background that was leading me into science, but brought me into science. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention my own brother I grew up with, who was only one and a half years older than me. He graduated from a Department of Chemistry, so I had a father and two brothers who did chemistry, and one brother who was an albret and ended up in the plant and ended up in the plant successfully. That's a good story.

37:30 April 1940, when I had my scholarship interview from Harvard, I talked with the interviewer, made it quite clear I was a socialist when I was going into political science. And I thought I'd blown it. I did get the scholarship. But then, two months later, comes the fall of France and the Battle of Britain. I mentioned the British Catholic Party on Babel as well, and the Britons stood alone, and so I became an interventionist in the fall of 1940, then, for the British-Rosenville collection, and it was, you know, I was back in the political side. Since I found out my political analysis up to that point was lousy, I was only 16, I decided, well, I'll probably make fewer mistakes if I go into chemistry. So I was a freshman in chemistry and started my sophomore year in chemistry the week of Pearl Harbor. I was taking, on my brother's advice, the physicist course in physics, the first half of the two-year course, but I was in the chemist course. And they told everybody in that course who's not registered in physics, and that is that it's the first week after Pearl Harbor, switch your major to physics would be more of a seamless form. So hopefully I took that as an order and I did. And so I got in fact no upper division training in physics. I had four grads before I came in. I finished my training in three years. I had four graduate courses in quantum physics. I had no intermediate physics. And I found out why. I got a diploma the last six months, but after that point I was too young to be a doctor. They said, go to this lab, register, and they'll get you out of the draft for six months because you didn't grow up.

40:00 Okay, that was 43. That was 19. I very soon found out that the naked work of that lab had already been done. As we know now, it was the work of the microwave radar, a radar that's 3 centimeters apart. It broke in 43. The UFO campaign in the 9th Atlantic and saved everybody's life. Because they were catching U-bolts on the surface at night without them realizing they were being detected, even though bombers with that kind of frequency were shot down to Germany. And the airing had not communicated with the head of the German Navy for a year about this. Well, as soon as they knew about it, they took countermeasures and didn't get another U-bolt, unfortunately, most of the time. Okay, with this going on... And I was just, you know, doing sort of empirical antenna work at the lab. I didn't feel right at my age. My classmates were, I don't know, most of them in the service one way or another. In fact, we had the heaviest process of any class in Harvard during that period. And so when I had a chance, I went into the Navy, and I was there practically for two years, and I stayed for a little bit longer than most of the men, because they were going to be gone. And, well, in fact, I applied for a commission from the Spirit of God, probably for political reasons, and I know from the FBI interview, I was surmised that the FBI interview would be the same. And so I was, frankly, in the invasion of Japan. I wouldn't have been over the coast of Kyushu, but I'm not going to spend much of this time in Japan. In some ways it's travelable. So I get discharged in the summer of 2006, and they had six much larger facilities. I had learned, because of the switch from chemistry to physics, that physics is what I wanted to do. So I was admitted to both Chicago and Berkeley, but I went to Berkeley because I'd heard about an alphabet because of the stuff.

42:30 But I knew what I wanted to do. I wanted to do physics, that was the problem, and science, of course. But I come to it very late, here in the world of physics, and I really didn't interact on it. Okay, so I did my graduate work. Now this becomes relevant to some of the intellectual history. First, that summer before I started graduate work, I read Russell's History of Western Philosophy, which is my introduction to philosophy per se. I had also, in an earlier period, read Richmond's Logic of Quantum Physics, thanks not to any of my scientist colleagues, but to the one who had been forced to take science and who had read this as a layman. He thought it was important, and so I read it on his recommendation. So, Bridgman and Russell are my intellectual background. When it comes to Eddington, I was a graduate student. I looked at fundamental theory. I got through, when you were a captain, one or two weeks of lives, the functional behavior of the nuclear force, which is calcium. It turns out it was my research at that time, which it couldn't be calcium. Proton-proton scattering, and then incredibly high energy, 32 megapixels. And so, in contrast to both Ted and Clyde, my initial impression of Eddington is not favorable. Okay, now we can skip over to when I met Ted first. Pat Soufis, as some of you know, was head of the philosophy department at Stanford. And also a polymath who is a courtesy professor at three other departments, interested in foundations of quantum mechanics.

