Phys Educ 22 119871 Prlnted In t h c UK

Physics and spirituality: the next grand unification?

current framework) seem to lie outside the scope of Brian Josephson science in its present form. At the present time we can see the emergence of something which, while not being exactly a consensus of opinion, at any rate I n what light should a scientist regard the assertions forms a collection of mutually consistent ideas as to of a religion, or of religions in general? One extreme the general form of a possible new understanding of position is the atheistic one of regarding the asser- nature,a nd of what might constitutea ppropriate tions of religion as falsehoods. Such a position can means of investigating nature. that goes beyond and bes u stained only by regardingt h e xperiences is more flexible than is thec urrentc onventional which individualsc onsidera sv alidatingt heir reli- framework. These ideas are not well represented in gious beliefs as being explicable in other ways and, the standard literature-probably, in the last analy- in the absence of an adequate research programme sis, because they represent the same kind of threat tos upporti t, must be consideredm orea s falling to current scientific dogmas as scientific discoveries withint he field of opiniont hana s within that of havep resentedt or eligiousd ogmas in thep ast. science. (There has even been a suggestion, in the editorial Thea lternativet ot hisa theisticp osition is that pages of a prestigious scientific journal, that a par- theree xists an aspect of reality-that we may for ticular book should be burnt because it propagated convenience caltl r anscendental-which embraces dangerous ideas.) the subject mattero f religion (or as somem ay prefer It will be my task in what follows to explain the to term i t , the spiritual aspect of life) and which is ways in which current scientific orthodoxiesa re not at present encompassed by science. The ques- beingc hallengeda ndt oc onveys omei dea of the tion then arises whether some future science mabey alternativesp resentlye merging.A n umber of im- able to cope with this aspect of reality, or whether it portantt hemesh erei ncludet heq uestions of the will remain forever beyond the scopeo f science. The validity of reductionisma ndt h e universality of general aim of scienceb eingt og ain as full and quantum mechanics, as well as that of the relevance accurate a picture of reality as possible, one would of mystical experience. My own thoughts in this area expect logically that scientists in general would take have been much influenced by the writings of David a keen interest in such questions. just as they do in Bohm (1980) andF ritjoCf apra (1975). I have topics such as those of the fundamental constitution

of matter, or of the mechanisms of life. In practice. ~~ ~ however, such questions have been almost entirely Brian D Josephson FRS, FlnstP is a Professor of split off from scientific consciousness. in some cases Physics, University of Cambridge. His MA and as a result of an atheistic point of view and in others PhD were from the same universiHtye. shared because present science seems to be so far removed the 1973 Nobel Prize in physicsfor his froma nythings piritualt hatt hes uggestion of the theoretical prediction of the phenomena now possibility of a merging of the two seems improbable known as the Josephsone ffects. His visiting or even absurd. professorships have included the Indian While it may have been the case that such ques- Institute ofScience, Bangalore (1984) and the tions have been split off from scientific conscious- Computer Science Department, WayneS tate ness in general, there has been asi gnificant minority University, Detroit (1983)He. is joint editor of the of scientists who have tried to apply the methods of conference proceedingsC onsciousness and the thought and analysis of the scientist to those aspects Physical World(0xford: Pergamon) and his of realityt hat( unlesso nea doptsa sa na rticle of research interests concern the phenomenono f faith the idea that all these aspects will in due course intelligence and attemptsa t unifying the either be explained or 'explained away' within the scientific and mystical views of nature.

