Customer Reviews

The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In this book, Kafatos and Nadeau update their 1990 book "The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory." The thesis/purpose of the new book is identical, the content is about 70% the same, but the book is completely reorganized and in mostly rewritten. The new book is greatly improved over the old. The authors made it shorter and more succinct, driving home their thesis with greater power. The florid prose of the old book is mostly absent. The only area I liked better from the old book is its earlier and extended elaboration on ontological dualism, a crucial concept for their thesis that is presented too late and too briefly in the new book. But all in all this is the book for new readers. The authors take Bohr's principle of complementarity and explore its application, espousing it as a new paradigm for human perception at every level, mundane to cosmic. The ramifications of their excellently thought-out argument make rich food for thought. The authors also shed clear light on ramifications of our universe's NON-LOCALITY as suggested by experiments testing Bell's Theorem. One irritating thing is the authors' dislike of hidden variable theories due to their untestability, while at the same time they reach equally untestable conclusions.

I am a firm believer that content trumps style, especially in a book such as this which is proposing a groundbreaking new view of the cosmos. So while I encountered some of the same difficulties with the authors' rendering of their ideas into intelligible language as some of the other reviewers, it was well worth the effort of decipherment to get at their message. While the sentences tend to be rather long and full of clauses, I didn't have so much trouble with that as with the tendency toward constant repetition, which persisted throughout the entire book. However, I was reading the older original version, which has since been revised and shortened, and hopefully purged of the repetition. Whatever its stylistic demerits, this is a book which should interest anyone who feels, as I do, that both science and religion(or spirituality) offer crucial positive benefits to humanity; but that both tend to overstep their bounds in trying to negate the role of the other. Kafatos, a quantum physicist, harks back to the thinking of Niels Bohr, a primary founder of quantum theory, to try and reconcile this conflict between science and religion. To accomplish this, he explores and develops Bohr's concept of complementarity. Complementarity can be exemplified by the dual nature of light. If an experiment on the nature of light is performed in a certain way, light appears to be a waveform; if the conditions of the experiment are structured in a different way, then light may assume the form of a stream of particles, or photons. Kafatos argues that this principle of complementarity extends throughout all scales and aspects of the universe as comprehended by human understanding. Thus, the reductionist attempts of scientists to pin down any process of nature to just one all-defining theory will be frustrated; because the manner in which the experiments are set up and the mental framework of the scientist as determined by his cultural milieu will impinge on the form which the result assumes. This is not to say that Kafatos is a relativist, or that he is saying that science is a purely subjective exercise. He firmly asserts that he does believe there is such a thing as an objective reality. The problem, as he states it, is that the limits of our knowledge are bounded. The universe, as he conceives it, is totally a quantum universe. According to quantum theory, and as has been demonstrated in experiments, a seeming paradox that is observed between photons, or quanta, of light is that they maintain a relationship to one another at great distances(theoretically even if they were at opposite ends of the galaxy)so that when one photon is impacted in such a way as to change its orientation, its partner-at-a-distance is immediately affected in a corresponding manner. What this suggests to quantum physicists is not that this is some supernatural form of magic, but that contrary to appearances, quanta are not separate phenomena. They are rather, different manifestations of a wholeness which cannot be reduced to separate parts. The universe is a whole, and though it appears to our perceptions to be made up of discrete, unconnected objects, this is an illusion which is caused by the limitations of our ability to perceive the wholeness. This is also why the wave/particle duality of light cannot be resolved. Light is a part of the wholeness of the universe and its true nature contains both manifestations and transcends them. The perceptions of our consciousness being derived from quantum processes in the neurons of our brains, we are unable to escape the quantum "entanglement" that gives rise to complementarity; we can never rise above the limitations of our frame of reference and see the whole. Kafatos sees complementarity as pervading all aspects of existence,manifesting itself in other dualities as well as the wave /particle appearance of light. For instance; organic/inorganic, and science/religion. This quantum entanglement has a rather visionary implication for Kafatos. If all quanta in the universe are somehow intimately connected to one another, then our quantum generated consciousness must be a manifestation of the wholeness of the universe and, as such, part of a higher consciousness; that of the universe itself. What this consciousness is truly like, we have no way of fathoming. Any attempt at conceptualizing it must only result in an anthropomorphic picture. This does not mean that we should give up on either science or religion. The authors believe that humanity could benefit by finding common ground between the two disciplines. They are both ways of trying to experience the true nature of existence, like two sides of a coin. Science is a powerful tool for advancing knowledge, but in the last analysis, will always be an approximation. Religion, or spirituality, is an intuitive way of sensing the interconnectedness of all things in the universe; an interconnectedness which is an integral part of the science of quantum theory. A fusing of the scientific outlook with the spiritual could be the next step in the evolution of human consciousness. If this outline sounds oversimplistic, that is the fault of my presentation. The bulk of the book lays a thorough scientific groundwork(at least, as scientific as can be understood by laypeople, for this book was written for the non-scientist) based on the ideas of geniuses such as Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg. Only in the final pages, after we have been adequately prepared, do we receive the authors' summation of this information into their concept of the conscious universe and the complementarity of science and religion. This is a profoundly thought-provoking book which examines the metaphysics behind scientific progress and points to a way out of the blind alley of materialistic reductionism.

