{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75452/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75452","id":"gutenberg_75452","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75452","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Science - Physics","Physics"],"text":"ARCHIMEDES\n\n  OR\n\n  THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS\n\n\n\n\n  TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW\n\n  _For a full list of this Series see the end\n  of this Book_\n\n\n\n\n  ARCHIMEDES\n\n  OR\n  THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS\n\n  BY\n  L. L. WHYTE\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.\n  NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.\n\n\n\n\n  To\n  LOTTE\n\n\n  Made and Printed in Great Britain by\n  M. F. Robinson & Co. Ltd. at the Library Press, Lowestoft\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAP.                                                         PAGE\n\n    I THE SCIENCES CONVERGE                                        7\n\n   II A MODERN DUEL: EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON _v._ BERGSON AND\n      WHITEHEAD                                                   22\n\n  III TIME IN ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS                               37\n\n   IV AN EVOLUTIONARY EXPERIMENT                                  47\n\n    V PHYSICS AND THE HUMAN MIND                                  66\n\n   VI THE FUTURE OF THE SCIENCES                                  79\n\n      NOTES                                                       95\n\n\n\n\nARCHIMEDES\n\nOR\n\nTHE FUTURE OF PHYSICS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n_The Sciences Converge_\n\n\nOne of the most fascinating features in the history of thought is that\non several occasions an important new idea has come simultaneously to\nindependent minds. Thus after Euclid\u2019s geometry had remained without\na rival for two thousand years the conception of an alternative\nnon-Euclidean system was reached separately by Gauss, Lobatschewsky,\nand Bolyai during the years 1820-30. Bolyai\u2019s father, while ignorant of\nthe fact that Gauss had already made the same discoveries, wrote to his\nson urging him to publish his results and used the following prophetic\nwords:\n\n \u201cThere is some truth in this, that many things have an epoch, in which\n they are found at the same time in several places, just as the violets\n appear on every side in the spring.\u201d\n\nAnother example of the simultaneous emergence of an idea in the minds\nof different thinkers is given by Darwin in his introduction to the\n_Origin of Species_. He there calls attention to the fact that in\n1794-5 the broad idea of the evolution of species--though not its\ncause--was simultaneously formulated by Goethe in Germany, St Hilaire\nin France, and his own grandfather, Dr Darwin, in England. Moreover\nDarwin himself had the remarkable experience of finding in an essay\nsubmitted to him in 1858 by A. R. Wallace a complete summary of his\nown unpublished theory of natural selection as the chief cause of the\nevolution of species.\n\nThe last few years constitute another critical period of a similar\nkind, since an idea, which when made precise will transform scientific\nthought, has already come independently to many thinkers. Since 1922\nmany scientists have felt that in studying the emission and absorption\nof light physics has come near to the problem of life.[1] Others have\nproposed that in order to straighten out its atomic problems physics\nwill have to take a hint from biology, but what this hint should be\nhas not yet been indicated. The following pages suggest a definite\nline of advance for physics, and interpret these isolated flashes of\nintuition as evidence of a special feature in the present situation of\nthe sciences.\n\nWe stand at the eve of a new epoch. Physics, biology, and psychology\nare converging towards a scientific synthesis of unprecedented\nimportance, whose influence on thought and social custom will be so\nprofound that it will mark a stage in human evolution. For centuries\nscience has concentrated its highest genius on the study of inanimate\nmatter; to-day the three great sciences are at last reaching the\nproblem of life. For their researches on matter, life, and mind are\nnow overlapping at one common issue: the nature of the fundamental\nelectrical processes which underlie radiation and chemical combination.\n\nThus physics is at present occupied with the changes that occur when\nan atom emits either light or electricity. Biology is at the same\nproblem in studying the electrical processes which are the basis of all\norganic behaviour, whether in primitive forms of protoplasm or in the\nhighly developed central nervous system of man. Meantime psychology is\ndealing with an identical process when it analyses the structure of\nmind, and considers the elementary changes of consciousness which are\nproduced when light of a given colour falls on the retina and sends\nits influence to the brain.\n\nAs the result of these convergent researches, life and consciousness\nwill soon be subject to the first stages of a theoretically-grounded\ncontrol, compared with which the present tentative efforts of medicine\nand psychology will be looked back on much as we remember the haphazard\nwork of the alchemists before the foundation of chemistry. But this\ndevelopment of human knowledge and powers will carry with it great\nresponsibilities, and scientists have to prepare themselves for the new\ntasks that will very soon fall to them. By indicating the main ideas\nthrough which this broad scientific synthesis may come about, this\nessay aims at showing that this possibility has to be taken seriously.\nWe shall first examine the situation in physics and then turn to\nconsider the influence which future developments of physical theory\nmay have on biology and psychology.\n\nTwo main types of process defy interpretation within the present scheme\nof physical conceptions: life itself, and the atomic processes of\nradiation and the building up of stable compounds. In organic processes\non the one hand, and the energy-interchanges of atoms on the other\nhand, we find something happening which cannot adequately be explained\nas a change in the _structure_ of the system considered. By structure\nis meant a spatial pattern of particles, which are supposed to be\npermanent and to move about like cricket balls or planets. Systems\nwith a structure of this kind could not display the purposive quality\nof organic behaviour, and when we try to make a structural model\nof the atom we find that it fails to explain why the atom radiates\nenergy in the abrupt packets which are called \u2018quanta\u2019, instead of\nin a continuous wave. We shall return presently to the question of\norganisms, after making an endeavour to discover why the atom cannot be\ndescribed in terms of a particle structure.\n\nIn 1911 Rutherford achieved remarkable success in accounting for the\nresults of his own researches in radioactivity by adopting a model of\nthe atom as a miniature solar system, with planetary electrons rotating\nrapidly around a nucleus. But in order to explain the fact that the\nspectrum of the light emitted by an atom shows a characteristic series\nof lines, Bohr suggested that an electron inside an atom could emit\nlight only by making a discontinuous jump from one possible orbit to\nanother quite distinct orbit. This apparent discontinuity in the motion\nof electrons has intrigued physicists for more than ten years, and the\nfollowing interpretations have recently been offered for this puzzling\nbehaviour:\n\n 1. Nature is made up of electrons, but neither space nor time is\n fundamentally discontinuous. The electron appears to have some freedom\n of choice, and to be able to reappear unexpectedly at forbidden places.\n\n 2. Nature is not discontinuous or arbitrary, but nevertheless\n something prevents us determining all the things we should like to\n know about an electron. For instance, if we try to determine exactly\n where it is, it behaves so that we cannot simultaneously measure its\n exact velocity. (Heisenberg.) This view may perhaps be interpreted\n to mean that we have made the atom model more complex than the atom\n itself is, and that consequently we have been using more quantities\n than are necessary for describing all we can observe of its behaviour.\n\n 3. Nature is not made up of electrons, but of waves. The atom must be\n considered as a system of electric waves spread over its whole volume.\n \u2018Electrons\u2019 are merely an inaccurate way of describing some of the\n properties of these waves. The wave picture of the atom is, however,\n to be considered only as a temporary expedient to be used until some\n better description of the atom can be invented, in which both the wave\n and the corpuscular properties of atoms will appear as aspects of some\n more profound physical property. (Schr\u00f6dinger.)\n\nThe first alternative is a mere cry of despair, since it does not\npropose any line of advance. But the other two suggestions may be\ncombined thus:\n\n 4. The view of the atom as a structure of Newtonian particles is wrong\n since it gives rise to discontinuities, and provides more quantities\n than we at present need. A new formulation of atomic processes must\n be found using fewer quantities which will explain why we find wave\n properties, and why sometimes the electron does behave like a small\n billiard ball though really it is some different sort of thing.\n\nNow since the Newtonian mathematics of moving particles is inadequate\nfor describing the changes that go on in the atom--just as it is for\ndescribing organic processes--there must be some assumption implicit in\nNewton\u2019s laws which is valid neither for atom nor for organism. Such\nan assumption can be found very easily, though physics has never given\nit much attention. It is that the elementary processes in nature are\n_reversible_, or would be if they could be isolated. By reversible is\nhere meant that the laws governing the process remain unchanged when\nthe direction of time is reversed, i.e. when -t is substituted for +t.\nIf the law is changed by this substitution so that the reversed process\nnever occurs or is recognizably different, then the process is called\nirreversible. An irreversible process can therefore be used to yield an\nobjective criterion of past and future, when these terms have been once\ndefined.\n\nTo take an example. If I am standing behind a hedge and take a\ncinematograph film of a stone which suddenly rises in the air and\ndisappears from sight, I could not tell from an examination of the\nfilm which way to wind it. Thus if it is wound one way the stone\nappears to rise, and if wound the other way to fall from the sky.\nTo tell which was the right way I should have to use my subjective\nsense of the direction of time, i.e. remember the fact that I saw the\nstone low in the air before I saw it high up. This case, like every\ngravitational process, is reversible, and motions of this kind have\nprovided the basis for modern physical conceptions.\n\nBut suppose that instead I had taken a film of a cup of tea as it was\ncooling. One end of the film would show the steam above the cup and the\nspoon changing in length as it changed in temperature. Passing along\nthe film these effects would grow less marked until the successive\nphotos showed no variation when the temperature of the tea was nearly\nthat of the surrounding air. It would be obvious which way to wind\nthis film, without using any subjective criterion supplied from memory\nof the individual process which had been photographed. This process is\nirreversible, but physics has hitherto assumed that all such processes\nare merely the statistical result of a chaos of molecular motions each\nof them perfectly reversible.\n\nThe assumption of reversibility seems to some physicists so fundamental\nthat they think there could be no science without it. But that is\na mere prejudice arising from the fact that Newton conceived one\nparticular way of giving mathematical formulation to the measurable\nfeatures of physical processes. By suggesting that all the laws of\nnature might take a form similar to his law of gravitation, he made\nthe implicit assumption that all elementary processes were reversible.\nGravitational motions are so, at any rate within the accuracy of\nNewton\u2019s law, and as a consequence of the confirmation of his law\nand the fact that it has been taken as a model for the whole system\nof modern physical conceptions, the latter are only appropriate for\nreversible processes.\n\nApparent irreversibility, such as the cooling of a cup of tea,\nis attributed to statistical effects, and the second law of\nthermodynamics, which asserts that temperatures tend to uniformity,\nis treated as merely a statement of what is highly probable. This is\nprobably quite legitimate, but even where no statistical effect can\nenter and the process is clearly irreversible physics usually adopts\nany measure rather than assume that a fundamental elementary process\nis irreversible.[2] We cannot be surprised at this, since if physics\nonce admitted that any elementary process was irreversible it would\nhave to give up the whole system of Newtonian conceptions. Matter,\nforce, energy, action, and wave properties are all unsuitable for the\ntreatment of irreversible effects since they all ultimately depend on\nNewton\u2019s reversible law.\n\nAn entirely new set of ideas is necessary for describing processes\nwhich necessarily proceed in one direction, so that one particular\nstate of the system must precede another state. It appears conceivable\nthat an alternative set of conceptions to replace the Newtonian might\nbe established by demanding the irreversibility of all natural laws, as\nwell as the demands hitherto made by physics, i.e. the permanence of\nmatter and the conservation of energy.\n\nThe question of the reversibility of natural processes provides the key\nto a great intellectual struggle which is now in progress behind the\ncomplexities of philosophic and scientific thought. The issue can be\nformulated thus:\n\nIs there a real temporal process in nature? Is the passage of\nirreversible time a necessary element in any view of the structure of\nnature? Or, alternatively, is the subjective experience of time a\nmere illusion in the mind which cannot be given objective expression?