the real thing

1

THE REAL THING An essay about reality

_____________________________ Mikael Jensen © 2018 Mikael Jensen

2 CONTENTS

A. THEORETICAL TOOLS A-1. INTRODUCTION A-2. PHYSICALISM, A BASIC ELEMENT A-3. THEORIES AND MODELS A-4. REPRESENTATION OF REALITY A-5. TRUTH - AND CAUSALITY A-6. SIMPLE AND COMPLICATED MODELS A-7. THE PHYSICALIST AXIOMS A-8. COMPLICATED MODELS A-9. SOME CASE STUDIES

B. EINSTEIN’S BENT SPACE-TIME B-1. RELATIVITY AND THE NOBEL PRIZE B-2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL ANGLE B-3. THE RELIGIOUS ANGLE B-4. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

C. FINAL DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE C-1. BACKGROUND C-2. INTRODUCTION C-3 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS C-4. A FEW CONCLUSIONS C-5. SUMMARY

D. MIND VS. MATTER D-1. INTRODUCTION D-2. PSYCHOANALYSIS D-3. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

E. DIVINITY E-1. INTRODUCTION AND PHYSICALIST CIRCULARITY E-2. GEORGE BERKELEY E-3. MIRACLES AND THE AXIOMS OF PHYSICALISM E-4. JESUS E-6 SUMMARY

F. REFERENCES APPENDIX TO CHAPTER C. APPENDIX C-1. FORMAL EXPERT JUDGMENT APPENDIX C-2. AN EXAMPLE: POST GLACIATION SEISMICITY

3

CHAPTER A. THEORETICAL TOOLS A-1. INTRODUCTION Below I present some reflections on philosophy of science I have come across over the years. It can be seen as a follow-up of some comments to the students I made after a summer school in Berkeley some years ago1, after the discussion of a presentation by another lecturer, Allison McFarlane2 on the safety of nuclear waste. A background of my treatment of safety analysis for nuclear waste repositories is given in chapter 21 of reference (Jensen 2017). In this text I am addressing theory and models3, the reality they are trying to portray and their interdependence, not as a general theory but applied in a few cases, one of which I have worked with the last 30 years: long-term safety for nuclear waste repositories. I add a few others to point towards a more general view. Understanding of the difference between theory and reality is important. In many cases failure to understand the difference between the two constitutes one of the main sources of misunderstanding and confusion that may arise in scientific projects, and elsewhere. If complicated issues are handled by educated people and theory-vs.-reality problems nevertheless emerge, it is usually not in the form of complete misperception. It is therefore usually not productive, and too constricted, simply to point to the difference between theory and reality. One needs to go a little further. I present three main goals: one is to describe physicalism (as I define it myself), another is a discussion of complex models, and a third is to tell a few stories, which I hope my readers will find entertaining. I try to explain theories and concepts along the road, but I essentially intend to preach to the already converted - the choir - with regards to the scientific approach to understanding the world. I don’t always think that the choir´s singing is perfectly in tune or even always singing the right tune. Many authors who write about science are more broadminded and address a larger audience and a wider range of beliefs and superstition. I am particularly impressed by Carl Sagan´s approach in his book “A Demon Haunted World” (Sagan 1995). His encyclopedic approach is impressive but it comes with a risk of turning the author into Don Quixote, simultaneously fighting too many enemies, something that certainly would get the better of me. I hope to reach people who either work using science as a tool or to whom such an approach sounds appealing.

1

http://goneri.nuc.berkeley.edu/pages2009/slides/Jensen_Comments%20to%20the%20students.pdf

2

Allison Macfarlane is a professor of public policy and international affairs. She has been working on policy issues of nuclear waste and was later appointed as chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission with tenure 2012-2014. 3

Sometimes the concept of a theory is understood to be a more general concept, in that a theory can be used to generate a number of different models to be applied in various circumstances. Although that sounds reasonable enough, we don´t need that distinction here. For our purposes here it is enough to note that both theory and models are products of our minds.

4 Although this is not intended as a professional scientific text, there actually is some philosophy-ofscience professional input made during my earlier work, from Jan Nolin and Göran Sundqvist from the University of Göteborg (Gothenburg) to whom I am greatly indebted, in addition to many references, particularly from Aant Elzinga and Tord Silverbark (Chapter B), Hannes Råstam and Dan Josefsson (Chapter D) and Lena Einhorn (Chapter E). These references are also exceptions to the rule that I have found most of my references on the internet. A necessary tale and a just cause, but perhaps neither fish nor fowl In the process, going from known and - for me - old territory to completely new places, there is a price to pay. I move in wonder as an amateur into a well-established discipline, to say the least. But the problem is not only about understanding Aristotle, it is also about detailed positions developed attacked and defended, in contemporary philosophy. I mention, below and in passing, an example of the dire straits one may have to navigate as a philosopher, but I really don’t aspire to a private philosophical territory to defend. I have been told that I am “relying upon 40-80 year old Philosophy of Science”. I have no reason to question that (being in that age span myself at 73). However, I haven’t seen anyone with the messages I put forward (which is admittedly no guarantee that they don’t exist). According to another philosopher, von Fraassen, philosophy is exclusive: “Do electrons exist? Are atoms real? These are not philosophical questions. Whether electrons exist is no more a philosophical question than whether Norwegians exist, or witches, or immaterial intelligences. Questions of existence are questions about matters of brute fact, if any are, and philosophy is no arbiter of fact.” (von Fraassen 2017)

We may find ourselves in a no man’s land, having already left science, our old terra firma. (As shown below, we actually make a distinction between the existence of electrons and Norwegians, based on the fact that Norwegians are entitled to more characteristics than electrons, such as possessing color.) The term Epistemology may also have a place in this but I will simply use philosophy to denote all kinds of speculation. However, my message is important and necessary. The content is justified, inter alia, by my initial experience (radiation protection applied to radioactive waste disposal and the accompanying safety analysis) that the difference between models and reality was not – is not - communicated clearly enough to key actors, the public and decision-makers. I believe this is evident in the two examples in Chapter C for i) the Swedish parliament, assisted by the key reference Göran Sundqvist, and particularly for the description of the decisions made by ii) the US Congress according to my own observations. I have looked at some other example areas, one depicting a worst case scenario where a person was found guilty of 9 murders in different Swedish courts, later to be cleared of wrongdoings in all cases. In the case, a psychoanalyst could be identified a central player although without any formal contact with the legal process. The case, as well as psychoanalysis itself, benefits from a study along the same lines as my original discipline and the issue about reality is just as important as the one about safety analysis. The last Chapter looks at divinity and reality and – I must admit – is more of an intellectual exercise. Intentional historical and philosophical revisionism Some philosophical principles have become so heavily obfuscated through the ages that there is great value in avoiding much of the confusion, accumulated and expanded over centuries. The

5 meaning of words and concepts of important issues are changing regularly so that their meaningful treatment is found mainly in science of history, outside our scope. Also, a philosopher’s goal may change along the road. For example, the most recent works of both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn (mentioned below) bear marks of an extensive dialogue with critics, so that what you see is the latest comment from a lengthy discussion rather than simple principles. The ideas presented here are mainly intended as amateur-to-amateur comments. I make use of a home-made principle to avoid a detailed discussion about historical correctness. In what can be called an optimization procedure, I simply invent private “copies” of philosophical principles to be discussed without detailed historical references, and most often limit the actual historical connotation to a minimum. The historical part of the development of an idea is always interesting but it often needs to be separated from a scientific discussion in today’s terms. Historical revisionism – or separation of earlier versions of ideas - is a technique used here to prevent long stories that go nowhere. Those who don’t believe me may try to follow the idea of Universalism through the ages. Finally, we do - as an exception - come back to a few historical figures, inter alia Bishop George Berkeley and Jesus later on. A-2. PHYSICALISM, A BASIC ELEMENT In this section, I discuss physicalism or materialism as it is sometime called (the concepts are considered equivalent here). There are a great number of views of materialism but ours is simple: We regard here materialism as being a view in which all matter is assumed to exist independent of our conscience. We can call this our first axiom. The fact that existence of matter is independent of conscious processes doesn´t rule out that we can influence matter through our minds; we decide to act all the time. Demarcation We not only believe that real objects exist, we also note that they have characteristics: they move, they have structure etc. The fact that some objects in the sky such as planets exist is too simple an idea of materialism for our purposes. The reality is not only that objects such as planets exist. We also consider the fact that they move, and their actual movements as part of reality. That assumption allows us to compare Newtonian mechanics with the behavior of the solar system, i.e. important and famous example of a theoretical description, in the form of celestial mechanics, of our reality. Put in another way: when we do the comparison between theory and reality for Newtonian mechanics, the location and velocities of the celestial bodies are considered part of reality, not part of the theory4. In fact, we assume real things possess various properties such a form and structure, color and heat etc. In order to describe movements we also need access to time and space –the scene where location and movement take place - in our description of real objects.

4

We should mention that some philosophers go much deeper into the matter of physical existence both for classical and relativistic physics, and discuss the “Space-Time Coordinates as Physical Properties” (Dieks 2010) and the concept of operationalism which has to do with definitions in physics.

6 The Austrian philosopher Karl Popper coined the term “demarcation” between testable and untestable theories, mentioned below. We will use the term in a different way: simply to define a border line between what is real and what is not. The question is how far one must carry the characteristic of real objects and their environment. We will not go too far into this but we do visit Einstein’s curved space-time in Chapter B. Physicalism denied From the endless examples of anti-physicalism or anti-materialism, let us take the following: In a Swedish city (Helsingborg) a substitute teacher was confronted by a student who denied the Holocaust and who was set straight by the teacher who said he might have to leave the classroom if he continued. However the pupil felt offended and complained to the headmaster who – surprisingly enough - later rebuked the teacher. The follow-up conversation was taped and the conversation included the following (in my translations): “(School) Coordinator: You must also keep in mind that what we regard as history is the history we have read. When we have other students who have taken information from other history books there is no point to discussing the facts against facts.“

And later in the same dialogue: “.. there are people who deny the Holocaust. In that case, you show the facts and take a discussion about it, but we must try to reach the person in a different way. A teacher has a position of power, pressing a student in front of a group is not good.” (The Swedish newspaper “Dagens Nyheter”, who published the event in its issue February 26, 2015).

Here, the school comes very close to considering reality as being a product of our conscious minds, or alternatively did not consider the facts were clear enough to motivate an uncompromising stand. Another passage in the interview points clearly to a “conscious reality”: According to the school coordinator, the teacher should have contacted someone from the permanent staff or the school administration and informed that “a student expressed views which are not consistent with our values”. The school is passive in the face of the student´s position which is not far from incitement to racial hatred, illegal in Sweden. It also neglects to address the actual historical events. The Holocaust is treated by the school representative as a view rather than a fact. The idea that “there is no point to discussing the facts against facts” points to a world with alternative, mutually exclusive, facts for the same events. The event has other connotations, discussed extensively in Swedish press recently, such as exaggerated fear of offending foreigners relating to race, language skills etc., partly to counteract the extensive discrimination in many societal areas, related to work or housing, that foreign-born residents face. (In my treatment I have avoided to include my suspicion that most Holocaust deniers actually believes in the historical facts of the Holocaust which they privately support, but for tactical reasons choose to deny as a compromise in the present political climate.) This is a typical example of how we normally come across perverted or “soft” reality, i.e. a lack of transparency revealing a “hole” in the understanding a concept’s association with reality. In absence of complete stupidity, there is often be an opening for an apologetic explanation, especially among people who sense they might somehow be on thin ice.

7 Assuming the opposite Now suppose, in contrast to our physicalist axiom, that one couldn´t take objective existing for granted and that we might have different realities following each and all of us like an individual historic trail. The idea is exemplified by looking at an extreme consequence in a legal scenario. Imagine you are in a courtroom in a world like ours, but in this world we are all equipped with a different personal reality. A person is found guilty by jury and the judge asks if he has anything to say after the jury´s finding (assuming this is realistic and furthermore that the verdict is “guilty”, and that there were 6 witnesses). The final statement to the court of the accused: “Your honor, I have a few comments. First let me say that I realize I am entitled to the benefit of doubt where such doubt exists regarding the witnesses´ abilities to describe the events but I choose to forego this right for now. I accept for the time being all the witnesses´ reports. I am more concerned with the realities we live in. Let me say by way of introduction that I am surprised that all the jurors seem to live in the same reality where I am guilty. The judge: Actually we don´t know that. For all we know, you might be innocent in all their worlds, but the jurors are not witnesses, and they are therefore unaware of the event, personally. Their individual decisions just reflect their impressions of the witnesses´ testimonies. The accused: I see. Let me then rephrase my position: I still find it strange that all witnesses seem to live in the same reality, they were not twelve but six, but I would still expect 50% or at least one or two to live in a reality similar to mine. Nevertheless, I want to inform you that I am completely innocent, in my reality that is. Now, I realize that this may sound somewhat biased, coming from me, the accused. Let me therefore ask you to at least consider the possibility, for the sake of argument, that in my reality I am completely innocent. The Judge: I understand your position. However, by the power vested in me I will follow the juror´s verdict and make that the reality as far as this case is concerned. However - following your assumption - I admit I do see a problem. In case you are found guilty, rehabilitation might be a challenge for you in your reality, being completely innocent.” A private reality for everyone would pose a number of difficult problems. In real life and as mentioned above in connection with school scenario from Helsingborg, we don’t usually see examples as bizarre as the above court deliberations, but we often come across milder versions which have the same logical flaws. There are also ideas that more directly deny physicalism, such as the idea that a real world does not exist, only the impressions of such a world (we don’t point at Plato or George Berkeley here, but we intend to visit Berkeley later). In such a theory, the universe might be reduced to one person, “the lucky guy” who happens to exist, in contrast to all others in the dream. Everything outside this guy is delusion with respect to objective existence. If we were in such a dream we – the players in the dream - would all wonder who the lucky guy is for whom “the personal reality” is played out. If only one person exists, and the world is contained in a bubble perceived by that person, one might wonder if such a creature can see its own perhaps existing feet, in contrast to other’s perceived-only

8 feet. If that individual self resides in a dream one may infer that there, in contradiction, must be an existing person around after all, by applying Descartes´ statement “I think therefore I am” or “cogito ergo sum” in a process sometimes (used metaphorically and not quite easily followed) called a logical diagonalization5. My informal treatment of the matter is meant to convey a message that although we often need parts of a philosophical puzzle, the case studies we will look at in the next chapters do not require encyclopedic knowledge. (I have tried to use a minimum of technical words and no formulas, not even Einstein’s famous one in Chapter B about his Nobel Prize). Another view of idealism is provided by satirist sci-fi writer Robert Sheckley (1979) along the following lines: “If you were dreaming, you would still have to follow the same cause of action”. One might add that you perhaps might deduce - in your dream - that the world has an independent existence. If you then woke up in an objective reality there would be no harm done. A-3. THEORIES AND MODELS General definition of a theory (for our purposes) A model - or theory – is a description of reality either in formulas or in other ways that - most often goes beyond a simple description of the state of affairs in reality. We will not go deeper regarding the issue of what constitutes a theory. For our purposes here it is a sufficient to uphold the demarcation between theory and reality. To paraphrase an old saying: The pudding is reality, the receipt is a model, and the eating of a pudding is again a piece of reality, although not a proof here. We don’t make a difference between a description in words or formulas (which in any case need explanatory words). Newtonian theory applies both to the future and the past states of the solar system. What happened earlier is part of the theory. We can therefore, similarly, also accept a theory as a working hypothesis in a whodunit, such as “The butler (probably) did it” (theory) and the actual murder scenario (reality), i.e. we also accept the establishment of theories about the state of affairs already at hand before the formation of the theory such as for most criminal investigations. (This point is intended to prepare ourselves for the investigation of Jesus’ life in Chapter E.) Testable vs. non-scientific theories A politician may say - and often does – something like: “we have a large number of challenges but I am convinced that we shall overcome these obstacles” etc. This will always be true since it says nothing. Contrary to such a statement which can always be bent to be true, theories should be constructed in such a way that it is open to assessment. A theory which predicts a particular circumstance (position of a planet or unemployment rate in the future), can be compared with the reality of that circumstance. If the prediction turns out to be correct we can assess the theory on this point but we cannot know if all possible predictions from the theory are correct. We can therefore not draw the 5

th

The 19 century mathematician Georg Cantor used a technique for proving that the real numbers cannot be countable and the same type of reasoning has been used by another mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel, to show that there must be statements involving multiplication and addition of numbers which are true but cannot be proven with the axioms of the system (Gaifmann 2006).

9 conclusion that the theory is validated or correct in all its predictions. On the other hand, if there is a discrepancy between prediction and the observed result we can say that there must be something wrong with the theory because of its shortcomings to describe the world, i.e. we can falsify the theory. Karl Popper was one of the first to distinguish between testable and non-scientific theories, using the term demarcation (Karl Popper 1959). Before Popper, Charles Peirce discussed a similar concept and added a thought about hypotheses: “There are some hypotheses which are of such a nature that they never can be tested at all. Whether such hypotheses ought to be entertained at all, and if so in what sense, is a serious question” (Peirce 1931). One can only agree and perhaps even go a little further. Popper’s demarcation is often said to distinguish between scientific and unscientific theories. Actually, the demarcation is between testable and non-testable theories. A scientific theory should be both testable and on par with scientific traditions. Popper perhaps expected our theories to be testable in a near or medium time scale. If I say that the Sun will turn into a red onion in a million years from now, this is in principle a testable theory, but I cannot be falsified until a million years into the future. The test therefore has to be laid on ice until then and it is not an operable criterion, in the sense that is has no consequences for a predictor with a human lifespan. (This point is made to prepare the reader for the section about high level radioactive waste repositories in Chapter C). We can still test the red onion theory in the light of our current understanding of onions and celestial mechanics.

10 A-4. REPRESENTATION OF REALITY Reality, existing objectively as we believe, is of little use to us if we cannot speak about it. We must consider the statement that “There is always a distance between the signifier and the signified and a translation from the object into a system of signs or code, even when the most elementary observations are involved.6” (Nolin 1993). This can be taken as a concern that the objective world, which materialists assume exist independently of our minds, has a special autonomy in that it loses some of its theory-independence within a description in any language, i.e. “system of signs or code”. The Stanford Encyclopedia tells us that Thomas Kuhn takes same view: “First, the meaning of observational concepts is influenced by theoretical assumptions and presuppositions. For example, the concepts “mass” and “length” have different meanings in Newtonian and relativistic mechanics; so does the concept “temperature” in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (cf. Feyerabend 1962). In other words, Kuhn denies that there is a theoryindependent observation language. The “faithfulness to reality” of an observation report is always mediated by a theoretical Überbau, disabling the role of observation reports as an impartial, merely fact-dependent arbiter between different theories. (Stanford 2014).” I consider here not only an observation but also a presentation of the findings in a scenario in which the first step is that the observer interprets the situation and constructs a meaning, structured as a message in the observer’s own mind. The fact that there is a difference between a model and reality is our second axiom. I assume that the same message can be presented to others in the external world, outside the observer. I also assume that our reference scenario has an active participant, a sender of information, and a receiver. We also assume that the message is a description of something from the real world, excluding poetry recitals etc. In a press conference for example, the sender(s) and the receivers are most often obvious, but the next sections are meant to show that this is not always the case. First we make a visit to microcosmos. Example 1. Quantum physics A case where this problem is obvious is our microcosmos, made up of atoms and subatomic particles. A description in classical terms is highly problematic in that it assumes we can describe, inter alia, the whereabouts of the electron within the atom. We use (here) the term “quantum physics” to describe the fact that particles and light seems to appear in quanta, as opposed to “quantum mechanics” to describe their theoretical treatment. We can use a picture of an ion – an atom without its electrons - which has passed through a thick (0.3 mm) layer of nuclear emulsion and produced a track, looking like a hairy rope after the emulsion has been developed. This is an (almost) macroscopic picture of a microscopic particle. Some of the electrons in the emulsion has received energy enough to pull them out of the atom and the grain

6

The terms come from linguistics or semiotics describing interpretation of sign systems, but we might also use the terms “description in words or formulas”.

11 they and to disturb other grains, which induces a disturbance so that they will be visible after the emulsion has been developed, se figure A-1 below from (Jensen 1979). Figure A-1. A small part of a track about 0.03 mm (or 30 micrometer) long and 0,05 mm (or 50 micrometer) wide and the associated optical density profile when measured in a microscope.

This is an “almost macroscopic” – although most often viewed in a microscope – effect of a subatomic particle. Energy is passed (mostly) to the electrons (many of) which are ejected from the atom, making their own tracks often called delta-rays. The same amount of energy is lost by the incoming particle, the ion passing through the emulsion. The amount of energy lost by the passing ion per unit length of track is referred to as the traversed material’s stopping power for the ion in question. We have here given a general picture of an event – in the real world. If we want to know more about the stopping power we note that the (classical) calculation requires us to know the closest distance of the ion to the electrons in the emulsion. The classical treatment of the electron in the atom has problems. It is better done using quantum mechanics, a part of physics concerned with processes involving microscopic particles and photons (light quanta). The need to employ quantum mechanics arose as an attempt to calculate things, i.e. to use a theory about the passing ion and its environment. However the same problem would occur in a plain description of how things happen in the microscopic scale. Our normal language does not work well for this description, nor is there any lesser-used special vocabulary available. It is simply not possible to give a theory-independent account of these objects; a meaningful reference must involve some elements of quantum physics. Ernst Mach was a nineteen century physicist and philosopher, famous for his statement: “I don’t believe that atoms exist”. His position has to do with problem above7. We can see something which is the result of particles on an atomic scale – like the track in Fig. A-1 which leads us to assume that the fast ion exist, but there is an interpretational step in the middle. A famous statement of a similar kind, in somewhat less exact terms, is made by Socrates in Plato’s Apology: “What man could possibly believe that children of gods exist, but not gods?” (Reeve 2012). Socrates actually saw neither gods nor their children but his comment points to the same logic. The objects’ existence atoms and Socrates gods - require a deductive middle stage. 7

Admittedly, his comment was made at a very early stage in the development of the atomic model.

12 Example 1 - conclusion Quantum physics may seem to be a strong case for the thesis mentioned above that a description (the signifier) - quantitative or qualitative – and a described object (the “signified”) cannot fully unite. However, based on how we understand e.g. the electron, there is really not much of a structure to describe. They cannot themselves possess color for instance, since their change from one state to another within the atom is the process which creates light8. The same lack of detailed characteristics applies to a so called black hole, a heavy object formed after a collapsed large mass, which may be discovered through processes near the hole but which itself cannot be seen. In our description of microcosmos we must accept that there is a “distance between the signifier and the signified” and that in the realm of quantum mechanics these differences become explicit in the extreme. They are also mentioned in the next section about Einstein, perhaps somewhat off topic, in his comments on quantum mechanics. Notwithstanding that all observation may have a theoretical superstructure or Überbau, as mentioned above, one might want to believe that we get increasingly better in our describing nature and that the gap between reality and description reduces and eventually disappear completely. This is both right and wrong. We know more than the Greeks about the distance from the Earth to the Sun and the Moon, but our interest in new research fields raises new problems some of which did not concern the Greek philosophers at all. Observe also that the role of the sender and the receiver is unproblematic here. We are not considering the interpretation the result of a quantum mechanics experiment (where the reality would be the sender and the researcher the receiver) but a separate, simpler, social issue of one person describing things to other persons. We have quantum mechanics textbooks authors and students of physics for example. They are both humans and they come from the same societies and have many similar references, in various ways different from those in the next two scenarios. Example 2. Information transfer over large time scales Plans for management of high level radioactive waste often include geological disposal below hundred of meters below the surface, in what is called a geological repository. Even if we decide that such an underground repository is intrinsically safe, there is a possibility that someone sometime in the future might, intentionally or inadvertently, intrude in to the repository and compromise the repositories protective barriers. This human intrusion scenario has attracted attention and has been discussed internationally for a long time among professionals and by many others, se for example (OECD/NEA 1995) and, more recently, (OECD/NEA 2011). One obvious remedy to avoid inadvertent intrusion is to have the information available as long as necessary, i.e. as long as the waste presents a danger. The need for - and value of - information is intimately related to the (time dependent) toxicity of the radioactive waste. In the first 1 000 years, about 99% of the total radioactivity at closure have decayed for spent fuel. However, a few of the 8

Light can be created in other ways too. Things may look yellow for other reasons, but similar arguments as above can be applied to other types of light, both in connection with emitting and absorbing light and both for reflective surfaces and body color.

13 long lived alpha emitters may have some importance for a period of the order of 100 000 years before the level of natural background radiation has been reached9. This raises the issue of having information available over 100 000 years or more, i.e. over time scales where there is a value in having information about the repository available from a safety point of view (as we interpret safety today). The value of the information to future societies will decrease with time as the waste's radioactivity decreases. The realism of the idea of intrusion can be demonstrated by the interest to drill around the exclusion zone 4 by 4 square miles, around a repository, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, WIPP, facility in the US for defense radioactive waste in Carlsbad New Mexico. Oil and gas wells in production or applied for, as of 1993, See Fig. A-2. Figure A-2. Oil and gas wells near the WIPP, October 1993 in a 1 sq. mile grid system, (EEG 1993 Fig. 9).

In the reference (Jensen 1993), different ways to communicate with future societies has been discussed, from taking traditional constitutional actions (using archives) to more speculative measures such as on site markers, objects to mark the site, discussed inter alia in reference (Sandia 1993). 9

For nuclear waste programs with direct disposal most of the uranium-238 has not been used in the reactor. This means that a large part of the fuel´s uranium is left unchanged in the waste. It has been moved from one place to another, and constitutes an increase exposure in one location and a corresponding reduced exposure at the original mining site all other things being equal (which they are usually not, as a consequence of the original mining operation). Uranium-238 has a halflife of 4.5 billion years. Its chemo- and radiotoxic properties are comparable to each other. The hazards of uranium-238 waste are therefore similar to those of uranium seen purely as chemical hazardous waste.

14 The markers are example of information transfer thought to occur in a direct way from one generation to another, thousands of years apart (although in principle nothing prevents a parallel records management system handled by each generation in between). Obviously this large time span opens up a profound concern about the challenge of interpretation of the messages which the markers are thought to convey. One possibility is to add a component of emotion-inducing messages to cover the possibility that emotions will last longer than word-based messages. The dangers of high level waste may be used by pictures such as Munch´s “The scream” below according to a suggestion from Sandia (1993) Figure A-3. Munch´s the scream from the Norwegian National Gallery.

Credit: The Norwegian National Gallery In the research project (Sandia 1993), a number of large markers were discussed on similar grounds, i.e. to deter intrusion, such as a construction based on the context called “Landscape of Thorns” visualized in Fig. A-4 below. Figure A-4. A landscape of thorns.

Credit: Sandia In the same report a number of concepts are explored with a similar goal, but also a system of tradition messages in a hierarchy of 4 levels, from a shorter assembly of sentences to large body of text.

15 Another approach involved asking 11-year old children to depict the danger represented by a nuclear repository´s content. Fig. 3 from (Jensen 1993) is a sample of drawings from a class of eleven year old school children from Norway, visualizing the potential risk from nuclear waste. It has been argued that children of this age may be old enough to understand the problem of warning future generations yet young enough not to be influenced by symbols which may only be relevant for the present society. Several children used dead, black flowers as a warning symbol. Figure A-5. Danger from a repository visualized by an 11 year old schoolgirl from Oslo.

From (Jensen 1993) Even if representatives from a distant future society were to understand the message intended for them, there is no guarantee that it will be taken seriously. The “Eggja” rune stone in Norway, more than 1300 years old, was placed face down and according to the runes was never to be seen by the sun. This plea was not heard by the scientists who felt that the message was not aimed at modern historians. The message on the stone translates as: “It (the stone?) is not shone on by the sun, and the stone was not cut by an (iron) knife No one shall uncover the stone while the moon wanes, and neither shall misguided men lay it aside. This (stone) the man (=runemaster) splashed with corpse-sea (=blood) and scraped with it (=corpse-sea) the oarlocks in the way-weary cub (=boat) As whom did the god of armies (Odin?) come by boat here to the land of Goths (=people)? As the fish, swimming out of the river of terror(?) as the bird...shrieking. Protection against the wrongdoer.” (Jensen 1993).

The survival of a marker message might also be assisted by traditional archiving activities. In our example of information transfer it constitutes a long chain rather than a single process of transmission reaching over a long time scale. However, even a monument meant for the distant future may need maintenance or protection, so that transfer of information always carries a built-in intergeneration transfer of responsibility. In both cases the message might be the result of a series of re-interpretations. In Europe there is a tendency to rely more on longevity of archives for this type of information transfer, but clearly markers and archives both constitute possible methods. The value of archives as well as on-site monuments is demonstrated in the movie “North to Alaska” depicting tribulations

16 both on the site of the gold mine, and in the land registry. John Wayne´s character Sam McCord both fight adversaries on site - at the mine - and later discovers a scam of a con man, Cannon (played by Ernie Kovacs) to change the land registry. John Wayne exposes the scam and reclaims their right in court. It is easy to see problems associated with guarding archives for millennia, as is demonstrated with the Vatican archives and library10. Below are listed examples of dramatic events in a case study, many associated with losses of archival material: Year

Event

410

Rome was attacked by Alaric and the Goths and sacked additional 4 times during the 5th century.

1308

The papacy transferred to Avignon. Many documents were left behind and some of them destroyed during their transfer to France.

1404

The Vatican Palace of the Roman Pope Innocent VII was sacked by a mob. Valuable manuscripts were thrown into the streets.

1527

Rome was sacked by imperial German troops.

1810

Napoleon moved the archives, in 3239 chests, to Paris. One third of the archive was lost before they were brought back after the defeat of Napoleon. The last wagon train with documents arrived in Rome in 1917.

1870

The Italian army occupied Rome. Documents were "lost" to another archive, the State Archive of Rome.

