 And while Bill is making his way up here, I'd like to point out that he's probably the most collegial antagonist I have in my life. Bill, please. If you've experienced Larry's antagonism, collegiality is very difficult. You can realize why I'm one of a kind. Frederick Faray opens the title essay of his recent book, Hellfire and Lightning Rods, with a story about his father, the important theologian of mid-20th century America. Frederick's father, Nells, immigrated alone to this country from Sweden at age 13, was detained at Ellis Island and then worked on a farm south of St. Paul and attended what was then Bethel Bethel Academy. At age 14, somewhere near Harris, Minnesota, young Nells heard a preacher raise an issue with all the farmers in his congregation. The preacher contended that lightning rods were a sinful effort to avert God's appropriate wrath and that those who erected lightning rods were personally risking a future in hell. The young Nells was forced then and there to decide on the relation between religion and science. And decades later, so was his son, who now speaks to far, far larger audiences than did the preacher in 1922 and with a far different conclusion. Frederick Faray graduated from Boston University, took his PhD at St. Andrews University and began his career as an analyst of religious language, publishing at a young age a book that became a classic, widely translated and repeatedly republished language logic in God. But soon he was writing books, articles and lectures on the philosophy of science, such as the philosophy of technology published in 1988. He is taught at Dickinson College, a college that in many respects resembles this college and at the University of Georgia, where he is the former chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion and then chair of the Department of Philosophy. And he is now research professor of philosophy. For many years he has written and lectured widely, prolifically, authoritatively and persuasively. Through these years, Frederick Faray is what we in the trade call a philosopher of religion. But he is a philosopher of religion who thinks particularly about what science and technology imply for our common culture. Now philosophers of religion are already rare birds. They bed down in philosophical vessels, especially those big enough to survive storms and floods. And then at an appropriate hour, they are set free to fly out to see whether any religion has been uncovered. But a philosopher of religion who studies science and technology is rarer still. This bird may fly out and never return. But if it flies out and seeks land where material science has operated, it may return not only with a freshly picked olive leaf, but with a piece of old plastic. Frederick Faray appears to be just such a very rare bird. He has been taking extended flights for 27, 25 years, and what he brings back is now widely trusted. Tonight he brings back reports on the new shape of matter. Reports so complex that he has had no choice but to compose his own song. And therein lies the importance of his remarks tonight. But I said Frederick Faray appears to be just the very rare bird I have described. In fact, he is not a bird at all, but a pilot, an airplane pilot who has written two articles on flying. And unlike most of the birds who inhabit the universities, he is able to land, get out, mix with the local inhabitants, speak their language, and even as we will see tonight, extend their own remarks. Frederick Faray. I forgot my water. Would somebody pass me that water? I got so excited at the idea of flying that I forgot my water back behind. This is in many ways an extremely happy occasion for me. I am so pleased that my friend Bill Dean is here and introduced me in such a nice way, and has been such a fine faculty host for me this whole time. And I've had a very special student hostess, Angie McCoy, who is here and her mother is here. In fact, it's quite a family feeling for me this evening. Not only this, but my wife is here, and my sister, the Reverend Faith Faray, came up from Des Moines. And my father was mentioned in the introduction, and furthermore, somehow just being in this context, with all those wonderful Swedish flags flying by the American flags in the London auditorium, and being here, not only that, but to meet for not the first time, but for the first time since I was eight years old, some folks who live near Harris, Minnesota, the Norquists, who knew my father at his teenage era that Bill was talking about, has been for me a very special treat. So I've been feeling as if I've been coming home to the family, and even though I've never been here before, I certainly have had a wonderful experience. And I hope that this is the sort of benediction that everybody can say who's participated in this. It's just been wonderful. And thank you very much for this great conference. All of you who have arranged it and administered it. Now I want to present something under the title of the matter with matter. And some of you may have wondered what I was going to say in connection with this title. After all, what's the matter with matter? Now at the end of this great celebration of material science, it's clear that matter is alive and well in our thinking and in our affections. New understandings of matter emerge, new materials technologies beckon, new promises of material human comforts echo happily within these halls of learning. And yet it must be admitted that matter has a distinctly troubled standing in our ambivalently materialistic culture. We are strangely reminded of the dual personalities of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Materialism, though avidly pursued, is yet widely subject to scorn. What's the matter with materialism? Now that seems an easier question. Materialism to many suggests obsession with the lower, grosser sides of life. It connotes a grasping churlish character that prefers amassing masses of stuff to cultivating the finer intrinsic values such as may be found through poetry, painting, music or religion. In many pulpits, flesh is opposed to spirit and matter finds itself on the wrong side of that line. Mr. Grad Grind, Charles Dickens' character, is the classic image of the materialist and his picture is not attractive. The technology of modern materialism is equally subject to attack. Technology, after all, is neither more nor less than the practical implementation of the dominant values and available knowledge in a given society. In the absence of values to motivate, technological means to realize practical ends will not be sought. In the absence of knowledge to implement, technological ends, however intensely valued, are impossible to realize. Both valuing and knowing are necessary conditions for every technology. This holds as well for general cultural styles of technological expression. Ancient Chinese, classical Greek or medieval technologies taken as large-scale phenomena reflect characteristic cultural commitments set within shared visions of reality. Our modern technologies, though we may not often stop to think about them this way, also embody deep beliefs and values. Therefore, if our theories about the material world lead us to suppose we know that nature's sole value is for human exploitation, and if coarsened human interests thirst after quantity over quality, bottom line over top drawer, then we should expect typical modern technologies to incarnate fleshly urges over spiritual flights. Now, alas, in many cases this has indeed happened. We know too well the familiar tale of woes told by environmentalists and by critics of industrialism from the earliest beginnings. The archetypical steam engine, we are reminded, initiated the modern industrial revolution, which tore apart the countryside's of Europe and America, filling the newly polluted landscape with centralized factories built around huge hissing machines and linked by sibling iron horses to worldwide markets at one end and to gaping resource pits at the other. On the social side, we are reminded of the twisted families forced out of agriculture