Quantum physics and the first-person perspectiveSeeing | Quantum physics Markus Müller, PhD | 2022-10-23

 

The Nobel Prize in physics this year (2022) went the scientists who, for over 40 years, have carried out a series of experiments indicating that, contrary to materialist expectations, physical entities do not have standalone existence but are, in fact, products of observation. This result is extraordinarily relevant to our understanding of the nature of reality, and so Essentia Foundation’s conference this year is organized in collaboration with the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Vienna (IQOQI-Vienna), of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The  IQOQI-Vienna is home to Prof. Anton Zeilinger, one of this year’s Nobel Laureates in physics. The conference will be hosted by IQOQI-Vienna’s Dr. Markus Müller and feature seven other speakers. You can attend the conference online, for free, without need for registration, by using this link: https://webinar.cue-support.nl/essentiafoundation. So set the dates in your calendars: 17 and 18 November 2022, between 2:00pm and 5:45pm (Central European Standard Time, CEST).

Classical physics describes the objective and deterministic evolution of a unique external world composed of material entities. One of its main characteristics is to keep the observer out of the description, and this commitment has historically, without doubt, been an important methodological strength. However, quantum physics challenges this commitment: for example, the measurement problem attributes special significance to the act of observation, and Bell’s theorem challenges the assumption that measurements always reveal preexisting properties of the world.

Are some ‘laws of nature’ better interpreted as agents’ betting strategies than facts of the world? Should we think of quantum theory as relational, and if so, as specifically relative to an observer, as Wigner’s friend-type thought experiments may suggest? At this conference, we will discuss whether, and if so, how, the first-person perspective is an irreducible part of quantum physics, and what this may tell us about the paradigm of materialism.

You can watch the conference live via this link: https://webinar.cue-support.nl/essentiafoundation.

Quantum physicists are beginning to sound like mystics

By Jaime Licauco
Philippine Daily Inquirer

1:48 am | Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

                                                                   

Two weeks ago, the Western scientific world was ablaze with excitement over the announcement by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences that the Nobel Prize for physics this year was awarded to Serge Horoche of France and David Wineland of the United States, “for finding ways to observe and measure quantum particles without destroying them,” which had previously been regarded as impossible.
Prior  to the duo’s pioneering work, the behavior of very small particles of matter and light could only be imagined in  mathematical equations and mental experiments.
“Simple particles are not easily isolated from their surrounding environment, and they lose their mysterious quantum properties as soon as they interact with the outside world,” a statement from the Royal Academy of Science read.
“Thus, many seemingly bizarre phenomena predicted by quantum physics could not be directly observed and researchers could only carry out thought experiments that might in principle manifest these bizarre phenomena,” it added.
What are the practical implications of the discovery of these two physicists? According to the Royal Academy: “Their groundbreaking methods have enabled this field of research to take the very first steps toward building a new type of super-computer or teleport particles from one place to another based on quantum physics.”
Modern physics, also called quantum mechanics and particle physics, is the study of the behavior and properties of the smallest particles of matter. In particle physics, the much-revered laws of Newtonian physics do not apply, to the astonishment of classical scientists.
According to quantum physics, the universe is not what classical science has always assumed it to be. And what are these assumptions? We can summarize them as follows:
1.      Strong objectivity:  Classical science assumes that there is an objective world out there which is independent of us.
2.      Causal determinism:  This world is fundamentally deterministic, meaning if we know what forces are acting on an object, we will know exactly its position and velocity at any given time.
3.      Locality: This assumption says that all interactions between material objects happen in specific positions or locality independent of each other.
4.      Materialism:  This says that nothing exists in the universe except matter which follows established physical laws.

Advertisement:Replay Ad

The discoveries of quantum physics have practically demolished all the above assumptions of classical or Newtonian physics.

