Quantum field theory began during the early 20th century — in the late 1800s and early 1900s. one of the foundational concepts found in quantum theory is wave-particle duality. The wave-particle duality that is found in quantum physics is the same duality expressed by the ancients, most obviously found in Taoist and Confucian ideals (which themselves are symbolic of duality). In the ancient Chinese world, things were accepted as they were and considered to be part of the great unity of duality, existing in the distinct dichotomy of the physical (material) world and/or the non-physical (immaterial or metaphysical) realm. This distinction is the same distinction that exists in wave-particle duality, found in the very basis of quantum physics, similar to the bourgeois/proletariat dichotomy that existed politically, during the time of its discovery.
In my paper, I will attempt to explain how the foundations of “Eastern” religions resemble the foundations of quantum theory (if they do not prove to be identical), and how the concepts of quantum physics identify with the concepts underlying these religions and philosophies. Along with these ideas, I will also discuss how cultural and socio-political changes of the 20th-century represented the scientific discovery of quantum physics in a metaphorical sense, as well as in a literal sense — leaving a profound impact on the scientific community, as well as the world at large.
Is it merely coincidental that the concepts of duality, as expressed in the traditions, customs, and beliefs of the ancient world, are reflected in quantum mechanics and modern physics? How about the fact that ancient “Eastern” and Chinese religions and philosophies deduced everything in existence down to “particulars,” similar to the “particles” referred to in quantum physics? There are many common concepts shared by the ancient “Eastern” world and the “Western” scientific world. In fact, the “coincidences” are mysterious and inexplicable.
Quantum field theory began during the early 20th century – in the late 1800s and early 1900s. one of the introductory concepts found in quantum theory is wave-particle duality. The wave-particle duality that is found in quantum physics is the same duality expressed by the ancients, most obviously found in Daoist (or Taoist) and Confucian philosophies (which are, themselves, symbolic of this “great” duality). In fact, “Classical physics breaks down at the level of atoms and molecules,” an indication of duality having been existent throughout the history of physics (Glimm & Jaffe 7). In the ancient Chinese world, things were accepted as they were and considered to be part of the great unity of duality, existing in the distinct dichotomy of the physical (material) world and/or the non-physical (immaterial or metaphysical) realm. This distinction is the same distinction that seemingly exists in wave-particle duality, found in the very basis of quantum physics, similar to the bourgeoisie/proletariat dichotomy that existed politically, during the time of its “discovery.”
This paper is an attempt at introducing and explaining the various ways the foundations of “Eastern” philosophies and religions resemble the foundations of quantum theory (if they do not prove to be outright identical), and how the concepts of quantum physics identify with the ideas behind these religious philosophies. Along with these ideas, I will also discuss how cultural and socio-political changes of the 20th-century euphemistically represented the scientific discovery of quantum physics, as well as the great rising dichotomy of modern vs. post-modern thought.
The question underlying my thesis is whether or not the similarities between quantum theory and “Eastern” religions are merely coincidental . . . or are somehow intrinsically related (?). In order to answer this question, I will compare and contrast (and literally “mix”) the scientific with the religious, exploring the evolution and history of these two approaches, individually as well as collectively, with respect to historical context.
So, are the similarities between ancient “Eastern” Chinese philosophies and “Western” quantum physics (and science in general) merely coincidental, or does a deep correlation and significance exist between these two approaches? Chinese understanding of the creation of the cosmos is strikingly similar to the “Big Bang,” and ancient Chinese art depicts a double helix, caduceus-like structure frequently throughout “religious” imagery. These depictions are clear illustrations of the “scientific” understanding of Chinese cosmology.
Nietzsche’s work, Will to Power, proposes the idea that, “ . . . everything has already happened that will EVER happen.” Therefore, the things that happen are really part of a constant re-cycling of the same set of events. This is identical to the modern notion of “history repeating itself,” as well as the ancient notion of cyclical time. Nietzsche was familiar with these ideas, and so, created works attempting to convey these ideas to others. These concepts, which Nietzsche alludes to in his work, are very similar to the basis of “kairotic” time – the very mechanism by which “Eastern” religions and philosophies attempted to “keep track” of time. According to Thomas Brobjer, near the end of his life, Nietzsche was highly influenced by “Eastern” philosophy. In fact, “At the onset of his mental collapse he . . . came to identify himself with Buddha.” This is the time during which he began writing Will to Power, implying that the allusions to “kairotic” and cyclical time expressed by Nietzsche are not merely coincidental. It is fitting, really, that Nietzsche would adhere to the principles of “kairotic” time; as John Archibald Wheeler (physicist and unified field theorist) states , “Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.” The time referred to here is chronological (or “chronos”) time – but “kairotic” time is alluded to as well; “kairotic” time could be (and in fact is) now and every moment (at least, in more of a philosophical sense) – these moments are merely re-cycling over and over. “According to classical ideas [in physics], the electron . . . orbit[s] around the proton, much like the earth-moon gravitational system” (Glimm & Jaffe 7); this is symbolic of the cyclical nature of physics, time, and the universe in general. Therefore, in this view, quantum physics and other aspects of modern “Western” science are just what they truly are: “Western” representations of the understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and time, occurring in more “recent time,” as compared to “Eastern” philosophy in a chronological sense. And thus, “Eastern” cosmology, philosophy, and religion, as a whole, then, are collectively exactly the same thing: a representation of the understanding of the universe, but from an “Eastern” perspective, occurring in “earlier time,” (as compared to physics in a chronological sense).
