Not all that long ago, I wrote about the implications quantum mechanics (quantum theory) might have on determinism and free will.
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment. One could only make predictions of likelihood.
This isn't entirely true, and I feel compelled to fix it, lest my readers go forth into the world without an understanding of the latest developments in quantum theory. It is true that one can't know, given the state of the universe or any system at a given time, what state it will be in at the next time. There are however, a fixed set of probabilities that can be determined, and a smaller subset of "highly likely" probabilities. If quantum theory can be so related to the decision making process, then the implication is that there are a fixed number of paths that are possible, and a small subset of paths that are likely.
This kind of one-to-one correlation with quantum theory makes me uncomfortable, because it seems to be an artificial attempt to tie two likely unrelated systems together. It may be the case that there is a relation between the decision making process and quantum theory, but if it exists it's probably not so tightly bound as what I'm saying here.
All of this said, it's worth noting that I've honestly moved on from the topic of determinism and free will. In 2006 a friend and I discussed the topic with some detail both on our respective blogs and personally, and after the time spent reviewing the different arguments and weighing each perspective, I came to a conclusion similar to John Locke's 17th century position: the whole idea is irrelevant. Locke had different reasons for coming to this conclusion, I think that whether or not we have an extremely good illusion of free will or actual free will it all comes out to the same thing - we should make our decisions based on what we think is right.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Franklin
I mentioned in a recent post that in reading the biography of Benjamin Franklin, I had decided to avoid idolization. Somehow, the knowledge of his flaws, his "human-ness", brought about a recognition of the fundamental humanity of everyone. It wasn't that I had thought Franklin was perfect, just extraordinary admirable and especially...motivated? True to his dreams? Something along those lines. In a sense I was right.
Benjamin Franklin was an extraordinary man who led an admirable life and likely had little to regret. Perhaps his most impressive traits were his tactful diplomacy and practical wisdom. These two traits were fundamental in his work in his later years negotiating with France to ensure the colonies independence and in his contributions to the drafting of the constitution in 1787. As he grew older (and presumably wiser) he turned his considerable aptitudes toward improving the "public good" - as opposed to a period in his twenties, where it seemed he was more focused on, well, financial success.
Richard Beeman recently wrote a book detailing the creation of the constitution: Plain, Honest Men. The Making of the American Constitution*. He discusses the compromises made by both sides to create it (including the compromise on slavery, which he presents disparagingly from my understanding). Franklin, 81 at the time, was a voice strongly in favor of compromise. His many years as a diplomat had taught him a lot about policy making. Statements like (paraphrased) "I have learned that men hotly expressing their viewpoints and their inability to change them rarely leads to a productive debate helped to put things in perspective for a number of men, who, like many I know, had their own flaws" really helped to nudge the political debate in a productive direction.
I won't be summing up his lifetime of achievements here (at least not in this post) - I just wanted to clarify is that Franklin led an exciting and productive life: I didn't mean to vilify him in my last post, he just happened to be the catalyst for one of my many personal revelations.
* This book review is by Walter Isaacson, the same author who wrote the book on Franklin that I, well, listened to. He also wrote the Einstein book! *
Benjamin Franklin was an extraordinary man who led an admirable life and likely had little to regret. Perhaps his most impressive traits were his tactful diplomacy and practical wisdom. These two traits were fundamental in his work in his later years negotiating with France to ensure the colonies independence and in his contributions to the drafting of the constitution in 1787. As he grew older (and presumably wiser) he turned his considerable aptitudes toward improving the "public good" - as opposed to a period in his twenties, where it seemed he was more focused on, well, financial success.
Richard Beeman recently wrote a book detailing the creation of the constitution: Plain, Honest Men. The Making of the American Constitution*. He discusses the compromises made by both sides to create it (including the compromise on slavery, which he presents disparagingly from my understanding). Franklin, 81 at the time, was a voice strongly in favor of compromise. His many years as a diplomat had taught him a lot about policy making. Statements like (paraphrased) "I have learned that men hotly expressing their viewpoints and their inability to change them rarely leads to a productive debate helped to put things in perspective for a number of men, who, like many I know, had their own flaws" really helped to nudge the political debate in a productive direction.