Inexplicable

The New Physics enables scientists to explain various phenomena such as bilocation, telekinesis and teleportation, that are completely inexplicable in terms of the classical Newtonian physics. The universe, it turns out, is not what scientists have always assumed it to be.
As the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who was himself a Nobel Laureate, said, “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
When quantum physicists tried to see what makes up the smallest particle of matter, they discovered to their great astonishment and disbelief that there is nothing there. Particles exist only after somebody observes them, which doesn’t make sense according to the old Newtonian physics.
And this is one of the reasons perhaps why Bohr said that, “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”
I do not completely understand quantum physics, not being a scientist myself, but that’s not the reason why I am not at all shocked by it. It’s because I find its theories and assumptions to be compatible with those of mysticism.
Even some major physicists seem to agree with this. For example, Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington said: “The stuff of the universe is mind stuff.” Much earlier, physicist James Jeans said: “The universe is one great thought.”
Compare the above statements of physicists with the ancient teachings of the Australian aborigines, that this world is nothing more than a dream created during Dreamtime. And the Buddhist teaching that the outside world is nothing but maya or illusion.
It seems, therefore, that there is a growing convergence between modern physics and mysticism, between science and ancient religion. Modern physicists are beginning to sound like mystics, and mystics are beginning to sound more like physicists, as pointed out by neuroscientist Dr. Laurence LeShan in “The Medium, The Physicist and the Mystic”; by physicist Fritjof Cupra in “The Tao of Physics”; by researchers Gary Zukav in the “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”; and by Michael Talbot in “Mysticism and the New Physics.”
To quantum physicists, therefore, paranormal and psychic phenomena no longer sound as crazy as they were once regarded to be.
The next Soulmates, Karma and Reincarnation seminar is on Nov. 17, 1-7 p.m., while the Practical Mind Dynamics Seminar is on Nov. 24-25, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., at Rm. 308 Prince Plaza I, Legaspi St., Greenbelt, Makati. For seminar details, personal consultancy, and past life regression, call tel. 8107245, 0929-9818962/63. E-mail jaimetlicauco@yahoo.com or visit www.jimmylicauco.com.

Ref source http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/74582/quantum-physicists-are-beginning-to-sound-like-mystics#ixzz2jxbcGR9b

Consciousness, Quantum Physics & Parapsychology

 

By D. R. Sharma

You see a person for the first time; you have never known and never interacted with him or her before in any way. Just looking at the person you develop a like or dislike that has nothing to do with the physical appearance. If the like is strong, you feel like talking to the person. On the other hand if it is a strong dislike, you consciously avoid the person. And this phenomenon is not limited to just humans; it happens between humans and animals, especially pets, and perhaps also among animals. Another experience that is not so common, involves places. You visit a place where you have never been before, yet it feels familiar. Have you ever wondered what lies behind all these feelings?
One thing we can certainly assume is that there is consciousness involved in some way in all such phenomena. In physics there is a quantity called 'field'. It is nonmaterial but pervades the entire space. The most familiar are the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. These are basically energy fields. Consciousness is also a field in the same sense. The interaction between two entities occurs only through their respective consciousness fields. In the case of humans, parapsychologists call it the human energy field, but every object in the universe has its own energy field. Everything interacts with everything else. In most cases the interaction is very weak and negligible but in some cases it may be perceptible or even strong. If we take the holistic view of the universe, everything in it is interconnected because the Ultimate Reality underlying all existence is one and the same. Where does the universe come from and where does it go? These are questions for which philosophers have sought answers for ages past and to which modern science also has devoted much attention. An objective analysis leads us to believe that this underlying reality is universal consciousness. Everything in the universe (matter, space, time) emerges from it. Since the source is one, everything shares consciousness and it forms a common bond. Contrary to the common belief, consciousness is not limited to living organisms. How do we decide what objects have consciousness? We always tend to see consciousness from a human perspective associating it with subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and so on. How can we be sure that an inanimate object like stone does not have these attributes? Strictly speaking consciousness cannot even be defined because we can define things only in the realm of the known. But everything that is known is known only through consciousness and thus consciousness is outside the realm of the known. We know that matter and energy are equivalent. Energy cannot be passive; in matter in any form elementary particles like electrons are in constant motion. When atoms combine to form molecules they exchange electrons. When an electron goes into an atom (or ion) it somehow knows which orbit it can enter, and which not. This is a fundamental principle that governs the structure of matter. It implies that the electron knows enough about the other electrons that are already there. And no known physical force is responsible for enforcing this behavior. It would seem therefore that elementary particles are in some way interconnected through consciousness. If consciousness manifests itself at this elementary level, it is reasonable to assume that it is present (as energy) in all forms of matter. In quantum physics there is also a phenomenon called 'phase entanglement'. Two particles having a common origin react to each other instantaneously irrespective of the distance and time separating them. If this idea is extended to objects, the interaction through the consciousness fields becomes understandable. The strength of the interaction would depend on that of the common bond at some point of origin in space-time however remote. Currently this type of discussion lies in the realm of parapsychology but phase entanglement may bring it into mainstream science as well.

