Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. This brings us to the central philosophical issue of quantum mechanics, namely, “ What is it that quantum mechanics describes?” Put another way, quantum mechanics statistically describes the overall behavior and/or predicts the probabilities of the individual behavior of what? In the autumn of 1927, physicists working with the new physics met in Brussels, Belgium, to ask themselves this question, among others. What they decided there became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Other interpretations developed later, but the Copenhagen Interpretation marks the emergence of the new physics as a consistent way of viewing the world. It is still the most prevalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The upheaval in physics following the discovery of the inadequacies of Newtonian physics was all but complete. The question among the physicists at Brussels was not whether Newtonian mechanics could be adapted to subatomic phenomena ( it was clear that it could not be ), but rather, what was to replace it. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Einstein opposed it in 1927 and he argued against it until his death, although he, like all physicists, was forced to acknowledge its advantages in explaining subatomic phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation says, in effect, that it does not matter what quantum mechanics is about. The important thing is that it works in all possible experimental situations. This is one of the most important statements in the history of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics began a monumental reunion which was all but unnoticed at the time. The rational part of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part of us which we had ignored since the 1700s, our irrational side.

The scientific idea of truth traditionally had been anchored in an absolute truth somewhere “out there”—that is, an absolute truth with an independent existence. The closer that we came in our approximations to the absolute truth, the truer our theories were said to be. Although we might never be able to perceive the absolute truth directly—or to open the watch, as Einstein put it—still we tried to construct theories such that for every facet of absolute truth, there was a corresponding element in our theories. The Copenhagen Interpretation does away with this idea of a one-to-one correspondence between reality and theory. This is another way of saying what we have said before. Quantum mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic. The philosophy of pragmatism goes something like this. The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. The extraordinary importance of the Copenhagen Interpretation lies in the fact that for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought. It was this that Einstein could not accept. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world”, he wrote, “is that it is comprehensible.” But the deed was done. The new physics was based not upon “absolute truth,” but upon us. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, expressed this eloquently: [The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics] was essentially a rejection of the presumption that nature could be understood in terms of elementary space-time realities. According to the new view, the complete description of nature at the atomic level was given by probability functions that referred, not to underlying microscopic space-time realities, but rather to the macroscopic objects of sense experience. The theoretical structure did not extend down and anchor itself on fundamental microscopic space-time realities. Instead it turned back and anchored itself in the concrete sense realities that form the basis of social life…. This pragmatic description is to be contrasted with descriptions that attempt to peer “behind the scenes” and tell us what is “really happening.”

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. This brings us to the central philosophical issue of quantum mechanics, namely, “ What is it that quantum mechanics describes?” Put another way, quantum mechanics statistically describes the overall behavior and/or predicts the probabilities of the individual behavior of what? In the autumn of 1927, physicists working with the new physics met in Brussels, Belgium, to ask themselves this question, among others. What they decided there became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Other interpretations developed later, but the Copenhagen Interpretation marks the emergence of the new physics as a consistent way of viewing the world. It is still the most prevalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The upheaval in physics following the discovery of the inadequacies of Newtonian physics was all but complete. The question among the physicists at Brussels was not whether Newtonian mechanics could be adapted to subatomic phenomena ( it was clear that it could not be ), but rather, what was to replace it. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Einstein opposed it in 1927 and he argued against it until his death, although he, like all physicists, was forced to acknowledge its advantages in explaining subatomic phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation says, in effect, that it does not matter what quantum mechanics is about. The important thing is that it works in all possible experimental situations. This is one of the most important statements in the history of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics began a monumental reunion which was all but unnoticed at the time. The rational part of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part of us which we had ignored since the 1700s, our irrational side.

The scientific idea of truth traditionally had been anchored in an absolute truth somewhere “out there”—that is, an absolute truth with an independent existence. The closer that we came in our approximations to the absolute truth, the truer our theories were said to be. Although we might never be able to perceive the absolute truth directly—or to open the watch, as Einstein put it—still we tried to construct theories such that for every facet of absolute truth, there was a corresponding element in our theories. The Copenhagen Interpretation does away with this idea of a one-to-one correspondence between reality and theory. This is another way of saying what we have said before. Quantum mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic. The philosophy of pragmatism goes something like this. The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. The extraordinary importance of the Copenhagen Interpretation lies in the fact that for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought. It was this that Einstein could not accept. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world”, he wrote, “is that it is comprehensible.” But the deed was done. The new physics was based not upon “absolute truth,” but upon us. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, expressed this eloquently: [The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics] was essentially a rejection of the presumption that nature could be understood in terms of elementary space-time realities. According to the new view, the complete description of nature at the atomic level was given by probability functions that referred, not to underlying microscopic space-time realities, but rather to the macroscopic objects of sense experience. The theoretical structure did not extend down and anchor itself on fundamental microscopic space-time realities. Instead it turned back and anchored itself in the concrete sense realities that form the basis of social life…. This pragmatic description is to be contrasted with descriptions that attempt to peer “behind the scenes” and tell us what is “really happening.”

