686
DOCS.
643,
644 NOVEMBER
1918
of
what
is
called,
in
the
more
restricted
sense,
the
moral
judgment
of actions
(as
is exercised
more or
less
consciously by
an
educated
person).
This
problem,
which
Kant
was
the
first to
pose
in
a
precise form,
was
first
solved
satisfactorily, as
it
seems
to
me,
in
Nelson’s ethics
on
the
basis of
Kant’s
approach
(which
had
frequently
been
completely
abandoned
owing
to
the
obvious
shortfalls in Kant’s
more
detailed
expositions).
Surely you
will
not
misunderstand
me,
Professor,
in the
sense
of
my
wanting
to
convert
you
with
my
statements.
It
is just that,
as
much
as
I feel
myself
to
be
a
pupil
of
Nelson’s,
I
could
not
content
myself
with
allowing your
frankness to
go
unanswered.
Now I
would
like
to ask
you something
else
concerning physics.
You
put
forward,
in
objection
to
Weyl’s
theory,
the
fact
that
one
and
the
same
type of
crystal
always
occurs
only
with
a
very specific
density.[3]
In
a
corresponding
way,
couldn’t
the
fact be advanced
against
your theory
that certain
substances in
a
crystalline
state
always
take
on
the
same
forms
(as
regarded
in
mineralogy),
the
defining
elements
of
which do
not
by any
means
only occur
in Riemann’s
geometry
but
also include
rectilinearity
in
the
Euclidean
sense, parallelisms,
etc.? Could
it
not
also be
argued
that:
if
physical
structures
in
the
limited
(Euclidean) sense
have
no
invariant
significance
then,
in
general,
the
forms
into
which
a
crystal
cleaves must be
dependent
on
its
prehistory,
its
momentary
state
notwithstanding?
Shouldn’t
the
correct
refutation
of
this
last
argumentation
perhaps
also
pro-
vide,
at
the
same
time,
a
refutation
of
your objection
to
Weyl?
With
my
incompetence
in the
field
of
physics,
I
draw
very
much into consid-
eration
the
possibility
that
I
am
speaking
nonsense
here. In
any event,
I
would
be
very
grateful
if
you
would clear
up
this
question
for
me
sometime.-
Surely you
also
are
hoping
for
an
expeditious
armistice?
Most amicable
greetings, yours,
Paul
Bernays.
644.
To
Edgar Meyer
[Berlin,
4
November
1918]
Dear Mr.
Meyer,
I
am
very glad
that the
lectures
are
now materializing.[1]
So I
plan
to be
with
you
all
on
February
1st. I
have
already
informed
Planck,
who assured
me
that
no
one
has
anything
against
it here.
No less
am
I pleased
that the statistical
analysis
of
7 rays
is
already
on
your
program.[2]
Your handsome
experiment
on
Previous Page Next Page