Dharmbir Rai Sharma is a retired professor with an electrical engineering and physics background. Dharmbir maintains the website Cosmos Ebooks [http://www.cosmosebooks.com/], dealing mainly with philosophy and science. You can download his ebook, "Where Is God," which traces the development of the concept of God.

™

Ref Source

Esoteric and Exoteric

 

M.Alan Kazlev Esoteric means the "inner" (eso-), in the sense of the inner consciousness; the contemplative, mystical or meditative transpersonal perspective.   This is something different from the ordinary everyday understanding of things, and can only be understood by intuition or higher mental or spiritual faculties.
The opposite of Esoteric is Exoteric, which means the "outer" (exo-), i.e. the outer or surface or everyday consciousness.  This includes both the scientific-materialistic and the conventional (or literal) religious perspective.  As it is based on the everyday understanding of things, and does not require any transformation of consciousness (and indeed considers any such transformation to be harmful), it assumes that the everyday mind alone can understand Reality.  (Things are not always that simple though, because in order to do, say, quantum physics one requires a mathematical intuition not shared by many).
Central to the distinction between Esoteric and Exoteric is that of states of consciousness.  An Exoteric philosophy or religion as one which is based on the normal waking state of consciousness, or a modified state of consciousness which is still pretty close to the normal waking state.  Any aspiration beyond the ordinary state of existence is discouraged.  For example, according to the religious person, "God created/loves you just as you are", so who are you to question what God has ordained for you by striving for some higher state of consciousness?  While according to the sceptical Materialist, there is no higher state beyond the rational mind anyway (all non-rational states of consciousness being delusionary).
In contrast, all true Esotericism is Gnostic. That is, it is based on Higher Knowledge, or Gnosis, to use the Greek term.  Gnosis is a much superior way of understanding than Reason.  Reason stumbles around with premises and logical arguments, and uses these in its own way, without regard for higher truth.  With reason alone, you can equally prove or disprove any statement.  Certainly, used properly, reason is an invaluable aid to understanding and approaching the Truth.  But used improperly, it can cunningly justify any statement or argument, no matter how patently false.  It is through this negative use of reason that the inferior religious and sceptical materialistic philosophies are able to flourish.
Thus we have (putting it of course simplistically) two fundamental positions; the Exoteric literal religious-and-scientific position, which requires no transformation of consciousness, and is therefore accessible to the "average joe"; and the Esoteric "mystical" and philosophically sophisticated position, which is based on the transformation of the self and the understanding of the nature of reality.  Of course, I need to emphasise here once again that this is an oversimplification of what is not really a clear cut few and many dichotomy at all.  For example the understanding of an "exoteric" (no need to attain a mystical/transpersonal state) science such as physics is accessible to only a small percentile of the population (which is why there are so few talented physicists), whereas the average person (if spiritually inclined) is much more easily able to understand and assimilate mystical or at least New Age topics, such as homeopathy, "geopathogenic zones",  eastern teachings (especially as presented by a guru), and so on.
With this in mind, I present the following, very simplistic, tabulation.

topic	"Exoteric"	"Esoteric"
Preferred state of consciousness	Normal waking consciousness	Expanded; meditative or spiritual states
Transformation of personality	No (ego-centred)	Yes (transpersonal) Self-transcendence
Means of knowledge	Reason (secular), Belief (religious)	Higher Inspiration and Intuition ("Gnosis")
Authority	External (Bible, Church, Science, etc)	Internal (Inner feelings and intuition)
Philosophy or teachings	Narrow; only one authority (Bible, Scientific method,etc), everything outside that is considered false	Broad; universal, is able to draw from many different teachings, both exoteric and esoteric
Metaphysical Position	Simplistic (Materialism, Dualism, or Holism)	Sophisticated (complex cosmology, psychology, ontology,etc) - Emanationism, Dramaturgism
Concept of Absolute Reality	External God (Dualism): i.e. God is mainly considered as a separate, external being or Space-Time-Energy (Materialism) - the "unified field theory" or Theory of Everything or some such holy grail of physics	Universal Consciousness (Monism)The Divine is within as well as without

