Several hundred years after the production of William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Tom Stoppard took it upon himself to develop the characters who take on the roles of Hamlet's best friends in his absurd novel. Play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Both characters float in and out of scenes that intersect with their appearances in Hamlet while passing through several scenes outside the world of their sister play, many of which both attempt to process the meaning of their existence and role to play in the world. relation to what is happening around them. Werner Heisenberg addresses a similar, but more scientific, version of this question in the third chapter of his book Physics and Philosophy: "The Copenhagen interpretation of 'quantum theory,' playing with the idea of ​​possibility versus reality and challenging the reader's imagination. in their ability to understand knowledge that is frequently accepted as fact, pushing them toward a place of thinking comparable to that of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. As you read Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, it is helpful to consider Heisenberg's "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory" as a lens for interpreting these characters' actions and interactions with the world. that surrounds them, as well as to bring the reader to a similar place of questioning that both characters experience throughout the play and which deepens the understanding of their philosophical struggles. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay To begin, the first act of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead opens with the two friends walking together through a nondescript setting while playing a game of chance consisting of throwing coins. . Rosencrantz selected "heads" as the winning team, while Guildenstern selected "tails". In a normal situation, the probability of the coin coming up heads or tails is 50/50, because there are only two options. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, however, discover that the coin they are using, which is presumably not weighted one way or rigged, continually lands on heads even as they approach the hundredth trial of the game, leaving Rosencrantz the very victor. obvious. Both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are baffled and view the situation as absurd, wondering if the likelihood of the coin falling one way or the other is predictable after all (Stoppard, 15). However, viewing this situation through the lens of Heisenberg's writings provides a more analyzed reason as to why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern experience this phenomenon. Along the same lines, using his own scientific example, Heisenberg explains another situation in “The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum.” Theory” in which the integration of probability when evaluating the possibility of an outcome can mislead the observer. It describes an experiment in which the quantum of light travels through two holes in a black screen while a photographic plate behind the screen records the light, creating two different patterns on the plate behind depending on which hole the light passes through. Assuming both holes are open, the probability of light passing through one or the other is equal. However, if light passes through only one hole, it is as if only that hole is open. He believes that probability theory is flawed in that nothing can truly have an even 50/50 chance, nor can an exact probability be.