Several hundred years after the production of William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Tom Stoppard took it upon himself to expand the characters who take on the roles of the best Hamlet's friends in his absurd plays Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. The two characters float in and out of scenes that intersect with their appearances in Hamlet, while also passing through several scenes outside the world of their sister's play, during many of which they both attempt to work out the meaning behind their existence and their role to play in the world in relation to what happens 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 imagination of reader. in their ability to understand knowledge that is often accepted as fact, pushing them to a level of thinking comparable to that of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In the process of reading 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 around them, as well as to bring the reader to a similar place of questions that both characters experience throughout the play and furthers the understanding of their philosophical struggles. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To begin, the first act of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead opens on the two friends walking together in a nondescript setting while playing a coin-flipping game of chance. Rosencrantz chose “heads” as the winning team, while Guildenstern chose “tails”. In a normal situation, the probability of the coin coming up heads or tails is 50/50, since there are only two options. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, however, find that the coin they are using, which presumably is not weighted one way or rigged, continually lands on their heads even as they approach the game's hundredth trial, leaving Rosencrantz the obvious winner. Both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are baffled and consider the situation absurd, wondering whether the probability of the coin falling one way or the other is predictable after all (Stoppard, 15). Viewing this situation through a lens created by Heisenberg's writings, however, provides a more analyzed reason for why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are experiencing this phenomenon. Similarly, using his own scientific example Heisenberg explains another situation in "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum". Theory” in which incorporating probability when evaluating the possibility of an outcome can mislead an observer. He 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 that both holes are open, the probability of light passing through them is equal. But if light passes through only one hole, it is as if only that hole were open. He believes that probability theory is flawed as nothing can ever have a probability equal to 50/50, nor can an exact probability be calculated, stating: "What happens depends on how we observe it or whether we observe it." […] this example clearly shows that the concept of a probability function does not allow a description of what happens between two observations. Any.