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.
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.
Not long ago I was invited to dinner to meet a young artist who, I was told, had recently developed a strong interest in physics, especially in the physics of elementary particles my own field of research. Ever eager to bridge the yawning crevasse that, it appears, separates the two cultures coupled with the prospect of an excellent meal I accepted at once. Upon my arrival, it turned out that the young man in question was accompanied by an attractive girlfriend and that she too had a burgeoning interest in the physics of elementary particles. This intriguing concidence, it developed, did not have its origin in any of the more recent discoveries in our discipline, but rather in a book they had read that, according to them, demonstrated that elementary particle physics provided a scientific basis for many of the revelations of Eastern mysticism. Could I, they wondered, enlighten them further on this remarkable development? Their faces, however, fell to half-mast when I confessed that (a) I had never heard of the source of their inspirationone Fritjof Capra and that (b) I had not read his chef d'oeuvre, The Tao of Physics, which, they assured me, was the book in which this reconciliation was detailed. They were further discomfited when I remarked that for the sake of Eastern mystic philosophy I hoped it wasn't true. In fact, I added, if I were a Tibetan monk or the swami in an ashram in New Delhi and if Fritjof Capra or anyone else came to my door clutching the latest copy of the Physical Review