R

E

A

D

T

H

I

N

K

C

R

E

A

T

E

Why, then, it is not correct, physicists, philosophers do philosophy? This may indeed be the right thing, at this time, physicists believe that he has the right to dominance in this system and the basic concept of the basic legal provisions, the establishment of a good, of course, the tide can not achieve these goals, but it is not may be correct, in time, it is based on the physics itself has become a problem, because they are now.           “Physics and Reality”     ('Einstein's own views at that time are presented in an article, "Physics and Reality," published in 1936 in the Journal of the Franklin Institute...')   The motivation which Einstein gave when he turned to the rather philosophical questions in his article 'Physics and Reality' should be quoted: 'It has often been said, and certainly not without justification that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be right for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a right system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well-established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplations of the theoretical foundations, for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.'   In the very general introduction Einstein explained the steps which lead one to talk about a 'real external world.' One attributes to bodily objects a 'real existence' beyond our sense impressions, and one finds relations between the objects. But still these things have to be comprehensible: 'It was one of the great realizations of Immanuel Kant that the setting up of a real external world would be senseless without its comprehensibility.' Then he turned to the 'Stratification of the Scientific System.' He stated: 'The aim of science is, on the one hand, a comprehension, as  complete as possible, of the connection between the sense experiences in their totality, and, on the other hand, the accomplishment of this aim by the use of a minimum of primary concepts and relations. (Seeking, as far as possible, logical unity, in the world picture, i.e. paucity in logical consequences).' The development in science tends toward this final goal. The freedom of choosing the fundamental relations, Einstein described with the following picture: 'Rather, it is similar to that of a man engaged in solving a well-defined word puzzle. He may, it is true, propose any word as the solution; but, there is only one word which really solves the puzzle in all its forms. It is an outcome of faith that nature — as she is perceptible to our five senses — takes the character of such a well-formulated puzzle. The successes reaped up to now by science do, it is true, give a certain encouragement for this faith.'      —Jagdish Mehra, Einstein, Physics and Reality             Indexes/07