The above table therefore presents things in a very simplistic way, as the distinction between Exoteric and Esoteric is never so clear cut.  The whole idea of such a dichotomy comes about through the establishment of the various Monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) in dogmatic form.  Due to the impossibility of reconciling literal scriptural theology with mystical insight, a very sharp demarcation naturally appears between, say, conventional Judaism and Kabbalah, or conventional Islam and Sufism.  But in the East, especially India, no such distinction is necessary, and one finds instead a smooth gradation from exoteric to esoteric, with all positions being equally acceptable.  In any case, especially in traditional or established forms of esotericism (Buddhism, Sufism, Kabbalah, etc), there is always some conceptual dogma, so we have esoteric religion, a religion based on mystical experiences, but still interpreting them according to an a prior analysis.  Most mystical and esoteric streams within religious traditions get around this problem by the use of sophisticated Hermeneutics.  In the Western world this problem was further exacerbated by the rise of scientism, rationalism, and Protestantism.  A good example of the difficulty of separating esoteric from exoteric can be seen by looking at the distinction between so called "rabinic" or Legalistic Judaism and the occult movement of Kabbalah.  One would think that there could be no more distinct counterpoles, but a deeper study shows that the situation is no-where near as clearly defined, even here.
In fact, the very idea of a sharp Exoteric-Esoteric dichotomy is a recent one, developing out of the Traditionalist school of Guenon, Schuon etc on the one hand, and Theosophy and later occult movements on the other.  Such schools of thought acknowledge a universal current of mystical revelation in that is the living heart or spirit behind the external esoteric legalistic surface of religion.
It should also be pointed out that other definition of "Esoteric" or "Esotericism" has been used by the "New Age" movement of the seventies and eighties to simply mean any acceptable non-materialistic and non-conventional-religious metaphysic.  So one could equally refer to Theosophical concepts of the Astral body or of nature spirits, or Buddhist teachings regarding higher states of consciousness, as "esoteric".  In this context, "Esoteric" becomes a meaningless blanket term for any non-physical realities or knowledge.

Exoteric and Esoteric

Tom Hickey When a teacher proclaims seeking the Highest One aside of established revelation and the orthodox community, before long a new orthodoxy arises around that teaching too, as in the case of Jesus with Judaism, Budhha with the Vedic Brahmanical religion of his time, Nanak with the Hinduism and Islam of his time, and so on. It is apparently an ongoing dialectic due to the circumstance that many people who are not evolved enough to let go of their enculturation.
The problem is that as soon as a teacher asserts something spiritual, it soon takes on the character of a metaphysical model whose interpretation by the majority of powerful becomes privileged (orthodox). The alternatives are either to disguise one's assertion poetically  (Kabbalah, Mystical Christianity and Sufism) or else to abjure all modeling as misleading, which is the Zen alternative.  Because the more fundamentalist orthodoxy is so politically powerful in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the sages of Kabbalah, Mystical Christianity and Sufism have relied on poetic metaphors to disguise an underlying model which the orthodox would likely deem heretical and react against. Zen, on the other hand, abjures model construction almost entirely because it sees models as establishing boundaries whereas the aim of the teaching (dharma) is the Boundless.

Sibling nodes: none

Child nodes: Exoteric, Esoteric, and Levels of Reality | The problem of the Exoteric and Esoteric in Judaism

Kheper Home | Esotericism | Topics Index | New | Search

Near-death experiences occur when the soul leaves the nervous system and enters the universe, claim two quantum physics experts

 

• Ground-breaking theory holds that quantum substances form the soul
• They are part of the fundamental structure of the universe

By Damien Gayle   Source Daily Mail Online




PUBLISHED: 10:38, 30 October 2012 | UPDATED: 11:26, 30 October 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, advanced the theory on a television documentary

A near-death experience happens when quantum substances which form the soul leave the nervous system and enter the universe at large, according to a remarkable theory proposed by two eminent scientists.
According to this idea, consciousness is a program for a quantum computer in the brain which can persist in the universe even after death, explaining the perceptions of those who have near-death experiences.
Dr Stuart Hameroff, Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Centre of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, has advanced the quasi-religious theory.
It is based on a quantum theory of consciousness he and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose have developed which holds that the essence of our soul is contained inside structures called microtubules within brain cells.
They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).
Thus it is held that our souls are more than the interaction of neurons in the brain. They are in fact constructed from the very fabric of the universe - and may have existed since the beginning of time.

 

More...