45:00 And he had, because of quantum theory and beyond, had Ted over to give a seminar at Stanford. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you. I went to a seminar laying math, but I'll count a major number that has anything to do with an algebraic algorithm. And so I went in with a certain mindset and said, this is important, because the first thing that impressed me about Ted, when I heard him actually talk, on his seminar, It was, he sounded, rational. I said, no, this guy is, you know, he hasn't, he has taught me since. And I knew he was taught me since. He says, well, the first quantization is the quantization of maths. Ted does not remember saying that, but I remember it because it was very distinct. Well, I certainly never believed it. Yeah, oh, very good. Okay, well, you actually said it, and it kind of crossed for me, and I thought, okay, now that's very interesting. I've never heard it that way before, or put that way before, and I think I agree with you, and I do agree with you, so that is so that the quantization of maths is at least a fundamental, well, not fundamental, but certainly a very fundamental fact that we still, even to this day, don't really understand. And then he started to run through the Parker Rhodes construction. And I was watching him, I was listening quite carefully, and I knew we might be seeing something. And I said, well now how can a counting number have anything to do with an empirical number which isn't even an inch?

47:30 And that was when I got the idea because of the paper that this is around 73. The paper Dyson has been published in 1952, which I've been interested in, about the idea that this is indeed the number of charge parts and pairs within a complex wavelength that will produce another pair, and this explains the fact that the perturbation theory of quantum and analytical mathematics is not in the form of convergence. So you have identified 1137 as a counting number of actual things you can count. And then I realized at the same time, essentially at the same time, okay, the big number, then, is the number of things that you can count gravitationally inside a countable wavelength. Okay. I could have highly restrained myself before I got up and explained all this to them if they didn't listen to Ted and question me. So, from then on we kept in touch and I made it upon seeing Ted when I came to England early on in 1974. I was in Europe and they were going to see my son and he was a winemaker. During one of my lectures, I worked in the Chateau in Chavannes, and I applied from there to England, and I trained up to King's Lynn, and I was told they were having a meeting up there, so I went to this famous windmill where there's a philosopher's book, and I got whispers where and where it was going to go. Well, anyhow, I think we're planning a revisionary class in science, so that never came along.

50:00 And then there was also a session back at Marion Close. But we got back from Kingsland before I took off, and I think it was at that meeting that Parker Rhodes first presented his idea of exchanges, so that was my introduction to Frederick as well. And I agreed to write a chapter on this idea I had when I first encountered that. I called it not McCarver, Callaghan, or Parkinson's disease, but I would just like to talk about the second part of the book here. Okay, so that goes over that piece of history. Then I kept reading more and more during this era of what we now celebrate as their golden anniversary of the war, about, I kept seeing them and I came to the idea that they were coming out of the back of our dreams, no matter how this company started to parallel through the back of the year anyway, for scientific reasons, and I think space was going to come. Eventually it turned out that Ted and John had gone to a meeting organized by that Nazi vice senator in 1976 and were going to go back again in 1978 and ask him how he would go and present a paper with him. And it turned out I had some time to work on it because I was going to spend a few days in Dentland. I think it was after that conference. I arranged that and went to Dentland and worked there for the first time in a long time. I did some research on the foundations there and I also had a contact from my work time here at Harvard. Well anyhow, I found out, that was when I was talking to Ted about this paper we were going to give in 78, I found out, well A, that was when Parker Gross came out with his calculation of the electron-proton mass rate, of course, it was then.

52:30 But B, I found out that nobody approved even the existence of hierarchy. This is falling between stools. So I spent my time in Finland constructing by hand because my construction limit actually mapped and showed that the hierarchy existed then John Hanson and Clyde mapped it together in a really rigorous mathematical proof. But anyhow, so I realized things were, you know, not in as great shape about the foundations of this work as I had assumed because these people are professionals in the field. I'm not. You know, I'm essentially a chemist upgraded to a phenomenological physicist. And still, I did get some good training in mathematics, so it was true for me. Well, before I was estimating this theory. I was his first graduate student. Big fact, though, and not the jury. Um, so, yeah, then, okay, now we're up to 79. And, uh, I had, I had given courses on Galileo. In connection with the social thought institutions across St. Galileo and members of that program and also the freshman seminar in Galileo and Mary. The way he was condemned went the way with the Alkheimer trial, one order and one on the other, because there's a very good book by Satyagraha called The Mark of Galileo that has pointed out the extreme similarity of the structure in terms of institutions of the Galileo trial and the Alkheimer trial. It's not a cult, but... So, it turned out... A friend of mine who was working in the freshman Western Culture course asked me to give a talk for them on Galileo and then he had me and a few other friends who had helped him out in that course to get a back of the book and one of the people, one of the English department people who was in that course