1939-45

Few losses during World War II.

We take the following passages from (Nolin 1993) regarding the concept “Knowledge without a knowing subject”: Popper makes a distinction between three worlds (Popper 1967). The first is the world of physical objects or of physical states. The second is the world of consciousness, or of mental states. The third, which is the one that interests us here, is the world of objective contents of thought, which contains theoretical systems, problems, problem situations, critical arguments and states of discussions. Experiment (1). All our machines and tools are destroyed, also all our subjective learning, including our subjective knowledge of machines and tools, and how to use them. But libraries and our capacity to learn from them survive. Clearly, after much suffering, our world may get going again. Experiment (2). As before, machines and tools are destroyed, and our subjective learning, including our subjective knowledge of machines and tools, and how to use them. But this time, all libraries are destroyed also, so that our capacity to learn from books becomes useless18.

10

Strictly speaking, the term “Vatican archives” cover as many as 9 different collections of archive material, of which the most important are i) the Vatican Secret Archives, ii) the Vatican Secretariat of State and iii) Vatican Apostolic Library (S. Pasztor, 1991). Note that the term secret archive does not necessarily imply concealment of documents; it signifies an internal or private archive (Cf. “geheim” in German which translates both into “secret” and “private”).

17 Popper makes a distinction between two kinds of knowledge: subjective (second world) and objective (third world). The latter is knowledge without a knowing subject. The third world can therefore be conceived of as a knowledge repository, existing independently from the social sphere. Knowledge in context Another perspective can be said to build upon the idea that knowledge is always subjective, social and contextually grounded. From this perspective Popper’s reasoning has many flaws. The major one being that Popper has a static view of language, culture and science. If indeed all machines and tools were destroyed it is reasonable to assume that a large part of our culture, our common ground is destroyed too. The interpretive problems in trying to decode Popper´s world three when starting from a different cultural base, are totally ignored. According to Nolin (1993), “Popper has even less readiness for exotic future scenarios which presupposes a total break with our culture”, and below we have a few examples, examples 2 and 3, where the distance “between the signifier and the signified” becomes problematic in this sense. Example 2 - conclusions In the information transfer to societies in the distant future we expect that individuals from the future may not necessarily i) find the message, i) understand the message, or possibly iii) understand but reject the warning for a variety of reasons. Here, it is the interpretation and societal context of the receiver that occupy us. We also note that in this example we have seen successes and failures of interpretation of historical artifacts, which also assist us in our discussion. We believe sometimes optimistically that is we knew the future visitors´ social context we might have the required linguistic tools to explain the potential danger of intrusion, in contrast to the situation in Example 1. We will revisit some of these matters in Chapter C. Example 3 Communication with extraterrestrials If we explain the solar system to contemporary human beings we believe, notwithstanding the dependence of social context as mentioned above, that the message is fairly robust and can be understood by most. The National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA) in the 1970s set the task of explaining our solar system to extraterrestrials. The probes Pioneer 10 and 11 both had a plaque that depicted two humans, describing our planet system and (in code) our distance and place in relation to the galactic center and 14 celestial objects called pulsars and a silhouette of the Pioneer spacecraft relative to the size of the humans. Fig. A-6 below shows the bottom part of the plaque, showing a schematic version of the solar system.

18 Figure A-6. Schematic representation by the sun and planets in the solar system, the lower part of the Pioneer plaque.

Credit: NASA When we consider this scenario of information transfer we must realize that to some extent the plaque was a statement to our own society. The value of NASA´s plaque in the hands of extraterrestrials is more difficult to assess. It is similar to making an estimation of the value of the weapons and goods in the pharaohs’ tombs or the terracotta army of the emperor Qin Shi Huang for use in the realm of death. It is interesting to note that the women on the plaque was depicted without a line to indicate a vagina, indicating some kind of (self-) censorship illustrating the abovementioned reminder that “There is always a distance between the signifier and the signified and a translation from the object into a system of signs or code, even when the most elementary observations are involved”. Also, the next Pioneer flight, Pioneer 11, left the solar system via Saturn and not Jupiter but still carried the same plaque, indicating that the details of the message was perhaps not the most crucial issue for NASA. Figure A-7. The Pioneer Plaque (NASA).

Credit: NASA The probes of Pioneer 10 and 11 are now out of NASA´s reach. Their future can be calculated in some aspects, however. For example, any probe travelling perpendicular to the galaxy´s plane through an arbitrary part of the galactic plane will have an expected lowest distance of about 10 000

19 Astronomical Units, AU, to the nearest star system (NASA lost contact after about 100 AU)11. It will wander around in the galaxy´s gravity field since its galactic velocity is much less that the galactic escape velocity needed to take an object out of the galaxy´s gravity pull. Another aspect threatening the interpretation of the plaque is the fate of the Sun and Earth in the distant future. In a timescale of 5 to 10 billion years from now, the Sun will turn into a red giant star and may engulf the inner planets including Earth (Schroder 2008) not being able to maintain its orbit. After this time the description would not be accurate even if the graphics on the plaque were recognizable. Example 3 Conclusion It is to be expected that the extraterrestrial “social” context would constitute a major concern for the transmission of the message. Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss note: ”Every civilization tends to overestimate the objective nature of its own thought and this tendency is never absent (Lévi-Strauss 1966). If such risks of ethnocentricity are associated with the activity of humans, what would we not expect from our celestial neighbors? General conclusion regarding representation of reality In our materialist view we see that there are some problems with reality, i.e. not necessarily with reality itself but with its description. Popper’s concept of falsifiability – of the theory that the plaque will be understood - is difficult to define for this case. It depends on the probe being found and the time scale may lie many million years into the future. We have very little to go on outside statistical calculations of the probe’s path. A-5. TRUTH - AND CAUSALITY The issue of truth Our ideas of prediction are related to models such as Newton’s laws of motion, the first of which is that “Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon”. (Newton 1846). Following this we can make a prediction – within the model – that a body will move to another known position in a straight line (“unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon”). Reality and models being separated, any prediction of the future location of bodies is part of the model acting on a model world and is a true prediction: in the model world things will happen as foretold by the model. In some models, one action may trigger another action. We see this as cause and effect, which it is – in the model that is. There is no “cause” which exists objectively. In the real world we see a development e.g. that things move and we make models to describe it. The cause exists in the model. That is the main reason we construct models. There is no way to extend our reality to include the model-related cause as well. 11

The calculation is from the post “Pioneer probe´s distance to another star on its way out of the galaxy” on math.stackexchange.com, using a highly simplified set of assumptions.

20 As mentioned above, Popper uses the concept of falsification to distinguish scientific from the unscientific (untestable) theories, calling the dividing line “demarcation”. We also quote from (Nolin 1993) that according to Popper “In the scientific venture the goal is always verisimilitude, rather than absolute truth. A scientific theory is represented in a language and can never completely represent reality”. A model can never constitute real objects, its description becoming the truth. On the other hand a – falsifiable - model can be wrong in the sense that it gives a wrong answer. Let us take an easy problem from the real world: what is the number of suns in our solar system? We assume that a certain model gives us the number 2 as a result. This model is wrong in this particular case. We have managed to falsify it. Let us now assume the model gives us the number 1. Does this imply that the model is truthful, and perhaps even has changed its nature and has become part of reality in some way? To illustrate the question I use a very simple model: I write this the 20 days into the month of December (2016) and I take the model to yield that number minus 19. Tomorrow the model will be wrong and we note that the model has very little to do with our astronomical problem. Although our calendar has astronomical connotations, the relation is not strong enough for us to accept this particular model (which was made in a ridiculous way in the first place, to underline a point). We can think of other models that would always be right, not only a day in the month, such as “the answer to all problems is one”. This would not convince us that the model would somehow “contain” reality. We can therefore have only one type of truthful statements: descriptions of reality, its present and past (but not future) states. They must necessarily come after the reality has revealed itself and there can be no truth about the future state of the world, and there can be no absolute truth in models. Accepted theories cannot become reality. A widespread misunderstanding is that reality and models are mixed in micro-cosmos. The models are not “forcing” reality to do anything. This is expressed by Audi in reference (Audi 1973) to guard against mixing reality and models which is often done: “To say that the results / from the uncertainty relations/ are inherent in the nature of measurement is to lend our present theories a timeless quantity which, considering the nature of theories, they could not possess”. We remember from quantum mechanics above that microscopic reality may be difficult to describe in a theory-independent way. Audi’s quote however, is about theory not being reality, not an attempt to illustrate a difficult-to-describe reality12. He also notes in the same passage that “theories come and go”. On that theme we quote from Nolin (1993) 12

Michael Audi is associated with what is sometime called a minority view on quantum mechanics in that he denies the need for Bohr’s duality principle, interpreting with Born and others all phenomena in particle terms, but the quote above is a more general observation.

21 “The concept that scientific knowledge is embedded in a cultural context also leads to the insight that it is in some sense relative, i.e. other cultures would value other theories higher, use other methods and reach different conclusions in another language. Science as we know it recommends a certain way of looking for knowledge which is not very old. Science in its modern form with targetedresearch, big science, high-tech instruments, etc. has only evolved since World War II. It would be strange if science would not continue to change in the future as well.” For the reasons above we must also be skeptical towards the concept of validation, i.e. finding truth in a model. My former employer, the (former) Radiation Protection Authority, the Radiation Protection Institute13, started an international program called BIOMOVS (to do with Biosphere Model Validation Studies) where models were used to “predict” or guess the flow of radionuclides in the biosphere, e.g. sediment concentration of radioactive isotopes. One example was the assessment of Cs-137 deposited after the Chernobyl accident 1986, in an existing lake based on known input parameters. In later follow up programs, the term “validation” was changed to the more appropriate “assessment” (and BIOMOVS to BIOMASS). In the following we use “prediction” etc. to describe what Popper calls verisimilitude. The need to differentiate between models and reality should not be constructed to as belittling theories such as Newtonian or mechanics, or the theory of relativity or other results from physics. Also for more complicated models we note an enormous predictive potential in many of the sub-models, but the uncertainties when they are put together on a large scale model forbid the creation of a detailed World predictive calculator. Dramatic theory vs. dramatic reality We are now ready to answer questions of the famous type “Can a butterfly in Brazil really cause a tornado in Texas?” The idea is that there is a long chain of causes and effects starting with the flapping of a butterfly’s wing, and ending with a storm far away, such as “Harvey” currently (September 2017) in action in Houston Texas. The answer is very simple: It depends on the model. There is no causality between real objects, only in models depicting them. Many scientists and engineers use a jargon where model results are treated as reality as if they were identical, but this unhealthy jargon is often taken too far. A Swedish college, working in the US told me that American engineers in particular often fall victim to this mistake. I cannot judge in the matter, but if that should be the case they are at least well equipped in terms of language for the case where models go wrong: “shit happens!” Laplace’s “demon”

13

SSI´s English name was changed replacing, “Institute” to “Authority”, while keeping the well-established abbreviation SSI – with the “I” for Institute - unchanged). In 2008, it was merged with the authority responsible for nuclear safety to form the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.

22 Laplace is said to have mentioned that Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it-an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis—it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes. (Laplace 1902). However, understanding of electric and electromagnetic forces to a large extent started with Ampère and others such as Örsted whose work was presented mostly after the 1814, when the observation was made14. It is therefore possible that Laplace considered gravity, i.e. the possibility to predict the position of planets in the solar system and perhaps the path of molecules in a perfect gas undergoing only elastic collisions. Alternatively, he was perhaps considering determinism in general: for the first time someone speculated that everything could be calculated. Laplace’s determinism can be interpreted in several ways. One version is that someone could actually perform the calculations, comparable to a computer operator, having had the computer filled with the necessary information. Another - weaker - version would be that it would be possible in principle to build such a model, even if no human could master the task. Laplace’s idea is related to the concept of uncertainty which the “vast intelligence” would not need but which we mortals must live with. Uncertainty is here not only used to decide the exact value of a calculated result, but also the environment or composition of a scenario, such as the scenario around Anna O, described by the doctors Freud and Breuer in Chapter D. The reader notes that there is no difference between model and reality in the quote from Laplace, attributable to a person who knew in detail only one of the several forces we have in our models so far (with perhaps more to come in our future). However, gravity alone is enough to show us that all modeled systems are depending on their environments. This implies that if we develop such models into a perfect model, it would have to be a model of the entire universe, the study of which would tell us both “the future and the past”. There is no place for local “Laplace models”, i.e. understanding a little bit of reality perfectly well but not all real things. Everything is dependent on its environment and it is impossible to describe (in Laplace’s terms) a mouse without the meta-galaxy, and vice versa. This obviously is in contradiction with our second axiom, since the demon’s predicted world always would be the same as the real one. We must therefore reject it (while giving credit to Laplace for having introduced the concept of complete or cosmic determinism). Laplace’s determinism, or rather its opposite formulation, is therefore closely related to our second axiom of physicalism. We also note that Laplace’s determinism is not in complete contradiction to free will although it implies that there is a result for the choices we will make (we just don’t know it) – all the way from the Big Bang to the end of time.

14

Ampère’s important work on electricity and electrodynamics “ Théorie [mathématique] des phénomènes électrodynamiques uniquement déduite de l'expérience” was published 1826.

23 In the following, we will use the term “Laplace´s demon” to describe the idea that the real world can be completely understood in terms of a model. Concern for Laplace’s eternal soul Let us find the time for a slight digression, and consider the religious problematic related to Laplace living in the age of enlightenment, with a powerful Catholic Church but also with scientists continuing the tradition of Galileo, i.e. scientists being the source - rather that the church – about important information about our world. When asked about why he didn’t mention God in his work on celestial mechanics he is said to have answered: “I didn’t have any need of that hypothesis”. Both these accounts (Laplace’s reference to a “demon” and naming God’s existence a “hypothesis”) are problematic and both point to his contemporary’s possibly derogatory view on his person or work. It might have been possible to talk about a divine plan put into a model, but we are instead presented with a demon, a choice of words leading us a concept not too far from the devil. Laplace use the term “an intelligence” (Laplace 1902) from French “une intelligence” which might just as easy lend itself to a divine interpretation. The malevolent account of Laplace fits well with the connotation of “hypothesis of God” which he didn’t need. The background is explained by Stephen Hawking: Newton’s model included perturbations which might disturb the determinism in his model. If that should happen Newton expected God to intervene to preserve the constancy of the Solar system. It was such an intervention Laplace did not rely on, i.e. he did not need to assume that God intervened in a particular way. (Hawking 1999). Based on these distortions, one gets the feeling that celestial mechanics and determinism in the 18th century are not used without societal tension. A-6. SIMPLE AND COMPLICATED MODELS Falling apples Newton supposedly understands the principles of gravity under an apple tree after being hit by an apple. After the Royal Society of Science has made manuscripts available we can now read another story written by William Stukeley (Stukeley 1572) in fig. A-8. Figure A-8. Stukeley´s handwritten account of Newton talking about apples.

24 "After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden & drank thea under the shade of some apple tree; only he & myself. Amid other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly the notion of gravitation came into his mind.” Newton goes on: “Why sh[oul]d that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself; occasion'd by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood.” Credit: the Royal Society of London Newton’s first apple – and the second Let us consider two questions about an apple falling from a tree; 1.

What is the time it takes to fall on the ground?

It can (with some caveats) be answered with the help of a simple equation, and it is about half a second for apples you can just reach. Here comes the question number two: 2. When, i.e. how many days, hours, minutes and seconds etc does it take before the next apple – that is still on the tree - falls down? In order to come up with an answer we need to know more about a) what kind of apple, b) where on Earth c) what time of year, c) the expected coming weather d) the soil characteristics, e) local ground-water flow etc., etc. We would have a long range of questions. We could ask a team of scientists but - knowing scientists - I expect we would first get a long list of counter-questions, asking for clearer formulation of the initial question. To answer the question would require a complex dialogue to describe the form of the answer. After that, we would need a long series of disciplines involved, and their representatives would need both to understand the question and to deliver their subsystem investigation results in a manner which could be understood by the representatives for the adjacent disciplines. Perhaps the reader now gets the feeling that the final answer would be somewhat elusive. If we followed such a process we might probably learn a lot about apples and their harvest (at a considerable cost). The second apple constitute, if not forbidden fruit at least a forbiddingly difficult problem. Taking for granted that we can find answers to the simpler questions, we turn our attention to the more complicated, such as the one above. Many problems that occupy politicians today are of this more complicated type, discussed in the next sections.

25 Figure A-9. Frozen un-falling apples in the late fall.

Post-normal Science The calculations made for the fall of the first apple is a case of “normal science”, a term coined by Thomas Kuhn (1970). Another example of normal science is related to the Earth being the center of the solar system, a fact challenged by Galileo and Copernicus. Kuhn notes that, as science progresses new seemingly conflicting data (that is data which might lead us to question our old views) is reinterpreted to fit in the old context. Also the scientists are sometimes unable to communicate toward a common view, in a process called incommensurability. Another aspect of science in the last century is the interest in complicated models such as the second apple falling. It is related to societal expectations that scientists can help understand and advice in a large number of multi-component fields such as effects of large scale environmental systems: energy production including causes, effects and management of greenhouse gases with a related number of societal issues: democracy and social justice, human health, food production, nutrition, health care, crime and mental wellbeing. Post-normal science has been characterized by a famous quote by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz to describe research in situations where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.” (Funtowicz 1993). The authors illustrate normal and post-normal science in fig. A-10.

26 Figure A-10.Normal science (green) is applied in areas where the science is easily overviewed and accepted by most, in a gradual change to what they call post-normal areas, in red.

Credit: (Funtowicz 1993) Note that the area in the middle of the red band with both high decision stakes (importance) and high uncertainty will require – and receive – resources. There are tendencies of convergence or amalgamation of post-normal large projects since, as they grow in size, they need to include an increasing number of complex systems and therefore aspire to the ideal of Laplace´s demon. The study of (long term) global temperature models include one of Laplace’s a favorite research areas - celestial mechanics - needed to understand the Earth’s glacial cycles. Celestial mechanics is also needed to understand the impact of glacial cycles on long term safety studies of high level radioactive waste (having to do with climate change, ice pressure and seismicity). Both of the two studies also contain health and environmental components in their endpoints. A-7. THE PHYSICALIST AXIOMS I conclude by stating my view in the form of a few axioms. We form our axioms: Their truthfulness cannot be proved as in a mathematical proof. Alternatively formulated, our reasoning is dependent on axioms just like mathematical proofs. The first physicalist axiom The first axiom is about the existence of reality, independent of our consciousness. It is a good starting point necessary for what is to come, but also not quite enough. We remember that the reality also must cover some basic properties such a location and velocity of real objects, as well as time and space.

27 The second physicalist axiom The theorem stats, in its linguistic form, that “There is always a distance between the signifier and the signified” which means we cannot claim that models describe reality completely. If we could there would be no point in making a distinction between the two. The third physicalist axiom The fact that models cannot represent reality completely, poses the question whether there is an asymptotic movement of models coming nearer, or whether they might come increasingly estranged, from reality. Is there a possibility regarding e.g. our default model, the solar system, that the second axiom can open a can of worms? The worst case scenario from our two first axioms would be that Tycho Brahe did not quite understand what he observed, and that Johannes Kepler’s description rested on one of several possible interpretations, followed by the scenario that Newton’s principles led us in one direction, where a completely different set of possible interpretations might lead us through steps in a new direction. The third axiom would simply say that we improve on our models (albeit sometimes in zigzag way) so that we come closer to reality in some way or that such a movement is at least possible. In the spirit of this axiom we see quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity as improvements of the theory Newton, although the two new added extra theories might also be said to fault the theory. This axiom is used when we assume that we believe in existence scientific models in general, despite the caveats in the second axiom. The opposite of the 3rd axiom An example of situation of increased confusion and diverging public understanding and opinion is the well-known problems of nutrition. Our purchases in the grocery store should be guided by normative choices: We should 

Choose foodstuff to support our wellbeing and avoid detriments to various organs, taking into account our choice´s side-effects on other organs while reducing the overall cancer risk. We get advice in large measures with scientific support which is freely interpreted, in a way that does not converge to make us wiser. Medical experts may advice in defense of one organ system as opposed to others outside their area of responsibility (a problem sometimes seen in in geriatrics where a holistic view is particularly important).

We should also   

Take social wellbeing of the producing workforce into account by supporting the workers’ right to self-organization, Consider the ethics of eating animals, and Lessen the environmental detriment of our choice by selecting local produce over products shipped over large distances.

28 The scenario is not completely different from our historical road to Newtonian mechanics and the present view of the Solar system. It included Galileo and Copernicus’ dilemmas, and also encountered ethical and philosophical issues, mainly in their religious form. A-8. COMPLICATED MODELS Formulated in a simplified way, we have simple and complex models. That is our second theme, apart from physicalism. It is a simplification because even simple models usually have some complexity attached to them. Sometimes, even for simple models, “descriptions of data, models, and analysis” overshadow discussions of implicit assumptions as mentioned in Chapter C. Nevertheless, the models such as the one describing Newton’s second apple above, are always complicated and the models’ predictions – for any set of assumptions - are problematic even for the model-makers themselves. The calculations are closely connected to our second axiom: that we always have uncertainties; we have a less than perfect description of reality. If you meet people without uncertainties, you might want to discretely leave the room. If that is not possible, agree with them in noncommittal and nebulous terms in the interest of your personal safety. A-9. SOME CASE STUDIES I have chosen some case studies which are intended to demonstrate the all-pervasive obfuscation and confusion when physicalism is on trial one way or another. Of these examples, I have an ax to grind with some (Chapter B about Einstein´s Nobel Prize, and the second part pf Chapter D about the use of psychologists in legal proceedings): with the others, I simply contemplate how issues of physicalism play a role in our framing of the discipline´s issues. The examples are about: 

Demarcation issues; the fact that the paraphernalia of physicalism can play a major role in scientific conflicts which arose between the Nobel committees and Einstein’s curved spacetime a century ago, essentially a theoretical study (Chapter B) follower by two very practical cases, namely



the role of physicalism combined with society’s handling of complicated models: repositories for high level radioactive waste (Chapter C),



mind vs. matter: psychoanalysis, psychology and the use of psychologists in courts and police procedures (Chapter D), and finally some comments on



hypotheses of divinity in the light of physicalism (Chapter E).

29

CHAPTER B. EINSTEIN’S BENT SPACE-TIME B-1. RELATIVITY AND THE NOBEL PRIZE Background People in Gothenburg are known for their down-to-Earth jokes and irony. When they ridicule academia they talk about learned theses like “the importance of water for maritime transport”. You might want to transfer the joke to outer space and talk about the influence of space and time on interstellar transport. This, however, turns out to not quite as simple or innocent as the concepts in the first version of the joke. We need space and time to characterize matter and its properties e.g. the structure and whereabouts of celestial bodies such as the planets in the solar system, but the objective existence of time and space itself is somewhat less obviously associated with materialist or physicalist scenarios, but as mentioned earlier, we must not only consider objects such as the Sun and the planets their positions (related to space) and velocities (related to time). This section is about time and space and people’s interpretations and lack of comfort around these concepts. The main references in this chapter are (Elzinga 2005) and (Silverbark 1999), referred to as Elzinga and Silberbark. The Nobel committee’s documents from the archives of the Swedish Academy of Science are viewed by others, primarily Elzinga, implying caveats on my conclusions, but we note that others have been given access to the Nobel documents in the Swedish Royal Academy of Science’s archive15. Incompetence in the Physics Committee? One book review of Elzinga underlines the fact that Uppsala were out of contact with the pioneering work in physics in Europe at the time: “Elzinga makes perhaps too much of the stranglehold of the Uppsala physicists on the Nobel Committee. The reality is that theoretical physics was very weak in Sweden before the 1920s and that, until C. W. Oseen joined the academy in I922, the Nobel Committee simply lacked competence in this area. This is best illustrated by the fact that the physical chemist Svante Arrhenius and the ophthalmologist and self-taught optical expert Allvar Gullstrand evaluated Einstein's work on several occasions—the former being skeptical and the latter utterly hostile.” (Widmalm, 2007).

Widmalm’s opinion that “theoretical physics was very weak in Sweden before the 1920s, and therefore also in Uppsala, from where 3 of the 5 experts in the Physics Committee came, seems acceptable particularly in the light of the treatment of Johannes Rydberg below, but the term “selftaught optical expert” attributed to Allvar Gullstrand is somewhat misleading. Gullstrand showed an astonishing interest in, and plunged into, the new theories to the extent that he actually managed to 15

in addition to Elzinga, Friedman and Crawford have reported about the archive. Friedman shares the view that Einstein was treated unfairly (Friedman 2016), (Crawford 2013).

30 get his name into the history of the theory of general relativity through concept of “Gullstrand– Painlevé coordinates” looking at a scenario from the relativity theory from a special point of view. Physics in Sweden is on the whole a self-glorified sleeping beauty from the turn of the century to the 1930s. The instrumentalists are sometimes referred to as the Ångström dynasty. It includes, among others, Anders Ångström, his student Robert Thalén, his son Knut Ångström and Knut’s son in law Carl Gustav Lundquist. Had it not been for Nobel’s prize, Einstein´s reception in Sweden would hardly be worth looking into. With the exception for a few enthusiasts he would have gone unnoticed. The question whether “Elzinga makes perhaps too much of the stranglehold of the Uppsala physicists on the Nobel Committee”, is also worth further investigation. The physicists’ in the Nobel Physics Committee in Uppsala In the Nobel Physics Committee, 3 of 5 physicists were from Uppsala and they came to dominate the committee’s work. Arrhenius, one of the remaining two members not from Uppsala (both from the University of Stockholm), took the same view as the Uppsala physicists. An example of theory in physics known to the Swedish physicists in the 19th century was the fact that the frequency of light in spectral lines from a number of elements could be arranged in a certain pattern, found by the Swiss and Swedish physicists Balmer and Rydberg. The main result was a simple mathematical expression that fitted all the spectra, which in itself did not produce any explanation of the way the spectra were produced. This was probably the typical example of an outstanding work of the spectrographic Swedish experts at the turn of the century. What came in the first quarter of the next century was something else. It was done on a level of abstraction unheard of since Newton. Bohr´s new model of an atom could eventually explain not only all of Johann Balmer’s and Johannes Rydberg’s spectral lines but much more. It must have baffled them completely. It also meant that great work could be done – and had to be done - mainly using other physicist’s data. This was something new and suspicious to the Swedish instrumentalists and eventually required a new type of discipline: theoretical physics. It was an unnatural concept in Uppsala by the turn of the century. When Rydberg applied for a professorship in Lund 1899, Professor Knut Ångström, Professor in Uppsala since 1896 and member of the Swedish Royal Academy since 1893, had this to say about Rydberg: Docent Rydberg's works on Spectrum Analysis are undoubtedly of a great scientific value and prove also the author's great diligence and interest for the treatment of an often ungrateful problem, but these works cannot completely establish his competency for the appointment in question, as they are not based on his own measurements and researches. (O´Connor 2014). It is clear from the reference that the hands-on instrument research was the important criteria according to, not only Knut Ångström but also to Bernhard Hasselberg, another professor from Uppsala with almost identical views, making up two of the three referees and outmaneuvering the third, Christian Christiansen, from the university of Copenhagen. However, Rydberg acquired additional recommendations and could later add very strong support from colleges in Germany (Carl Runge and Heinrich Kayser). It all ended to the benefit of the competitor Bäcklund:

31 The University of Lund was impressed with the strong referee reports supporting Rydberg and, despite the two referee's reports which were critical of the fact that Rydberg had used the experimental data of others to reach his important conclusions, they recommended Rydberg for the chair. The chair was a royal appointment so all the documentation, together with the recommendation that Rydberg be appointed, was sent to King Oscar II and to the Swedish government. After a long wait for a response, eventually on 21 September 1900 Albert Victor Bäcklund was appointed to the chair. (Ibid.). The Danish referee, Christiansen, commented: “I do not at all understand that anyone should consider it a deficiency in Docent Rydberg that he has worked up materials already existing” (Ibid.).

The quote is an indication that Christiansen had a good feeling for where the wind was blowing in Sweden. According to O´Connor (2014), historians used the term “bizarre”16, a word that a century later found its way to the description of the Nobel committee in the diploma’s citation of Einstein´s prize, by Widmalm (2007). Given the provincial academic atmosphere in Uppsala (regarding physics), one can argue that Bäcklund was the logical choice: who would be better suited to supervise the student than another instrumentalist since instrumental craftsmanship was of overriding importance? In the frame of mind with a romantic view of the 19th century as a time for exploration of the world, it seems obvious that an explorer of an expedition would have an obvious first hand right to tell the story. In fact the expedition notes were proprietary, and it would even be wrong for anybody else to interfere with the report to be celebrated by the explorer. Whatever the reasons for this sentiment in Uppsala, this happened more than 200 years after the publication by their college in another Royal Academy, Newton, of Principia, and even longer after Kepler used the observations of another scientist (Tycho Brahe). The provincialism and intellectual poverty is overwhelming. Hasselberg was involved in the Nobel Prize debacle in connection with the theory of relativity and his view of Rydberg is an indication of how Einstein will be treated. The proprietary relation to physicist´s material and the need for a physicist to make a private interpretation of the work produced is even more pronounced in the thoughts of another Nobel laureate, Percy Bridgman. He goes to an absolute extreme: “The process that I want to call scientific is a process that involves the continual apprehension of meaning, the constant appraisal of significance, accompanied by a running act of checking to be sure that I am doing what I want to do, and of judging correctness or incorrectness. This checking and judging and accepting that together constitute understanding are done by me, and can be done for me by no one else. They are as private as my toothache, and without them science is dead” (Stanford 2009).

16

The whole sentence runs: Historians trying to understand this seemingly bizarre decision have pointed out that Bäcklund was a close friend of King Oscar II.