• Evolution of sight traced back 700m years to jellyfish which first developed the ability to detect light
• The next silicon? IBM reveal groundbreaking technique to mass produce 'carbon chips' that could could dramatically improve everything from supercomputers to mobile phones
• Sea bed wired up with thousands of kilometres of living electrical cables made of bacteria, says new study

The concept is similar to the Buddhist and Hindu belief that consciousness is an integral part of the universe - and indeed that it is really all there may be, a position similar to Western philosophical idealism.
With these beliefs, Dr Hameroff holds that in a near-death experience the microtubules lose their quantum state, but the information within them is not destroyed. Instead it merely leaves the body and returns to the cosmos.

Shocked back to life: The theory holds that when patients have a near death experience their quantum soul is released from the body and re-enters the cosmos, before returning when they are revived

Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel's Through the Wormhole documentary: 'Let's say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state.
'The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can't be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large.
'If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says "I had a near death experience".'
He adds: 'If they're not revived, and the patient dies, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.'

Evidence: Dr Hameroff believes new findings about the role quantum physics plays in biological processes, such as the navigation of birds, will one day prove his theory

The Orch-OR theory has come in for heavy criticism by more empirically minded thinkers and remains controversial among the scientific community.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark is just one of the many scientists to have challenged it, in a 2000 paper that is widely cited by opponents, the Huffington Post reports.
Nevertheless, Dr Hameroff believes that research in to quantum physics is beginning to validate Orch-Or, with quantum effects recently being shown to support many important biological processes, such as smell, bird navigation and photosynthesis.

 

Holism in science

Holism in science, or Holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) which aims to gain understanding of systems by dividing them into smaller composing elements and gaining understanding of the system through understanding their elemental properties. The holism-reductionism dichotomy is often evident in conflicting interpretations of experimental findings and in setting priorities for future research.

Contents  [hide]  1 Overview 2 Topics in Holism in science 2.1 Alternative to reductionism 2.2 Opposing views 3 Applications of holism in science 3.1 Cognitive science 3.2 Quantum physics 3.3 Biology 3.4 Other examples 4 The study of holism in science 4.1 Writers on holistic science 4.2 Holistic science in academe 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Overview

Holism in science is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems.^{[citation needed]} Two central aspects are:

1. the way of doing science, sometimes called "whole to parts," which focuses on observation of the specimen within its ecosystem first before breaking down to study any part of the specimen.
2. the idea that the scientist is not a passive observer of an external universe; that there is no 'objective truth,' but that the individual is in a reciprocal, participatory relationship with nature, and that the observer's contribution to the process is valuable.

The term holistic science has been used^[who?] as a category encompassing a number of scientific research fields (see some examples below). The term may not have a precise definition. Fields of scientific research considered potentially holistic do however have certain things in common.^{[original research?]}
First, they are multidisciplinary. Second, they are concerned with the behavior of complex systems. Third, they recognize feedback within systems as a crucial element for understanding their behavior.
The Nature Institute, a research institute in holistic science, describes the necessity for Holism in science as follows

Modern science has increasingly moved out of nature and into the laboratory, driven by a desire to find an underlying mechanistic basis of life. Despite all its success, this approach is one-sided and urgently calls for a counterbalancing movement toward nature. Only if we find ways of transforming our propensity to view and control nature in terms of parts and mechanisms, will we be able to see, value, and protect the integrity of nature and the interconnectedness of all things. This demands a contextual way of seeing." "About the Nature Institute". Archived from the original on November 23, 2010. http://www.natureinstitute.org/about/index.htm. Retrieved December 23, 2010.

The Santa Fe Institute, a center of holistic scientific research^{[dubious – discuss]} in the United States, expresses it like this:

The two dominant characteristics of the SFI research style are commitment to a multidisciplinary approach and an emphasis on the study of problems that involve complex interactions among their constituent parts. "Santa Fe Institute's Research Topics". Archived from the original on January 15, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060115042406/http://www.santafe.edu/research/indexResearchAreas.php. Retrieved January 22, 2006.

[edit] Topics in Holism in science

[edit] Alternative to reductionism

The holistic premise is that there is a possible qualitative difference between an entire system and its parts: that modularisation may fail. As applied to science, holists may generally assert that this difference can warrant the kind of rigorous scrutiny typical of scientific inquiry. The distinction of approach then lies not so much in the subjects chosen for study, but in the methods and assumptions used to study them.
Though considered by some^[who?] as alternative, holistic methods are not generally at odds with the classical scientific method.^{[citation needed]} Where holistic scientists come from a standard science background, holistic work in science tends to be, to varying degrees, a marriage of the two approaches.^{[citation needed]} For example gestalt psychology grew out of early experimental psychology.^{[improper synthesis?]} When the terms are used constructively in the science context, holism and reductionism refer to how empirical evidence is interpreted, and not only to the methods used to produce such evidence.

