The sociologists Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar claim that what we take to be reality “can’t be used to explain why a statement becomes a fact”. Basically, then, they believe that facts are made… But don’t we firstly need to establish what a fact is?
This must mean that Latour and Woolgar don’t believe (Latour died last month) that facts are found and then simply (as it were) registered.
So doesn’t Latour and Woolgar’s position seem… well, terrible?
Indeed, doesn’t it sound “postmodern” or even “relativist” in nature?
Yet analytic philosophers — and others — have never been able to agree on what a fact actually is. What’s more, they’ve debated what a fact is in minute and (perhaps) boring detail.
One common expression of the nature of a fact is extremely unhelpful and almost pointless. It’s this:
A fact is something that is the case.
This is a (kind of) variation on Aristotle, who wrote:
There are many more definitions of the word “fact”.
There are also many philosophical analyses of what a fact is.
Added to all that is the fact that the word “fact” is used in very different ways in different disciplines.
For example, in mathematics, a fact is sometimes deemed to be (if, to me, oddly) a statement (called a theorem) that can be proven by logical argument from given axioms and definitions.
So a mathematical fact is about as far away from the everyday use of the word “fact” (if there even is an everyday usage) as can be.
All this may mean, then, that the claims above (i.e., those from Latour and Woolgar) may not be as objectionable as they at first seem. (Of course not everyone will see their claims that way.) Indeed, Latour and Woolgar’s position isn’t that far removed from what (at least) some analytic philosophers (as just mentioned) believe.
In any case, what does it mean to state that facts are found and then registered?
How can a fact (literally) be found?
Perhaps, then, there aren’t only two options here: (1) Facts being made. (2) Facts being found and then registered.
“[t]he word ‘fact’ comes from the Latin factum, a noun derived from the past participle of facere, to do, or to make”.
Readers shouldn’t be too shocked by that little bit of etymology since, according to Hacking, “made things exist”. Indeed, Latour and Woolgar themselves say that they do
“not wish to say that facts do not exist nor that there is no such thing as reality”.
Well, obviously made things exist. Who’d dispute that?
So were Latour and Woolgar simply attempting to soften the blow with this (possibly weak) admission of theirs?
Well, that depends.
Latour and Woolgar’s basic point seems to be (or it could be) that facts aren’t like tables or chairs, or even like electrons or gravity. In other words, facts can’t really be things which are simply found and then registered. (Not that electrons and gravity are simply found and then registered.)
“A fact is the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true.”
Even on this basic account, facts can’t be deemed to be like the tables or chairs which we simply bump into and then register. Here we have all sorts of other things too: words, whole sentences, (abstract) propositions, truth values, human utterances, etc. All these (non-factual) things may well be aboutsomething else (facts?). However, they’re still part of the picture. And if they’re part of the picture, then what they’re about on their own can’t be facts.
There are accounts of what a fact is that see such a thing as being purely (as Latour and Woolgar put it) “out there”. For example, the French philosopher Pascal Engel (among many others) has it that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact (see here).
Scientific Facts
Latour and Woolgar’s take is a slightly different position to that which has just been articulated above. They state that
Perhaps, then, Latour and Woolgar touch on my previous remarks (i.e., about statements, sentences, utterances, etc.) when they conclude that
“‘reality’ cannot be used to explain why a statement becomes a fact”.
In actual fact, however, Latour and Woolgar’s position is fairly standard (ifonly in part) in science.
Scientists tend to see facts as being established as aresult of repeatable observations, as well as repeatable measurements within repeatable experiments. In strong contradiction to Latour and Woolgar, however, scientists often see scientific facts as being independent of the observer — and, indeed, independent of all observers.
Latour and Woolgar also referred to what they called “scientific work”.
This seems to chime in with what Copenhagenist physicistsargued in the 1920s and beyond. Indeed, John Archibald Wheeler later argued that the “answers which nature elicits” are due to the questions physicists ask. And the questions physicists ask will largely occur in tandem with the experiments they perform (along with the apparatuses they use, etc.).
Werner Heisenbergand Niels Bohr (among many others), for example, stressed that the experiment itself determines whether a wave or a particle is measured (or even discovered).
Yet, arguably, experiments determine far more than that binary wave-particle possibility.
In the Copenhagen interpretation (at least according to most interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation), it’s the case that there is no wave or particle at all unless a scientist carries out an experiment (or simply observes it) in order to (as it were) quantifyit.
