City Of Albany Performance Evaluation Form: Fill & Download for Free

Although this link has been posted in a comment, I want to specifically post a link to the actual judgment.It's a model of clear thinking, and should be read beginning to end for a full overview: Google ScholarEdit to add: I've added the full text below for those who cannot click the link:________________________________APRIL MILLER, et al. Plaintiffs.v.KIM DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 15-44-DLB.United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland.August 12, 2015.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERDAVID L. BUNNING, District Judge.I. IntroductionThis matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk's Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anycouples. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Davis, an Apostolic Christian with a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, specifically sought to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples without discriminating against them. Plaintiffs now allege that this "no marriage licenses" policy substantially interferes with their right to marry because it effectively forecloses them from obtaining a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs' right to marry, which is justified by the need to protect her own free exercise rights.The Court held preliminary injunction hearings on July 13, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier were represented by William Sharp of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and Daniel Canon. Jonathan Christman and Roger Gannam, both of the Liberty Counsel, and A.C. Donahue appeared on behalf of Defendant Kim Davis. Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins and Jeff Mando represented Defendant Rowan County. Official Court Reporters Peggy Weber and Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Court submitted the Motion pending receipt of the parties' response and reply briefs. The Court having received those filings (Docs. # 28, 29 and 36), this matter is now ripe for review.At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party's rights. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative.II. Factual and Procedural BackgroundPlaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts have been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years. (Doc. # 21 at 25). After hearing about the Obergefelldecision, they went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license from one of the deputy clerks. (Id. at 25-26). The clerk immediately excused herself and went to speak with Kim Davis. (Id. at 28). When she returned, she informed the couple that the Rowan County Clerk's Office was not issuing any marriage licenses. (Id.). Plaintiffs Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez, a committed opposite-sex couple, had a similar experience when they tried to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Id. at 36).Both couples went straight to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins and asked him to issue their marriage licenses. (Id. at 30-32, 36). Blevins explained that, under Kentucky law, a county judge executive can only issue licenses when the elected county clerk is absent. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.240. Because Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, Blevins concluded that she was not "absent" within the meaning of the statute. (Id.). Therefore, he did not believe that he had the authority to issue their marriage licenses. (Id.).Plaintiffs Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs also planned to solemnize their long-term relationship post-Obergefell. (Id. at 42-44). Before going to the Rowan County Clerk's Office, they phoned ahead and asked for information about the marriage licensing process. (Id.). They wanted to make sure that they brought all necessary documentation with them. (Id.). One of the deputy clerks told the couple "not to bother coming down" because they would not be issued a license. (Id.).Seven neighboring counties (Bath, Fleming, Lewis, Carter, Elliott, Morgan and Menifee) are currently issuing marriage licenses. (Doc. # 26 at 53). All are less than an hour away from the Rowan County seat of Morehead. (Id.). While Plaintiffs have the means to travel to any one of these counties, they have admittedly chosen not to do so. (Doc. # 21 at 38, 48). They strongly prefer to have their licenses issued in Rowan County because they have significant ties to that community. (Id. at 28-29, 47). They live, work, socialize, vote, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. (Id.). Quite simply, Rowan County is their home.According to Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk's Office serves as a "pass through collection agency" for the State of Kentucky. (Doc. # 26 at 24-25). She and her six deputy clerks regularly handle delinquent taxes, oversee elections, manage voter registration and issue hunting and fishing licenses. (Id.). A portion of the fees collected in exchange for these services is used to fund the Office's activities throughout the year. (Id.). The remainder is remitted to the State. (Id.).Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage licenses.[1] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple must first go to the county clerk's office and provide their biographical information to one of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.[2] Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk's office for recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080.The Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives ("KDLA") prescribes the above-mentioned form, which must be used by all county clerks in issuing marriage licenses.[3] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.100, 402.110. It is composed of three sections, which correspond to the steps detailed above: (1) a marriage license, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk; (2) a marriage certificate, to be completed by a qualified officiant; and (3) a recording statement, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk. The marriage license section has the following components:(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100(1) (emphasis added).Davis does not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they will bear the above-mentioned authorization statement. She sees it as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which runs contrary to her Apostolic Christian beliefs. (Id. at 42). Four of Davis' deputy clerks share her religious objection to same-sex marriage, and another is undecided on the subject. (Id. at 49). The final deputy clerk is willing to issue the licenses, but Davis will not allow it because her name and title still appear twice on licenses that she does not personally sign. (Doc. # 29-3 at 7).In the wake of Obergefell, Governor Beshear issued the following directive to all county clerks:Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.(Doc. # 29-3 at 11). He has since addressed some of the religious concerns expressed by some county clerks:You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you're also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.(Doc. # 29-11). Davis is well aware of these directives. Nevertheless, she plans to implement her "no marriage licenses" policy for the remaining three and a half years of her term as Rowan County Clerk. (Doc. # 26 at 67).III. Standard of ReviewA district court must consider four factors when entertaining a motion for preliminary injunction:(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits;(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm;(3) whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of such an injunction.See Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 1998). These "are factors to be balanced, and not prerequisites that must be met." In re Eagle Picher Indus., Inc.,963 F.3d 855, 859 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating further that these factors "simply guide the discretion of the court").IV. AnalysisA. Defendant Kim Davis in her official capacityPlaintiffs are pursuing this civil rights action against Defendants Rowan County and Kim Davis, in her individual and official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .This statute "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotations omitted).At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights by obtaining injunctive relief against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk. Because official capacity suits "generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," one might assume that Plaintiffs are effectively pursuing injunctive relief against Rowan County. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978). However, Rowan County can only be held liable under § 1983 if its policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation. Id. at 694.A single decision made by an official with final policymaking authority in the relevant area may qualify as a policy attributable to the entity. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986). Whether an official acted as a final policymaker is a question of state or local law. Id. However, courts must avoid categorizing an official as a state or municipal actor "in some categorical, `all or nothing' manner." McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). They key inquiry is whether an official is a "final policymaker [] for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue." Id. Accordingly, the Court will focus on whether Davis likely acted as a final policymaker for Rowan County regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.While Davis is the elected Rowan County Clerk, subject to very little oversight by the Rowan County Fiscal Court, there are no other facts in the record to suggest that she set marriage policy for Rowan County. After all, the State of Kentucky has "absolute jurisdiction over the regulation of the institution of marriage." Pinkhasov v. Petocz, 331 S.W.3d 285, 291 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). The State not only enacts marriage laws, it prescribes procedures for county clerks to follow when carrying out those laws, right down to the form they must use in issuing marriage licenses. Id.; see also Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.080, 402.100. Thus, Davis likely acts for the State of Kentucky, and not as a final policymaker for Rowan County, when issuing marriage licenses.This preliminary finding does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from obtaining injunctive relief against Davis. While the Eleventh Amendment typically bars Plaintiffs from bringing suit against a state or its officials, "official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state." Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). This narrow exception, known as the Ex Parte Young doctrine, permits a federal court to "enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law." Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). "It rests on the premise-less delicately called a `fiction,'-that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign immunity purposes." Va. Office for Prot. and Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1638 (2011). Because Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Davis from violating their federal constitutional rights, this Court has the power to grant relief under Ex Parte Young.[4]B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction1. Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the meritsa. The fundamental right to marryUnder the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This "due process" clause has both a procedural component and a substantive component. See EJS Prop., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012). Procedural due process simply requires that the government provide a fair procedure when depriving an individual of life, liberty or property. Id. By contrast, substantive due process "protects a narrow class of interests, including those enumerated in the Constitution, those so rooted in the traditions of the people as to be ranked fundamental, and the interest in freedom from government actions that `shock the conscience.'" Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 588 (6th Cir. 2014).Although the Constitution makes no mention of the right to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified it as a fundamental interest subject to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes as violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). After all, "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Id. This right applies with equal force to different-sex and same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2604-05 (2015) ("[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.").If a state law or policy "significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right[, it] cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978). A state substantially interferes with the right to marry when some members of the affected class "are absolutely prevented from getting married" and "[m]any others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements[,] will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry." Id. at 387 (invalidating a Wisconsin statute that required individuals with child support obligations to obtain a court order before marrying).However, "not every state action, `which relates in any way to the incidents of or the prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.'" Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1134 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386). States may impose "reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship." Id. at 1135. If the statute does not create a "direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married" or significantly discourage marriage, then it will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Id. (quoting Zablocki 434 U.S. at 387-88 n. 12); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 54 n.11 (1977) (upholding a Social Security provision that terminated secondary benefits received by the disabled dependent child of a covered wage earner if that child married an individual who was not entitled to benefits).The state action at issue in this case is Defendant Davis' refusal to issue anymarriage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly interferes with their right to marry because they are unable to obtain a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy does not significantly discourage Plaintiffs from marrying because they have several other options for obtaining licenses: (1) they may go to one of the seven neighboring counties that areissuing marriage licenses; (2) they may obtain licenses from Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins; or (3) they may avail themselves of other alternatives being considered post-Obergefell.Davis is correct in stating that Plaintiffs can obtain marriage licenses from one of the surrounding counties; thus, they are not totally precluded from marrying in Kentucky. However, this argument ignores the fact that Plaintiffs have strong ties to Rowan County. They are long-time residents who live, work, pay taxes, vote and conduct other business in Morehead. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Plaintiffs would prefer to obtain their marriage licenses in their home county. And for other Rowan County residents, it may be more than a preference. The surrounding counties are only thirty minutes to an hour away, but there are individuals in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel.[5]This argument also presupposes that Rowan County will be the only Kentucky county not issuing marriage licenses. While Davis may be the only clerk currently turning away eligible couples, 57 of the state's 120 elected county clerks have asked Governor Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to address religious concerns related to same-sex marriage licenses.