What Life Means to Einstein (1929) [pdf](saturdayeveningpost.com)
saturdayeveningpost.com
What Life Means to Einstein (1929) [pdf]
https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf
68 comments
I wonder how much of this ultimately comes down to branding. Einstein has a memorable name, a memorable haircut/photograph, and also managed to have his name become a byword for “genius.”
Interestingly this is what he thought of the matter at the time:
> Our time, he added, "is Gothic in its spirit. Unlike the Renaissance, it is not dominated by a few outstanding personalities. The twentieth century has established the democracy of the intellect. In the republic of art and science there are many men who take an equally important part in the intellectual movements of our age. It is the epoch rather than the individual that is important. There is no one dominant personality like Galileo or Newton".
Now, there was probably a good deal of fake modesty in that statement - he was a fairly dominant personality in the first part of the 20th century. But I suspect a key reason Einstein continues to be a widely recognizable name is that current scientists (physicists etc., those who are most equipped to rank / perpetuate his status) continue being in awe of the singular nature of his contributions, more so than any of the other "greats" of that period.
Why so? He could not have predicted it himself back then, but more than a century later his work would not have been "normalized". There was no subsequent breakthrough in fundamental physics that would somehow link geometry/gravity with the rest of the physics "stuff" (or vice-versa). As he relates in the interview, during that time (1929) he was working on a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism but his language suggests he was not at all confident. Till this day the mental models he introduced to help us grasp the workings of the universe remain a thing apart.
> Our time, he added, "is Gothic in its spirit. Unlike the Renaissance, it is not dominated by a few outstanding personalities. The twentieth century has established the democracy of the intellect. In the republic of art and science there are many men who take an equally important part in the intellectual movements of our age. It is the epoch rather than the individual that is important. There is no one dominant personality like Galileo or Newton".
Now, there was probably a good deal of fake modesty in that statement - he was a fairly dominant personality in the first part of the 20th century. But I suspect a key reason Einstein continues to be a widely recognizable name is that current scientists (physicists etc., those who are most equipped to rank / perpetuate his status) continue being in awe of the singular nature of his contributions, more so than any of the other "greats" of that period.
Why so? He could not have predicted it himself back then, but more than a century later his work would not have been "normalized". There was no subsequent breakthrough in fundamental physics that would somehow link geometry/gravity with the rest of the physics "stuff" (or vice-versa). As he relates in the interview, during that time (1929) he was working on a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism but his language suggests he was not at all confident. Till this day the mental models he introduced to help us grasp the workings of the universe remain a thing apart.
If you purely value scientists with some sort of Value Over RePlacement metric on their scientific contribution alone, I would like to think Einstein is tier 1 along side another 20-50 people.
I'm not familiar with the other names in the parent comment, but do their accomplishments map to Einstein's as far as impact goes? I think they would have to before we consider branding as a main factor in longevity of...reputation?
Depends on what you mean by impact. Those other figures were quite influential on European (and thus global) politics during and after WW1. One could argue that the harsh policies toward Germany had a big impact on setting the stage for WW2, the largest war in history. So I wouldn’t be too dismissive of their impact on world history.
Of course in the grand scheme of things Einstein was probably more influential, but I was more commenting on the fact that Einstein has become a kind of memetic symbol in himself, a bit like Ché, whereas the others haven’t. (Most people probably can’t even name more than a handful of people from WW1.) Maybe that only happened because his work was so impactful, but does the average person really know much about relativity? I was trying to find a paper that traced how Einstein became synonymous with genius but couldn’t come up with anything.
Of course in the grand scheme of things Einstein was probably more influential, but I was more commenting on the fact that Einstein has become a kind of memetic symbol in himself, a bit like Ché, whereas the others haven’t. (Most people probably can’t even name more than a handful of people from WW1.) Maybe that only happened because his work was so impactful, but does the average person really know much about relativity? I was trying to find a paper that traced how Einstein became synonymous with genius but couldn’t come up with anything.
> So I wouldn’t be too dismissive of their impact on world history.
