Quantum physicists' interest in the Hindu Vedanta: science and soul conscioussness.
Submitted by Augustin on Sun, 2006-12-03 07:15.
I mentioned previously Schrödinger's interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism.
I found another eminent quantum physicists, Eugene Paul Wigner, who also had an interest in the Vedanta.
Wigner wrote on Sri Ramakrishna:
The waves of religious thought rise and fall, and on the topmost one stands the prophet of the period. Ramakrishna came to teach the religion of today, constructive, not destructive. He had to go afresh to nature to ask for facts, and he got scientific religion which never says "believe," but "see." "I see and you too, can see"---said Vivekananda.
Until not many years ago, the existence of a mind or soul would have been passionately denied by most physical scientists. The brilliant success of mechanistic and, more generally, macroscopic physics, and of chemistry, overshadowed the obvious fact that thoughts, desires, and emotions are not made of matter and it was nearly universally accepted among physical scientists that there is nothing besides matter.
The Wigner's friend paradox is at the origin of the theory that it is consciousness that causes a quantum wave to collapse (but that idea is still very controversial):
Consciousness causes collapse is the theory that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics. It is an attempt to solve the Wigner's friend paradox by simply stating that collapse occurs at the first "conscious" observer. Supporters claim this is not a revival of substance dualism, since (in a ramification of this view) consciousness and objects are entangled and cannot be considered as separate. The consciousness causes collapse theory can be considered as a speculative appendage to almost any interpretation of quantum mechanics and most physicists regard it as a non-scientific concept, claiming that it is 1) unverifiable and 2) introduces unnecessary elements into physics.
It has been claimed that the theory meshes well with ancient Eastern mysticism and philosophy, including that of Buddhism which includes a belief in the transitory, interconnected nature of all things and the illusion of separation of thought and existence. This is one of the major themes of the book The Dancing Wu Li Masters. It also meshes well with the views of the New Thought movement.
The view is also presented in the popular and controversial documentaries What the Bleep Do We Know!? and The Secret,
Note the added emphasis: not so long ago, scientists would have denied that anything beside matter exist. But we know now that matter is mostly made of emptiness and a bunch of sub-atomic particles whose behaviour is really bizarre. Now, scientists do not deny the existence of a soul or non-physical (non-material) consciousness. They merely say that is is not provable and thus conveniently brush the idea under the carpet.
I am happy with the scientist keeping the soul out of their equations. What I would like, though, is that the scientists on one side, the mystics on the other, and the rest of us in the middle be clear on the fundamental difference between the realms investigated by the two groups: to the scientist, the physical 3D world, to the mystics everything beyond that.
Thus, the idea is not to use science to prove or disprove the existence of a soul, but to understand that it is not necessarily its job to do so.
»
- Augustin's blog
- Login or register to post comments


To Augustin
Hi! First of all thank you for this post as I did not knew that Schrodinger and Wigner were also influenced by Hindu philosophies. I notice your interest in ancient Indian knowledge and your keenness to establish a relation between consciousness and matter. Since I am from India, I should be able to help you out in understanding these topics better. For now I should tell you that the ancient Vedic knowledge was most profound and significant than any other knowledge that we have so far known. I recommend for you the Bhagvad-Gita, which is a jewel amongst all texts so far written. (Do not read its commentaries, which many books contain, they are not meaningful for first-time readers) I feel very helpless to see that people are unable to understand their objective. For example, a scientist who is hell bent on discarding the existence of God from all equations because he thinks he is pursuing rationality, does not understand that his such attempts have become profound reasons for encouragement of sinful activities. He thus fails his objective of being a human being first. It would not be exaggerating if I say that there is only one way to end all miseries of mankind and that is by following the guidelines of Bhagvad-Gita. It seemed utter nonsense to me when I first read it, but now after reading it perhaps more than 100 times, I understand amost of its implications and know now that there is only path to take. I would say goodbye now, you can discuss your things with me. :-)
Bhagvad-Gita - science and religion.
The Bhagvad-Gita is one of the Spiritual book that I wish to read ... and understand, one day.
I am still interested in the relationship between science and religions. I don't spend too much time on it right now, because I am working on other projects.
Still, I would like to understand better both science and religion. When people argue about one or the other, I often have the impression that they don't understand what they are talking about. They either have the wrong impression of science (modern science, and history of science), or of religion... or both.
One of my wishes was to use one section of this site to explore both in relationship to each other.
Re: Bhagvad-Gita - science and religion.
I totally understand your intention to understand science and religion, in relationship to one another. And just to endorse your view, I say that I have heard very few people who admit that science and religion hold their respective places.
The fact that science plays an important role in our life cannot be undermined. It helps in the understanding of Nature and makes that knowledge available to us for our benefit. However, its sphere of work is limited to that purpose. It cannot, for example, tell you what morality is or how to manage your thoughts and actions.
Science is a subject that I put into the category of what I call "auxiliary knowledge". On the other hand religion is not a subject; it is a way of life. The knowledge of the principles of life that are undisputable (as has been described in the Bhagvad-Gita) is what I put into the category of "core knowledge". This means that core knowledge has to be given precedence over auxiliary knowledge, but unfortunately the situation today is just opposite.
Please do not take offence of the fact that I name only Bhagvad-Gita or Vedanta when I talk about religion. It is nothing to with the fact that I am Hindu, but that extensive research has gone into this before reaching to such a conclusion. Hinduism, as it is called today, is the oldest religion of the world (at that time, the term religion would not have meant the same thing that it today means, for there was only one religion) and this alone has not originated out of any single person. Most of its philosophies originated well before the advent of any other religion and its knowledge is being reaffirmed by modern science.
You say that you are working on other projects. My advice to you would be to first complete your understanding of science and religion. For anyone to acquire a perfect sense of the world, it is important to realize the harmony of science and religion. (Please remember as to what I mean by religion.)
Books to read
I forgot to mention that there a few more books to read. Other Worlds by Paul Davies, The Tao of Physics by Fitjof Capra and Advait Vedanta & Modern Science by John Dobson.
Re: Books to read
I made the last post in a real hurry. In fact, I am always in a hurry heh. Anyway I wanted to say a few more things. These books have helped me immensely in understanding the world and that is why I recommended them for you or for anyone who wants to understand this world. But each of them needs to be read thoroughly and with complete analysis of subject matter.
Paul Davies is a scientist who takes a purely scientific route to accomplish answers of the ultimate. Although in one of his book he concedes in the last lines that perhaps the answers to the ultimate can be achieved only through the path of mysticism. He is a fabulous writer and pours every detail in the matters he discusses. What he unwittingly does to our purpose in his book Other Worlds is to give explicit details of the limits of physics in both microscopic and macroscopic domain.
Fitjof Capra's classic The Tao of Physics joins the loose ends of the scientific and religious cords and explains the parallelism between modern science and eastern philosophies.
Finally, there is something I want to say about Bhagvad-Gita. It is a text that cannot be understood, it can only be realized and there is only one way to realize it