I won't be summing up his lifetime of achievements here (at least not in this post) - I just wanted to clarify is that Franklin led an exciting and productive life: I didn't mean to vilify him in my last post, he just happened to be the catalyst for one of my many personal revelations.
* This book review is by Walter Isaacson, the same author who wrote the book on Franklin that I, well, listened to. He also wrote the Einstein book! *
Monday, April 20, 2009
Shattering Idols
I'm going through Ben Franklin's biography - something I'm long overdue for, given my support of the man. He really accomplished so many spectacular things in his life.
What's interesting, though, is that he's human.
My 20s have really been a period of enrichment, maturation, and realizations. Introspection has helped me to recognize my limitations and flaws - I've never had a problem finding my strengths or confidence. There was a time when my recognition of these flaws was discouraging and disheartening. It's frustrating to deal with "minor" problems like motivation and bad habits when there are "more important" things you want to do with your life (please excuse the use of quotes - they're meaningful, but won't be explained here).
Experience and education have brought me another kind of knowledge - the knowledge of the humanity of everyone. Be it Einstein or Franklin, Paulo Coehlo or Stephen Covey, everyone has more than just personal demons to overcome - we all have personal flaws that we do not overcome. We all have weaknesses, and likely share weaknesses...and many of the most successful people never truly deal with them - their success comes in spite of personal flaws, or at least regardless of them.
I will no longer idolize people. I will admire people for their achievements. I might strive to match their determination or some other commendable quality, but I will not look up at them with naivete or deference to their superiority. I will look to my side, and attempt to see the man or woman who has done something extraordinary.
What's interesting, though, is that he's human.
My 20s have really been a period of enrichment, maturation, and realizations. Introspection has helped me to recognize my limitations and flaws - I've never had a problem finding my strengths or confidence. There was a time when my recognition of these flaws was discouraging and disheartening. It's frustrating to deal with "minor" problems like motivation and bad habits when there are "more important" things you want to do with your life (please excuse the use of quotes - they're meaningful, but won't be explained here).
Experience and education have brought me another kind of knowledge - the knowledge of the humanity of everyone. Be it Einstein or Franklin, Paulo Coehlo or Stephen Covey, everyone has more than just personal demons to overcome - we all have personal flaws that we do not overcome. We all have weaknesses, and likely share weaknesses...and many of the most successful people never truly deal with them - their success comes in spite of personal flaws, or at least regardless of them.
I will no longer idolize people. I will admire people for their achievements. I might strive to match their determination or some other commendable quality, but I will not look up at them with naivete or deference to their superiority. I will look to my side, and attempt to see the man or woman who has done something extraordinary.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Determinism and Quantum Mechanics
I've spoken at length in the past about determinism and free will, and the different philosophical views of various intellectuals on both sides of the camp.
As I learn a bit about quantum mechanics and it's implications, I'm intrigued and struck by the very relevant philosophical implications. I'm certain I'm not the first to notice it, and I'm also not educated enough in either field to make a truly useful analysis. Allow me to nevertheless speculate briefly on some of the consequences.
First, let's get a quick basis in quantum mechanics as relevant to philosophy. Observation of an object or a particle changes certain properties about it. This sounds unusual, but we don't have the time to run into the why or the how (and I guess no one can really explain the "how" anyway). Perhaps the simplest conceptual exercise is noting that it's impossible to know the position of an electron at any given point in time (or it's momentum). We can only predict a range of values.
If classical physics applied to atoms, atoms would collapse due to the magnetic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron. Electrons aren't all in some amazingly coincidental orbit of the nucleus that pits them at just the right speed and distance to not "fall in" - electrons just operate with a different set of rules.