[edit] Opposing views

Holistic science is controversial. One opposing view is that holistic science is "pseudoscience" because it does not rigorously follow the scientific method despite the use of a scientific-sounding language. Bunge (1983) and Lilienfeld et al. (2003) state that proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings or to immunise their claims against testing. Stenger (1999) states that "holistic healing is associated with the rejection of classical, Newtonian physics. Yet, holistic healing retains many ideas from eighteenth and nineteenth century physics. Its proponents are blissfully unaware that these ideas, especially superluminal holism, have been rejected by modern physics as well".
Science journalist John Horgan has expressed this view in the book The End of Science 1996. He wrote that a certain pervasive model within holistic science, self-organized criticality, for example, "is not really a theory at all. Like punctuated equilibrium, self-organized criticality is merely a description, one of many, of the random fluctuations, the noise, permeating nature." By the theorists' own admissions, he said, such a model "can generate neither specific predictions about nature nor meaningful insights. What good is it, then?"
One of the reasons that holistic science attracts supporters is that it seems to offer a progressive, 'socio-ecological' view of the world, but Alan Marshall's book The Unity of Nature offers evidence to the contrary; suggesting holism in science is not 'ecological' or 'socially-responsive' at all, but regressive and repressive.

[edit] Applications of holism in science

Some scientific disciplines are affected by the holistic paradigm.

[edit] Cognitive science

The field of cognitive science, or the study of mind and intelligence has some examples for holistic approaches. These include Unified Theory of Cognition^{[improper synthesis?]} (Allen Newell, e.g. Soar, ACT-R as models) and many others, many of which rely on the concept of emergence, i.e. the interplay of many entities make up a functioning whole. Another example is psychological nativism, the study of the innate structure of the mind. Non-holistic functionalist approaches within cognitive science include e.g. the modularity of mind paradigm.^{[clarification needed]}
Cognitive science need not concern only human cognition. Biologist Marc Bekoff has done holistic, interdisciplinary scientific research in animal cognition and has published a book about it (see below).

[edit] Quantum physics

In the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics there is a holism of the measurement situation,^{[improper synthesis?]} in which there is a holism of apparatus and object. There is an "uncontrollable disturbance" of the measured object by the act of measurement according to Niels Bohr. It is impossible to separate the effect of the measuring apparatus from the object measured. The observer-measurement relation is an active area of research today: see Quantum decoherence, Quantum Zeno effect and Measurement problem.
In the holistic approach of David Bohm, any collection of quantum objects constitutes an indivisible whole within an implicate and explicate order.^[1][2]
Bohm pointed out that there is no scientific evidence to support the dominant view that the universe consists of a huge, finite number of minute particles, and offered in its stead a view of undivided wholeness: "ultimately, the entire universe (with all its 'particles,' including those constituting human beings, their laboratories, observing instruments, etc) has to be understood as a single undivided whole, in which analysis into separately and independently existent parts has no fundamental status." ^[3]

[edit] Biology

Holistic science sometimes asks different questions than a strictly analytic science^{[clarification needed]} — as is exemplified by Goethe in the following passage:

We conceive of the individual animal as a small world, existing for its own sake, by its own means. Every creature is its own reason to be. All its parts have a direct effect on one another, a relationship to one another, thereby constantly renewing the circle of life; thus we are justified in considering every animal physiologically perfect. Viewed from within, no part of the animal is a useless or arbitrary product of the formative impulse (as so often thought). Externally, some parts may seem useless because the inner coherence of the animal nature has given them this form without regard to outer circumstance. Thus…[not] the question, What are they for? but rather, Where do they come from? (Goethe, Scientific Studies, Suhrkamp ed., vol 12, p. 121; trans. Douglas Miller)

[edit] Other examples

This section may contain original research. (April 2009)