On a more basic level, there are innumerable scientific facts which would never have been bumped into and then registered if it weren’t for the theories, experiments, etc. which led to them. Indeed, without such theories, experiments, etc. it can easily be argued that there would be no scientific facts at all.
All — or most — of the above clearly means that scientific facts can’t be (as it were) everyday facts. That said, perhaps what these scientific accounts of facts do share with the everyday notion of a fact is that a fact must be what’s often called “objective” and therefore verifiable in terms of observation. Yet even here scientific terminology has slipped in again.
None of this is to say there’s only a single scientific account of facts. Indeed, it’s the case that most scientists don’t spend much — or even any — time thinking about the nature of facts.
Now if we move away from science, the same line of reasoning can still be applied to everyday facts. They too required all sorts of things (i.e., other than themselves) to lead to them. Moreover, there are no facts without all these other sorts of thing which (metaphorically at least) lead to them.
These two questions have been much debated in recent years. Particularly in the context of well-known scientists (such as Stephen Hawking, Laurence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lewis Wolpert, etc.) slagging offphilosophy.
The usual debate centres around whether philosophy has influenced physics, not whether physics has — or can — influence philosophy.
Ironically, the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) seemed to reverse this stress. According to one biographer at least (i.e., Walter Moore, in his Schrödinger: Life and Thought),
But this description of Schrödinger is anomalous anyway. The claim is about Schrödinger’s very own philosophy not influencing his physics, not the philosophies of all previous philosophers not influencing his physics.
Schrödinger’s words seem to put philosophy in a preeminent position, just as Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) did. The latter once said that
“physics is unable to stand on its own feet, but needs a metaphysics on which to support itself, whatever fine airs it may assume towards the latter”.
This is interesting because many of the (for want of a better word) anti-philosophers and physicists I’ve debated with have assumed that philosophers believe (if with only a little of my own exaggeration) that physicists must consult the latest work in philosophy before they go to work to carry out their experiments.
That’s obviously not the case. And Schrödinger knew that too.
Schrödinger was arguing that physics (or simply the theories of physics) has a “metaphysics on which to support itself” even if any individual physicist has never read a single word of philosophy in his life. That is, there would still be metaphysics imbedded in such a physicist’s theories and indeed in much of his scientific thinking. So, even if he hadn’t read any philosophy, then that would be irrelevant: metaphysics would still be there. It would still be there both because he doesn’t realise it’s there and because he will have unconsciously adopted other physicists’ metaphysics instead. Thus, such a physicist’s happily-embraced ignorance of philosophy doesn’t mean that he actually has escaped philosophy.
And all this doesn’t have anything at all to do with such a physicist not ever having read Analysis or Mind or never having heard of Tim Maudlin or even David Hume.
Philosophical Naturalism
If a philosopher is a physicalist or naturalist, then one would guess (or even expect) that physics does, at least to some extent, influence his philosophy. But what about the other way around — philosophy influencing physics?
Historically, it’s well-documented that philosophy (or at least philosophers) did influence many famous physicists. The question is, then, how did it do so?
It can of course be said that not every physicist has been influenced by philosophy (as already argued). Then again, not every day-to-day physicist has been influenced by, say, the interpretations of quantum mechanics or even (I suspect) by quantum mechanics itself. Similarly, not every day-to-day mathematician has been influenced by any of the great names of mathematics.
So the matter of influence doesn’t need to apply to every physicist in every conceivable situation or when it comes to literally every physical theory. Of course not.
For one, the physicists who haven’t (knowingly) been influenced by any philosophy whatsoever may be (as it were) feeding off those physicists who have. Indeed, I suspect that’s true in many cases. Why is that? It’s largely because it was usually the revolutionary and/or important physicists who took philosophy seriously… Of course, this may not be true of literally every revolutionary and/or important physicist. However, even such a revolutionary physicist himself might have fed off those previous physicists who did take philosophy seriously.
Of course all these claims are hard to establish in terms of detail. Alternatively put, it would take much historical — as well as theoretical — data to demonstrate such (admittedly) broad claims.
Some self-described “spiritual” people and idealists I’ve debated with have argued that the term “spiritual idealism” is a disingenuousneologism. However, if you Google the words “spiritual idealism”, you’ll find over 18 pages (with around ten entries on each page) of links to books, videos, papers and articles which refer directly to it. In any case, even if this term were an invention, then there’d still be very-good reasons to use it anyway.