I recently completed reading this book, and I have noticed that there is indeed a lot of good information in it. However, I must side with the one reviewer on the book's rather poor writing. Once you get past this, though, it is a good book.

This book is badly written, pretentious, and boring. Finding the point of what the authors have to say requires wading through a wasteland of florid prose and awkward writing. This is just another example of bad English pretending to be erudition.

The truly sad thing about this is that one of the authors is actually on staff at a university English department

The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau; 1st ed. 1990.

Let me mention that this work is published by Springer-Verlag. This is notable as it gives the potential reader the assurance that no matter how far-out the work's subject matter it will be given a scientific interpretation and the authors will labor to make their points from within a framework of metaphysical realism. And, on that note, this book should never be confused with the book on psychic phenomenon that shares its title.

The authors do maintain "metaphysical realism" in the presentation on-the-whole. It walks the line between metaphysical realism and idealism quite well in my opinion. Crossing it only when the implications of quantum reality allow us this subjective license which is the author's point in writing a book such as this, so I don't feel we should judge them too harshly in that vein when they do wander off the path of pure objectivism. Then, the book quickly returns us to the cross-disciplinary nature of quantum reality, the human mind and the questions that appear to arise quite naturally from their study.

The title and the cover art ask much of the potential reader even before purchase! The subtitle is a gem as well: "Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory." I really like and was inspired by the cover art. It is of a yellow ghost-like humanoid figure (shoulder's up with a backdrop of a sun and galaxy filled cosmos) who appears to be staring down on a 3D representation of the Aspect experiment. It is a pretty spooky looking picture. The main author generated this original artwork using an "Imaginator D-80" design station "imaged on the D148-SR Crosfield/Dicomed Film Recorder."

But, these are all consciously selected by the authors to ask, "Is the potential reader honest enough to go where quantum mechanics has lead us?" From their studies, the authors ask us to consider the following:

1. Does classical physical theory suffer from what the author's term the "hidden ontology of classical epistemology"?
2. From the discoveries implicit in quantum reality, is the ultimate nature of reality not "visualizable"?
3. Is scientific knowledge incomplete? That is, if we are not independent observers from the universe and the experiments we do in it, does this fact preclude us from ever knowing physical reality "absolutely in itself"?
4. Is "complementarity a `logical framework' for the acquisition and comprehension of scientific knowledge which discloses a new relationship framework for `rational generalization' that led to relativity theory and quantum mechanics"?
5. Is the known universe a whole greater than the sum of its parts?
6. Do the results of the Aspect experiment force science to revise its understanding of the nature of reality and our place within it as parts in a whole?
7. Is reality "conscious" all the way up?
8. Can or should these concepts, when taken together, lead us toward a bridging of the gaps between the two world-views of science and religion?

If you are interested, I urge you to find a copy today to discover how the author's go about bringing answers to these important questions.

This book is a wonderful synthesis of different fields. It provides a broad overview on the nature of reality and consciousness.

In the modern dialogue concerning the relationship of religion and science, this is an important work, and the authors take a fresh approach. The book has side benefits. Kafatos and Nadeau provide an excellent background look at the development of many disciplines in religion, science, and philosophy, and this historical overview is in itself worth reading. The book is "old" now; I'm looking forward to reading the updated version coming out in 2000. My only negative comment is that the writing style is overly complex.