• Ecology, or ecological science, i.e. studying the ecology at levels ranging from populations, communities, and ecosystems up to the biosphere as a whole.
• The study of climate change in the wider context of Earth science (and Earth system science in particular) can be considered holistic science, as the climate (and the Earth itself) constitutes a complex system to which the scientific method cannot be applied using current technology. The first scientist to seriously propose this was James Lovelock. [1] (URL accessed on 28 November 2006)
• In system dynamics modeling, a field that originated at MIT, a holistic controlling paradigm organizes scientific method,^{[clarification needed]} but uses the results of reductionist science to define static relationships between variables in a modeling procedure that permits simulation of the dynamics of the system under study. As mentioned above, feedback is a crucial tool for understanding system dynamics. [2]
• Another example of how holistic and reductionist science can be mutually supportive and cooperative is free-choice profiling.^{[citation needed]}
• As an example of interdisciplinary holistic research. Joe L. Kincheloe, in his work in critical pedagogy, has employed complexity and holism in science to overcome reductionism.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] The study of holism in science

[edit] Writers on holistic science

Goethe, who developed a holistic methodology outlines this method in the essay, The experiment as mediator between subject and object (1772). In the Kurschner edition of Goethe's works, the science editor, Rudolf Steiner, presents Goethe's approach to science as phenomenological, and lays the groundwork for a holistic epistemology in the books The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception^[4] and Goethe's World View,.^[5]

This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples. Please improve the article by adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for further suggestions. (May 2010)

The following have written influential books which treat non-reductionist or holistic science:

• Marc Bekoff, American biologist and cognitive ethologist, author of Species of Mind (with philosopher Colin Allen)
• Henri Bortoft, physicist who did postgraduate research on the problem of wholeness in quantum physics with David Bohm, wrote The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe's Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature on Goethean Science
• Kenneth E. Boulding, economist and system scientist
• Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), French paleontologist, biologist, philosopher
• Laurence W. Evans, Author of Nature's Holism that looks at holism through the coevolutionary process
• Murray Gell-Mann, physicist and Nobel laureate, wrote The Quark and the Jaguar, Adventures in the Simple and the Complex on complexity
• Richard Lewontin biologist supporting the theory of group selection and that evolutionary theory must include the feedback loop where the organism actively creates its own ecological niche.
• James Lovelock, scientist and writer
• Alan Marshall, who wrote at great length about all of those listed here in his 2002 book titled 'The Unity of Nature' (Imperial College Press).
• Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela Chilean biologists which developed the concept of autopoiesis
• Ilya Prigogine, Belgian physicist, chemist, and writer, 1977 Nobel laureate in chemistry
• Alexander Rosenberg philosopher of science
• Rolf Sattler, biologist, author of Biophilosophy: Analytic and Holistic Perspectives and other publications on holism.
• Francisco Varela (1946–2001), Chilean biologist
• Alfred North Whitehead mathematician, physicist, and philosopher
• Stephen Wolfram, author of A New Kind of Science
• F. David Peat, holistic physicist and author

[edit] Holistic science in academe

Perhaps due to the inherent multidisciplinary nature of holistic science, academic institutions have been slow to come forward with degree programs for it.^{[original research?]} Those that have done so include Schumacher College in the UK, which offers an MSc degree program in Holistic Science. Several universities have set up centers dedicated to one or more scientific fields where holistic approaches are common. These include the University of Michigan's Center for the Study of Complex Systems, Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project, Rice University's Cognitive Sciences Program, the London Metropolitan University's Centre for Postsecular Studies, and the Hang Seng Centre for Cognitive Studies in Sheffield.
There are also several non-university academic institutions and societies that are dedicated to holistic science or open to holistic ideas. For example, Santa Fe Institute, the Scientific and Medical Network (in Europe), the Pari Center for New Learning (in Italy), and the System Dynamics Society in Albany, New York. There is also the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California. Brazil has its Willis Harman House in São Paulo.

[edit] See also

Articles related to holism Cognitive science Complex systems Holarchy Holism Holism in ecological anthropology Holism in science Holistic health Holon (philosophy) Philosophy of biology Scientific reductionism Systems thinking Antireductionism

Systems science portal Articles related to classification of scientific endeavors Cartesian anxiety Demarcation problem Hard science Philosophy of science Pseudoscience Romanticism in science Science wars

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Richard Healey: Holism and Nonseparability in Physics (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), first published July 22, 1999; substantive revision December 10, 2008, Stanford Encycopledia of Philisophy. Section: Ontological Holism in Quantum Mechanics? (retrieved June 3, 2011)
2. ^ David Bohm, Basil Hiley: The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0-415-06588-7.
3. ^ David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge, 2002, p.221
4. ^ "The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception". http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA002/English/AP1985/GA002_index.html. Retrieved 2008-08-28.
5. ^ "Goethe's World View". http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA006/English/MP1985/GA006_index.html. Retrieved 2008-08-28.