Not of their impact on world history, no, but we are discussing more how the idea of someone lives on after they are dead and for how long, so maybe in that context it maybe deserves to be dismissed, as in there's a reason those figures are not referenced or talked about as much as Einstein is.
Not of their impact on world history, no, but we are discussing more how the idea of someone lives on after they are dead and for how long, so maybe in that context it maybe deserves to be dismissed, as in there's a reason those figures are not referenced or talked about as much as Einstein is.
Erich Ludendorff was a rather significant factor in the rise to power of the Nazis and he coined the term “total war”.
So he certainly had an impact, I’m not sure if I would use the term accomplishment though.
So he certainly had an impact, I’m not sure if I would use the term accomplishment though.
On the other hand, he is the last scientist who was treated as a superstar. There is no other person who can reach the same degree of his reputation.
It is almost completely due to media's frequent mention of him. He shows up in movies and TV shows a LOT, way more than any other scientist by a wide margin. Most normal people don't know what he did, but he exists in popular culture as a symbol of intelligence.
I am surprised to find out that Einstein was so convinced in the non-existence of free will.
> I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.
Meanwhile, I believe, that you can also be a determinist and believe in free will.
> I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.
Meanwhile, I believe, that you can also be a determinist and believe in free will.
It probably depends on what you mean by free will. People who disagree about determinism and/or compatibilism usually can’t agree on a common definition of free will either.
Your Einstein quote above doesn’t necessarily deny free will.
Your Einstein quote above doesn’t necessarily deny free will.
in the article, Einstein is firm regarding his belief that there is no free will. there are many other quotes in the article to choose from.
anyway, my own view is that ones belief or disbeleif in free will is predetermined - if one could predict the path of every atom and molecule in the galaxy from the start of time until now, theyd be able to predict what choices a random person would make before the person had decided. for example, being able to predict if someone would read the linked article before commenting on it :-)
anyway, my own view is that ones belief or disbeleif in free will is predetermined - if one could predict the path of every atom and molecule in the galaxy from the start of time until now, theyd be able to predict what choices a random person would make before the person had decided. for example, being able to predict if someone would read the linked article before commenting on it :-)
What you're describing is physical determinism which is related but not equivalent to the question of free will.
Compatibilism is a belief that physical determinism and free will are compatible - e. g. it is predetermined that you will read this article, but it's still an act of free will.
Compatibilism is a belief that physical determinism and free will are compatible - e. g. it is predetermined that you will read this article, but it's still an act of free will.
Einstein was enamored with the philosophies of Schopenhauer and Spinoza, in Schopenhauer's conception of the will and Spinoza's pantheism. The God of Spinoza (or indeed Einstein) is strictly deterministic, and we are all a part of such a God, as is all of nature. Hence his quote 'God does not play dice', and in part it explains Einstein's philosophical commitment against some of the indeterministic interpretations of quantum physics being ultimately true.
> determinist and believe in free will.
Do you care to elaborate more? I am genuinely curious about your opinions.
Have you read/listened to any of Dr. Robert Sapolsky's material on free will? I am curious what you think of his position on the matter.
Do you care to elaborate more? I am genuinely curious about your opinions.
Have you read/listened to any of Dr. Robert Sapolsky's material on free will? I am curious what you think of his position on the matter.
Imagine you were to pause and take an exact carbon copy of the exact physical state of the universe in the current moment. When you press play in both universes, both universes will play out the exact same way into the end of time, and you would never be able to tell the two apart. That is determinism.
If the universe were not deterministic, for reasons like non-deterministic physics, souls existing, etc. you would potentially see difference between the two as they played out separately.
Another way to think about determinism vs non-determinism is that if something is deterministic, then if you have perfect information about it, you can predict it’s future states exactly. On the flip side, if something is non deterministic, no matter how much information you gather about it, you will never be able to exactly predict its future states (only probabilistically).
Einstein is not so subtly telling us “god doesn’t play dice”, that there are no random physical properties of the universe, and that magic (like souls) doesn’t exist, in his opinion.