55:00 Our husband was an investment banker and not exactly the company I normally keep, and he let it drop during the evening that he was giving away about 78% of the money for people who were making charitable donations to non-profit organizations. By just that time, I'd received a desperate letter from Ted because of certain problems he was having. I thought, well, okay, I did it off with this guy. I may have gotten sick sometimes. Maybe it was when I had him for lunch the next week because I didn't go off to any spa. Yeah, that was when he let it pass. Let me just do it. And so I said, well, why don't we make an organization? Well, no, why don't we do something about this? Instead of, well, you can't just give the guy money. You know, that's not legal. So, what if you make an organization? So that was when I wrote out that first ample budget. I gave it to him as a plan for an organization to raise money and then technically raise the ordinary. Okay. That was how I capped him. Okay. So, Dad and Clyde and Frederick and John were interested, but this guy, Dougal Thomas, was interested. Now, he was making a good faith effort, but the guy that really counted on his life came down to campus and was thinking about challenging that point, so that fell through. And he'd only had a week to work on it because he was really, the reason he made the offer was he had a week between jobs when he moved from the west coast where he met him to the east coast. So, you know, he kept trying with his, you know, what time he had in October. He wasn't going out of school. I'd never been able to raise funds myself. I spent a year in Germany because of various complications in my history with Stanford. I didn't have to take campaign. I had a full year's pay coming, and I could take the Humboldt at that time along with my full year's pay.

57:30 So for the first time, I was a head of research, actually. And so that, at this point, I said, well, I can put up 5,000 marks out of this German money. If Frederick would put up 1,000 pounds, and that would give us enough to get going. So it's on that basis that the first anthem meeting was called. And so that is really, that's the straight story of how it all began. I thought it should be, people should be aware of it. I mean, okay, well, now let's get going. That's another question. But I thought you could have that part of it. And two years later, I think, while I'm doing these revelations... What did you do with that document? What? What did you do with that document? Well, it was very simple because, you know, I realized afterward, I climbed out to see... Frederick had a mortgage, was holding the mortgage on Ted's farm. And Ted was paying him a thousand pounds a year. So, all it meant was that he would delay the paying off of the point here. At that time. So it really wasn't something he was worried about. And I kind of eventually got my money back over the years from him. So it was all settled very happily. But we've never been very good at raising money until the philosophers have come to agree. In this history, I think that you know, I have made this remark before, but I, see, I was interested because I couldn't figure out logically, I mean, why it was, I mean, I didn't understand the argument about the process and this sort of thing. I don't have the background to understand. I didn't understand how an empirical number could be a thing, a number that it depends on its term, could be a thing.

1:00:00 From this kind of an argument. And so I thought, these people must know something that I don't know. And so I counted on there being a really axiomatic system in the mathematical sense behind all this. Well, I think it's no secret there is no such thing in the mathematical system. There is no way to prove that this happens in a logical sense, in a mathematical and philosophical sense. It is an intuition. It's a research program that we're working on. So, I asked, and when I found out about all these gaps in the foundations that went along, I finally asked Clive, well, why didn't you investigate these more carefully earlier? He said, well, I think we were afraid if we pushed too hard, it would go away. And Clark confirmed that we were not. He did say that. Okay, well, I think that's, I think I've pulled out a must-know. I just do want to thank all of you in APHA, past and present, and future, for giving me this marvelous opportunity. To work with ideas I would never have encountered in any other way, to work seriously and honestly with people who think very differently than I do and whom I would never think alike, all of whom I can learn something from. And I think I've had my reward of this meeting because, certainly from my point of view, what James and I reported to you. It's the best work I've done in my life and I've never looked at the possibilities without it. I'm sure we've got a lot of questions. One of the things which comes up at the banquet, which has always surprised me, is how little interaction there is in some parts of the world. They call it roasting a banquet. So what I suggest is that right now you spend a few seconds thinking about how you might roast these three characters after a banquet.

1:02:30 All right. I'll just do a few seconds. After dinner. After dinner.