Reposted from our international website dedicated to Integral Consciousness Studies >>
1. Intro: The Seduction of the “Tao of Physics.”
In the cultural hype of West meeting East that began decades ago and is still alive and kicking, we are often presented with a captivating narrative: that modern physics has finally caught up with the ancient wisdom of the East. For over half a century, bestsellers like Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav’s The Dancing Wu-Li Masters have argued that the subatomic world is a scientific mirror of the mystical Oneness or Void described by the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and the Upanishadic sages (Wilber, 1984/2011).
This “quantum spirituality” promises a grand reconciliation between the laboratory and the altar in a spiritual Temple, suggesting that if we only understood the nuances of the Schrödinger wave equation or Bell’s Theorem, we would see that science and mysticism are merely two paths ascending the same mountain of Truth.
The psychological allure of this (I want to say superficial) fusion is compelling, isn’t it. We live in an era where the “scientific method” has become the primary arbiter of reality; therefore, many spiritual seekers might feel a deep-seated need for scientific validation to legitimize (or sell?) their internal experiences.
If the physicist says the universe is a holistic, interconnected web of energies, then the mystic’s intuition of “Oneness” is no longer a “subjective” whim but an “objective” fact, right? This quest for reconciliation, however, hits a formidable wall when we examine the actual writings of the men who built the foundations of modern quantum physics.
A startling paradox emerges: nearly all the founders of quantum mechanics and relativity—Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, and Sir Arthur Eddington—were “avowed mystics.”
Yet they were also the most vocal and uncompromising critics of attempts to use physics to prove or support a mystical worldview (Wilber, 1984/2011).
In his seminal anthology Quantum Questions (you can buy this important work here on Amazon>>), Ken Wilber explores why these pioneers maintained a rigorous philosophical boundary between their scientific discoveries and their spiritual realizations.
To understand their resistance, we will, in this article, move beyond the superficial “quantum leap” and confront the hard epistemological boundaries the aforementioned scientists respected—boundaries that are frequently ignored by New Agers and modern popularizers who master clever marketing.
2. The Myth of Convergence: Why Science Doesn’t “Prove” Spirit
Wilber’s central thesis is that the supposed convergence of physics and mysticism is merely a superficial ontological myth. While both fields deal with “wholeness” in their respective domains, they do not share a common worldview, nor do their results validate one another. The idea that quantum physics supports or interprets mysticism is, according to the very theorists who constructed the field (most of whom are Nobel laureates), a profound category error.
And there is certainly no real need to seek validation of subjective insights (if these are real and deep, above reason) with objective science like quantum mechanics. Genuine mysticism (based on subjective experiences within) is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet, offering its own evidence and claims without needing a lab coat to endorse it.
As Schrödinger observed, physics remains “akin to [everyday experience]” and “cannot enter into another realm” (Wilber, 1984/2011).
New age followers seem to disagree on the subject, however strongly.
3. Shadow-Symbols vs. Direct Reality: The Great Epistemological Divide
The primary reason for this sharp boundary between subjective and objective might lie in epistemology—the study of how we know what we know. There is a fundamental divide between the methods of the physicist and the experience of the mystic. Physics is not a study of the “thing-in-itself” or noumenon; it is a study of mathematical abstractions and symbolic representations. It deals with what Sir Arthur Eddington called a “shadow world” of symbols (Wilber, 1984/2011).
When a physicist observes a subatomic event, they are not contacting the “suchness” or “oneness” of the universe. Instead, they are only manipulating differential equations that represent patterns of events.
Sir James Jeans clarified this distinction with uncompromising clarity:
“We can never understand what events are, but must limit ourselves to describing the patterns of events in mathematical terms… The final harvest will always be a sheaf of mathematical formulae. These will never describe nature itself… [Thus] our studies can never put us into contact with reality” (Wilber, 1984/2011).
