Reception of General Relativity Among British Physicists and Mathematicians (1915–1930)

0:00 When I received Jen, I received an invitation to participate in this conference. The first thing I did, after answering the thing that I failed at 30, I wanted to come, but I needed some time to think the title and the content to, of course, my thought, was to go to England for a couple of weeks. I wanted to speak about some topics related with the general relativity in Guy Rittheim. I have already done some research with the special theory of relativity in Guy Rittheim, and I have some ideas about the case of this general system in a theory of relativity. When I came back to Rittheim, I considered all the material I had and thought myself able to point out the main traits of the initial between 1915 and 1913, perception of general relativity among, not least, not more, than physicists, mathematicians and philosophers. Wasn't I crazy? Well, the day came, always happened in the same way, when i had to begin working and i decided to start by the end with the philosophers i thought as i was that i would be able to finish rather quickly it wasn't so i began to feel page feeling page after page and moreover i began to enjoy the discussions the argumentation and move forward by, I will not say British, but English philosophers. I now consider that the reception of relativity among written English philosophers, each during the 20s, is a much more interesting topic than the reception among physicists and mathematicians. In due course, it became obvious that the 15 minutes which so generously had been given to me were not even sufficient for my discussion of the perception of relativity among English philosophers. But I had promised what was happening again the same, to talk also about physicists and mathematicians.

2:30 And moreover, I knew that most of the participants in this conference are historians of physics, if not physicists that serve with this true wide and deep knowledge about the history of physics, and not historians of philosophy or historians of the philosophy of science. The compromise I have arrived with myself is to more or less divide my time between physicists and mathematicians from one side and philosophers from the other. Let me say, however, that my remarks concerning physicists and mathematicians are to be understood as very preliminary, or better, as rather isolated remarks. I will therefore welcome any comment in your heart if you want to make it to me. I don't imply what I said, that I consider my discussion of the perception given by philosophers as fully developed, perhaps as being more developed than the other things. But before I follow that program, I will make one comment about a subject I published out of my research, reception given to Einstein's theory by the public, by British society taken at large. Let me say that I have never been completely satisfied with the tentative, that's true, explanations and offers that offered, pointing with the fact that by 1919 and 1920, this thing has become a world pseudo-experiment. In the past, there are still many elements missing to be able to reconstruct the puzzle. I mean, the puzzle of why Einstein became so famous. And what I want to suggest here is that probably we have not given sufficient attention to what could be termed institutional history of science. No doubt other names will speak it as well. To see what I mean, I will quote from a leader, an editorial, which I discovered by chance, that appeared in the morning post on September 27, 1922. The leader was entitled The Scientific Fund, I quote. One of the results of the war, such a war, of course, is in which the scientific brains of this country were not really immobilized to such a purpose, this unappreciable increase of public interest

5:00 in the achievement in achievements of science, whether theoretical or practical. In the world days, neither the man in the street nor the man at the club window could have been persuaded to read articles about the Einstein versus Newton controversy. As we affect the point of view expressed in the leader of the morning progress, then the initial reaction of the British public, as regard Einstein and all his theories, a reaction which no doubt was channeled to the result of the British 1919 Ecclesiastes tradition, to be looked, at least in part, from a new perspective. Such reaction would be, then, not just the more or less straightforward response of a substantial part of the media and the public, when informed about the confirmation of a striking discovery, in which the science of Britain's grand hero, Isaac Newton, was confronted with that of the German Jew, Albert Einstein, It would rather be the fortunate coincidence of the result of the innovative real scientific expeditions with the end of a war that had definitely alerted British government and society of the values of science for the well-being, for prosperity of the nation. But it's now time to abandon this vocational and isolated comment and to start with the reacting to my talk. And as I said before, I will be kind with a physicist and mathematician. My first remark goes to Albert and Arthur Eddington, one of whose activities, especially those that had a more or less direct connection relationship with Einstein, were studied by John Stachys not long ago. He was, by far, the leading freak art in Britain as far as relativity is confirmed when they were only part of his work his activities related to Einstein's general relativity can but produce admiration apart from those more well known which I won't talk about here application of the rules and so on let me recall his role in the Royal Astronomical society, a society which, especially through its journal, the monthly notices, became the principal instrument of the leuosity function and development of Einstein's theory in great

7:30 real time. In the 80th volume, the basis of the 80th volume, 1919-1920, for instance, there is already a section dedicated to relativity. Edithon not only wrote papers for the journals of the society. He also prepared a New York Council notes for his meeting. Moreover, he participated in the discussion as well as in establishing the politics of the society. He was president during the period of 1921-1923. Though what I am going to say now is only If we take the period 1918-1930, it can be said that Eddington opened and ended a period in the discussion and development of general relativity in Great Britain. He opened the discussion in the sense that, after the result of his expedition, he became, as I just pointed out, the most active follower of Einstein's theory in Britain, moreover, his own original researches in a special topic of the theory, marked part that other Britons followed. The case, for instance, of his work in gravitational waves, which was used in a series of papers, for example, by Baldwin and Jeffrey at University College London. Then, I was referring to coincide with Eddington's discovery on the discovery and acceptance of LeMet's model of Einstein's universe, a discovery and acceptance which was notorious in his 1930 paper on the instability of Einstein's spherical world, as well as in the Council not to keep prepared in the same year for the bio-astronomical society. By then, I wouldn't say I knew a whole new generation of physicists, but at least there were already some physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, who were joining the relativity camp, can be said. Men like McCrane, Matt Beatty, Chandrasekhar in the same time he went to England. Matt Beatty, by the way, was an Eddington student. Men who had grown up with relativity as an already established theory and who, consequently, did not have to adjust their abilities or interests to a new worldview,