From the editorial review (and another customer's review), it sounds like the authors have made several improvements over the first edition. (For example, the first edition was in dire need of an editor who could tame the author's copiously worded and convoluted sentences.)

Anyway, I really enjoyed the first edition nonetheless. Not being a scientist (in physics or otherwise), I appreciated the ambitious attempt to condense the vast scope of quantum theory into a manageable package. The examples of non-locality and complementarity lead convincingly to the conclusion that the universe is an indivisible whole and effectively explain how the whole of reality is unknowable to us because our conciousness is part of that reality (i.e., the universe is "conscious").

We can take it as axiomatic that science can never reveal reality (no more or less than religion can, for example), yet the authors do torture their analysis of complementarity by trying to apply it as a kind of fundamental principle of human consciousness, e.g., asserting that a person's inability to both rationalize and "feel" an experience simultaneously is complementarity akin to the behavior of quanta under observation. To me, this conclusion seems based on a bias many scientists express quite openly, i.e., that human beings in general are profoundly complex in the manifestation of their consciousness and rather than accept the simplest explanation of consciousness, adopt one that is more exalted and ripe with metaphor. The problem is that the bias is unquestioned -- at least in the first edition. It's equally plausible that through the eons humans evolved separate, simple, and highly tactical systems that evince complexity in their combination, but under scrutiny are discrete and self-reinforcing through the evolutionary process.

Also, I don't think there's any evidence that the specific and "peculiar" behavior of infinitesimal quanta bear a relationship to a human's application of his or her consciousness to any macro effect. The brain, like the universe, may operate on quantum principles, but the brain's function was molded by macro forces, i.e., some adaptations/mutations survive, others do not.

That leads me to my last comment that the authors seemed to hurtle into the comparison of scientific ways of knowing vs. religious or spiritual ways of knowing. The conclusion that science cannot ultimately reveal reality is a good one. Yet again, the authors fall prey to a bias by drawing parallels between quantum physics and mystical traditions that intuitively posited the oneness of the universe. The bias revealed is similar to that of thinkers who equate aesthetic beauty with scientific truth (it's observational bias). The intuition of mystics, no matter how beautifully resonant of quantum mechanical principles, is still no more prescient or "true" than the belief that aliens seeded the earth because these beliefs cannot be correlated to any specific set of universal principles. They are grounded in beliefs that can be rationalized only by faith and by generational feedback and reinforcement. The faiths that "work" for people in turn resonate with truth. (So, rather than a reductionist camp, I'd have to say that I fall into the generative camp, i.e., complexity comes from the recursion of simplicity, the truth is what appears obvious, the beautiful is what we are evolved to regard as beautiful). The point is that although we may live in a quantum mechanical universe, it seems like the authors assume that our consciousness plays an exalted role in it and consequently leap into illogic.

Quantum physics is a good example of complementarity, but I don't think that the authors make their case that it's the same kind of complementary found in our macro experience.

Overall, I found the book thought-provoking and fun to read.

(Keep in mind that on the scale of scientific prowess, I was a Lit. major.)

This is probably one of the most important books you can read if you wish to understand modern systems theory. Very few books will spawn as much research in different fields as this one will. I'm sorry that the previous reviewer did not see the merits of this book

The title of this book should have been COMPLEMENTARY UNIVERSE. The authors herein reached far past their knowledge horizon. They ontologized greatly, resorting to non provable, untestable speculations, and at the same time warning the reader to avoid the same. The authors sought out dualisms to enshrine within their temple of complementarity. It is as though they made a cookie cutter out of quantum dualism, spread out the dough of the universe from viruses to human consciousness to starlight to black holes, and made a big batch of complementarities. When one can't resolve two disparate theories -- make a cookie out of both and chew and swallow. This is a brand of secular creationism wearing the garb of quantum evolutionism. They say: since consciousness evolved from cosmic star dust doesn't this imply that the universe must also be conscious? And isn't man's consciousness a reflection of the universal consciousness? Where they can't `prove' they `infer' and `imply'. They state their intentions clearly: `to answer the very basic human need to feel .... a profound spiritual awareness of unity with the whole.'(P. 178) Kafatos & Nadeau's intentions were very admirable -- to relieve the reader of any angst and alienation from the holistic sandbox he/she must live in. And the authors deserve an A for the effort to give the undescribable universe a face and features the reader can believe in and relate to. Their effort just didn't quite do it for me.