and cottage crafts into grueling work days for husbands, wives, and children. Now, this is materialism's ugly face, the face of Mr. Hyde. At this conference, we naturally have preferred to dwell on the benevolent face of Dr. Jekyll, which is happily real as well. The factory system gave modernized societies unparalleled mass affluence through technologies of mass production. A chicken in every pot turned into two cars in every garage. Three television sets are becoming the norm for the nation. Lifespans are dramatically extended, material comfort such as instant access to air conditioning when it is hot, like in my part of the country, central heating when it is cold, like in your part of the country. These are taken for granted by the fortunate members of this culture. Yet, as critics remind us, the benevolent Dr. Jekyll is never far from sinking into Mr. Hyde again. Mass production lines force out the unique qualities of craftsmanship with engineered uniformity, simultaneously regimenting workers and fragmenting the meaning of productive labor. The private automobile, glorious symbol of material affluence, has transformed the approaches to nearly every town into the unreleaved ugliness of the strip with its garish neon, its drive-through eateries and bankeries and cleaneries. It has required the paving of huge tracts of land, forced the evisceration of most town centers in behalf of the mall and spread poisons throughout surroundings. The ubiquitous television machine, threat to literacy and spontaneous imagination in the young, ruin of family dinner conversations, coarsener of public discourse is fueled by commercial forces of the utmost crassness. Longevity, too, is a mixed blessing even for wealthy societies. Worldwide population crises of the most painful sort seem unavoidable in the near future. Material comforts like cooling and heating come back to smite us in depleted ozone protections and in CO2-enhanced greenhouse distortions of worldwide climates. Now, this is, of course, a partial picture emphasizing just one face of materialism, the ugly one, but we would be wise not to avert our gaze in denial. There are vital lessons to be drawn from understanding the strange way in which characteristic technologies of modernity in the very flush of their success can fail so disappointingly to support the finer values of mind and culture. This phenomenon is general and interlocking. Therefore, we would be wise to look for some appropriately general grounds for it. Here I believe philosophy can help. Looking to the origins of modern ideas, it can clarify the most basic theories and values from which modern culture has characteristically given birth to its practical implementations. If those basics can be identified and if some flaw can be exposed, perhaps we can think our way to some constructive alternative, both in theory and in practice, for a better future. I suggest that our culture's attitude to matter itself deserves examination. How did the negative connotation of materialism get started? Why did matter come to stand for something coarse, for something alien, even contrary to higher human values and purposes? Must we choose, in principle, between material success and the finer qualities of sensibility? In principle, I rejoice to say the answer is no, we do not need to choose. The alienation between matter and spirit, matter and mind, matter and purpose, though a deep historical reality in our modern world view, is not a theoretical necessity unless we make it so by insisting on theories that sunder and exclude. Ancient concepts, both Hebrew and Greek, certainly do not force such utter separation. The older of the two genesis accounts of human creation, according to which our species is formed from dust of the ground, indicates on the contrary that clay is capable of supporting the functions of life and mind. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. The Hebrew word nephesh, here rendered living being, might equally well be rendered complete person. 20th century biblical scholarship is careful to avoid the misleading connotations of the King James Version, which translated the term as soul. Living breath is not a separate soul substance for ancient Hebrew, alien to the matter that makes up our body. Such a concept would only enter later under other influences. Instead for the early Hebrews, the body lives and breathes as a complete person. There is a great difference between living and unliving matter, of course, but the difference is in function and capacity, not in kind. The earliest Greek concepts of matter were similarly open to capacities of animation. In the 7th century before the Common Era, the first recognized philosopher Thales of Miletus offered the world hypothesis that everything is made up of various states of water, liquid, solid, gaseous. But his matter was not dead. Such clear cut either or distinctions were not yet imposed on theory. Instead he saw continuities. Water was the stuff of life, required by all living things. He also observed and commented on the dynamic powers of lodestones and amber concluding that all things are full of gods. Now theoretical climates change. In this short talk, I'm obviously prevented from providing even a fair sketch of the complex history of the concept of matter. Suffice it to say that it was not long, only a few generations before matter and life, matter and mind would be worked carefully into incompatible conceptual boxes. The first atomists, Yusipus and Democritus of the 5th century BCE declared that everything is either infinite, empty space or completely solid units of being, impenetrable and unchanging. These fundamental bits were named atoms from the Greek a thomos, meaning literally uncuttable. The only properties allowed such atoms were geometrical ones that is shape and size, impenetrability and motion. Their jostlings and temporary clusterings account for the world and ourselves. The atoms are not alive according to the ancient atomists but certain combinations of them constitute living things. The atoms are not aware, but other combinations of them, very, very fine ones, constitute our minds. The atoms have no sensory qualities like colors or textures or sounds but special combinations of them make up our sense organs which when both agitated by the world and interacting with our minds which are also atoms conjure up these appearances. Qualitative, purposive, valuational categories are not present in or applicable to the fundamental realities of the universe on this theory. Not only are they not present, they are strictly illusory generated by collisions between impenetrable bits of being that do not resemble them in the least. What could be more implausible for common sense? There is little wonder that for many centuries this highly counter-intuitive speculation by the ancient atomists remained a distinctly minority view compared to the great alternatives provided by Plato and Aristotle who dominated the world of Western thought from the fourth century B.C. until the rise of the modern era. But for the modern world view, Plato and Aristotle are almost distractions. In one respect, Plato contributed to the absolute separation of matter from mind and all its qualities by stressing the affinity of the soul with the eternal perfections and the troublesome role of the body in pursuing the soul's proper fulfillment. This theme, especially when blended with Christian tendencies to other worldliness is one of the great sources for scorn of matter. But in the making of the modern world view, it was the atomists whose speculations attracted the admiration of those who counted. Now, I mean those who counted quite literally. The revolt of modernity was on behalf of counting, quantification, mathematics. The great problem of Aristotle's whole approach whose many positive aspects I shall therefore ignore was that it was almost entirely qualitative. This made it imprecise, woolly, subject later to mockery of Mullier and company. What made Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton different was their allegiance to