32 This view invites a psychological evaluation of Bridgman, touched upon in the reference but which we shall pass up here. Quantum physics One might argue that if the weakness of theoretical physics in Sweden were the only reason for the “stranglehold on the Nobel Committee” we would expect a similar treatment for quantum physics. We must assume that - in the eyes of the Physics Committee - both Bohr and Einstein suffered from the same deficiency as Rydberg along with all the new theorists of physics, theorizing over other scientist’s work, but quantum physics nevertheless passed the Nobel committee (then) as an item on the (present) TV news. The reason for the committee´s animosity to Einstein’s theory of relativity therefore cannot be attributed alone to a reaction to the emergence of novel theory. Contrary to the theories of relativity, quantum physics in the first part of the century could be tested in a number of areas where tests could be - and was - made: 

  

Rydberg´s formula. In 1880, The Swedish physicist Johannes Rydberg was able to find a formula for wavelengths in spectral lines using a simple formula for the frequency of the observed light. It was well established discipline in Sweden and a theoretical background of this work could not be disregarded. It is coupled to the atomic structure in Bohr’ s first atomic model, It explains phenomena related to the so called black body radiation, and Einstein’s photoelectric effect explained the work of another prize winner, Lenard, in great detail.

The theory was able to explain the results of spectroscopy, one of the main sub-disciplines in Sweden and impressed physicists all over the world. The committee’s treatment of Einstein There were many problems with the general theory of relativity, from the point of view of the Physics Committee. The gravitational redshift was one of them. It has to do with effect of light coming from one appoint and being observed at another point with a different gravity, for instance light from the Earth being seen at the Moon, or light from the Sun observed from Earth. We see problems 100 years later. Although gravitational the redshift is an accepted effect, the interpretation of different components of this effect is still part of a controversy: “two research teams have recently disagreed on the physical cause of the shift” (Wilhelm 2014). The reference (Wilhelm 2014) continues to describe a number of different scenarios for the emission process which is mentioned to demonstrate that even if gravity has effects on light predicted by the general theory of relativity, a number of sketched alternatives remains for the interpretation of how that process may work (truncated here to avoid technicalities):

33 a) The atom can somehow locally sense the gravitational potential U, but not the speed c, … b) If the atom can, however, sense the local speed of light c, but not the potential U, the photon emission energy will be … c) If the atom can sense both the speed of light c and the potential U, it then has to reduce the photon emission energy by a factor of … d) If Einstein’s assumption that only intra-atomic processes are of importance is valid, this is equivalent to the statement that the atom can sense neither U nor c …(Wilhelm 2014). It has to do with our understanding of an atom inside a strong gravity field such as that of the Sun. The atom would seem - as observed by us, in the Earth´s lower gravity - to oscillate slower. For radioactive nuclides, the decay would seem slower than outside the field from our point of view. The same slowing down would occur for the atom’s electrons. They would seem move slower and they might emit light of seemingly lower frequency, shifted in wavelength toward the red end of the spectrum. On top of this we might need to consider additional redshift of the light, working its way out of the Sun’s gravity field, coming to meet our instruments. (Alternatively, amateurs like me might also wonder whether these two scenarios might be two separate descriptions of the same effect). Oddly enough, these effects, however described, are considered results from a different principle called the equivalence principle - rather than the theory of relativity, another principle for which Einstein was not to receive any prize. Independent of the general acceptance of the theory, some problems remain, although they are mainly about interpretation of the theory. The mistreatment of Einstein was not based on the fact that the theory of general relativity was difficult to manage, it was much worse and had little to do with (physical) science. Any discussion such as this, in (Wilhelm 2014), hundred years later, would no doubt still have constituted grounds for a wait and see attitude, given the contemporary committee’s frame of mind, independent of Gullstrand’s own reservations. Some 40 years later, however, evidence show that the Nobel committee had changed its view. By then, as we shall see below, the theory was also accepted in Uppsala’s philosophical quarters. The Physics Committee’s modus operandi There would be ground for a wait and see attitude for the Physics Committee in some cases where Einstein’s general theory of relativity was involved, but this was not the ways of the Physics Committee, who preferred unscientific and dishonest trickery. There were three possible effects at the time seen as tests of the general theory: i) the change of Mercury’s perihelion, ii) light bending as starlight passed near a heavy mass such as the Sun (which might be measured at a solar eclipse) and iii) Gravitational redshift, mentioned above. The perihelion of Mercury is the point where the planet is closest to the Sun - very simplified – shown as the arrow 1 on Fig. B-1. After 6 500 years, the change of perihelion has turned to position 2 and after 13 000 years to position 3, to eventually complete a whole 360 degrees in 26 000 years (not shown). Figure B-1 Change of position of Mercury’s perihelion after 13 000 years

34

Initially, a common position was that test worked for i) and ii) but the attempt to measure criteria iii) was inconclusive. Before we move to test number iii) we should note a number of bad omens from Elzinga: a)

The idea of rewarding Einstein for the special – rather than the general - theory of relativity was rejected, b) his other contributions to physics 1905 (the photoelectric effect and his work on Brownian motion) was systematically belittled, and c) a new criterion was invented and used: “the theory has to match with reality in all respects”.

Regarding test iii), the gravitational redshift, the Physics Committee report for 1918 notes that, still from Elzinga: “A most careful experimental test carried out at the Mount Wilson Observatory (by the astronomer Charles St John) has shown that this shift does not exist, even though it should have been quite measurable with the method used (my emphasis). Under such circumstances the committee finds, just as last year, that Einstein’s theory of relativity, whatever its merits otherwise may be, does not deserve a Nobel Prize.” In the 1917 report, the effect was also described as conclusively negative: “the result is that this, well measurable effect, does not exist”. The general committee members in the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences are told in no uncertain terms that the gravitational redshift has been examined and found not to exist. According to (Trimble 2007) and Hentchel (1993) St. John later changed his pessimistic view from 1917. Trimble points to the negative findings in more general terms17. The final tone of the Physics Committee is nevertheless in striking contradiction to Charles St. John’s own careful wording when negative findings were reported 1917: “For the lines of highest weight there is no displacement to the red either at the center or at the limb. The measurements are inherently difficult, and results may he more or less influenced by the choice of lines and by the resolving power, definition, and dispersion of the spectrographs used. (St. John 2017), also mentioned in (Hentschel 1993)”.

17

“St John concluded in 1917 that the gravitational shift was not there. Later, looking at a larger number of lines, he believed that it could be separated out from other line shift and was about the expected size. This is now known to be the case, but the definitive result is generally attributed to much later work”.

35 We get the feeling – already here - that the basis for the categorical denial of the existence of the redshift effect was not likely from Charles St. John18. It constituted at best a misunderstanding of the central source, St. John himself. Based on the committee’s general conduct regarding Einstein, one may comfortably suspect that the committee’s final judgment on gravitational redshift was fabricated by the committee itself. The Nobel Committee’s definitive statement on St. John’s negative findings is followed by the later special report of Gullstrand to the Physics Committee in 1921: “It was noted how St. John also made it clear that eventual verification could only come in the future when more discriminating instruments and precision instruments had reached a higher state of development.”(Elzinga). Even without St. John’s writings, the earlier statement that “it should have been quite measurable with the method used” now sounds odd when combined by the new wait and see attitude, recalling the fact that the 1918 report had already, and beyond doubt, established the fact that the gravitational redshift did not exist. An early report by Arrhenius contains the admission that according to the British expert Eddington, “the test i) and ii) were correct even if they were gained by a wrong method”. That part of the sentence was never substantiated by a reference. It was supposed to have been something Eddington may have said and used to “undermine Eddington’s claims on behalf of Einstein’s theory”. (Elzinga). One gets the impression that the committee’s internal slander was so well established that it became something of a “working truth”, not easily contained, which found its way into the reports. A researcher, Robert Friedman, mentioned that Gullstrand had commented that “Einstein must never receive a Prize19” and committee members followed and accepted in part some of the charges made beginning in 1920 by German extremist right-wing nationalists (Friedman 2016). Elzinga also mentions the attack on Einstein with anti-Semitic content, although (the scientific parts of) it had been rejected by the scientific community. It was still used willingly by the Nobel Committee although the background was well known. Derogatory sentences and skewed summaries occur without support in references. The scientific content of Physics Committee’s views is summed up by Popper: “In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable, or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. (ln the struggle against Einstein. both these arguments were 18

With the benefit of hindsight we can add that – for the Sun - the Doppler effect, i.e. change in wavelength for an observer moving relative to its source (and known in principle to St. John), of the gases emitting the observed lines is greater than the redshift, adding to the measurement difficulties (Trimble 2010). 19 Virginia Huges expands on Gullstrand’s private remark: “which Friedman found buried in a diary, sums up his sour attitude: Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize, even if the whole world demands it.” (Huges 2005). We should note that Gullstrand’s remark would not in itself be compromising if Gullstrand had arrived at his scientific conclusions by honest and scientific methods.

36 often med in support of Newtonian mechanic. and similar arguments abound in the field of the social sciences.) lf you insist on strict proof (or strict protocol) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are” (Popper 2005). We can look at the members of the Physics Committee and their work as an experiment, and conclude with Popper that they never learned how wrong they were. With the arrival of a new academy member, Oseen, the situation changed, but Oseen did not manage or dare to oppose his colleges on the subject of the theory of relativity. He managed instead to find what Elzinga calls “the right formula for Einstein+Bohr” in the field of quantum physics, and Einstein finally got his delayed prize 1922. The actual diploma citation in the original diploma was unheard of in that it noted for what the prize was not awarded. The actual text of the inserted caveat is not without entertainment value. The original handcrafted diploma mentions that the committee’s decision was "independent of the value that (after eventual confirmation) will be credited of relativity and gravitation theories" (Elzinga), (Clark 2012). There are several explanations possible and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is the whole Swedish Royal Academy behind the final wording20. Perhaps the committee wanted to bind its future members’ vote to ensure that “Einstein must never receive a prize”. The Nobel committees on the psychiatrist’s couch A benevolent interpretation is that “the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel Prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested” (Clark 2012). That never happened and the text “independent of the value that (after eventual confirmation)” seems also to explicitly deny such a possibility. Notwithstanding that a generous interpretation is a possibility, the very bizarre, addition of the caveat in the Nobel diploma still suggests, demands, an explanation in psychological terms. This time we give in: Taking the wording literally, we must interpret the caveat it to mean something like: “The general Nobel committee decided that it would not have suggested the prize to be awarded for relativity and gravitation theory even if it had clairvoyant-assisted information available at the time of the committee’s meeting, to the fact that the relativity theories actually will be confirmed in the future”. The caveat appears (in a psychological interpretation) as something in the middle between an incantation of a deranged mind and a cry for help, set in motion by an overwhelming, unendurable stress. It is clear from Elzinga´s account that the physics subcommittee was painfully aware that the outside world looked with raised eyebrows on Einstein´s treatment during the whole evaluation process. A sad and disturbing interpretation - different from that of (Clark 2012) but more realistic - is that the inscription was a reminder to the scientific community that Einstein should never receive the Price (for his theory of relativity). The fact is that Einstein received 62 nominations up to 1922 but not a single after this date. It is difficult to explain those numbers unless we assume that they were 20

The Academy´s plenary meeting took place November 9, 1922 (Elzinga 2006).

37 interpreted as a loud and clear message that the Nobel committees wanted no more contact with Einstein´s theory. Einstein’s discovery of physical “laws” which might have justified support for nomination includes the special theory of relativity and the equivalence principle. By the 1950s Einstein’s general theory was still not fully accepted by the Physics Committee. Some indication of the Physics Committee’s view is given by the Nobel committee in the press release for the physics prize 1993 to Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, Jr, for the discovery of a new type of pulsar: “For a long time the theory of relativity was considered aesthetically very beautiful and satisfying, probably correct, but of little practical significance to physics except in applications in cosmology, the study of the origin, development and structure of the universe. Attitudes to the general theory of relativity changed, however, during the 1960s when both experimental and theoretical developments made gravitational physics a topical part of physics.” It seems that the Nobel committees were ready to accept the general theory of relativity, a little more than 5 years after Einstein’s death and about 40 years after his prize. Before that it was only “probably correct”. As we shall see below, it is also possible to also locate a point in time where the theory went from proven wrong to possibly correct, by looking at the late 1940s after which the Uppsala (philosophical) school tiptoed away from the Einstein critique. The paradigm shift of instrumentalism in Uppsala There are several factors which must have been stressful for the physical committee members, the most obvious being expectations from the public and media and from the peers of the committee members as indicated by 62 nominations for Einstein in total. Perhaps there was a fear that the Nobel Physics Committee along with the Uppsala instrumentalist tradition was turning into the laughing stock of Europe. Perhaps the Physics Committee members could see the decline and fall of the instrumentalism’s privileged position in Uppsala. In any case, the performance of the Nobel committees is a perfect example of Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of scientific revolutions: “Lifelong resistance, particularly from those whose productive careers have committed them to an older tradition of normal science, is not a violation of scientific standards but an index to the nature of scientific research itself. The source of resistance is the assurance that the older paradigm will ultimately solve all its problems, that nature can be shoved into the box the paradigm provides.” (Kuhn 1970). Change was certainly on the way, not only with Oseen in the Physics Committee. All the members representing Uppsala in the Physics Committee died before the decennium came to an end, Granqvist and Hasselberg died in 1922 and Gullstrand in 1929, verifying Planck’s ultimate and somewhat less sophisticated view of the same phenomenon: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and new generations grow up that is familiar with it” (Planck 1949).

38 The science of Gullstrand’s criticism I wrote in the first version of this chapter before the Nobel Prize 2017 (about gravitational waves): “The recent reporting of gravity wave detections21 suggests that the present Nobel physics subcommittee may have its eyes on research in gravity. If a Nobel Prize is awarded for research in this field, it is likely that the same Physics Committee’s earlier positions will be scrutinized down to its finer details. This is particular relevant for Gullstrand’s critique in the academy´s own publication series followed by answers by Oseen and Kretschmann Mentioned in (Oseen 1921) and (Kretschmann 1923)”. This prediction is now open for testing! Gullstrand’s view is not easily accessible by laymen. One reference gives a more explicit account: “Gullstrand examines Einstein's equations for the movements of bodies and his explanation of the movement of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. His criticism was that Einstein’s equations for this phenomenon permit several solutions. As remarked by Oseen in a subsequent paper, Gullstrand did not observe that the choice of coordinates must be adjusted to the observer and that this gives the correct result.” (Gårding 1998). This account portrays Gullstrand’s position as being close to an honest mistake. His remark that “Einstein should never receive the Price” points in another direction. Ironically, through the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates mentioned above he seems to have criticized Einstein for some dramatic consequences of general relativity, which perhaps instead might have rendered him fame and a name as a pioneer of relativity, had he been more positively inclined to Einstein’s theories. There are a number of possible explanations – outside the world of physics - for why the learned committees, primarily the Physics Committee, turned into fault-finders if not complete fraudsters: the special environment in Uppsala and the media and peer pressure. In the next section we take a look at religious and philosophical reactions behind the new physics, acting upon the members of the committees. B-2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL ANGLE Boström and philosophy in Uppsala Uppsala University, the oldest in Scandinavia, was founded by the Archbishop Jacob Ulvson 1477 essentially as a Catholic theological faculty. After the protestant reformation and period of loss of support for the university, the protestant clergy reemerged at the end of the 16th century as an authority over religious teaching and the church council in Uppsala (Uppsala möte) in 1593 reestablished the university. Up to and including the 19th century, philosophy was completely entangled with religion. A very influential religious figure in the middle of the 19th century was Christopher Jacob Boström, (1797-1866) from Uppsala, mostly known for his religious followers, the bostromians (Swed.: 21

Se for example, the news comment from the international magazine Nature, by Davide Castelvecchi & Alexandra Witze, LIGO 'hears' space-time ripples produced by black-hole collision, February 2016.

39 boströmianer). He was from an influential family and the prime minister’s uncle. His teachings included jurisprudence and there is no doubt that, through his religious and philosophical position, his thoughts represented the essence of ideas of state governance in the country during the better part of his century. According to a brochure 2015 from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, named “The Opponents of Democracy”: “Bostrom´s enemy was liberalism with its view of individuals making voluntary contracts. For Bostrom, the state was something higher, which was ordained in heaven. National idea was higher than the individuals. The people existed for the law's sake, not the law for the people. The sovereignty stemmed not from below but from the people from above, from the state's idea and ultimately from God. The State was one and indivisible and represented by a single individual, the monarch.” (MSB 22015). Boström opposed the change in the constitution from 1809, replacing the Parliament of the four Estates22 with a modern two-chamber Parliament 1865. Philosophy for Boström was the perception or knowledge, identical to God's own omniscience. The next generation philosophers with Axel Hägerström and his student and later college Adolph Phalén, active as professors during the first part of the 20th century. They developed an opposition to Boström regarding his idealism and in the field of jurisprudence advocated (in particular Hägerström) the theory of value nihilism and legal realism, whereby the state should be governed according to its majority but no particular moral values could otherwise be considered true. They were thus loyal to the more democratic form of the constitution from 1865. They were perhaps overly loyal in the sense that, according to the new school, moral principles needed to guide an autocratic or semi-autocratic monarch no more was necessary in the new democratic times, and moral values therefore were less in - and according to the Uppsala philosophical school completely out of - demand (hence their theory about value nihilism). In a democracy, the majority was now the only thing that mattered (in spite of the lack of women´s suffrage). Phalén´s and Hägerström´s legal realist views could be fitted to serve several political needs, in Sweden by the social democrats and in the case of Hägerström´s pupil Karl Olivercrone, also used for support for war-time Germany (but as he claimed later not for national socialism) during the war, all in the name of science, i.e. legal realism (Dauchy 2016). The following is from an invited essay by the philosophy professor Carl Yngve Sahlin in a book from in 1897 commemorating the tercentennial of the Uppsala synod or church council 1597: “The inner life is man's personal life. In its highest form, it is man´s religious life. His religion for his life in God, and God lives in him. He lives not only in God, but by God, and since he has its innermost essence of God, is also the life which he has in and through him, his inner life in the highest sense.” (Sahlin 1897).

It is unlikely that any philosophic idea would be independent of religion for a person with this view of man´s inner life. Professor Sahlin was first associated professor and later tenured professor 186222

The estates were: the Nobility, the Clergy, the Burghers and the Peasantry.

40 1894, in the time between Boström and the new Uppsala school, i.e. in the transitional era between religion-based and religion-independent Swedish philosophy. Coming into the new century and even somewhat before, Hägerström and Phalén decoupled religion from philosophy. Divine matters were not in referenced in their arguments. However, the tradition from earlier generations was religious and we must assume that much of the prestige of the discipline of philosophy would have come from earlier coupling to the religious sphere in a university, still led by an archbishop23! There can be little doubt of the central place of this discipline, originally (1597) - in its religious form the only discipline on campus. It is natural to assume, and has been assumed by Philosopher von Wright, a Swedish-speaking philosopher from the university of Helsinki (and later Cambridge), that the critique of Einstein “came from philosophical quarters” (Gavroglu 2013). Gårding (1999) takes the same view: “The philosopher Hägerstrom wrote about logical gaps in Einstein’s papers and in 1921 Gullstrand wrote a critical paper, perhaps supposed to explain the Nobel committee's hesitation.” At the time, Uppsala university had about 2200 students (Hartmann, 1950) and (assuming about 10 to one for students to staff and 4 to1 for staff and professors, respectively) we would expect the professors to number no more than about 100. It is reasonable to assume a great amount of interdisciplinary information change at the university between the institutions of physics and philosophy. During the ill-omened year 1922, when Einstein was reminded by the Nobel committee that it did not believe in relativity, Phalén published a critical book on relative time and space. (Phalén 1922). The colleges in the philosophical institution, particularly Hägerström, followed Phalén completely. It follows from the sheer volume of Phalén’s critique, 176 pages, that the anti-Einstein position was an important issue at the time in the philosophical institution. We must assume that Phalén made his final editing at the same time as Gullstrand made his final, negative, assessment of Einstein. The question of common ground between the philosophers and physicists is difficult to assess since the main sources here (Elzinga and Silverbark) do not mention any active intervention. It must come down to a subjective view of the environment and other general observations. One such observation, not easily dismissed, was Phaléns book about absolute space-time, and the time is was published. Orthogonal action Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that an heir receives large sum of money and starts a new lifestyle devoted to large charity donations. Later an error is found relating to the execution of the will, and the charity work stops abruptly. What happens is not due to any fault on the part of the philanthropist. It is a separate action which interferes with the philanthropy - without calling the activity itself into question. This is at the core of what happened to relativity in the eyes of the philosophers. Although the theory itself was also targeted by the Physics Committee, the

23

As part of the separation between the church and the university in the 20th century, the practice was phased out and ended 1950 after Uppsala archbishop Erling Eidem’s term of office expired.

41 philosophical aspect was probably just as important, giving backbone to the physicists in their crusade against Einstein. Phalén in his book above distinguishes between a philosophical and a physical part of Einstein's theories; he discusses only the philosophical part. He does not comment on whether his criticism also has implications for the physical part (Dahlquist 2017), where he claims innocence. The philosophers thus judged Einstein by time and space in a separate and “orthogonal” assessment outside the discipline of physics. Independent of all the formulas, it was clear from a higher level source (philosophy) that the theory could not be correct. Philosophy and quantum physics Quantum physics, at first understood as quantified compartments of light and energy appearing in physics in a number of topics, gave indeed rise also to a discussion between philosophers. This time it was the issue of predictability in the theory arising from what is usually called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In the later part of the 1920s quantum physics developed into a theoretical framework called quantum mechanics. However, unlike the case for Einstein´s theory of relativity, the principle was formulated after Bohr and Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize, and any opposition to the uncertainty principle would not have been able to block the prizes of the two giants in physics. After Bohr’s and Einstein’s prizes, physics seemed to have the upper hand over philosophy regarding modern physics. The debate occurred during the 1930s (Silverbark 1999), but it did not seem to have biased the Physics Committee. It did not prevent Schrödinger from receiving the prize 1933, even if Einstein’s supporter Oseen at first was reluctant to award a prize for what seemed almost pure mathematics. There was a discussion among Swedish physicists outside the Academy of Science, but the discussion mainly focused on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. Now physicists discussed philosophy, thereby threatening to dethrone the philosophers. One of the most important followers of the Uppsala school, Einar Tegen, professor in the University of Lund, takes the view that the inability to make measurements (beyond the limits of accuracy given by Heisenberg so-called uncertainty principle) does not imply lack of causality (Silverbark 1999 p 229). In the case of quantum mechanics we see a giving and taking from physicists and philosophers, but there is none of the animosity seen in Nobel committees ten years earlier. Einstein and quantum mechanics We make a small digression here and note (following our secondary goal of storytelling) that, in the realm of philosophy, Einstein advocated the materialist or physicalist view mentioned in chapter A, but in his view of quantum mechanics he took concepts from the world he was used to describe i.e. time, space and velocities, which in spite of the bent space-time, were still exact quantities. Einstein also advocated the physicalist view mentioned in chapter A, and insisted on using concepts predominantly used for macroscopic objects in micro-cosmos where the description of reality is more elusive. He found the use of this combination of concepts unsatisfactory to say the least. Based on his celebrated successes, he felt he had proved, alongside Newton, that nature contained its internal “codeability” in a mathematical language. This optimistic view was threatened by the quantum mechanics, and not even limited to calculations. The contradiction was found for the

42 foundation of his classical scientific principles, determinism. He did not manage to prove it wrong, and after his death, history has rather added to the problems he experienced, by confirming some of Bohr’s defenses of his theory. The final fate of the New Uppsala School Looking specifically at relativity, the final fate or phasing out of the Uppsala school occurred gradually over a surprisingly long time. In 1937 the Swedish philosophical magazine Theoria was turned into a battlefield in a series of heated disputes between philosophers and physicists. Swedish philosophers up to the end of the 1930s claimed the right to investigate natural scientists (Silverbark 1999, p249), and rightly so. It was a problem however that, as science progressed, the subjects were increasingly difficult to understand and that the philosophers always resulted in a rejection of Einstein’s theories. By the end of the 1930s a number of physicists were publicly active in Einstein´s defense that also included the philosophical discipline. Some enthusiasts continued to defend the Uppsala School´s position against Einstein but the main battle was fought in Theoria´s pages and much of the critique lost its momentum after 1937. Sometime after the Second World War, the next generation of the Uppsala school tiptoed away from the Einstein critique and from other positions as well, and both before and after the war, the winning side´s philosophy from Cambridge attracted more interest24. According to (Silverbarck 1999, p 327) in the end of the 1930s, the criticism of the old philosophers Phalén and his followers was an “embarrassment quietly overlooked”. It was a classic paradigm change. It also changed by reading new content into old terms (Ibid.) and one may wonder why no one reacted more explicitly. As a matter of fact, one major eruption of energy occurred, but it was aimed at an unexpected direction: religion. The next generation Uppsala philosopher Hedenius after a Ph.D. thesis titled “Sensationalism and Theology in Berkeley's Philosophy” 1936, produced a book 13 years later, 1949, with the title “Belief and knowledge” rejecting the church of Sweden and the truthfulness of the teachings of Christianity. This broadside was not fired from any leftist. It was a representative of Uppsala philosophy, usually believed to be the safeguard of conservatism of Sweden, a son of the Kings personal physician and grandson of the onetime head of the Uppsala University. The following debate has been described as one of the most intensive cultural debates in Sweden25. It was all the more remarkable since the some of the arguments presented were a thousand years old. One was the existence of metaphysical assumptions and the problem of Theodicy (why a good God permits the manifestation of evil). Another was related to the resurrection, seemingly in contrast to what he names “the language-theoretical postulate” demanding that the faith should be communicable in modern scientific terms to non-believers26. It can be seen as a continuation of 24

We note in fairness that for the foremost representative of Uppsala, Tegen, the change towards British philosophy occurred already 1939. 25

The Swedish state religion was extreme in the sense that, by the time Hedenius wrote his article, it was illegal to leave the state church without entering another (in force until 1958) and the state was not divided from the church until January 2000. 26 According to Bråkenhjelm, Hedenius later modified this postulate and says that the explanation of religious concepts cannot be “exhaustive.” (Brakenhielm 2018).

43 Hägerstrand´s and Phalén’s decoupling religion from philosophy in a more explicit language, but it was highly surprising in its uncompromising tone. B-3. THE RELIGIOUS ANGLE The chancellors of Uppsala university, at the time Einstein was discussed in the Nobel Committees, were two prime ministers Erik Gustaf Boström (chancellor 1905-1907) and Carl Swartz (chancellor 1916-1926) and one minister of foreign affairs, Fredrik Wachtmeister (chancellor 1907-1916). The chancellors usually resided in Stockholm and much of their work was therefore trusted to a vice chancellor (prokansler) from Uppsala. The vice chancellor’s office is established as one of Uppsala University's oldest institutions. It was the local diocese’s bishops who in addition to his episcopal ministry held this government office, in Uppsala the Archbishop of Sweden. The duties of the vice chancellor was to "Make himself informed of all the affairs of the University, teachers' activities, the teaching process and students' moral conditions, as well as with information, advice and reminders, as he deems necessary by information, council and promote the university’s interests and reputation" (statute 1876). He had the right to participate without vote in the Senate meetings and would speak in scholarship and service appointments. In moral terms, no trivial terms at the time, the university was run like a monastery (and for a few rare cases, a convent), despite the ruling Lutheran faith, headed by none other than the Swedish archbishop himself. There is a purely religious relation to Einstein’s problems. Time is absolute in Newtonian mechanics but it would still have been possible (but perhaps unwise, for religious reasons) for Newton to view space as being curved near a massive object such as the Earth, se figure B-2 in a way we normally associate with the theory of relativity. Fig B-2. Bent space from Newton or bent space-time from Einstein?

Credit: NASA Newton spent a portion of his live lost in religious ruminations about, inter alia, the Holy Trinity (a subject we will also visit in the last section). He kept a low profile and the experience of diplomatic maneuvering in religious matters probably prepared him in his understanding of what could – and could not - be said with impunity, and how things should be presented. Newton’s Principia was

44 published 1687 interesting enough under a Catholic King, James II, and a year before the English Bill of Rights and the revolution which once and for all prevented Rome’s grip over England. We must assume his work Principia, written in Latin and therefore - unlike Galileo´s writings - not directly assessable to laymen, was considered an objective study or at least not suitable as Catholic ammunition under King James II of England. In any case, it would have been late days for philosophical discussions with the fleet of William of Orange approaching from the Netherlands. Time has been considered something that belongs to God, in the medieval Christianity, such as in the view of usury, implying payment for time elapsed. However, the understanding of time is not completely unambiguous. Thomas Aquinas remarks that “But as whatever is wholly immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning and no end” (Aquinas 1920). For God, the immutable, time perhaps doesn’t even exist. That would be somewhat similar to the universe of Laplace´s superior intelligence that looked at a 4-dimentional world, exactly known for all time and space. The classical view is given by a lector-general of the Franciscan order in the fourteenth century concerning a disputed question with the remark that a person charging interest on money would be “selling what does not belong to him”. (Le Goff, 1982). Of our two concepts in space-time, time has more clear religious connotation but space is not far away. In the philosophical discussions in Uppsala at the time Einstein presented his first articles on relativity, 1905, the concepts of time and space were both religious and philosophical concepts. Fifty years earlier, curved time and space would have been an outright issue of blasphemy, perhaps a criminal offense, since the philosophical concepts were by definition also religious, but it was bad enough during the evaluations of the Nobel Physics Committee. The concept of absolute time and space, first invented in antiquity, was later “transported” over more than 2000 years by the church, mostly under Rome, right up to the new Uppsala school. In the “decoupling” of philosophy from theology by the new Uppsala school, absolute time and space was not part of the liberation process. It is not as if Hägerstrand and Phalén deconstructed the concept for later reconstruction in a different philosophic environment. It is essentially the ancient absolute time and space we see in Phalén’s and Hägerstrand’s actions. It is worth pointing out that yet another concept, direct from Aristotle, is used by Phalén in contradiction with the use of modern scientists, namely the critique of so called “actual infinity” concept in set theory27 in mathematics. In his critique of set theory “P /Phalén/ joins to the long tradition in mathematics and philosophy that rejects the actual endless and only accept the potentially endless. P considered the usual definition of an infinite set in set theory circular.” (Dahlqvist 1995). In set theory, the philosophical part is much nearer subject matter, i.e. the mathematical part, difficult to distinguish from each other. In this case it is unlikely that Phalén

27

Aristotle, with many others, distinguishes (in his work “Physics”, in its book 2, chapter 3) between actual and potential infinity, the potential infinite being e.g. a number N with no limit of its content, versus a direct and simultaneous reference in set theory to “all” members in an infinite set. Set theory suffered from internal contradiction th until its modern formulation in the beginning of the 20 century, i.e. the same era as Einstein’s general relativity. The theory has been given a formulation without the contradictions that plagued set theory in its beginning by including, inter alia, a component known as the axiom of choice, in the first decade, i.e. well within Phalén’s active period.