\nThese are not metaphysical questions that can still be neglected\nby science with impunity. For just as Einstein made his advance by\nanalysing conceptions such as simultaneity, which had been thought\nto be adequately understood for the purposes of empirical science,\nso the next development of physical theory will probably be made by\ncarrying on the analysis of time from the point at which Einstein left\nit. Moreover, the above questions may be put into precise scientific\nform by asking if the causal relations which are studied by science\nare symmetrical and reversible so that we cannot obtain from them any\ncriterion by which to distinguish past and future. If, on the other\nhand, they are asymmetrical and irreversible, the laws of nature lead\nus on necessarily from what went before to what comes afterwards.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n_A modern duel: Einstein and Eddington v. Bergson and Whitehead_\n\n\nIn this battle over the importance of time and process great names\nstand out as representatives of the two opposed views: Einstein\nand Bergson, with their lieutenants, Eddington and Whitehead. The\ntwo leaders use very different methods. Einstein, as mathematical\nphysicist, suggests that physical laws can best be expressed if we\nassume that space and time are so similar that physics can make no\nabsolute distinction between them. Thus in relativity theory the\nsymmetry of space involves the symmetry of time, and therefore the\nreversibility of physical laws, as has been shown by Birkhoff.\nBergson, as biologist and philosopher, denies that the view of time\nwhich is implicit in relativity mathematics is adequate when a wider\nrange of experience is taken into account.\n\nEinstein starts by excluding all but a very narrow range of physical\nexperience, and finds that he can make successful predictions about\nlight and gravitation by treating the irreversibility of the passage\nof time as of no importance for scientific measurements. Bergson, by\nstudying a wide range of biological and subjective experience, comes\nto assert the existence of a creative process, though the inherent\nlimitations of the intellect and of science may leave the essence of\nthis process outside their reach.\n\nBoth protagonists have left their flanks exposed, by omitting to\npresent their view as a consistent logical system, Einstein because he\nis concerned only with the equations that can be empirically tested,\nand Bergson because his chief interest is non-intellectual. It is here\nthat their lieutenants step forward to develop the two points of view,\nand hence to intensify the conflict.\n\nEddington provides a logical basis for the theory of relativity and\nreveals that the significance of physical laws is not quite what we\nused to think. They are, he argues, identities which the human mind\ndiscovers in its search for something permanent that it can call\n_matter_ beneath all the changing appearances of the world. We have\nmade matter the real thing by demanding permanence or indestructibility\nas the basis of physical reality. Now that we know that we have done\nthis it need not trouble us too much to find that absolute unchanging\nmatter doesn\u2019t exist, since this merely means that we started out with\na demand that nature cannot fulfil. Unfortunately Eddington doesn\u2019t\ndiscuss what alternative demand we might now make in order to build\nup a more satisfactory system of scientific ideas. But in spite of his\nenthusiastic support of Einstein\u2019s theory, with its implicit assumption\nof reversibility, Eddington hesitates at least once in his advocacy\nof reversible laws, for facts are turning up which suggest that this\nundiscussed presupposition may not prove valid.[3]\n\nMeantime Whitehead has been at work on the other side, and by\nsharpening his logic till few can understand him has made the idea of\ntemporal process the basis of all intellectual and scientific thought,\nwhereas up to now process has always presented many difficult problems\nfor the intellect. He proposes that since the conception of matter\nhas been found to be unsatisfactory we must start from the basic idea\nof process in building up a new physical theory. As a consequence of\nhis line of thought, Whitehead found it necessary to reject some of\nEinstein\u2019s arguments and to show that Einstein\u2019s law could be reached\nfrom quite different postulates. For instance, Whitehead assumed that\nthe motion of light was irreversible, and that light did not travel\nwith the same velocity in the two opposed directions.\n\nSo much for one aspect of the conflict, its logical and philosophical\nbasis. But the issue must be decided by appeal to experimental\nconfirmation over the widest range of phenomena. Orthodox physics still\nassumes reversibility, and has on its side the explicit statement made\nby Einstein in 1925,[4] but by doing so it excludes at the start any\nreference to organic processes. Conceptions based on this assumption\ncould never be legitimately applied to life, and all attempts made\nhitherto to explain the central controlling processes of organisms in\nterms of classical physics have necessarily failed. We know now that\nthis failure could have been foreseen.\n\nThe same objection cannot be made against the basic ideas of Bergson\nand Whitehead, nor against the new atomic physics as interpreted by\nBorn, as we shall see in a moment. To Bergson and Whitehead, as to many\nothers amongst whom Lloyd Morgan must be mentioned, the process of\nnature is creative, i.e. it involves the coming into being of the new,\nthe appearance of new combinations essentially precluded before. This\nprobably means that the laws of physics which are to describe what is\nactually happening in the world must be given irreversible form. For\nreversible equations make no distinction between to-day and to-morrow,\nand cannot express the fact that at later moments new forms may emerge,\neither in the evolution of organisms or of stars. On the other hand\nirreversible laws can be arranged so as to display time as an active\nfactor in causation, i.e. to emphasize the fact that a certain period\nof time necessarily has to pass before some new combination can be\nattained.[5]\n\nThe upholders of a real process in nature can appeal to the facts of\norganic life, human memory, and to biological and stellar evolution.\nBut their case is still weak because fundamental irreversibility\nhas not yet received explicit mathematical formulation suitable for\nexperimental test. When this has been done the intellectual battle will\nbe brought to its decision, and if irreversibility wins the day biology\nand psychology will find themselves in possession of a physical basis\nwell suited to the facts with which they have to deal.\n\nThere is reason to believe that the decision will be made very soon.\nWe saw that the implicit assumption of reversibility underlies all\nNewtonian conceptions. It may therefore be that the reason why we\ncannot interpret atomic behaviour in terms of particle motions is that\nelectrical and radiational processes are essentially irreversible.\nParticle motion and wave propagation--the two ideas on which all\nmodern theories of matter are based--are both represented by\nmathematical expressions which are essentially reversible since time\nenters only through the square of \u2018dt\u2019. If the quantum processes should\nprove to be irreversible, we have already found a reason why the old\nconceptions of particles and waves must be inadequate.\n\nThis speculation may indeed be found correct, since Born, one of\nthe leading experts in Quantum Dynamics, asserts that all quantum\nprocesses are irreversible and that the apparent reversibility of\nclassical processes is only an approximation due to the fact that their\nirreversibility happens to be negligible.[4] We may therefore hope that\nthe atomic physicists will soon formulate the quantum laws in a clearly\nirreversible form which admits of precise experimental test.\n\nBut this may take some years, and in the meantime we must look around\nand see how this issue is affecting current thought. We find the doubt\nabout process presented by Mr Sullivan (in _Gallio_), who has not yet\nmade up his mind to which side science will grant the victory. Thus on\none page he writes: \u201cit seems to be true that events do not really take\nplace, we come across them\u201d and suggests that process may be \u201ca totally\nirrelevant idea when applied to reality\u201d. But later we learn to our\nsurprise that \u201cit seems likely that (in scientific theory) the world\nwill have to be regarded as an evolutionary process, where patterns of\nvalue emerge\u201d. However, this inconsistency need not bother us, since\nwe are told that \u201cthe teachings of science so far as the spiritual\nproblems of man are concerned are merely irrelevant\u201d.\n\nThese views reflect perfectly the uncertainty of the time, and will be\nlooked back on as a precious record of the state of mind which preceded\nthe scientific synthesis. Perhaps the most interesting feature of\nthe essay is the indecision it displays with regard to the spiritual\nimportance of science. This is a relic from the days when there were\ntwo worlds, the world of science and the world of religion and art. No\none ever knew which of these worlds they were living in, and this is no\nwonder. For the division was made only because at one time it looked\nas though the scientific method could only deal with _quantities_,\nand therefore that science could have nothing to say about values or\nqualities. This view is no longer tenable. For instance, there is a\nquality in organic integration which most of us value, and without this\nand many other such conceptions biology and psychology could not get\nfar.\n\nBefore proceeding any further it is necessary to correct a common\nmisunderstanding with regard to the significance of Einstein\u2019s theory\nof relativity. This theory is mathematical, and is based on a series\nof postulates which rule out any claim to present an ultimate theory\nof space and time. One of these postulates[6] asserts that all our\nphysical knowledge can be reduced to the space-time coincidences\nof pairs of point-events, or in other words the intersection of\nthe world-lines of electrons. No respect for the supreme genius\nwho predicted two experimental results and eliminated the chief\ndiscrepancies remaining in Newtonian theory should restrain scientists\nfrom pointing out that this postulate assumes something that has never\nbeen known to occur, and has no valuable reference to the world of\nphysical experiment. The confirmation of Einstein\u2019s final equations\ncannot give any validity to this postulate. For it is difficult to\nthink of any physical experience considered by theoretical physics\nwhich does not involve the perception of light or colour, and one\ncannot assume that the perception of light is a perception of\ncoincidences. Light varies in colour and intensity; coincidence in\nspace is too abstract to account for an effect which is subject to\nvariation. Moreover all physical experience requires a certain amount\nof time, and this fact is neglected if perception is reduced to the\nrecognition of instantaneous coincidences. Even if these two criticisms\nare left on one side we still have to notice that Einstein\u2019s postulate\nrules out from the range of physics the important fact that many\nprocesses are irreversible. For instance, if we accept Einstein\u2019s\ndefinition of physical experience, then the interesting fact that\nradioactivity is only observed in the form of disintegration, and not\nalso as the reverse process of a spontaneous building up of heavier\nelements from lighter, has to be left over by physics to be dealt with\nby some other science.\n\nIt almost always happens that the formulations of genius are\nexaggerated and form the basis of a pernicious orthodoxy, and it has\ncertainly happened to relativity theory. Against a tide of exaggerated\npraise Whitehead, Larmor, and Bridgman, as well as some Continental\nastronomers, have debated the general assumption that the theory of\nrelativity is adequate to its task, but those in whose hands the power\nof orthodoxy lies have not yet answered their criticisms in print.\nNeglect has always been the weapon by which orthodoxy has unknowingly\nhindered the advance of new ideas. But while this neglect is easy to\nunderstand, it is really remarkable that the postulates of relativity\ntheory were not subjected to closer examination before it was made the\nbasis of wide philosophical speculation. The experimental confirmation\nof Einstein\u2019s law of gravitation does not guarantee his postulates,\nsince Whitehead has reached a similar law (identical within the\naccuracy of the observations) from different assumptions.\n\nEinstein\u2019s profound creative intuition and use of a difficult\ntechnique compel our deepest respect, but his work should never have\nbeen regarded as a _general_ theory of time and space. Not only does\nhe neglect the question of irreversibility but it is very doubtful if\nperiodic processes can be made to fit into his scheme, as has been\npointed out by Russell and Bridgman during the last year. Probably\nEinstein himself has never regarded his theory as more than a stage in\nthe attempt to create a still wider physical synthesis, and we must\nnot interpret in a broad sense his statement that one of the demands\nof his theory \u201ctakes away from space and time the last remnant of\nphysical objectivity\u201d.[6] This could only be true if physical time\nshared the absolute symmetry of space, i.e. if physical processes\nwere all reversible. But there are processes from which we can obtain\nan objective criterion of the direction of time, and hence time does\nretain an element of physical objectivity as distinct from the\nabsolute symmetry of space. One of the most interesting features in the\nfuture of physics will be the explanation of the fact that Einstein\nreached a correct law from postulates of limited validity, and in\nthis connection Whitehead\u2019s alternative derivation may prove to be of\nimportance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n_Time in Astronomy and Physics_\n\n\nThe real discrepancy between the world of physics and that of life lies\nin the fact that physics has never recognized the irreversibility of\ntime, while this is fundamental to life. We may even feel a doubt if\nthe \u2018t\u2019 of physics has the same significance as the time of biology,\nevolution, history, and human experience. The physical conception of\ntime arose from the practical utility of clocks for describing natural\nprocesses, and finally took the form of defining astronomical time in\nterms of the rotation of the earth. The day was in fact taken as an\nabsolute measure of time, and this remained quite satisfactory so long\nas the laws of physics were found to take a simple form with reference\nto the time so defined.