10:00 to a new theory with its own methods and problems. If we put Eddington aside, my initial survey of the literature in the early 1915-1914 has surveyed these monographies as well in the following journals, Proceedings of the Royal Society, the Philosophical Translation of the Royal Society, Monpring Odysseys, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, the Memoirs some proteins of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, proteins of the London Mathematical Society, proteins of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, and, I am afraid to say, only very few parts of the Philosophical Magazine, which was most important, I had to look into it, and nature. That survey, I was saying, tells me that one of the most active physicist who dealt with general relativity, except one of whom we will hear more in Peter Havard's talk, Ludwig Silverstein. Of course, all of you know that he was not religious, he was a poet. In fact, his career was rather complicated. A native of Basro educated in Cracow, Heidelberg, in Berlin, he was a lecturer successively in Lemberg, Olovna and Rome during, I think, I'm not sure, 1895-1920. However, during the period 1912-1920, apparently he also held in addition to his lectureship in Rome, positions in the research department of Alan Hilger In London, at the University of London, I don't know the arrangement he made with those questions. Finally, in 1920, he moved to a state of Rochester. Silverstein, who in 1914 published a widely circulated book among British theory of relativity, published a rather large number of papers dealing with the general theory of relativity in British journals. Before the 1990 boom, he was already publishing about the theory. In 1917, for example, he studied the planetary motion according to them, as he called it, the classical and the generalized theory of relativity. Together with James, Eddington, Dyson, Toller, Cunningham, and F.A. Lindemann, we participated in the 15 discussions on the theory of relativity, organized by the Royal Society on February 3, 1920, as well as jointly with Eddington, James, Dyson, Lodge, Lindemann, and Jeffrey, in the one organized by the Royal Astronomical Society, which was also the same thing in the same year.

12:30 I have to still look upon other papers, surely Peter will know about this. At least initially, Silverstein's position regarding general relativity can be considered, I don't know how to say it, cautious, a pet count of cautious consideration of the theory. He, for instance, thought that, I am quoting him, it seems premature to interpret the results of the eclipse expedition as a verification of Einstein's theory, not merely in view of the small outstanding discrepancies, but chiefly in the view of the failure of detecting the special ship predicted by the theory, with which the whole theory stands up for. Silverstein was referring here to a problem which was carefully considered by British physicists, right from the very beginning of the relativity boom, the apparent conflict between observations made with the radiation coming from the sun and the prediction of Einstein's theory of a shift towards the red and whole plane. The problem seemed so serious that in the 1920s discussion at the Royal Society at the Royal Astronomical Society meeting, Fowler stated that what a different interpretation may possibly be put in the front of Servations, but my own opinion is that they are definitely unfavorable to the existence of the Einstein field. The self-invasion score upon move were those by Peppers in 1915, Barcy, St. John's, and their compactness. Silverstein's own position of this regard was to draw attention to the possibilities offered by the stock plant eater, which seems to acquire a worse vitality exactly due to the change of light velocity

15:00 around the sun observed by the astronomers. Papers on the spectrum shift problem appear rather frequently in the 20s. Duffield, St. John's, Dockwood, Davidson, Evers were among those who published on this topic. I have to study the real context. Another scientist who found relativity continuous was the mathematician Edmund Taylor Wittaker, professor of mathematics at the University of Edinburgh. Wittaker started publishing on the relativity in 1927. Since then, and in 1931, as I am considering here, He published his research paper on this subject, mainly concerned with the electromagnetic phenomena and the current space-time of general relativity, plus three or more general relativity. But if I mention Wittaker, it is not because I want to analyze his contributions to the development of general relativity. In fact, such contributions do not seem to me very interesting, but because I want to consider briefly a mathematician's response to Einstein's gravitational field. This is a particularly interesting problem. Some physicists do not know really how many, and philosophers too, by the way, I have several examples, seem to perceive general relativity as belonging in some sense to the domain of mathematics, something would probably occur in other countries as well. Mathematicians, as in turn, general activity gave some of them these obvious new opportunities. They could use some of their abilities to contribute to the development of a theory of which everybody, the scientists and the public spoke. Whitaker could live for a while to his more academic and classical researches on dynamics and electromagnetic theory. their work, of course, is through mathematics and researches. General relativity is very thin, I think. A feeling of life he could be confined in other domains of mathematical physics.