Mysticism, conversely, is defined by the direct, non-mediated experience of reality. The mystic seeks to encounter the Absolute beyond all symbols, words, and mental constructs, way above reason. In the mystical state, the subject and object are said to become one in a timeless act that transcends all symbolic or intellectual mediation.
To claim that physics and mysticism are “saying the same thing” might be seen, ironically, as a blow below the belt to the mystic. It reduces the direct experience of the Absolute to a symbolic abstraction—a “sheaf of formulae.”
It is an epistemological “fiasco,” as Eddington noted, to “reduce God to a system of differential equations” (Wilber, 1984/2011).
Physics explores the “shadow-symbols” cast upon the wall of Plato’s cave; mysticism concerns the thorough exploration of the sun’s light outside the cave. To confuse the shadow for the sun is a catastrophic (or naive) error in judgment, in my opinion.
4. The “Mystical Physicist” Paradox: Why the Founders Turned Inward
If physics offers no positive support for mysticism, why were all the founders of modern physics—Einstein, Schrödinger, Planck, Heisenberg, Eddington, Pauli, and de Broglie—mystics? This is the core of the “Mystical Physicist” paradox. The answer lies in a brilliant realization: the “new” physics failed to stand the test of time.
In the classical, Newtonian era, scientists were misled by the illusion that they were looking at the world exactly as it was. They believed they were grasping “Reality” with a capital R. However, the arrival of quantum mechanics and relativity shattered this confidence. It forced these men to realize that their discipline was merely a “shadowgraph performance of familiar life” (Wilber, 1984/2011). The “spectacular failure” of physics to reach the ultimate nature of reality might have been the catalyst for their spiritual turn.
Eddington described the physicist’s psychological state as one of “ghastly silence” (Wilber, 1984/2011). When we look at the world through the lens of physics, we see a mechanical clockwork that works perfectly well without us. It is a world deprived of color, sound, beauty, and delight—a world where the human soul is “cut out” of the picture by the very rules of the game (read: classic or quantum physics laws). This silence forced the founders to look beyond their own equations. And for that, they deserve true admiration, in my opinion. To go beyond one’s own intellectual might is truly a virtue.
Eddington’s famous passage illustrates this shift:
“The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances… Feeling that there must be more behind, we return to our starting point in human consciousness… [where] we find other stirrings, other revelations than those conditioned by the world of symbols.”
(Wilber, 1984/2011).
They did not become mystics because of their Ph.D.’s in physics; they became mystics because their education with deep understanding of physics exhausted its own possibilities.
Having reached the limits of the symbolic, they were compelled to turn to the “one center where more might become known”—the immediacy of their own consciousness.
5. The Trap of Reductionism: Why Subatomic Particles Aren’t God
The most common “New Age” error is equating “holism” at the subatomic level with “Spiritual Oneness” (or the Causal Transpersonal level, as per the widely accepted Wilber map of human psychological transpersonal identity development). This is a classic case of what Wilber calls “level-lumping.” Many popularizers argue that, because subatomic particles are “interrelated” and “interpenetrating” and because the Unified Field actually exists, this proves that “all is one” in the mystical sense.
However, as Stephen Jay Gould argued in his critique,” this is actually a deeply reductionist stance (as cited in Wilber, 1984/2011). By asserting that the “lowest level” of reality (quantum physics) represents the “essence of reality,” these thinkers are falling into the same trap as the materialists they oppose. They are saying that the “really real” part of the universe is the subatomic part. Everything else is just an “extrapolation” (Wilber, 1984/2011).
6. A Genuine “Science of the Soul”: Method vs. Domain
Can modern spirituality be “scientific” without being reduced to physics? Wilber argues that we can indeed have a “Science of the Soul” or “Geistscience” if we differentiate between the method of science and the domain or reach of science.