numbers. Weighing, measuring, timing, whether in astronomy or in physics of the essence in modern scientific method. Wherever he went, Galileo turned vague qualities into precise quantities. He rigged up a timing mechanism in connection with his experiments on falling bodies wherein he could start a flow of water into a cup at the start of a ball's travel down his famous inclined plane and stop it at the end. Then later he could precisely weigh the quantities of water and find their mathematical relationship or the mathematical relationship of the times involved. Again, to substitute for the vague qualitative feeling of pretty hot or pretty cold, Galileo developed the first thermometer in which formerly qualitative degrees of heat could be expressed as precise lines, appoints along a line turning intuition into geometry. At his suggestion, his secretary, Evangelista Torrizalli, did the same for airpressor by inventing the first barometer. And so it goes. The important characteristics are the quantifiable ones. This means that the primary qualities for modern scientific inquiry are the geometrical features of things. Apart from these, there is no precision, there is no exact description, no explanation, and no scientific understanding. It is a short step from holding as Johannes Kepler did that only the mathematical aspects of things are understandable, that was his view, to insisting as Galileo did, in contrast, that only the mathematical aspects of things are real. From scientifically negligible to generally unimportant to ultimately illusory are important jumps, but they were taken by the early moderns with enthusiasm. And the philosophy of ancient atomism was exactly right to fit the methodological revolution from quality to quantity. For the atomists, only the geometrical properties were really real. Other apparent qualities could be dismissed as mind-dependent appearances only, add the platonized doctrine of the Christian soul as the mysterious repository of all qualities and values, something the ancient atomists knew nothing of, and the tensions of modern materialism are set in motion. All purposes, values, and qualities are located in the human mind, but the human mind is not located in nature. Nature in itself is nothing but unthinking, purposeless, valueless, impenetrable, inert, and inherently unconnected particles. Mind is a miracle if you can believe it. The business at hand for realists is with matter. Now mention of business brings the topic once again around to technology. On our earlier understanding of technology, taken as the practical implementation of the dominant values and available knowledge of a society, this is not a change of subject so much as a shift in level of analysis. First, how are the dominant values of a preeminently quantity-oriented society to be reflected in tools and institutions? For one thing, they will motivate a system of practical arrangements that reflects a taken-for-granted preference for the measurable over the subtler, qualitative aspects of experience. It will opt for techniques, for example, that can resolve all the myriad, merely subjective values, that's in quotes, of society, into a common quantitative measure, a pricing system. This is just what is provided by the single largest and most powerful social technology characteristic of modern civilization, the global market system, in which all significant values are supposed, in principle, to be able to be given a monetary translation. For another thing, the commitment to the importance of quantity above quality will take for granted the drive toward maximization, toward the supposed efficiencies of large scale, and of course always toward the enlargement of the bottom line in profit and in power. If beauty or social conviviality get in the way, then, since merely in the eye of the beholder, they deserve to be swept away without much thought or argument. Even the people negatively affected often accept the result with fatalistic obeisance to the requirements of progress. And by progress, everyone means endless material growth in power, wealth, and ease. From this level of analysis, it is obvious that turning to examine the machinery, the steam shovels, the bulldozers or the like, by which modern society paves its path toward progress, so conceived and so valued, is simply another change in level of analysis. Our machines are the creatures of our commitments and beliefs. If we, as a culture, believed with many Native Americans, for example, that the fertile land on which we live is sacred, or even in some important way alive, we would be less at ease expressing ourselves through tools that slash and gouge without compunction. But we somehow think we know, taught by a worldview born in the 17th century of modern science, that nature is ultimately inert, unfeeling, and valueless until our values mysteriously give it value. The authority behind this worldview has always been in its parentage, and this authority was generally reinforced by the burgeoning sciences of the 18th and 19th centuries, while the characteristic institutions, tools, and methods of modernity rapidly evolved and spread from Europe and America to encompass in the 20th century what we now call the whole developed world. But just here is the great irony for us at this Nobel conference 31, with only half a decade remaining in the 20th century, that this modern worldview of inert, essentially disconnected particles of matter has now been outmoded. Outmoded, is this some sort of a joke? How can the modern be outmoded? The very notion of the modern comes from being in the mode. Look it up, you'll find that's true. And therefore, by definition, the modern must somehow always be up to date. But in fact, the modern worldview, while still firmly embodied in the master institutions and characteristic implements of modernity, is seriously behind the times in its depiction of matter. In this paradoxical sense, materials science has become postmodern. Perhaps if we were to listen more carefully to a materials science that no longer offers modern rearticulations of ancient atomism, we might discover what is at root the matter with matter in our civilization, what this may imply for postmodern worldviews and neomaterial technologies. To scientists themselves, this is surely old news, although old here may very much reflect the age of the beholder. It is instructive to be reminded that atoms were thought to be without internal structure. They were known to have different weights and chemical properties since John Dalton, but still just impenetrable bits of homogeneous being, a la leucypus or democratus, the ancient atomists, until over a decade into the 20th century. My father and mother were already thriving children when Ernest Rutherford first demonstrated in 1911 that atoms have a central structure. The discovery of neomatter, as Sylvan Swerver showed this afternoon, is distinctly a phenomenon of the present century. In the early 1920s, after Niels Bohr, expanding on Rutherford, had in 1913 proposed that electrons jump orbits around their inner nuclei, only in distinct quanta of energy, where de Broglie added the startling suggestion that electrons and all material particles might possess the wave characteristics of energy as well as the mass characteristics of traditional matter. This completely anti-classical suggestion amazed the modern democratians in 1927 when electron diffraction patterns were observed. Matter turns out not to be inert and passive. Matter and energy are alternative expressions of the same reality. The earlier work of Max Planck made possible the climactic developments from 1926 to 1932 in which Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and others established quantum mechanics as the successor to classical modern physics. Neomatter is not only inherently energetic at its own micro level, it is discontinuous, consisting in successions of energetic pulsations potentially related to one another within the micro-environment. Here is the background for contemporary material science and for the speakers we have heard