Mmmm, sort of. It&#x27;s probably easier to understand the why of Bergson&#x27;s theories in their historical context. In the early 20th century, General Relativity and Special Relativity had space and time &#x27;figured out&#x27; and quantum mechanics wasn&#x27;t really a thing yet.<p>The common train of thought post-Einstein but pre-quantum mechanics was that physics was close to a theory of everything: that the universe could be described with a set of deterministic equations and everything, including human behavior, could be successfully predicted from the beginning of time to the end of time.<p>Bergson&#x27;s objections to Einstein are rooted in the concept of free will. They centered on Einstein&#x27;s handling of time as another spatial concept. Physics would never be able to quantify human behavior, according to Bergson, because Einstein used the wrong model of time. Time (again, according to Bergson) isn&#x27;t a countable and finite dimension like space is - and thus Einstein was wrong.<p>Bergson was also had no small amount of mathematical understanding, although he certainly wasn&#x27;t at Einstein&#x27;s level. Prior to this debate, he wrote an entire book about Einstein&#x27;s Twins Paradox, and why it the premise it started from - that of a countable, space-like time, was wrong.<p>One reason that the Bergson-Einstein debate impacted the Nobel committee to such a degree was academic politics. At the time, many thought that physics had everything figured out and it wasn&#x27;t long until everything, including human behavior, could be predicted using the scientific methods of physics and relativity.<p>Not unsurprisingly, a LOT of non-physicists had a problem with this idea.<p>Now off to read to the article, so I can see what was actually discussed there....