Geburtstag: 12. August 1887
Todesdatum: 4. Januar 1961
Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger war ein österreichischer Physiker und Wissenschaftstheoretiker.
Schrödinger gilt als einer der Begründer der Quantenmechanik und erhielt für die Entdeckung neuer produktiver Formen der Atomtheorie gemeinsam mit Paul Dirac 1933 den Nobelpreis für Physik.
Was ist ein Naturgesetz? Antrittsrede an der Universität Zürich am 9. Dezember 1922. In: Was ist ein Naturgesetz? Beiträge zum naturwissenschaftlichen Weltbild. Oldenbourg (Scientia nova) München 1997. S. 9-85. S. 85 books.google http://books.google.de/books?id=4hqc2tvawQMC&pg=PA85.
Epilog: Determinismus und Willensfreiheit. Francke Bern 1951. S. 123; Piper München 1987, S, 122 online-media. uni-marburg. de.
Brief an Franz Theodor Csokor, datiert Alpbach, 17. September 1960, zitiert in: Mein Leben, meine Weltansicht, mit einem Vorw. von Auguste Dick. - [Lizenzausg. ] - Zürich : Diogenes, 1989. (Diogenes Taschenbuch ; 21783) ISBN 3-257-21783-8 - innere Umschlagseite ohne Seitennummer
Geist und Materie, Zsolnay Verlag, Wien 1986, 4. Kap., S. 90, ISBN 3-552-03810-8
Was ist Leben? Die lebende Zelle mit den Augen des Physikers betrachtet. Epilog: Determinismus und Willensfreiheit. Francke Bern 1951. S. 123 http://books.google.de/books?id=oEc_AAAAYAAJ&q=leitet; Piper München 1987, S, 122 online-media.uni-marburg.de http://online-media.uni-marburg.de/biologie/genetik/boelker/Wissenschaft/Erwin%20Schroedinger_Was%20ist%20Leben.pdf.
(Original englisch: "The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I - I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' - am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Law of Nature." - What is Life? (1944). Cambridge UP p. 87 books.google http://books.google.de/books?id=hP9-WIEyv8cC&pg=PA87
„Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung)“, Annalen der Physik 79 (1926), s. 361-376, § 3, S. 372 thp.uni-koeln.de http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/natter/data/Schroedinger_Mitteilung1.pdf
Geist und Materie, Zsolnay Verlag, Wien 1986, 4. Kap., S. 77, ISBN 3-552-03810-8
Mind and Matter (1958)
Kontext: The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. <!-- p. 127
My View of the World (1961)
Kontext: This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as "I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world."
Science and Humanism (1951)
Kontext: I am born into an environment — I know not whence I came nor whither I go nor who I am. This is my situation as yours, every single one of you. The fact that everyone always was in this same situation, and always will be, tells me nothing. Our burning question as to the whence and whither — all we can ourselves observe about it is the present environment. That is why we are eager to find out about it as much as we can. That is science, learning, knowledge; it is the true source of every spiritual endeavour of man. We try to find out as much as we can about the spatial and temporal surroundings of the place in which we find ourselves put by birth…
Nature and the Greeks (1954)
Kontext: The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. … For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."
As quoted in The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91
Kontext: Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.
Mind and Matter (1958)
Kontext: To my view the ‘statistical theory of time’ has an even stronger bearing on the philosophy of time than the theory of relativity. The latter, however revolutionary, leaves untouched the undirectional flow of time, which it presupposes, while the statistical theory constructs it from the order of events. This means a liberation from the tyranny of old Chronos. What we in our minds construct ourselves cannot, so I feel, have dictatorial power over our mind, neither the power of bringing it to the fore nor the power of annihilating it. But some of you, I am sure, will call this mysticism. So with all due acknowledgement to the fact that physical theory is at all times relative, in that it depends on certain basic assumptions, we may, or so I believe, assert that physical theory in its present stage strongly suggests the indestructibility of Mind by Time.
"The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber
Kontext: Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary...
— Erwin Schrödinger, buch What Is Life?
What Is Life? (1944)
Kontext: What we call thought (1) is itself an orderly thing, and (2) can only be applied to material, i. e. to perceptions or experiences, which have a certain degree of orderliness. This has two consequences. First, a physical organization, to be in close correspondence with thought (as my brain is with my thought) must be a very well-ordered organization, and that means that the events that happen within it must obey strict physical laws, at least to a very high degree of accuracy. Secondly, the physical impressions made upon that physically well-organized system by other bodies from outside, obviously correspond to the perception and experience of the corresponding thought, forming its material, as I have called it. Therefore, the physical interactions between our system and others must, as a rule, themselves possess a certain degree of physical orderliness, that is to say, they too must obey strict physical laws to a certain degree of accuracy.
PHYSICAL LAWS REST ON ATOMIC STATISTICS AND ARE THEREFORE ONLY APPROXIMATE
Science and Humanism (1951)
Kontext: I am born into an environment — I know not whence I came nor whither I go nor who I am. This is my situation as yours, every single one of you. The fact that everyone always was in this same situation, and always will be, tells me nothing. Our burning question as to the whence and whither — all we can ourselves observe about it is the present environment. That is why we are eager to find out about it as much as we can. That is science, learning, knowledge; it is the true source of every spiritual endeavour of man. We try to find out as much as we can about the spatial and temporal surroundings of the place in which we find ourselves put by birth…
"The Fundamental Idea of Wave Mechanics", Nobel lecture, (12 December 1933)
Kontext: Conditions are admittedly such that we can always manage to make do in each concrete individual case without the two different aspects leading to different expectations as to the result of certain experiments. We cannot, however, manage to make do with such old, familiar, and seemingly indispensable terms as "real" or "only possible"; we are never in a position to say what really is or what really happens, but we can only say what will be observed in any concrete individual case. Will we have to be permanently satisfied with this...? On principle, yes. On principle, there is nothing new in the postulate that in the end exact science should aim at nothing more than the description of what can really be observed. The question is only whether from now on we shall have to refrain from tying description to a clear hypothesis about the real nature of the world. There are many who wish to pronounce such abdication even today. But I believe that this means making things a little too easy for oneself.
Nature and the Greeks (1954)
Kontext: The scientific world-picture vouchsafes a very complete understanding of all that happens — it makes it just a little too understandable. It allows you to imagine the total display as that of a mechanical clockwork which, for all that science knows, could go on just the same as it does, without there being consciousness, will, endeavor, pain and delight and responsibility connected with it — though they actually are. And the reason for this disconcerting situation is just this: that for the purpose of constructing the picture of the external world, we have used the greatly simplifying device of cutting our own personality out, removing it; hence it is gone, it has evaporated, it is ostensibly not needed.
"The Mystic Vision" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber
Kontext: It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it... For we should then have the same baffling question: which part, which aspect are you? what, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceiveable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours... is, in a certain sense, the whole... This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula... 'Tat tvam asi' — this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world.'
Thus you can throw yourself flat on the ground, stretched out upon Mother Earth, with certain conviction that you are one with her and she with you … For eternally and always there is only now, one and the same now; the present is the only thing that has no end.
"The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber
Kontext: Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary...
