The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

The Copenhagen Interpretation gives back to humanity what the 'Age of Enlightenment' has taken away from them.
Even though the Copenhagen Interpretation does not say anything about consciousness it opened a door for mystical interpretations.
'The observer' being a central issue of the theory, the universe can be interpreted as something that only exists if there is a conscious mind observing it.
The western society has been thirsting for an idea like that.
I see two major insults coming from the age of enlightenment that had to be compensated:
First the copernican principle literally kicked humans out of the center of the universe.
Historians sometimes talk about a copernican shock.
Second the Darwinian evolutionory theory which showed humans how close to apes (and other animals) they actually are.
These two factors plus being left behind in a universe without god created a vacuum that has been waiting to be filled somehow.
The Copenhagen Interpretation turned out to be perfect for that.
If the world only exists when there is an observer, it puts us back into the center of the universe.
We are not only part of the universe, we are even creating it by our observation. The existence of the universe even depends on us.
This idea is filling the gap of meaninglessness.
No matter how much truth lies in this concept: It is clear why it has been welcomed with a warm embrace.

Yes, this is the problem for my theory. If it's true it's unfalsifiable, in which case it isn't a theory, in which case it of no interest to you even if it's true. What you are suggesting is that science is not interested in the truth, and sometimes I think you're right.

This is the difference between science and mysticism.

I don't think there is one, just a misunderstanding.

Things only "exist" in relationship to other "things".

.

That implies that it is impossible for just one thing to exist. And that seems to me false. (Why do you place exist and things between quotes? If you are using those terms in some special sense (which is what those quotes indicate) could you tell me what that special sense is?

there exists "a fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call 'scientific materialism.' Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived."

The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. According to Whitehead, recognition that the world is organic rather than materialistic is therefore essential, and this change in viewpoint can result as easily from attempts to understand modern physics as from attempts to understand human psychology and teleology. Says Whitehead, "Mathematical physics presumes in the first place an electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time. The laws which condition this field are nothing else than the conditions observed by the general activity of the flux of the world, as it individualises itself in the events."

The end result is that Whitehead concludes that "nature is a structure of evolving processes. The reality is the process."

A quote from A. N. Whitehead:
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Even though your argument might be brilliant, you certainly agree that science is interested in finding truth.
From a logical perspective however it gets complicated very quickly.
Even just finding truth and finding THE truth already creates an essential conflict. That's why science tries to work based on the most simple compromise which is logic. Thus accepting that it might not find THE truth, but at least excluding what is not proven to be true.

Accepting ideas that are not falsifiable would mean accepting any rubbish that comes across, which would lead to an infinite number of useless theories that are even contradicting each others.

A true hypothesis can be excluded by this method in the first place. But it still has a lot of open doors to get back inside, whereas junk will remain excluded. Which means any theory that gets rejected from science can get back when it's not junk. Your theory included.

The laws of science are deducted from observations of the outside world whereas the ideas of mysticism are deducted from observations of the individuals' inside world which is totally individual and varies from one person to another, as oppose to scientific observations. To name only the most significant difference that comes to my mind.

Science can be practised like religion.

There is something like an orthodox scientism. Actually any scientism is orthodox, even when the theories are contradictory.

Regardless of what belief one has, may it be Einstein's or Plato's, the criterion of falsifiability is a logical one, and as such so basic that it draws a clear line between truth and wish. When a theory does not serve this criterion we can not blame science guilty for the ignorance of being blind to any possible truth. Falsifiability is a major logical criterion. I can't help it.

Whitehead makes for difficult reading but his system of thought is I think entirely compatible with both modern science and human experience.
In the end there is much to be gained from Whitehead. Probaby particulary useful to those who feel drawn to eastern philosophy and eastern religous practice but would like to ground those intutions in Western philosophy and science.

one thing that has always struck me about a 'theory of everything' is that it must contain a major recursion, because the theory would be part of what is being described (being part of everything). So how does a theory describe itself? What we're running up against in all this is actually the limitations of thought itself, of logic itself.

one thing that has always struck me about a 'theory of everything' is that it must contain a major recursion, because the theory would be part of what is being described (being part of everything).

The madhyamika dialectic is based first and foremost on the 'Noble Silence' of the Buddha, which was the Buddha's response to such questions as whether the universe has a beginning, whether the Buddha continues to exist after death, and other questions we would usually regard as 'metaphysical'.

But in the context of the Buddhist tradition, this is an invitation to go beyond thought through dhyana wherein thought can really discover its own nature and limitations. You can call it 'mysticism' or whatever you like, but that is also not really the point. There is something much more important at stake in all of this. This is that reality is something lived, it is not in the end a series of philosophical abstractions and scientific measurements. Scientific analysis can and will probably be pursued to the nth degree but past a certain point, we need to return to the fact of our humanity and work out meanings and values by which we can live peacefully on this earth. Sorry if that sounds like a sermon, i am just trying to touch ground somewhere.

However at a certain point in our journey, we must abandon everything. And if you really were a skeptic, that is what you would do.

The Greek skeptics were not after an intellectual solution, they pursued ataraxia, tranquility, and according to many authors, learned their method from Nagarjuna. (See The Shape of Ancient Thought, Thomas McEvilly) Neither they nor Nagarjuna are interested in verbal formulations or discussions such as the one we are having (even though I personally think what you're saying has got a great deal in it). What they were after is beyond thought, or transcendent (as in the transcendental nature of the Tathagata).

I have a problem with this. It gives the impression that at a certain point on our journey we must abandon logic for a return to values and peace on earth. If I were a sceptic I'd regard this as a cop-out, an appeal to faith.

I feel it is significant that the only interpretation which is never considered is one consistent with the idea that the universe is a unity. In this case there would be a sense in which it is extended and a sense in which it isn't, and this must be one of the better ways to explain nonlocal correlations.

I notice that one physicist calls the idea that the universe is extended a 'mystical delusion.' In fact this idea is incompatible with mysticism, for which things wouldn't be so simple.