One other point of some relevance is that particles (presumably of any type) that come into contact with one another form a kind of bond (commonly referred to as entanglement) with one another. Although they are separated by space, through the measurement of one particle one can therefore "know" the position of another particle. I place know in quotes because it's actually a complicated process, and perhaps infer is a better word. The fact remains that it's the process of measurement that allows this to happen. No actual instantaneous change takes place in the non-measured particle. *1
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment.*2 One could only make predictions of likelihood. This is a seemingly grievous blow to the deterministic models of the universe stating that we currently live in the only possible consequence of the arrangement of atoms in the big bang all those years ago.
*1: I wonder at the implications of this even as I strive to understand it fully. If this were the case, and somehow the separated particles could be contained, could we develop some kind of practical application from this faster than light speed (literally instant) knowledge of particle location?
*2: I feel compelled to reiterate that it's impossible to know the state of the universe at any given state in time, because it's impossible to know the location and momentum of a given particle - it's only possible to measure one at a time.
As I learn a bit about quantum mechanics and it's implications, I'm intrigued and struck by the very relevant philosophical implications. I'm certain I'm not the first to notice it, and I'm also not educated enough in either field to make a truly useful analysis. Allow me to nevertheless speculate briefly on some of the consequences.
First, let's get a quick basis in quantum mechanics as relevant to philosophy. Observation of an object or a particle changes certain properties about it. This sounds unusual, but we don't have the time to run into the why or the how (and I guess no one can really explain the "how" anyway). Perhaps the simplest conceptual exercise is noting that it's impossible to know the position of an electron at any given point in time (or it's momentum). We can only predict a range of values.
If classical physics applied to atoms, atoms would collapse due to the magnetic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron. Electrons aren't all in some amazingly coincidental orbit of the nucleus that pits them at just the right speed and distance to not "fall in" - electrons just operate with a different set of rules.
One other point of some relevance is that particles (presumably of any type) that come into contact with one another form a kind of bond (commonly referred to as entanglement) with one another. Although they are separated by space, through the measurement of one particle one can therefore "know" the position of another particle. I place know in quotes because it's actually a complicated process, and perhaps infer is a better word. The fact remains that it's the process of measurement that allows this to happen. No actual instantaneous change takes place in the non-measured particle. *1
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment.*2 One could only make predictions of likelihood. This is a seemingly grievous blow to the deterministic models of the universe stating that we currently live in the only possible consequence of the arrangement of atoms in the big bang all those years ago.
*1: I wonder at the implications of this even as I strive to understand it fully. If this were the case, and somehow the separated particles could be contained, could we develop some kind of practical application from this faster than light speed (literally instant) knowledge of particle location?
*2: I feel compelled to reiterate that it's impossible to know the state of the universe at any given state in time, because it's impossible to know the location and momentum of a given particle - it's only possible to measure one at a time.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Understanding the theory of relativity
As I mentioned in my last post, I'm reading a biography on Einstein. Not surprisingly, a good portion of the book is devoted to the portion of his life where he developed the theory of relativity - commonly simplified to the equation that relates energy and mass, E=mc². There's more to it than this - read on if you're interested in getting Aaron's simplified summary (or you can go to the wiki for a much more detailed explanation, or just read a book or two :).
Special Theory of Relativity
The theory of relativity was actually developed in two stages, starting with the Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein would not fully complete the general theory of relativity until 10 years after the release of his special theory of relativity. The reason it's called the relativity theory (as far as I can tell) is that it exposes a relativity in a number of measurements that were previously thought to be constant - specifically, it outlines the relativity of time, mass, and dimensions. This means that time, mass, and dimensions are all relative depending upon the observer. There is no absolute or correct frame of reference, though on Earth we all share a frame of reference which allows us to experience time, mass, and dimensions similarly.