\n\nBut then a complication arose. The study of the moon\u2019s motion suggested\nto astronomers that the earth\u2019s rotation was slowing down, i.e. to\naccount for the apparent motion of the moon they had to assume that\nthe day was increasing in length. The theory of the tides revealed\na possible cause for this slowing down in the tidal friction on the\nbottom of shallow water basins, for instance the rush of the Atlantic\ntides into the Irish Sea provides an appreciable frictional force\nretarding the spin of the earth. In addition to this slowing down there\nappears to be a very slow periodic variation in the length of the day\nsuch as would be accounted for by a rhythmic expansion and contraction\nof the earth\u2019s crust.\n\nThe astronomers declare that our old measure of time is not only\ngetting slower and slower, it is even varying rhythmically! It is clear\nthat they have thrown over the earth as their definition of equal\ntime intervals and have surreptitiously substituted something else.\nYet one cannot discover any formal announcement of this, or find out\nif they realize that by doing this they have altered the theoretical\nsignificance of all physical measurements. In earlier days physics\ndefined time in terms of a selected clock, and then set about finding\nthe laws of nature. But the old ways aren\u2019t good enough for the modern\nastronomer who gives us our time and sets the clocks of our physical\nlaboratories. He has reasons for disapproving of the earth, and has\nalmost reversed the procedure. In order to save the laws of inertia\nand gravitation in connection with the moon\u2019s motion--and to a lesser\ndegree in the cases of the planets and the sun--he has made these laws\nhis standard of equal time intervals in place of the earth\u2019s rotation.\n\nIt is a curious situation, especially in view of the fact that\nEinstein\u2019s law, which has superseded Newton\u2019s, is not very suitable\nfor use as an astronomical clock, as has been pointed out by Larmor.\nPerhaps the physicist will soon be able to use the atom as the\ntheoretical clock for physics, and we can go on using the corrected\nrotation of the earth as our practical standard. There is a faint\nchance, for instance, that if physics can invent some way of measuring\nthe minute time intervals along the track of an electron, then\nelectrons might be used as giving the fundamental measure of time. Thus\nif the velocity of an electron were first measured by some indirect\nmethod the electron itself might then be used as a clock. But in the\nmeantime the astronomers should make a formal announcement to the Royal\nSociety of what they have been up to. It then might be found necessary\nto appoint a commission to discover exactly what physics is now doing.\nFor by using an astronomical clock of the new type it is assuming\nclassical laws while researching on processes which are already\nknown to undermine the absolute validity of these laws. Theoretical\nphysics cannot hope to clear up its fundamental problems until it has\nconsidered exactly what is involved in this suspicious procedure.\n\nLike most professions, physics includes a good deal of bluff, but\nunlike the others physics is now occupied on a campaign to get rid of\nall pretence. For instance, physical text-books have been filled for\ntwenty years with phrases of this kind: \u201can electron with a velocity\nof so many cms per sec.\u201d Yet the professors omitted to tell their\nstudents the awful secret that this hypothesis of electron velocities\nis one that has never yet received direct experimental confirmation.\nTo-day a reaction has set in and the demand is being made that physical\ntheory shall not make use of conceptions that do not correspond to\ndirectly observed quantities. Thus the latest theories of the atom have\neliminated the idea of electron orbits because it was realized that\nthese were nothing more than a mathematical trick for calculating\nsomething quite different: the wave-length of the light an atom can\nemit. In place of the orbits it is hoped to substitute something which\nonly makes use of the directly-observed features of the atom, but this\nnew picture is not complete.\n\nYet physics still makes use of ideas that have not been adequately\njustified. For though the idea of moving electrons has been removed\nfrom the latest atomic model, no substitute for it has yet been\nproposed for the case of electrons outside the atom. It therefore\nbecomes very important for the experimental physicist to discover\nwhether he can measure the distance travelled by an electron in a\nmeasured fraction of a second. As yet we have no proof that nature\nhas not confused us by making electrons behave rather like moving\nparticles, though really they are something different. In fact we\nhave not yet made enough direct experiments to know even whether\nthe dimensional system which is used for electrons is correct. Since\nno electron velocity has ever been directly measured we cannot be\nsure that the dimensions of the new constant \u2018h\u2019--called Planck\u2019s\nconstant--are really what we suppose, energy multiplied by time. Until\na way has been invented of making a direct measurement of some _time_\ninvolved in electronic motions, it is impossible for physical theory to\nknow how it should deal with the quantum processes.\n\nWhen we realize how uncertain are the conceptions on which the whole\nof electron theory is based, we may wonder what is really known about\nthe atom itself. Yet it is possible that we know more about the atom\nthan we think, and that what are talked about as facts concerning\nelectrons and radiation may really be better viewed as information\nabout individual atoms and the way in which they influence one another.\nThe emission of light is an atomic process, and we only know about\nlight when it has reached some atom and been at least partially\nabsorbed. Some un-understood change of condition occurs in an atom when\nit radiates and passes this changed condition on to another atom. The\nabsorbed energy may cause chemical change, as on a photographic plate.\nBut if a human mind is to become aware of this change of condition,\nthen sooner or later, directly or indirectly, its influence must be\npassed on to an atom in the retina. We know very little about this\nchange of atomic condition, and though it is usually called a change of\nthe internal electrical energy of the atom this supposes more than we\nreally know until some electron velocity has been directly measured.\nThe dimensions of electrical energy are taken as those of kinetic\nenergy, i.e. mass times square of velocity, but we do not yet know if\nthis describes atomic changes correctly. Since no one has ever measured\na _time_ involved in an electronic process, the scale of time in the\natom might be quite different from that given by our calculations.\n\nOur ignorance of what this change of atomic condition really signifies\nis so profound that some writers have begun to treat the atom as though\nit were an organism, alive when the atom is excited, and dead when in\na state of minimum energy. Thus Whitehead proposes that we should call\nthe atom an organism, though this of course may only muddle us since we\nknow even less about life than we do about the atom.\n\nYet we do know one very interesting thing about this change which\nhappens to atoms but cannot be reduced to a change of structure. When\nlight reaches an atom in the retina, an electrical stimulus passes\nup a nerve and alters the condition of the protoplasm somewhere in\nthe brain. This change in brain condition is known to us directly as\nthe perception of colour. Therefore in one sense we know more about\nthis change of atomic condition than we ever did about \u2018electric\nfields\u2019 or \u2018gravitational potential\u2019 or any other of the mathematical\nconveniences used by physics in correlating observed quantities. The\nchange in a sodium atom when we put salt in a flame is not a change\nin the consciousness of the sodium atom, because it is not part of a\ncomplex nervous system with the same high co-ordination as is found in\nthe human being, and therefore the atom has no consciousness. But when\nan atom in the brain undergoes the same change we may become conscious\nof it, and the changes in matter which occur when light is absorbed are\nundoubtedly associated with the problem of consciousness.\n\nThus we are led to ask: how are single atoms built up into complex\nsystems which have the characteristics of life, and finally into still\nmore complex systems which have human consciousness?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n_An Evolutionary Experiment_\n\n\nQuestions are often made unnecessarily difficult by their being\nexpressed in an abstract or theoretical form, and instead of asking\nWhat is life? it will be more valuable to put forward a practical issue\nfor discussion: Could an infinitely wise physicist order the necessary\nchemicals to-day, and to-morrow put together a synthetic man? If not,\nwhy not? What are we really up against, that seems to put some aspects\nof life beyond our control?\n\nLet us watch this ambitious physicist as he enters his laboratory.\nHe has started quite easily and has in a moment prepared some simple\nmolecules from their elements. Now he has completed the first colloid\nthat he will require, and is starting on his first organic synthesis.\nBut his infinite wisdom does not give him eternity within a minute,\nand we notice that he is getting on more slowly. While the actual\ncombination of the first molecules took only about a thousandth of a\nsecond, once he had the apparatus ready, the simplest colloid took\nabout a second. The organic colloid has taken him about a minute; it\nseems that nature won\u2019t work faster than that. She has her own rhythm\nand won\u2019t be rushed. If we wait patiently till the end of the day our\nfriend may have his first speck of protoplasm, and all the skill in the\nworld would only have helped him to make more of it, not to have got\nany further in his game of evolution.\n\nBut look at him now! He is making a hasty calculation as though he had\njust realized some great secret of nature, and knew that he could never\ncreate his homunculus. We look over his shoulder and read:\n\n\n _Estimated minimum time required by the synthetic processes of nature\n to attain various evolutionary stages._\n\n  Starting from the                        Minimum\n    elements, to                             Time\n\n  Simple inorganic compound                 1/1000 sec.\n  Simple colloid                            1 sec.\n  Protein                                   1 hour\n  Primitive protoplasm                      1 month\n  Simplest uni-cellular organism            10 years\n  Flagellate                                1,000 years\n  Mammal, including _Homo sapiens_          1,000,000 years\n\nThis highly speculative estimate is based on suggestive facts. A\ncertain amount of time is necessary for two atoms to approach one\nanother and form a molecule. The time required will be greater if many\natoms have to settle down together into some special arrangement. For\ninstance, the metal silver is normally crystalline, but if silver\nvapour is condensed too quickly the atoms will not have time to\narrange themselves, and it is found that they pile up anyhow into an\namorphous mass.\n\nColloidal processes require even longer periods, because great clumsy\nmolecules have to arrange themselves on the surface of the colloidal\nparticles. In elementary forms of protoplasm the molecular patterns\nare still more complex, and yet more time must be necessary to get the\nmolecules properly adjusted.\n\nIt is probable that only our ignorance prevents us from building up\nprotoplasm, but that we shall require rapidly increasing amounts of\ntime for each successive stage of evolution. This will certainly be\nthe case when we have reached organisms which can only be rendered\nmore complex by controlling their environment while they reproduce\nthemselves for many generations. A higher organism cannot be built up\ndirectly; the molecular arrangements in its body can only be reached\nthrough the synthesis of some simple form of life which must then be\nallowed to evolve through countless generations. Organic heredity\nresides in molecular patterns which can only be built up by this very\nslow process of repeated reproduction. Thus it is _shortage of time_\nthat our ambitious scientist is up against in his haste to create a\nhomunculus. Only the synthetic alchemy of time can build up organisms,\neach bearing within itself a long heredity.\n\nThe estimates given for the minimum time required in each case are\nabout a thousandth of the actual time taken in a laboratory experiment\nor in the history of evolution as known from geological records. It may\nhave taken a million years or more for the first mobile cells to have\ndeveloped from inorganic materials and a thousand million years for the\nmammals. Yet perhaps these processes might have gone on more quickly.\nThe times given are mere suggestions of a minimum time which may be\nnecessary under ideal conditions. We waste a lot of time adjusting\nthe apparatus in a laboratory experiment, and in evolution there may\nhave been stationary periods with little or no new development. But it\nseems likely that when we know more about it we shall discover that a\ncertain time is required for the formation of organic systems of given\ncomplexity. In this sense we may say that then human spermatozoon and\novum carry within them the synthesis of at least a million years.\n\nOnly an International Institute of Evolutionary Research under the\nmost stable of Leagues of Nations could hope to create an artificial\nman, and even then man could hardly take the credit, for Time would\nhave done more than man. But with sufficient consistency of purpose\nman could do this, provided he learnt how to make use of every moment\nof the creative power of time, and never made a slip by which the\naccumulated treasure of the years (i.e. heredity) might be broken. How\nman would learn to value life, and how profoundly such an experiment\nmight alter his view of human beings, each one a priceless miracle,\nfruit of a million years!\n\nIn twenty years\u2019 time scientific knowledge will be adequate for the\nbeginning of this giant task, and we shall be subscribing our guineas\nfor the foundation of the Institute. Time has created man; man may use\ntime to create man once more. With a million years ahead of us before\nwe reach the sensitive mammals, we need hardly fear criticism from the\nSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We are simply going\nto allow life to evolve itself under ideal conditions with Switzerland\nas the State for Evolutionary Research.