at this conference. No one can have read Harry Gray's electrons and chemical bonding or have heard him today without coming away with a marvelous sense of the immensely energetic character of molecules as well as Harry Gray. Here are no passive lumps of stuff requiring external impositions of forces. Neomatter is enormously smart, as he reminded us this morning. What we see with admirable clarity is matter making itself into its various forms with at least provisional stability based on elaborate social relations among the dynamic parts in which attractions and repulsions weave delicate webworks of tension in unity. The fascinating Buckminster Fullerines as brilliantly presented by Harold Grotto is a study in the previously overlooked spontaneity of Neomatter. As he puts it, that's in his electrons, excuse me, in his Buckminster Fullerines book, as he puts it, see, 60 forms spontaneously under our noses when 60 or so carbon atoms are allowed to aggregate during gas phase nucleation. In general, he continues, such conditions may occur relatively frequently, but never previously to have been probed carefully enough. Perhaps part of the reason for having missed this reaction for so long is obscuration by other simultaneous reactions, but perhaps to the old world view of inert asocial particles helped in the obscuration. What is not thought to be possible is not looked for, and even when seen is often not noticed. The spontaneous ordering, however, self-organization, is a primary reality for Neomatter. The social ordering in polymers, as we hear from Pierre Gilles Degène, is nothing short of vast and sets us imagining the road even toward living organisms capable of self-repair and reproduction. Movingly, Degène shares some of the value intuitions laced through his scientific work when he in the book The Physics of Liquid Crystals wrote, liquid crystals are beautiful and mysterious. I am fond of them for both reasons. This is science that is broken free from the powerful but limited abstractions that defined modern theories of matter, and one that has broken to from the modern world view built on it. What once was taken as boringly settled thanks for Coppersmith's wonderful language here is now, again, tantalizingly complex. The boring materialist world view, still residually powerful through the institutions, attitudes, and technologies it supports, is exposed as churning on without adequate scientific authority. Its days are artificially prolonged by the artifacts it has spawned, and they're still there. They're metal and plastic and so on. But its days are surely numbered as Philip Anderson joyfully noted in his talk, science never leaves well enough alone. How wonderful. The matter with the old boring materialist world view is that materials science has moved on. Matter isn't like that anymore. What would happen to our view of the world if we moved on beyond the modern to a postmodern neo-materialist or material theory of reality? What if we were to take with utmost seriously, argued this afternoon by Schweber, that this great change in science is more than a mere swing of a pendulum, but something very basic and very much part of our future? What if we were to take the seriousness, the insights that matter, is through and through dynamic, energetic, pulsating, self-organizing, socially evolving through capacities of mutual recognition and association. A lot would happen. In a short talk like this, I can only hint at some of the consequences, but let us consider what they might be. First, let me underline the obvious before I make another step forward. I am now leaving science rich though it isn't leaping speculatively some philosophical and valuational hypotheticals. These hypotheticals lie on the same general vector on which recent science has been moving, but they lie far beyond what can be confirmed by mathematics or experiment. There is nothing illegitimate about this, I think, as long as it is properly labeled. It is exactly what the early moderns did when they guessed that matter is brute, inert, homogeneous stuff with no qualities but mathematically describable ones, inspired by the new shape of matter that has been emerging in this conference, I want to guess differently about what matter is in itself and for itself. First, my guess is that neomatter will resist description by dichotomy, resist description by dichotomy, wave and particle, energy and mass, field and substance, much both and accounts have replaced and should replace the old either or reflexes of modern dualism. I think it is a good bet that future theories will be wise to follow this vector, looking for inclusion, even of initially recalcitrant or intractable phenomena rather than exclusion, integrations rather than separations. Second, my guess is that we would be very wise indeed to follow the Degen value intuition that at the heart of neomatter lies beauty and mystery. I should return to this shortly. Third, my guess is that the dynamic social character of neomatter will be hospitable, as Professor Schweber further argued, to evolutionary categories like natural selection, mutation and adaptation. A post-modern world view would demand to be social from top to bottom. The universe envisioned as a society of nested societies, self-organizing, provisionally stable at quasi-autonomous levels, manifesting a drive toward complexity, no less compelling than its entropic tendency toward disorder. Fourth, my guess is that a world view involving dynamic, self-organizing neomatter capable of recognizing and relating to varied environmental stimuli will not make absolute dichotomies between the inorganic and the organic or between the insensate and the sensate. This does not mean that differences need to be ignored. A rock is exceedingly different from the moss growing on it, just as the moss differs vastly from the turtle that suns itself on both. The rock is not alive as the moss and turtle are in their own respective ways, but in its fine texture, the rock is not merely inert and dead, either. There are, as this conference has resoundingly proclaimed, continuities everywhere. Compared to the complex and relatively vulnerable organic societies that make up the turtle, the crystalline societies that make up the rock and their many sub-societies repeat and repeat themselves almost ad infinitum, a much-dollar existence, no doubt, but still one pulsing with energy and beauty and mystery. Fifth and last, my guess is that in a postmodern world view, neomatter will not be arbitrarily cut off from all things mental, but will be conceived as the natural ground from which varying degrees of mentality can rise, with varying levels of complexity achieved by the nested social orders that slowly evolve. We have seen the disaster, theoretically and practically, that followed the radical exclusion of mental functions and qualities from the modern concept of matter. We are now amply warned against that dualistic path. It was always unnecessary and always implausible. The early Hebrews and ancient Greeks guessed better. We obviously cannot go back as though intervening history had not happened, nor should we. We need to go forward from the modern, not back to the pre-modern. But as we try to look ahead, can we not divest ourselves of old, a priori, metaphysical prejudices against acknowledging some germ of mentality in matter? This would not mean supposing that electrons think. That would be foolish animism. But it would add enormously to the coherence of our world view to see human minds which do think and purpose and value on a long continuum with nature's basic material foundation. Recognition of the immediate environment, something which chemical substances manifest in every reaction, could be interpreted as very low-order unconscious perception. Social bonding would take on new levels of meaning. And in the interiority of neo-matter, something that would indeed be mysterious to other subjectivities would be an appropriate locus for beauty. Not just for us human appreciators, but as satisfyingly harmonious subjective integrations for the units