[6] (Doc. # 29-9). If this Court were to hold that Davis' policy did not significantly interfere with the right to marry, what would stop the other 56 clerks from following Davis' approach? What might be viewed as an inconvenience for residents of one or two counties quickly becomes a substantial interference when applicable to approximately half of the state.As for her assertion that Judge Blevins may issue marriage licenses, Davis is only partially correct. KRS § 402.240 provides that, "[i]n the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk." The statute does not explicitly define "absence," suggesting that a traditional interpretation of the term is appropriate. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015, Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster, (describing "absence" as "a period of time when someone is not present at a place, job, etc."). However, Davis asks the Court to deem her "absent," for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unableto do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties.[7] Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.Davis finally suggests that Plaintiffs will have other avenues for obtaining marriage licenses in the future. For example, county clerks have urged Governor Beshear to create an online marriage licensing system, which would be managed by the State of Kentucky. While these options may be available someday, they are not feasible alternatives at present. Thus, they have no impact on the Court's "substantial interference" analysis.Having considered Davis' arguments in depth, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses-they must go to another county. Davis makes much of the fact that Plaintiffs are able to travel, but she fails to address the one question that lingers in the Court's mind. Even if Plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? The state has long entrusted county clerks with the task of issuing marriage licenses. It does not seem unreasonable for Plaintiffs, as Rowan County voters, to expect their elected official to perform her statutorily assigned duties. And yet, that is precisely what Davis is refusing to do. Much like the statutes at issue in Loving and Zablocki, Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly discourages many Rowan County residents from exercising their right to marry and effectively disqualifies others from doing so. The Court must subject this policy apply heightened scrutiny.b. The absence of a compelling state interestWhen pressed to articulate a compelling state interest served by her "no marriage licenses" policy, Davis responded that it serves the State's interest in protecting her religious freedom. The State certainly has an obligation to "observe the basic free exercise rights of its employees," but this is not the extent of its concerns. Marchi v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Serv. of Albany, 173 F.3d 469, 476 (2d. Cir. 1999). In fact, the State has some priorities that run contrary to Davis' proffered state interest. Chief among these is its interest in preventing Establishment Clause violations. See U.S. Const. amend. I (declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). Davis has arguably committed such a violation by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.[8] In such situations, "the scope of the employees' rights must [] yield to the legitimate interest of governmental employer in avoiding litigation." Marchi, 173 F.3d at 476.The State also has a countervailing interest in upholding the rule of law. See generally Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 171 (1972) ("The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, . . . is the great mucilage that holds society together."). Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.For these reasons, the Court concludes that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' rights without serving a compelling state interest. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, this first factor weighs in favor of granting their request for relief.2. Potential for irreparable harm to PlaintiffsWhen a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of a constitutional deprivation claim, it follows that he or she will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Courts have also held that a plaintiff can demonstrate that a denial of an injunction will cause irreparable harm if the claim is based upon a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights."); see also Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir .1998) (finding that the loss of First Amendment rights for a minimal period of time results in irreparable harm); Ohio St. Conference of NAACP v. Husted, 43 F. Supp. 3d 808, 851 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (recognizing that a restriction on the fundamental right to vote constitutes irreparable injury).The Court is not aware of any Sixth Circuit case law explicitly stating that a denial of the fundamental right to marry constitutes irreparable harm. However, the case law cited above suggests that the denial of constitutional rights, enumerated or unenumerated, results in irreparable harm. It follows that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from Davis' "no marriage licenses" rule, absent injunctive relief. Therefore, this second factor also weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.3. Potential for substantial harm to Kim Davisa. The right to free exercise of religionThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). This Free Exercise Clause "embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act." Id. at 304. "The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." Id. Therefore, "[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Id.Traditionally, a free exercise challenge to a particular law triggered strict scrutiny.See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 (1963). A statute would only be upheld if it served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest. Id. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated slightly from this approach. See Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). While laws targeting religious conduct remain subject to strict scrutiny, "[a] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532; see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 880 (stating further that an individual's religious beliefs do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate")."Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532. A law is not neutral if its object "is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation." Id. at 533 (finding that a local ordinance forbidding animal sacrifice was not neutral because it focused on "rituals" and had built-in exemptions for most other animal killings). The Court has not yet "defined with precision the standard used to evaluate whether a prohibition is of general application." Id. at 543. However, it has observed that "[t]he Free Exercise Clause `protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment,' and inequality results when a legislature decides that the governmental interests it seeks to advance are worthy of being pursued only against conduct with a religious motivation." Id. at 542.While Smith and Babalu do not explicitly mention the term "rational basis," lower courts have interpreted them as imposing a similar standard of review on neutral laws of general applicability. See, e.g., Seger v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 453 F. App's 630, 634 (2011). Under rational basis review, laws will be upheld if they are "rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest." Id. at 635 (noting that "[a] law or regulation subject to rational basis review is accorded a strong presumption of validity"); see also F.C.C. v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)(stating generally that laws subject to rational basis review must be upheld "if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification").In response to Smith and Babalu, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. It prohibits the government from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," except when the government demonstrates that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Id. Although Congress intended RFRA to apply to the states as well as the federal government, the Court held that this was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' powers under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 512 (1997). Free exercise challenges to federal laws remain subject to RFRA, while similar challenges to state policies are governed by Smith. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).For purposes of this inquiry, the state action at issue is Governor Beshear's post-Obergefell directive, which explicitly instructs county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argues that the Beshear directive not only substantially burdens her free exercise rights by requiring her to disregard sincerely-held religious beliefs, it does not serve a compelling state interest. She further insists that Governor Beshear could easily grant her a religious exemption without adversely affecting Kentucky's marriage licensing scheme, as there are readily available alternatives for obtaining licenses in and around Rowan County.[9]This argument proceeds on the assumption that Governor Beshear's policy is not neutral or generally applicable, and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.[10]However, the text itself supports a contrary inference. Governor Beshear first describes the legal impact of the Court's decision in Obergefell, then provides guidance for all county clerks in implementing this new law. His goal is simply to ensure that the activities of the Commonwealth are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.While facial neutrality is not dispositive, Davis has done little to convince the Court that Governor Beshear's directive aims to suppress religious practice. She has only one piece of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that Governor Beshear "is picking and choosing the conscience-based exemptions to marriage that he deems acceptable." (Doc. # 29 at 24). In 2014, Attorney General Jack Conway declined to appeal a federal district court decision striking down Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-12). He openly stated that he could not, in good conscience, defend discrimination and waste public resources on a weak case.[11] (Id.). Instead of directing Attorney General Conway to pursue the appeal, regardless of his religious beliefs, Governor Beshear hired private attorneys for that purpose. (Doc. # 29-13). He has so far refused to extend such an "exemption" to county clerks with religious objections to same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-11).However, Davis fails to establish that her current situation is comparable to Attorney General Conway's position in 2014. Both are elected officials who have voiced strong opinions about same-sex marriage, but the comparison ends there. Governor Beshear did not actually "exempt" Attorney General Conway from pursuing the same-sex marriage appeal. Attorney General Conway's decision stands as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on an unsettled legal question. By contrast, Davis is refusing to recognize the legal force of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in performing her duties as Rowan County Clerk. Because the two are not similarly situated, the Court simply cannot conclude that Governor Beshear treated them differently based upon their religious convictions. There being no other evidence in the record to suggest that the Beshear directive is anything but neutral and generally applicable, it will likely be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.The Beshear directive certainly serves the State's interest in upholding the rule of law. However, it also rationally relates to several narrower interests identified inObergefell. By issuing licenses to same-sex couples, the State allows them to enjoy "the right to personal choice regarding marriage [that] is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy" and enter into "a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 135 S. Ct. at 2599-2600. It also allows same-sex couples to take advantage of the many societal benefits and fosters stability for their children. Id. at 2600-01. Therefore, the Court concludes that it likely does not infringe upon Davis' free exercise rights.b. The right to free speechThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Under the Free Speech Clause, an individual has the "right to utter or print, [as well as] the right to distribute, the right to receive and the right to read." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)(citing Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943)). An individual also has the "right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977) (invalidating a state law that required New Hampshire drivers to display the state motto on their license plates). After all, "[a] system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Id.While the Free Speech Clause protects citizens' speech rights from government intrusion, it does not stretch so far as to bar the government "from determining the content of what it says." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,135 S. Ct. 2239, 2245-46 (2015). "[A]s a general matter, when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and carries out its duties on their behalf." Id.That being said, the government's ability to express itself is not unlimited. Id. "[T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government's speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government's speech." Id. (stating further that "[c]onstitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may [also] limit government speech").This claim also implicates the Beshear directive. Davis contends that this directive violates her free speech rights by compelling her to express a message she finds objectionable. Specifically, Davis must issue marriage licenses bearing her "imprimatur and authority" as Rowan County Clerk to same-sex couples . Doc. # 29 at 27). Davis views such an act as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which conflicts with her sincerely-held religious beliefs.As a preliminary matter, the Court questions whether the act of issuing a marriage license constitutes speech. Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to "authorize" same-sex marriage. A close inspection of the KDLA marriage licensing form refutes this assertion. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry.The Court must also acknowledge the possibility that any such speech is attributable to the government, rather than Davis. See Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2248 (finding that specialty license plates are government speech because the government has exercised final approval over the designs, and thus, chosen "how to present itself and its constituency"). The State prescribes the form that Davis must use in issuing marriage licenses. She plays no role in composing the form, and she has no discretion to alter it. Moreover, county clerks' offices issue marriage licenses on behalf of the State, not on behalf of a particular elected clerk.Assuming arguendo that the act of issuing a marriage license is speech by Davis, the Court must further consider whether the State is infringing upon her free speech rights by compelling her to convey a message she finds disagreeable. However, the seminal "compelled speech" cases provide little guidance because they focus on private individuals who are forced to communicate a particular message on behalf of the government. See, e.g., W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(striking down a state law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag). Davis is a public employee, and therefore, her speech rights are different than those of a private citizen.[12] Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006)."[T]he government may not constitutionally compel persons to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition of public employment," but it does have "a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 156 (1983); Waters v. Churchill,511 U.S. 661, 671 (1994). Accordingly, "[w]hen a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, (1973) (stating that "neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution" invalidates the Hatch Act's bar on partisan political conduct by federal employees)."