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. The best graduates of Saint-Cyr were given the choice of their first appointment. Charles de Gaulle had also won that right, and he now faced the question: where should he begin his service? Traditionally, the most prestigious service was cavalry, and last on this scale, as everywhere, was long-suffering infantry. However strange that may seem at first glance, our junior lieutenant chose precisely the thankless lot of an infantryman. Moreover, he decided to serve in that very 33rd Infantry Regiment at Arras where he had gone through his service in the ranks. Charles de Gaulle would always surprise everyone by his unexpected decisions, but this one was not as rash as it might seem. Picturesque cavalry inevitably lost its former glory in the epoch of mass use of machine-guns while artillery was regarded as a kind of auxiliary service in France; but infantry remained the main striking force called upon to perform those really great deeds of which de Gaulle dreamed. True, there were also the particularly fashionable Navy and aviation, which was then coming in to being. But these services required highly specialized training. Born at Lille and linked with the north through his mother’s and grandmother’s origin, he had a longing for the parts where he intended to serve. In character and temperament he was close to the traditions and spirit of the inhabitants of the northern provinces sharply differing from those of the south. Charles de Gaulle was fascinated by the history of France, chiefly by military history, and it was mostly in the north that the great battles had taken place which he knew as if he had fought in them himself. He was convinced that the north would also inevitably be the scene of the battles to come. Finally, Charles de Gaulle knew, of course, that the newly appointed commander of 33rd Infantry was Philippe Petain, well known in the army not only for his obstreperousness and frictions with his superiors, which adversely affected his career, but also for his critical attitude to the official military doctrine. Petain was extremely conservative. Ignoring the new law segregating the church from the state, he openly encouraged officers to attend Mass regularly. In any case he had the reputation of an intelligent, energetic, and exacting officer who could be a good teacher of the military craft.

The moment came when the raw young officer, his fresh epaulets glittering, reported to his colonel. The 22-year-old junior lieutenant, black eyed, very tall, stood for the first time face to face with the 56-year-old colonel ironically looking at him with his pale blue eyes. De Gaulle’s destiny would for a long time be linked with Petain… The Young officer who would serve for many years under Colonel (later Marshall) Petain would feel great respect for his patron. It is interesting that even after Petain’s disgrace at the end, when he became France’s traitor, de Gaulle would retain something of that feeling. He would write in his memoir : “My first colonel, Petain, showed me the meaning of the gift and art of command.” Thus De Gaulle began his career. One cannot say, however, that his education was ended. His Service as an officer strengthened and deepened some of his character traits. Professional soldiers were a world in itself not only with regard to the nation but also to the variable elements in the army, the men called up for the service in the ranks and reserve officers. The caste spirit was at that time extremely strong in the French army, which largely retained the structure and traditions of the monarchist army despite the numerous attempts of the Republic to democratize it. While it has proved possible to impose heavy restriction on the church, this other institution of the old regime was unshakable. Officially, the army functioned according to 1832 law adopted under Louis Philippe. Even after the exposure of the Dreyfus affair nothing had changed; the army remained a state within state. Officers were encouraged in their feelings of disdain towards civilians in general and towards the deputies, parliament, and the government in particular. Strange as it may seem, the fact that the army had no franchise and was formally outside politics only served to foster that contempt and to strengthen the officer’s opposition to everything civilian. It is easy to see that this tendency coincided with young de Gaulle’s anti-parliamentarism.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. South Africa is a country blessed with an abundance of natural resources including fertile farmlands and unique mineral resources. South African mines are world leaders in the production of diamonds and gold as well as strategic metals such as platinum. The climate is mild, reportedly resembling the San Francisco bay area weather more than anywhere in the world. South Africa was colonised by the English and Dutch in the 17th century. English domination of the Dutch descendants (known as Boers or Afrikaners) resulted in the Dutch establishing the new colonies of Orange Free State and Transvaal. The discovery of diamonds in these lands around 1900 resulted in an English invasion, which sparked the Boer War. Following independence from England, an uneasy power sharing between the two groups held sway until the 1940s, when the Afrikaner National Party was able to gain a strong majority. Strategists in the National Party invented apartheid as a means to cement their control over the economic and social system. Initially, aim of the apartheid was to maintain white domination while extending racial separation. Starting in the 1960s, a plan of ‘Grand Apartheid’ was executed, emphasising territorial separation and police repression. With the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of ‘white-only’ jobs. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or coloured (of mixed descent). The coloured category included major subgroups of Indians and Asians. Classification into these categories was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, a white person was defined as ‘in appearance obviously a white person or generally accepted as a white person’. A person could not be considered white if one of his or her parents were non-white. The determination that a person was ‘obviously white’ would take into account ‘his habits, education, and speech and deportment and demeanour’.

