It cannot be denied that the new physical aspect of nature of which I have tried to give you some idea by this example is very much more complicated than the old way which I called ‘the classical ideal of uninterrupted, continuous description’. The very serious question arises naturally: Is this new and unfamiliar way of looking at things, which is at variance with the habits of everyday thinking—is it deeply rooted in the facts of observation, so that it has come to stay and will never by got rid of again; or is this new aspect perhaps the mark, not of objective nature, but of the setting of the human mind, of the stage that our understanding of nature has reached at present? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, because it is not even absolutely clear what this antithesis means: objective nature and human mind. For on the one hand I undoubtedly form part of nature, while on the other hand objective nature is known to me as a phenomenon of my mind only. Another point that we must keep in mind in pondering this question is this: that one is very easily deceived into regarding an acquired habit of thought as a peremptory postulate imposed by our mind on any theory of the physical world.
It cannot be denied that the new physical aspect of nature of which I have tried to give you some idea by this example is very much more complicated than the old way which I called ‘the classical ideal of uninterrupted, continuous description’. The very serious question arises naturally: Is this new and unfamiliar way of looking at things, which is at variance with the habits of everyday thinking—is it deeply rooted in the facts of observation, so that it has come to stay and will never by got rid of again; or is this new aspect perhaps the mark, not of objective nature, but of the setting of the human mind, of the stage that our understanding of nature has reached at present? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, because it is not even absolutely clear what this antithesis means: objective nature and human mind. For on the one hand I undoubtedly form part of nature, while on the other hand objective nature is known to me as a phenomenon of my mind only. Another point that we must keep in mind in pondering this question is this: that one is very easily deceived into regarding an acquired habit of thought as a peremptory postulate imposed by our mind on any theory of the physical world.
It cannot be denied that the new physical aspect of nature of which I have tried to give you some idea by this example is very much more complicated than the old way which I called ‘the classical ideal of uninterrupted, continuous description’. The very serious question arises naturally: Is this new and unfamiliar way of looking at things, which is at variance with the habits of everyday thinking—is it deeply rooted in the facts of observation, so that it has come to stay and will never by got rid of again $ or is this new aspect perhaps the mark, not of objective nature, but of the setting of the human mind, of the stage that our understanding of nature has reached at present? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, because it is not even absolutely clear what this antithesis means: objective nature and human mind. For on the one hand I undoubtedly form part of nature, while on the other hand objective nature is known to me as a phenomenon of my mind only. Another point that we must keep in mind in pondering this question is this: that one is very easily deceived into regarding an acquired habit of thought as a peremptory postulate imposed by our mind on any theory of the physical world.
Now I shall try to give you an idea of the way in which physicists at present endeavour to overcome this failure. One might term it an ‘emergency exit’, though it was not intended as such, but as a new theory. I mean, of course, wave mechanics. (Edding-ton called it ‘not a physical theory but a dodge— and a very good dodge too’.) The situation is about as follows. The observed facts (about particles and light and all sorts of radiation and their mutual interaction) appear to be repugnant to the classical ideal of a continuous description in space and time. (Let me explain myself to the physicist by hinting at one example: Bohr's famous theory of spectral lines in 1913 had to assume that the atom makes a sudden transition from one state into another state, and that in doing so it emits a train of light waves several feet long, containing hundreds of thousands of waves and requiring for its formation a considerable time. No information about the atom during this transition can be offered.) So the facts of observation are irreconcilable with a continuous description in space and time; it just seems impossible, at least in many cases. On the other hand, from an incomplete description—from a picture with gaps in space and time—one cannot draw clear and unambiguous conclusions; it leads to hazy, arbitrary, unclear thinking—and that is the thing we must avoid at all costs! What is to be done?
We have now concluded our summary of the findings of modern physics, and may turn to consider how these findings affect the practical problems of philosophy and of everyday life. But let us first recapitulate the conclusions we have reached in our scientific discussion. Recapitulation Because we are human beings and not mere animals, we try to discover as much as we can about the world in which our lives are cast. We have seen that there is only one method of gaining such knowledge—the method of science, which consists in a direct questioning of nature by observation and experiment. The first thing we learn from such questioning is that the world is rational; its happenings are not determined by caprice but by law. There exists what we have called a ‘pattern of events’, and the primary aim of physical science is the discovery of this pattern. This, as we have seen, will be capable of description only in mathematical terms. The new quantum theory explained in the preceding chapter has provided a mathematical description of the pattern of events which is believed to be complete and perfect. For it enables us—in principle at least—to predict every possible phenomenon of physics, and not one of its predictions has so far proved to be wrong. In a sense, then, we might say that theoretical physics has achieved the main purpose of its being, and that nothing remains but to work out the details.
According to Kenneth Wilber, ‘Objective measurement and verification could no longer be the mark of absolute reality, because the measured object could never be separated from the measuring subject, the measured and the measurer. The blurring between subject and object is one of the cornerstones of the new physics and centrally important to any general understanding of the paranormal, since it means very clearly indeed that there will always be connections and interactions between things and events. The principle of complementarity demands a connection between mind, experiment and subject and in the same way when we try and set a clearer idea of mind and consciousness, the same difficulty arises, which is made more severe because the mind cannot study itself, since the act of self-study will alter the mind.
Primitive man must have found nature singularly puzzling and intricate. The simplest phenomena could be trusted to recur indefinitely; an unsupported body invariably fell, a stone thrown into water sank, while a piece of wood floated. Yet other more complicated phenomena shewed no such uniformity—the lightning struck one tree in the grove while its neighbour of similar growth and equal size escaped unharmed; one month the new moon brought fair weather, the next month foul. Confronted with a natural world which was to all appearances as capricious as himself, man's first impulse was to create Nature in his own image; he attributed the seemingly erratic and unordered course of the universe to the whims and passions of gods, or of benevolent or malevolent lesser spirits. Only after much study did the great principle of causation emerge. In time it was found to dominate the whole of inanimate nature: a cause which could be completely isolated in its action was found invariably to produce the same effect. What happened at any instant did not depend on the volitions of extraneous beings, but followed inevitably by inexorable laws from the state of things at the preceding instant. And this state of things had in turn been inevitably determined by an earlier state, and so on indefinitely, so that the whole course of events had been unalterably determined by the state in which the world found itself at the first instant of its history; once this had been fixed, nature could move only along one road to a predestined end.
The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But “prove” used in this way really means “test,” in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be translated as, “The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.