17:30 Moreover, by dealing with general relativity, he became acquainted with new areas of mathematics, like parallelism or teleparallemics and distant parallelism, which appear in the newer theories of the states, that is, with the theories involved by Vile, Eddington, Scalding, Baking Bork, Cantana, or others, a topic to which Whitaker dedicated his 1929 residential ideas around the mathematical society. But, before leaving the United States, let me add that, at Edinburgh, he did what his college had in the physics of a tanagrassidosophical department, C.P. Bartler or Charles Carlton Darwin did not. He lectured on Einstein's theory of relativity to find ideas under graduates as well as giving postgradas as well as the gay postgraduate lectures in the late 20s for example the lecture on beautification of gravitation and electromagnetism began in the academy academic year of 1927-28 a graduate student there who followed the course was the team that education served Matheny well when he went to Cambridge to the history of Sandra and Andrew, his doctoral dissertation, which he submitted in 1930, dealt with various modifications and exact solutions of Einstein in 1929, theory of the paralegist. It was Hans's general relativity that some physicists now remember the name of a few British How otherwise? We will now know of the name of Harry Edward James Cawthon, an, as far as I know, obscure mathematician, lecturer in mathematics at Goldsmiths College, London. In 1924, Couton published two papers in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, of which he was a member, in which he found a new exact solution of Einstein-field equations, a solution which still appears in some of the general activities of his books. People like Edward Compson, Lecture in Mathematics at the University of Edinburgh, and later Regius Professor of Mathematics at the University of St. Andrews, or M. A. Newman, or even the well-known H. R. Forsyth,

20:00 professors first at Cambridge and later at the University of Imperial College London, could participate, or think they did, in the new spectacular quest for knowing how really is the universe. But reading the articles, it is not physics. But I know that happened, especially in the 20s, as far as in many places as far as relativity is concerned. It is not physics, mathematics, but one most refined. References to Heisenhard, Berlin, Thomas, Menger, Hadamard, with a kid at Watson or Scalpin at most by. Another interesting case is the one of John Edward Campbell. A mathematician attached the largest part of his life to Hedford College, Oxford. He worked on miscellaneous topics. By 1897 he was writing on matters connected with Lee's transformation groups, which were his main theme for several years, culminating in his book of finite contribution in continuous transformation groups, published by Frank in the Carleton, released in 1903. A book, which, by the way, he sung what? The Remedy, John Theodore Merck's criticism of British mathematics, as expressed in volume 2 of his classic history of European scientific talk in the 1920s. The geometrical applications of least contact transformation example to the differential geometry of surfaces. And papers on vacuum transformation, the application of quaternions to the formation of a surface, the congruence and so on were written by King during the next ten years after the publication of his book. Then, more or less, suddenly his researches came to an end. He only recovered his interest in mathematics after the war. It was the tensor calculus and the application of differential geometry to Einstein's theory that appealed to him. Although he had never been, even then, was not very interested in in Mathematical Physics, nor, of course, in a statement of science. Thus, in 1922 and 1923, he published two articles dealing with the theory of mathematical aspects of general relativity.

22:30 Moreover, elected president of the London Mathematical Society in 1920, he chose as the subject of his presidential address Einstein's theory of gravitation and time hypothesis of differential geometry. as it is in the sense of calculus was in its final stage at the time of his sudden death in 1924. But now is time to go to the philosophers and consider some of the main characteristics of the reception of relativity among them. I am sorry to say that, however, that my presentation would be reduced because of the lack of time I was speaking before, to about half of this real content. Let me say from the very beginning that my treatment of English, Philosophers and Relativity is based apart from the more or less general knowledge I might have with this philosophy during the 20s a good reference, by the way, this John Passmore book, 100 year philosophy gives you the background on all the things I am going to talk This, my thoughts, is based on those monographies dealing with the philosophical implications of relativity, published of which I know, published during the period, maybe in 1830, roughly, as well as in two philosophical journals, Mine and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, both recognized as the leading philosophical journals in Britain. I think there is a grima balance in that. It is one of my contentions, or better suppositions, that this material covers a substantial part of the British philosophical scenario, at least in what he confirmed science during the years 1915-1930. Of course, I know, nevertheless, that I am referring to the elite of the English academic philosophers. On the basis of that information, several points emerged almost immediately. First, that prior, before 1920, neither the general theory of relativity nor any sense of course previous attempts to copy the gravitational field in our relativistic framework were discussed

25:00 or even mentioned. In fact, not much was said about the special theory of relativity. In this sense, the official announcement of the results obtained in the 1919 Eclipse Excalitions constitute a significant event in the history of the philosophy of science in Britain during the first quarter of the 20th century. Take for instance an article published in 1915 by C.B. Broad, a Cambridge Trinity College man who became a professor of philosophy at the University of Bristol, a man who later became one of the most active commentators, may I say, of general creativity among British philosophers. The paper has, which has the suggestive title of what do we mean by the question, is our space Euclidean, does not include any mention of, of course, Einstein's Actually, Einstein's name is not mentioned at all, even though there is a passing reference to the modern theory of relativity in electromagnet and electrodynamics. The authors named there are Lorenz, Fitzgerald, and especially Minkowski, and Roth. In fact, broad particles contain assertions which we prove to be incompatible with general relativity. Indeed, they were already so old with Einstein's 1912 theory. I may remind you that in the Philosophical Magazine in 1915, Adrian Daniel Fokker published a paper in which he presented the Einstein 1913-1914 paper show in theory in British physicists the British physicists of course I don't know, the philosophers who have been acquainted with that theory of Einstein Broad said for example that space and time cannot be conceived as capable of causal action on matter Broad's paper was commented the following year 1916 by Lee Turner who would also appear in a more complete presentation of a theme, I would make another lesson, one comment later on.