Firstly, there are idealists who see themselves as what they call “spiritual”. And there are people who see themselves as spiritual who’re also idealists. More relevantly, there are people who fuse their spiritual and idealist beliefs together. Indeed, in recent years, this fusion has become very popular — at least in fairly limited circles.
Of course there are forms of idealism — dating back to the 18th century and before — that are in no way (at least obviously) spiritual. (This may depend on definitions.)
In most cases, the spiritual values and beliefs drive the idealist philosophies. That is, those who are spiritual (or who see themselves as spiritual) are attracted to the idealism because they deem it to have strong spiritual elements.
What is spiritual, then, about spiritual idealism?
More strongly, the central spiritual element of spiritual idealism is the idea that (to generalise and be slightly rhetorical) consciousness is everything, whether that is one’s own personal consciousness, Bernardo Kastrup’s transpersonal mind,Donald Hoffman’s collective of conscious agents, etc.
(There is a fair amount of consciousness-first spiritual philosophiesto choose from. However, many examples are almost identical to one another. That’s even the case when the advocates stress the differences. Indeed some examples are (quasi) scientific variations on this ancient theme.)
In a simple sense, then, believing that consciousness is everything makes the spiritual individual his or her own god. Spiritual idealists, however, would prefer to say that it makes individuals “at one with the Cosmos” (or variations thereon). Yet it’s still the case that such “spiritual autonomy” guarantees that the individual can be his or her own god, even if he or she claims to make “contact with Cosmic Consciousness”. This claim (i.e., aboutfusing with the Cosmos), however, often doesn’t really amount to much and is simply an emotional poeticism. That’s primarily because virtually all spiritual idealists retain not just a single part of their ego, but all of it. Indeed the very embrace of spiritual idealism often leads its advocates in very egocentric — even narcissistic — directions.
Basically, then, claiming to be (for example) at one with the Cosmos is one way of seeing oneself as being morally and intellectually superior to those mere mortals who areeither “traditionally religious” or not religious or spiritual at all. And this spiritualegotism (sometimes narcissism) is blatantly obvious in the case of at least some well-known spiritual idealists.
[See these many links to videos, articles, papers and essays on what psychologists and others call “spiritual narcissism”.]
Relevantly, it doesn’t really matter if atheists, materialists, realists, or those with other philosophical views (i.e., outside of ethics) are also egotists (or narcissists) because it’s not part of their philosophical position that they aren’t any of these things. Who they are as people is largely irrelevant to their metaphysical positions. In the case of most spiritual idealists, on the other hand, who they are as a person is important to themselves and to others. Or, more correctly, how they areseenby others is almost everything to them.
The spiritual idealists Bernardo Kastrup and Deepak Chopra would probably argue that I have “misunderstood” (a word Kastrup often uses against virtually all his critics) ego-dissolution and that it isn’t actually the termination of the (or his) ego at all. So, if he were to say that, then I would agree. His own clear example would show that to be the case.
An extract from Bernado Kastrup’s article in which he tells his readers why he is so condescending.
(See Bernado Kastrup’s ‘There is method to the condescension’. Kastrup’s basic position is that since he believes that all his critics use condescension, and all those who advance positions he doesn’t like also do so, then he’s fully entitled to do exactly the same thing. The logic is flawless.)
Kastrup appears to be an admin of his own Facebook “fan club” — see image directly above. (See his fan club @ Facebook here.)
The egotism — and often narcissism of (Western) gurus, “spiritual leaders”, spiritual philosophers, cult leaders, etc. has been extensively commented on by psychologists, sociologists, political commentators, historians, documentary filmmakers, etc. (Perhaps all these commentators have been corrupted by our Western “physicalist paradigm”.) Many laypersons are also aware of the self-importance of such self-described “spiritual” types. Indeed such awareness is now almost commonplace and has become the subject of, for example, many comedy sketches and routines.
(1) This is the first of a series of short (as it were) off-the-cuff philosophical responses to various philosophical and non-philosophical questions. This means that these shorts won’t include new research. In addition, the quotations (from other people) within them will be kept to a minimum.