\n\nIt may happen that under such perfect conditions life will evolve more\nswiftly than it did on this rough-and-ready planet. But equally well\nwe--or rather our descendants--may find that the Darwinian struggle for\nsurvival is essential for evolution, and then the nations would have to\ndebate on the morals of reproducing the \u2018cruelty of nature\u2019 inside the\nWorld\u2019s Evolutionary Zoo. Perhaps a wrathful god will seek to punish\nmankind for attempting to build this ladder to the secret of life, this\nmodern Tower of Babel, and amuse himself by watching the community of\nscientists stricken by a plague of inconsistency amongst their weights\nand measures.\n\nThe possibilities of such grand schemes have to be taken seriously. We\nare now highly self-conscious beings with a tremendous technique for\nresearch. Men with genuine creative imagination who reverence life must\nshoulder the responsibilities of the twentieth-century consciousness,\nand use scientific technique for creative not life-destroying purposes.\nOne can imagine a growing fraction of the interest now given to\nwar, other people\u2019s adultery, and greyhound racing, turned towards\nSwitzerland, whence at critical moments wireless bulletins would\nannounce that the first amoeba had just successfully taken nourishment.\nIf we wish it, the future of science can be such as to recompense for\nits recent occupation with gunpowder. Governments would be powerless\nto make war if the physicists refused to make the guns and the Royal\nSociety called upon scientists to go on strike until each war crisis\nhad been settled by arbitration.\n\nThe problem of life may be seen in a new light if the speculations of\nthe last section are accepted and we assume that a definite period\nof time is necessary for the building up of any living organism. For\nif this is so the laws which govern life must involve the age of the\norganism since some definite moment in its history. We might choose for\nthis moment the instant when the parent spermatozoon entered the ovum\nin the case of a higher organism, or in the evolutionary experiment\njust described the age might be reckoned from the moment when the first\nelementary chemicals were combined into molecules. The point is that\nthis whole evolutionary process must be described by laws which take\ninto account the age of the system under consideration.\n\nLet us take a very simple, indeed the simplest possible, example.\nIf two hydrogen atoms having just the correct total energy for the\nformation of a hydrogen molecule have approached one another and\ncombined, the law describing what has happened must indicate that at\na definite moment the combination was complete and the process at an\nend. This is an example of an irreversible process, since the molecule\ndoes not _spontaneously_ break up again. Moreover, the mathematical\nformulation of this process must include the definite age of the system\nat which the process was complete, this age being measured from some\nselected initial moment.\n\nThis process provides an interesting limitation to a principle put\nforward by Maxwell as the basis of physical science. He suggested that\nthe laws of physics must be considered to be eternal and unchanging and\nthat therefore they must be expressed in a form which does not contain\nthe time explicitly. This means that for physical laws there can be no\ndifference between to-day and to-morrow. The laws are concerned with\nsmall changes which systems undergo in small time intervals, and need\nnot express any fundamental distinction between one moment and another.\n\nSuch laws cannot express the fact that anything sudden ever occurs\nwhich makes an essential change in the system as when two systems\nbecome one, or when one system breaks up into two. The laws of organic\ngrowth or the evolution of individual systems must display the fact\nthat at a certain age of the system special things happen, such as the\ncombination of two hydrogen atoms, or the attainment of maturity by an\norganism. Maxwell\u2019s principle puts a limitation on the form of physical\nlaws which precisely eliminates the laws that would be appropriate for\norganisms. But there is no reason why a broader physics should not try\nto frame this new type of law that would be applicable to the history\nand development of individual systems, and it is probable that if this\ncould be done the reversible laws of Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein\nwould appear as approximations which were valid when nothing of special\ninterest was happening, i.e. when only spatial movements were involved\nwithout synthesis, disintegration or the emission of light.\n\nLaws of the Newtonian type which Maxwell had in mind assume that\none can adequately describe the present state of a system without\nspecifying its past history. But we cannot say anything very precise\nabout the inside of a living organism, and it is found far more\nefficient to describe what is known of its past history. We do not try\nto say where atoms are in an organism; instead we mention its species,\nage, etc. Organisms might be defined as systems whose future behaviour\nis more easily estimated from their past history than from what can be\nknown about their immediate internal structure. The most convenient\nformulation of organic laws will therefore be expressed in terms of\nthe age of the organism and take account of how its life has been\nspent. These laws are necessarily irreversible, since the assimilation\nof oxygen or food is always going on in a manner which can never be\nreversed. Life is like a function which must always alter in one\ndirection; when this development ceases life has disappeared.\n\nThe contrast of living and dead now appears less important than the\nfollowing classification of natural processes:\n\n 1. Processes which are reversible and whose laws can be expressed\n independently of the age of the system, e.g. gravitational and\n mechanical motions which do not involve light or heat.\n\n 2. Processes which are irreversible, the laws being best expressed in\n terms of the total time which has passed since some initial state,\n e.g. chemical combination, growth, evolution, radioactivity, and all\n changes involving light or heat.\n\nPhysics has always asserted that processes of the first type were\nfundamental in nature, and astronomy provided the ideal example in\nplanetary motion. It was this assertion that gave rise to the essential\nissue behind the conflict of mechanism and vitalism. But if Born is\nright, and the fundamental atomic processes are irreversible, then\nthe situation is completely altered. There is no longer a question\nof life being an arbitrary irruption in a world of mechanical law,\nsince the laws of gravitation and mechanics must then be looked on as\nthe limiting case, when the irreversibility is vanishingly small, of\na whole series of irreversible processes which constitute the most\nimportant examples of the fundamental order in nature. This series\nwould include the atomic processes connected with heat, light, and\nelectricity, chemical combination, colloidal effects, organic growth\nand evolution, and the highly co-ordinated electrical processes which\nform the physiological basis of consciousness.\n\nIf this view is correct the atomic processes of radiation and chemical\ncombination should be just what the biologist needs to build up\norganisms. Instead of a chaos of little particles obeying inverse\nsquare laws, the modern physicist offers to the biologist a new kind of\natom with electrical and magnetic properties which cause it to build\nup stable compounds.\n\nThe biologist may reply: \u201cYes, but organisms have four chief\ncharacteristics, their behaviour is irreversible, and displays\ngrowth, memory, and purposiveness. If you tell me that your atoms\nobey irreversible laws, so much the better, because my organisms\ncertainly do. But your crystals grow very differently from my cells and\norganisms, and you can\u2019t explain away the apparent purposiveness of all\nlife.\u201d\n\nTo which the physicist may answer: \u201cSuppose that two hydrogen atoms are\nsome distance apart with the total energy necessary to make a molecule.\nIf they begin to move towards one another under some attractive\ninfluence which they exert we display no surprise. But they are moving\ntowards a final end, which is an end, even though they are of course\nunconscious of it; and provided that nothing interferes they will reach\none another, form a molecule, and the process will be consummated.\nThe atoms move under an irresistible law of attraction towards a final\ncondition which is unavoidable unless outside influences prevent\nit. The system of the two atoms develops necessarily towards a\nconsummation, and the process has in this sense a teleological quality,\nthough this need not mean that any god or man had consciously planned\nthe end for these particular hydrogen atoms.\n\n\u201cThis quality was not present in Newton\u2019s law of gravitation precisely\nbecause it failed to say what happens at the end of any process, for\ninstance when a meteorite hits the earth. Newtonian laws avoid the\nresponsibility of dealing with all the exciting events, like the\nwedding of the atoms or the death of the meteorite. On the other hand\nit appears probable that all irreversible laws can be interpreted as\nleading either from or to some critical end condition. Thus all heat\nprocesses tend towards an approximate uniformity of temperature, and\nchemical reactions also move towards a final condition.\n\n\u201cSuch systems as these display the rudiments of unconscious purpose.\nOne must imagine these systems made much more complex so that it takes\na long time and considerable nourishment before their unconscious\npurpose is fulfilled, whether this be the instinctive reproduction of\ntheir kind or any other biological function.\u201d\n\n\u201cMaybe. I like the unconscious purpose which you have revealed in\nirreversible physics, because I am troubled by colleagues who see\nconscious mind everywhere.\n\n\u201cBut if I grant that your view of the atom, and hence of molecules\nand colloids, allows me two of the four features I find in life, i.e.\nirreversibility and unconscious purpose, you have still to deal with\ngrowth and organic memory.\u201d\n\n\u201cYes. Growth and memory are things that physics has as yet little\nto say about. But we have at any rate reduced the problem of life\nto smaller proportions. It is no longer the question what is\nlife? but, how do colloidal processes build themselves up into\ncontinuously-active, developing systems which can react to their\nsurroundings so that some distant condition can ultimately be attained?\nThis is a much less difficult question. Moreover, since the problem of\nradiation underlies all the chemical processes which are associated\nwith the maintenance of life, we may expect considerable assistance\nwhen physics has cleared up this crucial problem.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n_Physics and Mind_\n\n\nIf a psychologist who was not a behaviourist had been listening to this\nconversation he might break in:\n\n\u201cDoes the physicist seriously propose that we should try to leave mind\nout of our picture of the human organism? Even if we can eventually\nexplain the unconscious purposes of the lower organisms as ends towards\nwhich they are driven by physical laws, yet man has the supreme\ndistinction of a conscious mind, he can select his aim, and if he likes\nrenounce it again for something else. You must therefore allow in your\npicture for the emergence of mind at some point during the course of\nevolution.\u201d\n\n\u201cWait a moment,\u201d replies the physicist. \u201cYour whole outlook towards\nconsciousness betrays not only an anthropomorphic standpoint, but one\nlimited to a single stage in man\u2019s development. There is no single\ncondition adequately described by the word \u2018conscious\u2019. There are in\nfact a great many different states of awareness which may grade into\none another, or may form a series of distinct conditions. We do not\nknow much about them yet, but their variety is most striking. There\nis the dim sentience as we awake from chloroform, the awareness of\nthe dreaming state, the passive experiencing that accompanies any\nintensely rhythmic activity such as running. Again, quite different\nstates are known in day-dreaming, intellectual concentration and the\ndelicately-balanced semi-consciousness of creative thought.\n\n\u201cConsider especially the states of awareness associated with love, or\nwith the supreme creative activities of the mind. Free-will, or the\ndeliberate choice of a purpose, is completely lost in a whole-natured\nfalling in love, as it is also in the artist\u2019s need to follow some\ndimly-conscious intuition of a task he must attempt. At these important\noccasions free-will disappears before a sense of inner organic\nnecessity.\n\n\u201cThese examples seem to me to make it clear that \u2018conscious purpose\u2019 is\nnot in any sense the ultimate or highest criterion of human behaviour,\nand that free-will need not be taken necessarily to mean the power\nto over-ride any laws of nature. In my view \u2018free-will\u2019 is simply\nthe apparent characteristic of organic behaviour when no complete\nintegration of the personality has been achieved and the mind seems\nto be able to oscillate from one purpose to another. We really have\nto deal in human beings with a whole series of forms of behaviour\nof increasing complexity and integration: reflex and instinctive\nactions, deliberate activity, and finally the intuitive whole-natured\ncreative functioning which leads to ends which could not have been\nintellectually foreseen. To each of these must correspond a certain\ntype of awareness, and in my view, a brain process of a definite degree\nof complexity. By analogy with our own experience of different modes\nof consciousness, we may be able to infer from the structure of the\ncentral nervous system of an organism what sort of awareness it can\nexperience.