[edit] References

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)

• Paul Davies and John Gribbin. The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality, 1992, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-671-72841-5
• Henri Bortoft. The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe's Way Toward a Science of Participation in Nature, 1996, Lindisfarne Books, ISBN 0-940262-79-7
• Joe L. Kincheloe. Critical Constructivism, 2005. NY, Peter Lang.
• Joe L. Kincheloe. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Paths to Empowerment. 2nd ed, 2003, London, Falmer.
• Joe L. Kincheloe and Kathleen Berry, Rigor and Complexity in Qualitative Research: Constructing the Bricolage, 2004, London, Open University Press.
• Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco Varela. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, 1992, Shambhala, ISBN 0-87773-642-1
• Ilya Prigogine & Isabelle Stengers, Order out of Chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature, 1984, Flamingo, ISBN 0-00-654115-1
• Article "What is the Proper Relationship of Holistic and Reductionist Science?" by Karl North
• Article "The Fine Line: (W)holism and Science" by Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D.
• Article "A New Image of Cosmos & Anthropos: From Ancient Wisdom to a Philosophy of Wholeness" by Michael R. Meyer
• Excerpts from Holistic Science — towards a second Renaissance by R.J.C. Wilding (unpublished book in process)
• Article "Concerning the Spiritual in Art and Science" by Mike King (available on-line)
• Article "Patterns of Wholeness: Introducing Holistic Science" by Brian Goodwin, from the journal Resurgence
• Article "From Control to Participation" by Brian Goodwin, from the journal Resurgence
• System Dynamics Resource Page at Arizona State University, hosted by Craig W. Kirkwood
• Introduction to Goethe's Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature, edited by David Seamon and Arthur Zajonc. State University of New York Press, 1998
• Bunge.M., Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae, 1982, Vo. 3, No. 3/4, pg. 369-88
• Lilienfeld,S.O. et al. (Eds.): Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. New York / London 2003
• Olival Freire, Jr.: Science and exile: David Bohm, the hot times of the Cold War, and his struggle for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (Online article)
• Definition of System Dynamics and Systems Thinking, on System Dynamics Society homepage
• Stenger.V.J., (1999) The Physics of 'Alternative Medicine'. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine Spring/Summer 1999 Volume 3 ~ Number 1

[edit] External links

This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources, where they are used inappropriately. (March 2008)

• The Nature Institute
• Santa Fe Institute
• International Society for the System Sciences
• Schumacher College
• Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan
• Rice Cognitive Sciences Program
• The Scientific and Medical Network
• Princeton University Global Consciousness Project
• Centre for Postsecular Studies at the London Metropolitan University
• The System Dynamics Society
• VERITAS Research Program
• CAHRC Research In Quantum Number Theory
• Institute of Noetic Sciences website
• Janus Head - Goethe's Delicate Empiricism

[hide] v t e Systems and systems science Systems categories Systems theory Systems science Systems scientists Conceptual Physical Social Systems Biological Complex Complex adaptive Conceptual Coupled human-environment system Database management Dynamical Economical Ecosystem Formal Global Positioning System Human anatomy Information systems Legal systems Systems of measurement Metric system Multi-agent system Nervous system Nonlinearity Operating system Physical system Political system Sensory system Social system Solar System Systems art Theoretical fields Chaos theory Complex systems Control theory Cybernetics Earth system science Living systems Sociotechnical systems theory System dynamics Systems biology Systems ecology Systems engineering Systems neuroscience Systems psychology Systems science Systems theory World-systems theory Systems scientists Russell Ackoff William Ross Ashby Béla Bánáthy Gregory Bateson Stafford Beer Richard Bellman Ludwig von Bertalanffy Kenneth Boulding Murray Bowen West Churchman George Dantzig Heinz von Foerster Jay Wright Forrester Charles A S Hall George Klir Edward Lorenz Niklas Luhmann Humberto Maturana Margaret Mead Donella Meadows Mihajlo Mesarovic James Grier Miller Howard Odum Talcott Parsons Ilya Prigogine Anatol Rapoport Claude Shannon Qian Xuesen Francisco Varela Kevin Warwick Norbert Wiener Anthony Wilden