I personally have great respect for the Australian philosopher David Chalmers (1966-).However, I disagree with nearly all his main philosophical positions. So despite that philosophical disagreement, I still admire his analytic skills and his style of writing. Indeed, in an odd sense, I even admire the philosophical positions he expresses — without actually agreeing with them. That is, Chalmers offers clear accounts of his positions and convincing arguments on their behalf…
Yet obviously not convincing enough to persuade me!
All that may seem a little self-contradictory.
So one can recognise a good argument on behalf of position x, and still not embrace or accept it. The reason for this may be that although the argument for any given x may be very good and very clear, there will still be aspects of my own knowledge, as well as the subject under debate, which lie outside the argument itself (i.e., as expressed by a particular philosopher in a particular context). And it may be those outside elements which stop me — as well as others — from embracing (or simply accepting) argument or position x.
The opposite can occur too.
A philosopher may hold and express a philosophical position which I agree with. However, I may not like the particular argument for that position or the way the philosopher expresses himself. Indeed, there are lots of philosophers who fit this bill.
Specifically, I have in mind those academics (usually either postgrads or just-turned professionals) who never move past a rather predictable — and often annoying — academese, with its fetishization of infinite references and footnotes, alongside unhelpful schematic representations, gratuitous symbols, etc. Indeed all of this is often but a means to signal (for want of a better word) objectivity, fairness and a lack of bias, when all it really signals is that any lack of objectivity, bias and fairness is intentionally hidden under the academese.
So what these academics argue (in such analytic academese) I may well agree with. However, it’s still not expressed well. And that’s even though it supposedly has all the hallmarks of being clear. However, it is, in fact, quite the opposite.
Some readers might have noted the multitude of memes on social media posted by the advocates of spirituality, New Ageism and idealism which include the words of famous quantum physicists. So what’s behind this interest in these selected physicists?
The words in this meme are fake. In fact I penned the words myself. Paul Dirac is, in fact, one physicist who would be very hard to appropriate, commandeer or annex for a spiritual or philosophical cause.
“Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science, but man needs both.”
The users of Facebook and social media generally might have noted how often “spiritual idealists” (see here) and New Agers quote a handful of passages from German and Austrian physicists spoken (or written) in the first three decades of the 20th century… Or at least those who’re interested in philosophy and science might have noted this.
[See the section on the term “New Age” after this.]
The artfully-selected words of these artfully-selected physicists are quoted to back up various spiritual and (rather less so) philosophical positions.
It’s also worth stressing here that often such physicists are either misquoted or their words are simply made up by the memester. Indeed, when I checked some of these passages, all I could find were other out-of-context quotes of the very same words — without any references or sources.
So New Agers, etc. have created multiple images (or memes) with the words of these physicists embedded within them. The passages quoted are always the same ones. Indeed they’ve been used countless times by such people.
These passages are usually very short — often little more than a single sentence. And, as ever, they’re taken completely out of context.
All this quoting of physicists is usually (or even always) done for one reason and for one reason only:
To advance various spiritual and/philosophical beliefs (often about “cosmic consciousness”).
So spiritual idealists, “anti-materialists” and New Agers often quote and mention various physicists from the early 20th century (as well as beyond) to back up what they already believe anyway.
In other words, when you look into this, it can quickly be seen that virtually no contemporary New Ager, spiritual idealist, etc. became spiritual as a result of his or her research into quantum mechanics or, say, from reading the technical works (i.e., in papers, etc.) of Erwin Schrödinger. Instead, what nearly always happens is that such people became spiritual for exclusively personal reasons — and only then did they look to these physicists for scientific backup.
So most New Agers, etc. have no interest in science (specifically quantum mechanics) other than as a means to advance their spiritual and philosophical beliefs. (Beliefs they held long before encountering the work of these physicists.) This, then, is a kind ofargument from authority (or appeal to authority) which basically amounts to the following claim:
If Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Planck, Bohm, etc. believed and said these things, then they simply must be true.
The other point worth making is that although a tiny minority of physicists did say these things (although, as stated, they’re often either misquoted or the quotes are literally made up), these scientists rarely went into much — or sometimes any — detail. More importantly, they rarely made an effort to tie their non-scientific words to their actual physical (i.e., technical) theories. Indeed Erwin Schrödinger, for one, went out of his way to disconnect his interest in (loosely called) “eastern philosophy” from his actual technical physics. (See Walter Moore’s excellent biography: Schrödinger: Life and Thought. Moore goes into much detail on Schrödinger’s interest in Schopenhauer, Vedanta, etc.)