of actuality themselves, in themselves and for themselves. The creation and enjoyment of beauty within all things would then constitute the ultimate function and self-justification of the universe. Well, these are only hints and guesses, but that is all I promised. A full world view needs to grow in dialogue with the best science and with sensitivity to the deepest value intuitions of an era. I believe we are entering a new era with new understandings and new values, and that we are in need of a new world view. The beliefs and attitudes of the modern world view have lost their iron grip on many who are open to the new knowledge and the fresh value challenges that face us as we prepare to enter the third millennium in only five years. A world view is not an intellectual thing alone, however. As we have seen characteristic institutions, practices, and technologies rise as the practical embodiment of basic values and beliefs. As we began by thinking about technology, so we may as well end. What might a neo-material civilization guided by a post-modern world view, such as I have sketched, develop for feeding itself, transporting itself, housing itself, clothing itself, entertaining itself, defending itself, educating itself, and so on in accordance with its basic values and beliefs? I wish our conference were just beginning. It would require such a conference of superior minds and sturdy imaginations, even to start answering these questions in any useful detail. But I hope each of you will ponder these issues long after our banquets of rich ideas as well as of nourishing foodstuffs have been digested. A few general guidelines for that pondering are all I can offer now. First, the new post-modern civilization should be expected to give rise to technologies of quality. If beauty counts as the meaning of the universe, then offenses to eyes or ears or nostrils will no longer be minor externalities to be accepted by macho-managements as the way to expand the bottom line. Second, a post-modern culture concerned for quality as well as quantity should be expected to express itself with technologies of sufficiency. Not maximization, but optimization will be the watchword. This will affect the means chosen for human population limitation. It will affect everything from expectations of sustainable agricultural practices to the way household appliances are made to last and to be easily repaired. It will influence the favored systems of transport and housing. Finally, a post-modern world deeply aware of the presence of intrinsic value of different degrees and sorts but still of value in and of itself should be expected to create institutions and to develop technologies of caring. Policies of heedless anthropocentrism have come easy to our modern civilization. In its world view, there were no values, no centers of valuing apart from human beings. In contrast, attitudes of polycentric responsibility should characterize a culture whose vision of the new shape of matter allows it to recognize other centers of interest, other claimants to importance. So to conclude, it seems that our view of matter matters. The matter with matter, as depicted in the dominant modern world view and as incorporated in our culture's characteristic technologies, is just that it leaves out too much that is important and true. It leaves out quality. It leaves out adventure. It leaves out sociality. It leaves out mind and purpose and value. But this need not be the case and should not long continue. Thanks to this conference, we have further seen the new shape of matter emerge. Let us hope that with this rising science, a new world view worthy of a new post-modern civilization will rise as well. Thank you, Dr. Faray, for your exquisite address this evening. I've asked the panelists, our scientific guests and speakers if they would say goodbye to the conference tonight so that just once more again we can see each of them and greet them. And I call, first of all, upon Dr. Harry Gray, the Arnold Beckman Professor of Chemistry and Director Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology. My ears pricked up today when I think it was a Frederick who asked, well, what can we theologians do? And you said, we need all the help we can get. Well, as a kind of Christian shaman, I've been trying to help out around here. But I get this impression that God is doing her best work out at Caltech. You must have some wonderful musicians, all magicians and musicians out there. Dr. Gray. I've had a wonderful time these two days and I'm a little sad that we're about finished. I want to thank Larry and everyone at Gustavus for organizing and running this beautiful conference. I want to thank Gretchen, again, my faculty host. Antonia, my student host. I think speaking for all the speakers and I better speak for the physicists because I'm not sure they'll be able to handle the job. But we really are tremendously appreciative of this wonderful hospitality at Gustavus and we've had a wonderful time. I'll give you a little impression of my feeling by telling you that as soon as I get back to Pasadena, chaplain, to my magicians and musicians, I'm going to get my group together, my postdocs and my graduate students and my undergrads that I work with all the time and I'm going to say there is a wonderful college in Minnesota, it's called Gustavus Adolphus and every year they have a conference and they call it the Nobel Conference and you're not going to believe what I'm going to tell you about this conference. People come from all over Minnesota, they come from the college, faculty, students, alumni, people from all over Minnesota, in fact people from all over the country as far as I can tell come to this conference. Thousands of people come to this conference even though they know in advance that there are two chemists on the program. We are used to talking to five or six people. When a chemistry public lecture is announced, nobody comes. I'm really happy you invited physicists and philosophers and historians and wonderful people so to gather to me has been an absolutely fantastic audience through these two days, all of the people have come and you know, you've all seemed interested. I'm going to tell my students at my post-docs and my undergrads, these people were interested, they listened to the talks, they participated in the question and answer sessions, they participated in the firing line and even above and beyond that in the little sessions after the talks they came up to us and like, they asked for our autographs. No chemist has ever been asked for his autograph. And we got the impression and I'm with my students at this time, we got the impression that what we're doing is important, that people care about it, they're willing to talk about it, they want to interact about it and it's a wonderful place in Minnesota which I am going to invite all my students in post-docs to visit. There is a place where people care about intellectual life, they care about science, they care about discussing it and I think it's going to mean a lot to my group for me to go back and take this message and I thank you very much. Well, Dr. Croto, we've forced you into following this act earlier today, so again tonight. The Royal Society Research Professor School of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences the University of Sussex, England Dr. Harold W. Croto. They always do this to me, I don't know, following Harry Gray is a real problem and the last time I did this was this afternoon I was all prepared and because I brought all these things with me I even spent an hour and a half with Pat Franchek arranging to make sure that I had the most spontaneous presentation I could possibly do. And Pat's really worked very hard and as Harry said, we were royally treated. It's not an accident that there are three crowns on those things there and I don't know if we could have done it without the help of everybody that was here. Now, when I became a professor someone said that now people will take notice of what you say and I discovered that was not true at all. They took less