Despite all this relativity, the speed of light does not appear to be relative to the observer. A useful method of comprehending this is by imagining you're standing by the rails for an oncoming train at night. The train has a headlight at it's front end, and the train is speeding towards you at 200 mph. The light from the headlight of the train will still be measurable as the constant speed of light - 299,792,458 meters / s (186000 miles/second). It does not travel faster even though it's being broadcast from a source that is moving relative to you. This would not be the case if the conductor threw a water balloon at you from the moving train. The water balloon would slow down quickly due to air resistance, but it's initial speed would be the speed of the train + the speed of the conductor's throw. Ouch.*1
The reason the speed of light appears to be non-relative is because as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases and time slows (decreases) relative to an observer. Light is moving at the maximum speed allowed in our universe at any given moment. Light (photons) have no mass, so the increase in mass is irrelevant.*2 The current belief is that it's impossible for an object with mass to be accelerated to the speed of light, and it's impossible for a massless object to not move at the speed of light. *3
Time changes depending on your frame of reference, which makes time relative. As a consequence, time passes differently for objects moving at extremely different speeds. This is, to an extent, common knowledge at this point. We've likely all heard of the experiments where a clock was sent into space and orbited at high speed while a control clock was left on the earth...and the clocks having different times when they are brought back together. A less discussed consequence is relativity of simultaneity - that is, that something that appears simultaneous for one observer will appear so to an observer moving at a high speed. Thematically, this is easy to understand, though it seems counter intuitive.
Perhaps the most difficult consequence of relativity to accept is that is changes the perceived dimensions of an object. Time being slowed is unusual, but time is already somewhat abstract, so conceptually it's not that difficult to accept. An increase in mass is unusual, but not groundbreaking. Accepting that an object will have different dimensions (it decreases in length relative to the direction of movement to the observer's frame of reference) is the most difficult for me to accept or understand.
As a final point (which may not have been introduced until Einstein later developed the general theory of relativity), there's an interesting thought experiment to help us comprehend our universe and hopes to answer the question of a finite or infinite universe (both of which seem impossible). The universe is, in a sense, both. It wraps around itself, so that traveling far enough in a single direction will eventually bring you back to where you started. This is difficult to imagine in a 3-dimensional world...and that's what the thought experiment is for!
Imagine a 2 dimensional being on a 2 dimensional world - for example, a dot on a piece of paper with no thickness, only a surface. As it stands, the dot can travel to the edges of the paper, and, well, find an end. Now imagine the paper is curled to create a sphere. To us, this paper becomes a 3-dimensional object, but to our 2 dimensional dot, there is no change. He doesn't know the paper "curves" in a way he could never understand. In addition, there are now no more edges to his universe. That was the explanation Einstein gave for our universe - sadly I don't yet know enough about physics to see where this theory is at currently.
I may try to simplify the General Theory of Relativity in a later post (the primary difference is that it encompasses gravity) but I don't feel that I understand it sufficiently yet.
*1 - This would not be true if the sum of the velocities of the train and the power of the conductor's water-balloon throw exceeded the speed of light, due to the velocity addition formula.
*2 - The Large Hadron Collider is a particle accelerator. What it does is increase the velocity of a two protons to near the speed of light (greatly increasing their mass relative to us) and then run them into each other. The plan is to observe the effects of this collision)
*3 - Light (photons) can be slowed when it enters a refractive substance. When photons slow, they gains mass (from atoms in the refractive substance). This new particle, a photon with mass, is called a polaritron. Light has been slowed to 38 miles per hour.
Special Theory of Relativity
The theory of relativity was actually developed in two stages, starting with the Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein would not fully complete the general theory of relativity until 10 years after the release of his special theory of relativity. The reason it's called the relativity theory (as far as I can tell) is that it exposes a relativity in a number of measurements that were previously thought to be constant - specifically, it outlines the relativity of time, mass, and dimensions. This means that time, mass, and dimensions are all relative depending upon the observer. There is no absolute or correct frame of reference, though on Earth we all share a frame of reference which allows us to experience time, mass, and dimensions similarly.