New Agers, on the other hand, do the opposite of this.
Such people go out of their way to connect quantum physics (as well as much else in science) to their prior spiritual and philosophical beliefs.
So why these particular German and Austrian physicists?
One reason for this is that from (roughly) the 19th century (particularly from the period of Arthur Schopenhauer’s strong influence on German and Austrian culture as a whole) to the first three decades (or less) of the 20th century, eastern philosophy (this term, like so many, is disputed) was popular among artists and intellectuals in both Germany and Austria. Thus, these physicists simply reflected the general intellectual milieu and culture of their time. Indeed, as they got older, they often stopped referring to such things…
That said, most of these oft-quoted physicists hardy referred to eastern thought in the first place. Hence the very-few passages which spiritual idealists, New Agers, etc. have access to.
New Age?
The word “New Age” was used throughout the section above. Admittedly, that was largely for convenience’s sake. So it is, indeed, an umbrella term.
Some academics say that the New Age movement is “dead” and that the term itself is “useless”. Other academics say that this movement is “very much alive” and that the term is still useful.
For example, a professor of religious studies, Hugh Urban, wrote:
“According to many recent surveys of religious affiliation, the ‘spiritual but not religious’ category is one of the fastest-growing trends in American culture, so the New Age attitude of spiritual individualism and eclecticism may well be an increasingly visible one in the decades to come.”
So take your pick on whether New Ageism is alive or dead.
At one point in history, New Agers used the term “New Age” themselves — a hell of a lot. Roughly between the 1930s and 1960s, various individuals and groups talked about a coming “New Age” and often used that term (see here). Then, when critics picked up on both the movement and the term itself, many (though not all) New Agers stopped using it.
“Most of the beliefs which characterise the New Age were already present by the end of the 19th century, even to such an extent that one may legitimately wonder whether the New Age brings anything new at all.”
More relevantly, many New Agers believe in what they call “holism”. They also believe that a “divinity” (or simply consciousness) pervades the universe. This leads — for various reasons — to New Agers rejecting “traditional religion” and the “monotheistic God”. New Agers, instead, emphasise the individual (or “self”) and their own “spiritual authority”.
Most New Agers also reject some (or all) of the following: materialism, rationalism, the scientific method, empiricism, etc. However, that doesn’t stop them from also using concepts and terms from science and particularly from what has been called theNew Physics. In the later respect, New Agers often mention David Bohm and Ilya Prigogine. All this has also largely been down to Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics (1975), as well as Gary Zukav’s The Dancing Wu Li Masters (1979).
“The possibility of a mental universe has a strong lineage going in the quantum era, but present-day physicalists (physicists who accept the physical nature of reality as a given) feel free to dismiss or ignore figures as towering as Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, and John von Neumann.”
Now take these words from an idealist (see here) who believes that he has (to use his own word) “proved” that heaven exists (as in his book, Proof of Heaven) — Dr Eben Alexander. He wrote:
“We live in a mental universe, projected out of consciousness, just as Heisenberg realized [].”
More technically, we also have the idealist Bernardo Kastrup’s long and wild jump from Werner Heisenberg’s stress on measurements to his very own “transpersonal mind” (see the ‘transpersonal movement’). As Shawn Radcliffe writes(in a website called Science and Nonduality):
“For Kastrup and his colleagues, these types of measurements [in quantum mechanics]can only be performed by a conscious observer. They write that inanimate objects like a particle detector can’t truly measure a particle. With the double-slit experiment, ‘the output of the detectors only becomes known when it is consciously observed by a person,’ writes Kastrup. Extending this to all of reality, he argues that a ‘transpersonal mind’ underlies the material world.”
A large part of all this (scare-quoted) “interest” in quantum physics boils down to the rejection of what spiritual idealists and New Agers often call “materialism”.
Take Bernardo Kastrup again and his broad sociological and politicaltake on materialism. Kastrup wrote thefollowing words(as taken from his book Materialism is Baloney) on materialism:
“A big part of the motivation for our culture’s current embrace of materialism is the observed regularities according to which reality seems to unfold.”
[It can be taken as given here that Kastrup means Western culture by “our culture”. That is, he means European, British and American culture.]