notice of whatever I said but anyway, then I occasionally had to have these little after-dinner things and I set up a file and so I have now a box called a pontification file which unfortunately I left behind. But it is an exceptional conference and the part that makes it exceptional is I think the number of students the incredible number that were here and the wonderful reception that I had and everybody had of students coming and talking to us and the only other place is in Stockholm is the Basilius de Ghana where all the students of Stockholm come for two days to Stockholm and are really interested in science and after the speech is and after the talks you can talk to them and give them advice and the students here I now have some advice that science is very hard so the thing to do is is to get yourself the brain of someone who you think is smart and one student decided to try and buy one and he went to a brain institute and said what would it cost for the brain of an assistant professor and he was told $1,000 so that's not very much he said what about an associate professor $5,000 well what about a full professor that's $100,000 that's $100,000 if you're only $1,000 for the assistant why $100,000 for a professor he says do you know how many professors you have to get to find any brain at all so so it's not I'm afraid you're just going to have to do the research if you're going to go into science let me just say Harry Gray I think hit on the problem of the future and he hit in the start reality that many chemists and physicists and many scientists realize we're facing huge problems in the future and it's only going to be solved by research and there are serious problems in the west I think and these are brought up time and time again and particularly as I mentioned earlier in Scientific Americans an article about even the drop in technologies and we've discussed this and this is what this conference is about stimulating our young kids who are going to take over and I think solve the problems that we have and I think that you as many of you are not kids here but you're people who I think have influence and the influence should be to realize that not all chemists are bad and that we're not doing bad things we're trying very hard and I thought what Harry's group and many chemists and physicists are trying to solve those problems and the serious problem that I see is the drop in research funding and I don't know what it is but there are two factions it's not clear where the cutoff is between fundamental basic science and the science that's applied 20 years ago things were healthy I think 85% of funding went into in the states and Britain and Japan into applied areas and about 15% went into what we call fundamental science people keeping kids happy people like me just what I like to say is sitting in a corner picking my own nose I mean no one else would do this you just do it for yourself but things that interested me or you if you happen to be your nose that happens and you have to be able to pay for that because in that sort of research where people just following things that are puzzling them comes to serendipity those are the breakthroughs that no one predicted that are going to be required to fill in one of those half a dozen problems that Harry's throwing up he's showing beautifully what some of those problems are but we don't know how to solve those and some of those are going to be solved doing something and then something surprising turning up and if you don't know what serendipity is a Belgian told me it was you're looking in a haystack trying to find a needle in a haystack and you discover the farmer's daughter or to be politically correct if you like whatever persuasion you might be the farmer's son so finally that I think is very important that fundamental science is not killed off altogether the present moment is now almost zero and I think for fundamental science you need the two together I don't know what the percent should be but I'm sure it should be over 10% you're precious close now to being below 10% in this country you're going down on the applied as well so finally I'd like to say one other thing this is a fantastic conference I've never been to anything like it I've had I've met some wonderful people I've made some friends I'll have I think for the rest of my life and I've enjoyed that and one other thing happened to me today and it happened in this poll not 10 minutes ago and how many people saw the film when Harry met Sally okay now there's a scene in that which I'm sure you all remember but there's I'm now going to tell you there was another scene in that which you probably don't remember and we Brits can get away with some things but not everything is that there's a scene when they're at the table and someone over there blind dates and says oh I they quote something and this guy says oh I wrote that well Professor Faray quoted something and I wrote and that's never happened to me before so I'll take that away there are two great scenes in Harry met Sally thank you very much I'm very honored to have the Nobel laureate in physics for 1991 here from Paris, France Dr. Pierre Dijon my general impression is that we're very happy we're very thankful I'm especially thankful to Kim and Greg here everyone around I learned a lot I learned a lot about chemistry and about how you should cope with chemists I learned a lot about philosophy in this last talk and I've enjoyed this last talk enormously because it provokes our reflections in a very useful way so I'm very thankful for the general setup which allowed us to learn so much and just not speak or hear things which we were already familiar with I don't want to say much more I've been very happy here I've had a lot of time talking to people around even I had escaped once to the arboretum to watch the trees but here was a gentleman running and he grasped me and he wanted to talk again the same thing happened I went and I noticed you have these beautiful bronze sculptures and I liked them very much so I started to make some sketches but I couldn't really go on with the sketches because people would come and talk to me again and that's a delightful feeling so I will keep very deep memories from this place and again thank you very much it was a paper of Dr. Schrabers in physics today that sparked our conferences I remember a few years ago we tossed it around among us Dr. Sylvan Sam Schraber professor of physics Brandeis University much has been said before about the impact of this conference intellectually what has struck me very much and very deeply coming here is that this is really an ivory tower with tentacles out into the world I was very much struck by the way students talk to one another interact with one another how faculty members greet one another and this is really what a university ought to be like that there was a great deal of intellectual stimulation I don't have to tell you I mean you listen to the various very distinguished physicists and chemists I was likewise very much struck by Dr. Faray's remark because it's again the bridge between making this ideal and it truly is an ideal society within our rapidly changing world face the realities as you come out of this ideal little tower and I'm deeply appreciative of what he had to say in terms of thinking about our responsibilities the world is indeed changing if there was a message in my speech this afternoon is that quantum mechanics has changed the world in our understanding of the world and somehow we have to think about what it means whether you want to become a little bit like a panpsychist that Dr. Faray wants to be it's not that far away from one interpretation of quantum mechanics it's this path into quantum mechanics it's a view which intrinsically says that if you want to put it metaphorically electrons can make choices they can take different paths but it's also a view which says intrinsically electrons have probabilistic features in a way that the former way of thinking doesn't and so the challenges that we have been met with in the last few days and comforted