45 would only take responsibility for the philosophical part of the concept as he was said to have done for relativity, leaving open “the mathematical” part. Religious arguments can be, and have been, attached to both general relativity and quantum mechanics. It has been argued that quantum mechanics has defied logic and that the theory therefore can refute any argument against (and for) a multitude of religious beliefs. References to quantum mechanics to justify strange phenomenon are probably more common but relativity can also be used – and has been - in a spiritual context. It is a less often seen argument, to indicate theological problems with general relativity, in connection with a so called black hole, which can be created by a collapsing star beyond a very small volume (which for the sun would be less than 3 km) characterized by the black hole radius RH. A distant observer and an object crossing this limit constitute a strange pair regarding information exchange: “The time for the body to reach RH is infinite as seen by a distant observer. The same holds true for the collapse of a star due to its own gravitational field. No one will see it go inside RH, or even reach RH. This despite the fact that the star -- or any body falling into a black hole -- keeps going right through RH. From the orthodox point of view, collapse of a body into a black hole is unobservable, and unstoppable once it starts.” (Rabinowitz 2004). The theory would then divide reality into at least 2 independent realities (actually one reality for every black hole) with no possibility for communication. This might be in contradiction to the thought of an all-pervading, all-perceiving god, since a classical eternity would not be enough – even for a distant divine creature – to see the object through the line defined by RH28,29. B-4. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS We have met the goal of storytelling in this chapter but we also offer some theoretical remarks in the final comments. Einstein could have been offered the prize for the special theory of relativity but the Physics Committee used the more difficult general theory of relativity to justify their wait and see approach, and used this approach to spill over on the special theory of relativity for which he was also nominated. The most dishonest claim was related to gravitational red shift where a Committee report claimed its non-existence was established, without reference or truth. In contrast, the processes leading up to the prizes of Bohr and Schrödinger show that quantum physics was accepted, and the reluctance for Bohr (regarding the value of his contribution) and Schrödinger (regarding his almost purely mathematical contribution) could be overcome. In the case 28

We should point out that this is somewhat different from fantastic theories about multi-universes in quantum mechanics, which is a hypothesis of something we haven’t seen, proved or disproved (yet). The time effects follow directly from the theory of general relativity.. 29

According to UK Apologitics “Scientists no longer scoff at the concept of 'eternity' as used by the Bible writers and the poets because they themselves have located it!”, http://www.ukapologetics.net/3blackholes.htm visited Feb. 2017.

46 of quantum mechanics, the committee never came near to fabrication of false evidence or displaying the strange behavior it did for Einstein. The peculiar treatment of Einstein demands an explanation and two approaches have been mentioned outside physics, in connection with the disciplines philosophy and religion, leaving aside personal relations and Einstein’s place in the turmoil of World War I. Any explanation should take into account the whole trinity of religion-philosophy-physics with generous overlap and fuzzy boundaries. In Chapter A we warned against obfuscation and confusion when unfolding the complexities of physicalist and anti-physicalist scenario. These are difficult to distinguish in our story. We have an abundant measure of both in the Nobel committees and their treatment of Einstein. We first summarize that we have encountered -

-

-

the Physics Committee’s fabrication of a scientific position for gravitational redshift, erroneous and without any explicit reference, and in direct contrast to the most relevant reference at the time, St. John, obfuscation of issues such as the nominations for the special theory of relativity, or the equivalence principle, by referring to the problematic of the general theory, and the requirement of a demonstrated encyclopedic knowledge of all consequences of the presented general theory, The philosophers in Uppsala and their changing view on the matter, from negative to neutral.

The paraphernalia of physicalism We also see how the physicalist paraphernalia - involving space and time - have ability to create dividing lines just as fundamental as the question of the objective existence of physical bodies. One interpretation is that the influential philosophers and physicists, whether in a concerted action or not, perhaps represented a physicalist perspective, but with absolute time and space as the cornerstone. We see Einstein suffer from the problems involved in an absolute interpretation. In the reference (Edvarsson 2002) the climatic variation for Earth and Mars were calculated without the use of relativistic corrections30. (Obviously, calculations for Mercury would require such corrections.) We conclude that we can still use the assumption from Chapter A that the planets’ actual movements are “part of reality”, in a practical and useful manner, but not in an absolute way. Shortcutting relativity and quantum mechanics We can – applying some stretching of reason and imagination - speculate that a physicist armed with our second axiom as a sole weapon started to investigate time and space stretching the concepts looking at infinite and microscopic scales for time and space. The axiom would not necessarily lead to the Schrödinger equation or to Einstein’s tensors, but it would require that although things looked right in many cases, something might go wrong at cosmic and microscopic dimensions. It would be a first step in the right direction. Perhaps, again with some stretching, a 1900 physicist with possession

30

We quote from their abstract: “Celestial mechanical simulations from a purely classical point of view of the solar system, including our Moon and the Mars moons – Phobos and Deimos – are carried out for 2 millions of years before present. Within the classical approximation, the results are derived at a very high level of accuracy. Effects from general relativity for a number of variables are investigated and found to be small.”

47 of the orthogonal wisdom from the second axiom could have connected the dots as new results started to arrive around the turn of the century. It is not apparent from this section, but we can - before we leave the philosophical issues altogether – consider how the second axiom naturally flows from the first, by reasoning along the following lines: The first axiom requires a distinction between reality and models produced by conscious theoretical action. From this it is obvious that reality cannot be described in any language or sign system built by, and requiring, the conscious-related theoretical superstructure required for its formation. Having found a case against an absolute interpretation of the physicalism, we now leave - on a humble note - these two theoretical chapters.

48

CHAPTER C. FINAL DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE C-1. BACKGROUND In contrast to the other sections, this chapter covers something I actually know a little about, although physicalism and other philosophical angles are mostly external matters to my profession. The central disciplines one encounters in this field are found in the natural sciences, but in the interest of open-mindedness, other disciplines are usually also included in the decision-making process at least in Sweden, both by the license-holder31 and regulator. This was one of several inroads for me to the philosophy of science. Another was the contacts with the Institute of Philosophy of Science experts from University of Gothenburg in the project (Jensen 1993) about millennia-long conservation of information about nuclear repositories. I give as introduction a limited background, mainly intended to enabling us to implement some ideas from chapter A. As a retired radioactive waste regulator, I am most familiar with the radioactive waste management in Sweden. However, the work in the US is of particular interest to me and my colleges, since the staff at the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SSI, took many ideas from the US in the formulation of a Swedish standard for high level radioactive waste disposal, and we followed very closely the work of the US National Academy of Sciences, USNAS, who advised Congress in questions about regulation, in particular by their report from 1995 (USNAS 1995). The word “standard” is not used in Sweden. The radiation protection standard, understood as the maximum annual dose from a repository after closure, exists as a regulation, SSI FS 98:132, later renamed SSM FS 2008:37 after the merger of SSI with the former Swedish Nuclear Power Safety Authority, SKI, the 1 July 2008, forming the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, SSM. The idea of promulgating a regulatory standard was directly influenced by the USNAS report (1995). I believe that the use of the Academy of Sciences in the US to guide policy-makers is a model for all other countries. It brings a scientific input into a complicated process and it limits the choices made in the process from being arbitrary towards more informed decisions33. In contrast to the much less transparent law-making processes in Sweden in the 1970s and 1980s, the US process has some rationality to it, despite the logical limitations that often characterize political processes. In the presentation here, I assume that spent fuel is a dominating component of high level radioactive waste (in the following simply referred to as waste), in most programs with direct disposal of waste (understood in the following to be final disposal of waste). Some countries rely on

31

I use the term “license-holder”. Both in the US and Sweden the activities related to disposal is carried out by parties other than the nuclear power operator; in Sweden by a separate company acting on behalf of different nuclear plant owners and in the US by the Department of Energy, in this role often called “the implementer”. 32

The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority’s Regulations and General Advice Concerning the Protection of Human Health and the Environment in Connection with the Final Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste, 33

Unfortunately, in a small country such as Sweden with a relative high use of nuclear power (about one nuclear plant per million inhabitants) the available experts tend to be tied up in advisory activities for various actors in the program, which make it difficult to find unbiased national specialists. Scientific advice therefore often comes from formal councils and adhoc groups with international participation.

49 recycling. This trend, in other areas considered environment-friendly, has not had enough impact to make recycling the preferred process world-wide for a number of reasons, some country-specific34. However, all nuclear programs, whether relying on direct disposal or recycling, will end up with some radioactive waste with long-lived nuclides needed to be disposed of. The disposal of long-lived radioactive waste is therefore an issue for all countries with a nuclear program. The intent here is not to support or criticize any party, i.e. the license-holder, regulator or other parties involved such as environmental groups or local, regional or national governments, nor is it intended to find the best method for waste disposal. It is instead to comment, partly from a philosophy of science point of view, on the natural science part of the activities involved in the disposal of high level radioactive waste. In our quest for physicalism we have mainly considered reality and models. The difference between models has been treated as a worldly matter. We don’t go much further here but we do discuss complicated models and some of their ramifications. C-2. INTRODUCTION Disposal of spent nuclear fuel – an important issue An SSI-funded project, (Drottz-Sjöberg 2004)35, investigated opinions of 1500 people in the municipalities Oskarshamn and Östhammar (each with around 20 000 inhabitants), hosting the candidate sites (the operator, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co, SKB, eventually decided on Östhammar). One question asked in the project was about the importance of safety for the planned Swedish repository for spent nuclear fuel. The answers indicated that safety was deemed more important than just about everything else.

34

According to Swedish Environment Minister Anna Lindh: One of the reasons for direct disposal relates to “the issue of nuclear proliferation in the light of the release of plutonium during reprocessing” (Lindh 1997). The word “release” might be understood here as “release into system of the nuclear weapons production”. 35

The project was mainly made to illustrate lay perception of the extremely long time scales for nuclear waste.

50

Figure C-1. Importance of safety in repository construction, judged on a scale of 1 to 5.

4,8 4,6 4,4 4,2 4 3,8 3,6 I V me on ng on ry . es li ti of H t cri i ncti fferi incti ng.. osito a u u t t d h u q a Fig ex n s yo rep ex ne r e l i t sp om uma rom and safe r a f c n ts t h s f ren t a mi ve lan even eci e hild truc no Pre p o c of Pr al sp for c ons ne C i on n se t im s c e an catio t Le t o c u Pr ote ed Pr ood G

There has been a discussion of the plan for nuclear waste since the 1980s in the Swedish candidate municipalities, covering several generations of politicians. The municipalities have been subject to meetings during more than 20 years with government and non-governmental groups. This process has made an impact as can be seen by the rating of importance in the figure. The Practice36 Nuclear fuel is made up of small (uranium oxide) cylinders stapled inside long rods of corrosionresistant material and the rods are grouped into bundles. They have the same configuration after being used in the reactor but are then highly radioactive. After being used in the reactor, the spent fuel goes through various phases of cooling. The last step foreseen after cooling is – usually - disposal in a deep geological formation. Deep geological disposal has been implemented in some cases for other types of waste, e.g. in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan, WIPP, in New Mexico, and in two cases in former West and East Germany, Asse37 in Lower Saxony and Morsleben38 in Saxony-Anhalt respectively.

36

The word is used in the meaning “planned activities which might result in actual or potential radiation exposure”, using terminology from the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP. 37

The responsibility for the repository has been taken over in 2017 by a federal company regulated by the German radiation protection authority Bundesamt für Strahlenshutz (BfS) a move that liberates the BfS from being self-regulated in relation to its safety standard. 38

An application for the continued storage of waste at the Morsleben site is currently (2017) reviewed by German authorities.

51 According to these plans, the waste is placed in packages and is meant to be placed in a geological formation as a final disposal packages have been designed for structural and chemical stability. Waste disposal is the last link in a chain. The technique of reprocessing with reuse of (some of) the waste was visualized as a circle of energy production with mining as the “front end” and waste as the “back end”. Without reprocessing the uranium travels in a straight production line through the phases of mining, fuel fabrication, energy production and disposal. The last steps are expected to cover emplacement of the waste in a repositories and eventually sealing of the repository. Waste management is a link in a chain The International Commission on Radiological Protection39, ICRP, mentions its principles related to of waste in its publications, here in one from 1997: “Waste management and disposal operations are an integral part of the practice generating the waste. It is wrong to regard them as a free-standing practice, needing its own justification. The waste management and disposal operations should therefore be included in the assessment of the justification of the practice generating the waste.” (ICRP 1997). In a perfect world, waste management and final disposal should have been addressed in terms of political acceptability even before mining for the fuel occurred. The problem is that for projects as large and long term as nuclear power production, it is difficult from the beginning to envisage consequences of all steps in the chain. In the beginning of the nuclear era, the waste phase was actually considered briefly but it was not considered a problem by the authorities and their governments. Anti-nuclear groups usually shared ICRP’s vision of a global view and were concerned about waste management as it was planned in most western countries. At this time during the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, ICRP mainly considered waste safety for geological repositories as a question about social acceptability, not really a radiation protection problem40. Alternatives to geological disposal Various alternatives to geological disposal have been considered, including exotic alternatives such as disposal in space. Some alternatives have been rejected for reasons related to safety, other on political grounds, such as disposal outside a country’s national borders. In the last decades the emphasis has been on geological disposal. The no-action alternative is prolonged monitored storage at the surface and/or in near-surface cooling ponds. This is the obvious alternative when no other decision is taken towards a final solution. These alternatives are subject to considerable political discussion related to requirements of the process in Sweden, but it is in the nature of the matter that their technical issues are easily manageable from a technical point of view, and they will not be mentioned further41.

39

For historical reasons, the “R” in ICRP stands for “Radiological” and not “Radiation”. It was initially established by the International Congress of Radiology ICR, and still reports to the ICR. 40

41

Personal communication from Bo Lindell, chairman of ICRP during 1977–1985. There are economical and long term security drawbacks for on-site storage also mainly in the political field.

52 The bases for the Swedish and American standards The history of the Swedish standard – for nuclear waste safety - is described in the reference (Apted 2017). Unless otherwise stated my references for this refer to Chapter 21 (my chapter on regulation). Some important elements are mentioned below. In the US, the challenge of finding a site for nuclear waste was addressed in the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982. The safety requirements in the act were in turn challenged some 10 years later by the US Energy Policy Act in 1992 which also required a study to be made by USNAS. The findings of the study was published in a report (USNAS 1995), and it suggested that the yearly dose, or corresponding risk, was suggested as the acceptance criteria for the safety of a geological repository. The suggestion was incorporated in a standard by EPA and implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its regulations. USNAS’ choice of (a yearly) dose in a safety standard for the (Yucca Mountain) repository had a profound impact in Sweden, in that it seemingly turned the waste management into a radiation protection issue. Earlier, SSI was not the lead organization in the safety work for a repository, but SSI now promulgated a standard in the form of a regulation for nuclear waste with a yearly risk (comparable to a yearly dose) requirement which had important consequences for the relations between the authorities, an important factor in the subsequent merger 2008. The USNAS report recommends that the standard takes into account both the adverse health effects from the (yearly) dose and the probability of receiving the (yearly) dose and the Swedish standard has the same general features. The probability of receiving the dose has to do with the safety and risk of breaching the protective barriers around the waste, causing a leak, and the dose has to do with the consequences for humans after some of the waste’s content through such a leak is transported through the barriers and the host rock. In such a process - if it occurs, i.e. if the barriers are penetrated - the radioactive material in the waste is i) limited by absorption in its way, ii) delayed in the process causing some nuclides to decay and finally iii) dispersed in a large rock volume. Optimization Optimization of radiation protection has been defined by ICRP. Their main principles are, in order of priority:   

Justification: No activity is to be introduced until it has been shown to provide greater advantages than disadvantages to society, Optimization: All radiation doses are to be kept as low as reasonably achievable taking into account economic and social factors, and Dose limitation: Individual doses shall not exceed the established limits for the particular circumstances.

ICRP’s principle of optimization - that “all radiation doses are to be kept as low as reasonably achievable taking into account economic and social factors” - can be used in the development of the disposal of a radioactive waste repository, along the following lines:

53 We first note with the reference (ICRP 1997) above that the activities in waste management operations (including disposal ) does not need separate justification as ICRP – “It is wrong to regard them as a free-standing practice, needing its own justification”. Justification normally implies the need of a political decision, and such a decision is (according to ICRP) already implicit in the decision of the practice generating the waste. This implies that optimization is appropriate for the activity42. Optimization and lawmaking In many countries we expect a practice, to use ICRP’s term, to be accepted if it meets a standard set up for that particular activity. The idea of asking a license-holder to do a little more (“as low as reasonable achievable”) is not always realistic. However, this point does not necessarily make optimization obsolete. We should remember here that ICRP’s recommendations essentially are directed towards national governments. Governments may, in their rulemaking, consider a broader picture than the regulator is able to do, to ensure that legal and regulatory context supports solutions is with doses “as low as reasonable achievable”, even if regulatory compliance is judged in a fixed way. Siting The waste management operations are not completely unrestricted. Siting i.e. finding a place for a repository is in fact heavily restricted. In ICRP’s terminology, it is only justified in certain circumstances. In a concrete case we may consider a location for a repository where several authorities local and regional have opinions and block construction of a repository in their areas. Table C-3. National and regional restrictions in siting, leaving two regions suitable for optimization Restrictions – siting

National Regional

Region 1 National

Nat.&Reg. Regional Nat.&Reg.

restrictions National

Region 2 National

Nat.&Reg. Regional Nat.&Reg. National restrictions

The red areas correspond to cases with restrictions, i.e. deemed unjustified by the actors here represented by national and regional actors. Only two regions remain (if the regional opinions are respected by the national government). This is just an example of one aspect, area restrictions, on 42

Optimization would not be meaningful for unjustified actions; it would be like a urging a criminal to minimize his victim’s suffering, commendable but difficult to regulate as a practice.

54 siting. Additional authorities may decide on many other aspects in siting, e.g. road transport of waste43. In several countries, there have been attempts to compare a number of sites with different characteristics, and to optimize the siting process by choosing the best site. There are essentially different types of optimization44:  

Comparing (and choosing the best) similar sites Comparing (and choosing the best) different type of sites, i.e. with different rock types.

Choosing between similar sites There is a famous comparison shown in Fig. C-1, between two sites in Sweden in (SKB 06) where risk from a number of scenarios is compared for two sites. They both contain granitic host rock. In one location the rock is more fractured. Figure C-1. Sum of risk from a number of scenarios for two Swedish candidate sites (red vs. black).

According to SKB: “the assessment relates to the KBS-3 disposal concept in which copper canisters with a cast iron insert containing spent nuclear fuel are surrounded by bentonite clay and deposited at approximately 500 m depth in saturated, granitic rock.” (ibid.).

43

In addition, ICRP’s third principle, dose limitation, always apply for workers in a practice, Optimization takes place on many levels implying choosing the best technique in a detailed part of the operation up to the global level. We are concerned here with the global level. 44

55 There are some important lessons to be learned from the calculation behind the figure: 1. during the period 100 000 years (understood as the regulatory compliance period) depicted in the white area, the repository would meet the regulatory criteria (yearly risk < 10-6) for both sites, 2. the red lines (the Forsmark site in the Östhammar municipality) represent considerably lower risks than the black, and 3. the two sites have similar rock types (granitic rock). On the 3 June 2009, SKB chose to use the site representing the lowest risk for its license application, according to the company’s website www.skb.se. The search for sites with different geology which have been attempted I several countries, e.g. the US and France, represents much more of a problem. C-3 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS What safety is I wrote, in (Apted 2017): ” There is no simple and quantitative definition of safety, a fact sometimes underlined by the saying ‘safety is a warm and fuzzy feeling’. The concept is therefore open to interpretation, both political and technical, which can be seen in the Swedish example from the 1970s, where a law from 1977 required that the nuclear industry must present a ‘completely’ or ‘absolutely’ safe disposal method”. Safety, said to be “a warm fuzzy feeling”, is related to the absence of a number of problems we would like to avoid. The explanation of our safety work is therefore a description of all the measures we have taken to avoid these problems. This is not only true in the nuclear area; it pervades all social practice45. Safety is thus characterized in a negative way, by the absence of a number of scenarios much like how prime numbers are defined by the absence of divisors greater than one. The Nobel Prize laureate Percy Bridgman, mentioned under Chapter B, has contributed to philosophy of science by introducing the concept of operationalism, denoting that all definitions in physics must done by describing the operations used in the definition. “The length of a rod, for example, may be defined as the number of times a certain stick can be laid end to end alongside it” (From Encyclopedia Britannica). According to Bridgman, “we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations” (Stanford 2009). Bridgman might not have accepted safety among the physical concepts he meant to cover by his principles. Nevertheless it fits very well in its description. Operationalism has been criticized, especially Bridgman´s view of Einstein´s relativity – as described by Dieks (2010) – but in the field of safety it fits nicely. We describe safety by foreseeing a number of detrimental scenarios and the

45

For reasons of terminology, some damaging scenarios in the social fields are bookkept under the term “security”.

56 countermeasures against them. In the area of (radioactive waste) safety analysis, the development and treatment of scenarios has been elevated to a sophisticated art form. Social science aspects The issue of confidence-building with the broader technical community and within the general population is an important area, but too demanding to treat here. It is treated in (Apted 2017) in Chapter 26 (Andersson 2017). We mention briefly below the description by Göran Sundqvist from the Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg, of the emergence of an environmental concern46 in Sweden in connection with startup of the Ringhals reactor number 3. Choosing sites with different safety allocation Let us consider, for the sake of argument, a hypothetical option of waste disposal: placing waste in the middle of the Earth. This option would require that the waste were melted and blended with the molten magma. It wouldn’t be completely gone, but many would probably consider this a completely safe solution. A few holes have been drilled down to about 10 km or 40 000 ft. so drilling 100 times deeper is not realistic. This solution has some features in common with disposal in space, prohibitively difficult solutions with maximum safety. To place waste at a depth of a few hundred meters is feasible but it would still remain in a remote location, isolated from man and society. It would also belong to an environment that cannot be known very exact. If many test holes were made down to the repository’s depth, near the repository’s actual deposition in order to develop our knowledge of the site, it would infringe on the safety of the system. There is therefore a “principle of uncertainty” for understanding the bedrock. Actually it is a subset of a more general principle stating that any the process of gaining information about system will perturb the system somehow, a well-known principle within quantum mechanics. However, it is possible to study geological formation at some other location to gain a general geological understanding. It is in the nature of the matter that a lot of knowledge is available from the surface and small depth and much less at extreme depths. We would expect that the larger the depth, the larger our uncertainty would be about the geological environment. We therefore expect that a balance might be struck with a gradual shift in safety allocation from engineered barriers to the large rock volumes between the waste and the environment. The rock volume not only represents a distance between the waste and the environment - its properties might provide what is called a barrier function which may prevent, limit or delay outflow of nuclides from the waste for some nuclides47. The properties of such barrier functions may be related to chemical behavior of radionuclides or to hydrological (water) exchange between different geological layers. 46

In the 1970s, environmental protection was understood as the protection of man in the environment; general protection of non-human species was not on the agenda until much later. 47

In terminology, there is usually a difference between rock as a barrier and engineered barriers. Sometimes the term barrier is restricted to engineered barriers, and host rock is not considered a barrier at all. However, it still has the potential to prevent, minimize and delay a hypothetical outflow from the repository.

57 We assume, regarding the alternatives shown in Table C-2, that waste kept at the surface is maintained safely, keeping in mind the challenges involved in long time monitoring and safe management for something easily retrieved or disturbed by human action. Table C-2. Repository safety dependence on barriers: Engineered barrier (EB) or host rock volume (HRV).

Depth

Expected technical safety*

Degree of knowledge

Barrier

Feasibility

0 - at the surface

High

High

EB

High

Deep (hundreds of meters)

To be assessed

Less than at surface

EB/HRV

High

Very deep 1-3 km

To be assessed

Still lower

HRV/EB

Lower

The middle of the Earth

High

Knowledge gaps

HRV

None

*We disregard for the moment the obvious issues related to security (and cost) of prolonged interim near surface/surface storage Some initial calculations points to a travel time in the order of several millions of years for outflow from the repository at large (several km) depth, which indicates a superior solution for very deep boreholes, but the difference in safety allocation also imply that there is a difference in degree of knowledge. Choosing between sites with different host rock If we return to the question of trying several rock types, we note that salt and clay may offer higher resistance to – or absence of - water transport than granite or, but we also note that the different solutions have markedly different safety allocation and the uncertainties attributable to the different solutions are of different types, e.g. the possible existence of water (brine) near a salt dome may constitute a concern, and require further studies as it has for the WIPP repository. In addition to the political problems in siting, there is therefore always a question of the judging the relative value of engineered barriers compared to the natural barriers of salt, clay and large depth. It is to some degree a question of the confidence one may have in technical solutions in general, and perhaps one might expect that some engineers will rate engineered solutions (barriers) higher than laymen. In any case, the situation of comparing rock types for safety is not as straight forward as it may have seemed when projects were started with the aim of making such comparisons. One example is from the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982. According to the summary of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the act “establishes procedures to evaluate and select sites for geologic repositories and for the interaction of state and federal governments”. (USEPA 2017). In a political intervention Congress later decided 1987, in an

58 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that one site was enough and in 1992, in the Energy Policy Act, the Congress directed USEPA to commission the USNAS to assist in the formation of a new high level waste regulation for a single repository in the Yucca Mountain. A license application was later submitted to the USNRC. President Obama halted the process 2011 by stopping the funding. According to the magazine The Hill, President Trump sought $120 million in his budget proposal for the fiscal year 2018 to restart the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository. In search of safety The complex decisions in nuclear waste repository development can be projected down in various the dimensions. The complexity became obvious in Sweden after the election 1976 which lead to a new prime minister Torbjörn Fälldin, with anti-nuclear views. He did not stop the nuclear power production but defined a requirement regarding nuclear waste as a condition for permitting the start of the Swedish reactor Ringhals 3. In an essay about the struggle in Sweden to find a way forward Göran Sundqvist described the search for capturing the nature of the nuclear waste problem Göran Sundqvist (1991). Sundqvist considered a large number of aspects all present in the societal debate in the end of the 1970s and compared the scenarios to the philosopher Jürgen Habermas’ models for the relations between expert knowledge and politics (Habermas 1968). Sundqvist pointed out a large number of aspects of Waste management and disposal: Waste management and disposal is 

  



  

A technical question. Waste management requires the use of highly advanced technical systems in all steps in the management chain, including creation of a system for deep disposal. A scientific question, in need of more research in the face of diverging opinions among scientists. A political question. The politicians have to make the final decisions in matter of nuclear waste program. A legal question. The so called stipulation law from 1977 required that that waste be treated in a completely or absolutely safe (Swedish: “helt säker”) method, made the assessment of waste management a legal issue. An economical question. The funds required for the development of the waste project is financed by a tax on nuclear electricity. Indirectly, economical steering principles have political consequences. An ethical question. The present generation benefits from nuclear power but the waste constitutes a risk or burden to future generations. A question of public opinion. The public opinion had become much more critical to nuclear issues than the politicians representing them. A social scientific problem. Social science studies have the ambition to make decision-makers in a position to make better decisions.

59 Sundqvist (1991) shows how during the long debates the ownership of decision is fluctuating between all the aspect described, and that the debate was confusing both for spectators on the outside and to the actors, mainly politicians involved in the decisions themselves. One reason for the confusion about debate on nuclear waste in the late 1970ties was the absence of a standard. At one point, the Swedish Nuclear Power Safety Authority, SKI, asked a geological consultant group to make an exercise: finding rock with a number (9) properties, related to a number of properties: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix)

Seismicity frequence of fractures depth (to avoid surface erosion) ground water requirements lack of high temperature increase after disposal low water permeability low hydrostatic gradient long transport time from repository depth to the surface lack of mineral resources

Some of the requirements were provided with numerical limits. According to (Sundqvist 1991) SKI gave the consultant group a challenge of finding a sufficiently large rock volume with the specified conditions. For a chosen rock hosting a repository, the properties were positive, but they were not given as an absolute definition of safety. They were intended to “warm up” the consultant group and stimulate their debate about safety. It was clear from the letter to the group, send before the renewed license application (pursuant to the new Stipulation Act), that this was a preparatory activity before requirements had been formulated for the coming review of the application. In the media and for the general public it was understood as a safety standard, and individual consultant felt they had the key to Swedish continued nuclear power, which resulted in a heated debate. Risk and probability Because regulations sometimes mention risk, the concept becomes more than just a theoretical exercise. The US regulations (EPA’s and that of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC) use dose restrictions in their regulations which may appear to be more innocent, i.e. more independent of probability, but it isn’t really as we will see below. First of all, the concept of risk is not well defined although some believe it is. Some examples cover risk used i) qualitatively: “There is a risk of being run over in the traffic”, ii) as probability: “The risk is one in ten”, or iii) as probability times consequence. The difference between ii) and iii) is sometimes subtle. In connection with a deadly hazard for case we might say ii): the risk (probability) is 1 in 1000, or for case iii): the risk (probability times consequence) 1 death out of 1000. When risk is used in regulations such as the Swedish standard, it is related to risks from radiation. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA – concerned with the risk from radiation - in its

60 glossary defines risk (with technical details omitted), relatively broadly - and with formulas omitted as: 1.