0031-9120/87/010015+05$02,50~1987 IOP Publlshlng Ltd 15 benefiteda lsof rom discussions with an umber of mechanics. If we try too vercome our ignorance scientific colleagues, including in particular Michael regarding the internal nature and constitutiono f the Conrad,D ipankarH ome,H R N agendra.S teven biosystem undes rtu dy by performinsg u itable Rosen and Richard Thompson, as well as with the observations, then we must at some point come up members of twos pirituaml ovementst h aht ave with ap roblem like thatp reviouslye ncountered. attempted to elaborate suitable concepts in the area namely that observing as ystem disturbs it slightly at beindg i scusse(d t hTe ranscendentaMl editation the quantum level. Biosystems are examples of sys- movement and the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual tems where, just as in the case considered above. we University). do not have the degree of control over the internal structure of the system under investigation that we do in general have in physics and chemistry. In the The validity of reductionism example previously given.a c olleagued etermined One of the points of tension between orthodoxy and the state of the system in a way not accessible to us then ewt hinking is theq uestion of thee xtent to in detail; in thec ase of biosystemsn atured oes which the approach of reductionism (i.e. studying a precisely the same thing. complexs ystem in terms of its componentp arts) Biosystems illustrate again the way successful ap- remains a valid one in quantum mechanics. Suppor- plications of ap articularp rinciplea ree mphasised ters of reductionism quote various examples from while thse i tuationws herpe r oblemos c cuar r e physics (e.g. phenomena of the solid state) and from ignored or overlookeCd .o nventiontah li nking chemistry (e.g. explaining the properties of a mole- works adequately at the molecular level, where the cule) as prooft hatt her eductionista pproach still change of the structure through observation is not applies despite the conceptual changes wrought by an overwhelminpg r oblem. I t woulbd e come a quantumm echanics. In others ituations, however, problem,h owever, if we weret o try to explain the reductionistic approach (withi ts implication that biosystems in detail at the level of the wave func- the properties of a system canbe satisfactorily deter- tion. The successes of molecular biology in no way mined by observation of that system alone) breaks detractf romt hef orce of Bohr’sa rgument, which down.C onsider,f ore xample.t he followings itua- applies in a regime different from that with which tion. A colleague B sends us a beam of polarised biology is currently concerned. particles which are individually polarised according to a rule that he alone knows. We cannot find out exactly how each particle in the beam is polarised The universality or otherwise of quantum mechanics becausea no bservation of onec omponent of the The question of the universality of quantum theory spin wilil n generala ltert hev alues of theo ther has been discussed in detail by David Bohm (1980). components.A ndy et we cannot say (as is often He considers as an illustrative example the way in permissible in quantumm echanics)t hatt hei ndi- which insurance companies use statistical tables to viduasl pinsa reu ndefined, since in this casea predict the probability that agiven person will die of perfectly definite spin has been given to each parti- a specified disease within a specified timep eriod. cle by our colleague B. This example shows in the Thee xistence of theses tatistical laws in no way simplest possible way how in the quantum domain it excludes the possibility of other laws existing which is possible that information outside a system may be would determine the precise conditionosf death of a needed before a full description of that system can given individual policy holder (e.g. death caused by be given, thus contradicting the reductionist poinotf an accident,t hed etails of which are in principle view. describable by the laws of mechanics).S imilarly. The example just given displays a common fea- Brownianm otionc anb ed escribede ithers tatisti- ture of many of the arguments that support ortho- cally or in terms of them otions of thei ndividual doxy,n amelyt hatt he successful applications of a atoms in an individual instance of an experiment. particular principle are emphasised, while the situa- Analogously, one can argue that no contradiction tionsw heret hep rinciplec annotb e successfully is involved in supposing that under suitable condi- applied or where there are some difficulties with the tions alternative descriptionso f systems to the quan- standard view are ignored or overlooked, creating tumm echanicaol nes may bep ossiblea, ndt h at thus a distorted account of the true situation. possession of these descriptions might permit par- A very similar situation to that just described, but ticulapr redictionts ob em adet h awt erem ore one which is of considerablym ore practical rele- definite than those which quantum mechanics pro- vance, was given by Niels Bohr (1958) who observed videsB. ohmn otest hat manyp hysicists retaina that the uncertainty principle would ultimately limit belief that such ideas are not to be taken seriously thed egreet o which onec ouldu nderstand bio- because of thea rgumentsa gainstt hemt hath ave systems in terms of thme ethods of quantum been made in the past. These arguments have now