Despite all this relativity, the speed of light does not appear to be relative to the observer. A useful method of comprehending this is by imagining you're standing by the rails for an oncoming train at night. The train has a headlight at it's front end, and the train is speeding towards you at 200 mph. The light from the headlight of the train will still be measurable as the constant speed of light - 299,792,458 meters / s (186000 miles/second). It does not travel faster even though it's being broadcast from a source that is moving relative to you. This would not be the case if the conductor threw a water balloon at you from the moving train. The water balloon would slow down quickly due to air resistance, but it's initial speed would be the speed of the train + the speed of the conductor's throw. Ouch.*1
The reason the speed of light appears to be non-relative is because as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases and time slows (decreases) relative to an observer. Light is moving at the maximum speed allowed in our universe at any given moment. Light (photons) have no mass, so the increase in mass is irrelevant.*2 The current belief is that it's impossible for an object with mass to be accelerated to the speed of light, and it's impossible for a massless object to not move at the speed of light. *3
Time changes depending on your frame of reference, which makes time relative. As a consequence, time passes differently for objects moving at extremely different speeds. This is, to an extent, common knowledge at this point. We've likely all heard of the experiments where a clock was sent into space and orbited at high speed while a control clock was left on the earth...and the clocks having different times when they are brought back together. A less discussed consequence is relativity of simultaneity - that is, that something that appears simultaneous for one observer will appear so to an observer moving at a high speed. Thematically, this is easy to understand, though it seems counter intuitive.
Perhaps the most difficult consequence of relativity to accept is that is changes the perceived dimensions of an object. Time being slowed is unusual, but time is already somewhat abstract, so conceptually it's not that difficult to accept. An increase in mass is unusual, but not groundbreaking. Accepting that an object will have different dimensions (it decreases in length relative to the direction of movement to the observer's frame of reference) is the most difficult for me to accept or understand.
As a final point (which may not have been introduced until Einstein later developed the general theory of relativity), there's an interesting thought experiment to help us comprehend our universe and hopes to answer the question of a finite or infinite universe (both of which seem impossible). The universe is, in a sense, both. It wraps around itself, so that traveling far enough in a single direction will eventually bring you back to where you started. This is difficult to imagine in a 3-dimensional world...and that's what the thought experiment is for!
Imagine a 2 dimensional being on a 2 dimensional world - for example, a dot on a piece of paper with no thickness, only a surface. As it stands, the dot can travel to the edges of the paper, and, well, find an end. Now imagine the paper is curled to create a sphere. To us, this paper becomes a 3-dimensional object, but to our 2 dimensional dot, there is no change. He doesn't know the paper "curves" in a way he could never understand. In addition, there are now no more edges to his universe. That was the explanation Einstein gave for our universe - sadly I don't yet know enough about physics to see where this theory is at currently.
I may try to simplify the General Theory of Relativity in a later post (the primary difference is that it encompasses gravity) but I don't feel that I understand it sufficiently yet.
*1 - This would not be true if the sum of the velocities of the train and the power of the conductor's water-balloon throw exceeded the speed of light, due to the velocity addition formula.
*2 - The Large Hadron Collider is a particle accelerator. What it does is increase the velocity of a two protons to near the speed of light (greatly increasing their mass relative to us) and then run them into each other. The plan is to observe the effects of this collision)
*3 - Light (photons) can be slowed when it enters a refractive substance. When photons slow, they gains mass (from atoms in the refractive substance). This new particle, a photon with mass, is called a polaritron. Light has been slowed to 38 miles per hour.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Relationships
Why is it that people get married? I don't mean "Why does marriage exist" but rather, what are the reasons that we choose to live and likely share our life with another person?
Naturally, reasons vary from person to person. There are a variety of practical reasons to marry someone you're in a relationship with, but they are rarely cited as the actual "raison d'etre" for the finalization of a marriage. Generally speaking, the primary reason people will cite is love (that's not necessarily a bad thing!).