27:30 But Nader, in Tarnas, in Nought, nor in Broth, subsequently replied to it, both in title of multiplication, in title of the nature and the geometry of the space, which I mentioned in state name or general. The second point I want to mention is that as far as journals are confirmed, those in articles the tactical totality dealing with the philosophical aspect of general relativity appeared based at Oxford and edited by the famous Lee Moore this journal was the organ of the mind association that at the time we are considering had about 172 members among them Alexander the author of the influential space, time and day, which, by the way, has appeared to me in several, in many, many places, but I have to consider more closely the content of the, which I think it doesn't speak of relativity in Einstein's sense, as well as I have to look also about the influence. Barthol, the Tory politician, Haldane, Bradley, Wilton Carr, Mackenzie, Max Sagar, and Bertrand Russell were members of the Mind Association. Mind was important for the philosophical discussion of relativity and also for the reception of those theorists, special and general among philosophers not only because of the articles he published but also because he gave fast detailed and informed reviews of many books appearing which many books dealing with einstein theories those among these pages we find we find reviews of einstein's relativity and in terms of space, time, and gravitation, which by the way, Eddington will feel also another topic, the perception of the philosophers of the ideas, but let me say that it was, through space, time, and gravitation, the one most referred to by philosophers. Eddington, throwing each foundation in Eastern Curio, gravitation with Mach-Kas, and the general pin for activity, Kasi-Reu, to Mach-Kasi-Reu,

30:00 to end stage of Lativity theory, sleek space-time, contemporary physics, Halbenz, Cunningham, all by it. Another point to be remarked is that, in fact, it was only a very small number of philosophers, the ones who contributed to the pages of mind and the proceedings of the Aristotelian society, to the philosophical discussion of relativity. The most active among them being Roe, Wildon Card, Starnet, Glotty Ridge, White and Whitehead, followed by Greenwood and others like Frost, Tylon, Nun, Russell, Strong and Moray, making only occasional contributions. To the previous list, we must add the names of two physicists, Eddington, of course, contributed with a paper to 1920 volume, not mine, as well as with a symposium organized also by the Main Association, and that was held in the International Congress of Philosophy, the last possible in 1920. In that symposium, and together with W. D. Rose and Broad, participated the second physicist I was referring to, the genre Lindemann, F.A., who, together with his father, F.A., as George Platcher pointed out some time ago, had taken notice of Einstein's new theory of gravitation as early 1916. I think I could say something about what the philosophical point Lindemann tried to convey to his audience there, but better recall another occasion. Coming back for a moment to the philosophers, one cannot refrain from thinking that the time of them, beyond the race, to say so, without being really prepared to do so, as in the case of Arruginian Rose, who, in the symposium I just mentioned, confines his comments to the special theory in a discussion taught mainly for the general theory. Rose excused his most probable ignorance of the new theory by saying that, until one can be satisfied about the two of the restricted theory, it would be useless to discuss the general theory, which is an extension, and in some degree a correction of it.

32:30 The only argument that really confirmed general relativity put forward by Rawls was one that I think had been used several years before, even before the final version of the theory in 1915 by Mark Abraham. In Vedanta, Rose observed, once faced in the argument, surely this angle was shaken by the fact that the constant relative velocity of line, which is asserted in the special theory, is denied in the general, would be proud of the one who answered Rose's question. In fact, and this is another of the characteristics of the discussions of relativity among English philosophers, the argument used by those philosophers only, only, rarely, dependent on more than the principle of relativity, both the special and the general principle of relativity. If we enlarge now our perspective so as to include monographies written by philosophers, most of the previous conclusions do not change at all, at least taking into account the ones that they know. The names we have to mention now are, but as I know I think, have the end, growth, and will not cut. Another remarkable fact concerning philosophy and general relativity in Britain refers to the temporal distribution of the articles and books published, and now it is the same. I have found the same peak you mentioned before yesterday. Same year? Starting around 1919 and 1920, the discussions Hale ditched his climate to speak almost immediately. They came very rapidly. As far as articles are confirmed, the fifth year was 1922. If we now focus on the temporal distribution of the publication of monographies, we find equally concentrated whiteheads and in twine confirming the principle of natural philosophy 1919 and the concept of nature 1920 will discard the general principle of relativity and its philosophical and historical aspect 1920 haldenes the range of relativity 1921 whitehead the principle of relativity 1922 and drove scientific thought 1923. Google also referred to Russell's ABC

35:00 relativity 1925. But the case of Russell, which I have here, I don't know why I want it, I think it's much more complicated and I want to look into it from a more complete point of view. Several comments can be made from the light of what I have said so far. First, that in some aspects, British philosophers reacted to the new theory in the same way as other colleagues, as you mentioned before yesterday. And I am thinking here in the fact that in the year 19, early 20s, saw the publication of a large number of books, Articles 2, of course, trying to explain the physics in the philosophy of beauty. However, the momentum acquired was not sustained, here I have to confess that one of my problems is that I do not know much of what happened in other countries. I mean I'm a philosopher. As a matter of fact, and as was pointed out recently, although only for the cases of France and Italy, The philosophical implication and debate around relativistic consensus in different communities of philosophers is a topic that deserves to be the subject of a more detailed analysis. I was happy yesterday when Neonestachel said that maybe we can agree with peaceful shame that we will concentrate on the philosophical perspective, debate or implication of relativity. I think that it deserves to be a topic more detail. In spite of this limitation, the limitation that I don't know much, I will put forward fear and hypothesis. I don't know if I will write down it. I believe that the loss of momentum suffered in the discussion of relativity, among British philosophers, is due to the nature of the topics in which they were interested. The research programs they cultivated was a rather academic philosophy, not particularly or really dependent in most cases on science. Nothing of the sort of the interests aroused in central Europe with the Vienna Circle took place in Great Britain. It has because Norma or Herkot or Bollman, that is, scientists with deeper root philosophical

