[120] make this mistake any more. Modern science^a is very much aware of the function of the observer, and all the critics of mechanism, for centuries, were aware of the fact that the observer-- namely man who MAKES such statements--belongs to the whole of reality about which he makes these statements. Therefore the critics of the universal mechanistic worldview are aware of the fact that this mechanism, if it is carried through, must explain something which itself cannot be explained mechanistically, namely the fact that there is a mind which is able to discuss mechanism as truer than other alternatives. And a discussion between true and false is a discussion in the realm of freedom^b, because if it were a mechanical process which produces mechanism, it would have no truth value, it would be only another fact in the universal mechanism. In this way, the whole theory undercuts itself by the very fact that it does exist. Now this means: our immediate experience contradicts this worldview which applies special experiences of an abstract character in physical sciences to the whole of reality. A mechanistic worldview does exactly what a progressivistic [sic.] worldview does on another level. I told you that the progressivistic^c [sic.] worldview elevates the limited experience of progress, in every human action--where it is justified and necessary, otherwise we would not act at all--to a universal law of metaphysics, or of the divine universe, however you want to express it. In the same way, mechanistic science elevates the limited realm in which calculable, quantitative relationships can be described, into a universal law for everything that is. In doing so, it becomes metaphysical or religious itself. And only in this realm is the conflict going on, not in the realm of the application of quantitative