“A multiattribute quantity expressing hazard, danger or chance of harmful or injurious consequences associated with actual or potential exposures. It relates to quantities such as the probability that specific deleterious consequences may arise and the magnitude and character of such consequences….

2.

The mathematical mean (expectation value) of an appropriate measure of a specified (usually unwelcome) consequence…., or ..

3.

The probability of a specified health effect occurring in a person or group as a result of exposure to radiation“, (IAEA 2007).

Dose vs. risk in disposal regulations Returning to dose or risk as candidates measuring a repository’s figure of merit we note that the events described which might lead to dose and risk lies in the future and most likely in the distant future. The report (USNAS 1995) described risk in its glossary: “In the context of this study, risk is the probability of an individual receiving an adverse health effect and includes the probability of getting a dose.” The “probability of getting the dose” can only be estimated by studying a number of scenarios, applying probabilities to them and adding their contribution to get an expected dose. Let us say there are two possible scenarios A and B, equally likely, with probabilities A and B. The individual’s “probability of getting the dose” is the mean of A and B, which can be used to find the expected dose, which we will refrain from calculating in the spirit of formula avoidance. We actually get what is sometimes called the “expectation value” of dose. The use in the standards of USEPA and USNRC is actually the less stringent term “reasonable expectation”, in CFR 40 § 191, both for the dose. “Disposal systems for waste and any associated radioactive material shall be designed to provide a reasonable expectation that, for 10,000 years after disposal, undisturbed performance of the disposal system shall not cause the annual committed effective dose, received through all potential pathways from the disposal system, to any member of the public in the accessible environment, to exceed 15 millirems (150 microsieverts)” The treatment of the “probability of getting the dose” shows that the dose and risk approach is essentially identical in that one ends up assessing the stochastic aspect of the situations. Regulating with risk instead of dose includes an additional step, taking account for the probability of adverse effects from a dose, but this link in the chain is much better established than the probability of occurrence and associated outcomes of scenarios thousands of years into the future. For this last link in the chain, the risk from a given dose, the assessment may vary, and has varied about 30 % , from 5.7 to 7.3 % per Sv, in the assessments by the ICRP since 1990 (Apted 2017). This is still a very modest change compared to the uncertainty of other factors in the safety assessment. The understanding of dose effect relationships involves studies of the A-bomb survivors and many other case studies, and epidemiological studies from such sources as the British dose register, valuable because of the tradition in the UK of monitoring and the large population involved

61 (compared to Sweden). Recurrent reports are issued by the United Nations (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR) and the USNAS (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR), in addition to reports by ICRP. In the Swedish standard presented here, risk is used as by ICRP as probability of dying after radiation exposure (with some minor caveats), essentially the same as the one of USNAS (1995). Existence of risk and probability Because it is mentioned in some regulations, risk becomes more than just a theoretical exercise. The US EPA and NCR regulations mentions dose which appears to be more detached from probability issues, but it isn’t very different from risk. The term dose in a standard - such as the one of the US EPA and all other countries with dose standards - refers to something in an unknown future. To quote (Apted 2017), Chapter 20: “The exposure appears in an unknown biosphere that may be changed by distant-future-man, a creature of unknown habits and aspirations, whose dose or risk still must be addressed.”

This clearly can only be done in a model taking a number of different scenarios into account (in the unfortunate absence of a Laplacian world model where the future would be known for all eternity). To make use of a criterion with a single risk or dose value (such as in Sweden and the US) some type of averaging must be performed. In the US the standard use the wording “expected dose” rather than simply “dose” or “expectation value” of the dose, allowing for some latitude in the approach. Bruno de Finetti has used the motto ‘probability does not exist’ in his famous work Theory of Probability (de Finetti, 1975). In our physicalist spirit we note that, taken literally, this is obvious since probability is not a real thing, not something we can stand on to make it smaller. My interpretation of de Finetti´s probabilities is best described by using table C-3 below:   

Probabilities are not inhabitants in the real world; (we found that obvious). Probabilities can also not be defined in our model of the (whole) real world. This is de Finetti´s point. Probabilities exist only in stylized scenarios.

Another way of looking at the question is simply to say that the effects of a repository investigated in a safety assessment, whether internally by the license-holder or externally in a regulatory review, lies in the future (to say the least; the effects are studied for a period over hundred thousand to a million years). As we mentioned in Chapter A, as physicalists, we cannot speculate about the future: it simply takes place, and all the theories about causality occur in the world of models. The probability of future occurrence therefore can have no objectivity attached to it. “Discovery of ignorance” Dawid (2004) mentions that: “In particular, by treating probabilities as purely theoretical terms with only indirect implications for the behavior of observables, it is able to eschew deep but ultimately irrelevant and distracting philosophical inquiry into the ´true nature of Probability´”.

62 Dawid calls this view “My own favored approach” and maintains that it “avoids completely any need to assume the physical existence of probabilities”. For our part such a view is also a favored approach, but it is also more than that. It is simply the only possible approach coexisting with physicalism. Our models, including probability models, are different from reality. In fact, to demonstrate de Finetti’s thesis that probabilities doesn’t exist we need still another layer of models as shown in table C-3: Table C-3. Speculating about hypothetical circumstances in a model world. The real world A model of the world including the studied system scenarios (but not necessarily more). Assessing probability of – i.e. speculation about the various possible outcomes of a scenario in the next level above, the model world

After we have studied different outcomes in the model world, we may take informed decisions about actions we take in the real one. Observe that the “existence” of probabilities we are discussing is the existence of a concept in the model world, which also contains such thing as “perfect dice” where we have an absolute symmetry of ignorance regarding the exposed side in a roll. Suppose that a system A (not necessarily in quantum mechanics) can move to another of two systems, B or C. Suppose further that we believe that we have a complete symmetry of ignorance of the two outcomes. We might then choose to say that A moves to B and C with a probability of 50%. We can move on and attribute probabilities for the outcome of throwing a pair of dice etc. and receive new and other probabilities. We can manage it by using probabilities which can be defined by a number of axioms (Kolmogorov, 1956), in itself something of an accomplishment. Using probabilities seems often to be the best we can do in the face of uncertainty. Still, and once more: probabilities do not exist. They don’t exist as real objects with mass and location (as I claim in my axioms): they don’t even exist as a property of an event (as de Finetti claims). They are used to compensate for ignorance. They can still be used in a clever manner where we have symmetry of ignorance, but with some limitations: we can hardly celebrate “the discovery of ignorance” as we would celebrate the discovery of a new planet. Probabilities for well-known and unknown scenarios Above, we have treated the attribution of probability to scenarios as if the process is the same for all scenarios, but there are important differences. Sometimes the attribution or probability for a scenario is based knowledge of experienced frequencies of its occurrence, e.g. for effects of radiation and for earthquakes. These are series of events which has occurred in the past unlike scenarios which play out in 100 000 years. When we make up theories for these effects (in the distant future) we note that they can be subject to Popper’s test (of being a testable or untestable theory). We also note that there is a distance between the prediction and the possible verification. Popper´s principle is applicable but its test is

63 out of reach, because the distance in time between prediction and test is too large. We can – and do - apply test using shorter term theories which might increase our confidence in the long-term. This is the best we can do. We have a different time shift problem with Jesus in Chapter E. The fact that we cannot calculate and test how thing will turn out in the future does not exclude good advice. Because the great interest and concern in connection with repository safety, we sometimes try do the next best thing: formal elicitation of opinions of expert panels, suitable in special cases. This process and some examples are described in an Appendix to this chapter. Actually it is unusual to find any prediction is demonstrations of safety goals. What we usually find are a number of more well-defined calculations to answer concerns about different processes or events, which are calculated separately. The catalogue of calculations sometimes contains answers to question about very unlikely scenarios, called what-if questions. They may not be a real concern to anyone, but they are sometimes used to demonstrate understanding of the repository system. The US Congress and Laplace’s demon When the US Congress (hereafter simply Congress) - in the Energy Policy Act, of 1992 - directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate standards for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, it was suggested in the congressional mandate for EPA and its contract partner the USNAS that it would be sufficient to proscribe a maximum yearly dose from the repository in the standard. In the process, 3 questions were posed by Congress, formally to EPA, but essentially to the USNAS who the Congress directed EPA to consult. Based on the answers, EPA was expected to formulate the new standards. The USNAS was given two types of questions formulated in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. They were leading questions in two different senses: the first question was i) whether a standard based on dose would be reasonably protective and the second question (divided in two different questions) was essentially ii) whether the regulators can look into the detailed future and decide whether there would be a human intrusion and iii) whether one might offer security on the repository site for 10 000 years. The second part, ii) and iii) about human intrusion and security, was somewhat bizarre; no one can see 10 000 years into the future. The first question was leading in another way: Just before the passage in the first question, the act stipulated the rule that there should indeed be such a dose based standard. The US Congress’ first - leading – question The first question was about the dose standard: (A) “whether a health-based standard based upon doses to individual members of the public from releases to the accessible environment (as that term is defined in the regulations contained in subpart B of part 191 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on November 18, 1985) will provide a reasonable standard for protection of the health and safety of the general public.”

64 We should point out that there is essentially nothing wrong with asking leading questions. It simply reflects the fact that politicians were made to believe something, which they would like to confirm and have elaborated further by the US Academy of Sciences. The point of departure is sound in that the repository design should focus on human safety – by representing a low dose to individuals of the public - and this must outweigh all other safety considerations, such as detailed requirements on single barriers. Regarding repository performance calculation for the far future and the regulatory compliance assessment we note below in the section about “the total system performance assessment” or TSPA, that there have been disagreement between the US Congress and the scientific community. The US Congress’ second and third – leading - questions The second and third question from Congress was about human action at disposal sites and equally leading: (B) whether it is reasonable to assume that a system for post-closure oversight of the repository can be developed, based upon active institutional controls, that will prevent an unreasonable risk of breaching the repository's engineered or geologic barriers or increasing the exposure of individual members of the public to radiation beyond allowable limits; and (C) whether it is possible to make scientifically supportable predictions of the probability that the repository's engineered or geologic barriers will be breached as a result of human intrusion over a period of 10,000 years.

The questions were clearly meant to receive an affirmative answer and the NAS answered then without much ado, as if they were self-explanatory. Unfortunately, for a decade after the NAS report, international initiatives from international bodies such as the IAEA and the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency received uncharacteristically modest interest in human intrusion issues from the US, usually having a leading role in these organizations, indicating a change from one extreme to another. When the US side eventually showed an interest in this research area, it was strictly formulated as a non-human-intrusion activity, such as the OECD/NEA effort to describe information retention: “Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) across Generations”, from 2011. In the process, OECD/NEA found many good reasons – separate from human intrusion - for conservation of information (Apted 2017, Chapter 21), to be discussed internationally. The questions and the lack of interest in international forums was perhaps a reaction to some of the science-fiction like studies made for the WIPP by Sandia National Laboratory (SANDIA 1993). Also my coworkers and I came in contact with similar ideas (Jensen 1993), such as one from science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem, pointing out the possibility of coding a message into the DNA of indigenous plants at the site, a passive control measure in the interest of the safety of future generations. You might imagine that someone, later in a distant future, picks a site-specific flower, decodes its DNA and receives information about the repository’s location, content and design (Lem 1990). Review of the Total System Performance Assessment – Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA)

65 One possible conclusion from both the questions and the answers is that human action including the possibility for active or passive site controls, cannot be estimated in quantitative terms, leaving the US Congress to believe that the opposite was perhaps true for the repository undisturbed by human activities. In (the US government’s fiscal year) 1997, Congress required the Department of Energy, DOE, to produce a Viability Assessment of the work being done to characterize the site at Yucca Mountain48, including inter alia: ‘‘(1) the preliminary design concept for the critical elements for the repository and waste package; (2) a total system performance assessment, based upon the design concept and the scientific data and analysis available by September 30, 1998, describing the probable behavior of the repository in the Yucca Mountain geological setting relative to the overall system performance standards; “ and two additional questions regarding cost.” In (2) we note that Congress assumed that might describe the probable behavior, i.e. the future state of the repository if it was built in accordance with the design mentioned under (1). It follows from the question that Congress believes that, unlike human action at disposal sites, a repository’s function can be predicted over large time periods if undisturbed by human action. It is a view (regarding the undisturbed repository) similar to the view inspired by Laplace and his demon about predictability, implying that things such as the repository´s performance could in principle be calculated over enormous time scales, if not to the end of time. The TSPA-VA report had an inspirational answer for physicalists: “With the benefit of hindsight, the Panel finds that, at the present time, an assessment of the future probable behavior of the proposed repository may be beyond the analytical capabilities of any scientific and engineering team. This is due to the complexity of the system and the nature of the data that now exist or that could be obtained within a reasonable time and cost. The TSPA-VA team has performed well, has developed numerous analytical innovations, and has produced technical reports of exemplary clarity.” (TSPA 1998), Total System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA), TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. prepared for the Department of Energy, 1998. “Probable behavior” We can look upon the TSPA-VA review as an exercise in physicalism. First a word about the term “probable behavior” and “probable performance” (terms used essentially for the same thing). Let us also point out that the terms were not invented by Congress. Already in 1996 at the winter meeting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) a presentation from DOE contains several passages using the term, such as “As Congress directed, and as I proposed at our5 October meeting, we will concentrate our work on the unanswered technical questions regarding the conceptual design of the repository and its 48

Pursuant to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

66 expected performance. The objectives will be to conclude whether the technologies are in hand to construct a repository at the Yucca Mountain site and to evaluate its probable performance based upon the wealth of data we already have, or will have by 1998.” (Dreyfus 1996) We note, according to our first axiom (that reality exists objectively) that real objects also has properties such as location, velocity etc., which we must include in our axiom. This implies that they also possess a future in the sense that they might have a new location, velocity etc. A real repository would therefore have a future. Strictly speaking “the repository” in the second bullet in Congress’ requirements above, does not exist. What exists is a design, i.e. a model. However, being lenient, we can accept that there might be such a repository built, which would then be a real object with a future, which might be assessed. One of the problems of prediction can be demonstrated by assuming a cataclysmic event, e.g. an earthquake large enough to disrupt some of the waste packages or the repository’s barriers. Such an even might occur during the assessment period, or it might not. In order to know the “probable behavior” we would need to be able to predict such earthquakes. We (or rather seismologists) might be able to offer probabilities for earthquakes but probability is a concept belonging to a model, not to reality. In order to know the repository’s probable behavior one would need to be able to actually predict the earthquake, its size and time of occurrence. There are ways around this problem in regulation, such as dismissing very infrequent types of seismic events based on their historic incidences, but such a solution doesn’t amount to understanding the repository’s probable behavior. On the contrary, such regulation – as in the US - admits that we cannot predict the events and fixes the problem accordingly. The regulation might still be reasonable, assuming the assumptions made about the exceptions also are reasonable. In the Swedish standard, the risk criterion simply allows the omission of very unlikely event based on their low contribution to the total risk. The argument above invalidates the idea that there is an ability to predict the exact behavior of the repository. This is probably also an admission in Congress´ use of the term “probable”. Observe that we make these observations without any reference to the actual review involved. It is self-evident. Perhaps this was behind the passage in the review: “with the benefit of hindsight”. Strictly speaking the repository’s “probable behavior” does not give much sense. It may just be jargon to cover what the authors perhaps really meant: “we are able to model the outcome for a very large number of scenarios and we are confident that we can show for them all that there is reasonable expectation that the waste is safely managed”. Something like this might have worked to the satisfaction of most people and the discussion of the term is therefore to some degree a discussion about the Prophet’s beard. Still when there are connotations to the political scene, a contradiction - a pig out of the barn - will always bring media attention. We remember from Chapter A that we “almost always see anti-physicalist views in some kind of conscious or unconscious disguise, with confusion and obscurity as an integral part of the problem”, and the unfortunate use of the term “probable behavior” is very close to such a confusion. The passage from the TSPA-VA review that “the future probable behavior of the proposed repository may be beyond the analytical capabilities of any scientific and engineering team” may to indicate

67 that – even if we disregard the disruptive events - also continuous process starting with initial features of the repository are so complex that safety assessment cannot rely only on calculations of the exact endpoint, but must also use other techniques. One such technique is what is called bounding calculations which simply points to calculations erring on the side of safety. Subsystem requirements A few more words on total system performance and subsystem requirements. A subsystem is a rather vague term, but in the connection with system requirement it usually addresses indicators for a good site or system, e.g. ground-water travel time or the number of barriers. Intuitively long ground-water travel time from the repository to the surface is a good thing, and perhaps many barriers are better than few, etc. In the beginning of the siting process in Sweden we described 9 such indicators above, related to site characterization. Requirements on such indicators do not address the whole system but might be valuable. It is important to realize that the system’s “probable behavior” cannot be calculated as if it were a mathematical exercise proving the safety in the same calculation. If it had been possible, the USNAS’ skepticism towards subsystem requirements (USNAS 1995) would have been better justified. If we agree that we cannot calculate the behavior exactly enough, then the value of subsystem performance becomes more of an open issue. However, one reason for skepticism of such requirements remains: if subsystem requirements were included, their benefit on the total process would not be easily assessed, for the same reason, i.e. their benefit to the total system cannot be calculated mathematically. It may only be done for a number of stylized scenarios. In the US, both the actual subsystem requirements suggested earlier were criticized, as well as the general principle of their use (Apted 2017 Chapter 22, p 631-632). C-4. A FEW CONCLUSIONS Safety assessment (sometime called performance assessment) for high level radioactive waste repositories, is indeed a very complex system and in contrast to Newton’s universe no single guiding formula can be found. In order to describe the likelihood and effects of a hypothetical outflow from a repository, a number of scientific disciplines must be in action in a long chain mentioned above. Among the events which may initiate a break of the barriers, seismicity can be considered, but other conditions leading to a release are less obvious. The problem is similar to the one of Newton’s second apple in Chapter A. In the cases where very large systems are studied there are usually a large number of disciplines involves. In our examples in the chapter we have everything from perhaps 10 to 40 depending on how narrowly defined they are49. The complexity of the model makes it less manageable but there is 49

The safety analysis must cover the mechanical and chemical behavior of the waste, performance of the waste package, buffer material around the waste (if applicable) and, for a hypothetical outflow of the released nuclides from the repository: transport of the nuclides in the rock through the interface of the geosphere/biosphere to the biosphere (our environment), transport within the biosphere, exposure of man, and effects on man from a potential exposure.

68 nevertheless an interest from policy-maker in finding answers. We remember the words from Funtowicz (1993) from Chapter A: “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. C-5. SUMMARY In this chapter we have discussed a complex technical problem, partly from a physicalist point of view. We went through the technical background and a description of a radioactive waste program, and looked at some issues which included:        

optimization of radiation protection principles, applied to waste disposal, a discussion of the concepts dose and risk, application of the optimization principle for different sites along with the difficulties in such an application, the problem of risk and the “reasonable expectation” in the US standard, the physicalist view of probability and therefore of risk the difference for probability and risk between series of known events vs. unknown events in the distant future, the relation between actual and calculated distant future behavior for complex systems, and the problem of subsystem requirements for non-calculable systems.

In addition, the appendix to this chapter describes the formal elicitation of expert judgment.

69

CHAPTER D. MIND VS. MATTER D-1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter I look at our three goals, having to do with physicalism, complex models and storytelling. The subject matter is relevant for them all. I discuss psychoanalysis and psychology with respect to physicalism and the use of psychology and psychologists in the legal system. Any reader expecting to read or learn about psychology or psychoanalysis will be bitterly disappointed. We acquaint ourselves superficially on a minimum need-to-know basis with the topics in order to discuss some other concepts (physicalism and complex models). Also, a non-goal is to comment on the relative value of the multitude of currents of mental health treatment. Sticking to our physicalist axioms, we realize that the concept of a “cure” is in itself problematic. We note that in a cure, a patient is moved from a state S1 to another state S2 under the assumption that S2 is better than S1. It is the assessment of the two states which may be a problem. It is true not only for humans with deceases, is it the same for groups of people and whole societies. We can make an example by imagining an extreme case: we take a broken car to a philosophical auto mechanics who comments: “why do you bring me one and a half ton mixture of metal, rubber and glass, and hope for it to move forward?” returning the burden of normality-definition to our side of the fence. My father was a psychoanalyst. At the Sunday breakfast table he would entertain the family with cases from his practice – without identities. Inevitably, patients from the practice adjacent to our apartment were sometime identified, but it is part of the family discretion that identities not be revealed, and in the case of my family they weren’t, except in one case where the breach of confidentiality stemmed from the patient’s wife, a notable Danish writer who wrote rather extensively about her husband’s analysis (Ditlevsen 1975). My father’s name, Ole Jensen, was scantily camouflaged into “Jens Olesen”. The mind-body problem René Descartes was famous for his thoughts about the mind and body, famous for his quote “I think, therefore I exist”, and more mind-body speculation can be traced back to Aristotle. We make things easy for us and disregard them both, based on our principle of historical revisionism explained in Chapter A. A justification would be that i) regarding Aristotle: that we encounter the same “heavily obfuscated” concepts as we have met in Chapter A, and regarding Descartes because his mixing of earthly issues with divine, as many (virtually all) philosophers do in this era (the 17th century) and later. D-2. PSYCHOANALYSIS Freud’s psychoanalysis is associated both with treatment and with a theory of the unconscious. They are obviously linked but we have the second in focus. He considers our mind - our ego - to work like a car with a gas pedal, the id, and a brake, the superego. This is as deep as we will go into that discipline as such, but we will take a look at the components with physicalist eyes. We note here that we – from a physicalist perspective - have a model of a model of reality just as we discussed for probabilities in chapter C:

70 Table D-1. The Freudian id and superego. Models within models of reality The real world A general model of the world including some unconscious activity A specific model of the model world with the new concepts id and superego.

Fin de siècle science A prerequisite of the pessimist and cynical attitude of the “fin de siècle”, i.e. end of the (19th) century, was an enormous amount of fundamental scientific discovery during that century. No branch of the natural sciences was left untouched. One might wonder if any improvement was possible, everything about the world was found out. Distant countries’ mountaintops were measured and cataloged, the mysteries of chemistry and physics were all (seemingly) solved, and the sciences had come to maturity. It was inconceivable that anything fundamental importance could be found. To oversimplify, mainly janitorial work remained to complete our scientific understanding of the world. In any case, the Fin-de-siècle scientists - cynical or not – were standing on the shoulders of giants. You may have heard the idea that the development of society and man runs parallel: the infant is the counterpart of the renaissance or baroque era symbolized by the small fat cherubs in Rafael’s painting. The first youthful years are equated by the enlightenment, giving way to the more complex young adult corresponding to the romantic era. What came after was adulthood, corresponding to the crown of human development and the period about hundred years ago according to the contemporaries. Nothing was impossible and nothing was hidden from fin-de-siècle man! I have cautioned against the belief that we can describe – and calculate be behavior of - very complex systems, but those concerns were not in focus then. We must remember the overwhelming stream of new scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. It is here we find the early Freud in his initial physicalist phase, in the sense that he was studying physiology, but also later, when assumed that there might be a bridge between physiology and psychology: The philosophy of physicalism was an expression of the faith that all phenomena including therefore the phenomena appropriate to living matter could be exhaustively accounted for in terms of the then recognized principles of physics. In their most general form, these principles were none other than those embodied in Newton s Principia: mass, inertia, and, most especially, attraction and repulsion”. (Lowry 1967). We note the Newtonian mechanics in the quote – the model of all models50 - as the main theme through all our chapters. Let us now get back to the late 19th century, placing ourselves in Freud’s position: in the face of all the marvelous new scientific advances, who are we to say that he was wrong, that physiology could not also be deciphered just like Mendel deciphered inheritance. What were these achievements if not the continuation of the models of Newtonian mechanics, and why 50

We remember from Chapter A that I don’t distinguish between theories and models. If I did I might say that the Newtonian mechanics is a theory which can be used to make various models, e.g. such as the one of the Solar system.

71 not go the whole distance to what we earlier called Laplace’s view, not only of celestial or other types of mechanics but of everything51? In any case, Freud started out with such a project, a “Project for a Scientific Psychology” in the 1890s (Freud 1985). These ideas, using physiology to describe the mind, were abandoned in what appears a 180 degree turn by Freud, as we will see in the case of Anna O, although one might suggest that he maintained his physical or physiological view in some manner. His subconscious components and their interaction might be subject to something that had a similarity to physical attraction and repulsion etc. The Freudian physiological project was soon abandoned. It should not to be mixed up with the seduction theory which he also abandoned, in which early childhood sexual abuse could explain hysteria and neuroses. Freud’s journey to inner space This section is not so much about the process whereby Freud changed his focus, as it is about the final destination, i.e. his psychological stand-alone (reality-free) modeling. We first look at a passage from Sigmund Freud’s daughter Anna Freud where she describes the components of the unconscious: “If within the id a state of calm and satisfaction prevails, so that there is no occasion for any instinctual impulse to invade the ego in search of gratification and there to produce feelings of tension and unpleasure, we can learn nothing of the id — contents. It follows, at least theoretically, that the id is not under all conditions open to observation. The situation is, of course, different in the case of the superego. Its contents are for the most part conscious and so can be directly arrived at by endopsychic perception. Nevertheless, our picture of the superego always tends to become hazy when harmonious relations exist between it and the ego.” (Freud 1946). The treatment and discussion of Anna O by Breuer and Freud In his discussion of the foundation of psychoanalysis in the American Psychology Conference 1909 (Freud 1910), Freud describes the attitude of the medical profession in dealing with hysteria: “He /the physician MJ/ cannot understand hysteria. He is in the same position before it as the layman. And that is not agreeable to anyone, who is in the habit of setting such a high valuation upon his knowledge. Hystericals, accordingly, tend to lose his sympathy; he considers them persons who overstep the laws of his science, as the orthodox regard heretics; he ascribes to them all possible evils, blames them for exaggeration and intentional deceit, "simulation," and he punishes them by withdrawing his interest.”(Freud 1910).

51

Note that “the theory of everything” – in addition to being a movie - is sometimes reserved for theories covering quantum physics and relativity. We are covering even a bit more – the theory of minds at work, covering the Freudian subjects such as the substance of dreams etc.

72 The problem here is the recognition of the difference between mind-dependent states and other states of physical illness. The point of departure in Freud’s reasoning is that there sometime is an “a priori” state of absolute knowledge (about hysteria). The starting point of absolute knowledge is important for several cases treated below. It bears resemblance to Laplace’s superior intelligence. It corresponds to a number of catastrophic scenarios described later in this chapter, in addition to problems and the critique received by Freud and Breuer in relation to Anna O. Dr. Joseph Breuer’s treatment of Anna O (Anna Pappenheim) is Freud’s introduction in a new field. He discussed the case with Breuer and it is regarded as one of the most famous cases, suitable as an introduction to the new discipline. There was also a milestone reached in this treatment: The first medical cure of hysteria. No one had ever cured a hysterical symptom by such means before (according to Freud’s own view below), or had come so near understanding its cause. The treatment included hypnosis of the patient who for some time refused to drink water but instead would eat large quantities of fruit: “she was talking one day in hypnosis about her English governess, whom she disliked, and finally told, with every sign of disgust, how she had come into the room of the governess, and how that lady's little dog, that she abhorred, had drunk out of a glass. Out of respect for the conventions the patient had remained silent. Now, after she had given energetic expression to her restrained anger, she asked for a drink, drank a large quantity of water without trouble, and woke from hypnosis with the glass at her lips. The symptom thereupon vanished permanently. Permit me to dwell for a moment on this experience. No one had ever cured an hysterical symptom by such means before, or had come so near understanding its cause”. (Freud 1910).

It is not clear to the reader (or the American audience at the presentation in 1909) what happened in larger time frame with the patient’s more serious symptoms. One might get the impression that this triumph was just the first in a long series of beneficial results which eventually completely healed Anna Pappenheim. Freud continues in his presentation (ibid.) to discuss problems of the case, e.g. the use of hypnosis, but the case has been so tightly associated with the technique and theory of psychoanalysis that there was a violent reaction when Anna Pappenheim’s fate became known. She actually “suffered serious and prolonged relapses”. The verdict was hard: “The harshest judgments contend that these new facts undermine the credibility of Breuer and Freud as well as the scientific status of psychoanalysis” (Micale 2014). According to Lowry (1967) the idea of a free standing (i.e. free from physiology) model for the unconscious mind was developed by Freud before and independent of observations: “It would seem that Freud was guided in his construction of the metapsychology by conceptions which he had acquired prior to and independently of the observations on which the psychoanalytic theory as a whole is ostensibly based.” (ibid). Laplacian dream interpretation We discuss here an extreme version of dream interpretations – and other psychological observations – which would be the psychological project corresponding to a Laplacian determinism within the natural sciences. It represents the outer barrier of what could possibly be hoped for.