Free will means we have a choice in what we do next, but if we go and examine your carbon copy in the other universe you will see they did all of the same things you did. Furthermore if we were granted perfect information about the universe and had a good enough gpu, we could from the physical principles of the universe predict the future state of everything in the universe until the end of time, including all of your future choices, hence no free will.
My thoughts are that people are mixing up the human concept of free will — freedom to make decisions based on how you feel and what you know - with determinism, that the first state of all matter in the universe determined all future states of the universe, and that these are inevitable. The fallacy is that free will in the sense of determinism is only important to human decision making if we have perfect information about the current state of the universe, which we don’t - so until we do, we have to keep guessing what happens next.
If the universe were not deterministic, for reasons like non-deterministic physics, souls existing, etc. you would potentially see difference between the two as they played out separately.
Another way to think about determinism vs non-determinism is that if something is deterministic, then if you have perfect information about it, you can predict it’s future states exactly. On the flip side, if something is non deterministic, no matter how much information you gather about it, you will never be able to exactly predict its future states (only probabilistically).
Einstein is not so subtly telling us “god doesn’t play dice”, that there are no random physical properties of the universe, and that magic (like souls) doesn’t exist, in his opinion.
Free will means we have a choice in what we do next, but if we go and examine your carbon copy in the other universe you will see they did all of the same things you did. Furthermore if we were granted perfect information about the universe and had a good enough gpu, we could from the physical principles of the universe predict the future state of everything in the universe until the end of time, including all of your future choices, hence no free will.
My thoughts are that people are mixing up the human concept of free will — freedom to make decisions based on how you feel and what you know - with determinism, that the first state of all matter in the universe determined all future states of the universe, and that these are inevitable. The fallacy is that free will in the sense of determinism is only important to human decision making if we have perfect information about the current state of the universe, which we don’t - so until we do, we have to keep guessing what happens next.
Not the op, but I will give it a shot. Free will relates to identity - there needs to be someone exercising the free will. So, what am I? I identify as the whole physical system of my body and especially my brain. The neurons, their connections, the atoms, the laws governing the interactions. I think people rejecting free will are considering physics to be some kind of external harness, constraint on themselves. But in my view, physics permeates my body. There's no myself without the physics (be it deterministic or not), it's an inseparable part of my system, ergo myself. In a deterministic universe, my thoughts and actions are driven by the configuration of matter, energy and physics in my body. But all of that is me.
Not the OP but one thing I find interesting about free will is that one of the things you can do with it is to choose to give it up, such as by delegating a decision to either a random process or one that you have no prior knowledge or control over. The act of flipping a coin to decide whether to drive to work or take the bus might end up altering the course of your life to an extent that no other decision you make that day will.
Given how often we delegate whatever free will we have, intentionally or otherwise, it's easy to conclude (or at least suspect) that whether or not it exists in the first place simply isn't an interesting or important question. Sure, we might have free will, but if we do it's almost overwhelmed by noise.
Given how often we delegate whatever free will we have, intentionally or otherwise, it's easy to conclude (or at least suspect) that whether or not it exists in the first place simply isn't an interesting or important question. Sure, we might have free will, but if we do it's almost overwhelmed by noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
As far as Sapolsky goes, it's fine to argue that free will is an illusion. But it doesn't follow that we should stop believing in it. Actually, belief in free will is adaptive. Concepts that follow from free will such as punishment, guilt, blame, etc are extremely effective at promoting pro-social behavior and it's not clear how they could be replaced.
As far as Sapolsky goes, it's fine to argue that free will is an illusion. But it doesn't follow that we should stop believing in it. Actually, belief in free will is adaptive. Concepts that follow from free will such as punishment, guilt, blame, etc are extremely effective at promoting pro-social behavior and it's not clear how they could be replaced.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Again, I'm tired of pseaudo new-age bullshit quackery. There's no free will, either being deterministic or sightly shifted because of weird quantum effects. You are your brain, and your brain will work under the rules of the Universe, whether you like it or not.