A black person would be of or accepted as a member of an African tribe or race, and a coloured person is one that is not black or white. The department of home affairs (a government bureau) was responsible for the classification of the citizenry. Non-compliance with the race laws was dealt with harshly. All blacks were required to carry ‘pass books’ containing fingerprints, photos and information on access to non-black areas. In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as ‘homelands’. These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. The idea was that they would be citizens of the homeland, losing their citizenship in South Africa and any right of involvement with the South African Parliament, which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalising nine million South Africans. The homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa: aliens in their own country. In 1953, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed, which empowered the government to declare stringent states of emergency and increased penalties for protesting against or supporting the repeal of a law. The penalties included fines, imprisonment and whippings. In 1960, a large group of blacks in Sharpeville refused to carry their passes; the government declared a state of emergency. The emergency lasted for 156 days, leaving 69 people dead and 187 people wounded. Wielding the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the white regime had no intention of changing the unjust laws of apartheid. The penalties imposed on political protest, even non-violent protest, were severe. During the states of emergency that continued intermittently until 1989, anyone could be detained without a hearing by a low-level police official for up to six months. Thousands of individuals died in custody, frequently after gruesome acts of torture. Those who were tried were sentenced to death, banished, or imprisoned for life, like Nelson Mandela.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. South Africa is a country blessed with an abundance of natural resources including fertile farmlands and unique mineral resources. South African mines are world leaders in the production of diamonds and gold as well as strategic metals such as platinum. The climate is mild, reportedly resembling the San Francisco bay area weather more than anywhere in the world. South Africa was colonised by the English and Dutch in the 17th century. English domination of the Dutch descendants (known as Boers or Afrikaners) resulted in the Dutch establishing the new colonies of Orange Free State and Transvaal. The discovery of diamonds in these lands around 1900 resulted in an English invasion, which sparked the Boer War. Following independence from England, an uneasy power sharing between the two groups held sway until the 1940s, when the Afrikaner National Party was able to gain a strong majority. Strategists in the National Party invented apartheid as a means to cement their control over the economic and social system. Initially, aim of the apartheid was to maintain white domination while extending racial separation. Starting in the 1960s, a plan of ‘Grand Apartheid’ was executed, emphasising territorial separation and police repression. With the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of ‘white-only’ jobs. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of three categories: white, black (African), or coloured (of mixed descent). The coloured category included major subgroups of Indians and Asians. Classification into these categories was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, a white person was defined as ‘in appearance obviously a white person or generally accepted as a white person’. A person could not be considered white if one of his or her parents were non-white. The determination that a person was ‘obviously white’ would take into account ‘his habits, education, and speech and deportment and demeanour’.

A black person would be of or accepted as a member of an African tribe or race, and a coloured person is one that is not black or white. The department of home affairs (a government bureau) was responsible for the classification of the citizenry. Non-compliance with the race laws was dealt with harshly. All blacks were required to carry ‘pass books’ containing fingerprints, photos and information on access to non-black areas. In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as ‘homelands’. These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. The idea was that they would be citizens of the homeland, losing their citizenship in South Africa and any right of involvement with the South African Parliament, which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalising nine million South Africans. The homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa: aliens in their own country. In 1953, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed, which empowered the government to declare stringent states of emergency and increased penalties for protesting against or supporting the repeal of a law. The penalties included fines, imprisonment and whippings. In 1960, a large group of blacks in Sharpeville refused to carry their passes; the government declared a state of emergency. The emergency lasted for 156 days, leaving 69 people dead and 187 people wounded. Wielding the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the white regime had no intention of changing the unjust laws of apartheid. The penalties imposed on political protest, even non-violent protest, were severe. During the states of emergency that continued intermittently until 1989, anyone could be detained without a hearing by a low-level police official for up to six months. Thousands of individuals died in custody, frequently after gruesome acts of torture. Those who were tried were sentenced to death, banished, or imprisoned for life, like Nelson Mandela.