In this light, then, how can “Eastern” approaches to understanding be any different from “Western” approaches?
In truth, “Eastern” and “Western” approaches to understanding the mechanics and design of the universe are no different at all – this is because, (as Nietzsche attempts to express) – these “discoveries” have happened once (or many times) before. According to Albert Einstein, “The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them .” Therefore, the approach of quantum physics proves to be the same as the approach behind “Eastern” philosophy and religion. This is because they are both approaches used in an attempt to explain the cosmos in terms of deduction. The only true differences that exist between the two disciplines involve time: the time during which the “discoveries” took place, along with the times during which these “philosophies” were socially significant.
According to Capra, “The concepts of modern physics often show surprising parallels to the ideas expressed in the religious philosophies of the Far East.” Is quantum physics not a philosophy in itself? Was quantum physics not “discovered” through the methods of empiricism, retrospection, introspection, attempts at objectivity, and deduction? These are the same methods by which “Eastern” ideologies and philosophies were formed, as well. Capra goes on to explain, “The roots of physics, as of all Western science, are to be found in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., in a culture where science, philosophy, and religion were not separated” (20).
Just understanding this fact alone leads one to understand the conditions under which lie the roots of physics. The ideas expressed in ancient Chinese culture and philosophy, however, were supposedly “developed in isolation” from the rest of the world. In fact, “China’s isolation throughout the many centuries of the dynasties was deliberate” (Gascoigne 3). This was because China wanted to be the center of their own world and, therefore, did not want to be influenced by “outside” sources. And so, the theoretical concept behind the rituals and culture of the ancient Chinese world represents what could have been considered a “philosophical,” yet naturalistic and ecologically aware understanding of the world – the same type of understanding in the “Western” world that lead to the “discovery” of quantum physics, as well as modern “Western” scientific understanding, in general.
Quantum mechanics is defined as, “[a] framework of laws governing the universe whose unfamiliar features such as uncertainty, quantum fluctuation, and wave-particle duality become most apparent on microscopic scales of atoms and subnuclear [sic] particles” (NOVA – The Elegant Universe); this is the mechanism by which quantum physics operates. Quantum physics, as a “discovery,” as well as a discipline, has its roots in the early 1900s. “In 1905, the accepted and proven theory of light was the light was a wave phenomenon.” However, “In spite of this, Einstein published his famous paper proposing that light was a particle phenomenon” (Zukav 133). And so, the wave-particle duality existent in modern physics, as we know it, is born. Zukav goes on to say, “Einstein’s thesis led to the wave-particle duality from which quantum mechanics emerged and [brought] with it, [ . . . ] a way of looking at reality and ourselves that is vastly different from that to which we were accustomed” (134). This “discovery” of existent duality was not alone in the realm of physics. For example, the duality of bourgeoisie/proletariat was beginning to rise in the consciousness of the masses during this time – along with the duality existent in socio-political spheres in the form of collectivism vs. individualism: the “greater” duality which essentially caused socialist (and inevitably communist) uprising (symbolic of the rise of post-modern thought, creating the “greatest” duality existent during this time: modern vs. post-modern). These various events were part of a “collective consciousness,” which the Chinese would consider to be similar to the “Western” notion of the soul.
In the “Western” world, knowledge of “Eastern” religion generally extends to familiarity with Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism (and maybe a little Hinduism). The only problem with this is the fact that, “ . . . the Western mind [ . . . ] has no concept for Tao” (Wilhelm 97). This poses a problem, as “Westerners” will not be able to fully comprehend the meaning of “Taoism,” nor become readily acquainted with the “Tao.” However, regardless of the “Westerner’s” extent of “Eastern” knowledge, there are many similarities that exist, connecting “Eastern” philosophy and “Western” religious and scientific understanding; in fact, many of us may already be familiar with these abstract concepts (such as “Tao”) without even realizing it. However, many people in the “Western” world are still quick to compare “Eastern” religions with “Western” forms of Christianity – when, in fact, these “Eastern” faiths are much more similar to the methods of “Western” scientific understanding.