37:30 interests had persisted in 1920 century Britain, there did not appear any slick, carnal, correctness, or proper. In other words, the kind of philosophy of science promoted by the Viennacht circle, and I to lab thinking, especially in the cases of Drayton, Bach and Popper, by people who are just suspected to his influence was particularly well suited to keep him developed as it happened in fact, particularly through the methodology of science or through the different efforts of ashumanizing scientific theories. Related to that situation is the fact that by the 1920s Very few, at least English philosophers that I know, have the technical, mathematical, in particular knowledge that has his German Austrian college. It's the biggest world by training just philosophers, so Whitehead is an exception, it's not the case, Basel is another case too, an exception. No physicist is transformed into philosophers, as was the case, for instance, with Moritz Leib, who, as you well know, is his doctoral thesis, I think, under plant. No doubt, Haldane was on the right track, after pointing out that as in language is that of the mathematician, and mathematics is his chief instrument, he stated that, into the purely mathematical aspect of such doctrine as of Einstein, few philosophers are rash enough to attempt to enter. Mathematicians spoke this unadmirably lucid language which is exclusively their own. I now turn to the debates over the philosophical implications of relativity, which is for me the most interesting thing which I found. The period I am considering here was rather special as far as philosophy in Britain is confirmed. In the last 30 years or so, philosophical speculations have tended more and more to group itself around the central and the directly opposite and contradictory position.

40:00 and took the thinghood of the thing as a typical reality and emphasized the objectivity of the existence and the suggestivity of the knowing relation. The other took the mind and this activity as the immediate intuition of the reality, conceiving the fundamental universal reality as the original activity in which the individual mind is a kind. The chief influences in consolidating the fierce or realist position, also neorealist and neorealist as we call, came from American philosophers, although there were notable exponents in Great Britain, especially Alexander. While the most striking formulation of modern idealism theory or also neo-idealism came from Bergson, France and Croce in Italy. So what I am saying is that there were debates going on for the last 30 years about the Realism versus Idealism and Philosophy. Even that situation It is not surprising that when relativity became, in 1919, a world celebrity, a debate arose among British English philosophers who had felt very clearly the polemic idealism versus reality, as to which were the philosophical implications and meanings of the new theories. It can be seen, I won't develop here very much the topic, that what characterized that debate is that everybody, realists, idealists, as well as other, metaphysicians, philosophers, everybody, there were a few exceptions, tried to appropriate the theory, Einstein's theories, for their own philosophical standpoints. Salernan, or even a scholar or not, were versed on philosophical matters, who had been at a loss when reading different, philosophical and incompatible, in part statement, counter statement and counter-counter statement, made by English philosophers during that brief

42:30 about a passionate debate. The discussion, however, focuses especially in idealist versus realist. The two first philosophical groups, with Whitehead and Dave, dedicated to relativity, published in Great Britain, in spite of the different outlooks, the same philosophical position. A defense of the idealists, Hal Dane, for example, declared that the principal relativities were founded, the very basis of the new reality seems to disappear. Nevertheless, Hal Dane's defense of the idealists was not so explicit. He paid, for example, a lot of attention to Hegel. Unrepetitive, as in the case of Wilhelm Kark, the real champion of that philosophical course in Britain, at least in what he confirmed, the use of Einstein's theory was a support. Let me say here that Wilhelm Kark was an enthusiastic businessman who made his way to the Aristotelian society, Professor Chito's philosophy at King's College London, to which he was appointed when he made a slide. He was in 1961, and he later came from the University of South Wales, in 1995. I will not discuss here Karsch's book, The General Principle of Relativity, in his philosophical and historical aspects, because the main philosophical arguments, based on the two theories of relativity employed by Popper can be seen more clearly through papers he wrote as well as through the debates and discussions in which he got involved. For example, in the one that took place on February the 20th, 1922 in the Aristotelian society, the Hound of the Home-Ground of the London Philosophy, as it was called, The debate was dedicated to discuss the possible, realistic interpretation of Einstein's theory and heard as a participant, Wilhelm Karr, a person now, an equation as well as a philosopher, as a non-white book, and Dr. Lynch, who was a year-long colleague, as a student of Ertland-Lafel, by the way. The main focus of the debate was to discuss a thesis put forward by Wilhelm Karr,

