The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality (Paperback)

~ (Author), Robert Nadeau (Author) "During the summer of 1900, David Hilbert, widely recognized for his ability to see mathematics as a whole, delivered the keynote address at the Mathematics..." (more)
Key Phrases: Bohr's Copenhagen, Competition Versus Cooperation, Henry Stapp (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

This book explores the implications for physics and philosophy of a strange new fact of nature: that particles can be "entangled" over enormous distances, and that measurements made on such entangled particles in one place can have an instantaneous effect in another. Such interactions seem to (but actually do not, as the authors show) violate the principle that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, which is why Einstein called them "spooky interactions at a distance."

The authors provide the necessary background to understand these "nonlocal" interactions, and explain the experiments that confirmed their existence. They discuss how the nonlocal effects depend on the fundamental complementarity of natural phenomena, such as the wave-particle duality. They go on to show that the results have profound implications for our understanding of the foundations of physics and for our view of the universe. In particular, they argue that consciousness can no longer be divorced from our understanding of the way nature works, and they illustrate this new epistemological approach with an attempt to resolve some ambiguities in our view of the origin and evolution of the universe.

Product Details

• Paperback: 183 pages
• Publisher: Springer; 2nd edition (October 29, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0387988653
• ISBN-13: 978-0387988658
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.5 x 0.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #283,854 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Improvement over the original, November 14, 2001

By A Customer

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.

8 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Looking forward to this 2nd edition, February 4, 2003

By	Vstmxo (USA) - See all my reviews

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.)

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Helpful in more ways than one., November 2, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory (Paperback)

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.