16 beens hownt ob e invalid andt heyc an in factb e crystalm) akefs o pr a rticulamr athematicasl i m- refutedd i rectly by means of explicit counter- plifications. We gain then a consisteviewnt of nature examples. in which the two categories of description comple- Theq uestion of thue niversality of quantum ment each other; neither on its own containing the mechanics is closely boundu p with the issue of full story. This featureo f complementarity contrasts measurementD. oest h em easurementt h eory of with thec onventionalh ypothesist hat of thet wo quantum mechanics (Dirac 19%) give a satisfactory descriptions the quantum mechanicalis fundamental account of the outcome of all possible experiments, while biological descriptions are derivative. as is often asserted, or not? The factso f the situation One can go further: the conceptual picture which are confused by the fact that a physics experiment has just been described allows in principle a deep constitutesa s peciasl ituationA. ne xperiment is normally set up specifically to find out information that can be interpreted in the light of current physi- I God is subtle but he is not bloodyminded , (translation of Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber cal theories and thus ultimately in terms of quantum 1 boshaft ist er nicht) mechanics. I t should be nos urprise.t hen,t o find ' God casts the die, not the dice. thatt hem easurementsd one in practicea reo nes Albert Einstein quoted in The Harvest of a Quiet that conform to the ideao f measurement prescribed €ye (Bristol: The Instituteo f Physics 1977) by theq uantumt heorya ndt here is no reasont o conclude from this fact (as those who hold to the God not only plays dice.H e also sometimes Copenhageni nterpretation of quantumm echanics throws thed ice where they cannobet seen. do)t hatt heq uantumm echanicalt heory of mea- Stephen Hawking quoted in the The Harvesto f a suremenpt r ovidetas h eory of all conceivable Quiet Eye( Bristol: The Instituteof Physics 1977) measurement processes. Therei s no real reason why all information gathering devices. and in particular unification of biological phenomenaa ndq uantum devices based on different concepts as to what kind phenomena (cf Stapp 1082. Villars 1983). I n this of information is being gathered. should fit into the conceptual unification. a concept in the one modeo f formal scheme provided by the quantum mechanical description,s uch as them aking of ac hoice.g oes theory of measurement, which is basedo nt h e over in the other description into a corresponding assumption that to every measurement is associated concept( which in thisp articulari nstance is the a specific Hermitian operator. collapse of the wave function).T his unification is reminiscent of Einstein's unltication of gravitation and inertia. in that in it two phenomena that are at Complementary descriptions first sight completely different in nature are seen to Thep robablei napplicability of ther eductionistic be ultimately the same. By virtue of this unification andq uantumm echanicalm odes of description in it canb es aidt hatc ertainf eatures of quantum certain areas of nature serves to focus our attention mechanicbs ecomec omprehensible in theior wn ont he possibility alreadym entionedt hatd escrip- right, rather than having to be arbitrarily postulated tions of nature may exist that supplement the con- as axioms. ventionaql u antumm echanicaol n eAd. e tailed Thec omplementarityi dea may bep articularly working out of this idea has been given by Michael relevant to the phenomenon of the effectiveness of Conrad, Dipankar Home and myself (Conrad et a1 performance of biosystems.T hep icturep roposed 19x6). to which source the reader is referred for a leads to the possibility that the asymmetric kind of fuller account of the ideas than can be given in the order which exists in biosystems as a result of selec- space available here. In this paper we noted firstly tion processes may not have the kind of regularity that descriptions in science (and also the methods of that quantum mechanics describes, and hence may observation to be used) are not necessarily absolute well not fit into the quantum mechanical scheme. As in the sense of being equally suitable for use in all a result, for biosystems quantum mechanics might situations. For example. in a biological context, be systematically in error. Since the general effect of where some kind of selection process has beene ffec- natural selection is to improve the performance of tive. terms such as perception, purposive behaviour, biosystems over the time, it might be expected that decisionm aking,l earning or adaptationa reo ften biosystems would be more effective than quantum very useful, although such terminology is not suit- mechanics would lead one to expect. This,i f we like able for systems in general. In the same way, one tot hink of it in theset erms, is a valid way of may hypothesiset h att h el a nguage of quantum introducing into science ideas that are collaterwithal mechanics may properly apply onlyi n a limiting case vitalism. In this connection it may be noted that the where some regular order (which it may be helpful arguments that have been presented in this section, tot hink of asb einga nalogoust ot heo rder in a suggesting that biological descriptions and quantum