It does, however, warrant clarification. As I've experienced life, I've often heard a philosophy - especially among the more intellectual married - that love has very little to do with feeling. Often, initially, it has a lot to do with feeling, but a lasting love is based upon effort, persistence, and choices. Love, to cite the overused idiom, is a choice. Some days, it's a more difficult choice than others.
Love as a choice makes sense to me. It's not and likely never will be a universally shared view...but part of maturity is learning to accept that there are multiple answers to many questions, and that life experiences and genetics can and do create situations where different answers to the same question are correct for different people. For me, love as a choice is not only the way I want it to be, it's the only possibility I can accept. It's as apparent as 2 + 2 = 4. I'd argue that my "faith" in that possibility reinforces it for me and talk about how we create our own realities...but I won't talk about that in this post.
What is the motivation behind a choice for love? What is it those in a relationship look for in a lifetime partner? I've been struggling with this question for quite a while, after I chose to end my semi-successful relationship overseas not because I was unhappy, but because I made a decision that it wasn't the type of relationship I wanted to have.
It's more than a little audacious to compare myself to Einstein, but I'm reading his biography right now. His experience in relationships was, to me, quite interesting. Let me tell you about them.
Einstein's first serious relationship was with beautiful woman a few years older than him while he was in his late teens. The woman was gracious, caring, and deeply infatuated with Einstein. She was in no way Einstein's intellectual equal, and on an intellectual level was completely unsatisfying for the young physicist. He broke off the relationship, much to her dismay. Einstein wrote a letter to her father apologizing for ending the relationship because he knew what an effect it would have on her. He felt a lot of guilt; my personal feeling on the matter is that the guilt was due to his complete inability to return any kind of love. The limerence (now an accepted concept for me) went away, and nothing was left for him. She, sadly, had a nervous breakdown shortly after her relationship with Einstein ended.
Einstein's second serious relationship was with a fellow classmate from his University: Maric. Maric was able to have intelligent discussions with him about topics that interested him greatly. They also shared a a bit of an "outsider" attitude and a general disrespect for authority. They dated through their university years, but Maric was unable to graduate from the advanced physics course and therefore unable to continue to graduate school.
Maric and Einstein were married, and their relationship still had a strong tie to their shared intellectual interests. As one might predict, this foundation proved shaky. Over the next 10 years, Einstein continued his schooling, formulated theories, met with the most intelligent and most highly regarded physicists of the world as he attempted to complete his theory of relativity and a related theory about the wave/particle properties of light. Maric stayed home and raised their children, shutting the door to any opportunity for her to keep any kind of pace with Einstein. Not surprisingly, she basically dropped out of the academic world completely.
This relationship did not function well. Both Einstein and Maric were eventually unhappy - Maric dissatisfied and depressed, Einstein annoyed and seemingly uninterested.
Einstein divorced (eventually, you're getting the short story here), and remarried a non-scholar (his first cousin Ilse, actually). Ilse was not educated, and wanted nothing more from life than a husband and to take care of the household and to support her husband. I can't tell you how this relationship ended...I'm still in the middle of the book. At the very least, there is some happiness in the relationship.
Are relationships with a strong intellectual component doomed to run into difficulties due to the realities of family-raising and a woman's undeniably heavy role in that process? Given, this is a single example of a rather unusual case, but the fact is that that if we choose to grow in life (as opposed to stagnating, surprisingly a common choice), we all change in different ways. Relationships that form due to shared interests will likely find that over the course of time one or both individuals will disagree at a fork, and go different ways. The shared interest will not always be there.
Is it a better answer then to take Einstein's path? Give up on attempting to find a partner that can satisfy intellectual needs (let the social and possibly work environments deal with that), and instead focus on finding a partner that you get along with in a domestic environment? There is no right answer...I'm only seeking my answer.
