NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/philosop/meta/2856

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!ruhets.rutgers.edu!farris
From: [e-mail] (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Keywords: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:18:44 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 67

I was drawn to have a look at this group because of Wm. Tucker's
crosspost. I never imagined I would find such an ardent flame war
here. ;-)

It hasn't been clear to me that any physicists have posted on this
topic yet, so let me offer my own bit of kindling.

I haven't read Capra's books, or seen his movie. To be honest, I have
an intuitive feeling that I just won't like them.

However, it was another book which drew analogies between modern
physics and eastern mysticism that first got me interested both in
mysticism and physics, to the point that I am studying esoteric
buddhism as well as getting my PhD in physics in a couple of months.

That other book Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", I thought
was very good.  A couple of weeks back I bought his other book, "The
Seat of the Soul". Bleaackk! :-P

Perhaps it reflected the kind of thing I was afraid of seeing in
Capra's works. Zukav's book is a mystical rant. He goes on this raving
about healing souls and the personality needs to be aligned with the
soul and on and on. This stuff may or may not be. It is not subject to
scientific investigation. But at the very least you need a tight
intellectual structure to begin to discuss such topics with any kind
of coherence.

Analogies can be drawn between eastern mysticism and modern physics,
but that's it. They are just analogies, they have no observable basis
in experiential reality. I would even go so far as to say that some
physicists are drawn into the field who pursue it because of a
mystical bent to their nature. They want to see God, as it were, and
this is the means they choose.

But physics, as we know it today, does not lend credence to mysticism.
It is a purely rational endeavor, all of its results are subject to
rigorous rational examination, the most important being physical
experiment. If you can't measure it, it ain't physics.

There are certain ideas in modern physics that do, however, sound
pretty mystical when you get right down to them, and they are pretty
standard physics. Observer-created universe, model agnosticism (or the
Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics), the Many-Worlds
interpretation, the Bohm-Aharanov effect, Bell's Theorem, etc.

Now maybe the ideas of eastern mysticism and modern physics have a
common ground of being. But you can't prove it scientifically, and you
can't take physics as a proof of mystical notions. (Have I said it
often enough yet?)

I think mysticism is pretty neat stuff, and perhaps because of my
scientific bent, you might say I am an experimental mystic.

If there is some other physicist reading this, that believes Capra's
stuff, please tell me why. I would really like to hear someone explain
how any of this stuff is "proven" by physics.

Please reply by e-mail if you want me to read what you have to say. I
don't really follow this group.

            Could I have some water please? ;-)
            Lorenzo
--
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  [e-mail] *
                                        ******************************