45:00 Reza's world, Eastern theory is a scientific interpretation of experience based upon the principle of relativity. This principle is in complete accord with the neo-idealism doctrine in philosophy and in complete this accord with the fundamental standpoint of the way report of neorealism, a thesis in which Karl may not be mentioned in the special role in the general theories of the Matthews. For Wilhelm Karl, neorealism was the philosophical standpoint according to which knowledge requires us to propose a system, and that in some sense a universe exists in space-time, the entities within which are discoverable by minds, which themselves are accorded a place deranged on equal stern with the entities they discovered. While neo-idealists meant that, well, the quotation will be obscure, but you would have to make a metaphor, but saying in other words, for idealists, mind is what mind is. His arguments in favor of neo-idealists were rather simple. Here is the first appropriation, not of Einstein's theory, but of Einstein's idea. I found every kind of appreciation. Einstein must be a very tactile man in the sense that everyone read, especially his general book on the relativity theories, every business philosopher read or heard to Einstein's ideas he wanted. Classical mechanics, on the contrary to Witton-Karrow, was based on the neorealist affirmations of an existing independent sense experience, in which the subject of experience prefers the sensation. Thus, the principle of relativity, due to his work, rejects in physics the metaphysical principle of material, which presuppose an objective transcendent cause of experience. We don't have arguments were contested on different grounds by the other commentators, Man, Whitehead and Lynch.

47:30 However, I am afraid that I wanted to say a few things. Percianam, for example, thought that, well, what, summarizing what God is saying is not only false, but in fact is neorealist or realist, the one who actually can be considered as a precursor of relativity. He stated, for example, that before the doctrine of relativity had risen above their horizon, neorealists had already gone a long way to meet it. And that some were restrained from born and father, it was because they sprung from breaking with the traditional beliefs about the space of time, which they shared with the idealists of their day. a limitation which, by the way, he considers Bertrand Blasser has avoided in his 1914 book in the midst of his anthology. Also, I wanted to say a few things about Dorothy Lynch and the first criminal Blasser, which her position is not the same, but I have only two more minutes, so I'll skip that. Dorothy Lynch wanted to promote for her, and there is a very nice quotation here, it is a property and not the intrinsic nature of the space which is the subject of the investigation. So that can be, that can give you an idea of what was behind her. Hers was a logical, analytical, close to what I would say, position, and of course, if the relativity supported her views. Also, there is the last thing I wanted to refer to. It's a wonderful discussion by a philosopher, Jim Turner, which was the position of the the pure philosopher more or less he said you can he was commenting on cars and halden book you can say whatever you do you wish about the meaning of relativity

50:00 or scientific relativity but apart from scientific relativity there is philosophical relativity And well, you can not close, as I said, the Rubicon trying to say that the concept you are using of things that scientific relativity has promoted are the concepts that we philosophers, even the philosophers who adopt that kind of philosophical relativity, ought to employ. As he said, do not refer, do not refer, and here I come. What did you see the vertical relativity? That's another question. I am not sure, I know what it is. But let me tell you one thing. According to Tamer, scientific relativity is not confirmed with categories, as categories. He introduced no new ones and he dispenses with none of our earliest ones. Can't change a theory. Yeah, that's right. So it's the problem of an ontology which is the void of scientific content. It's the position of a view of philosophy. But I wanted, and I leave to you as I am probably on now five more minutes, I wanted to say a few things about the case which is very, very much interesting. whose name I mentioned here and there, but I know that I have been speaking for like 51 minutes and I was allowed only 50, so... Five minutes. Five minutes, okay. Well, now then, to end this discussion, I will make a few comments about how I get it. Let me say, let me make clear that I do not want to discuss the real content of these ideas. I only want to put forward some consideration. As it is well known, what I hope is called is philosophical platility, which is much more difficult. It contains three books, Inquire, which I already mentioned, Inquire concerning the principle of natural knowledge, 1915, the concept of nature, 1920, and the principle of relativity, 1923.

52:30 In 1933, only the last theory of relativity was really a general theory of relativity. Also, what Whitehead did there was to propose an inner flow of gravitation. Nonetheless, Whitehead, in theory, shares some common features with Einstein's. There is, for instance, a real name between both Einstein and Whitehead. In his right belief that the fundamental relations in nature are not spatio-temporal, but spatio-temporal, and that space and time are too abstractions from space-time. There is also a coincidence in attempting that the four-dimensionality implies that a modification in the traditional law of gravitation is necessary. Naturally, there were also these points of difference. Probably the most radical one is the wider belief that space-time must be uniform. that our experience requires a basis of uniformity, and that in the case of nature it is based the civics itself, and the uniformity of the space-emoral relation. This conclusion entirely it cuts away the causal heterogeneity of his relation with him, which is the essential of Einstein's later theory. Also, the inherent in why this theory was to maintain the division between physics, habitational, for example, or algebra. Well, that's enough of the ideas. What I really want to point out here is that, in spite of the fact, I'm not sure that it's not really an Indian, but Weikert was considered by some obscure philosopher, here I'll refer you a quotation. He was an abominably obscure and careless reader wrote in his obituary, the obituary he wrote of Weikert in 1948. In spite of this, I am saying, I have found, to my surprise, that his ideas, Whitehead ideas, were carefully considered and appreciated by philosophers, certainly, as well as by a few physicists.