[T]wo inquiries [] guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech." Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 563 (1968)). First, a court must determine "whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." Id. (explaining further that this question often depends upon whether the employee's speech was made pursuant to his or her official duties). Id. at 421. If the answer is no, then the employee's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 421 ("Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen."). If the answer is yes, a court must then consider "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Id.(stating further that the government's restrictions "must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations").The Court must adapt this test slightly because Davis' claim focuses on her right notto speak. In this context, the first inquiry is whether Davis refused to speak (i.e. refused to issue marriage licenses) as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The logical answer to this question is no, as the average citizen has no authority to issue marriage licenses. Davis is only able to issue these licenses, or refuse to issue them, because she is the Rowan County Clerk. Because her speech (in the form of her refusal to issue marriage licenses) is a product of her official duties, it likely is not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to succeed on her compelled speech claim.c. The prohibition on religious testsArticle VI, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Under this Clause, "[t]he fact [] that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution." Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (striking down a state requirement that an individual declare his belief in God in order to become a notary public); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)(invalidating a state law that prevented religious officials from serving in the state legislature).Davis contends that "[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation, amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office." (Doc. # 29 at 20). The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met thelegal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief as a condition of public employment, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties. Thus, it seems unlikely that Davis will be able to establish a violation of the Religious Test Clause.Although Davis focuses on the Religious Test Clause, the Court must draw her attention to the first half of Article VI, Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office on January 1, 2015. However, her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents. When such "sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602. Such policies simply cannot endure.d. The Kentucky Religious Freedom ActKentucky Constitution § 1 broadly declares that "[a]ll men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned .. . [t]he right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences." Kentucky Constitution § 5 gives content to this guarantee:No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Kentucky courts have held that Kentucky Constitution § 5 does not grant more protection to religious practice than the First Amendment. Gingerich v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Ky. 2012). Such a finding would normally permit the Court to collapse its analysis of state and federal constitutional provisions. However, the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, patterned after the federal RFRA, subjects state free exercise challenges to heightened scrutiny:Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.350.Davis again argues that the Beshear directive substantially burdens her religious freedom without serving a compelling state interest. The record in this case suggests that the burden is more slight. As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.4. Public interest"[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994). Because Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry, and because Davis herself is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free speech or free exercise rights if an injunction is issued, this fourth and final factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.V. ConclusionDistrict courts are directed to balance four factors when analyzing a motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, all four factors weigh in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein,IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. G:\DATA\Opinions\Ashland\15-44 MOO Granting Mtn for Preliminary Injunction.wpd[1] This task requires relatively few resources, at least in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 24-30). Davis testified that her Office issued 212 marriage licenses in 2014. Marriage licenses cost $35.50. (Id.). Of that sum, the Office retains $21.17, and remits the remaining $14.33 to the State. (Id.). Thus, Rowan County Clerk's Office made about $4,500, or roughly 0.1% of its annual budget, from issuing marriage licenses in 2014. (Id.). Davis also estimated that the task of issuing marriage licenses occupies one hour of one deputy clerk's time per week. (Id.).[2] A couple is "legally qualified" to marry if both individuals are over the age of eighteen, mentally competent, unrelated to each other and currently unmarried. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.010, 402.020(a)-(d), (f).[3] Only one aspect of the form has changed since Obergefell-whereas the marriage applicants were once referred to as "Bride" and "Groom," they are now identified as "First Party" and "Second Party."[4] In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that the Court need not decide whether Davis is a state actor or municipal policymaker in order to grant injunctive relief. The Court's preliminary finding on this matter does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from arguing the "municipal policymaker" theory in the future. The Court simply seeks to ensure that it is indeed able to grant injunctive relief against Kim Davis in her official capacity.[5] The median household income in Rowan County is $35,236 and 28.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. See United States Census Bureau, Rowan County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. For the entire state of Kentucky, the median household income is $43,036 and 18.8% of the population lives below the poverty line. Id.[6] See also Jack Brammer, 57 County Clerks Ask Governor for Special Session on Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, The Lexington Herald Leader (July 8, 2015), 57 Kentucky county clerks ask governor for special session on same-sex marriage licenses; Terry DeMio, Boone, Ky. Clerks Want Same-Sex License Law, Cincinnati Enquirer (July 9, 2015), Page on cincinnati.com ession-address-sex-marriage-issues-clerks/29919103/.[7] Even if the Court were inclined to accept Davis' interpretation of the term "absence," it would have doubts about the practicality of this approach. Judge Blevins is the highest elected official in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 7). He is frequently out of the office on official business. (Id.). While Judge Blevins would not have to process a large number of marriage requests, he might not be regularly available for couples seeking licenses. Thus, the Court would be concerned about Judge Blevins' ability to perform this function as efficiently as Davis and her six deputy clerks.[8] Although it is not the focus of this opinion, Plaintiffs have already asserted such an Establishment Clause claim against Kim Davis in her official capacity. (Doc. # 1 at 13).[9] Davis further develops this argument in her own Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against Governor Beshear and KDLA Librarian Wayne Onkst. That Motion is not yet ripe for review.[10] In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that free exercise claims involving neutral and generally applicable laws may still be subject to heightened scrutiny if asserted alongside another constitutional right. If the Court concludes that the Beshear directive is neutral and generally applicable, Davis argues that strict scrutiny must still apply because her free exercise claim is coupled with a free speech claim. (Doc. # 29 at 23). However, this proposal fails because Davis' free speech rights are qualified by virtue of her public employment. See Draper v. Logan Cnty. Pub. Library, 403 F. Supp. 2d 608, 621-22 (W.D. Ky. 2005) (applying the Pickering balancing test to a combined free exercise and free speech claim asserted by a public employee). The Court will discuss this concept further in the next section.[11] Davis refers to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky's decisions in Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542, 545 (W.D. Ky. 2014), and Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 539 (W.D. Ky. 2014). Judge John Heyburn held that Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages "violate[] the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review." Bourke, 996 F. Supp. 2d at 544. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated these cases with several similar matters originating from Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and reversed them. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari on these cases, now collectively known asObergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).[12] Most free speech cases involving public employees center on compelled silence rather than compelled speech. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48 (focusing on a district attorney's claim that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her free speech rights). "[I]n the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees `freedom of speech,' a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-97.

William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910) was an American philosopher and psychologist who was also trained as a physician. The first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States, James was one of the leading thinkers of the late nineteenth century and is believed by many to be one of the most influential philosophers the United States has ever produced, while others have labelled him the "Father of American psychology". Along with Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey, he is considered to be one of the major figures associated with the philosophical school known as pragmatism, and is also cited as one of the founders of functional psychology. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked James as the 14th most cited psychologist of the 20th century. He also developed the philosophical perspective known as radical empiricism. James' work has influenced intellectuals such as Émile Durkheim, W. E. B. Du Bois, Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty, and has even influenced Presidents, such as Jimmy Carter. Born into a wealthy family, James was the son of the Swedenborgian theologian Henry James Sr and the brother of both the prominent novelist Henry James, and the diarist Alice James. James wrote widely on many topics, including epistemology, education, metaphysics, psychology, religion, and mysticism. Among his most influential books are The Principles of Psychology, which was a groundbreaking text in the field of psychology, Essays in Radical Empiricism, an important text in philosophy, and The Varieties of Religious Experience, which investigated different forms of religious experience, which also included the then theories on Mind cure.Early lifeWilliam James was born at the Astor House in New York City. He was the son of Henry James Sr., a noted and independently wealthy Swedenborgian theologian well acquainted with the literary and intellectual elites of his day. The intellectual brilliance of the James family milieu and the remarkable epistolary talents of several of its members have made them a subject of continuing interest to historians, biographers, and critics.William James received an eclectic trans-Atlantic education, developing fluency in both German and French. Education in the James household encouraged cosmopolitanism. The family made two trips to Europe while William James was still a child, setting a pattern that resulted in thirteen more European journeys during his life. His early artistic bent led to an apprenticeship in the studio of William Morris Hunt in Newport, Rhode Island, but he switched in 1861 to scientific studies at the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard University.In his early adulthood, James suffered from a variety of physical ailments, including those of the eyes, back, stomach, and skin. He was also tone deaf.He was subject to a variety of psychological symptoms which were diagnosed at the time as neurasthenia, and which included periods of depression during which he contemplated suicide for months on end. Two younger brothers, Garth Wilkinson (Wilky) and Robertson (Bob), fought in the Civil War. The other three siblings (William, Henry, and Alice James) all suffered from periods of invalidism.William James in Brazil, 1865He took up medical studies at Harvard Medical School in 1864 (according to his brother Henry James). He took a break in the spring of 1865 to join naturalist Louis Agassiz on a scientific expedition up the Amazon River, but aborted his trip after eight months, as he suffered bouts of severe seasickness and mild smallpox. His studies were interrupted once again due to illness in April 1867. He traveled to Germany in search of a cure and remained there until November 1868; at that time he was 26 years old. During this period, he began to publish; reviews of his works appeared in literary periodicals such as the North American Review.James finally earned his M.D. degree in June 1869 but he never practiced medicine. What he called his "soul-sickness" would only be resolved in 1872, after an extended period of philosophical searching. He married Alice Gibbens in 1878. In 1882 he joined the Theosophical Society.James's time in Germany proved intellectually fertile, helping him find that his true interests lay not in medicine but in philosophy and psychology. Later, in 1902 he would write: "I originally studied medicine in order to be a physiologist, but I drifted into psychology and philosophy from a sort of fatality. I never had any philosophic instruction, the first lecture on psychology I ever heard being the first I ever gave".In 1875-1876, James, Henry Pickering Bowditch (1840-1911), Charles Pickering Putnam (1844-1914), and James Jackson Putnam (1846-1918) founded the Putnam Camp at St. Huberts, Essex County, New York.CareerJames interacted with a wide array of writers and scholars throughout his life, including his godfather Ralph Waldo Emerson, his godson William James Sidis, as well as Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, Josiah Royce, Ernst Mach, John Dewey, Macedonio Fernández, Walter Lippmann, Mark Twain, Horatio Alger, Jr., G. Stanley Hall, Henri Bergson and Sigmund Freud.James spent almost all of his academic career at Harvard. He was appointed instructor in physiology for the spring 1873 term, instructor in anatomy and physiology in 1873, assistant professor of psychology in 1876, assistant professor of philosophy in 1881, full professor in 1885, endowed chair in psychology in 1889, return to philosophy in 1897, and emeritus professor of philosophy in 1907.James studied medicine, physiology, and biology, and began to teach in those subjects, but was drawn to the scientific study of the human mind at a time when psychology was constituting itself as a science. James's acquaintance with the work of figures like Hermann Helmholtz in Germany and Pierre Janet in France facilitated his introduction of courses in scientific psychology at Harvard University. He taught his first experimental psychology course at Harvard in the 1875–1876 academic year.During his Harvard