\n\n\u201cEventually we must expect to be able to give a complete scheme of all\norganic behaviour in terms of the organic processes and their laws, but\nnone the less it will remain a great deal more convenient in some cases\nto refer to what happens to human beings by using words that suggest\ntheir conscious experience. The behaviourist denies the scientific\nsignificance of all but the very barest elements of conscious\nexperience, but of course he has to start from the human perception\nof light and colour. Science cannot get on without ideas which obtain\ntheir whole meaning from the qualities of conscious experience, and\nhence the extreme behaviourist position merely arises from a prejudice\nwhich prevents clear thinking. But as a campaign to put more stress on\nthe direct observation of what really happens to living beings in terms\nof physical movements, behaviourism can only do good by bringing more\nunbiassed knowledge about life.\n\n\u201cMy own interpretation of the question may be put in this way. The\nthing that is given in nature is a process in time. According to\nits complexity and degree of co-ordination an organic process has\ndifferent degrees of awareness. There is no one condition called human\nconsciousness, because the human organism can function with different\ndegrees of co-ordination, and if we ask if an atom in absorbing light\nis conscious, the question has no definite meaning. But in a few years\nthose who are studying the physiology of the central nervous system\nwill be able to indicate how many steps of synthesis and integration\noccur between the simplest cell and the creative thinker, and to each\nof these stages will be ascribed a mode of awareness. But below a\ncertain degree of organic complexity this \u2018awareness\u2019, will cease to\nbe anything that can be consciously imagined by man, e.g. below the\ndimmest sentience one might allow an undifferentiated knowledge of mere\ncontinuance, based in turn on the rhythmic pulsation of the elementary\ncells.\u201d\n\n\u201cYour scheme is of course still rather vague, but in its main outlines\nit appears satisfactory\u201d, replies the psychologist. \u201cBut tell me\noutright, can mind influence matter? If I understand you rightly, you\nsuggest that matter certainly influences mind.\u201d\n\n\u201cOn the contrary, I do not! You are back at the meaningless questions\non which philosophers have wasted much time. To ask if mind can\ninfluence matter does not mean anything until you know what you mean\nby mind and matter, and to a scientist that means knowing the laws\nthey obey. Now, on the one hand, relativity and modern quantum theory\nindicate that there is no matter in the old sense of particles made of\nsome unchanging stuff, and physical science recognizes atomic and other\n_processes_ as fundamental in the place of \u2018matter\u2019. On the other hand,\nyou really mean by \u2018mind\u2019 one particular form of conscious activity:\nthe deliberate selection of a purpose. Therefore to give your question\nreal meaning I have to ask instead \u2018Does the conscious selection of a\npurpose alter the physical processes going on in the human organism?\u2019\n\n\u201cBut that is an absurd question. It is like asking: Does a dint in the\noutside of a hat _cause_ an alteration in the shape of the inside of\nthe hat? To which the only reply is that the dint on the outside is\nmerely another way of describing the dint on the inside. There is no\n_causing_ of the one by the other any more than if you fold a bit of\npaper you can say that the crease on one side causes the crease on the\nother side. They are identical and the double method of description\nused in the question creates a meaningless problem.\n\n\u201c\u2018Conscious selection of a purpose\u2019 is one way of describing a\nparticular process, and after this process has occurred the brain\nwill be different from before. The old theories of the correlation or\ninteraction of mind and matter presupposed that they were separate\nthings in themselves. The important questions become quite different\nwhen one realizes that mind and matter do not exist independently,\nbut that they are both somewhat inadequate ways of describing certain\n_aspects_ of one organic process. The spatial aspect of organic\nprocess is called the physical organism. The temporal aspect of organic\nprocess corresponds to the content of its consciousness. The physical\nbody is a group of spatial characteristics. Consciousness is a system\nof temporal elements; memory, anticipation, deliberate repetition,\ncreative longing, hope and fear are all things set in time.\n\n\u201cProfessor Alexander has said \u2018Time is the mind of Space.\u2019 He attempts\nto explain space and time by an anthropomorphic analogy. It is a very\nsuggestive idea, though for the searcher whose goal is the nature of\nconsciousness itself it is more valuable to put it the other way round:\nmind is the temporal aspect of process, body the spatial aspect. But\nit is very important indeed to notice that we have not yet found the\nadequate terms for describing these two aspects of process. Matter is\nunsatisfactory for the spatial aspect, because there are no unchanging\nparticles. But nor is mind sufficient for the temporal aspect, because\nthere is a temporal aspect to the combination of hydrogen atoms and to\nchemical and colloidal processes, and yet we must not speak of these\nas having mind. When the new words for these two aspects are invented\nthey will form the foundation of the scientific synthesis which I am\nexpecting.\u201d\n\nTo which the psychologist may answer: \u201cWell, at heart I have always\nbeen a thorough-going determinist like you, at least in dealing with\nmy patients. Moreover I find it works, because I have always included\nin my picture of the patient a life-impulse of some sort, which can be\ninfluenced by my personality. Thus if the behaviour of my patient is\nabsolutely determined, the conditions which determine what happens to\nhim include some inner life tendency, and also the effects produced on\nhim by all the people he meets.\n\n\u201cBut if one attempts to formulate such an absolute determinism, or\nto apply it to oneself, one gets into deep waters, and I haven\u2019t the\ncourage to try it. It seems you must be right at bottom, but that only\na god could believe it without its upsetting his mental balance or his\nsense of moral responsibility.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere I agree,\u201d replies the physicist, \u201cas long as one does not\nsimultaneously revise one\u2019s whole view of life in terms of this new\norganic knowledge. That is a very big task, but I should like one\nday to attempt it. Two things especially would attract me to such a\nrevision of human values. One is that people who ought to know better\nstill go about making moral judgments about their acquaintances. Now\nthat we know how profound is the influence on a child of the treatment\nit receives during its first five years of life, moral judgments become\nrather old-fashioned and only show that the person making them has\nhimself not yet learnt to find emotional fulfilment in healthier ways.\nAn analysis of human behaviour along the lines of organic determinism\nmight do something to show that moral condemnations, whether of\nbolshevism or of the sins of one\u2019s children, are never effective unless\nimmediately accompanied by positive example or creative suggestion.\n\n\u201cBut there is another more attractive reason why I should like to\nattempt this transvaluation of values. If organic determinism is valid,\nthen the artist\u2019s aspiration to create is a natural consequence of\nsome organic law. Creative aspiration may then be looked on as the\nnatural destiny of certain human beings, though they no more know\nwhere they are going than did the two hydrogen atoms. But organic\ndeterminism allows us to understand why it is of no importance that the\nartist doesn\u2019t know what he is going to create before he does it. It\nseems that in some matters our organic body is wiser than ourselves,\nor rather wiser than our very immature consciousness. When we have\ndeveloped our consciousness by the discovery of the organic laws of our\nown natures we may be able to make human life more beautiful.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n_The Future of the Sciences_\n\n\nThe preceding pages have very broadly indicated the way in which\ncurrent physical researches may influence the scientific outlook on\nthe problems of matter, life, and mind. The view has been put forward\nthat we are on the eve of a profound scientific synthesis of which the\nmain outlines are already determined. These general suggestions will\nnow be made more precise in order to offer to anyone who is interested\nthe opportunity of testing for himself some definite prophecies\nregarding the future of scientific thought. The forecast made here does\nnot involve any supernatural reading of the future, but is based on\ntendencies already inherent in the different departments of science.\nFor convenience it is expressed in the form of separate assertions\nconcerning the future of physics, biology, and psychology.\n\n1. Before 1940 a very remarkable simplification will be made in atomic\ntheory, which will indicate that in quantum processes physics has\n\u2018touched bottom\u2019 and that--for the time being--we may consider that\nnature is not infinitely complex within the heart of the atom. The\nproof of this apparent if not absolute limit to the micro-structure\nof nature will take the form of the discovery of simple relationships\nbetween the fundamental constants of atomic structure, e, m, M, c, and\nh. (The electronic charge and mass, the mass of the hydrogen nucleus,\nthe velocity of light, and Planck\u2019s constant.) Such relations are\nalready known but are considered to be of no significance since they\nare ruled out by the accepted theory of electrical dimensions.\n\nYet this dimensional system is not based on direct observation,\nand the importance of these relationships will soon be recognized\nin consequence of experiments aimed at a direct determination of\nan \u2018electron velocity\u2019, in a curved track. \u2018Electron velocity\u2019 as\ncalculated from deflection experiments will be found not to be the same\nas the directly measurable cms. per sec., and in the case of straight\nelectron tracks, the measured velocity may be found to be always that\nof light, though this does not mean much since the velocity of light in\none direction has never been measured.\n\nAs the result of the study of individual radiation tracks, for instance\nin the reflection of electrons by crystals, and particularly of\nany _time_ measurements that can be made, a new system of physical\nconceptions will be built up appropriate to irreversible processes,\nwhich will be substituted for the Newtonian reversible system. The\nnew scheme will probably be based on the conception of the atom,\nwith its radiating electron tracks, as a natural clock which not\nonly can be used to measure out equal time intervals, but also to\nyield an objective criterion of past and future. In order to make\nthis idea, or at least one part of it, capable of empirical test the\nfollowing hypothesis is put forward: The time-interval between any two\npoint-events on any electron track is a simple function of the length\nand curvature of the part of the track between the two points. This\nhypothesis contradicts the current interpretation of electron theory on\na point which has never yet been subjected to experimental test.\n\nThe conceptions which will be built up on electron velocity experiments\nwill very quickly bring within one simple theory the facts of chemical\ncombination and colloidal processes. For these depend upon irreversible\neffects connected with radiation and electrons, and will therefore be\namenable to treatment by the new conceptions for the very reason which\nnecessarily puts them beyond the scope of Newtonian laws.\n\n2. As the result of the alteration in physical conceptions biology\nwill soon cease to draw a definite line between inanimate and\nliving systems. The normal characters of life will be recognized\nas appearing in steps as one passes up the series atom, molecule,\ncolloid, protoplasm, cell, and through further stages to mammal and\nman. In each class of organism a central controlling process will be\ndiscovered and its laws formulated with some precision, in terms of\nirreversible electrochemical processes. The process which in each\norganism represents the co-ordinating factor and is the life of the\norganism considered as a unit may for instance be described in terms\nof a quantity which we shall call \u2018f\u2019. \u2018f\u2019 would be such that so long\nas \u2018f\u2019 keeps on increasing the organism is alive, while if \u2018f\u2019 stands\nstill the organism dies. The rate of increase of \u2018f\u2019 indicates the\ntempo or intensity of the organism\u2019s life. In a simple case \u2018f\u2019 might\nbe directly related to the intake of oxygen or food, and just as\nrespiration and assimilation are irreversible, so is the change in \u2018f\u2019.\n\u2018f\u2019 must go on increasing, or else cease to represent any quantity\nin nature; as soon as it ceases to increase the process to which it\ncorresponds cannot be identified any longer.\n\nThe most important factors which influence the life-function \u2018f\u2019 (i.e.\nwhich affect the central controlling process in any organism) will be\nknown before about 1950, with the result that local rebellions such as\ncancer will not only be controllable, but easily prevented. Harmless\nmethods for increasing the rate of change of \u2018f\u2019, i.e. for increasing\nthe _\u00e9lan vital_ of the organism, will be discovered, so that, for\ninstance, the duration of child-birth will be reduced to a natural\nminimum. If child-birth sometimes takes very long nowadays, this is\npresumably because the woman\u2019s body is tired, exhausted, or partially\npoisoned by her mode of living, and by raising her vitality at the\ncritical moment we may expect to be able to let the process go on at\nits natural speed. There must be some minimum time necessary for the\nact, since a vast number of complex organic processes have to complete\nthemselves in a certain order, but probably this time is considerably\nshorter than that during which many women in this country have to\nsuffer.\n\nIt is already known that the Mendelian _genes_ which determine heredity\nare related to the rates of development of special processes in the\norganism, and a control over the life-tempo, or rate of increase of\n\u2018f\u2019 in any organism or group of cells within an organism, will provide\na new method of tackling the practical problem of heredity. It is\npossible that hereditary tendencies to specific weakness or disease\nwill be overcome by accelerating or retarding the rate of development\nof the human system at some special moment between conception and\nmaturity.\n\nRejuvenation will soon be safe and efficient, but not as a means for\nattempting immortality. It will be socially recognized as healthy and\nlegitimate only when undertaken to compensate for premature ageing due\nto specific repressions, illness, or anxiety.