17 descriptions may complement each other, go a long more to how one may overcome the problems that way towards legitimising the unorthodox approach faceo ne in obtaining‘ good’d ataa ndt o how t o of Sheldrake (1981), who regards certain biological integrate mystical knowledgea dequately with our concepts such ast hat of am orphogenetic field (a ordinary frames of reference. field postulated to account for the development of Thep rimaryg oal of meditation is nott hat of form) as being fundamental. gainingi n tellectuakl nowledgec apable of being An important moral to be drawn from the above formulated compactly in terms of words. but rather discussion is that one should not overstress the value that of gaining through the experiencea new kind o f of mathematical analysis in science. In the biological perceptiona ndu nderstanding of reality that will sciences we find concrete illustrations of the fact that transform the ways a person acts in life. But it is by sciencec ans ometimesp roceed very well without no means the case that no propositions in words can anye quations. It mayb ea no veridealisation to be madea bout such experiences,a ndi ndeedt he presume that one can always make a precise con- literature of mystical experience is extensive. It is nectionb etweenc oncrete physicarl e ality anda not feasible in the space of this article to attempt to mathematical object of some kind; some aspects of give the reader any detailed vision of what this kind reality may be better captured by other, nonmathe- of knowledge is like, but I can recommend study of a matical, types of conceptual entity. These can lead work such as the classical Yoga Sutras of’ Patanjnli to models which canb et estedj ust ass uccessfully (trans. in Shearer 1982) as possibly providing a faint against reality as can models based on equations. h i n t as to the kind of thoughts that are involved. The interpretation of what mystics have written is complicated by the fact that different mystics have Introspection as a scientific tool used many different languages and different styleso f Wctait dehkn e a of complementary description, whiale g ain different mystics have descriptions-which, as exemplified by the descrip- spoken on the basis of different levels of develop- tions found in biology, are ‘softer’ than the numeri- ment.I ndeed.m orea ndm orec larity of mind is cal descriptions used in physics and chemistry-one necessary before the subtler perceptions of mystic- stage furtherb y taking account of descriptions of the ism can be understood and realised, paralleling the inner reality which is found by introspection. Discus- way that clarity of mind is required in order to work sion of this mored elicatee xperiencing of reality, with subtle muthemutical concepts. If oneu nder- which includesw hat is commonlyc alled mystical stands these facts. and avoids such traps as presum- experience, serves to bring the topic back again to ing to be able to judge the various aspectso f mystic- the subject of physics and faith, the overall theme of ism without having had the relevant experience o r this issue of Physics Education. Here Fritjof Capra training. one will in all probability be able to recog- has been a leading figure in promoting the view that nise that there is indeed a consistent body of know- mystical experience complements the knowledge of ledge that can be gained through this deeper means realityt hat we gain throught he use of orthodox of introspection. scientific methods (Capra 1975). In this context the As to the significance of mystical experience, the questioni m mediatelya r isews hether, in talking natural reaction of the physicist is to debar conscious about introspective knowledge in general and mys- ticism in particular, we may not be venturing outside Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in theb oundaries of what is legitimate in science. I the multiplicity and confusion of things ... He is shall respondt ot hisq uestion by posinga nother. the God of order and not of confusion which is dependent on the fact that, although mys- Isaac Newton tical experience is not an element in current science, mathematiccs e rtainly is. Thqe uestion is. why experiencfre o tmh fre a mework of discussion should the thinking involved in doing mathematics altogether.T his may bes atisfactorya s far as the (which is as introspective in character, as is meditat- study of matter is concerned (although not even in ing) should serve as a legitimate componento f scien- that case if, as Wigner has suggested, consciousness ce, while mystical experience does not? collapses wave functions). but it becomes a dubious If this question seems a strange one to the reader. doctrine if thec onsciousi ndividual himself is o u r this is almost certainly because the meditative states subject of interest. It is a natural extension of argu- of the mystic aren otr ecognisedp arts of his life, ments previously given to consider that descriptions event hough he has in fact probablye xperienced of ac onsciousi ndividual in quantumm echanical them to some degree on particular occasions. Some- terms may have to be supplemented by descriptions one who is familiar withs uch experiences, on the in terms of his thought processes, just as previously other hand, will see the question of legitimacy to be it was proposed that similar supplementationm ay be misconceived; rather the questions that arise relate necessary for the case of nonconscious biosystems.