years, James joined in philosophical discussions and debates with Charles Peirce, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Chauncey Wright that evolved into a lively group informally known as The Metaphysical Club in 1872. Louis Menand (2001) suggested that this Club provided a foundation for American intellectual thought for decades to come. James joined the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898, in opposition to the U.S. annexation of the Philippines.William James and Josiah Royce, near James's country home in Chocorua, New Hampshire in September 1903. James's daughter Peggy took the picture. On hearing the camera click, James cried out: "Royce, you're being photographed! Look out! I say Damn the Absolute!"Among James's students at Harvard University were luminaries such as Boris Sidis, Theodore Roosevelt, George Santayana, W. E. B. Du Bois, G. Stanley Hall, Ralph Barton Perry, Gertrude Stein, Horace Kallen, Morris Raphael Cohen, Walter Lippmann, Alain Locke, C. I. Lewis, and Mary Whiton Calkins. Antiquarian bookseller Gabriel Wells tutored under him at Harvard in the late 1890s.Following his January, 1907 retirement from Harvard, James continued to write and lecture, publishing Pragmatism, A Pluralistic Universe, and The Meaning of Truth. James was increasingly afflicted with cardiac pain during his last years. It worsened in 1909 while he worked on a philosophy text (unfinished but posthumously published as Some Problems in Philosophy). He sailed to Europe in the spring of 1910 to take experimental treatments which proved unsuccessful, and returned home on August 18. His heart failed on August 26, 1910 at his home in Chocorua, New Hampshire. He was buried in the family plot in Cambridge Cemetery, Cambridge, Massachusetts.He was one of the strongest proponents of the school of functionalism in psychology and of pragmatism in philosophy. He was a founder of the American Society for Psychical Research, as well as a champion of alternative approaches to healing. He challenged his professional colleagues not to let a narrow mindset prevent an honest appraisal of those beliefs.In an empirical study by Haggbloom et al. using six criteria such as citations and recognition, James was found to be the 14th most eminent psychologist of the 20th Century.FamilyWilliam James was the son of Henry James (Senior) of Albany, and Mary Robertson Walsh. He had four siblings: Henry (the novelist), Garth Wilkinson, Robertson, and Alice. William became engaged to Alice Howe Gibbens on May 10, 1878; they were married on July 10. They had 5 children: Henry (born May 18, 1878), William (born June 17, 1882), Herman (born 1884, died in infancy), Margaret (born March, 1887) and Alexander (born December 22, 1890).WritingsWilliam James wrote voluminously throughout his life. A non-exhaustive bibliography of his writings, compiled by John McDermott, is 47 pages long.(See below for a list of his major writings and additional collections)He gained widespread recognition with his monumental The Principles of Psychology (1890), totaling twelve hundred pages in two volumes, which took twelve years to complete. Psychology: The Briefer Course, was an 1892 abridgement designed as a less rigorous introduction to the field. These works criticized both the English associationist school and the Hegelianism of his day as competing dogmatisms of little explanatory value, and sought to re-conceive the human mind as inherently purposive and selective.President Jimmy Carter's Moral Equivalent of War Speech, on April 17, 1977, equating the United States' 1970's energy crisis, oil crisis and the changes and sacrifices Carter's proposed plans would require with the "moral equivalent of war," may have borrowed its title, much of its theme and the memorable phrase from James' classic essay "The Moral Equivalent of War" derived from his last speech, delivered at Stanford University in 1906, and published in 1910, in which "James considered one of the classic problems of politics: how to sustain political unity and civic virtue in the absence of war or a credible threat...." and "...sounds a rallying cry for service in the interests of the individual and the nation."EpistemologyPortrait of William James by John La Farge, circa 1859James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer. His pragmatic theory of truth was a synthesis of correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth, with an added dimension. Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as the extent to which they "hang together," or cohere, as pieces of a puzzle might fit together; these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice."The most ancient parts of truth . . . also once were plastic. They also were called true for human reasons. They also mediated between still earlier truths and what in those days were novel observations. Purely objective truth, truth in whose establishment the function of giving human satisfaction in marrying previous parts of experience with newer parts played no role whatsoever, is nowhere to be found. The reasons why we call things true is the reason why they are true, for 'to be true' means only to perform this marriage-function," he wrote."Anything short of God is not rational, anything more than God is not possible" he wrote.He writes, "First, it is essential that God be conceived as the deepest power in the universe, and second, he must be conceived under the form of a mental personality."He also writes, "A God who can relish such superfluities of horror is no God for human beings to appeal to. ...In other words the "Absolute" with his one purpose, is not the man-like God of common people."James held a world view in line with pragmatism, declaring that the value of any truth was utterly dependent upon its use to the person who held it. Additional tenets of James's pragmatism include the view that the world is a mosaic of diverse experiences that can only be properly interpreted and understood through an application of "radical empiricism." Radical empiricism, not related to the everyday scientific empiricism, asserts that the world and experience can never be halted for an entirely objective analysis, if nothing else the mind of the observer and simple act of observation will affect the outcome of any empirical approach to truth as the mind and its experiences, and nature are inseparable. James's emphasis on diversity as the default human condition—over and against duality, especially Hegelian dialectical duality—has maintained a strong influence in American culture. James's description of the mind-world connection, which he described in terms of a "stream of consciousness", had a direct and significant impact on avant-garde and modernist literature and art, notably in the case of James Joyce.In What Pragmatism Means, James writes that the central point of his own doctrine of truth is, in brief, that "Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth (the word is indifferent) and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them." Richard Rorty made the contested claim that James did not mean to give a theory of truth with this statement and that we should not regard it as such. However, other pragmatism scholars such as Susan Haack and Howard Mounce do not share Rorty's instrumentalist interpretation of James.In The Meaning of Truth, James seems to speak of truth in relativistic terms: "The critic's [sc., the critic of pragmatism] trouble...seems to come from his taking the word 'true' irrelatively, whereas the pragmatist always means 'true for him who experiences the workings.' "However, James responded to critics accusing him of relativism, scepticism or agnosticism, and of believing only in relative truths. To the contrary, he supported an epistemological realism position.Pragmatism and "cash value"From the introduction to William James's Pragmatism by Bruce Kuklick, p.xiv.James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "cash value" was, and what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they were efficacious in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness.Will to believe doctrineMain article: The Will to BelieveIn William James's lecture of 1896 titled "The Will to Believe", James defends the right to violate the principle of evidentialism in order to justify hypothesis venturing. This idea foresaw 20th century objections to evidentialism and sought to ground justified belief in an unwavering principle that would prove more beneficial. Through his philosophy of pragmatism William James justifies religious beliefs by using the results of his hypothetical venturing as evidence to support the hypothesis' truth. Therefore, this doctrine allows one to assume belief in a god and prove its existence by what the belief brings to one's life.Free willIn The Will to Believe, James simply asserted that his will was free. As his first act of freedom, he said, he chose to believe his will was free. He was encouraged to do this by reading Charles Renouvier, whose work convinced James to convert from monism to pluralism. In his diary entry of April 30, 1870, James wrote,I think that yesterday was a crisis in my life. I finished the first part of Renouvier's second Essais and see no reason why his definition of free will—"the sustaining of a thought because I choose to when I might have other thoughts"—need be the definition of an illusion. At any rate, I will assume for the present—until next year—that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will.In 1884 James set the terms for all future discussions of determinism and compatibilism in the free will debates with his lecture to Harvard Divinity School students published as "The Dilemma of Determinism." In this talk he defined the common terms "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" (now more commonly called "compatibilism")."Old-fashioned determinism was what we may call hard determinism. It did not shrink from such words as fatality, bondage of the will, necessitation, and the like. Nowadays, we have a soft determinism which abhors harsh words, and, repudiating fatality, necessity, and even predetermination, says that its real name is freedom; for freedom is only necessity understood, and bondage to the highest is identical with true freedom."James called compatibilism a "quagmire of evasion,"just as the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and David Hume — that free will was simply freedom from external coercion — were called a "wretched subterfuge" by Immanuel Kant.James described chance as neither hard nor soft determinism, but "indeterminism". He said"The stronghold of the determinist argument is the antipathy to the idea of chance...This notion of alternative possibility, this admission that any one of several things may come to pass is, after all, only a roundabout name for chance."And the students to consider his choice for walking home from Lowell Lecture Hall after his talk."What is meant by saying that my choice of which way to walk home after the lecture is ambiguous and matter of chance?...It means that both Divinity Avenue and Oxford Street are called but only one, and that one either one, shall be chosen."With this simple example, James laid out a two-stage decision process with chance in a present time of random alternatives, leading to a choice of one possibility that transforms an ambiguous future into a simple unalterable past. James’ two-stage model separates chance (undetermined alternative possibilities) from choice (the free action of the individual, on which randomness has no effect). Subsequent thinkers using this model include Henri Poincaré, Arthur Holly Compton, and Karl Popper.Philosophy of religionExcerpt.James did important work in philosophy of religion. In his Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh he provided a wide-ranging account of The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) and interpreted them according to his pragmatic leanings. Some of the important claims he makes in this regard:Religious genius (experience) should be the primary topic in the study of religion, rather than religious institutions—since institutions are merely the social descendant of genius.The intense, even pathological varieties of experience (religious or otherwise) should be sought by psychologists, because they represent the closest thing to a microscope of the mind—that is, they show us in drastically enlarged form the normal processes of things.In order to usefully interpret the realm of common, shared experience and history, we must each make certain "over-beliefs" in things which, while they cannot be proven on the basis of experience, help us to live fuller and better lives.James investigated mystical experiences throughout his life, leading him to experiment with chloral hydrate (1870), amyl nitrite (1875), nitrous oxide (1882), and peyote (1896).[citation needed]James claimed that it was only when he was under the influence of nitrous oxide that he was able to understand Hegel.He concluded that while the revelations of the mystic hold true, they hold true only for the mystic; for others, they are certainly ideas to be considered, but can hold no claim to truth without personal experience of such. American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia classes him as one of several figures who "took a more pantheist or pandeist approach by rejecting views of God as separate from the world."InstinctsSee also: InstinctLike Sigmund Freud, James was influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.At the core of James' theory of psychology, as defined in The Principles of Psychology (1890), was a system of "instincts."James wrote that humans had many instincts, even more than other animals.These instincts, he said, could be overridden by experience and by each other, as many of the instincts were actually in conflict with each other.In the 1920s, however, psychology turned away from evolutionary theory and embraced radical behaviorism.Theory of emotionJames is one of the two namesakes of the James–Lange theory of emotion, which he formulated independently of Carl Lange in the 1880s. The theory holds that emotion is the mind's perception of physiological conditions that result from some stimulus. In James's oft-cited example, it is not that we see a bear, fear it, and run; we see a bear and run; consequently, we fear the bear. Our mind's perception of the higher adrenaline level, heartbeat, etc. is the emotion.This way of thinking about emotion has great consequences for the philosophy of aesthetics. Here is a passage from his great work, The Principles of Psychology, that spells out those consequences:[W]e must immediately insist that aesthetic emotion, pure and simple, the pleasure given us by certain lines and masses, and combinations of colors and sounds, is an absolutely sensational experience, an optical or auricular feeling that is primary, and not due to the repercussion backwards of other sensations elsewhere consecutively aroused. To this simple primary and immediate pleasure in certain pure sensations and harmonious combinations of them, there may, it is true, be added secondary pleasures; and in the practical enjoyment of works of art by the masses of mankind these secondary pleasures play a great part. The more classic one's taste is, however, the less relatively important are the secondary pleasures felt to be, in comparison with those of the primary sensation as it comes in. Classicism and romanticism have their battles over this point.The theory of emotion was also independently developed in Italy by the Anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi,.In order to give due credit, such a theory should be called the James-Lange-Sergi theory of emotion.William James' bearFrom Joseph LeDoux's description of William James's EmotionWhy do we run away if we notice that we are in danger? Because we are afraid of what will happen if we don't. This obvious answer to a seemingly trivial question has been the central concern of a century-old debate about the nature of our emotions.It all began in 1884 when William James published an article titled "What Is an Emotion?"The article appeared in a philosophy journal called Mind, as there were no psychology journals yet. It was important, not because it definitively answered the