55:00 Reviewing his concept of nature, A.P. Taylor stated, so far as I can judge, Dr. Whitehead is fully justified in his contention that his version of Einstein's theory is far more consistent and philosophical than any which the physicists will shun have produced. That's the end of quotation. Although much more critical than Taylor wrote, could not avoid in his review of the Principle of Relativity to remark that what seems to me pertain is that Whitehead has produced important arguments which should make us pause before deserting the traditional views so far as to make space-time non-homoroidal. Whitehead, the principle of relativity, was reviewed even in the Philosophical magazine. The review began with the sentence, Professor Whitehead, in this volume, has put forward an alternative rendering of the theory of relativity, which called for careful and thorough examination. Looking now at the own works of other Indian philosophers, I have found that Whitehead ideas concerning relativity, whereas other topics more or less concerned with this issue, were very often referred to the comments oscillated between general and big sentences, like for example Russell's. My view of the relation of what we perceive to physics is the same who first pursued me to adopt it. I may say that when Russell first used general relativity in 1920, he was in connection with Russell's theory of perception, which was criticized. I may say that the comments of the letter between Russell to almost exhaustive commentaries as those of Halden, which is the reign of relativity. Halden even gave one chapter of his book the title Relativity in an English Form, where, of course, Whitehead's ideas were especially discussed. Some physicists and mathematicians showed also the knowledge of Whitehead's alternative theory.

57:30 G. Temple, for example, wrote in 1926 a paper, a theory of relativity in which a dynamical manifold can be conformally represented upon a mathematical manifold, based badly on Whitehead's ideas. The guiding principles of the temple of the theory here exposed appear to be in accordance with the views of Professor Whitehead, as expressed in his series of three classical works in the biblical philosophy. Years later, as many of you may know, Temple would return to Whitehead theory. Eddington, the last comment too, showed some sensibility with respect to Whitehead ideas. Eddington attended Whitehead Letters Cambridge. In his paper on Eddington and Einstein, John Stachel included a quotation from one of Einstein's works which Paul subacquainted. Let me present my third take another example taken from a paper he wrote in 1921. This was referring to the possibility that the curvature of empty space were, everywhere, homogeneous and so forth. This may appear to have some connection with the view of Dr. Whitehead that space may be euclidean or not euclidean, but must be homogeneous throughout. of course humiliating what they're saying, well, this is not true. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Could I make a few remarks? The first one, of course, it's quite clear since you have considered an early development that you did not mention the name of Iraq. But it seems to me that even though Iraq is considered an atomic physicist or a quantum physicist, there is a kind of relativistic affiliation. I may mention that what probably most people don't know, he was of Swiss origin, his father and my uncle were together at college in the same class.

1:00:00 This is just something I wanted to mention. The second is that I have known Russell personally. I have talked with him on physics. And he had a very matter-of-fact conception of physics. So it seems to me that if there is some connection between Russell and Einstein, probably more on the political, social, and so on plane than really on the questions of science, and especially physics. You did not mention Eddington's popular writings. writings of course they came later in the thirties and that is perhaps outside of scope but it seems to me that We cannot forget about these very important things which have played an immense role And the fourth remark, you just mentioned some Kaseka Of course, Dich Nassami is among us So I should leave the words to him, but my question is since there are many Indian relativists and at an early stage where how comes a school of Indian relativists has developed which is of importance even people like Bozo who are of a generation that belongs to the same generation I'm not clear about that, where they learned Yes, about the last question, I don't know why there is some, yeah. There is another name you didn't mention, although it was not phenomenal, but I think it's Milne. Yes, but I think that his words were most in the 30s and 40s. It's all a problem in Milne. But let me, I think, remember that I was considering only the period until 1930, and I don't think Mill was baptized at that time even active in the general period of time. But let me, before other questions answer, Professor Mercier's two first remarks about the first, certainly Dirac is important and welcome. The only thing is that John Stachet

1:02:30 has referred to Dirac and also Dirac himself said that the book of Anne and Eddington is important for me, the first paper I wrote. So when I was saying that I will skip some The second point about Russell, I don't think I agree with what you said. You said that you believed that it was not important, it was not very much involved in Einstein's ideas apart from political ones. Well, let me, I have it prepared here. More or less, my initial lecture was about two hours long, so I had to, two hours sometimes. In his book, Hathaway O'Briography, he wrote, speaking about 1919, the general theory of relativity was in those days rather new and little good, the mathematician and I used to discuss it endlessly. We used to debate whether distance from us to the post office was or was not the same as the distance from the post office to us. So on this matter we never reached a conclusion. What time? He was referring to 1919, so the very same year, and not only for that this may be an But certainly, I think he showed a very sensible, a lot of sensibility to the book of Latvities, 1925, remember. Also, if you read, you may know that currently there is the publication of Rashford's collective works. In the first volume, there is a list of Russell's early readings in the 1890s or so. Of course, he was not reading then Einstein because Einstein was studying. But the kind of the scientist book which Russell read, and the mathematical ones, were very close to the interest of Einstein's physics. I just could take that point off because this is a point I wanted to make that the general character of philosophy in England at this time was very strongly