Naturally, reasons vary from person to person. There are a variety of practical reasons to marry someone you're in a relationship with, but they are rarely cited as the actual "raison d'etre" for the finalization of a marriage. Generally speaking, the primary reason people will cite is love (that's not necessarily a bad thing!).
It does, however, warrant clarification. As I've experienced life, I've often heard a philosophy - especially among the more intellectual married - that love has very little to do with feeling. Often, initially, it has a lot to do with feeling, but a lasting love is based upon effort, persistence, and choices. Love, to cite the overused idiom, is a choice. Some days, it's a more difficult choice than others.
Love as a choice makes sense to me. It's not and likely never will be a universally shared view...but part of maturity is learning to accept that there are multiple answers to many questions, and that life experiences and genetics can and do create situations where different answers to the same question are correct for different people. For me, love as a choice is not only the way I want it to be, it's the only possibility I can accept. It's as apparent as 2 + 2 = 4. I'd argue that my "faith" in that possibility reinforces it for me and talk about how we create our own realities...but I won't talk about that in this post.
What is the motivation behind a choice for love? What is it those in a relationship look for in a lifetime partner? I've been struggling with this question for quite a while, after I chose to end my semi-successful relationship overseas not because I was unhappy, but because I made a decision that it wasn't the type of relationship I wanted to have.
It's more than a little audacious to compare myself to Einstein, but I'm reading his biography right now. His experience in relationships was, to me, quite interesting. Let me tell you about them.
Einstein's first serious relationship was with beautiful woman a few years older than him while he was in his late teens. The woman was gracious, caring, and deeply infatuated with Einstein. She was in no way Einstein's intellectual equal, and on an intellectual level was completely unsatisfying for the young physicist. He broke off the relationship, much to her dismay. Einstein wrote a letter to her father apologizing for ending the relationship because he knew what an effect it would have on her. He felt a lot of guilt; my personal feeling on the matter is that the guilt was due to his complete inability to return any kind of love. The limerence (now an accepted concept for me) went away, and nothing was left for him. She, sadly, had a nervous breakdown shortly after her relationship with Einstein ended.
Einstein's second serious relationship was with a fellow classmate from his University: Maric. Maric was able to have intelligent discussions with him about topics that interested him greatly. They also shared a a bit of an "outsider" attitude and a general disrespect for authority. They dated through their university years, but Maric was unable to graduate from the advanced physics course and therefore unable to continue to graduate school.
Maric and Einstein were married, and their relationship still had a strong tie to their shared intellectual interests. As one might predict, this foundation proved shaky. Over the next 10 years, Einstein continued his schooling, formulated theories, met with the most intelligent and most highly regarded physicists of the world as he attempted to complete his theory of relativity and a related theory about the wave/particle properties of light. Maric stayed home and raised their children, shutting the door to any opportunity for her to keep any kind of pace with Einstein. Not surprisingly, she basically dropped out of the academic world completely.
This relationship did not function well. Both Einstein and Maric were eventually unhappy - Maric dissatisfied and depressed, Einstein annoyed and seemingly uninterested.
Einstein divorced (eventually, you're getting the short story here), and remarried a non-scholar (his first cousin Ilse, actually). Ilse was not educated, and wanted nothing more from life than a husband and to take care of the household and to support her husband. I can't tell you how this relationship ended...I'm still in the middle of the book. At the very least, there is some happiness in the relationship.
Are relationships with a strong intellectual component doomed to run into difficulties due to the realities of family-raising and a woman's undeniably heavy role in that process? Given, this is a single example of a rather unusual case, but the fact is that that if we choose to grow in life (as opposed to stagnating, surprisingly a common choice), we all change in different ways. Relationships that form due to shared interests will likely find that over the course of time one or both individuals will disagree at a fork, and go different ways. The shared interest will not always be there.
Is it a better answer then to take Einstein's path? Give up on attempting to find a partner that can satisfy intellectual needs (let the social and possibly work environments deal with that), and instead focus on finding a partner that you get along with in a domestic environment? There is no right answer...I'm only seeking my answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
