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.

I don't think the issue is that Copenhagen proposes an ontology so much as it calls into question the materialist ontology...doesn't it?

As it happens I am at a conference where there is a lot being spoken about 'quantum mysticism'. I have heard two lectures by Amit Goswami, who is a bit of a guru in these matters. He actually is an emeritus professor of physics and has written the standard text on QM as still studied today. He has since undergone something of a spiritual transformation and is (I suppose) a leading 'new age' speaker. I have discussed him a bit with others on this forum. There is an opinion that his is really a pseudo-science. I don't know actually - he comes across as very sane, sincere and coherent. I still don't know if I understand his main point about quantum indeterminacy, however I am very familiar with Indian philosophy, and what he is saying makes complete sense in that context. And if, as seems the case, the pure physicalist or materialist ontology has been undermined by QM - and I am sure it has - then I am starting to think that, unless I start hearing a better alternative, this so-called 'Quantum Mystical' approach that was first proposed in the Tao of Physics, is likely to have considerable truth in it. We don't really have any coherent alternatives. I think the physicalist intepretation has really lost all credibility, particular in that at certain points it can only invoke the 'multiple universes' argument. (Ockham must be rotating in his grave at the speed approaching that of a pulsar.)

On the other hand, I am still very sceptical as well. Part of me wants science to be science, and spiritual philosophy to be spiritual philosophy, and not to combine them. There is doubtless a lot of hash being spoken here about quantum this and quantum that. I really don't want to join the Oprah Consciousness Movement:bigsmile:.

Everything we are talking about is opinion, speculation, and creative imagination.

Everyone, every statement, every reference that you disagree with you dismiss. Of course, you have your own opinions and speculations just like everyone else. However, I prefer those authors who offer it up as such.

If you want to read someone who disagrees, may I refer you to d'Espagnat or Bell. Bell seems to support Bohm and de Broglie:


While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.

• "Six Possible Worlds of Quantum Mechanics" (1986), included in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (1987), p. 191
  

Thanks for sharing your opinions with me. I enjoy reading and hearing all points of view. I do prefer those presentations that present all viewpoints in an unbiased manner.

thanks Bones! I will look into him a bit more. Intuitively it rings true for me. (And my suspicion is that if there are to be big breakthroughs on the nature of physical reality, they will come from an outsider, so the fact that he is regarded as such does not actually discourage me.)