1:05:00 idealist Russell himself, before the term of the century, was taking a very rather Kantian line in his philosophy that by concentrating on the influences of relativity on philosophy in England, you have in fact rather suppressed the fact that this was the town of philosophy was strongly idealist and that broadly speaking this was a style of philosophy which was hostile to science in all its forms. You didn't mention for example, I think perhaps the most famous philosopher of the period And in Oxford, he was very much the rage, and Hegel was the man who was red, and Croce, right up to the last, the Second World War, Croce was very much a set text in Oxford, for example. And this whole thing was hostile to philosophy. I would also just simply... To science, I'm sorry. I might even say philosophy, but... But the other point, I would also reinforce the last point you made, which was, of course, that there were strong discussions going on of space-time problems in philosophy before Einstein came on the scene, and that this was in an idealist vein, and that when Einstein eventually came along with this word, relativity, which triggered off memories in the English mind of the Newton-Leibniz controversy, that, I think, brought a new dimension to this whole picture. But maybe I refer to, although I confess that I don't know much about it, Alexander's book on space, time and deity. I found that he was referred to by idealists, realists, and as far as they were referred to Alexander's book, they claimed that that book is a kind of realist defense of what later came to be Einstein's ideas as far as space-time. What I find difficult to reconcile, to harmonise, the thing that you said is true,

1:07:30 that idealism was the main philosophical poem in England, with the fact that Alessander was a very influential one. I'm sure you're right in saying that both managed to bring relativity in on their side if they thought it was to their advantage, take a kind of statistical standpoint and say that if you counted heads the idealists would certainly won the election it's also funny that it's also true what you said the ideas were the most of style to science but at least in 1920 21 22 there were statistically also counting press the ones who more eagerly wanted to use scientific relativity in defense of their own ideas, which is funny. I would like to, well, first of all, before you get along with the people's comments, I'm going to make it, I was too confident in my way. First is that, well, this is including your own title, when you mention reception and development, And of course, reception was also negative, I mean, there were resistances, which you didn't mention, including the scientific field, a well-obvious name would be Oliver Lodge, and a few others. And, well, that is one point. Another point that you didn't mention, I mean, in your broad categorisation with realism and what we hope that the last comment was something which reminded me of your mentioning and it would be interesting to see the interchange. And, for instance, the last correspondent or last disciple of the church in Britain was Collingwood. In his book on the idea of nature, in fact, takes up, in support with idealist thesis and interpretation of relativity, a book on Whitehead, which you didn't mention, which is process and reality.

1:10:00 Whitehead, process and reality. Yeah, but I would say a few words. I didn't find anything about, I think, I didn't come across anything about the personal of pragmatism on this debate. So about Cunningham, yes, I found some reference to this idea. So I went to the literature too, but didn't find too much. So I have one of the points that I have to develop is precisely calling to participation on this debate, but so far I haven't, I do not have anything to say about this. in my mind that communism boosted over the free, as someone who had things to accept, things which were related to this event. Also, the first question of remark, I haven't looked too much about the negative production of people's businesses, philosophers, but I admit that, especially in the case of philosophers, I said before, but my discussion was trying to lead it so daily, not to those lower range philosophers of different countries. Thank you. Just a couple of... Yes, in his dissertation, Stanley Goldberg had a chapter on the reception in Great Britain and he emphasized on the prevalence of the heater concept. And I wanted to know if you also observe that and if it has philosophical implications for the speciality. Actually, I wrote one paper trying to, in other days, I don't believe now that there

1:12:30 There was a consensus among scientists about the concept of the concept here, but pragmatically they were much more, they were more diversified and used another kind of resource and actually to start a new avenue of considering a special relativity than what all words say, but when I have a copy with me of the paper, I will do what Jan said, I will put a copy of the paper there, but it is related to special relativity. General relativity is different, because when you have there are a few, if whatever you want, so the issue was in, two more interventions I want quote the name Singh I know is it possible to speak of the English without speaking Singh example speak witch obituary thing interesting you know I have cannot cross Singh you see think started to publish in Relativity in 2027 or so. No, I believe before that. The papers I found I believe before that. It's still alive by the way. Yes, it's over 19, well, in 21, I'm quite sure, the first people I've seen. So, it's 70 years of Relativity. I should have said maturity, sin, smart grading. I've heard rumors that there were some anti-Semitism in England that played a role in existence to the general populist level, but among the scholars. Now, England being England, of course, you won't find the kind of things that Gurner had in the literature in respect to play the document. But I wonder if you've found any evidence of that in personal discussion with people. I think that's the only way to point it, but it's getting reminiscences.

1:15:00 It is after our 55th. There are some people still around. No, not really I haven't found. The only thing I found, but it's not saying this, is the kind of prejudice that arose from the First World War. For instance, Haldane, who was one of the most popular of German culture who had to resign from this position of the world well I didn't get the world outside okay now lunch Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Tell me when is a good time to talk. No, I can't do that now. No, I'll tell you what time is it. No, I'll tell you later.

1:17:30 Because I need the telephone in the circular area. No, I didn't want to do it now. I'm asked to, when would he have convened to do it? No, no, but it's not the first time. And what do we want to share a train reservation? We share. Well, on Saturday morning, he would like to deliver to go to sleep I see, at least at 11.31 and rising in the 70s, 11.31 and 70s. it's a direct train we are going to use and you want two we want two first class first class non-smoking non-smoking but if they don't have non-smoking they'll be willing to also take the smoking or if they don't have first class they'll be willing to take the second class I said we don't have much baggage to take any other place. Thank you.