73 A dream investigation would have to start and end with something physical, and actually the whole process would be described using ”mass, inertia, and, most especially, attraction and repulsion” from the quote above. In our theory of everything, all things would be physical, in the spirit of Laplacian determinism which would not recognize any difference between model and reality (as we discussed in chapter A). We would expect to deal with a scenario including i) initial stimuli of some kind from the physical world ii) a dream to be modeled and iii) an account of the dream to be compared with the model. The dream therefore would be journey from reality to reality via the content of a dream, “from earth to earth, from ashes to ashes”. I will describe the hypothetical physicalist interpretation of a dream I had many years ago, fulfilling our goals of i) discussing physicalism, ii) discussing complex models and iii) telling stories. I remember the dream the same way we remember a grocery list which we forgot to bring to the grocer: we went through in its details once before. I was studying for my Ph.D. in physics when I was contacted by a psychologist interested in dream experimentation. He knew my father was involved I psychiatry and hoped I would accept being in the study. I was set up (during day-time) in a meeting with a “dream team” of 3 experts from various disciplines including social science etc. I was then expected to explain some of the problems that came up during my research52. During the night after the meeting I was put to sleep with electrodes on my head in a bed inside a box. Outside the box sat a psychologist, armed with a thermos with strong coffee. The psychologist would then detect a dream pattern on the Electroencephalography (EEG) and after the dream period he would recognize on the EEG, he would wake me up and ask me about the dream. In one occasion, I told the psychologist that my dream was essentially about a Kafka-like interrogation conducted in a spy-vs.-spy atmosphere. My own interpretation of the dream: My grandfather was a member of the Danish Social Democratic Student Association and had a role in the visit of the Russian revolutionary Leo Trotsky in Denmark 1932. It had a considerable effect in the Danish political and media landscape at the time, and was talked about in our family. Perhaps the questions from the dream team was felt like an interrogation, and of all my previous experiences it mostly resembled the pre-war and wartime scenarios I heard about from Denmark, including the drama from Stalin’s secret agents, and other cold war tales and perhaps spy movies which may have influenced my fantasy.

We will now take a closer look of the Laplacian interpretation, i.e. its complete ”calculation” of a dream. We already noted that we must go from reality to reality from the actual events initiating the dream to the finished product the account of the dream. Strictly talking, since we are dealing with a Laplacian complete “calculation” and not a dream related to a single event. Laplace’s superior intelligence must take the complete physical life experience of the dreamer prior to the dream as our 52

In the end we found out that the dream team spectators’ varied disciplines were simply too far away from my actual research problems and had to be abandoned. The lead psychologist then came up with new ideas, but I was spared from further research.

74 point of departure taking into account a massive memory from a number of real scenarios “calculating” the impressions they might have represented. The section is simply meant to convey skepticism of a hare-brained idea of subconscious complete “calculations” (while not excluding alternative approaches). We should not dismiss out of hand the possibility of a development of psychoanalysis but I believe we can dismiss a linear extension with detailed explanation power of the subconscious. To complete the tour of Laplacian dream interpretation we way also have to yield a little in favor of a mechanical view: We met earlier the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics preventing us from determining the precise location of a particle, and we understood - in Chapter C – that drilling into a rock volume in the interest of safety (by improving our knowledge) might lead to reduced safety and compromise our goal. Similarly, if we wished to control all input to a person in an experimental dream interpretation, the process might probably change the person’s dreams, which might all reflect the monitoring environment. Freud and science We need to consider our two demarcation lines relates to components in the theory. It is perhaps necessary to discuss the scientificiality of psychoanalysis in connection with Freud in three steps, where the first is about the subconscious entities. The first step is concerned with the existence of something in the subconscious. The next test has to with psychoanalysis being able to predict things, by using these tools. In a third step we consider a possible future for Freud’s initial project. The id and superego are treated as well-established models in Anna Freud’s passage above for example about, inter alia, the superego which “can be directly arrived at by endopsychic perception”. There is nothing wrong from a physicalist point of view with Anna Freud talking about the id and superego as theoretical notions, but in her text one get the feeling that these ideas are treated as real objects, or so well-established that they become real, generally accepted, in no need of its own separate justification. We can also compare the subconscious entities of (Sigmund) Freud with “Popper’s three worlds”: “Popper, for his part makes a distinction between three worlds. The first is the world of physical objects or of physical states. The second is the world of consciousness, or of mental states. The third, which is the one that interests us here, is the world of objective contents of thought, which contains theoretical systems, problems, problem situations, critical arguments and states of discussions.” (Nolin 1993). We see here an interesting analogy (from our physicalist point of view) between Freud’s and Popper’s worlds: The first component (physical objects and the ego) is real, and the two next are not (consciousness and knowledge vs. id and superego). It is possible that some might consider the Popper’s third world to be objective, since Popper in his third world includes “knowledge without a

75 knowing subject” (ibid.), such as the knowledge represented by the books in libraries, even after a catastrophe where no humans survived. Be that as it may, we note that it is quite natural in many circumstances for a jargon to develop whereby “software” is described as if it was hardware. Popper’s “worlds” are not all worldly, i.e. real worlds, no more than Freud’s concepts. - and Popper’s demarcation To conclude about the concepts id and superego: The constructions refer to something unavailable for observation. They are outside reality and therefore, obviously, outside our - physicalist – demarcation line. All theories based on these concepts are therefore not only outside ours but also outside Popper’s demarcation line. Even if a falsifiable prediction were made we wouldn’t know on what state of the non-observable variables it was based. In scenarios with such forecasts the analysts would act as a clairvoyant making one prediction after another, perhaps falsifiable but unrelated to any theory. This is true for the id and the superego in any version of psychoanalysis. The mystery represented by this discipline is represented not so much by the untestability involved, as by the resilience of the discipline, still keeping in mind that we are dealing with essentially two theories, as mentioned by Lowry (1967): “Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was in fact two rather different theories. On the one hand, there was a fabric of fairly specific clinical hypotheses which pertained to the ætiology of certain similarly specific forms of behavior. What remained was properly spoken of by Freud as the metapsychology-a highly intricate network of hypotheses which sought nothing less than to describe the “psychical apparatus”. We sum the physicalist perspective with a table (Table 2b) for psychoanalysis, accompanied by a similar table for comparison with Newtonian mechanics Table 2a. For Newtonian mechanics the planets and their future positions do not exist in the sense that they don’t exist with their future position now. When we define existence for predicted events, we refer to a state of affairs in the future, assuming the prediction was correct. Table D-2a. Physicalist table for Newtonian mechanics Newtonian mechanics The theory input The theory Predictions

Objects/Phenomena The Sun and the planets Newtonian mechanics Future states of the system (Physical whereabouts of planets etc.)

Existence Exist Do not exist Would exist

Table D-2b. Physicalist table for psychoanalysis Psychoanalysis The theory input A Laplacian hypothetical theory The theory’s hypothetical Predictions

Objects/Phenomena Id, ego, superego Hypothetical Psychoanalytic analysis (if formulated by the theory) Future (physical) state of a person/patient (?)

Existence (physical existence) Do not exist Would not exist (even if the theory were established) Would exist

76 Concepts vs. theories It is possible that one might construct a theory of psychoanalysis as it exists today, passing Popper’s requirements, but it would have to be drained of most of its substance, and its passing the test would at least initially be based on the scarcity of predictive power rather than the opposite. The id and super-ego could be described simplified as a gas and brake pedal in a car with a minimum of additional assumptions, i.e. a forward urge balanced by a need of a control system taking longerterm consequences into account. It would be as if I explained a tree by its components: the trunk, the branches and leaves etc. I deconstruct the tree without having first presenting a proper “deconstruction theory”. It can be done with impunity because it is considered part of the thinking process itself. We can take a negative example in the form of the 19 century concept of ether used to propagate radio waves. It is a concept that cannot be directly observed, not really a theory. Nevertheless it had meaning within a theory that was tested - and finally abandoned. So perhaps we should consider it testable. Newton’s space and time and Einstein’s curved space-time are concepts of the same type. They cannot be used – separated from their theoretical environment - in a Popper test for falsifiability. They too have been augmented with a theory engulfing the concept. I have constructed these last examples in a roundabout way. The concepts in my examples are firmly attached to known theories, but we don’t have a clue as to the extension of psychoanalysis that would bring glory to the concepts. Nevertheless, they are a point of departure for my speculations about a way forward for psychoanalysis, considered in the next section. Freud and science: Reciprocity Let us show some leniency towards the psychoanalysts and assume that predictions actually can be washed out from exiting material, alternatively that falsifiable predictions will emerge in the future. After all, and according to Popper: “If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.” (Miller I985). If falsifiable predictions were found involving psychoanalysis, and found correct, how important would they be? Note that the theory might still be unscientific in its use of unscientific methods. It would also need to be reasonable, i.e. scientifically sound. If we look at actual predictions and test their accuracy, we would be engaged in an activity which is beyond Popper’s demarcation test. We would be looking at relative value of theories falsifiable theories, good theories versus better or worse. Let us also look at the possible consequences of a predictive theory. The development of Newtonian mechanics, with its predictive power of describing the Solar system thousands of years into the future, was no mean feat. But a hypothetical (non-Laplacian) theory with ability to predict the actions of people would certainly be in the same ballpark, if not above Newton’s

77 theories. Even a very small step in this direction for psychoanalysis would be spectacular. This is the basis for what I would like to call reciprocity: the more powerful a theory would be if found correct, the more we should be prepared to accept even very small steps in the right direction. We can only speculate what they would be. As mentioned above, it would perhaps be more natural to consider the theory, existing today, as a theoretical concept. To conclude: we still accept fully the logic of Popper’s demarcation (falsifiability) as well as the physicalist demarcation (separate existence for theories and reality), but we should be satisfied with very small or seemingly insignificant predictions. Obviously, if too many concessions are required we had better discard the theory completely (or Popper´s). Emergence of a new theory The above sketch of a Laplacian psychology was meant to point us further in the direction of applying our 3rd physicalist axiom, or at least ask whether we should completely close the door to the likes of the Freudian Project. Independent of the problem with non-observability of components in psychoanalysis and its scientific-problematic components, the discipline has been active for more than a century which proves its justification in a certain sense. Actually, more modest and promising approaches to something that looks a little bit like Freud’s Project has seen the light of day in the form of The International Neuropsychoanalysis Society, founded at the turn of the century, although created as a society and not really as a project, more than a century after Freud’s first version. The time interval indicates the massive distance between the two disciplines. The Society was founded with limited goals: “to provide a forum for clinicians and scientists who think it is important for psychoanalysts and neuroscientists to speak together, to educate each other, and to work together, because we are studying the same thing”. The unpretentiousness is in stark contrast to Freud’s overconfidence. It indicates that the time is ripe for a scientific approach to investigating the gap between neurology and psychoanalysis. The International Neuropsychoanalysis Society describes the goal as being with in the first of Freud’s two theories, dealing with clinical hypotheses, but the other - about the normal “psychical apparatus”- is not too far way. In new research, it might pay off to hurry slowly, take quite a few steps back, and then a number of steps more, to ensure an open a general approach. We get some ideas of additional or renovated concepts that might be of help in (Northoff 2012), indicating that research is on the way. Movement of the physicalist demarcation line Our line of demarcation, used to distinguish between reality and models, might be moved by these efforts. In the history of the solar system models, there was never a change of demarcation in this sense, not even after Einstein’s treatment. For psychology or psychoanalysis, there may be a fuzziness or grey area of the demarcation line rather than an actual movement of the line. Perhaps the situation will develop which is nearer to the situation in quantum physics, that certain things seem to exist who defies a fully theory-independent

78 description (keeping in mind that there is a very tightly controlled framework or environment around the subatomic particles). Perhaps some similar steps will be made in Neuropsychoanalysis, in the future. If we have been optimistic and perhaps overly lenient towards psychoanalysis, we should in all fairness add a warning on a more pessimistic note on its therapeutic version: The therapeutic part of Freud’s theory can be seen against a background of therapy in general. The patient’s continued access to an educated, experiences and inspired listener – Freudian, non-Freudian or completely outside the realm of psychology – constitutes an obvious advantage. The Freudian therapeutic component may be difficult to isolate in a scientifically convincing way, in an assessment of Freudian psychoanalytic therapy. Assisting one or several persons? Therapy is not available to all, e.g. in bulk quantities such as for earthquake victims which might benefit from therapy for obvious reasons. This raises ethical questions. Although somewhat outside our main theme, it might be worthwhile to mention some ethical aspects of my father’s case which was revealed to the public through the writings of the patient’s wife. The patient, Andreasen, was a head editor of a Danish tabloid. Parallel with (although not necessarily a direct consequence of) the analysis, he celebrated triumphs as an editor. A simple (but perhaps not completely true53) interpretation is that he lost whatever inhibitions he may have had after the analysis (we must assume by blocking the superego), increased the circulation of his paper by the use of classical tabloid populist journalism, and later left his wife for younger women. His life and relation to his wife was described in a biography of his successor Sven Ove Gade, described in a review in the newspaper Information (7 Nov. 2002). According to his wife Tove Ditlevsen, Andreasen went from adultery to adultery in the end of their stormy relationship. The marriage ended 1973, and she reconnected with drug the abuse from her earlier life, which she claimed he saved her from in the beginning of their relationship, finally committing suicide three years later, in 1976. Later, towards the end of his life the editor summarized his work with his tabloid: "I despised the readers. In addition, I knew what they wanted and they got it“. The fate of Andreasen and his wife raises the philosophical question whether treatment of the whole family would perhaps have been better than Freud’s individual version of therapy. D-3. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS This is from a legal case in Sweden, and the translations from Swedish sources are my own. The submission of evidence in court proceedings has a close relationship to what we have called the second physicalist axiom: “There is always a distance between the signifier and the signified”. Something has transpired, but is has to be related in court, making the description important. 53

His outspokenness in the 1950s was also an explicit reaction to the self-censorship that prevailed among newspapers under the Danish WWII occupation which seemed to linger on far too long after the war. He thus managed to combine political correctness with profitable populism.

79 A witness account represents a result of a number of interpretations. In the scenario where a description is made of an event, it is natural to assume on a scientific setting, i.e. that there is an honest attempt to describe things as they have occurred. However, the assumption of honesty does not really represent much of a separate issue (from our physicalist perspective), since self-deception is responsible for much of the same complications related to interpretation of the real world. Berkeley writes about seeing things from a distance in one of his first philosophical writings: “II. It is, I think, agreed by all, that distance of itself, and immediately, cannot be seen. For distance being a line directed end-wise to the eye, it projects only one point in the fund of the eye. Which point remains invariably the same, whether the distance be longer or shorter. III. I find it also acknowledged, that the estimate we make of the distance of objects considerably remote, is rather an act of judgment grounded on experience than of sense. For example, when I perceive a great number of intermediate objects such as houses, fields, rivers, and the like, which I have experienced to take up a considerable space; I thence form a judgment or conclusion, that the object I see beyond them is at a great distance.” (Berkeley 2010).

It follows that a witness report may be at odds with objective reality even when the witness is trying to portray reality as it appears. We will look at legal problems where the distance to reality is considerably greater. Many books have been written about the case below, but we are trying to concentrate on the issue of physicalism. Still this is a very central issue in legal proceeding. Also, understanding the case needs a minimum of background, especially because the case involves something similar to brainwashing. The case of Thomas Quick/Sture Bergwall We will concentrate of psychology in a criminal case taking place, mostly in Sweden, notable for its enormous media coverage though all its stages: the police and court deliberation in the case of Tomas Quick. Thomas quick must have something of a world record in exoneration in a democratic country: he was committed of 8 killings, in different courts, and later cleared of all wrongdoing in the cases. Strictly speaking, when a conviction is reversed, a former suspect is not proven innocent, but in the case of Thomas Quick the cases were shown to be fabrication from the beginning to the end, with a surprisingly strong coupling to psychological therapy. The prosecution team still denies any part in the fabrication (as is usually the case for prosecutors). Göran Lambertz, the Chancellor of Justice at the time, reviewed the cases and held his hand over the convictions. He maintains that the later developments (the 8 exonerations in a row) are natural, in that Quick now claims to be not guilty, and that this component has shifted the balance against a conviction. The appellation courts were of a different opinion in their comments. Quick was not an innocent person at the time of the disreputable trials. On the contrary, in 1969, he sexually abused 4 boys when working as a hospital staff member. In 1974, while temporarily released he stabbed an acquaintance and was referred to the psychiatric ward once again. Finally in 1990 he

80 committed a bank robbery and took hostages, and is 1990 referred again to psychiatric care in the hospital Säter. The therapy in Säter is the prerequisite for the whole series of murder confessions, 39 in total, but investigative journalists caught up with the prosecution team before he could be tried for more than 8. The way things were going, he might have been used to clear all unsolved murders in Sweden up until 1990. In addition, Quick also confessed to 5 murders said to have occurred in Norway, including two cases where the victims later were found to be alive. The case that interests us is the physicalist aspect of the conviction and the reversals that followed, eventually leaving Tomas Quick, or Sture Bergwall, as he now calls himself, a free man. The timeline The timeline of the Bergwall case is published in (Råstam 2013). Some events leading up to - the murder cases are given in table D-3 (here published by the Swedish public radio (SR 2015 – Sveriges Radio published June 2015, 05.00): Table D-3. The background of Bergwall’s case. Our starting point is April 1991: July 1992 October 1992

November 2013

Thomas Quick is 41 years old. He is admitted to the Säter criminal psychiatric clinic after being sentenced to psychiatric care for a bank robbery. The Säter clinic intends to release Thomas Quick, now under the name of Sture Bergwall. In order to stay at the clinic54, Sture Bergwall claims to have recaptures previously abandoned memories of murdering an eleven year old boy, Johan Asplund, who disappeared in the city of Sundsvall in 1980. The last of Sture Bergwall’s murder charges was reversed.

The fact that he is cleared of the charges does not automatic imply that he is released from the psychiatric ward. The psychiatric case does not necessarily follow the path of the trials. He could e innocent and still in need of treatment but there was strong pressure for his release after the massive miscarriage of justice evident in the reversals. Sture Bergwall was eventually freed from compulsory psychiatric care 2015 after a separate decision of the local administrative court. The case goes through several phases although the take place in parallel to some extent: The 1st phase – Quick is lying! First police interrogation was held in March 1993. There was initially an opinion among a few local journalists that “Thomas Quick is a mythomaniac”. This is in connection with the first murder case. Clearly their feeling is that something is not right about Quick’s confessions and they know firsthand of some parts of the trial contain contradictions. The accused gets much of the blame, rather than 54

The idea that Bergwall admitted guilt in exchange for drugs is now believed to be the case by many, including me. However, the expressed inference of is made by the Swedish Radio from which the timeline is taken.

81 the whole process, but the journalists notice that the legal case is flawed. Local journalists, including Johan Håkansson and Dan Larsson followed up on the case by in series of articles (Håkansson) and eventually a book (Larsson 2012). Initially, they are not taken seriously by the national media. After a while, the pressure on the legal system increased and, in addition, national media actors entered the scene. The 2nd phase – the investigation is a complete fraud Later, Sture Bergwall collected confessions upon confessions of murder. In the next eight years Bergwall confessed to 39 murders. The sixth and last Quick trial is held in May 2001, concerning the boy Johan Asplund who disappeared from Sundsvall in 1980. Sture Bergwall was convicted of murder – as with all other convictions in the absence of physical evidence. The body has never been recovered. In time, the focus shifted from the accused to the whole legal process. The reporter Hannes Råstam conducted a large number of interviews and collects an enormous amount of data and compiles a case loaded with references able to withstand an aggressive attack from skeptical establishment media. Råstam’s investigation raised real doubt among the media. Råstam also detected the trail to Stockholm, necessary for a full understanding of the case, to be revealed below. Based on a petition from the parents of the victim in the first murder case the Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz reviewed and rejected the petition 2006 after just over a week, despite an enormous body of documents available from the trials themselves and from journalist’s investigations during the time after Bergwall’s first murder confession, 13 years. The fact that the government’s lawyer has reviewed the case has formal implications. When most of the flaws of the trials became known, Göran Lambertz’ decision blocked legal actions against the prosecution teams in some of Bergwall’s cases. Such actions would not be possible in some countries, but they are legal in Sweden. Other cases were time-barred for legal actions. The 3th phase. The hidden primus motor Dan Josefsson in his book (Josefsson 201555) followed a lead made by Råstam (2013) about the involvement of a psychoanalyst in Stockholm, Margit Norell, who seemed to be very important to the whole case. The short version of Norell’s ideology is that Bergwall was the victim of numerous crimes the memory of which he repressed but which lead to his career as a serial killer. This was also the driving force behind the mechanisms that made Bergwall admit to 39 murders. According to Table D-3, the initiating event was the threat of losing access to drugs that started the chain of confessions. A first reality check At this point we have 8 murder sentences without a shred of evidence. There is no link to reality at all. According to the Chancellor of Justice, who still refuses to admit any wrongdoing on the part of the prosecutor, there is one real piece of evidence, the marking of a cadaver dog, named Zampo. It turned out in subsequent review by the news channel Dagens Eko and the magazine Aftonbladet that 55

I have used as references for Josefsson, the Swedish version of his book (Josefsson 2013).

82 the defendant was actually told where the dog had marked by one of the police present (Swedish Radio, published 15 May 14.40, updated 1945, 2015). The value of the dog marking was therefore null and void. Normally, the usefulness of cadaver dogs lies in the fact that their indications can be used to find real objects of interest to an investigation. An indication by a dog which does not lead to an object is more questionable. In this case the confession came after the dogs marked and virtually nothing remain of interest to a physicalist, except the prosecutor’s faith in the fraud. The actual “facts” were of the type (taken from the Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz’ website): “Thomas Quick said that a locked road barrier on his way to the wood was open at the moment. A power company /assumingly responsible for the barrier, MJ/ announced that this might have been the case.”

In all fairness, the cases have a long chain of incriminating evidences, which would have been highly suspicious, had they been obtained by honest police work. Instead, the prosecutor’s team was slowly feeding him the right answers. This highly unusual police method was justified by the special condition in the case. We can see the machinery of logic in the case: The scenario is set in motion by the first murder confession. As the murder investigations unfold, the entire police investigation is a byproduct of the therapy, placing the therapists and the investigation team in a symbiotic interdependence in a completely closed loop powered mainly by the abuse level drug prescription. This way of conducting an investigation was necessary considering the weight of the learned therapist’s contribution which could hardly be discarded as nonsense according to the prosecutor, who told Josefsson that he felt he had no choice but to accept the therapist’s ideas. He expressed fear that he would be in an awkward situation if he had disregarded the “psychological nonsense” and Quick had turned out to be a mass murderer. The interview gives the impression that the prosecutor replaced the complete sum of his own work by that of the therapist, rather than taking advantage of input from an expert in therapy as part of a larger puzzle. The prosecutor team changed into amateur psychologists assisting the therapists. In the process they apparently felt empowered to clarify the case to the world in psychological terms and the prosecutor’s police investigator Penttinen explains some of Bergwall’s statements, known to be false: Bergwall’s deviations are not lies, “but a sort of protection factors, made in order not to break down in his anxiety, in the precise moment of the interrogation situation”, explained the non-psychologist police interrogator Penttinnen (2004). In this case of forensic psychology, white is black and black is white, when appropriate. The double helix The title is the name of the book of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA, the double spiral. We see here also a double spiral, two circular processes spiraling downwards. They are both therapeutic-induced.

83 The most visible loop took place on the “field level” – pertaining to the police investigation. It may have started with the drugs which was made available to Bergwall, and his prolonged stay at the Säter clinic, initially “in exchange” for his cooperation in the first murder case. There are a long series of statements from all around him about the problem for the patient to overcome the threshold, both from the clinic and from the therapists, and the drugs played an important role. There are several manifestations of this spiral. One – rather amateurish and easy to detect - is the fact that a journalists close to the prosecutor’s team leaked information to Bergwall which was later assumed to be information he could not have access to if he had been innocent (Josefsson 2013). He received, similarly, a lot of information through newspapers we had access to in various ways. A much more devious - and less obvious – mechanism was the form the investigation took where, in a subtle way was lead to the right conclusion, by continuous guesswork and indirect answers from the police (mostly one and the same through the whole operation). This can be – and was - detected but only if you actually read the protocols. An expert who followed the case closely, Professor of criminology Leif G.W. Persson, notes the pattern and rejects the whole charade: “Quick doesn’t know much in the beginning of the interrogations” (Råstam 20I3)”. The actors and logic of the first spiral The first spiral concern the actors described in step one and two. Note that the main actors in this process are the therapists attached to the investigation. Following Råstam and Josefsson, The therapists had the investigation cain a stranglehold from the beginning to the end. The members of the prosecutor’s team were reduced to henchmen from day one, doing the therapists bidding. This amazing fact is not even controversial. The prosecutor did not even bother with normal police interrogation which he frankly admitted: "Real interrogations are not held with the Säter patient, but the interrogations are in the form of conversational therapy with medical expertise and interrogation staff present. "Christer van der Kwast in an interview with the newspaper Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå, Nov. 11, 1993.

There are problems with crimes which are openly confessed. False confessions may be a product not only of coercion but also of mental illness. However, in this special investigation, the main investigators were exactly the experts of mental illness who, if anyone, should be able to set things straight. Another problem is related to the – much criticized – defense council. He had a difficult job being outside the therapist’s world with a client confessing crimes, one after the other in a breathtaking speed. He might have done something but he had a difficult position, and soon decided to team up with the prosecutor. A third component is the addition, 1994, of a central memory expert, a professor of psychology, participating in the field work where Bergwall is lead around his murder scenes (which never produced any hard evidence except for the sniffing of the cadaver dog Zampo.) When he arrived to assist the prosecution scene, the “truth” was already established and the professor’s was reduced to further refine the confessions into getting a complete picture, linking Bergwall’s memories to hard evidence in the field.

84 The second spiral Margit Norell was a Swedish psychoanalyst born in 1914. We recall the scientific dilemma that the unconsciousness is hidden from observation, which makes the various currents in psychoanalysis a matter of faith and belief, which is an open invitation to clashes, to the forming of sects and subsects, but Margit Norell has participated in more clashes than most therapists in Sweden. She broke with the classical Freudianism in the Swedish Psychoanalytic Society, and started another group "Swedish Society for Holistic Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy". Norell was subsequently expelled from the Holistic Society, and – being through with collective action in learned societies - continued to work as an independent clinician and supervisor (Josefsson 2013, Johansson 2003). In this capacity she came to supervise a number of therapists working at the Säter clinic at the time Sture Bergwall was a patient. In contrast to the two other organizations she left - the first willingly, the second unwillingly – the network was based on personal relations rather than organizational principles. She developed surprisingly strong bonds to the therapists, characterized by some of the younger colleges she supervised as mother-child relations. It turned out that she, by a strange twist of fate, ended up having virtually all therapists in Säter responsible for the care of Bergwall close bound in therapy. Her power extended to the attached psychology professor, acting as Bergwall’s memory expert. Josefsson (2013) described the mechanisms linking Dr. Norell to the investigation in great detail. Norell’s interest was focused around the injuries she thought Bergwall must have suffered as a child. She subscribed to something similar to Freud’s abandoned seduction theory, and the string of crimes, the murder list, were just a manifestation of the mark these injuries had left in Bergwall’s unconscious. The case-handling psychoanalyst Norell hid in the background like Dr. Mabuse56, and her name never appeared in public media until late in the process, long after her death in 2005. The weight of reality in the legal world The cases (in the Western world) involve many people deeply, but no single case can match Quick/Bergwall. Similar cases, i.e. criminal cases where repressed memories are the only link to reality have occurred over the Western world using lax legal standards for deciding what constitute scientific advice. In the Soviet Union, Russian dissidents were declared mentally ill and stored away in mental hospitals. However the practice was intentional and no one believed the dissidents were sick. For the individual victim (dictators usually have more victims) it is a matter of opinion what one might prefer, Soviet dictatorship or free Western stupidity and incompetence. Both have tragic outcomes.

56

Dr. Mabuse is an evil master of disguise and telepathic hypnosis created by famous film director Fritz Lang. The description is somewhat unfair since we don’t portray Dr. Norell as an evil mastermind.

85 According to the Detroit free press, (May 7, 2016), “the Michigan Supreme Court has cleared the way for a lawsuit to advance against a counselor in the Upper Peninsula who is accused of planting false memories of sexual abuse in the mind of a teenager”. In the US, perhaps the use of countersuits may curb some of the worst practices, which were at their maximum in the 1990s, but apparently still sees the light of day. Summary of the physicalist aspect We note throughout the whole chapter that the second physicalist axiom is in the center of our attention: “There is always a distance between the signifier and the signified…”, the witness and reality. In the case of Quick/Bergwall, there was a characteristic lack of doubt in the therapists’ missions. Not only lack of doubt but perhaps of triumph, they were making history in the psychological, and for Norell’s part of the psychoanalytical, field. They were all heroes, her heroes, all empowered by her theory of the unconscious repressed memories, a theory of a theory, a box in a box. This was then applied to the third level, Bergwall’s fake memories, which came to be a box in box in a box. Throughout this whole investigation, reality was nowhere in sight.

86

CHAPTER E. DIVINITY E-1. INTRODUCTION AND PHYSICALIST CIRCULARITY After having worked with the properties of plane figures, Euclid ended his Elementa with the properties of the Platonic solid figures. We also have a natural endpoint in our quest of physicalism, the nature of divinity, limiting ourselves to the Christian faith (and we very briefly mention the Nicene and Augsburg confessions). We noted that George Berkeley considered that we cannot trust that the things we observe exist, only the fact that we sense something, and that in order to make a discussion worthwhile with other (possibly nonexistent) people, everything is made real in a separate step, since God is all pervasive and senses all things. Berkeley’s reasoning, published around 1710, is therefore not too far from an attempt to prove God’s existence. Sometime later, in 1781, Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, would have none of that.57 In all these cases the definition of God is indistinct. The object of the investigation, God, requires a definition and the definitions we have (e.g. confession of Nicene and Augsburg) are clearly pointing to a trinity of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This aspect of divinity is not important enough to be mentioned in either Berkeley´s or Kant´s reasoning about physicalism58. We examine some of the paraphernalia of divinity to illustrate the physicalist demarcation line, but our investigation is fairly short, because the concept of physicalism is part of the decoupling religion from philosophy, a process that took place in the 19th century which have connotation to the philosopher Kant mentioned above, and further decoupling divinity to other concepts in our world in a process beginning with Friedrich Hegel among others. Such an investigation would point directly to a specific result (the absence of divinity). It would therefore be meaningless and dishonest to make up a lengthy proof pretending to find what we knew existed there from the beginning. We do have a concern that George Berkeley might have used this kind of reasoning, as shown below. The physicalist demarcation sides in divinity The confession of Nicene in the year 325, in the version given by the Vatican, gives us some interpretation problems: 1) “We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.”