The scientific method is a way of gathering knowledge through experiential disclosure, repeatable testing, and public validation by a community of peers. This objective, rightly called “scientific”, method can be applied to the objective physical domain but not to the mental domain (mathematical logic, understanding, abstract reasoning), or the spiritual domain (meditative experience, way above reason).
Human experience and perception of the outside, objective world are, well, subjective and cannot possibly be measured, mathematically validated, or scientifically proven.
Yes, what can be measured and scientifically validated is what is physically happening in the brain, as the hard-core science of Neuroscience (my favorite flavor of science) so vividly presents via fMRI or medical EEG – but, these scientific tools can only tell us what is happening in the brain physically and not what a subject is thinking. Understanding these limitations can help loosen the intellectual grip of the mental frame in discussion.
7. The Subject-Object Barrier: Clearing the Linguistic Fog
A favorite trope of quantum mysticism is the claim that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle “abolishes” the subject-object divide. The argument suggests that because the observer “interferes” with the object being measured, the two have become “one.”
The founders of physics were quick to dismiss this as a “misuse of language” (Wilber, 1984/2011). Louis de Broglie pointed out that the “measuring apparatus” still belongs entirely to the objective side of the equation.
Niels Bohr, one of my favorite quantum physicists besides Eddington, the father of Complementarity, was even more explicit, stating:
“The essentially new feature… is the introduction of a fundamental distinction between the measuring apparatus and the objects under investigation… In our future encounters with reality, we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side.“
(as cited in Wilber, 1984/2011).
Bohr’s point is that while “interaction” occurs, interaction is not “union.” In the famous double slit experiment, the measuring tool and the particle interact physically, but they remain distinct holons within the material domain. While these physicists firmly believed that, in the ultimate mystical union, subject and object are one, they saw no evidence of this in the mechanical interaction between a laboratory instrument and an electron/photon.
Schrödinger noted that the “pulling down of the frontier” was a “much overrated” idea of little profound significance (Wilber, 1984/2011).
The unity of the mystic (states such as savikalpa and nirbikalpa samadhi, anuttara samyak sambodhi, niroda samapatti, anatta insight, etc.) is a radical change in the subject’s consciousness. This mystical state is subjective by definition.
The interaction in physics, on the other hand, is merely a change in the state of an object, completely free from our subjective perception.
8. Epilogue: Finding the “Source.”
The founders of modern physics rejected the New Age fusion elaborated upon in this short article because they possessed the intellectual rigor and courage to see that physics is the study of “least-Being.” At the same time, mysticism is the study of “most-Being.”
Quantum physics deals with the outside, with the shadows, symbols; mysticism deals with the inside, with the light, the Real. To attempt to “prove” Spirit with physics is, I am inclined to think, to misunderstand both.
As Einstein replied when asked about the effect of relativity on religion:
“None. Relativity is a purely scientific theory, and has nothing to do with religion.”
(as cited in Wilber, 1984/2011).
If we wish to find the “Source” that moved these brilliant pioneers to both wonderment and development, we must stop (or do we?) looking for it on the outside in a laboratory or a mathematical formula. We could do ourselves a big favor by following their lead and looking inward.
Quantum physics doesn’t offer an easy path to the divine; rather, it highlights the inherent boundaries of human knowledge”, urging us to pursue the “profound change in consciousness” required for true insight, within.
(Wilber, 1984/2011)
If we stop trying to force quantum physics into the transpersonal or spiritual, we may finally be open enough to let mysticism stand on its own two feet—not as a “likely story” supported by the quarks, leptons, and bosons, but as a direct, unmediated encounter with the Eternal within.
The physicist and the mystic may even walk together, I feel, but only if we recognize that one is measuring the shadows while the other is walking toward the Sun.
– Edmond Cigale, PhD
book online consulting and coaching today >>
References
Wilber, K. (Ed.). (2011). Quantum questions: Mystical writings of the world’s great physicists (Rev. ed.). Shambhala Publications. (Original work published 1984).
You can buy the e-book here on Amazon >>
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.