\n\nThe elimination of known diseases by a genuine science of life does not\nmean that other diseases will spring up perhaps worse than before. A\ntheoretical science of life will know the meaning of all disease, and\nwill not prevent one in such a way as to give rise to another. Instead\nof making campaigns against influenza or any other one disease, it will\ndetermine the conditions in which no disease can survive, and thus\ngradually eliminate all the organic diseases which attack the body.\n\nBut this does not mean the attainment of a hygienic Utopia in which\nhuman life necessarily fulfils itself. A balance will be made to\nthe disappearance of cancer and syphilis, not by the arising of\nother diseases but as a result of the consequent increase in the\nsensitiveness of the human brain.\n\nThe supremely difficult task of the next hundred years will be to keep\nthe mind of the race healthy and stable through a period of critical\nsensitiveness. We are in a transition stage of violent instability, of\nintense cruelty coupled with compassion (America), of blended love of\nliberty and need of discipline, of emotional religions and of wars--but\nwe must hope that it will lead to some mode of life with greater\ninherent stability.\n\n3. Psychology is now occupied with the discovery that the human\nresponse to perceptions is not additive, i.e. that the effect made by a\ngroup of sounds or colours depends on the pattern in space and time in\nwhich they are arranged. (_Gestalt-theorie._) For instance, the effect\nmade on a man by the individual notes of \u2018God save the King\u2019 when\nplayed in the wrong order is negligible, and bears no relation to his\nresponse when he hears the tune played in a cinema, and it reminds him\nof \u2018patriotism\u2019 and the War. So far no scientific method has been found\nof describing when a group of elements is to be treated as a \u2018whole\u2019\nfor the purposes of psychology, and this is where the greatest advances\nmay be expected.\n\nMost scientific conceptions have been based on the method of spatial\nanalysis, i.e. the reduction, where possible, of a thing to its\nsmallest spatial elements. Physics, biology, and psychology have all\nlacked the equipment to describe what makes the atom, organism, or the\npattern function as a unit, and how we are to know if some group is\na unit or not. The analytical method is fully developed, but we lack\neven the basis for a synthetic treatment. This leads some hard-headed\nscientists of the materialistic school who will \u2018stand no nonsense\u2019\nto assert that there is no such thing as \u2018synthesis\u2019, that this is a\nmystical idea left over from primitive anthropomorphism. Yet to any\nmind that is guided not by prejudice but by a simple search for truth,\nthe fact of synthesis is obvious, though not yet properly formulated.\n\nHere modern physics can supply a clue. Analysis is the method required\nin a search for instantaneous spatial structure; the synthetic method\nwhich we need must deal with the temporal history and behaviour of\nsystems. The fact that the human being reacts in the ways he does to a\ntune as a whole is evidence of something in his history, that he has\nheard the tune often under certain emotional surroundings. The unity\nof any synthesis, whole, or organism is not an instantaneous fact\nexplicable in terms of structure, for we can recognize this unity only\nfrom a continued observation over a period of time.\n\nPhysics can invent one law to describe the approach of the two\nhydrogen atoms to form a molecule, and in doing so treats the two\ntogether as a unit. This suggests that the fact of organic unity is to\nbe defined and formulated in terms of an irreversible law which governs\nthe system as a whole. Thus a group of atoms, cells, or any other\nelements is to be called a unit when, and only when, one irreversible\nlaw can be found which expresses the behaviour of the different\nelements as contributing towards some common end, like the formation of\nthe molecule in the case of the hydrogen atoms.\n\nWe can now draw a practical conclusion for the future of psychology,\nwhich is in great need of a moral principle to guide its treatment of\ndisintegrated human personality. On the analogy of the two atoms, a\nhuman being is to be considered as a unity when his whole behaviour\ndisplays continuous co-ordination towards some end. But there is an\nimportant difference in the two cases: the atoms move towards an end\nwhich we know because it has already happened in history, whereas\nman\u2019s development is creative, that is it proceeds towards an end we\ncannot know exactly before it comes into being. Thus the parent or\npsychologist need not trouble if he cannot understand what his child or\nsubject is aiming towards: so long as some consistency and harmony of\nfunctioning is apparent, the \u2018end\u2019 can be left to nature to look after,\nbecause such harmony _means_ that the organism is tending towards some\nultimate condition.\n\nThe psychologists of the future will therefore have to follow some\nprinciple such as this: their only legitimate aim is the maintenance\nand restoration of harmonious co-ordination of all the human functions,\nand no concern need be paid to ultimate intellectual or spiritual\nideals. Of course if the person considered is apparently tending\ntowards some degenerate condition, that is known to the onlooker\nbecause it is _not_ new but a repetition of what many human beings\nhave done before, then this tendency can be altered. At least, it can\nbe altered if the onlooker can use his intuition to discover signs\nof repressed conflict which show that the immediate tendency is not\nwhole-natured, but based on the repression of some more profound\naspiration or desire. Then by bringing this repressed aspiration back\ninto consciousness the degenerate tendency may be arrested. But this\ncontrol over the lives of others can only be effectively exercised\nby the intuitive discovery that their present tendencies are not\nwhole-natured.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nProphecy can never be scientific, and forecasting in the realm of\nscience is perhaps the most dangerous form of intellectual acrobatics.\nScience must be thorough, and all vague speculation is its enemy.\nBut there are moments when a profound revision is necessary, and\namidst the responsibilities and rich appeal of daily life no one will\nundertake this task who does not believe that it offers an adequate\nreward to science and to man. To-day prophecy can call attention to\nunjustified limitations inherent in current scientific thought, and\nencourage the students of matter and of life to get together and try to\ndiscover the single system of natural law which we must believe covers\nboth realms. It may even help them to find crucial experiments by which\nto guide their search.\n\nThe reward is certainly great. The indifference to the destruction of\nlife which has marked recent years is no cause either for surprise or\nfor despair after an epoch of orthodox and insincere religion coupled\nwith an abstract science of matter. One thing only can guide humanity\nto a saner and richer life: the recognition and valuation of life.\nThis can be assisted by science and art both revealing life in all its\nsignificant forms. But the roots of art have been destroyed by the\ndomination of a science which had not recognized the significance of\nlife within the realm of natural law. For great art can only arise from\na profound reverence for life, whereas to the scientific mood of this\nperiod life appeared as an arbitrary impulse in continual conflict with\nthe laws of matter.\n\nPhysics is now studying light. The radiant influence of light nourishes\nlife and within human body forms the fabric of consciousness. We are\nalive and conscious, but our consciousness is immature for we do not\nyet know the laws that govern our own lives and thoughts. Yet it is\ncertain that light, life, and consciousness are bound together by some\nundiscovered law. This secret of nature\u2019s alchemy is still hidden from\nus within our own bodies. By revealing it physics will create a new\nhope for man.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] Whitehead, _Science and the Modern World_. Eddington comes near\nto the same idea in an essay in _Science, Religion, and Reality_,\n1925. See also Weyl, _Was ist Materie?_ 1924, p. 84. It has also been\nexpressed by others quite independently, though I do not know of other\npublished references.\n\n[2] E.g. the irreversible motion of an electron in the field of a bar\nmagnet is rendered formally reversible by the assumption that the\nmagnetic field is due to moving electrons. Yet this assumption is\nhighly artificial since it postulates electronic movements that have\nnever been observed. In other cases irreversibility is eliminated by\nthe choice of special co-ordinate systems. Some physicists now hold the\nview that irreversibility may be inherent in atomic as it is in organic\nprocesses.\n\n[3] _Internal Constitution of the Stars_, 1926, p. 56. Compare note on\np. 44.\n\nIt may be convenient here to summarize the processes that give at any\nrate superficial evidence of their irreversibility: processes involving\nheat changes, or the radiation of light, or mass; the production of\nenergy in a star, the motions of electrons in magnetic fields, certain\ntypes of atom-ion collision in mixed gases, processes dependent on\nretarded potentials, radioactivity, organic growth and evolution,\nand consciousness itself. Eddington deals only with the case of the\nemission and absorption of light, but suggests that the direction\nof time can only be deduced from statistical processes. This is the\northodox view, though it is very doubtful if it is valid now that the\nquantum processes are receiving formulation. In this connection, see\nnote 4.\n\n[4] Einstein. Berlin Akad., _Sitzungsberichte_, 1925, p. 418. But\nEinstein\u2019s view must be revised in view of recent experimental results\n(e.g. Harnwell, _Phys. Rev._, vol. 29, 1927, pp. 683 and 831), if these\nhave been correctly interpreted. See Born, _Zeitschr f\u00fcr Physik_, vol.\n40, pp. 177-8; and Jordan, _Naturw._ 1927, p. 792.\n\n[5] The idea that time may be an active factor in causation has the\nmathematical significance that \u2018t\u2019 (for the system in question) must\nappear explicitly in the formulation of the law, and not merely as the\nsquare of a time-differential found convenient for the correlation of\na standard clock with a reversible process which is being observed.\nA law whose mathematical formulation involves \u2018t\u2019 measured from some\nmoment in the history of the system, gives an entirely new meaning\nto \u2018t\u2019, though one consistent with the properties of the reversible\nNewtonian differential \u2018dt\u2019. Such a law may claim to express the fact\nof historic, irreversible, duration, a feature in nature which is\nneglected by laws involving only \u2018dt\u2019 squared.\n\n[6] Einstein, _Annalen der Physik_, vol. 49, pp. 776-7, 1916.\n\n\n\n\n\n_SIXTY VOLUMES ARE NOW PUBLISHED_\n\nTO-DAY AND TO-MORROW\n\n_Each, pott 8vo, boards, 2/6 net_\n\n\nThis series of books, by some of the most distinguished English\nthinkers, scientists, philosophers, doctors, critics, and artists, was\nat once recognized as a noteworthy event. Written from various points\nof view, one book frequently opposing the argument of another, they\nprovide the reader with a stimulating survey of the most modern thought\nin many departments of life. Several volumes are devoted to the future\ntrend of Civilization, conceived as a whole; while others deal with\nparticular provinces. It is interesting to see in these neat little\nvolumes, issued at a low price, the revival of a form of literature,\nthe Pamphlet, which has been in disuse for many years.\n\n\n  _Published by_\n  KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.\n  Broadway House: 68-74 Carter Lane, London, E.C.4\n\n\n_FROM THE REVIEWS_\n\n _Times Literary Supplement_: \u201cAn entertaining series of vivacious and\n    stimulating studies of modern tendencies.\u201d\n\n _Spectator_: \u201cScintillating monographs ... that very lively and\n    courageous series.\u201d\n\n _Observer_: \u201cThere seems no reason why the brilliant To-day and\n    To-morrow Series should come to an end for a century of to-morrows.\n    At first it seemed impossible for the publishers to keep up the\n    sport through a dozen volumes, but the series already runs to more\n    than two score. A remarkable series....\u201d\n\n _Daily Telegraph_: \u201cThis admirable series of essays, provocative and\n    brilliant.\u201d\n\n _Nation_: \u201cWe are able to peer into the future by means of that\n    brilliant series [which] will constitute a precious document upon\n    the present time.\u201d--_T. S. Eliot._\n\n _Manchester Dispatch_: \u201cThe more one reads of these pamphlets, the\n    more avid becomes the appetite. We hope the list is endless.\u201d\n\n _Irish Statesman_: \u201cFull of lively controversy.\u201d\n\n _Daily Herald_: \u201cThis series has given us many monographs of\n    brilliance and discernment.... The stylistic excellencies of this\n    provocative series.\u201d\n\n _Field_: \u201cWe have long desired to express the deep admiration felt by\n    every thinking scholar and worker at the present day for this\n    series. We must pay tribute to the high standard of thought and\n    expression they maintain. As small gift-books, austerely yet\n    prettily produced, they remain unequalled of their kind. We can give\n    but the briefest suggestions of their value to the student, the\n    politician, and the voter....\u201d\n\n _New York World_: \u201cHolds the palm in the speculative and\n    interpretative thought of the age.\u201d\n\n\nVOLUMES READY\n\n =Daedalus=, or Science and the Future. By J. B. S. HALDANE, Reader in\n    Biochemistry, University of Cambridge. _Seventh impression._\n\n    \u201cA fascinating and daring little book.\u201d--_Westminster Gazette._\n    \u201cThe essay is brilliant, sparkling with wit and bristling with\n    challenges.\u201d--_British Medical Journal._\n\n    \u201cPredicts the most startling changes.\u201d--_Morning Post._\n\n =Callinicus=, a Defence of Chemical Warfare. By J. B. S. HALDANE.\n    _Second impression._\n\n    \u201cMr Haldane\u2019s brilliant study.\u201d--_Times Leading Article._ \u201cA book\n    to be read by every intelligent adult.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cThis\n    brilliant little monograph.