57 58

A quote from http://goneri.nuc.berkeley.edu/pages2009/slides/Jensen_Comments%20to%20the%20students.pdf

Berkeley’s book “The principles of human knowledge” does not mention the word Trinity at all (apart from the title page mentioning that Berkeley is a Fellow of Trinity-College, Dublin); nor is it mentioned in Kant´s “Critique of Pure Reason”.

87 The text about God being bodily (or not) is not easily extracted, but we assume that Jesus is part of the Trinity, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. From the Augsburg confession, some 1200 year later we get a clearer picture in its article 1, which informs the reader about the fundamentals, which includes the Nicene synod. This particular, introductory text referring to - and seeming to explain - the Nicene synod may, or may not, also be acceptable to Catholics, and we quote from its article 1: “The churches, with common consent among us, do teach that the decree of the Nicene Synod concerning the unity of the divine essence and of the three persons is true, and without doubt to be believed: to wit, that there is one divine essence which is called and is God, eternal, without body, indivisible [without part], of infinite power, wisdom, goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and that yet there are three persons of the same essence and power, who also are co-eternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” (Augsburg 1530 – The Augsburg confession, translated 1874 by The Rev. Dr. Charles P. Krauth, available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iii.ii.html, visited Nov. 2017. )

It is clear from at least the Augsburg confession that God is “without body” as opposed to the Son, and that with the Holy Ghost they are the same “person”. Article 1, and probably also the Nicene synod, seems therefore to be in explicit disagreement with our first axiom of physicalism, being on both side of the demarcation line. Perhaps it is a question of interpretation which is a difficult (or obfuscated) area and we remember Isaac Newton’s struggle with the same issue. Newton existed as a physical person and he had ideas (which themselves has no body) which made him suggest Newtonian mechanics, so he is related to a combination of existing (like the planet system) and nonexisting (the mechanics) components. According to Erasmus of Rotterdam the mentioning of trinity in the Latin text of the bible has no correspondence to the original Greek manuscripts: “The combination of accusations of Arianism, with Erasmus' thin-skinned sensitivity to criticism, caused him to rashly vow that if any Greek manuscript could be found to include the words in question, he would add them to his text. A manuscript was duly manufactured in Britain to suit the conditions of Erasmus' vow, so in his third edition (1522), Erasmus added the words to his text, but added a marginal note declaring his belief that the manuscript had been deliberately doctored. (The Greek manuscript evidence and the evidence from early translations and church fathers overwhelmingly declare that the trinitarian text is not an original or genuine part of 1 John, and has no legitimate place in the text of the New Testament, as anyone can see for himself by examining the evidence in, e.g., the commentaries of Adam Clarke [Vol. VI, pp. 927-933], Henry Alford [Vol. IV, pp. 503-505], and B. F. Westcott [pp. 202-209], Scrivener's Introduction [pp. 8, 149-150, 457-463], and Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [pp. 716- 718].) Luther never included the passage in any German translation produced in his lifetime. Both Tyndale and Coverdale indicated that they thought the suspect words were spurious” (Doug Kutilek 2018).

Be that as it may, given the difficulties of interpretation, there may still be versions of Trinitarian beliefs which do not necessarily contradict physicalism. We don’t go into other World religions here but we notice that the Old Testament with its prophesies is a true subset of Judaism, and that a future Messiah therefore also might be subject to the question of (a separate) trinity, not as an issue to be revealed in the future, but as a question about what

88 people believe today (about a hypothetical situation in the future). It seems to be complicated and much of the writings on the term “Jewish Trinity” are actually centered on the “old” Christian Jesus. We also note also that the synod of Nicene constitute the upper bound of the date for the institutionalization of Jesus as a divine being, on the same level as God. E-2. GEORGE BERKELEY We will start with our old friend Berkeley. True to our revisionist principle of historical research we will not go into his mostly 18 century writings. We will discuss a few items mentioned by The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, from the source (Stanford 2011). We expect that description to be more detached and objective if such a things were possible (although we know it isn’t, really). We start by taking the bull by the horns and look at section 2.1.1. The core argument: “…. It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?” (Stanford 2011). According to the text, we can only accept as truth what our senses tell us and we don’t really know that “houses, mountains, rivers” etc. exists. This is Berkeley’s point of departure. Note that we are not really in contradiction with this: we believe that “houses, mountains, rivers” exist, but we state our belief in the form of an axiom, not as something obviously true. We cannot prove it but we choose to believe it for a number of reasons, not related to our immediate perception but to our ideas of a contradiction-free universe, i.e. embodied in a more complex reasoning. We move on to Berkeley‘s world. There are a few interpretations possible of Berkeley’s universe: 1.

2.

The universe consists of one person’s mind. This is the scenario of the “lucky guy”, the only one who exists. Everybody else is part of the “things we perceive”. Although they (i.e. everybody else) are referred and written to, they exist only in the lucky guy’s mind. The universe consists of more than one person. We assume they do not constitute so called parallel universes; the people actually interact in some way - in their respective minds - much like people in the film Matrix.

Berkeley did not believe in alternative 1. In case number 2, like in Matrix, there must be an external programmer, the master of our reality. We don’t (necessarily) exist physically. For a man of God (although at the time of the above quote, not yet bishop) like Berkeley, the candidate list for this allpowerful programmer would be very short. Once God was in place, the pieces fitted together. We have the structure of the text in (Stanford 2011) made up by the sections: 1. Life and philosophical works 2. Berkeley's critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues

89 3. Berkeley's positive program: idealism and common sense (Curiously, a section 4 is also mentioned but it is “not available”.) Section 3 has the first subtitles: 3.1 The basics of Berkeley's ontology, 3.1.1 The status of ordinary objects, and 3.1.2 Spirits as active substances.

This portion of the text, up to 3.1.2 contains the main ingredients. The whole biography leads up to 3.1.3 “God’s existence” presented rather like an afterthought, a deduction from the ideas presented earlier, almost as an appendix. The central role of this part is confirmed by the next parts from section 3.2, “Replies to objections”, which is intended to defend Berkeley’s view59 and therefore seems not to offer novel material. God’s existence is presented as an interesting byproduct of earlier established facts (perhaps not too different from our exercise with the Matrix scenario). Let us consider Popper’s criterion on this chain of reasoning. Would falsification be possible? Out attempt would read something like this assuming Berkeley read this after 1734 when he was made Bishop of Cloyne: Berkeley: what do you know, there is no God. Who would have thought that – and me being a bishop and all! But there you are; you can’t argue with science! We are not convinced and we conclude that the theory, contained in sections 1 – 3, has serious problems with Popper’s test even if it might be carried out in principle. Another theological trump card - and a trial We looked at the “core argument” but there is more ammunition in (Stanford 2011), section 2.2.1: “the master argument”. It emanates from - inter alia - “The principles of human knowledge60” from where “the core argument” is also quoted. The unspecified author (from Stanford?) writes about this argument in a positive way (“Berkeley's insightful account of scientific explanation and the aims of science” from section 3.2.3 ‘Scientific explanation’) and carry on in the same spirit as the Bishop himself, in a manner known as “Übernehmung” (taking over) in the symphony orchestra, where e.g. a clarinet might take over a passage from the flute with the same phraseology. (In principle there is nothing wrong with such an attitude, but you don’t see it often in reviews. To continue on the musical note: some music critics do not applause after a performance they attend in order to review). Rather than burying us in the 18 century text, we take a look at the year it was created, 1710. Interestingly, this is the same year as what is called Ireland’s last witch trial (1710–1711), concerning 59

Another presentation of Berkeley is made by our friend from Chapter B, Prof. Hedenius, in his doctoral thesis Sensationalism and Theology in Berkeley’s Philosophy. Interestingly, it has 4 chapters as well and God’s existence is also in Chapter 3. Both accounts seem to place the existence of God as a key position, the first chapters leading up to a climax in Chapter 3. 60

See http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/BerkeleyPrinciples(JFB).pdf

90 the alleged use of witchcraft in Islandmagee. It gives us an idea about the freedom of religion at the time, including the degree of freedom of thought. We allude here to Kierkegaard (“Either/Or”): “How unreasonable people are! They never use the freedom they have but demand those they do not have; they have freedom of thought – they demand freedom of speech” (Kierkegaard 2013), but we should also be thinking about one of the subject matters under discussion in chapter D, psychoanalysis. In this discipline, the expression “courage of thought“ is a term you might run into, and perhaps you wouldn’t expect much of that in Ireland 1710, when it came to doubting the existence of God especially for man of God, later to become bishop. A Christian Northern Ireland councilor, Jack McKee, objected to the creation of a memory plaque suggested by the author Martina Devlin. He took the view that he remained to be convinced that the women were not guilty of devil worship. (The Guardian 20I5 - The Guardian, Christian councillor objects to Islandmagee ‘witches’ plaque, The Guardian, published Thursday 5 February, 2015. We must assume some leniency on the part of the councilman in that the witches are said to have acted immorally on their own behalf, rather than stooping to the greater disgrace of having power of witchcraft transferred to them from the devil, such as the ability to fly on a broomstick like Harry Potter. On the whole, this transport ability is an important theme in the Swedish witch-hunt and processes at the height of the religious killing frenzy 1668-1676 (around 300 women killed in a population of around 1 million people). In the light of the depressing history of the lack of rights, and abuse of women this may not in itself be as large a number as one might think at first sight, but it stands out because it is formally noted and archived just as for most of these processes. The women were accused coming to church often by young boys assisting the clergy, and the charges often included travel by mystical means with the boys as passengers. The penalties for the Islandmagee witches are not known but “a twelve-month sentence and a spell in the pillory, as stipulated by the law, seem likely outcomes” according to the magazine History Ireland (published in Issue 1, Volume 22, January/February, 2014). Falsification of Popper’s test is not theoretically impossible, but very unlikely. The (then) relatively new Blasphemy Act of 1697 was directed against currents with new interpretation of Divinity. A blatant atheist would have suffered its full force. We contemplate, for good measure, the test one more time in the light of the witch process and note the problem that one of outcomes necessary for the test is unrealistic – the negative one where God is proven not to exist – with George Berkeley in the pillory as a result of his following the arguments on his writings. Many historians can see through these obstacles and filter out interesting information in such a text as Berkeley’s but it is not our quest here to archaeologically find bits and pieces and connect them to other bits and pieces from elsewhere to establish a greater bit, praiseworthy as such activities may be. What we see is instead crusading cohorts of angels marching between the text rows, in combat with devils jumping out like gargoyles in every twist and turn of the arguments, forcing us to leave the bishop at this point, to retain our sanity. We should not forget however, that his relationship with the questions discussed here, and therefore the person George Berkeley, is unique on a historical scale. E-3. MIRACLES AND THE AXIOMS OF PHYSICALISM

91 Miracle anatomy and the three axioms A miracle is made up of two components: i) a described scenario and ii) understanding of the scenario containing the miracle. The first is an event in the real world: something happens. The next is about our view of such an event or course of events. We now take the example: water is changed into wine. Observe that the event itself is not in contradiction to physicalism. If water changes into wine, it would simply constitute an example of such a reality as we assume objectively exists independent of our consciousness. There is no contradiction here. Let us consider the second axiom (in its linguistic form): “There is always a distance between the signifier and the signified”. This could be about a possible mistake to the effect that the water was not really changed, but somebody thought it was. At this point we invent an advocate of miracles. This person will tell us that the water was actually changed into wine, i.e. the uncertainty related to our second axiom is not relevant here. Observe that in this we are not very different from the advocate, who also underlines the unexplicability of water change. In addition, most advocates have an explanation related to divine intervention. Before we move to the third axiom we will consider miracles in general below (but he haven’t forgot the last axiom: we improve on our models so that we come closer to reality. This constitutes our understanding of – and attitude toward – science). The taxonomy of miracles and their relation to Laplacian determinism We take help from Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/miracle) in defining our taxonomy or classification of miracles: Miracle, extraordinary and astonishing happening that is attributed to the presence and action of an ultimate or divine power. We have from Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle) a different example (No. 2), without reference to divinity: “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment - The bridge is a miracle of engineering.” We note the use of the word miracle in this example but we disregard this class of miracles here. What we have left is something which cannot be explained, and which carries in itself the information that it cannot be explained, a bit like an UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) which by its very nature is not identified and therefore poorly understood. Following a scientific path, we observe that the aspect of unexplainability is in opposition to the Laplacian determinism. We remember from chapter A about Laplace’s higher intelligence that “nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes”. We must assume that the “higher intelligence” who predicted everything, including all miracles not only understood them but predicted them all, past and future.

92 Regarding us less intelligent human scientist, we must admit that there might be a grey area in our more limited or local system understanding. Our views may change and astonishing facts might be later understood in the light of future theories. We assume that perhaps some events called miracles has been mistaking interpreted and can be “explained away”, but to discuss miracles we must consider the position of our advocate. We assume with our miracle advocate, or more simply for the sake of argument, that (at least one) real miracle exist as a true miracle which would not allow itself to be “explained away”, i.e. it is an event understood to have a “built in” guarantee that it will never be explained in terms of our traditional of natural science. In contrast to the earlier observation about Laplacian determinism we have now found a new determinism, in that the miracle-advocate’s position implies knowledge about “the future, as the past” of scientific explanation power. Such knowledge is inferior to that of Laplace’s intelligence in that it does not embrace everything in the universe, but it is absolute at least for this limited situation, carrying absolute knowledge that at least one miraculous phenomenon will never be understood in scientific terms. In this the miracle is in contradiction to our declared optimism of the third axioms that our scientific understanding will eventually increase. To sum up, 1. The absolute certainty of unexplicability of the miracle constitutes a contradiction with the second axiom. It contradicts the belief in our modesty, that we may be wrong, in contrast to our advocate. 2. The miracles such as water to wine contradict the scientific description of reality, related to our third axiom which now finally invoke, i.e. our belief that increasingly large areas can be approached (although sometimes in a zigzag movement) by a scientific description. E-4. JESUS Even a very cursory investigation of the life of the historical Jesus (which is essentially all I offer) turns out to be a sad experience. We meet people who want to present proof in one or other direction display an unfortunate bipartisan, sometimes - perhaps unconscious – dishonest, or at the very best, naïve attitude. In such a naïvely constructed scenario, the writes leads us from an initial pretended state of innocence, via a number of supposedly convincing references to a new position and assumes the reader will be follow. Virtually no one, coming from a different view, does. The references are displayed to illustrate the writer’s thesis, leading us on a path where we are assumed to gather information making us increasingly sympathetic to the writer’s viewpoint forgetting that the writer’s position was clear to us from the beginning. These investigations are songs to the choir. Falsification for Large time scales We know from Kuhn in Chapter A, that people will reinterpret data to fit what they believe. Arguments from one side can easily be refuted by counter-arguments to the effect that this particular part of the Bible or other writings might have been added later, which perhaps can be seen in connection with still another reference etc., etc.

93 The problem is the long term scale, which is the same problem as for safety assessment in chapter C where consequences are calculated for many thousands of years in the future. In this sense it is has problems with its implementing aspect, although it might be falsifiable. The problem of falsification for long time scales is that, although they might be testable, we cannot - for the distant future cases – draw any benefits in our lifetime. Perhaps all Popper intended was to use our understanding of scientific methods and models to show the way forward. For historical cases we might apply similar – practical - tests. We can imagine the knowledge – of the nearest involved – is high at the time of an even year 0, and that is increases – among scholars – as historical facts emerges as in fig. E-1. The graph is not completely logical, since it sometimes may relate to two different type of knowledge. It is meant to illustrate that we increase our knowledge with time and that, at some point we knew less. Figure E-1. Qualitative “Degree of knowledge” at different times (years) about an event 2000 years ago.

Sometimes general but at least local knowledge (friends and family)

0

500

1000

General knowledge

1500

2000

The question “Did Jesus live? The question about Jesus is posted, for instance, in (skeptic.SE 2011) (https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1624/did-jesus-live, 2011), visited Nov 2017. It has some interesting answers. However, the question about Jesus’ identity deserves closer scrutiny. The question is about non-biblical evidence and according to the question “having nothing to do with divinity”. It is a relatively common question: on the internet, Nov 2017, there are 71 000 000 answers. The problem involved is that one must define the biblical Jesus,  

  

without God, without his whole life as a journey towards o his crucifixion and o resurrection; without the miracles he performed, without his second visit to earth and without his final heavenly journey, possibly undertaken twice.

94 It begs such questions as “would it be an acceptable proof to have an account of Jesus’ earthly father”? A more operable question becomes vaguer and divinity is more present in its context. We might have to accept something like “is there something with any resemblance at all, including vague similarities of somebody called Jesus in connection with rumors of crucifixion etc. in writings other than the bible?” Nevertheless, some say "yes” as the answer of Skeptic.SE user Ian W. Scott to the question above. He refers, inter alia, to the historian Flavius Josephus “The so-called "Testimonium Flavium" by Josephus, on the other hand, is certainly the victim of Christian editing (for the reasons discussed here in other answers). But the general consensus among historians is that there was an original, neutral reference to Jesus here in Josephus that has been expanded and made more pious by later Christian scribes. I'll leave aside the detailed arguments here about the "seams" in the passage itself (Ibid.).” Some say “no” and they refer to the same reference as Scott, Flavius Josephus. Historian and freethinker Remsburg takes a less sympathetic view of the Christian editing of Josephus: “For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.”(Remsburg 1909 ref: Remsburg, J. E., The Christ : a critical review and analysis of the evidences of His existence, New York : The Truth seeker company, 1909). Remsburg made a table of 42 historians from the same century and finds very little: “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ). (Ibid.), mentioned in (Einhorn 2006). I expect that this s a typical controversy that we will find all over the texts about Jesus. It is possible that Jesus did not make too much of a footprint in Rome and in that case perhaps the answer from Scott in Skeptic.SE would seem reasonable enough: “…For a relatively obscure figure from a backwater Roman province, the only sources you will find for the first several decades will come from the figure's own circle of followers. What we find is that within two decades of his death we have first- and second-hand accounts of Jesus' life and references to Jesus as a real person”, from Scott, in response to, and within (skeptic.SE 2011). Some additional topics are mentioned below related to the historical footprint of Jesus. If Jesus was a “relatively obscure figure from a backwater Roman province” we would not expect him to make too much of an historical imprint. In (Einhorn 2006), the encounter of Jesus with his antagonists is discussed, leading up to his crucifixion, and beyond. The author gives some food for thought in some examples described below. This part mainly concerns what we name the second physicalist axiom, the difference between what is (and was), and what is said. I don’t pretend neither

95 to fully understand nor to fully explain the Gospels and the historical sources as described in Einhorn’s references, but I present some glimpses below. Congruence of biblical and historical assigned dates Knowing the problems involved, we are nevertheless moving into this minefield, but we thread with care. Also, in all honesty, there is less here than in other sections to be learned about physicalism. This section is also motivated by our partial goal of storytelling. The main references are (Einhorn 2006) and her book (Einhorn 2016). Einhorn’s last book (Einhorn 2016), contains a number of arguments for a time shift in some of the events depicted in the Gospels and the Acts. The author compares biblical and non-biblical sources and described thirteen “enigma”, i.e. contradictions between the two sets of sources. Some are wellknown, others are new. She shows that many contradictions can be explained by a hypothetical time shift where the Gospels have assigned dates about 15-20 years too early. This would place the missionary activity of Jesus centered some years around 49 CE instead of around 35 CE. A few examples of the enigma: 

 

The reported existence of unrest due to “robbers”. Josephus writes about during two distinct Periods of intense robber activity: before 6 C.E. and after 48 C.E., leading up to the Jewish War, 66-70 CE. The opposite, that things were quiet at the time of the crucifixion according to the Gospel, is stated by Tacitus: “Under Tiberius all was quiet” (MIT 2017). Crucifixion of robbers. During mid-40s to early 50s, but not the 30s, Josephus describes the activity and crucifixion of robbers (absent between 6 and 44 C.E.), The attack on Steven, the first Christian Martyr. The attack takes place outside Jerusalem. The name is a key in comparison between the Gospels and Josephus in that it only occurs once in both texts but the assigned date is different: In the Acts the attack occurs in the 30s, compared to Josephus where it occurs in the end of the 40s.

The history of Jesus is interlaced with that of the apostle Paul, and Paul’s visit to Rome may be more widely known and therefore more likely to be stated correctly by in the Gospels (whether other events are advertently or inadvertently misplaced in time by its authors). This implies that even if the hypothesis is correct in its main features, the historical congruence is a tangled web that must be unfolded. A few examples with pieces of the puzzle are given below. The Egyptian prophet When Jesus is arrested on the olive mountain, he is met with (in John 18:3) soldiers: “So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.” The detachment of soldiers are called “speira” in the greek version, which usually amounts to about 1000 men and the commander in connection with arrest , chiliarchos, mentioned in John 18:12, a name for a "commander of a thousand". From this one can argue that he incident is connected to the use - or at least a display - of considerable force.

96 There are many non-biblical historians, but one of the most important is Josephus Flavius. Both Josephus Flavius works “the Wars of the Jews” and “the Antiquity of the Jews” mention a tumult on the same place, the Olive Mountain: “But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that, when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive;” (Josephus 1900). We have a conflict on the Mount of Olives in both cases. In Josephus´ version, this happens under procurator Felix’ reign, i.e. between 53 and 60 CE. If there is a time shift in the Gospels, this could be about Jesus. In the Acts 21:30-38 Paul has an experience, surprisingly similar to Jesus’ and very similar to the one described above in Josephus. The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. When Paul reached the steps, the violence of the mob was so great he had to be carried by the soldiers. The crowd that followed kept shouting, “Get rid of him!” Paul Speaks to the Crowd. As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Einhorn gives a large amount of arguments to show that i) that there is a mismatch between the Gospels dating of events and that of Josephus and others. Accepting such a time-shift, a conspicuous similarity between what is called “the Egyptian”, Jesus and Paul, each of which have large gaps or periods of “historical inactivity”. Table E-1 Jesus, the Egyptian and Paul have similar experiences. Gospels about Jesus Jesus arrested on the

Gospels about Paul and the Egyptian

Josephus about the Egyptian An Egyptian “false prophet” on

97 Mount of Olives by use or display of force (under Pilate around 36 C.E.).

Paul inactive under Jesus missionary activity and vice versa.

the Mount of Olives with 30 000 men ready to break in Jerusalem under Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.).

Paul arrested and asked whether he is the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt.

It appears finally, that the incredulous historian Celsus believes that Jesus was staying in Egypt in most of his early life with his laconic description: “Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.” (Einhorn 2016). Einhorn advances the hypothesis that the Gospels names Jesus and Paul in fact refer to the same person, and produces a large number of arguments. (Einhorn 2006). Jesus vs. Barabbas Another interesting issue from Einhorn (2006) is: who was the victim of crucifixion? Pilates two prisoners are both described as Jesus: “At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, ‘which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ ” (Matthew 27:16-17).

We have the subsequent scenario described in John 18:39: “But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising. Pilate made a choice between two prisoners, both called Jesus, one of which was called Barabbas. We have a translation: Bar = son, Abba = father (the letter “s” in the end has connotations to the name’s Greek form) which gives the possible translations of Barabbas as “Jesus, son of the father”, which sounds as how we understand the other prisoner’s identity: Jesus Christ (Einhorn 2006). One was crucified, the other let free. We may live with a question mark about the two similar names or we might try to explain it in some way. Here are some examples, some of which from the non-Christian literature: Pilate had said to the Jewish leaders something like “I am considering two different crimes i) the prisoner pretending to be the king of Jews, or ii) the (same) prisoner being involved in the uprising.

98 Such a scenario could be interpreted further. It may have been suggested by others, although I haven’t come across it. Pilate might have said something like “I am considering two different crimes, i) the prisoner pretending to be the king of Jews, and ii) the same prisoner being involved in the uprising. The consulted assembly, i.e. the Jewish leaders (John 18:28 “Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor”) could be asked about these two different crimes and their appropriate punishments. This scenario could also be seen as a - somewhat convoluted - parable. Einhorn (2006) also mentions another alternative: since Abba is also a name, the name Barabbas also allows the interpretation “Jesus son of Abba” (Ibid.). Finally, and more generally, a writer faced with different names of Jesus may simply have interpreted one and the same as two different persons (ibid). A problem about an autonomous Barabbas as rebel Mark is considered the oldest gospel, and according to http://biblehub.com/kjv/mark/15-7.htm , the versions of Mark in 15:7 in    

King James Version, Darby Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation,

all mentions Barabbas’ part in the resurrection, in definite form, as if we knew about it. But according to our source (Einhorn 2006), the only turmoil at this time was the one concerning Jesus requiring the Chilliarch to take action with some or all of his (possible) thousand men in arms. The historian Tacitus (MIT 2017) mentions that “under Tiberius all was quiet [regarding the Jews]”. The emperor Tiberius reigned from year 14 to 37, and Pontius Pilate served as the prefect of Judaea from year 26 to 36, indicating a problem for a large resurrection(s), whether joint or separate, of Barabbas and Jesus. This is pointed out by Einhorn (2016) who suggests that a systematic shift so that the dating seems 15-20 years earlier than historical sources. Just before Tacitus’ sentence about Tiberius, he writes “The royal power, which had been bestowed by Antony on Herod, was augmented by the victorious Augustus. On Herod's death, one Simon, without waiting for the approbation of the Emperor, usurped the title of king. He was punished by Quintilius Varus then governor of Syria, and the nation, with its liberties curtailed, was divided into three provinces under the sons of Herod”. This may indicate the biblical Herod was one of his 3 sons, all called Herod, although not always so indicated for all three of them (Ibid.). Speculations about Jesus’ crucifixion and about his worldly father possibly of high status We add here non-Christian arguments supposedly to explain Pilate’s hesitant appearance. Jesus was said to be connected to people in high places: ..[In a response to accusations that Jesus had “practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy”.] Ulla retorted: “Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?

99 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government” [or royalty, i.e., influential] (Epstein 1938). If Jesus had a Roman father, answers to the question “did Jesus live?” is symptomatic of the convoluted environment in which the questions is set. It would also explain the treatment he received. Instead of a summary trial he was referred back and forth – to Herod and back to Pilate - along with the Pilate’s fear and distress: The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” (John 19:7-11).

Incidentally, there seem to be an agreement among most sources that Jesus refers to divine transfer of power. Another possibility would that Jesus refers to transfer of power within the Roman hierarchy (“the power given to from above”), in which case he would threaten Herod (rather than any local Jewish organization) referring Jesus back to Pilate who is to blame by the same logic refusing Jesus a hearing in Rome61. All this would make sense - a different sense - if Jesus was a Roman citizen. Paul’s Roman descent is described in the Acts along with the Roman’s privilege to be tried in Rome: The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” “Yes, I am,” he answered. Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.” “But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied. Those who were about to interrogate him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. (Acts 22:27).

Several years later, after Felix returned to Rome, his replacement Festus having “conferred with his council, he declared: “You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!”( Acts 25:12). Jesus’ life The discussion about Jesus is interesting, although slightly out of our focus. Nevertheless, there are some interesting issues about how the question about the historical Jesus is posed. The immediate counter-questions shows the weaknesses of the initial question “Did Jesus live?” . It is indeed an issue about physicalism, but it is also a question heavily burdened with descriptive ballast (not unlike quantum mechanics). The question therefore has a foot on both sides of the physicalist demarcation line. On a speculative note, i.e. in my own private and amateurish reflections, I consider (Crossan 1992):

61

This possible interpretation of John 19:7-11 is my own private speculation.

100 “The ecstatic vision and social program sought to rebuild a society upward from its grass roots but on principles of religious and economic egalitarianism, with free healing brought directly to the peasant homes and free sharing of whatever they had in return. The deliberate conjunction of magic and meal, miracle and table, free compassion and open commensality, was a challenge launched not just at Judaism’s strictest purity regulations, or even at the Mediterranean’s patriarchal combination of honor and shame, patronage and clientage, but at civilization’s eternal inclination to draw lines, invoke boundaries, establish hierarchies, and maintain discriminations.”

This “program” was certainly seems new and revolutionary. However, at the time of the first century, the story of Jesus’ life was less incorporated into a structure. The main obstacle for the Jews, and others, was perhaps the revolutionary egalitarian message, together with his status as a living person – being a teacher without standing and sanction in the religious community. Now, i.e. 2000 years later, the egalitarian doctrine sounds much like the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by all member states (including Israel). The institutionalized doctrine about miracles around Jesus’ crucifixion is more central now, and constitutes (since the Nicene synod 325) for many more of a stumbling block than the ethics. We have a picture of non-violence ( Mk 14: 43–52, Mt 26: 47–56, Lk 22: 47–53 and Jn 1-12.) mixed with what appears as instigating violence (Lk 22:36-38), strange in itself with its relation to prophesies. Still, keeping in mind the convoluted and contradiction of the Gospels, the general egalitarian and peace-seeking picture seems to be dominant. The message was not demagogy to win votes in a short term political battle; it is repeated in the as a long term plan. The Gospels represent a new school of thinking, a challenge for both Jewish and Roman way of life. Often a single philosopher stands out like Pythagoras within the Pythagorean school of thought, but philosophical schools were often the product of several theorists, including the Pythagoreans62. A well-formulated and multifaceted discipline, such as is described in the Gospels, is usually a result of a “market” of opinions debated over considerable time and - in antiquity - in one place. Another factor we must expect from a thorough and well-worked ideology is what is called paradigmatic entrenchment63, i.e. that the ideas are thoroughly integrated in a theoretical framework within an established perspective, the result of a lengthy process. From our sources in the Bible, the disciples do not really seem (from our amateur perspective) to be on the same level as Jesus in this new and ground-breaking discipline. From this point of view, the question is therefore not if there is a person called Jesus. Rather the question would be: “where are all the others and how and where did this tradition arise?” Another less dramatic solution is presented below.