question it raised, but because of the way in which James phrased his response. He conceived of an emotion in terms of a sequence of events that starts with the occurrence of an arousing stimulus {the sympathetic nervous system or the parasympathetic nervous system}; and ends with a passionate feeling, a conscious emotional experience. A major goal of emotion research is still to elucidate this stimulus-to-feeling sequence—to figure out what processes come between the stimulus and the feeling.James set out to answer his question by asking another: do we run from a bear because we are afraid or are we afraid because we run? He proposed that the obvious answer, that we run because we are afraid, was wrong, and instead argued that we are afraid because we run:Our natural way of thinking about... emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My thesis on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion (called 'feeling' by Damasio).The essence of James's proposal was simple. It was premised on the fact that emotions are often accompanied by bodily responses (racing heart, tight stomach, sweaty palms, tense muscles, and so on; sympathetic nervous system) and that we can sense what is going on inside our body much the same as we can sense what is going on in the outside world. According to James, emotions feel different from other states of mind because they have these bodily responses that give rise to internal sensations, and different emotions feel different from one another because they are accompanied by different bodily responses and sensations. For example, when we see James's bear, we run away. During this act of escape, the body goes through a physiological upheaval: blood pressure rises, heart rate increases, pupils dilate, palms sweat, muscles contract in certain ways (evolutionary, innate defense mechanisms). Other kinds of emotional situations will result in different bodily upheavals. In each case, the physiological responses return to the brain in the form of bodily sensations, and the unique pattern of sensory feedback gives each emotion its unique quality. Fear feels different from anger or love because it has a different physiological signature {the parasympathetic nervous system for love}. The mental aspect of emotion, the feeling, is a slave to its physiology, not vice versa: we do not tremble because we are afraid or cry because we feel sad; we are afraid because we tremble and are sad because we cry.Philosophy of historyOne of the long-standing schisms in the philosophy of history concerns the role of individuals in social change.One faction sees individuals (as seen in Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and Thomas Carlyle's The French Revolution, A History) as the motive power of history, and the broader society as the page on which they write their acts. The other sees society as moving according to holistic principles or laws, and sees individuals as its more-or-less willing pawns. In 1880, James waded into this controversy with "Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment," an essay published in the Atlantic Monthly. He took Carlyle's side, but without Carlyle's one-sided emphasis on the political/military sphere, upon heroes as the founders or overthrowers of states and empires.A philosopher, according to James, must accept geniuses as a given entity the same way as a biologist accepts as an entity Darwin's ‘spontaneous variations.’ The role of an individual will depend on the degree of its conformity with the social environment, epoch, moment, etc.James introduces a notion of receptivities of the moment. The societies' mutations from generation to generation are determined (directly or indirectly) mainly by the acts or examples of individuals whose genius was so adapted to the receptivities of the moment or whose accidental position of authority was so critical that they became ferments, initiators of movements, setters of precedent or fashion, centers of corruption, or destroyers of other persons, whose gifts, had they had free play, would have led society in another direction.View on spiritualism and associationismWilliam James in a séance with a spiritualist mediumJames studied closely the schools of thought known as associationism and spiritualism. The view of an associationist is that each experience that one has leads to another, creating a chain of events. The association does not tie together two ideas, but rather physical objects.This association occurs on an atomic level. Small physical changes occur in the brain which eventually form complex ideas or associations. Thoughts are formed as these complex ideas work together and lead to new experiences. Isaac Newton and David Hartley both were precursors to this school of thought, proposing such ideas as "physical vibrations in the brain, spinal cord, and nerves are the basis of all sensations, all ideas, and all motions..."James disagreed with associationism in that he believed it to be too simple. He referred to associationism as "psychology without a soul"because there is nothing from within creating ideas; they just arise by associating objects with one another.On the other hand, a spiritualist believes that mental events are attributed to the soul. Whereas in associationism, ideas and behaviors are separate, in spiritualism, they are connected. Spiritualism encompasses the term innatism, which suggests that ideas cause behavior. Ideas of past behavior influence the way a person will act in the future; these ideas are all tied together by the soul. Therefore, an inner soul causes one to have a thought, which leads them to perform a behavior, and memory of past behaviors determine how one will act in the future.[41]James had a strong opinion about these schools of thought. He was, by nature, a pragmatist and thus took the view that one should use whatever parts of theories make the most sense and can be proven.Therefore, he recommended breaking apart spiritualism and associationism and using the parts of them that make the most sense. James believed that each person has a soul, which exists in a spiritual universe, and leads a person to perform the behaviors they do in the physical world.James was influenced by Emanuel Swedenborg, who first introduced him to this idea. James stated that, although it does appear that humans use associations to move from one event to the next, this cannot be done without this soul tying everything together. For, after an association has been made, it is the person who decides which part of it to focus on, and therefore determines in which direction following associations will lead.Associationism is too simple in that it does not account for decision-making of future behaviors, and memory of what worked well and what did not. Spiritualism, however, does not demonstrate actual physical representations for how associations occur. James combined the views of spiritualism and associationism to create his own way of thinking.James was a founding member and vice president of the American Society for Psychical Research.The lending of his name made Leonora Piper a famous medium. In 1885, the year after the death of his young son, James had his first sitting with Piper at the suggestion of his mother-in-law.James was soon convinced that Piper knew things she could only have discovered by supernatural means. He expressed his belief in Piper by saying, "If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, it is enough if you prove that one crow is white. My white crow is Mrs. Piper."However, James did not believe that Piper was in contact with spirits. After evaluating sixty-nine reports of Piper's mediumship he considered the hypothesis of telepathy as well as Piper obtaining information about her sitters by natural means such as her memory recalling information. According to James the "spirit-control" hypothesis of her mediumship was incoherent, irrelevant and in cases demonstrably false.James held séances with Piper and was impressed by some of the details he was given, however, according to Massimo Polidoro a maid in the household of James was friendly with a maid in Piper's house and this may have been a source of information that Piper used for private details about James.Bibliographers Frederick Burkhardt and Fredson Bowers who compiled the works of James wrote "It is thus possible that Mrs. Piper's knowledge of the James family was acquired from the gossip of servants and that the whole mystery rests on the failure of the people upstairs to realize that servants [downstairs] also have ears."Jamesian theory of selfWilliam James developed a theory of self that was divided into two main categories. The first was the "Me" self, and the second was the "I" self.The "me" self refers to the aspects of someone that come from that person's experiences. James broke the "me" self down into three sections, The Material Self, The Social Self, and The Spiritual Self.For James, the "I" self was classified as the thinking self. James linked this self to the soul of a person, or what we now think of as the mind.The Pure Ego was the name given to the "I" self.Material selfThe material self consists of things that belong to us or that we belong to. Things like family, clothes, our body, and money are some of what makes up our material selves.For James, the core of the material self was the body.Second to the body, a person's clothes were important to the Material Self, as well. James believed that people's clothes were a way that they expressed who they were, or a way to show status, thus contributing to the formation of self.Money and family are also part of the material self. James felt that if we lost a family member, a part of who we are was gone as well. Money was a part of the material self in the same way. If at one point we had a lot of money then lost it, who we are as a person would change, as well.Social selfOur social selves are who we are in a given social situation. For James, people change how they act depending on the social situation that they are in. James believed that people had as many social selves as they did social situations they participated in.For example, a person may act in a different way at work when compared to how that same person may act when they are out with a group of friends. James also believed that in a given social group, an individual's social self may be divided even further.An example of this would be, in the social context of an individual's work environment, the difference in behavior when that individual is interacting with their boss versus their behavior when interacting with a co-worker.Spiritual selfFor James, the spiritual self was who we are at our core. The spiritual self is more concrete or permanent than the other two selves. The spiritual self is our subjective and most intimate self. Aspects of an individual's spiritual self include things like their personality, core values, and conscience that do not typically change throughout their lifetime. The spiritual self involves introspection, or looking inward to deeper spiritual, moral, or intellectual questions without the influence of objective thoughts.For James, achieving a high level of understanding of who we are at our core, or understanding our spiritual selves is more rewarding than satisfying the needs of the social and material selves.Pure egoThe pure ego is what James refers to as the "I" self. For James, the pure ego is what provides the thread of continuity between our past, present, and future selves. The pure ego's perception of consistent individual identity arises from a continual stream of consciousness.James believed that the pure ego was similar to what we think of as the soul, or the mind. The pure ego was not a substance and therefore could not be examined by science.Works by JamesThe Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. (1890) Dover Publications 1950, vol. 1: ISBN 0-486-20381-6, vol. 2: ISBN 0-486-20382-4Psychology (Briefer Course) (1892) University of Notre Dame Press 1985: ISBN 0-268-01557-0, Dover Publications 2001: ISBN 0-486-41604-6The Will to Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (1897)Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine (the Ingersoll Lecture, 1897)The Will to Believe, Human Immortality (1956) Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-20291-7Talks to Teachers on Psychology: and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals (1899), Dover Publications 2001: ISBN 0-486-41964-9, IndyPublish.com, The Smartest Way To Publish 2005: ISBN 1-4219-5806-6The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (1902), ISBN 0-14-039034-0Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (1907), Hackett Publishing 1981: ISBN 0-915145-05-7, Dover 1995: ISBN 0-486-28270-8A Pluralistic Universe (1909), Hibbert Lectures, University of Nebraska Press 1996: ISBN 0-8032-7591-9The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to "Pragmatism" (1909) Prometheus Books, 1997: ISBN 1-57392-138-6Some Problems of Philosophy: A Beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy (1911), University of Nebraska Press 1996: ISBN 0-8032-7587-0Memories and Studies (1911) Reprint Services Corp: 1992: ISBN 0-7812-3481-6Essays in Radical Empiricism (1912) Dover Publications 2003, ISBN 0-486-43094-4critical edition, Frederick Burkhardt and Fredson Bowers, editors. Harvard University Press 1976: ISBN 0-674-26717-6 (includes commentary, notes, enumerated emendations, appendices with English translation of "La Notion de Conscience")Letters of William James, 2 vols. (1920)Collected Essays and Reviews (1920)Ralph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James, 2 vols. (1935) Vanderbilt University Press 1996 reprint: ISBN 0-8265-1279-8 (contains some 500 letters by William James not found in the earlier edition of the Letters of William James)William James on Psychical Research (1960)The Correspondence of William James, 12 vols. (1992–2004) University of Virginia Press, ISBN 0-8139-2318-2The Dilemma of DeterminismWilliam James on Habit, Will, Truth, and the Meaning of Life, James Sloan Allen, ed. Frederic C. Beil, Publisher, ISBN 978-1-929490-45-5 [53]CollectionsWilliam James: Writings 1878–1899, (1992). Library of America, 1212 p., ISBN 978-0-940450-72-1Psychology: Briefer Course (rev. and condensed Principles of Psychology), The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, Talks to Teachers and Students, Essays (nine others)William James: Writings 1902–1910, (1987). Library of America, 1379 p., ISBN 978-0-940450-38-7The Varieties of Religious Experience, Pragmatism, A Pluralistic Universe, The Meaning of Truth, Some Problems of Philosophy, EssaysThe Writings of William James: A Comprehensive Edition, (1978). University of Chicago Press, 912 p., ISBN 0-226-39188-4Pragmatism, Essays in Radical Empiricism, and A Pluralistic Universe complete; plus selections from other worksIn 1975, Harvard University Press began publication of a standard edition of The Works of William James.References"Bill James, of Harvard, was among the first foreigners to take cognizance of Thought and Reality, already in 1873...", Lettres inédites de African Spir au professeur Penjon (Unpublished Letters of African Spir to professor Penjon), Neuchâtel, 1948, p. 231, n. 7.T.L. Brink (2008) Psychology: A Student Friendly Approach. "Unit One: The Definition and History of Psychology." pp 10"William James: Writings 1878–1899". The Library of America. 1992-06-01. Retrieved 2013-09-21."William James: Writings 1902–1910". The Library of America. 1987-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-21.Dr. Megan E. Bradley. "William James". PSYography. http://Faculty.frostburg.edu. Retrieved 2013-09-21.Haggbloom, Steven J.; Warnick, Jason E.; Jones, Vinessa K.; Yarbrough, Gary L.; Russell, Tenea M.; Borecky, Chris M.; McGahhey, Reagan; et al. (2002). "The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century". Review of General Psychology 6 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139."William James". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Retrieved 2013-09-21.James, William (2009). The Varieties of Religious Experience. The Library of America. pp. 74–120. ISBN 1598530623.Sachs, Oliver (2008). Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Vintage Books. pp. xiii. ISBN 1-4000-3353-5.Antony Lysy, "William James, Theosophist", The Quest Volume 88, number 6, November–December 2000.Ralph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James, vol. 1, (1935), 1996 edition: ISBN 0-8265-1279-8, p. 228.""Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS)"" (Searchable database). New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Retrieved 2016-02-01. Note: This includes Rachel D. Carley (January 2012). "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Putnam Camp" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-02-01. and Accompanying photographsDuane P. Schultz; Sydney Ellen Schultz (22 March 2007). A History of Modern Psychology. Cengage Learning. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-0-495-09799-0. Retrieved 28 August 2011.Schmidt, Barbara. "A History of and Guide to Uniform Editions of Mark Twain's Works". Mark Twain quotations. Retrieved 1 October 2014.Haggbloom, S.J.; et al. (2002). "The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century". Review of General Psychology 6 (2): 139–15. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139.. Haggbloom et al. combined 3 quantitative variables: citations in professional journals, citations in textbooks, and nominations in a survey given to members of the Association for Psychological Science, with 3 qualitative variables (converted to quantitative scores): National Academy of Science (NAS) membership, American Psychological Association (APA) President and/or recipient of the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, and surname used as an eponym. Then the list was rank ordered.John J. McDermott, The Writings of William James: A Comprehensive Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1977 revised edition, ISBN 0-226-39188-4, pp. 812–58.William James' The Moral Equivalent of War Introduction by John Roland. Constitution Society. Retrieved on 2011-08-28.William James' The Moral Equivalent of War – 1906. Constitution Society. Retrieved on 2011-08-28.Harrison Ross Steeves; Frank Humphrey Ristine (1913). Representative essays in modern thought: a basis for composition. American Book Company. pp. 519–. Retrieved 28 August 2011.James, William, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking Lect. 6, "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth," (1907)Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6, "Pragmatic Theory of Truth", pp. 427–428 (Macmillan, 1969)William James. "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth". Lecture 6 in Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longman Green and Co (1907): p. 83.H. O. Mounce (1997). The two pragmatisms: from Peirce to Rorty. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-15283-9. Retrieved 28 August 2011.The Meaning of Truth, Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1909, p. 177See his Defense of a Pragmatic Notion of Truth, written to counter criticisms of his Pragmatism's Conception of Truth 1907 lectureRalph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James, vol. 1, p. 323; Letters of William James, vol. I, p. 147The Dilemma of Determinism, republished in The Will to Believe, Dover, 1956, p. 149The Dilemma of Determinism, republished in The Will to Believe, Dover, 1956, p. 153The Dilemma of Determinism, republished in The Will to Believe, Dover, 1956, p. 155William James, "Subjective Effects of Nitrous Oxide"John Lachs and Robert Talisse (2007). American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia. p. 310. ISBN 0415939267.Buss, David M. Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind. Pearson. 2008. Chapter 1, pp. 2–35.Giuseppe Sergi, (1858) L'origine dei fenomeni psichici e loro significazione biologica, ISBN 1271529408, Milano, Fratelli DumolardGiuseppe Sergi, (1894) Principi di Psicologie: Dolore e Piacere; Storia Naturale dei Sentimenti", ISBN 1147667462, Milano, Fratelli DumolardJoseph E. LeDoux, (1996) The Emotional Brain: the Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, ISBN 0-684-83659-9, p. 43."What is an Emotion?" Mind, vol. 9, 1884, pp. 188-205Grinin L. E. 2010. The Role of an Individual in History: A Reconsideration. Social Evolution & History, Vol. 9 No. 2 (pp. 95–136). p. 103James, W. 2005 [1880]. Great Men and Their Environment. Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing. p. 174.James, (1892)Richardson, (2006)James, (1890).Richardson (2006)Eugene Taylor. (2009). The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic Theories. Springer. p. 30. ISBN 978-0387981031Deborah Blum. (2007). Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life. Penguin Group. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-14-303895-5.Gardner Murphy, Robert O. Ballou. (1960). William James on Psychical Research. Viking Press. p. 41Francesca Bordogna. (2008). William James at the Boundaries: Philosophy, Science, and the Geography of Knowledge. University Of Chicago Press. p. 127. ISBN 978-0226066523Massimo Polidoro. (2001). Final Séance: The Strange Friendship Between Houdini and Conan Doyle. Prometheus Books. p. 36. ISBN 978-1573928960Frederick Burkhardt and Fredson Bowers. (1986). Essays in Psychical Research. Harvard University Press. p. 397 in William James. The Works of William James. Edited by Frederick H. Burkhardt, Fredson Bowers, and Ignas K. Skrupskelis. 19 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. 1975-1988.http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/Cooper, W. E. (1992). William James's theory of the self. Monist,75(4), 504.http://psychclassics.asu.edu/James/Principles/prin10.htmhttp://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/hunt.htmlFrederic C. Beil, PublisherSourcesEssays Philosophical and Psychological in Honor of William James, by his Colleagues at Columbia University (London, 1908)R, W. B. Lewis The Jameses: A Family Narrative (1991) Farrar, Straus & GirouxJames Sloan Allen, Wiiliam James on Habit, Will, Truth, and the Meaning of Life (2014). Frederic C. Beil, Publisher, ISBN 978-1-929490-45-5Émile Boutroux, William James (New York, 1912)Werner Bloch, Der Pragmatismus von James und Schiller nebst Exkursen über Weltanschauung und über die Hypothese (Leipzig, 1913)K. A. Busch, William James als Religionsphilosoph (Göttingen, 1911)Jacques Barzun. A Stroll with William James (1983). Harper and Row: ISBN 0-226-03869-6Deborah Blum. Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death (2006). Penguin Press, ISBN 1-59420-090-4Wesley Cooper. The Unity of William James's Thought (2002). Vanderbilt University Press, ISBN 0-8265-1387-5Howard M. Feinstein. Becoming William James (1984). Cornell University Press, ISBN 978-0-8014-8642-5Théodore Flournoy, La Philosophie de William James (Saint-Blaise, 1911)Sergio Franzese, The Ethics of Energy. William James's Moral Philosophy in Focus, Ontos Verlag, 2008Sergio Franzese & Felicitas Krämer (eds.), Fringes of Religious Experience. Cross-perspectives on William James's Varieties of Religious Experience, Frankfurt / Lancaster, ontos verlag, Process Thought XII, 2007Peter Hare, Michel Weber, James K. Swindler, Oana-Maria Pastae, Cerasel Cuteanu (eds.), International Perspectives on Pragmatism, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009James Huneker, "A Philosophy for Philistines" in his The Pathos of Distance (New York, 1913)Henry James's A Small Boy and Others (1913) and Notes of a Son and Brother (1914)H. V. Knox, Philosophy of William James (London, 1914)Louis Menand. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, ISBN 0-374-52849-7.Ménard, Analyse et critique des principes de la psychologie de W. James (Paris, 1911) analyzes the lives and relationship between James, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey.Gerald E. Myers. William James: His Life and Thought (1986). Yale University Press, 2001, paperback: ISBN 0-300-08917-1. Focuses on his psychology; includes 230 pages of notes.Giuseppe Sergi L'origine dei fenomeni psichici e loro significazione biologica, Milano, Fratelli Dumolard, 1885.Giuseppe Sergi Principi di Psicologie: Dolore e Piacere; Storia Naturale dei Sentimenti, Milano, Fratelli Dumolard, 1894.James Pawelski. The Dynamic Individualism of William James (2007). SUNY press, ISBN 0-7914-7239-6.R. B. Perry, Present Philosophical Tendencies (New York, 1912)Robert D. Richardson. William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism (2006). Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0-618-43325-2Robert D. Richardson, ed. The Heart of William James (2010). Harvard U. Press, ISBN 978-0-674-05561-2Jane Roberts. The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher: The View of William James (1978. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-018515-9.)Josiah Royce, William James and Other Essays on the Philosophy of Life (New York, 1911)Linda Simon. Genuine Reality: A Life of William James (1998). Harcourt Brace & Company, ISBN 0-226-75859-1Michel Weber. Whitehead’s Pancreativism. Jamesian Applications. Ontos Verlag, 2011, ISBN 978-386838-103-0Michel Weber, « On Religiousness and Religion. Huxley’s Reading of Whitehead’s Religion in the Making in the Light of James’ Varieties of Religious Experience », Jerome Meckier and Bernfried Nugel (eds.), Aldous Huxley Annual. A Journal of Twentieth-Century Thought and Beyond, Volume 5, Münster, LIT Verlag, March 2005, pp. 117-132.Michel Weber, « James’s Mystical Body in the Light of the Transmarginal Field of Consciousness », in Sergio Franzese & Felicitas Krämer (eds.), Fringes of Religious Experience. Cross-perspectives on William James's Varieties of Religious Experience, Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, Process Thought XII, 2007, pp. 7-37.Wiseman, R. (2012). Rip it up: The radically new approach to changing your life. London, UK: Macmillan

Ok, so I got so many requests on this subject that I feel like Santa the week before Christmas.First, understand that I have answered this question in several different ways on Quora, so I will be referring you to several of my former answers rather than re-write the whole thing over again. Second, I have written a text for laymen, which was free to Quora users, but I get crap from the Quora High Command whenever I refer you off site. So, although there is an entire 850 page thick book freely available, I’m not allowed to direct you to it. My answers are typically copy and paste from the text.I was just writing for class on this subject and remembered this old post, which I thought to update. This should prove interesting.In this section I am going to write as though the native wave function has a sequitur description for locality and hence velocity. The reason is because not doing so makes the discussion too mystical to describe without a lot of exotic math. I will speak in terms as if the native photon and/or electron wave function moves from A to B and leaves a trail of artifact E and M bosons in its wake. That is the best I can do without getting so caught up in math and vocabulary this becomes a grad cadet course. There is no sequitur locality hence velocity, I am just going to render the explanation in those terms as though it were so, in a sense, again because otherwise this turns into a grad cadet course.Physicists have been chasing around native photon and electron wave functions for the past century, scratching their heads, in violation of their own convention, which is the paradox..What is happening is, as I previously pointed out, the Electric and Magnetic bosons are the only wave functions that have a valid mass description, again not a revelation but convention; applied rather than denied. As such, they are the only native wave functions that are mass limited to v << c. Herein lies the obvious result. In all of the variations of the 2-slit ontology, the physicists are chasing native photon and electron [or any] wave functions around, which have no sequitur locality description other than infinite distribution, by observing the only detectable thing in normal space-time, their associated massive, slow moving Electric and Magnetic bosons. In normal space-time, only electric and magnetic bosons, the EM, is detectable, no other phenomenon is directly detectable, nothing.Now you are a Nobel Laurette. The artifact E and M bosons cannot possibly represent any sequitur locality, hence velocity, nor any other such characteristic, of any native wave function, because they are the only wave functions limited to v << c.Then we get to the mystical quality where the physicist tries to bunch the native wave function up, because of this observation, into a limited locality. That is, the native photon wave function is by convention of infinite distribution, Physics 101. Nonetheless, Professor Poopstein has to explain off seeing it here rather than there. So he renders some mystical mathematical mythos in unobservable dimensionalities that violates fundamental theorem to do something like this:Which I'm using only because it is familiar. However, the fundamental Theorem in question is the Limits at Infinity, which is the theorem upon which all of Calculus, hence all mathematics extending beyond Platonic geometry is based: [I promise this is the most complicated math I will provide]Is a singular state function. You cannot slice the infinite distribution to creatively select your benchtop out of that infinity; which literally extends beyond the scope of the entire cosmos.As Theorem, it is not open to debate, opinion, argument, interpretation, certainly not violation; which selective distribution is clearly a violation.The Nobel answer to the ontology of photons being watched is the mundane answer that the artifact Electric and Magnetic bosons, which are the only way that photon can interact in this universe, are left far behind in the photon's wake as discrete, massive, slow moving wave functions, hence cannot represent the locality of the photon. We put a piece of Kodak film in the path of the native photon wave function, and nothing happens, because the native wave function does not interact with this universe. Moments later, the E and M bosons, trailing far behind in the wake catch up and strike the film, hence we marvel at it. Because they trail far behind, there is a temporal delay, and it matters when we place the film in the path.That is the Nobel answer. As you can see, it is mundane as it gets.Furthermore, this is by convention, not revelation, which astounds me.The HUP is described at: Bill Bray's answer to The double slit experiment proved that direct observation altered results. What would happen if the sensors recorded results but the results weren't accessible by humans? For example, what if a computer put an impossible password on the results?The first thing you need to review is this, which describes the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments by Kim, et al: https://www.quora.com/If-an-electron-is-in-a-superposition-state-of-two-possible-energy-levels-from-where-would-it-absorb-energy-to-jump-to-the-next-level-if-the-wave-function-collapses/answer/Bill-Bray-6You will note that in the first video, he mentions a Nobel for answering this question. That is completely true and correct. Therefore, since no Nobel has been awarded to any web site or TV documentary for answering the subject, COMPLETELY FORGET everything you have heard.Just to clarify: when we got to describing the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, that erased all doubt that the conscious observer plays a role in the system, not merely an inert detector. Again, no mechanistic argument otherwise has been awarded the awaiting Nobel, therefore counter arguments otherwise simply ideologically contradict the outcome of the experiments. The current verbiage uses the term ‘entangled with the past’ rather than outwardly state ‘retro causality,’ or causality violation.’ Among the countless claims of an explanation, none have occurred. In 2012 Wineland and Haroche were awarded a Nobel for scaling the phenomenon up to the macroscopic scale. [Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012] Some have misidentified this with a Nobel for a mechanistic explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. This development led to the current Quantum Computing model.Essentially, what Wineland and Haroche accomplished was to hit an atom with exactly half of the photon energy to move it to another position. What resulted was the atom being in both locations simultaneously. Normally such a superposition is limited to a single photon or electron. However, scaling it up to atomic proportions was a Nobel piece of work.To make it more clear, Superposition is an observed phenomenon. There are countless mathematical descriptions of it. HOWEVER, there is NO explanation what or why it is. To use superposition as an explanation is non-sequitur. Superposition is not defined, albeit there are tons of mathematical equations describing the behavior by way of observation; that is not an explanation of what or why it is. The math only describes what it may or may not do.In the double slit phenomenon, why does superposition occur at one or both slits rather than anywhere else in the cosmos? Even according to all of the current mathematical descriptions of superposition, there is a wide distribution of possible localities extending out to infinity. While there is a greater probability that it is superpositioned across a more narrow choice of locations, there is no equation on Earth that describes that there are exactly two possible superpositions, oddly at each slit. (Except for those that are fudge).The answer being superposition (with respect to spacial locality), then, is a billion times more mysterious than the original question. That is, the choices in superposition of localities is infinite, and inexplicably result in one or both slits; the odds are exactly infinity to 1 that this is the correct answer. It is in fact so absurd, that it is embarrassing to watch.In the Delayed Choice portion of Kim et al’s setup, why does superposition occur 8ns back in time at detector D-zero rather than any other time in the universe? The answer, again, of the magic black box superposition then becomes a billion times more mysterious than the original question; again. Yes, the wave function is superpositioned in time, and again, the choice of possible localities in time is ultimately spread across (this differs a little) from the Big Bang until the exact present. Why it is superpositioned at exactly two localities in time and not smeared equally across 4 x 1027 (the number of nanoseconds of the age of the current cosmos) temporal localities is a thousand, trillion, trillion times less likely to be the correct answer. That is, the temporal location in superposition is a smear, rather than a distinct locality. In spacial locality, there are one or two outcomes, and we’re OK with that. In temporal locality, (like Bob and Alice) once two positions materialize, the temporal order between them becomes a smear, not distinct. If the temporal localities were distinct, normal ‘signaling’ between Bob and Alice would be observed, taking time; and Quantum Entanglement would not be observed. Again, this suggestion is so bizarre it is embarrassing to watch someone say it. (Like you’re the one who is embarrassed when the comedian or performer on stage sucks, an oddity in human empathy).Part of what Wineland and Wickham achieved was in fact, getting an atom to superposition where they wanted it to be. However, their methodology is in no way related to the Delayed Choice or the Quantum Eraser phenomenon.Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and claims of observed, yet unexplained phenomenon being an answer is only embarrassing to watch and hear. No one has explained what or why superposition is, there is only math describing the way it behaves after observing it for a century. There is a degree of predictability, but there is no such (non-fudged) equation that places the outcomes at exactly both of the spacial localities of Kim, et al’s setup (which was an arbitrary choice) and temporal localities of exactly 8 nanoseconds apart in Kim’s choice of placement of detector Dx and D0, which was also chosen arbitrarily.It is akin to stating that the God of Superposition was watching over Kim and his colleagues, and taking very careful measurements of their setup while they were not looking, so as to befuddle mankind’s understanding of reality.<���x��8That is, the only Nobel on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is scaling it up in size to the real world. There is no universally accepted model which removes the conscious observer from the system. However, those who do render such arguments are quite vocal and zealous. They make claims of ‘closed time loops,’ the HUP, pure probability, and so on, but again, no universally acceptable answer.“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” - Max Planck [Kahn, Boundless Paradox, Dec 4, 2015]Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and calm dismissals, there is no such answer the removes the conscious observer from the system. You can and will find countless arguments to this effect, but the best that has been achieved is to scale the phenomenon up is size to the atomic.I have read a lot of dismissals of the DCQE as some mechanistic argument, none work. Regarding the photon as superpositioned in space and time (which it is) does not dismiss the result, especially in light of the fact that this phenomenon has been scaled up to the macroscopic.Then, go on to this answer to review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The explanation will undoubtedly raise hell because of the urban myths that have prevailed since childhood. Nonetheless, this is the correct meaning of the HUP: https://www.quora.com/The-double-slit-experiment-proved-that-direct-observation-altered-results-What-would-happen-if-the-sensors-recorded-results-but-the-results-werent-accessible-by-humans-For-example-what-if-a-computer-put-an/answer/Bill-Bray-6In that answer, you can see that causality was never a ‘property’ of physics. There is no linearity to time. We choose to perceive time in this way (linear) because we are quantumly weird.For instance, I do not want you to drag this information into your frame of reference and homogenize it with your view, you MUST move into this frame of reference of the explanation, else, walk away with nothing but another confabulated myth. That is, don’t try and validate your concepts via these explanations, forget everything you know and move into this new frame of reference with me.Then we get to Quantum Gravity. You need to know this because, rather than the Higg’s having to do with anything, it appears in current thinking that space-time and its geometry (gravitation), and hence the forces and constants, properties and so on, are emergent phenomenon as a direct result of quantum entanglement.First you need to understand the Planck units: Bill Bray's answer to Why is Planck length minimum measurable length?In another text, I’m not sure where, I take the -1 Law of Thermodynamics (That’s negative 1 law of thermodynamics), ‘Information cannot be destroyed,’ as per Susskind’s statement, and express what information is according to Bekenstein’s Black Hole entropy, Wheeler’s work on it, and eventually led to Verlinde’s definition:Where ‘N’ represents the number of bits of information, AΩ represents a 2-dimensional Schwarzschild surface (like the surface of a Black Hole), and I believe by now we have discussed Lp. Therefore, I extrapolate this such that we can determine what ‘N’ is: (no one has outwardly stated what scope ‘N’ is, but it is obvious)Furthermore, as a natural number, we set ‘c’ equal to 1, such that Lp = tpTo simplify, we think of entropy as an increase in the number of possible outcomes of a superposition of that wave function, and Ordiny as a decrease in the number of possible outcomes of that superposition. As the area AΩ increases, the number of possible outcomes of a superposition increases, entropy increases. As AΩ decreases, the number of possible superpositions decreases, Ordiny, or Gravitation. This then extends out to the other forces as well. Each force demonstrates either, ultimately, an increase in the number of possible superpositions (entropy) or decrease in the possible number of superpositions (Ordiny). We see Ordiny as an ‘attractive force,’ and entropy as repellent.So we take 1 bit, N, 4Lp^2, like a trigonal pyramid, but shape is impossible on a Planck scale, because, for instance, a triangle's hypotenuse is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore a triangle cannot exist, likewise for a circle, with pi diameters, and every other possible shape, and so on. Everything at the Planck scale - the Planck scale is a shapeless domain.This would be a good time to look at: Bill Bray's answer to Does Planck length go against the idea of a continuous space and time?This image was used to try and visualize quantized space on a Planck scale:In any case, you can see that a triangle, which therefore has a hypotenuse ofa is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore impossible. A circle has a relationship to its diameter of pi, also not an integer of Lp, and so on with every possible normal shape.Then you can review : Bill Bray's answer to Is there a way how natural wormholes could form?This describes the ‘quantum foam,’ a characteristic of space-time that describes the dynamic structure on the Planck scale. There is a short review of this by wilczek, who actually measured the quantum foam’s effect on the strong and weka forces (for which he earned a Nobel, at 48 minutes into:In this bit, N, we either have information in it, or there is no information in it. If there is information in it, it by definition is entangled with some other bit of information somewhere. As the distance between these two bits N and N’ increases, the probability that they are quantum entangled decreases, because the wave function in the HUP limits the amount of time such a thing can exist. If N is entangled with N’, then each has an element a or its symmetric partner a’.If there is no N’ then there is no space-time in this scenario. If there is an N’, then time limits us to the probability that it contains either a or a’. From this time constraint, the number of possible superpositions is defined, and so the size of our world sheet, AΩ.This is how space-time is then an emergent form from information entropy vs. Ordiny. You may also note that ‘c’ is not a velocity, it defines the relationship between the world-sheet AΩ with respect to Lp and tp (space and time). It is not a ‘speed limit’ it is the definition of space-time.1.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.2.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:3.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.4.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.5.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.6.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.7.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.8.Cantor, Georg (1887). "Über die verschiedenen Ansichten in Bezug auf die actualunendlichen Zahlen." Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien Handlingar , Bd. 11 (1886-7), article 19. P. A. Norstedt & Sôner: Stockholm.9.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.10.Copleston, Frederick, S.J. (1962). “The Dialectic of Zeno,” chapter 7 of A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Greece and Rome, Part I, Image Books: Garden City.11.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.12.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.13.De Boer, Jesse (1953). “A Critique of Continuity, Infinity, and Allied Concepts in the Natural Philosophy of Bergson and Russell,” in Return to Reason: Essays in Realistic Philosophy, John Wild, ed., Henry Regnery Company: Chicago, pp. 92-124.14.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.15.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.16.Earman J. and J. D. Norton (1996). “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks,” in Paul Benacerraf: the Philosopher and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stich (eds.), Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, pp. 231-261.17.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.18.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.19.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.20.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.21.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.22.Harrison, Craig (1996). “The Three Arrows of Zeno: Cantorian and Non-Cantorian Concepts of the Continuum and of Motion,” Synthese, Volume 107, Number 2, pp. 271-292.23.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.24.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.25.Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.26.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.27.Matson, Wallace I (2001). “Zeno Moves!” pp. 87-108 in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, ed. by Anthony Preus, State University of New York Press: Albany.28.McCarty, D.C. (2005). “Intuitionism in Mathematics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 356-86.29.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.30.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.31.Posy, Carl. (2005). “Intuitionism and Philosophy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318-54.32.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.33.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.34.Pages 94-102 apply the Standard Solution to all of Zeno's paradoxes. Rescher calls the Paradox of Alike and Unlike the "Paradox of Differentiation."35.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.36.Rivelli's chapter 6 explains how the theory of loop quantum gravity provides a new solution to Zeno's Paradoxes that is more in tune with the intuitions of Democratus because it rejects the assumption that a bit of space can always be subdivided.37.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.38.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.39.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.40.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.41.Tannery, Paul (1885). “‘Le Concept Scientifique du continu: Zenon d’Elee et Georg Cantor,” pp. 385-410 of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, vol. 20, Les Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.42.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.43.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.44.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.45.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.46.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.47.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.48.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.49.Aristotle (1930) [ancient]. "Physics," from The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, translators, W.D. Ross, ed.), Oxford, UK:Clarendon, see [1], accessed 14 October 2015.50.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-251.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.52.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).53.Fischer, M.; Gutiérrez-Medina, B.; Raizen, M. (2001). "Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System". Physical Review Letters 87 (4): 040402.54.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)55.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel56.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.57.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.58.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.59.Shadick NA, Phillips CB, Sangha O; et al. (December 1999). "Musculoskeletal and neurologic outcomes in patients with previously treated Lyme disease". Annals of Internal Medicine 131 (12): 919–26. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00003. PMID 1061064260.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.61.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.62.Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A, 67 (4): 42105, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121 Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.04210563.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-364.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 199465.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 200466.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)67.R. E. Slusher et al., Observation of squeezed states generated by four wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (22), 2409 (1985)68.Breitenbach, G.; Schiller, S.; Mlynek, J. (29 May 1997). "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6632): 471–475. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..471B. doi:10.1038/387471a0.69.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)70.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/061209971.A. I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light72.L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. J. Kimble, "Squeezed states of light from an optical parametric oscillator," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1465 (1987).73.Heidmann, A.; Horowicz, R.; Reynaud, S.; Giacobino, E.; Fabre, C.; Camy, G. (1987). "Observation of Quantum Noise Reduction on Twin Laser Beams". Physical Review Letters. 59: 2555. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2555H. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2555.74.A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, "On-Chip Optical Squeezing," Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015). [1309.6371] On-Chip Optical Squeezing75.Ou, Z. Y.; Pereira, S. F.; Kimble, H. J.; Peng, K. C. (1992). "Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables". Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3663. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3663O. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3663. PMID 10045765.76.Villar, A. S.; Cruz, L. S.; Cassemiro, K. N.; Martinelli, M.; Nussenzveig, P. (2005). "Generation of Bright Two-Color Continuous Variable Entanglement". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 243603. arXiv:quant-ph/0506139 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95x3603V. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.243603. PMID 16384378.77.Grote, H.; Danzmann, K.; Dooley, K. L.; Schnabel, R.; Slutsky, J.; Vahlbruch, H. (2013). "First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational-Wave Observatory". Phys. Rev. Lett. 110: 181101. arXiv:1302.2188 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110r1101G. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.181101.78.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2011). "A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit". Nature Physics. 7: 962. arXiv:1109.2295 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..962L. doi:10.1038/nphys2083.79.Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Heinzen, D. J. (1 July 1994). "Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy". Physical Review A. 50 (2): 67–88. Bibcode:1994PhRvA..50...67W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.80.Machida, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Itaya, Y. (9 March 1987). "Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current driven semiconductor laser". Physical Review Letters. 58 (10): 1000–1003. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1000M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1000. PMID 10034306.81.O. V. Misochko, J. Hu, K. G. Nakamura, "Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference," [1011.2001] Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference82.Ma, Jian; Wang, Xiaoguang; Sun, C.P.; Nori, Franco (December 2011). "Quantum spin squeezing". Physics Reports. 509 (2–3): 89–165. arXiv:1011.2978 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhR...509...89M. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.003.83.Hosten, Onur; Engelsen, Nils J.; Krishnakumar, Rajiv; Kasevich, Mark A. (11 January 2016). "Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms". Nature. 529: 505–8. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..505H. doi:10.1038/nature16176. PMID 26751056.84.Cox, Kevin C.; Greve, Graham P.; Weiner, Joshua M.; Thompson, James K. (4 March 2016). "Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 093602. arXiv:1512.02150 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i3602C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.093602. PMID 26991175.85.Bohnet, J. G.; Cox, K. C.; Norcia, M. A.; Weiner, J. M.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J. K. (13 July 2014). "Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit". Nature Photonics. 8 (9): 731–736. arXiv:1310.3177 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NaPho...8..731B. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.151.86.Lücke, Bernd; Peise, Jan; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Arlt, Jan; Santos, Luis; Tóth, Géza; Klempt, Carsten (17 April 2014). "Detecting Multiparticle Entanglement of Dicke States". Physical Review Letters. 112 (15): 155304. arXiv:1403.4542 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112o5304L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.155304. PMID 24785048.87.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.88.Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Danzmann, Karsten; Schnabel, Roman (2016-09-06). "Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Photoelectric Quantum Efficiency". Physical Review Letters. 117 (11): 110801. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117k0801V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801. PMID 27661673.89.Eberle, Tobias; Steinlechner, Sebastian; Bauchrowitz, Jöran; Händchen, Vitus; Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Müller-Ebhardt, Helge; Schnabel, Roman (22 June 2010). "Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 251102. arXiv:1007.0574 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y1102E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251102. PMID 20867358.90.Polzik, E. S. (1992-01-01). "Spectroscopy with squeezed light". Physical Review Letters. 68 (20): 3020–3023. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3020P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3020.91.Leroux, Ian D.; Schleier-Smith, Monika H.; Vuletić, Vladan (25 June 2010). "Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 250801. arXiv:1004.1725 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y0801L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.250801. PMID 20867356.92.Louchet-Chauvet, Anne; Appel, Jürgen; Renema, Jelmer J; Oblak, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Niels; Polzik, Eugene S (28 June 2010). "Entanglement-assisted atomic clock beyond the projection noise limit". New Journal of Physics. 12 (6): 065032. arXiv:0912.3895 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12f5032L. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.93.Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1 June 1993). "Squeezed spin states". Physical Review A. 47 (6): 5138–5143. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.94.Braunstein, Samuel L.; van Loock, Peter (29 June 2005). "Quantum information with continuous variables". Reviews of Modern Physics. 77 (2): 513–577. arXiv:quant-ph/0410100 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005RvMP...77..513B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513.95.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.96.Menicucci, Nicolas C.; Flammia, Steven T.; Pfister, Olivier (22 September 2008). "One-Way Quantum Computing in the Optical Frequency Comb". Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 13501. arXiv:0804.4468 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101m0501M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130501. PMID 18851426.97.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.98.Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:1103.0117 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID 22182073.99.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.100.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067101.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.102.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973103.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264104.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955105.Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280.. Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 21, 1927.106.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955107.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010108.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).109.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.110.Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, Časlav Brukner. “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time”, Nature Communications, 2, 505 (2011). Abstract. 2Physics Article.111.Yair Margalit, Zhifan Zhou, Shimon Machluf, Daniel Rohrlich, Yonathan Japha, Ron Folman. “A self-interfering clock as a 'which path' witness”, published online in 'Science Express' (August 6, 2015). Abstract. 2Physics Article.112.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.113.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320114.Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary, and Andrea Alberti, “Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories Based on Classical Trajectories,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)115.A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)116.C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)117.M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality with Weak Measurements of Photons,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256 (2011)118.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)119.G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, “Violation of a Temporal Bell Inequality for Single Spins in a Diamond Defect Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)120.A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement,” Nature Phys. 6, 442 (2010)121.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)122.K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, H. Ulbricht, L. Hackermüller, S. Nimmrichter, I. V. Goldt, O. Boltalina, and M. Arndt, “Theory and Experimental Verification of Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau Interferometry,” New J. Phys. 11, 043032 (2009)123.Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters. 3 (9): 439–441. Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439.124.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)125.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997126.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43127.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1128.L. B. Okun', The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity), Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow Usp.Fiz.Nauk 158, 511-530 (July 1989)129.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010130.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.131.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3132.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.133.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.134.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913135.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.136.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8137.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.138.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71139.MacDonald, J.; Mullan, D. J. (2009). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle". Physical Review D. 80 (4): 043507. arXiv:0904.1807 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d3507M. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.043507.140.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.141.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.142.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010143.Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015144.Carter, B., 1974, “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”, in M. S. Longair (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Observational Data, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 291–298.145.Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell146.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0147.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017148.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675149.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9150.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149151.Landsman, Klaas, 2016, “The fine-tuning argument: exploring the improbability of our own existence”, in K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance, Heidelberg: Springer152.McCoy, C.D., 2015, “Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51: 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.06.002153.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0154.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.155.Tegmark, Max and Martin J. Rees, 1998, “Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−510−5”, The Astrophysical Journal, 499(2): 526–532. doi:10.1086/305673156.Tegmark, Max, Anthony Aguirre, Martin J. Rees, and Frank Wilczek, 2006, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”, Physical Review D, 73(2): 023505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505157.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.158.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation.159.Jan Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and time, Department of History and Foundations of Mathematics and Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands, (Received 29 January 1996; accepted 10 June 1996)160.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.161.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).162.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,163.pp365-383 (1962).164.Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.165.Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751.166.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.167.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.168.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997169.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)170.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.171.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).172.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)173.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.174.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975175.§1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustain ­either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory­functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functionsof the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with ­accepted medical standards.176.§2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application.] This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.177.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.178.Capron, A. M. and Kass, L. R. "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121:87-118, 1972.179.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.180.Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.181.Ma, Zeilinger, et al., "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". See: Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice "Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely."182.Peruzzo, et al., "A quantum delayed choice experiment", arXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.183.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.184.Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID 10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.185.Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:quant-ph/0106078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.186.Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.187.Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:quant-ph/9501016 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. Retrieved 13 February 2014.188.Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disppearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449.189.Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:1205.4926 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID 23118183.190.Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109.191.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977192.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955193.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubscans/VI-50.pdf194.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213195.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.