\u201d--_Daily News._\n\n =Icarus=, or the Future of Science. By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S.\n    _Fourth impression._\n\n    \u201cUtter pessimism.\u201d--_Observer._ \u201cMr Russell refuses to believe that\n    the progress of Science must be a boon to mankind.\u201d--_Morning Post._\n    \u201cA stimulating book, that leaves one not at all\n    discouraged.\u201d--_Daily Herald._\n\n =What I Believe.= By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S. _Third impression._\n\n    \u201cOne of the most brilliant and thought-stimulating little books I\n    have read--a better book even than _Icarus_.\u201d--_Nation._ \u201cSimply and\n    brilliantly written.\u201d--_Nature._ \u201cIn stabbing sentences he punctures\n    the bubble of cruelty, envy, narrowness, and ill-will which those in\n    authority call their morals.\u201d--_New Leader._\n\n =Tantalus=, or the Future of Man. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, D.SC., Fellow\n    of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. _Second impression._\n\n    \u201cThey are all (_Daedalus_, _Icarus_, and _Tantalus_) brilliantly\n    clever, and they supplement or correct one another.\u201d--_Dean Inge_,\n    in _Morning Post_. \u201cImmensely valuable and infinitely\n    readable.\u201d--_Daily News._ \u201cThe book of the week.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Cassandra=, or the Future of the British Empire. By F. C. S.\n    SCHILLER, D.SC.\n\n    \u201cWe commend it to the complacent of all parties.\u201d--_Saturday\n    Review._ \u201cThe book is small, but very, very weighty; brilliantly\n    written, it ought to be read by all shades of politicians and\n    students of politics.\u201d--_Yorkshire Post._ \u201cYet another addition to\n    that bright constellation of pamphlets.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Quo Vadimus?= Glimpses of the Future. By E. E. FOURNIER D\u2019ALBE, D.SC.\n    _Second Impression._\n\n    \u201cA wonderful vision of the future. A book that will be talked\n    about.\u201d--_Daily Graphic._ \u201cA remarkable contribution to a\n    remarkable series.\u201d--_Manchester Dispatch._ \u201cInteresting and\n    singularly plausible.\u201d--_Daily Telegraph._\n\n =Thrasymachus=, the Future of Morals. By C. E. M. JOAD, author of \u201cThe\n    Babbitt Warren,\u201d etc. _Second impression._\n\n    \u201cHis provocative book.\u201d--_Graphic._ \u201cWritten in a style of\n    deliberate brilliance.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._ \u201cAs outspoken\n    and unequivocal a contribution as could well be imagined. Even those\n    readers who dissent will be forced to recognize the admirable\n    clarity with which he states his case. A book that will\n    startle.\u201d--_Daily Chronicle._\n\n =Lysistrata=, or Woman\u2019s Future and Future Woman. By ANTHONY M.\n    LUDOVICI, author of \u201cA Defence of Aristocracy,\u201d etc. _Second\n    Impression._\n\n    \u201cA stimulating book. Volumes would be needed to deal, in the\n    fullness his work provokes, with all the problems raised.\u201d--_Sunday\n    Times._ \u201cPro-feminine but anti-feministic.\u201d--_Scotsman._ \u201cFull of\n    brilliant common-sense.\u201d--_Observer._\n\n =Hypatia=, or Woman and Knowledge. By MRS BERTRAND RUSSEL. With a\n    frontispiece. _Third impression._\n\n    An answer to _Lysistrata_. \u201cA passionate vindication of the rights\n    of woman.\u201d--_Manchester Guardian._ \u201cSays a number of things that\n    sensible women have been wanting publicly said for a long\n    time.\u201d--_Daily Herald._\n\n =Hephaestus=, the Soul of the Machine. By E. E. FOURNIER D\u2019ALBE, D.SC.\n\n    \u201cA worthy contribution to this interesting series. A delightful\n    and thought-provoking essay.\u201d--_Birmingham Post._ \u201cThere is a\n    special pleasure in meeting with a book like _Hephaestus_. The\n    author has the merit of really understanding what he is talking\n    about.\u201d--_Engineering._ \u201cAn exceedingly clever defence of\n    machinery.\u201d--_Architects\u2019 Journal._\n\n =The Passing of the Phantoms=: a Study of Evolutionary Psychology and\n    Morals. By C. J. PATTEN, Professor of Anatomy, Sheffield University.\n    With 4 Plates.\n\n    \u201cReaders of _Daedalus_, _Icarus_ and _Tantalus_, will be grateful\n    for an excellent presentation of yet another point of\n    view.\u201d--_Yorkshire Post._ \u201cThis bright and bracing little\n    book.\u201d--_Literary Guide._ \u201cInteresting and original.\u201d--_Medical\n    Times._\n\n =The Mongol in our Midst=: a Study of Man and his Three Faces. By\n    F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D., F.R.C.P. With 28 Plates. _Second Edition,\n    revised._\n\n    \u201cA brilliant piece of speculative induction.\u201d--_Saturday Review._\n    \u201cAn extremely interesting and suggestive book, which will reward\n    careful reading.\u201d--_Sunday Times._ \u201cThe pictures carry fearful\n    conviction.\u201d--_Daily Herald._\n\n =The Conquest of Cancer.= By H. W. S. WRIGHT, M.S., F.R.C.S.\n    Introduction by F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D.\n\n    \u201cEminently suitable for general reading. The problem is fairly and\n    lucidly presented. One merit of Mr Wright\u2019s plan is that he tells\n    people what, in his judgment, they can best do, _here and\n    now_.\u201d--From the _Introduction_.\n\n =Pygmalion=, or the Doctor of the Future. By R. MCNAIR WILSON, M.B.\n\n    \u201cDr Wilson has added a brilliant essay to this series.\u201d--_Times\n    Literary Supplement._ \u201cThis is a very little book, but there is much\n    wisdom in it.\u201d--_Evening Standard._ \u201cNo doctor worth his salt would\n    venture to say that Dr Wilson was wrong.\u201d--_Daily Herald._\n\n =Prometheus=, or Biology and the Advancement of Man. By H. S.\n    JENNINGS, Professor of Zoology, Johns Hopkins University. _Second\n    Impression._\n\n    \u201cThis volume is one of the most remarkable that has yet appeared in\n    this series. Certainly the information it contains will be new to\n    most educated laymen. It is essentially a discussion of ... heredity\n    and environment, and it clearly establishes the fact that the\n    current use of these terms has no scientific justification.\u201d--_Times\n    Literary Supplement._ \u201cAn exceedingly brilliant book.\u201d--_New\n    Leader._\n\n =Narcissus=: an Anatomy of Clothes. By GERALD HEARD. With 19\n    illustrations.\n\n    \u201cA most suggestive book.\u201d--_Nation._ \u201cIrresistible. Reading it\n    is like a switchback journey. Starting from prehistoric times we\n    rocket down the ages.\u201d--_Daily News._ \u201cInteresting, provocative, and\n    entertaining.\u201d--_Queen._\n\n =Thamyris=, or Is There a Future for Poetry? By R. C. TREVELYAN.\n\n    \u201cLearned, sensible, and very well-written.\u201d--_Affable Hawk_, in _New\n    Statesman_. \u201cVery suggestive.\u201d--_J. C. Squire_, in _Observer_. \u201cA\n    very charming piece of work, I agree with all, or at any rate,\n    almost all its conclusions.\u201d--_J. St Loe Strachey_, in _Spectator_.\n\n =Proteus=, or the Future of Intelligence. By VERNON LEE, author of\n    \u201cSatan the Waster,\u201d etc.\n\n    \u201cWe should like to follow the author\u2019s suggestions as to the\n    effect of intelligence on the future of Ethics, Aesthetics,\n    and Manners. Her book is profoundly stimulating and should be\n    read by everyone.\u201d--_Outlook._ \u201cA concise, suggestive piece of\n    work.\u201d--_Saturday Review._\n\n =Timotheus=, the Future of the Theatre. By BONAMY DOBR\u00c9E, author of\n    \u201cRestoration Drama,\u201d etc.\n\n    \u201cA witty, mischievous little book, to be read with\n    delight.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._ \u201cThis is a delightfully\n    witty book.\u201d--_Scotsman._ \u201cIn a subtly satirical vein he visualizes\n    various kinds of theatres in 200 years\u2019 time. His gay little book\n    makes delightful reading.\u201d--_Nation._\n\n =Paris=, or the Future of War. By Captain B. H. LIDDELL HART.\n\n    \u201cA companion volume to _Callinicus_. A gem of close thinking and\n    deduction.\u201d--_Observer._ \u201cA noteworthy contribution to a problem of\n    concern to every citizen in this country.\u201d--_Daily\n    Chronicle._ \u201cThere is some lively thinking about the future of war\n    in _Paris_, just added to this set of live-wire pamphlets on big\n    subjects.\u201d--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n =Wireless Possibilities.= By Professor A. M. LOW. With 4 diagrams.\n\n    \u201cAs might be expected from an inventor who is always so fresh, he\n    has many interesting things to say.\u201d--_Evening Standard._ \u201cThe\n    mantle of Blake has fallen upon the physicists. To them we look for\n    visions, and we find them in this book.\u201d--_New Statesman._\n\n =Perseus=: of Dragons. By H. F. SCOTT STOKES. With 2 illustrations.\n\n    \u201cA diverting little book, chock-full of ideas. Mr Stokes\u2019\n    dragon-lore is both quaint and various.\u201d--_Morning Post._ \u201cVery\n    amusingly written, and a mine of curious knowledge for which the\n    discerning reader will find many uses.\u201d--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n =Lycurgus=, or the Future of Law. By E. S. P. HAYNES, author of\n    \u201cConcerning Solicitors,\u201d etc.\n\n    \u201cAn interesting and concisely written book.\u201d--_Yorkshire Post._ \u201cHe\n    roundly declares that English criminal law is a blend of barbaric\n    violence, medieval prejudices and modern fallacies.... A humane\n    and conscientious investigation.\u201d--_T.P.\u2019s Weekly._ \u201cA thoughtful\n    book--deserves careful reading.\u201d--_Law Times._\n\n =Euterpe=, or the Future of Art. By LIONEL R. MCCOLVIN, author of \u201cThe\n    Theory of Book-Selection.\u201d\n\n    \u201cDiscusses briefly, but very suggestively, the problem of the future\n    of art in relation to the public.\u201d--_Saturday Review._ \u201cAnother\n    indictment of machinery as a soul-destroyer ... Mr McColvin has the\n    courage to suggest solutions.\u201d--_Westminster Gazette._ \u201cThis is\n    altogether a much-needed book.\u201d--_New Leader._\n\n =Pegasus=, or Problems of Transport. By Colonel J. F. C. FULLER,\n    author of \u201cThe Reformation of War,\u201d etc. With 8 Plates.\n\n    \u201cThe foremost military prophet of the day propounds a solution for\n    industrial and unemployment problems. It is a bold essay ... and\n    calls for the attention of all concerned with imperial\n    problems.\u201d--_Daily Telegraph._ \u201cPractical, timely, very interesting\n    and very important.\u201d--_J. St Loe Strachey_, in _Spectator_.\n\n =Atlantis=, or America and the Future. By Colonel J. F. C. FULLER.\n\n    \u201cCandid and caustic.\u201d--_Observer._ \u201cMany hard things have been\n    said about America, but few quite so bitter and caustic as\n    these.\u201d--_Daily Sketch._ \u201cHe can conjure up possibilities of a new\n    Atlantis.\u201d--_Clarion._\n\n =Midas=, or the United States and the Future. By C. H. BRETHERTON,\n    author of \u201cThe Real Ireland,\u201d etc.\n\n    A companion volume to _Atlantis_. \u201cFull of astute observations and\n    acute reflections ... this wise and witty pamphlet, a provocation to\n    the thought that is creative.\u201d--_Morning Post._ \u201cA punch in every\n    paragraph. One could hardly ask for more \u2018meat.\u2019\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Nuntius=, or Advertising and its Future. By GILBERT RUSSELL.\n\n    \u201cExpresses the philosophy of advertising concisely and\n    well.\u201d--_Observer._ \u201cIt is doubtful if a more straightforward\n    exposition of the part advertising plays in our public and private\n    life has been written.\u201d--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n =Birth Control and the State=: a Plea and a Forecast. By C. P.\n    BLACKER, _M.C._, M.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.\n\n    \u201cA very careful summary.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._ \u201cA\n    temperate and scholarly survey of the arguments for and against the\n    encouragement of the practice of birth control.\u201d--_Lancet._ \u201cHe\n    writes lucidly, moderately, and from wide knowledge; his book\n    undoubtedly gives a better understanding of the subject than any\n    other brief account we know. It also suggests a policy.\u201d--_Saturday\n    Review._\n\n =Ouroboros=, or the Mechanical Extension of Mankind. By GARET GARRETT.\n\n    \u201cThis brilliant and provoking little book.\u201d--_Observer._ \u201cA\n    significant and thoughtful essay, calculated in parts to make our\n    flesh creep.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cA brilliant writer, Mr Garrett is a\n    remarkable man. He explains something of the enormous change the\n    machine has made in life.\u201d--_Daily Express._\n\n =Artifex=, or the Future of Craftsmanship. By JOHN GLOAG, author of\n    \u201cTime, Taste, and Furniture.\u201d\n\n    \u201cAn able and interesting summary of the history of craftsmanship\n    in the past, a direct criticism of the present, and at the end his\n    hopes for the future. Mr Gloag\u2019s real contribution to the future of\n    craftsmanship is his discussion of the uses of machinery.\u201d--_Times\n    Literary Supplement._\n\n =Plato\u2019s American Republic.= By J. DOUGLAS WOODRUFF. _Fourth\n    impression._\n\n    \u201cUses the form of the Socratic dialogue with devastating success. A\n    gently malicious wit sparkles in every page.\u201d--_Sunday Times._\n    \u201cHaving deliberately set himself an almost impossible task, has\n    succeeded beyond belief.\u201d--_Saturday Review._ \u201cQuite the liveliest\n    even of this spirited series.\u201d--_Observer._\n\n =Orpheus=, or the Music of the Future. By W. J. TURNER, author of\n    \u201cMusic and Life.\u201d _Second impression._\n\n    \u201cA book on music that we can read not merely once, but twice or\n    thrice. Mr Turner has given us some of the finest thinking upon\n    Beethoven that I have ever met with.\u201d--_Ernest Newman_ in _Sunday\n    Times_. \u201cA brilliant essay in contemporary philosophy.\u201d--_Outlook._\n    \u201cThe fruit of real knowledge and understanding.\u201d--_New Statesman._\n\n =Terpander=, or Music and the Future. By E. J. DENT, author of\n    \u201cMozart\u2019s Operas.\u201d\n\n    \u201cIn _Orpheus_ Mr Turner made a brilliant voyage in search of first\n    principles. Mr Dent\u2019s book is a skilful review of the development of\n    music. It is the most succinct and stimulating essay on music I have\n    found....