62

According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Pythagoreanism is the philosophy of a group of philosophers active in the fifth and the first half of the fourth century BCE, whom Aristotle refers to as “the so-called Pythagoreans” and to whom Plato also refers. 63

Another pair of terms quoted from Nolin in (Jensen 1993) Appendix B, Transmittal of information over Extremely long periods of time.

101 The reason why If there is a time shift present in all the gospels, what would be the reason? The answer from Einhorn is that the original writers - or later editors – may have avoided the more violent scenario told by Josefus about the Egyptian and the Jewish rebels (“Zealots”, in the wider meaning of the term64) by placing the story in a more quiet period of Tiberius´ reign, under which “all was quiet” (MIT 2017). Following the time shift hypothesis, Jesus´ missionary period is actually closer to – and part of - a period of unrest that ended with the Jewish rebellion. It is true that Jesus´ teaching was different from the “civilization’s eternal inclination to draw lines, invoke boundaries, establish hierarchies, and maintain discriminations” (Crossan 1992). It would have been more easily explained among rebels who need to stick together to avoid division. Hence the need to take part in seemingly contradictory activities: 

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (Matthew 5:39), and



Jesus told them, "But now, if you have a moneybag, take it with you. Also take a traveling bag, and if you don't have a sword, sell some of your clothes and buy one. (Luke 22:36) .

In this interpretation, the need is to coexist with “evil” persons in the ranks of the rebellions, and the arms were needed for the Roman occupants, to which no other cheeks were offered. E-5 DIVINITY AND PHYSICALISM Archbishop Nathan Söderblom gathered 700 delegates from Christian churches in 37 countries in a unique ecumenical meeting in Stockholm for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize 1930. Nathan Söderblom’s words that "there are more than one way to God" has been echoed today sometimes to include non-trinity ideas. I mentioned earlier that the Nicene synod and one sentence in the Augsburg confession places divinity on both sides of the physicalist demarcation line. If we were to place divinity on one side it might comply with - at least the first - physicalist axiom. There are two alternatives of which only one is realistic. Divinity on the reality side of the demarcation line In this less realistic alternative, our divinity concept is about real things and therefore entitled to such properties as mass, location and velocity. In this interpretation, divinity takes the form of a physical object. If God looks like a human, he or she would be much like Superman in Metropolis, working at the Globe newspaper. He would interact with reality with his supernatural powers. In this way the concept of real-based divinity is in disagreement with our third physicalist axiom, changing the laws of physics by the use of his magical powers. The same would apply to the Holy Ghost, which I will refrain from even trying to give a gestalt interpretation. Divinity of the theoretical side of demarcation line

64

From http://lenaeinhorn.se/articles/jesus-and-the-egyptian-prophet/

102 Even if there were to be no direct and divine intervention at all, this alternative – divinity as a guiding principle - would still be in contradiction both with trinity and interventions as described in the Nicene synod. The guiding principle might be the principle of good, perhaps by extending the evolutionary reflexes of parent caring for their young, to larger group and in later steps to society including the global society. We refrain from mentioning candidate faiths and note that - however constructed in detail the concept would not be in conflict with any of our three axioms, only with trinity. It is tempting to perceive Newton’s view of trinity as stemming from physicalist ideas, but it is difficult to find a base for such a hypothesis (although I still embrace it, based on a wider picture of the thought process). It may seem unfair that Christianity takes such a prominent place, but it is highly interwoven, and during millennia even identical, with our classical philosophy. E-6 SUMMARY We have noted that 





It is contrary to physicalism in that o The Nicene synod, through the Trinity in explicit disagreement with our first axiom of physicalism, Divinity is located on both side of the demarcation line. o Miracles, in their guaranteed inexplicable form, are contrary to the third axiom, but not to the first and not necessarily to the second. Berkeley finds that his theory of sensationalism offers a proof of Divinity (but not of Trinity). Although formally falsifiable, it is unlikely that this thesis could be open to any other interpretation given his religious environment. We have seen that the question “did Jesus live?” is difficult to answer, in the sense that the possible existence of Jesus father as Roman soldier, the possibility that Jesus and Paul are the same person, etc are answers that may seem convoluted, or contain unacceptable premises for the questioner.

103

F. REFERENCES

Andersson

Apted 2017

Aquinas 1920

Audi 1973 Berkeley 2010

Brakenhielm 2018

Clark 2012

Crawford 2013 Crossan 1992 Dahlquist 1995

Dauchy 2016

Dawid 2004

de Finetti 1975 Dieks 2010

Dreyfus 1996

Andersson K., Methods for social dialogue in the establishment of radioactive waste management programs, in Apted 2017, Chapter 26. Apted M. and Ahn J., Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste, Woodhead Publishing, 2017. The "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., p98 , from the Internet Wayback Machine, https://archive.org/details/summatheologicao011thom visited feb. 2017. M. Audi 1973, The Interpretation of quantum mechanics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1973, p26. Berkeley G., A new theory of vision and other select Philosophical writings, Nabu Press, 2010, available from www.archive.org, visited 2017. Brakenhjelm C. R, The Study of Science and Religion: Sociological, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008. S. Clark, Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity, The Guardian, 8 Oct. 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-theuniverse/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity, visited Feb. 2017. Crawford E., Nobel Institution, in Hessenbruch A., Reader's Guide to the History of Science, Routledge, 2013, p 517. Crossan J.D. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, Harper Collins Publishers, 1992. T. Dahlquist, Adolf K H Phalén, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (In Swedish), https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/7252, Vol. 29 (19951997), p 285, visited 2017-02-22.) S. Dauchy, G. Martyn, A. Musson, H. Pihlajamäki, A. Wijffels, The Formation and Transmission of Western Legal Culture: 150 Books that Made the Law in the Age of Printing, Springer, 2016, p 471). Dawid A. P., Probability, Causality and the Empirical World: A Bayes–de Finetti–Popper–Borel Synthesis, Statistical Science, 19(1), 2004. de Finetti B., Theory of Probability, vols 1 and 2, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1975. Dieks, D.G.B.J., (2010) Petkov, V. (ed.), Minkowski Spacetime: a hundred years later, pp. 225 – 245. From https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/202812 visited 3 May 2018. Dreyfus D.A., Remarks by Daniel A. Dreyfus, Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy Program Status and Outlook, Presented at the Nuclear

104

Ditlevsen 1975 Drottz-Sjöberg 2003 Earman 1980

Earman 1998

Edvarsson 2002

Einhorn 2006

Einhorn 2016 Einstein 1916 Elzinga 2006 Epstein 1938

von Frassen 2017 Freud 1946

Friedman 2016

Funtowicz 1993 Gårding 1998 Gaifman 2006

Gavroglu 2013

Habermas 1968 Hartmann, 1950

Waste Technical Review Board 1996, Winter Meeting January 10, 1996. Ditlevsen T., Vilhelm’s room, Gyldendal 1975. (In Danish). Drottz-Sjöber B.-M., Perceptions of Nuclear Wastes Across Extreme Time Perspectives, SSI Project 1345, 2003. J. Earman and C. Glymour, The Gravitational Red Shift as a Test of General Relativity: History and Analysis, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. II, (1980) No. 3, pp. 175-214. Pergamon Press Ltd. J. Earman, The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems: History and Implications, in The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity, H. Goenner, J. Renn, J. Ritter, T. Sauer, (Eds.), p 235-, 1998 Edvardsson S et al. 2002, Accurate spin axes and solar system dynamics: Climatic variations for the Earth and Mars, Astronomy and Astrophysics 384, 689 - 701. Einhorn L., Vad hände på vägen till Damaskus, På spaning efter den verkliga Jesus från Nazaret, Norstedt 2006 (in Swedish, available in English as The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul, Lyons Press 2007) Einhorn L., A Shift in Time: How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus, Yucca Publishing, 2016. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Ann. Phys. Leipzig, 354, 769–822, 1916, quoted in Wilhelm 2014. Elzinga, Einstein’s Nobel price, a Glimpse Behind Closed Doors. The Archival Evidence, Science History Publications, 2006. Epstein I., Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Folio 43a, the Soncino Press, London, 1938, available at www.Halakhah.com, visited Nov. 2017, mentioned in (Einhorn 2006). B. Agazzi E. and Gonzalez W. (eds.), Varieties of Scientific Realism: Objectivity and Truth in Science, Springer, 2017. Freud A., The ego and the mechanisms of defence, NY: International Universities Press, 1946, p5, available through the Archive.org, visited July 2017. R. M. Friedman, The Cult of the Nobel: Time for a Change, Georgetown Journal of International affairs, Feb. 19, 2016, retrieved from http://journal.georgetown.edu/the-cult-of-thenobel-time-for-a-change/ visited Feb. 2017. Funtowicz S. 0. and Ravetz J. R., Science for the post-normal age, Futures Journal, Sep. 1993. Gårding L., Mathematics and Mathematicians, American Mathematical Soc., 1998 Gaifman H., Naming and Diagonalization, From Cantor to Gödel to Kleene, Logic Journal of the IGPL, October 2006 pp. 709 – 728, 2006, available at http://www.columbia.edu/~hg17/namingdiag.pdf K. Gavroglu et al. Physics, Philosophy, and the Scientific Community: Essays in the philosophy and history of the natural sciences and mathematics In honor of Robert S. Cohen, Springer Science & Business Media, 29 Jun 2013). Habermas J., Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1968 J. Hartmann and E. Wennerström-Hartmann, 1914–1949: The Student becomes union conscious and student union minded,

105

Hawking 1999

Hentschel 1993

Hora 2002 Horta 2005 IAEA 1986 IAEA 2007 ICRP 1997 Jensen 1979 Jensen 1993

Jensen 2017

Johansson 2003 Josefsson 2013

Josefsson 2015

Josefus 1900

Kierkegaard 2013 Kuhn 1970

in: The Uppsala student through the ages, a description in memory of the centennial of the student union 1950, s. 263–324. s. 278. (In Swedish) S. Hawking, Does God play dice? Public lectures available at http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html, 1999, visited March 2017. K. Hentschel, The Conversion of St. John: A Case Study on the Interplay of Theory and Experiment, Science in Context, 6, 1(1993), pp. 137-194. Retrieved from http://elib.unistuttgart.de/bitstream/11682/7170/1/hen13.pdf visited feb. 2017. Hora S., Jensen M, Expert Judgement Elicitation, SSI Report 2002:19, 2002. Hora S., Jensen M., Expert Panel Elicitation of Seismicity Following Glaciation in Sweden, SSI Report 2005:20. Lindhé J.-C. and Jensen M., Monitoring the fallout, IAEA Bulletin, Autumn 1986. IAEA, Safety glossary terminology used in nuclear safety and radiation protection, 2007 edition, 2007. ICRP, Radiological Protection Policy for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, ICRP Publication 77, 1997. Jensen M., Track Formation in Nuclear Emulsion, SSI Report 1979:017, Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, 1979. Jensen M. ed., Conservation and Retrieval of Information, Elements of a Strategy to Inform Future Societies about Nuclear Waste Repositories, Final Report of the NKS project KAN-1.3. M. Jensen, Radiation protection principles and development of standards for geological repository systems, from chapter 20 of A. Joonhong and M. J. Apted ed., Geological repository systems for safe disposal of spent nuclear fuels and radioactive waste, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2nd ed.,2017. Johansson P.M., Sweden and Psychoanalysis, European Journal of Psychoanalysis, No 17, 2003. Josefsson D., Mannen son slutade ljuga, Berättelsen om Sture Bergwall och kvinnan som skapade Thomas Quick, pocketförlaget, 2013. Josefsson D., “The strange case of Thomas Quick: The Swedish Serial Killer and the Psychoanalyst Who Created Him” (Portobello Books, 2015). Josefus, The wars of the Jews against Apion etc., etc., book II, Ch. 18, Bigelow, Brown & Co., Inc., New York, 1900? Kierkegaard S., The essential Kierkegaard, Princeton University Press, 2013. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970.

Kutilek 2018

Kutilek D. From http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm visited May 2018.

Kolmogorov 1956

Kolmogorov, A. N., Foundations of the Theory of Probability, Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1956. Das statische Einkörperproblem in der Einstein'schen Theorie. Antwort an Hrn. A. Gullstrand. Ark. för Mat., Astron, och Fys. 17, Nr. 25, 4 S. 1923, from (Elzinga 2006).

Kretschmann 1923

106 Kruskal 1960 Laplace 1902 Larsson 2012 Le Goff 1982

Lem 1990

Lévi-Strauss 1966

Lindh 1997 Lowry 1967 Newton 1846

Micale 2014

Miller 1985 MIT 2017

MSB 2015

Nicaea 325

Nobel 2000 Nolin 1993 Northoff 2012 O’Connor 2014

OECD/NEA 2005 OECD/NEA 20011

Oseen 1921

Kruskal M. D., Maximal extension of Schwarzschild metric. Physical Review. 119 (5): 1743–1745, 1960. Laplace P.-S., Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, John Wiley & Sons, 1902, translated from the sixth French edition, p 4. Larsson D., The mythomaniac Tomas Quick: from the beginning to the end”, Recito, 2012 (In Swedish) Le Goff J., 1982, Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages, University of Chicago Press, 1982, retrieved at https://monoskop.org/images/a/ab/Le_Goff_Jacques_Time_work_ and_culture_in_the_middle_ages_1980.pdf Lem S., Mathematische Kodierung auf lebendem Trägermaterial, in Posner R. (ed.), Warningen an die ferne Zukunft - Atommüll als Kommunikationsproblem. Raben Streifzüge,1990. (In German). Lévi-Strauss C., The Savage Mind (English translation of La Pensée salvage). Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1966, p. 3, from (Jensen 1993, Appendix B). Lindh A., Answer to a question about Mox-fuel, The Swedish Parliament 1996/97:740, 1997. Lowry R., Psychoanalysis and the Philosophy of Physicalism, The history of the behavioural science, 1967. Newton I., Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, translated into English by Andrew Motte, Daniel Adee, New York, 1846. Micale M.S., Beyond the Unconscious: Essays of Henri F. Ellenberger in the History of Psychiatry, Princeton University Press, 2014. Miller D. (ed.), Popper selections, Miller Univ. Press. I985, p l37 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - The Internet Classics Archive, The Histories by Tacitus, Book V, available at http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html visited Nov. 2017). Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, The opponents of democracy, Brochure MSB896, 2015, in Swedish, retrieved from https://www.msb.se/RibData/Filer/pdf/27915.pdf. The Papal Encyclicals online, available at http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm visited Nov. 2017. Karlsson E. B., The Nobel Prize in Physics 1901-2000, 2000, from Nobelprize.org, the official site of the Nobel committee. Nolin J., Appendix B, in the reference (Jensen 1993). Northoff G., Psychoanalysis and the Brain – Why Did Freud Abandon Neuroscience?, Frontiers of Psychology, 2012:3:71. O'Connor J. J. and Robertson E. F., accessed in http://wwwhistory.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Rydberg_application.html visited Feb. 2017. OECD/NEA, Future Human Action at Disposal Sites, 1995. OECD/NEA, Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory across generations an international project of the OECD/NEA, 2011. Oseen H., C.W., Über das allgemeine statische, kugelsymmetrische Gravitationsfeld det Einstieinschen Theorie. (Bemerkungwen zur

107

Pazstor 1991

Peirce 1931

Penttinnen 2004

Planck 1949

Popper 1967

Popper 2005 Rabinowitz 2004 Reeve 2012 Råstam 2013 Sagan 1996 SANDIA 1993

Schroder 2008

Sheckley 1979 Silverbark 1999

Stanford 2009 Stanford 2011 St. John 1917

einer Arbeit von Herrn Prof. A. Gullstrand), Arkiv för matematik, astronomi och fysik Bd. 16,No 9:1921, pp1-6. S. Pasztor, the Vatican archives: a study of its history and administration, NKS/KAN 1.3 (91)6, a case study from (Jensen, 1993). Charles Peirce 1931, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds.), Essays in the Philosophy of Science: XIII, The Logic of Abduction, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1931-1935. Penttinnen S., The interrogator’s view of Thomas Quick, The interrogator's view of the mystery Thomas Quick, Nordisk Kriminalkrönika, 2004. (In Swedish). Planck M., “Planck scientific autobiography”, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 33-34, from (Kuhn 1970). Karl Popper, Epistemology without a knowing subject, in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III: Proceedings of the Third International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. B. Van Rootselaar and J. F. Staal (eds.). North Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, 1967, pp 333373). Popper K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, 2005, p28. M. Rabinowitz, Black hole paradoxes, arXiv:astro-ph/0412101, p 6, 2004. Reeve C. D. C., A Plato Reader: Eight Essential Dialogues, Hackett Publishing, 2012, p32. Råstam H., The making of a serial killer, Canongate books Ltd., 2013 C. Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Headline Book Publishing, 1996. D. G. Ast, M. Brill, M. F. Kaplan, W. H. Goodenough, F. J. Newmeyer and W. T. Sullivan, III, Team A Report from K. M. Trauth, S. C. Hora, R. V. Guzowsti, Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Sandia Report SAND92–1382 l UC–721, November 1993). K.-P. Schroder, R.C. Smith, Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 155-163, 2008, abstract available as https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4031. R. Sheckley, Dimension of Miracles, Ace Books, 1979. T. Silverbark, The philosophy of Physics, Discussion about Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum physics in Sweden 1910-1970, Brutus Östlings Bokförval Symposion, Stockholm/Stehag,1999 (In Swedish). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism, visited May 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley visited Nov. 2017) C. St. John, The Principle of Generalized Relativity and the Displacement of Fraunhofer Lines toward the Red, Contributions from the Mount Wilson Solar observatory, No 138, reprinted from the Astrophysical Journal, Vol. XLVI, pp 249-265, 1917. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1917CMWCI.138....1S visited

108

Stanford 2017

Sundqvist 1991

Synge 1950 Szekeres, 1960 Trimble 2007

Trimble 2010

USEPA 2017 Widmalm, 2007

Wilhelm 2014

feb. 2017. Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, Scientific Objectivity, 2014, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/, visited March 2017. Demokrati och expertis. Kärnkraftens avfallsproblem inför laddningen av Ringhals 3. Tidsskrift för vetenskapsstudier, VEST, No 4, 1991 (In Swedish) J. L. Synge, "The gravitational field of a particle". Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 53 (6): 83–114, 1950. G. Szekeres, On the singularities of a Riemannian manifold, Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen 7. 7: 285,1960. V.Trimble et al. (ed.), Biographical encyclopedia of astronomers, Springer Science & Business Media, Sep. 2007, p 1007, retrieved from https://books.google.se/books?id=tBF1CHkc50C&hl=sv&source=gbs_navlinks_s Feb. 2017. V. Trimble and M. Barstow, " Gravitational redshift and White Dwarf stars " in: Einstein Online, Vol. 04, 2010, retrieved from http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs visited Feb. 2017. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-nuclear-wastepolicy-act, visited May 2017. S Widmalm, Aant Elzinga.Einstein’s Nobel Prize: A Glimpse behind Closed Doors: The Archival Evidence, Isis, Vol. 98, No 3, The University of Chicago Press Journals , 2007) K. Wilhelm, B. N. Dwivedi, On the gravitational redshift, Aug. 2014, Pages 8–13, accessed in arXiv:1307.0274 visited Feb. 2017.

109

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER C. APPENDIX C-1. FORMAL EXPERT JUDGMENT Expert opinion The activity described here is sometimes called formal expert panel elicitation, formal expert judgment or expert opinion for short. Observe that there is no way around expert judgment for complex problems; policy-makers of all kinds consult experts. The question is whether to that process - of expert elicitation - is structured and open or hidden and arbitrary. There are many ways involving the obfuscation alternative: i) the choice of scientists may be biased, ii) the scientists view may be biased and iii) the process itself lacking transparency, and a mixture of them all. Often (but not always) the confused process is unconscious; the participants still believe they have done their very best. Similarly, there are many ways to formalize expert judgment. Here only one example is given, taken from (Hora 2005). I will not try to go through the different types of the techniques or their history. A few are described earlier in (Hora 2002). The technique - in one form or another – is well established in the US and the UK. It is less used in continental Europe65. There is no shortcut available for a review of a complex set of calculations; it has to be performed by a team of experts, in a sense mimicking the original team. However in some cases a problem may – more of less - lie within the expertise of a single discipline or a combination of a few. Here we will discuss the first case, a complex problem mainly within a single discipline. This may be the result from a controversy among experts or from or media (or from both in parallel), pickling up on a single problem which may then occur as an incessant companion throughout the disposal program’s life. Formal expert judgment is not (or should at least not be) a substitute for measurements. It is intended to provide information both about experts’ best estimates and about the spread in their opinions, in cases where direct information is unavailable. There is sometimes a criticism of engineers and other scientists embedded in the work of people involved in formal expert judgment. Two examples are

65



“Although expert judgment pervades all scientific inquiry, it is often disguised as implicit assumptions while the primary attention focuses on data, models, and analysis (all of which require expert judgment to plan, conduct, and interpret)”. (NRC 1992)



“Although expert judgment pervades all scientific inquiry, it is often unacknowledged, poorly understood, and neglected. Faced with a complex problem, scientists will often concentrate

The Netherlands is an exception, to some extent explained by the move of an American expert, Roger Cook, to the University of Delft. Another American expert, Detlof von Winterfeld, was in several periods attached to, and during 2009-2012, Director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria.

110 on the parts of the problem where analytic tools are available, while ignoring those parts of the problem that cannot be dealt with in a quantitative and direct manner.” (Jensen 1993, Appendix E, by Stephen Hora). Limitation of transparency In a meeting sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency around 1993 I explained the various steps in expert panel elicitation and how they contributed to a transparent process to the sociologist Kai Erikson, former (1986) president of the American Sociological Association. He was not impressed, and took the view that “the one who controls the question, controls the answer”. Accepting his point of view, we must acknowledge that no scenario begins with a question and ends with an answer. There are always value judgments underlying the process. Nevertheless, the method described has as good transparency as one can achieve, with this caveat. When it is used Formal expert judgment is not only open and structured; the structure in itself makes it a relatively expensive process. It is therefore mainly used where the information is considered critical in some way. The use of for expert panel elicitation might be deemed necessary for reasons of policy    

when there is likely to be public scrutiny of the uncertainties, in situations requiring impartial judgments, in cases where there are potential legal action, when the uncertainties are significant relative to the demonstration of compliance, or

for scientific reasons    

when evidence is incomplete because it cannot be reasonably obtained, when data exist only from analogue situations (inferring the solubility of a mineral from a known solubility of another), when there are conflicting models or data sources, or when scaling up from experiments to target physical processes is not direct (scaling of mean values is simpler than rescaling uncertainties).

The elicited quantity The question for expert opinion is most often seemingly simple: the magnitude of a certain quantity. However, the quantity determined to be subject of elicitation may generate a heated discussion among experts. In a sense, this is logical: if there were nothing unclear about a quantity, it would probably not be selected for elicitation. The mere fact that it was chosen in the first place implies that it is critical in some sense, and perhaps the difficulties extend to its definition. Subjective probability The experts may offer a best estimate, which is valuable to know, but it is equally interesting to know something about the experts’ uncertainty. This can be given as subjective probabilities. To give an example – without expertise – I can give an example of the uncertainty, by estimating e.g. the

111 population of Outer Mongolia. I assume somewhat out of the blue that it is more that 1 million and less than 10. Perhaps my best estimate is 5. I therefore attach the subjective probability of 0 to values below 1 and above 10. Figure App. C-1. Example of format for the expert’s judgments

Population in Outer Mongolia 100 80 Subjective 60 probability 40 20 0 0

5

10

15

Million inhabitants (or more)

After having made my guesswork in the example, I notice that the actual number is 3 million. It is clear to the reader that I needed a very large margin of error, i.e. I had a large uncertainty. In an actual elicitation (Using the same graph) -to demonstrate what we ask in the actual elicitation the experts are also asked for the values representing 25% and 75% probability – the red dots. The graph illustrates what is called the cumulative probability of a quantity. Figure C-3 is a similar graph from different but more realistic experiment in expert panel elicitation, where (real) experts were asked about an already known quantity: how large a fraction of the element strontium in a particular type of soil is available for the plants root uptake (bioavailability)66. The figure shows the results for 3 experts and the resulting mean (in bold). The uncertainty is very large both for two of the experts resulting in a large spread between the experts. The result is known and lies within the variation of the expert represented by the steepest line.

66

A very large fraction is bound to minerals in the soil.

112 Figure App. C-2. Cumulative probability for bioavailability of strontium.

APPENDIX C-2. AN EXAMPLE: POST GLACIATION SEISMICITY The technique What I present here is the use of a panel made up of 5 experts, who each are asked to provide information about a quantity, in the case of (Hora 2005), the frequency of earthquakes over a glacial cycle. In the stakeholder dialogue of the Swedish nuclear waste program, the issue of earthquakes had become something of as a concern in the licensing dialogue with municipalities, in particular the municipality of Oskarshamn. The municipality was invited to participate in an expert elicitation about earthquakes which might influence the safety of a repository. The safety analysis analysis is expected to cover about 100 thousand years which is near a glacial cycle. Also, glaciation – with several kilometers of ice over large part of the country - might influence the frequency of earthquakes67. The selection process There was a call for experts sent to various groups in the Swedish society, including environmental groups and the local municipalities. From all the nominated candidates, a selection committee made by four professors chose 5 experts68.

67

There are different views about this, one being that the ice sheet suppresses the seismic activity generated by tectonic plate movements, and that this suppression ceases at the end of a glacial cycle, leading to a an uneven distribution of seismic activity. 68 The expert were • • • • •

John Adams, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Hilmar Bungum, NORSAR, also affiliated to the University of Oslo, James Dieterich, University of California, Riverside, Kurt Lambeck, The Australian National University, Canberra, and Björn Lund, University of Uppsala.

113 The experts met at an initial meeting, discussed the issue within the group to ensure i) it made sense and ii) that they all addressed the same problem. Point ii) may sound self evident but the nuances of the elicitation issue are such that it required considerable discussion. Also, the expert were cautioned about a large number of potential sources of bias which may arise related to inter alia i) how the question is formulated and ii) the fact that some scientists may tend to give too much credit to their own theories and work and too little to the work of others. They were also given a training course in subjective probabilities in order to be able to provide answers in those terms, as in the figures App. C-1 and App C-2. The elicited issue The question is seemingly simple enough: the magnitude of a certain quantity. However, the quantity determined to be subject of elicitation may generate a heated discussion among experts. In a sense, this is logical: if there were nothing unclear about a quantity, it would probably not be selected for elicitation. The mere fact that it was chosen in the first place implies that it is critical in some sense, and perhaps the difficulties extend to its definition. The elicitation issue chosen69 was “What will be the frequency of moment magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquakes per unit area (e.g. per 100 sq. km) in the middle and south of Sweden (Forsmark and Oskarshamn) during a glacial cycle (app. 100 000 a) assuming conditions 70 similar to the Weichsel glaciation? Give an uncertainty distribution for this quantity for each area.” (Hora 2005).

The magnitude 6.0 was chosen because that size of an earthquake was a natural starting point to discuss damage to the repository (in the Swedish repository design by SKB). Very small earthquakes are not likely to cause any damage and extremely large earthquakes might damage the repository (just like a meteorite impact), but they are assumed to have such low frequency that they would not add significantly to the annual risk. In order to confirm the quote in (NRC 1992) about “implicit assumptions” the group of experts decided that in order to answer the question it was better to include a few assumptions:  

69

the maximum moment magnitude of 7,6 (nominal value for Dehls Pärve fault), and a seismogenic thickness71 of 30 km.

In addition to the issue described here another issue about the mechanical stress on a cavity from earthquakes was suggested. All the experts did not have time to consider that properly. It was included from the beginning, however, and may have influenced the election procedure. 70 The Weichel or Weichselian glaciation was the last glaciation where a large part of Northern Europe was covered with ice /My Comment , MJ/ 71 The distance from the surface down to a depth covering the volume where most earthquakes originate

114 The Northern Swedish Delhs Pärve fault was formed using a large amount of energy that was released when the fault-line was created. The result The resulting graph with the expert’s subjective probabilities is shown in figure C-4. The estimate was made for the two nuclear sites which was considered at the time, but the experts were not able to differentiate between the sites, which both had a relatively central position during the last glaciation. Figure C-5. Frequency of events with magnitude >6 within 100 km during a glaciation cycle

According to Stephen Hora who designed the exercise, the experts’ estimates were surprisingly similar to each other, unlike the case in Fig. App. C-2 showing much larger differences. The expert Adams had (in part) incorporated data from a geologist, Nils-Axel Mörner, who had been working as a consultant to an antinuclear group in Sweden. Adam’s contribution lies in the middle of the span, very near the average. The experts discussed the elicitation issue using number of earthquakes within a 100 km radius. Using a 10 km radius the answer in terms of the 50% fractal is about 0.1 earthquakes within 10 km per 100 000 years, roughly similar to the time span for one glaciation, similar to the Weichsel glaciation. Speculation about the answer’s dependence of initial assumptions After the results were published a question came up about the size of the earthquake creating the Delhs Järve fault. One expert took the view that if the fault line represented a higher energy the elicited probabilities should be increased. Another took the opposite view, saying that if the energy was higher it would indicate that the tectonic stress (from the colliding continental plates created the energy in the first place) had been relieved to a higher degree and which meant less remaining energy for new earthquakes. This shows that the elicitation result has a strong dependence on assumptions interpreted differently by different experts.