> ... by forces over which we have no control
That would be logical if we would be a simulation.
That would be logical if we would be a simulation.
The thing that jumps out to me is how well read Einstein is, some of the modern day scientists could do with a much broader education. CP Snow's two cultures argument seems more relevant now than ever.
IIRC Kant was a huge influence on Einstein and arguably had an effect on his physics work.
https://philpapers.org/archive/PALTKG-5
Nowadays I doubt the average scientist has read the work of any single philosopher to that degree.
https://philpapers.org/archive/PALTKG-5
Nowadays I doubt the average scientist has read the work of any single philosopher to that degree.
I think the philosopher who had the most influence on Einstein (and on other physicists of the early 20th century) was Arthur Schopenhauer:
> Schopenhauer was well read by physicists, most notably Einstein, Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, and Majorana. Einstein described Schopenhauer's thoughts as a "continual consolation" and called him a genius. In his Berlin study three figures hung on the wall: Faraday, Maxwell, Schopenhauer. Konrad Wachsmann recalled: "He often sat with one of the well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a serene and cheerful work."
> When Erwin Schrödinger discovered Schopenhauer ("the greatest savant of the West") he considered switching his study of physics to philosophy. He maintained the idealistic views during the rest of his life. Wolfgang Pauli accepted the main tenet of Schopenhauer's metaphysics, that the thing-in-itself is will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Influence_...
> Schopenhauer was well read by physicists, most notably Einstein, Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, and Majorana. Einstein described Schopenhauer's thoughts as a "continual consolation" and called him a genius. In his Berlin study three figures hung on the wall: Faraday, Maxwell, Schopenhauer. Konrad Wachsmann recalled: "He often sat with one of the well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a serene and cheerful work."
> When Erwin Schrödinger discovered Schopenhauer ("the greatest savant of the West") he considered switching his study of physics to philosophy. He maintained the idealistic views during the rest of his life. Wolfgang Pauli accepted the main tenet of Schopenhauer's metaphysics, that the thing-in-itself is will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Influence_...
From what I understand, Einstein’s education and cultural milieu was very influenced by Kant, but Einstein himself was personally more interested in Schopenhauer.
To quote Schopenhauer (English translation):
```
But space and time are not only, each for itself, presupposed by matter, but a union of the two constitutes its essence, for this, as we have seen, consists in action, i.e., in causation
```
That's the kind of thinking that could help Einstein formulate an idea of "spacetime"
That's the kind of thinking that could help Einstein formulate an idea of "spacetime"
“Philosophy consists mostly of kicking up a lot of dust and then complaining that you can’t see anything.”
— Gottfried Leibniz
Sure not your average scientist, but could I find a few hundred who have but who are themselves of no particular fame? Quite easily yes.
It's a shame that Einstein thought writing a book for popular consumption to be an endeavor tied solely to material ambitions. I, for one, would have loved to read "A brief history of time" esque compilation written by Einstein himself. It would have been a great way to peek into his mind and get to know him better (sans the obvious mathematical way).
I read his book on relativity theory, which I would characterize as one written for popular consumption [1]. I recommend reading it if you have not done so yet. I found the explanation of the special theory in the book easily accessible and enlightening, less so the explanation of the general theory, although it did help me understand it better.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_th...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_th...
The thing about Einstein is he did not discover that gravity bent space and then produced a theory to explain it. He predicted it. The proof came decades later, and his prediction was dead on target.
It changed everything.
It changed everything.
You're right, I thought the confirmation wasn't till much later!
Alternative HTML version: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vierecks-interview-einstein-1...
If you're curious about the point early in the article "Can there be any permanent value or any absolute truth in the world in which the three angles of the triangle have ceased to be equal to two right angles- in a world in which time itself has lost its meaning, in which infinity become so finite, and the finite is lost in the infinite?" there's more at: https://meaningness.com/collapse-of-rational-certainty
what caught my attention were the ads.
specifically, the hanes ad.. and i wonder why the hanes brand is still around whereas the motor heater brand is not.
and hotel rooms were $3 per night back then.
specifically, the hanes ad.. and i wonder why the hanes brand is still around whereas the motor heater brand is not.
and hotel rooms were $3 per night back then.