by something I will cherish and I thank you very much for the opportunity for having been here 32 years ago in this same hall the oldest member of a group of laureates who spoke here was Dr. James Frank he was 80 years old now I can't tell you of her age because I don't know it but she's a professional this year and she is from the James Frank Institute at the University of Chicago she is Dr. Susan and Copper Smith Professor of Physics University of Chicago well I want to I want to say a lot of things that other speakers have said because it's just a fabulous experience and I also want to thank Chuck and Shannon who have made sure I've gotten everywhere on time and didn't get lost and that's really an accomplishment because I have no sense of direction at all and well it's just been wonderful and when we came here the first night Professor Potts said we will find the audience very warm because I've never spoken to that many people and it's like well okay you know but hearing that the audience is warm is nothing like actually experiencing the audience here well warm is just not a word to describe it it's just so wonderful and everybody just I don't want to say enthusiastic but just wanting to know and just the curiosity it's just totally inspiring and again at least for me I've never had an opportunity to try to explain anything and maybe a couple hundred of people most of whom were people who were trying to figure out why I was wrong and how are they going to make me look stupid and to have people actually feel like you know that somehow I had something to say it was just for me just unbelievable and I would never have had the opportunity if I hadn't come here and I'm just starting at the University of Chicago so I don't have my group of postdocs and students to immediately call and say well there's this place but you'll be hearing from my postdocs and students once I get rolling because it's just unbelievable and once again I want to thank thank you all it's just really a really memorable experience Bob and Susan Rydel are here at dinner tonight they have founded the Bob and Susan Rydel Nobel conference chair and that will be the very first person in this Nobel chair at this college who will come back in the spring to teach here a seminar in complexity I think but again we are most honored to have him as part of our conference in the fall a great man one of the giants of our century and then who has also agreed to come back to our undergraduates and some of the rest of us are going to join that seminar as well the Nobel Laureate in Physics for 1977 the Joseph Henry Professor of Physics Princeton University Dr. Philip Anderson it's a very great pleasure to be here and to think that I can come back to have the privilege of coming back and enjoying the warmth and the kindness of this college Susan I think was totally economic and it will mean that more money goes into profits and fewer people will be employed and much less research will be carried out Professor or Dr. Faray's talk reminded me of something else that I happen to know thinking a little bit about postmodern science and about postmodern economic science and I've been learning rather to my horror that at least if you believe in postmodern economics instead of the classical synthesis of economics that no one knows whether money has value but the value of money is that there is no necessary relationship between quantity of money and value to anyone even some kind of integrated idealized view of value the whole theory of value is up for grabs in modern economics and so perhaps this is an example of the kind of science kind of change in material science that changes well that brings me to the Santa Fe Institute and I have to thank him again for a word I've been trying to figure out for a decade now what it is we're planning to do at the Santa Fe Institute and what we're trying to do is postmodern science it's as simple as that that's exactly what we're trying to do so that brings me to the final point to know what or to get a sampling of what postmodern science is like come to our seminar that Richard Fuller and I will be running next spring thank you sir I should like to have the doctors Bob and Susan Ridell be greeted by just stand now they have been friends of this conference for many years and of this college and Susan is an educator in this state and Bob is a doctor and we're very grateful to you this is as it turns out it's going to be a marvelous idea and of course the only Nobel chair in the country we have that patented I believe you're not my favorite friend I hope you're not on the committee that talks about my job I would like to also just for a few words to call upon our chairman again tonight Larry Potts this conference is really connected to his ideas about the shape and content of what it might be and his considerable effort to fret about it for a year and a half and to make it work and what you get Larry as you know you've heard about it you get congratulations from the president and from the dean and from the director for being a good citizen of this academic community in this way because you have to carry out all your own work anyway and it's you do get to shake our hand as the director of course I am successful if I find thank you very much Dick there's one more reward that you couldn't have imagined today somebody asked me for my autograph I wrote Teddy Bear Elvis you're going to have to bear with me for a while because I owe so much to so many people this has been a two year project as Dick said and there were many many people involved in it I'm only the most visible and I tried not to be too visible let me begin I guess probably Steve is in the back but we had a wonderful meal tonight and there were wonderful meals served throughout the event by Steve Sheldron and the dining service staff I'd like to acknowledge that and I'm looking back there at Pat Fransich and he's looking up at the ceiling I want you to know you may have picked up some of this from the speakers but this is a very important individual back here in terms of the success of this conference I came in to see him Saturday morning working on slides for the presentations he works long and hard and he's done a wonderful job again this year thank you so much Pat has some very fine help and Jerry Connolly and his staff too every year we ask students a group of students to put down their books for a couple of days and help us out as student hosts for our speakers and I bet I'm going to call them by name and ask them to stand up here but I bet they'll say they didn't miss the books so much because they probably learned an awful lot more from their interactions from the books in that period of time let me read some names and please stand up folks Peter Ekman Shannon Seafkin Kim Miller Angela McCoy Tanya Schmidt Matthew Shores Ryan Els and Colin Ensel thanks so much a number of faculty are also involved kind of small roles but I still should acknowledge them so we have yeah that was left handed wasn't it I apologize Lictors and Sighters play an important role in our ceremonies on the opening day and this year our Lictors were Tom Gover and Tom Huber and Tom Gover has of course been a steadfast friend of the conference and my sort of a close advisor and Tom Huber was on the committee for its entire duration the Sighters Sight-haters were Dennis Henry and Laurent Duchery and I'd like you to recognize them if you will please I'm particularly indebted to Laurent because he taught me to say Ecole de France I'd like to recognize the faculty hosts next they are all friends of mine and I owe them a great deal for their help Richard Fuller would you be willing to stand please where's Dick? and Greg Hogstead William Dean Gretchen Hofmeister Brian O'Brien and Kevin Byrne and finally a physicist who has literally acted in the role of a shadow chairman for this conference he's been with me all the time all the way through this from the very first days of the committee work and worked very hard and has really helped me a tremendous amount my good friend Chuck Neiderreiter thanks