18 From a generalv iewpoint.w hen we describe our Benson 1972) which measure the effects of psycho- thoughtp rocesses we ared escribings ome of the logical techniques such as meditation on parameters mechanics involved in thee xpression in action of which canb em easured by more objective means. o u r intelligence.L ogically. thes ubtlere xperiences The implication of such research is that the mind- of mysticism can also be interpreted as being a part body interaction is now an experimental matter, not of thew orkings of intelligence in nature( which just one of philosophical interest. One tangible out- characterisationc an. in principle,a lsoi ncludet he come of such research is that it is becoming accepted divinei ntelligence).B ecause of our consciousness in the medical profession that it is not sufficient to we can have directk nowledge of thesep rocesses treat disease on a purely physiological basis. As yet, that is not accessible to the usual means of investiga- however, there is little acceptance of the idea that a t i o n of science and.a s previously noted, it is illogical spiritual component may also bei nvolved in matters to rule out this kind of knowledge while accepting of health. the use of mathematics. My second example is of a successful preliminary attempt, with which I haveb eeni nvolved,t op ut ideasf rom mysticism intoa m orec oncretef orm. Paths for the future This consisted of a computer model of a develop- 1 have here presented the reader with a number of mental process, based on descriptions of the mind conceptst hata req uitef arr emovedf romt hose given by MaharishiM aheshY ogi.T hesed escrip- found in traditional ways of thinking. I have sug- tionsw ere originally themselvesd erivedf romt he gested in the first place that there is no good reason Vedas, which are some of the earliest expressions of to suppose that the current physical laws represent mystical experienceC. ircumstances have not yet thee nd of ther oadf ors cience. It is largely the allowed the continued development of the model to limitations on thinking that the current framework ap ointw here it might compete with the kind of imposes (especially in view of the standard advice model of the mind built by workers in the field of that it is bestn ott ow orrya boutt he meaning of artificial intelligence. but the fact thatt hem odel quantum mechanics) that make it impossible to see worked at all clearly refutes the commonly helviewd that it isi n factq uitea r estrictedf rameworkf or that mysticism is totalldy e void of meaningful viewing nature as a whole. Secondly, complement- content. arity and concepts associated with complementarity seem to bec rucialf orh andlingt hei nterpretative problems that will arise if one attempts to go beyond References quantum mechanics and encompass alternative pers- Bohm D 1980 Wholeness and the Implicate Order( London: pectives on reality. Finally, the subtle experiences of Routledge and Kegan Paul) ch. 4 reality found, for example. in meditative states may Bohr N 1958 'Light and life' in Atomic Physics and Human havea f undamentalr olet o playa s data in future Knowledge (New York: Wiley) pp 3-12 science. Capra F 1975 The Tuooffhysics( London: Wildwood A possible aim of this future science may be what House) theB rahmaK umarish avec alled' combiningt he Conrad M et a1 1986 'Beyond quantum theory: arealist psycho-biological interpretation of physical reality' in power of science with thep ower of silence'.T he Tarozzi G and van der Merve (eds)M icrophysical power of science is the capacity it gives us to under- Reality and Quantum Formalism to be published stand nature in very specific terms, giving us thereby (Dordrecht: Reidel) the ability to control nature and to creatvee ry many Dirac P 1958 The Principles of Quantum Mechanics of those things that we desire to have. Experiencing (Oxford: Oxford University Press) ch. 2 silence. on the other hand, gives us a power whose Ginsberg H and Opper S 1969 Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development (Engelwood Cliffs. NJ: achievements may be easier to see if they are de- Prentice-Hall) fined negative terms, as for example the in absence Shearer A 1982 Effortless Being (London: Wildwood of conflict, confusion, fear and anger. Upto now the House) twok inds of powerh aveb eens eparateda ndo ne Sheldrake R 1981 A NewScienceofLife(London: Blond could almost say that the existence of only the one and Briggs) hasb eena cknowledged officially. Nowt hef uture Stapp H P 1982 Found. Phys. 12 363-99 holds out to us the possibility of combining the two. Villars C N 1983 Psychoenergetics 5 129-39 Finally, in ordert oa voidl eavingt hes ceptical Wallace R K and Benson H 1972 'The physiology of reader with thei deat hatn othing of ac oncrete meditation' Sci. Am. 226 84-90 nature is involved in the things about which I have been talking, I should like to comment very briefly on two examples of more concrete research. First, there are now many experiments (e.g. Wallace and

19