David Malament's (1977) well-known result, which is often taken to show the uniqueness of the Poincaré-Einstein convention for defining simultaneity, involves an unwarranted physical assumption: that any simultaneity relation must remain invariant under temporal reflections. Once that assumption is removed, his other criteria for defining simultaneity are also satisfied by membership in the same backward (forward) null cone of the family of such cones with vertices on an inertial path. What is then unique about the Poincaré-Einstein convention is that it is independent of the choice of inertial path in a given inertial frame, confirming a remark in Einstein 1905. Similarly, what is unique about the backward (forward) null cone definition is that it is independent of the state of motion of an observer at a point on the inertial path.

Besides the well-known advocate of unified field theories, there was “another Einstein,” who was skeptical of the continuum as a foundational element in physics. This paper presents evidence for the existence of this “other Einstein,” and of the debate between the two Einsteins that lasted most of Einstein's life.

Towards the end of the career of many a distinguished scientist, or shortly after his or her death, an edition of the scientist's articles is published under the title: ‘The Collected Papers of…’. While not wishing to slight either the ceremonial importance or real utility of such collections, they must be clearly distinguished from the sort of editions on which the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein is modelled. The former are primarily intended to make the published papers of a great scientist easily accessible to other scholars and students working in the same field as an aid to their research. The reader is provided with little or no help in understanding or evaluating the historical role these writings played in the development of this field, the circumstances leading to their creation, or how they fit into the life of their creator.

One can and often does use the word ‘logic’ in a variety of metaphorical ways, speaking of “the logic of the situation”, “the logic of events”, “the logic of history”, and so on. No harm is done, so long as one realizes that these usages are metaphorical, and should not be given any deeper significance – at least without extensive discussion of the meaning of the word ‘logic’ in these phrases. In this metaphorical sense, one may speak of “the logic of quantum mechanics”, just as one may speak of “the logic of modern art”, for example.

But if we want to use the term ‘logic’ in a non-metaphorical sense – and I take it that this is the intent in all serious discussions of ‘quantum logic’–we are under some obligation to give an account of the significance to be given to the word ‘logic’ and to demonstrate that the proposed usage does not do violence to the several-thousand-year-old tradition in the field.

One thing that everyone can agree on is that the subject of geometrodynamics, whatever we interpret it as covering, is inseparably associated with the name of John Wheeler. To discuss the history and current status of geometrodynamics thus necessitates the discussion of the evolution of Wheeler's ideas on the subject. This is not meant to detract, in any way, from the fact that he has been ably assisted in his intellectual Odyssey by a distinguished group of co-workers; most prominently by Charles Misner, whom we have been fortunate to hear today on the subject. Since Professor Wheeler has recently indicated his abandonment of major features of the original geometrodynamic program, as I shall discuss later, I hope he will forgive me the rather dramatic title I have chosen for my talk.