very much Chuck let me reflect on a couple of ideas here when we set out to come up with a topic for this Elvie suggested that maybe it was time for a little interdisciplinary thing between chemistry and physics and Chuck and I have been working for a number of years to get a program a fledgling program rolling here to save us in this area we've done a January term course I think five times now for students who are interested both in chemistry and physics we put together for the conference this year a little show and tell about an hour long presentation which became known as the Chuck and Larry show I think Chuck was the better half of that group but we had a lot of fun doing that when we got this thing rolling we had a set of expectations that were pretty high and of course the expectations get molded as you work together in a group on this kind of thing but I must admit that we really had a winner here these speakers far exceeded our expectations we have we work in an area that is an extremely diverse field eclectic I like that word it's a very diverse field it spans a tremendous range of topics it can draw on the strengths of a tremendous variety of people and I think you've seen you've gotten a good idea of what that variety is like between superconductors and polymers ceramics plastics this is a tremendous field and it has tremendous potential for the future so I really want to extend my thanks to the speakers you really have made us look good one final person that I absolutely have to acknowledge is my good friend and pastor and new age astrologer Richard Elvie this man is literally the spirit the spirit, the soul of Nobel conference I know of no other person who can make a cold call on the telephone to a Nobel laureate and say a year and a half from now we'd like you to come to the middle of southern Minnesota and spend two days and actually get away with it and make it work this is a tremendous ability and Richard we're all indebted to you thank you so much our president Exel Stoyer became ill this afternoon it is not a serious but his doctor has recommended that he bed rest for 24 hours well in the last couple of hours I've sat down with a friend of his and we calculated that he probably caught the flu from the first lady about a week ago she has agreed that she would pinch hit tonight and that she would deliver his remarks that he had written out for this occasion Lorelai Stoyer our first lady there she is as a trained philosopher and theologian my husband couldn't help thinking of two quotations as he experienced the majority of the wonderful presentations you all have these two quotations were both from Albert Einstein the first was science and certainly appropriate to the wonderful talk we heard tonight from professor foray science without religion is lame but religion without science is blind and then also Albert Einstein said to bring us back into a very clear reality the whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking perhaps some of the rest of you here and these are not my husbands where it's not fine perhaps some of the rest of you here can similarly recall the puzzlement I felt when asked in an introductory philosophy class some decades ago why we don't fall right through the floor if there are relatively speaking vast empty spaces between the atoms that constitute the floor on which we stand those of us who are academically inclined can either pursue theoretical or experimental science to answer such bedrock questions about the realities of our material world as our distinguished speakers have done so brilliantly or if less gifted we can resign ourselves to never having any compelling answers and instead pursue administrative careers confronting a wide ray of intractable problems for those of you who have been with us for all or most of the past couple of days it will be obvious that most of the most successful Nobel conferences are among the high points in the academic year at Gustavus Adolphus College for some 31 years now we have suspended regular classes for two days in order to provide our students with this most special learning experience as we now bring this latest conference on the new shape of manner to a close we do so with a degree of excellence but also thousands of visitors from schools and colleges throughout the Midwest and interested friends from throughout the country have been significantly enriched by these proceedings at our college for this we owe a special debt of gratitude to our outstanding speakers and panelists it is a thrill to know that as we push the frontiers of science ever forward we encounter not a precipice but rather new and exciting areas to explore the matter of matter matters very much indeed as the priest Socrates Socrates I guess is Socrates philosopher has already discovered and has many surprises in store for those with the intellects and patience to search for truth we have been privileged to meet in our speakers a graciousness an uncommon generosity of spirit an inspiring passion for their fields of inquiry and wonderful expressions of humor with each Nobel conference we have a new repertoire of stories to tell for all of this this thirty first annual Nobel conference has been an intellectual event and also an aesthetic event of the highest order the long tradition of Nobel conferences are timely are exceptionally high intellectual quality and are nonetheless accessible to large interested and informed general audience which certainly we saw today and yesterday we have greatly enjoyed albeit vicariously the thrill of these many new discoveries speaking for the entire Gustavus community I want to express our deep appreciation to Phillip Anderson Susan Koffersmith Pierre Gildegen Harry Gray Harold Proto Sylvan Schweiber and Frederick Farré foreseeing to it that we had a most memorable Nobel conference you have made a very real difference here in Minnesota you have I dare say that you have been able to do this because you are all students and teachers of the highest order you obviously care deeply about the life's work you have partially shared with us again we thank you for the extraordinary teaching and learning that has taken place at Gustavus these past forty eight hours I know from talking with high school students on campus these over these two days and in the past that many of our students today are here because of this college conference in the past and that also many career choices are made because of this conference right on this spot there are many people who have worked long and hard for more than two years to make this thirty first Nobel conference a reality I want to mention in particular the good efforts, rich imagination and persuasive power of the overall director of these conferences, Chaplin Richard QLV he teamed up beautifully with Professor Larry Potts to develop the theme and content to give birth to this particular Nobel conference actually many many people deserve our thanks most surely Dean Wallin and his colleagues in public affairs Pat Francek and co-workers in media services Steve Chalgren and his outstanding staff in the dining service to name only a few of the many who participated these people and the student and faculty hosts and many other volunteers made this exciting meeting of the binds possible once again to our distinguished speakers we have called upon your knowledge, your energy your goodwill and even your patience and you have responded generously on all counts and for that we thank you and wish you godspeed until we meet again to all of our guests from off campus many of whom have been to a number of these conferences we wish you a safe journey home and invite you to mark your calendar for next year's 32nd Nobel conference in quote apes at the end of an age primate language and behavior in the 90s end quote scheduled for next October 1st and 2nd with that wish and that reminder reminder we formally bring this 31st annual Nobel conference to a close dear friends and from Axel he says I bid you all a good night and to Axel may we also say good night and god bless and get well thank you