"A motorcar heater? That's a feature, not a product." - Steve Jobs's grandpa
$3 in 1929 = $55.18 in 2024
sure, thats on the lowend for a hotel these days, but i doubt that hotel knickerbocker was giving their best rooms for $3.
sure, thats on the lowend for a hotel these days, but i doubt that hotel knickerbocker was giving their best rooms for $3.
I found the advertisements the most interesting bit
I use this post to ask a question I just had a bit before: can anyone recommend me an Einstein's biography?
If you want a scientific biography, "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais, but you need a degree in physics to understand many chapters (unfortunately for me a degree in engineering was not enough).
Abraham Pais wrote also "Einstein Lived Here" a non-scientific biography, but I did not read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_is_the_Lord
Abraham Pais wrote also "Einstein Lived Here" a non-scientific biography, but I did not read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_is_the_Lord
I actually have a degree in Physics but I am not sure it is what I want (I don't remember much :D). But I will take a look. Thanks a lot for both recommendations!
Not a biography but I like Einstein's book "Evolution of physics". It is supposed to be popular scifi book, and covers same topics as high school physics for layman. But, it is still good to hear his perspective: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Albert-Einstein/dp/...
I recommend the closest thing to an autobiography,
The travel diaries of Albert Einstein
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174419/th...
The travel diaries of Albert Einstein
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174419/th...
This looks like something I would really enjoy, thank you!
You should watch season one of "Genius" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5673782/) docuseries which is quite an accurate life events (professional as well as personal) of Einstein
Walter Isaacson’s.
And Abraham Pais' if you know physics.
How much physics? Is undergrad enough or do you need to actually know GR?
The more you know, the more fun the book is.
At times the going is tough even if you are a physics professor, because Pais accurately captures the process of discovery which was often messy with unfamiliar equations, strange logical jumps, or subtle mistakes.
I would not recommend the book unless you have taken courses in quantum mechanics, statistical physics and general relativity.
(Historically quantum mechanics and statistical physics were developed together, even though now we see one as more fundamental than the other.)
At times the going is tough even if you are a physics professor, because Pais accurately captures the process of discovery which was often messy with unfamiliar equations, strange logical jumps, or subtle mistakes.
I would not recommend the book unless you have taken courses in quantum mechanics, statistical physics and general relativity.
(Historically quantum mechanics and statistical physics were developed together, even though now we see one as more fundamental than the other.)
I really thought you were joking, will buy this.
whenever people say that modern journalists are bad and nobody knows how to write anymore, i'll show them this article
You mean that it is just as bad if not more, right?
Because it is making Einstein out to be some sort of rebel like who wants things to be "relative" as if it is a religion or philosophy of some sort.
Relativity is just what he discovered, not some ideology he set out to prove or invented.
Then the author goes on to try and apply this relativity to all aspects of the world, try to make puns on it despite Einstein specifically telling him that it is explicitly only about those physical and mechanical facts.
It is like the whole article author tried to apply this idea in the exact way Einstein was annoyed about, perpetuating the same misunderstanding described.
Because it is making Einstein out to be some sort of rebel like who wants things to be "relative" as if it is a religion or philosophy of some sort.
Relativity is just what he discovered, not some ideology he set out to prove or invented.
Then the author goes on to try and apply this relativity to all aspects of the world, try to make puns on it despite Einstein specifically telling him that it is explicitly only about those physical and mechanical facts.
It is like the whole article author tried to apply this idea in the exact way Einstein was annoyed about, perpetuating the same misunderstanding described.
exactly, plus the author's warped understanding, like einstein reinventing the wheel for every equation to make it "more" perfect, whatever that means; or in multiple instances, drawing up conclusions and asking them, or presenting these as facts in the article.
or one article being split on 5 pages so I can see some ads in-between (not really the author's fault there though).
or one article being split on 5 pages so I can see some ads in-between (not really the author's fault there though).
