Correlation Experiment On Physicists & Mathematicians

Appendix:

"Reality": The views of various physicists

As part of my 1987 survey I had conversations and correspondence with Wheeler, Penrose, Bohm, and others. See the written responses of Finkelstein, Davies, Komar and Christodoulou here:

https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/home/1987-survey

A) Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Schroedinger, Wigner, Weyl, Eddington, Witten, Linde

Werner Heisenberg[6]:

"There can be no doubt that "consciousness" does not occur in physics and chemistry, and I cannot see how it could possibly result from quantum mechanics. Yet any science that deals with living organisms must needs cover the phenomenon of consciousness because consciousness, too, is part of reality."

Niels Bohr [7]:

"The real problem is: How can that part of reality which begins with consciousness be combined with those parts that are treated in physics and chemistry?. . . Here we obviously have a genuine case of complementarity. . "

Wolfgang Pauli[8]:

". . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously. . . .It would be most satisfactory of all if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality."

Hermann Weyl[1]:

"Between the physical processes which are released in the terminal organ of the nervous conductors in the central brain and the image which thereupon appears to the perceiving subject, there gapes a hiatus, an abyss which no realistic conception of the world can span. It is the transition from the world of being to the world of the appearing image or of consciousness."

Erwin Schrodinger (1958):

"The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But certainly it does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special goings on in very special parts of this very world, namely, on certain events that happen in a brain."

Schroedinger:

"The physical world picture lacks all the sensual qualities that go to make up the Subject of Cognizance. The model is colourless and soundless and unpalpable. In the same way and for the same reason the world of science lacks, or is deprived of, everything that has a meaning only in relation to the consciously contemplating, perceiving and feeling subject. I mean in the first place the ethical and aesthetical values, any values of any kind, everything related to the meaning and scope of the whole display. All this is not only absent but it cannot, from the purely scientific point of view, be inserted organically."

Eugene Wigner (1964):

"There are two kinds of reality or existence - the existence of my consciousness and the reality or existence of everything else. The latter reality is not absolute but only relative. Excepting immediate sensations, the content of my consciousness, everything is a construct."

Eugene P. Wigner on the occasion of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1963 [2]:

" Physics does not endeavor to explain nature. In fact, the great success of physics is due to a restriction of its objectives: it only endeavors to explain the regularities in the behavior of objects. This renunciation of the broader aim, and the specification of the domain for which an explanation can be sought, now appears to us an obvious necessity. . . .

"The regularities in the phenomena which physical science endeavors to uncover are called the laws of nature. The name is actually very appropriate. Just as legal laws regulate actions and behavior under certain conditions but do not try to regulate all action and behavior, the laws of physics also determine the behavior of its objects of interest under certain well-defined conditions but leave much freedom otherwise."

Andrei Linde

….But let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know for sure that my pain exists, my ‘green’ exists, and my ‘sweet’ exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory. Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perceptions. This model of material world obeying laws of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are nothing but a useful tool for the description of matter. This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the description of matter. We are substituting reality of our feelings by the successfully working theory of an independently existing material world. And the theory is so successful that we almost never think about its possible limitations

Guided by the analogy with the gradual change of the concept of space-time, we would like to take a certain risk and formulate several questions to which we do not yet have the answers (Linde, 1990a; Page, 2002): Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete? What if our perceptions are as real (or maybe, in a certain sense, are even more real) than material objects? What if my red, my blue, my pain, are really existing objects, not merely reflections of the really existing material world? Is it possible to introduce a ‘space of elements of consciousness,’ and investigate a possibility that consciousness may exist by itself, even in the absence of matter, just like gravitational waves, excitations of space, may exist in the absence of protons and electrons?s

Note, that the gravitational waves usually are so small and interact with matter so weakly that we did not find any of them as yet. However, their existence is absolutely crucial for the consistency of our theory, as well as for our understanding of certain astronomical data.a

Could it be that consciousness is an equally important part of the consistent picture of our world, despite the fact that so far one could safely ignore it in the description of the well studied physical processes? Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness are inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?.... Thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time. This example demonstrates an unusually important role played by the concept of an observer in quantum cosmology. John Wheeler underscored the complexity of the situation, replacing the word observer by the word participant, and introducing such terms as a ‘self-observing universe.' e’

Most of the time, when discussing quantum cosmology, one can remain entirely within the bounds set by purely physical categories, regarding an observer simply as an automaton, and not dealing with questions of whether he/she/it has consciousness or feels anything during the process of observation. This limitation is harmless for many practical purposes. But we cannot rule out the possibility that carefully avoiding the concept of consciousness in quantum cosmology may lead to an artificial narrowing of our outlook.k

AR Conversation with Ed Witten in Dec '93:

"I had conversations with Wigner about this. Even if we found some new phenomenon, we couldn't know this was in fact 'consciousness{?)

"I think consciousness will remain a mystery......I cant conceive it not remaining mystery Perhaps it won't remain a mystery if there is a modification in the laws of physics as they apply to the brain...[as suggested by]Penrose... I think that's very unlikely. I am skeptical that it's going to be a part of physics. ..I'm not going to try to define consciousness and in a way that's connected with the fact that i don't believe it will become part of physics...I'll leave it as an undefined term...

Witten interview, on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

"Whatever you think about consciousness it is an important part of us and about how we perceive anything including physics, and that has a lot to do with the mysteries that bother people about quantum mechanics and its applications to the universe, so quantum mechanics has an all embracing property, to completely make sense it has to apply to everything including ultimately .the observer..but trying to apply quantum mechanics to ourselves,,, makes us extremely uncomfortable, especially because of our consciousness, which seems to clash with that idea... I do not believe that disquiet concerning quantum mechanics and its application to the universe will go away..if anything I suspect that it will acquire new dimensions or aspects....I don't agree with ...... Penrose, believes there will eventually be a modification of quantum mechanics which will have something new to say about consciousness in the context of which some of our disquiet will go away......[but] I don;t think that will happen."

.....

B) "Idealism"

Sir Arthur Eddington[3]:

"The material universe itself is an interpretation of certain symbols presented to consciousness. When we speak of the existence of the material universe we are presupposing consciousness. It is meaningless to speak of the existence of anything except as forming part of the web of our consciousness."

Sir James Jeans[4]:

"I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe."

...

C) "Mysticism"

Einstein

every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The pursuit of science leads therefore to a religious feeling of a special kind, which differs essentially from the religiosity of more naive people. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/12/16/spirit-manifest/

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms— this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men...It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature. https://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Einstein_fulltext_css.html

https://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Einstein_fulltext_css.html

Einstein, Albert. The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Calaprice, Alice, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). p. 316.

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this super-personal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect.

—Einstein, AlbertEinstein, Albert. The World As I See It. (Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group, 1999). p. 8, 26.

There is a third state of religious experience...which I will call cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development—e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, // sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it.

Eddington

We have seen that the cyclic scheme of physics presupposes a background outside the scope of its investigations. In this background we must find, first, our own personality, and then perhaps a greater personality. The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory; at least it is in harmony with it.