Exploring the Intriguing Relatedness between Yijing and Quantum Physics- An Eastern View on Complementarity

Fritjof Capra

K.M. Fierke

Repositioning the apparatus impacts on what is seen. The rationale for repositioning and the implications for my positionality as researcher were explored in the first part of the introduction. Here we seek to deepen understanding of the apparatus, that is, the parallel between quantum physics and ancient Asian philosophies, as preparation for the snapshots that follow. Nearly a half century ago Fritjof Capra’s ([1975] 1991) The Dao of Physics drew a parallel between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, focusing in particular on Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism. His book, which was a sustained exploration of the parallel, was both insightful and popular. The argument resonated with the New Age politics of the 1970s. In the context of the argument that follows, Capra’s framing of quantum science and Eastern mysticism is problematic in so far as experience within the world is the primary concern here. I argue that an earlier articulation of the parallel, by the Danish physicist and father of the Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr (2010), provides a better positioning for exploring the meaning of mind, action and strategy in an uncertain world. Bohr argued that mysticism was not the point of the parallel, and shifted emphasis to our role as spectators and actors. Further, Bohr’s concept of complementarity provides a different angle on the relationship between science and mysticism that goes beyond the either/ or terms in which it is usually discussed. The first part of this chapter examines various ways that physicists have articulated the parallel between quantum physics and the Eastern philosophies, elaborating in particular on the contrast between Capra and Bohr.

Arkady Plotnitsky

K.M. Fierke

Repositioning the apparatus impacts on what is seen. The rationale for repositioning and the implications for my positionality as researcher were explored in the first part of the introduction. Here we seek to deepen understanding of the apparatus, that is, the parallel between quantum physics and ancient Asian philosophies, as preparation for the snapshots that follow. Nearly a half century ago Fritjof Capra’s ([1975] 1991) The Dao of Physics drew a parallel between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, focusing in particular on Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism. His book, which was a sustained exploration of the parallel, was both insightful and popular. The argument resonated with the New Age politics of the 1970s. In the context of the argument that follows, Capra’s framing of quantum science and Eastern mysticism is problematic in so far as experience within the world is the primary concern here. I argue that an earlier articulation of the parallel, by the Danish physicist and father of the Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr (2010), provides a better positioning for exploring the meaning of mind, action and strategy in an uncertain world. Bohr argued that mysticism was not the point of the parallel, and shifted emphasis to our role as spectators and actors. Further, Bohr’s concept of complementarity provides a different angle on the relationship between science and mysticism that goes beyond the either/ or terms in which it is usually discussed. The first part of this chapter examines various ways that physicists have articulated the parallel between quantum physics and the Eastern philosophies, elaborating in particular on the contrast between Capra and Bohr.

Robert Samuel Matthews

John P. Losee

The regularity-between-states view is a viable interpretation of causal relatedness for systems discussed in classical physics. Ambiguities arose, however, upon application of this view to quantum mechanical systems. The sketch of this theory is based primarily on the work of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg pointed out that applications of the quantum theory involve translations from a level of language in which observations are recorded, into a theoretical level, and back again. A quantum mechanical interpretation of an experiment typically is a three-stage process: translation of an initial experimental situation into a probability function, mathematical analysis of the variation of this function with time, and translation of the results of calculation into a prediction of the results of a new measurement to be made of the system. The principle of complementarity stipulates that pictorial-level interpretations of quantum phenomena in wave language and particle language are of equivalent importance.