\u201d--_Musical News._ \u201cRemarkably able and\n    stimulating.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._ \u201cThere is hardly another\n    critic alive who could sum up contemporary tendencies so\n    neatly.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Sibylla=, or the Revival of Prophecy. By C. A. MACE, University of\n    St. Andrew\u2019s.\n\n   \u201cAn entertaining and instructive pamphlet.\u201d--_Morning Post._ \u201cPlaces\n    a nightmare before us very ably and wittily.\u201d--_Spectator._\n    \u201cPassages in it are excellent satire, but on the whole Mr Mace\u2019s\n    speculations may be taken as a trustworthy guide ... to modern\n    scientific thought.\u201d--_Birmingham Post._\n\n =Lucullus=, or the Food of the Future. By OLGA HARTLEY and MRS C. F.\n    LEYEL, authors of \u201cThe Gentle Art of Cookery.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThis is a clever and witty little volume in an entertaining series,\n    and it makes enchanting reading.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._\n    \u201cOpens with a brilliant picture of modern man, living in a\n    vacuum-cleaned, steam-heated, credit-furnished suburban mansion\n    \u2018with a wolf in the basement\u2019--the wolf of hunger. This banquet of\n    epigrams.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Procrustes=, or the Future of English Education. By M. ALDERTON PINK.\n\n    \u201cUndoubtedly he makes out a very good case.\u201d--_Daily Herald._ \u201cThis\n    interesting addition to the series.\u201d--_Times Educational\n    Supplement._ \u201cIntends to be challenging and succeeds in being so.\n    All fit readers will find it stimulating.\u201d--_Northern Echo._\n\n =The Future of Futurism.= By JOHN RODKER.\n\n    \u201cMr Rodker is up-to-the-minute, and he has accomplished a\n    considerable feat in writing on such a vague subject, 92 extremely\n    interesting pages.\u201d--_T. S. Eliot_, in _Nation_. \u201cThere are a good\n    many things in this book which are of interest.\u201d--_Times Literary\n    Supplement._\n\n =Pomona=, or the Future of English. By BASIL DE S\u00c9LINCOURT, author of\n    \u201cThe English Secret\u201d, etc.\n\n    \u201cThe future of English is discussed fully and with fascinating\n    interest.\u201d--_Morning Post._ \u201cFull of wise thoughts and happy\n    words.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._ \u201cHis later pages must stir\n    the blood of any man who loves his country and her poetry.\u201d--_J. C.\n    Squire_, in _Observer_. \u201cHis finely-conceived essay.\u201d--_Manchester\n    Guardian._\n\n =Balbus=, or the Future of Architecture. By CHRISTIAN BARMAN.\n\n    \u201cA really brilliant addition to this already distinguished series.\n    The reading of _Balbus_ will give much data for intelligent\n    prophecy, and incidentally, an hour or so of excellent\n    entertainment.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cMost readable and reasonable. We can\n    recommend it warmly.\u201d--_New Statesman._ \u201cThis intriguing little\n    book.\u201d--_Connoisseur._\n\n =Apella=, or the Future of the Jews. By A QUARTERLY REVIEWER.\n\n    \u201cCogent, because of brevity and a magnificent prose style, this book\n    wins our quiet praise. It is a fine pamphlet, adding to the value\n    of the series, and should not be missed.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cA notable\n    addition to this excellent series. His arguments are a provocation\n    to fruitful thinking.\u201d--_Morning Post._\n\n =The Dance of \u00c7iva=, or Life\u2019s Unity and Rhythm. By COLLUM.\n\n    \u201cIt has substance and thought in it. The author is very much alive\n    and responsive to the movements of to-day.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cA very\n    interesting account of the work of Sir Jagadis Bose.\u201d--_Oxford\n    Magazine._ \u201cHas caught the spirit of the Eastern conception of world\n    movements.\u201d--_Calcutta Statesman._\n\n =Lars Porsena=, or the Future of Swearing and Improper Language. By\n    ROBERT GRAVES. _Third impression._\n\n    \u201cGoes uncommonly well, and deserves to.\u201d--_Observer._ \u201cNot for\n    squeamish readers.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cNo more amusingly unexpected\n    contribution has been made to this series. A deliciously ironical\n    affair.\u201d--_Bystander._ \u201cHis highly entertaining essay is as full\n    as the current standard of printers and police will allow.\u201d--_New\n    Statesman._ \u201cHumour and style are beyond criticism.\u201d--_Irish\n    Statesman._\n\n =Socrates=, or the Emancipation of Mankind. By H. F. CARLILL.\n\n    \u201cDevotes a specially lively section to the herd instinct.\u201d--_Times._\n    \u201cClearly, and with a balance that is almost Aristotelian, he\n    reveals what modern psychology is going to accomplish.\u201d--_New\n    Statesman._ \u201cOne of the most brilliant and important of a remarkable\n    series.\u201d--_Westminster Gazette._\n\n =Delphos=, or the Future of International Language. By E. SYLVIA\n    PANKHURST.\n\n    \u201cEqual to anything yet produced in this brilliant series. Miss\n    Pankhurst states very clearly what all thinking people must soon\n    come to believe, that an international language would be one of the\n    greatest assets of civilization.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cA most readable\n    book, full of enthusiasm, an important contribution to this\n    subject.\u201d--_International Language._\n\n =Gallio=, or the Tyranny of Science. By J. W. N. SULLIVAN, author of\n    \u201cA History of Mathematics.\u201d\n\n    \u201cSo packed with ideas that it is not possible to give any adequate\n    _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of its contents.\u201d--_Times Literary Supplement._ \u201cHis\n    remarkable monograph, his devastating summary of materialism, this\n    pocket _Novum Organum_.\u201d--_Spectator._ \u201cPossesses a real distinction\n    of thought and manner. It must be read.\u201d--_New Statesman._\n\n =Apollonius=, or the Future of Psychical Research. By E. N. BENNETT,\n    author of \u201cProblems of Village Life,\u201d etc.\n\n    \u201cA sane, temperate and suggestive survey of a field of inquiry\n    which is slowly but surely pushing to the front.\u201d--_Times Literary\n    Supplement._ \u201cHis exposition of the case for psychic research is\n    lucid and interesting.\u201d--_Scotsman._ \u201cDisplays the right temper,\n    admirably conceived, skilfully executed.\u201d--_Liverpool Post._\n\n =Aeolus=, or the Future of the Flying Machine. By OLIVER STEWART.\n\n    \u201cBoth his wit and his expertness save him from the\n    nonsensical-fantastic. There is nothing vague or sloppy in these\n    imaginative forecasts.\u201d--_Daily News._ \u201cHe is to be congratulated.\n    His book is small, but it is so delightfully funny that it is well\n    worth the price, and there really are sensible ideas behind the\n    jesting.\u201d--_Aeroplane._\n\n =Stentor=, or the Press of To-Day and To-Morrow. By DAVID OCKHAM.\n\n    \u201cA valuable and exceedingly interesting commentary on a vital phase\n    of modern development.\u201d--_Daily Herald._ \u201cVigorous and well-written,\n    eminently readable.\u201d--_Yorkshire Post._ \u201cHe has said what one\n    expects any sensible person to say about the \u2018trustification\u2019 of the\n    Press.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Rusticus=, or the Future of the Countryside. By MARTIN S. BRIGGS,\n    F.R.I.B.A.\n\n    \u201cFew of the 50 volumes, provocative and brilliant as most of them\n    have been, capture our imagination as does this one.\u201d--_Daily\n    Telegraph._ \u201cThe historical part is as brilliant a piece of packed\n    writing as could be desired.\u201d--_Daily Herald._ \u201cServes a national\n    end. The book is in essence a pamphlet, though it has the form and\n    charm of a book.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Janus=, or the Conquest of War. By WILLIAM MCDOUGALL, M.B., F.R.S.\n\n    \u201cAmong all the booklets of this brilliant series, none, I think is\n    so weighty and impressive as this. It contains thrice as much matter\n    as the other volumes and is profoundly serious.\u201d--Dean Inge, in\n    _Evening Standard_. \u201cA deeply interesting and fair-minded study of\n    the causes of war and the possibilities of their prevention. Every\n    word is sound.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Vulcan=, or the Future of Labour. By CECIL CHISHOLM.\n\n    \u201cOf absorbing interest.\u201d--_Daily Herald._ \u201cNo one, perhaps, has ever\n    condensed so many hard facts into the appearance of agreeable\n    fiction, nor held the balance so nicely between technicalities and\n    flights of fancy, as the author of this excellent book in a\n    brilliant series. _Vulcan_ is a little book, but between its covers\n    knowledge and vision are pressed down and brimming\n    over.\u201d--_Spectator._\n\n =Hymen=, or the Future of Marriage. By NORMAN HAIRE.\n\n    This candid and unprejudiced survey inquires why the majority\n    of marriages to-day seem to be so unsatisfactory, and finds the\n    answer in the sexual ethic of our civilization which is ill adapted\n    to our social and economic needs. The problems of sex-morality,\n    sex-education, prostitution, in-breeding, birth-control,\n    trial-marriage, and polygamy are all touched upon.\n\n =The Next Chapter=: the War against the Moon. By ANDR\u00c9 MAUROIS, author\n    of \u2018Ariel\u2019, etc.\n\n    This imaginary chapter of world-history (1951-64) from the pen of\n    one of the most brilliant living French authors mixes satire and\n    fancy in just proportions. It tells how the press of the world is\n    controlled by five men, how world interest is focussed on an attack\n    on the moon, how thus the threat of world-war is averted. But when\n    the moon retaliates....\n\n =Galatea=, or the Future of Darwinism. By W. RUSSELL BRAIN.\n\n    This non-technical but closely-reasoned book is a challenge to the\n    orthodox teaching on evolution known as Neo-Darwinism. The author\n    claims that, although Neo-Darwinian theories can possibly account\n    for the evolution of forms, they are quite inadequate to explain the\n    evolution of functions.\n\n =Scheherazade=, or the Future of the English Novel. By JOHN CARRUTHERS.\n\n    A survey of contemporary fiction in England and America lends to the\n    conclusion that the literary and scientific influences of the last\n    fifty years have combined to make the novel of to-day predominantly\n    analytic. It has thus gained in psychological subtlety, but lost its\n    form. How this may be regained is put forward in the conclusion.\n\n =Caledonia=, or the Future of the Scots. By G. M. THOMSON.\n\n    Exit the Scot! Under this heading the Scottish people are revealed\n    as a leaderless mob in whom national pride has been strangled. They\n    regard, unmoved, the spectacle of their monstrous slum-evil, the\n    decay of their industries, the devastation of their countryside.\n    This is the most compact and mordant indictment of Scottish policy\n    that has yet been written.\n\n =Albyn=, or Scotland and the Future. By C. M. GRIEVE, author of\n    \u2018Contemporary Scottish Studies\u2019, etc.\n\n    A vigorous answer, explicit and implicit, to _Caledonia_, tracing\n    the movements of a real Scottish revival, in music, art, literature,\n    and politics, and coming to the conclusion that there is a chance\n    even now for the regeneration of the Scottish people.\n\n =Lares et Penates=, or the Future of the Home. By H. J. BIRNSTINGL.\n\n    All the many forces at work to-day are influencing the planning,\n    appearance, and equipment of the home. This is the main thesis of\n    this stimulating volume, which considers also the labour-saving\n    movement, the \u2018ideal\u2019 house, the influence of women, the servant\n    problem, and the relegation of aesthetic considerations to the\n    background. Disconcerting prognostications follow.\n\n\n_NEARLY READY_\n\n =Archon=, or the Future of Government. By HAMILTON FYFE.\n\n    A survey of the methods of government in the past leads the author\n    to a consideration of conditions in the world of to-day. He then\n    indicates the lines along which progress may develop.\n\n =Hermes=, or the Future of Chemistry. By T. W. JONES, B.Sc., F.C.S.\n\n    Chemistry as the means of human emancipation is the subject of this\n    book. To-day chemistry is one of the master factors of our\n    existence; to-morrow it will dominate every phase of life, winning\n    for man the goal of all his endeavour, economic freedom. It may also\n    effect a startling change in man himself.\n\n =The Future of Physics.= By L. L. WHYTE.\n\n    The last few years have been a critical period in the development\n    of physics. We stand on the eve of a new epoch. Physics, biology,\n    and psychology are converging towards a scientific synthesis of\n    unprecedented importance whose influence on thought and social\n    custom will be so profound as to mark a stage in human evolution.\n    This book interprets these events and should be read in connexion\n    with _Gallio_, by J. W. N. Sullivan, in this series.\n\n =Ikonoclastes=, or the Future of Shakespeare. By HUBERT GRIFFITHS.\n\n    Taking as text the recent productions of classical plays in modern\n    dress, the author, a distinguished dramatic critic, suggests that\n    this is the proper way of reviving Shakespeare and other great\n    dramatists of the past, and that their successful revival in modern\n    dress may perhaps be taken as an indication of their value.\n\n\n_IN PREPARATION_\n\n =Bacchus=, or the Future of Wine. By P. MORTON SHAND.\n\n =Mercurius=, or the World on Wings. By C. THOMPSON WALKER.\n\n =The Future of Sport.= By G. S. SANDILANDS.\n\n =The Future of India.= By T. EARLE WELBY.\n\n =The Future of Films.= By ERNEST BETTS.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s note\n\n\nMinor punctuation errors have been changed without notice.\n\nOther spelling has been retained as originally published except\nfor the changes below.\n\n  Page 92: \u201cbe effectively exercized\u201d     \u201cbe effectively exercised\u201d\n  Page 105: \u201cMr Colvin has the\u201d           \u201cMr McColvin has the\u201d\n  Page 113: \u201ctheir montrous slum-evil\u201d    \u201ctheir monstrous slum-evil\u201d","title":"Archimedes; or, the future of physics","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":17737}