Despite “Western” perceptions of “Eastern” knowledge, it is clear that Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism all have foundations that make them similar, as well as unique and distinct from one another. But one thing is certain: all of these religions share characteristics with the foundational structure of quantum physics. According to Nair, “The interconnectedness between the two branches of ‘philosophy’ [referring to “Eastern mysticism” and modern physics] are [sic] numerous.”
Here are “three important and striking [characteristics that these two “philosophical branches” share]:
1. Unity of all Things
2. World of Opposites
3. Dynamic Universe
“There are more exciting parallels which point to the possibility that the world created by the mystics and modern physicists are just the same world, described and explained at two different levels, [but] a large . . . number of physicists argue that it is not even fair to compare a pure science and an abstract philosophy . . .” (1-3).
But does it seem fair to not be able to “compare” these two disciplines? What if physicists themselves think in such terms? According to Stenger, “ . . . mysticism is said to exist in the writings of many of the early century’s prominent physicists.” It is even thought by many physicists that, “Quantum physics [is] suffused with mysteries and paradoxes” (Quantum Physics Quackery 1). So, as we have seen, “Eastern” philosophy and modern physics both share the concepts of unity, duality, and universality. Both of these realms of thought were originally based on philosophical understanding, derived from deduction, and both rely on abstract principles (chronological and “kairotic”) with regards to forms and conceptions of time.
The same paradox and mystery that exists in quantum physics seems to exist in the “Eastern” philosophical and cosmological world, as well. Whether or not it is truly the same “element” (of mystery or paradox) cannot be discerned. As Wilhelm says, “ . . . the union of opposites on a higher level of consciousness is not a rational thing, nor is it a matter of will; it is a psychic process of development which expresses itself in symbols” (99). Although this quote was intended to illustrate specific ideas with respect to “Eastern” understanding, I can say that it also illustrates the intent of this paper, and the dichotomy of the Confucian and Taoist worlds. This is the same dichotomy that exists between the quantum and “Eastern” worlds – the same dichotomy that exists within the quantum world, itself. But, attempting to define quantum physics and “Eastern” cosmology together is just an illustration of the underlying principles of both of these disciplines, respectively (as well as collectively) – as well as the theme behind post-modern thought, as a whole.
So have I answered the question that I have posed with my thesis? Probably not. There are not simple answers to the many perplexing questions surrounding quantum physics and “Eastern” cosmology. However, I have pointed out a few of the many similarities that exist when comparing the quantum world with the “Eastern” world. There is much mystery and inexplicability surrounding the quantum and “Eastern” worlds, and perhaps this is the true means by which these two realms are most closely related. one thing is certain: quantum physics and “Eastern” philosophies both share a foundation of “philosophy.” The quantum world was simply derived from ancient Greek philosophies; “Eastern” religions were based on ancient cultural philosophies. Yet, there are many similarities that exist between the ancient Greek and Chinese worlds, and this is why the basis of modern physics is so similar to the foundations established in the Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist worlds. As Gascoigne states (in a context referring to ancient Chinese philosophy): “To read, even in translation, some of the many surviving texts from more than 2,000 years ago is to experience that same thrill of recognition that one gets from the cultures of Greece and Rome but from very few others at that distance in time” (2); clearly Greece, Rome, and China are unique in this respect.
In effect, both “Eastern” philosophy and quantum physics are based on ancient culture and this is another true, existent similarity between the two disciplines. The “discovery” of quantum physics, at the time that it happened, is very important. This “discovery” represented a break from the traditional, moving into “uncharted waters,” so to speak. The “discovery” of wave-particle duality is significant here as well. This is because the rise of duality in the consciousness of the masses created the distinction between modern and post-modern thought; the minds of the people were in a transitional stage, and this is clearly why the “discoveries” that happened were able to happen, and will continue to happen in the future.
Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. Shambhala Publications, Inc.: Boulder, Colorado, 1983.
Cosmology: The Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains how our Finite Spherical Universe Exists within an Infinite Eternal Space.
Gascoigne, Bamber. The Dynasties of China: A History. Carroll & Graf Publishers: New York, 2003.
Glimm, James and Arthur Jaffe. Quantum Physics: A Functional Integral Point of View. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1981.
John Archibald Wheeler Quotes.
Kairotic.
Nair, Srijith K. Modern Physics = Eastern Mysticism?
NOVA: The Elegant Universe.
On Philosophy Metaphysics & Physics: The Wave Structure of Matter: Wisdom from Truth and Reality.
Stenger, Victor J. Quantum Quackery. Skeptical Inquirer magazine – January 1997.
Wilhelm, Richard (with commentary by C. G. Jung). The Secret of the Golden Flower: A Chinese Book of Life. Harvest: New York, 1962.
Zukav, Gary. The Dancing Wu-Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. Perennial Classics: New York, 1979.