Choice of appropriate notation can absolutely make one version of a formula "more perfect" than another. Maxwell's equations underwent a painstaking "evolutionary" process as vector notation improved.
Ditto for proofs; it's not hard to believe that Albert Einstein could prove a theorem from scratch and end up with a better argument than one found in a previous textbooks.
The fatal flaw in the article, rather, is exemplified by the quote
> With the advent of Einstein, mathematics ceased to be an exact science in the fashion of Euclid.
Which I am in complete disagreement with. Einstein exploited elegant, novel (at the time), anything but inexact mathematical tools for his theory. That the theory posits uncertainty and, well, relativity of real-world phenomena has no bearing on the exactitude of mathematics. If anyone ever put a dent in that, it should be Gödel :)
Ditto for proofs; it's not hard to believe that Albert Einstein could prove a theorem from scratch and end up with a better argument than one found in a previous textbooks.
The fatal flaw in the article, rather, is exemplified by the quote
> With the advent of Einstein, mathematics ceased to be an exact science in the fashion of Euclid.
Which I am in complete disagreement with. Einstein exploited elegant, novel (at the time), anything but inexact mathematical tools for his theory. That the theory posits uncertainty and, well, relativity of real-world phenomena has no bearing on the exactitude of mathematics. If anyone ever put a dent in that, it should be Gödel :)
I'm curious what you would think is "good modern journalism". Could you give examples?
The discussion's article writes more like The Atlantic or NYMag interview style than AP News or Reuters. Both styles are suitable in my opinion.
The discussion's article writes more like The Atlantic or NYMag interview style than AP News or Reuters. Both styles are suitable in my opinion.
I actually didn't realize the article went on after the ad.
Einstein initially wanted to emphasize the 'invariance' aspect, used Invarianz-Theorie in correspondence, and said about the proliferation of 'relativity': "I admit that it is unfortunate and has given rise to philosophical misunderstandings."
There are serious allegations that Einstein stole the work of Henri Poincaré and Hermann Minkowski because he had access and the right to review their work before anyone else did.
It is well known and absolutely not a secret that Einstein "stole" from fellow scientists and mathematicians. That's the whole "shoulders of giants" thing and how science typically works. If you study relativity, you will stumble upon the names of Poincaré (Poincaré group) and Minkowski (Minkowski metric) as well as others, like Lorenz (Lorenz transformation).
What Einstein is credited for is applying all these maths to the real world, coming up with a theory that is based on observations and testable.
What Einstein is credited for is applying all these maths to the real world, coming up with a theory that is based on observations and testable.
I think describing Einstein as having a love affair with things being relative is accurate.
The last paragraphs really are beautifully written:
"When he ascends to his attic, she does not cling to his coat tails. When he wishes to be alone, she completely eliminates herself from his life. She spares him disharmonious contacts and protects the serenity of his mind with the devotion of a vestal virgin guarding the sacred fire.
It is by no means impossible that with a less-sacrificing mate, Einstein would not have made the discoveries which link his name with the immortals. Thus love, that moves the sun and all the stars, sustains in its lonely path the genius of Albert Einstein."
"When he ascends to his attic, she does not cling to his coat tails. When he wishes to be alone, she completely eliminates herself from his life. She spares him disharmonious contacts and protects the serenity of his mind with the devotion of a vestal virgin guarding the sacred fire.
It is by no means impossible that with a less-sacrificing mate, Einstein would not have made the discoveries which link his name with the immortals. Thus love, that moves the sun and all the stars, sustains in its lonely path the genius of Albert Einstein."
Clearly modern journalists learned from their old masters.
"look at the mark in your underwear".. oh dear, how times have changed
Funny to think how this has aged since 1915. Over a century later Einstein is an almost universally known figure. The others on this list are, particularly outside of France, names that I would not expect the median person to be able to say something interesting about.