So clearly it isn’t just getting the metaphysics of “reality” right which concerns Kastrup and other self-styled “anti-materialists”. Kastrup is also concerned with what “our culture embrace[s]” and the fact that it (in his eyes) embraces materialism. And that may at least partly explain Kastrup’s words “materialism is baloney”; as well as Deepak Chopra’s similarly intemperate remarks on materialism.
It’s worth noting here that some spiritual idealists can be very vain, egotistical, aggressive and intolerant. New Agers also often conflate materialism with consumerism, rather than seeing materialism as a metaphysical position. So it’s odd that many New Agers are perfect consumerists who also consume large amounts of New-Age merchandise.
But is “our culture” really materialist?
The fact is that there are big chunks of our culture that certainly do not embrace materialism — from the large numbers of religious and “spiritual” people, to New Agers, to the lovers of the arcane. Now add to that the many political activists and political theorists who do not embrace materialism. And, last but not least, take on board the many idealists, realists,spiritual-but-not-religious people, etc. who’re strongly against what they describe as “materialism”. (See ‘Spiritual but not religious’.)
So our culture — at least as a whole — clearly does not embrace philosophical materialism. That’s unless Kastrup simply means that everyone in our culture unconsciously embraces materialism by osmosis or that most folk just catch it in the air. (This would be Kastrup’s very own version of the notion of “false consciousness”.)
In any case, the fact that Kastrup and other idealists believe that our culture does embrace materialism may well also explain why they (rhetorically) claim that the commitment to (philosophical) materialism is based on “faith” or even that materialism is a “religion” held (it seems to them) by literally dozens of millions (or more) of people.
*************************
Part Two: Comments on Specific New-Age Memes
Max Planck’s words (in meme form) are posted all the time on Facebook and social media generally. It’s even possible that they are fake. Or, if not fake, then doctored to some extent… But perhaps not.
That said, there is nothing spiritual or even idealist about Max Planck’s words. The stress on consciousness (or mind) is similar to the stress on experience (or sense impressions). This is largely an empiricist position which dates back (in various strong or weak forms) to the ancient Greeks and which achieved an historical importance with the British Empiricists of the 18th century.
So, of course, everything we gain access to is done through our minds — or through “consciousness”. We have no other access to the world. However, empiricists, realists, materialists, etc. believe that too. So it’s what is derived from that which is important. And idealism — let alone spiritual idealism — is simply a single option. What’s more, it’s a position which Max Planck himself almost certainly didn’t uphold.
Is this a genuine quote? As ever, when I Googled this passage, all I could find was other out-of-context quotes (most in images or memes) of the very same words — without any context, references or sources. But I did find the following from Werner Heisenberg:
“The kinship between the ancient Eastern teachings and the philosophical consequences of the modern quantum theory have [sic] fascinated me again and again.”
If this claim is genuine, then it seems to be an acknowledgment that quantum mechanics came first (or at least Werner Heisenberg’s own work came first) and only then were there these “conversations about Indian philosophy” carried out. That said, anything can be connected to anything. It also seems that Heisenberg was saying that Indian philosophy may simply be of some help when it comes to understanding quantum physics. And so too is learning some mathematics. In addition, metaphors and analogies are often (very often) used when discussing quantum mechanics.
That probably is a genuine quote from David Bohm. However, it has very little to do with his actual physics. That is, it has little to do with Bohm’s technical physics as expressed in his papers. Sure, it may have something to do, on the other hand, with his interpretations of his own work.
It can be accepted that, like many other intellectuals, Bohm did read Indian religious texts, etc.
Apart from that, the passage above reads like a poeticism, not as science or even as philosophy.
So the passage above can be read as being as statement exclusively about nature’s fundamental laws, constants, forces, etc. and the omnipresence of energy. Or, alternatively, it can be read in an exclusively spiritual or idealist way. Whichever way it is read, the statement itself doesn’t belong to physics — quantum physics or otherwise.
This passage is also often quoted. It’s a basic statement of one aspect of the Copenhagen interpretationof quantum mechanics.
It’s very hard to see why it’s spiritual or even idealist in content. So it can only be supposed that the reasoning is the following:
If nature depends on humanobservations and humanquestions, then it must also depend on minds (or on consciousness). Thus, surely nature itself must be mental (or constituted by consciousness).
Of course this is bizarre. But this is a good way of making sense of why this passage is quoted so many times by New Agers, spiritual idealists and anti-materialists.
