On the Psychological Implications of Quantum Mechanics

IN SEARCH OF
THE NATURE OF REALITY:
ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

ABSTRACT
The following thesis discusses the fluid state of our perception of the nature of reality. Our changing perception of the nature of reality is examined by looking at the way in which new ideas are assimilated into society. Historical examples are given which show how this assimilation has been accomplished in the past. The ideas of Newton’s Deterministic Mechanics and Heisenberg’s Quantum Mechanics are briefly presented. Current trends in society which seem to represent the integration of Quantum Mechanics into an everyday consciousness are looked at in how they are applicable to the model presented of how the perception of reality changes.

The physics of Isaac Newton and Werner Heisenberg, and the philosophical background for their theories are looked at in terms of the effect these theories have had on our society. These examples are used to develop an understanding of how ideas are accepted into a society’s paradigm. Through this process, it is hoped that we may come to an understanding of how our society will react to a new scientific paradigm, Quantum Mechanics.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT P. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS P. iv
INTRODUCTION p. 1
PROLOGUE
HOW IS SANITY RELATED TO REALITY?
THESIS STATEMENT
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF REALITY?
PROCESS OF THE ASSIMILATION OF NEW IDEAS
MODEL OF PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION OF
PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE FACTORS
TIME FACTORS
Verifiability of the new ideas.
Forms of resistance. p. 15
Active opposition p. 19
IMPACT FACTORS p. 22
CURRENT STATUS p. 24
IV. ISAAC NEWTON p. 26
PHYSICS
PHILOSOPHY p. 28
EFFECT p. 29
QUANTUM MECHANICS p. 30
PHYSICS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS p. 31
SCHRODINGER’S CAT P. 35
CONCLUSION P. 37
A. APPLICATION OF MODEL TO QM P. 39
B. HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THE EFFECT P. 41
OF QM ON SOCIETY
BIBLIOGRAPHY P. 43

I. INTRODUCTION

What started out as an intellectual diversion has become that which occupies my mind the most. I started college wanting to be an engineer. Physics, Calculus, and other hard sciences formed my core curricula. For its entertainment value I elected to take some Psychology courses. Well, the years passed and by the time I was a graduating senior my major was Psychology and I studied the hard sciences as entertainment. The aspect of this combination which fell into the category of intellectual diversion was the study of the ways in which the two could be combined. Each study had its own array of mysteries. Students in one field would, more often than not, misunderstand the topics studied in the other field.

As I studied Psychology the elusiveness of sanity and its refusal to be defined set my curiousity on fire. Reading through the literature which described comparative societies aided my acquisition of a belief that sanity was a socially determined and relative term.
Study of Eastern Philosophies opened up my awareness of the possibility of other states of consciousness. Acceptance of the reality of those states forced an acceptance of different modes of reality. Being sane is often understood as having a grip on reality. Conversely, going insane is “losing touch with reality”.
Psychology didn’t provide any concrete definitions of sanity. Since the connection with the definition of reality appeared so clear I asked if there were any concrete definitions of reality. I looked to other sciences to see how reality was defined, hoping then to correlate this definition to sanity.
Reality, it seems, is defined differently in different sciences. The core definition seemed to lie in physics. “The term ‘physics’ is derived from this Greek word (physis) and meant… originally, the endeavor of seeing into the nature of all things.” (Capra, 1988, p.6). This looked to be a promising avenue for my quest. As I studied more physics it became clear that its definition of the nature of reality was changing.
One particular branch of physics is responsible for this. Quantum mechanics, QM, is the study of the basic building blocks of matter, atoms. QM has been making observations at the smallest level of atomic particles. The best description of the observed data is accomplished through a mathematical concept known as a wave function. Even the smallest known “particles” are not understood as just particles. They are also understood to act as waves in certain circumstances . Some physicists even ask whether or not we perceive them as either particles or waves by deciding how we are going to look for them (Zukav, p. 55). This suggests an enormous role played by consciousness in the structure and nature of reality.

In this society at least, we have based our understanding of reality upon our popular understanding of science. This popular conception of reality changes as scientific advances are assimilated into the population at large. This is a gradual process, as seen in the way that scientific understanding is often a full generation or more ahead of the popular understanding. Remember that the conceptions of reality that are engendered by quantum mechanics were developed at the turn of the century. When one projects the historical trends of conceptual integration onto our current situation one must imagine that these conceptions will be assimilated into our consensus reality.

The following thesis discusses the way in which new ideas are assimilated into society’s understanding of the nature of reality. Historical examples are given which show how this assimilation has been accomplished in the past. The ideas of Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics are briefly presented. Current trends which seem to represent the integration of Quantum Mechanics into an everday consciousness are looked at in how they are applicable to the model presented.

First, we will attempt to develop a model of how the integration of new ideas into a society’s paradigm is accomplished. We will take a look at the physics of Isaac Newton and Werner Heisenberg. Then, we will look at the philosophical backgrounds for their theories. By comparing these theories with the model presented we may come to an understanding of how our society will react to a new scientific paradigm, QM, which scientists have shown to have greater relevance to the world.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF REALITY?

Reality is not as it is often perceived. Socrates, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and more were all wrong, in some way, in their perceptions about the nature of reality. All these men had at least one thing in common and that was their desire for knowledge about the nature of reality. One’s perceptions about the nature of reality is probably based in some part on the discoveries of these men.

Another thing these men had in common was that they were all, to some degree or another, considered insane. That they were considered insane is a reflection of their contextual situation. From the common perception of the era in which they lived, they were different to the extreme, thus insane. This just goes to show that one cannot gain knowledge of the true nature of reality without risking sanity in the quest. For the quest that leads to knowledge of the meaning of life and the structure of reality treads dangerous grounds. It means giving up certain beliefs which are societal determinants of sanity. Beliefs which are held to be true by general consensus. It is the acceptance of these beliefs which is equated with sanity, denial is equated with insanity.

What are these beliefs? There is a certain category of belief which has this power. The type of beliefs which fall into this category are those concerning the nature of reality. There have been these types of beliefs since primitive man first looked up into the night sky and wondered what was out there. He looked at the world around him and wondered where he came from, and where he was going. He formed beliefs about the nature of reality. Religion came soon after, when he tried to explain his beliefs to those around him. The early polytheistic, pagan religions are nothing less than rudimentary sciences used to explain the world as seen by early man. Nowadays, we are much more “sophisticated” with our fancy sciences but we are still on essentially the same quest: to explain the nature of reality. It hasn’t been an easy path to follow down through the ages.

From the first time there was a disagreement about the nature of reality there has been a distinction between sane and insane. These relative terms are simply another way of saying “Us and Them”. Sanity has, ever since, been confined to the status quo. Different societies throughout history have had different ways of dealing with the insane. These methods have ranged from general acceptance in the shamanistically oriented cultures to outright torture by the Catholic Church in our own culture in the recent past.

One thing is certain, sanity, as it is defined in the current paradigm, is clear and precise. Insanity is vague and chaotic, it cannot be pinned down. Reality can be known by the sane,it is linear and predictable. Only the insane would say that Reality cannot be certain, that it is vague and chaotic, non-linear and unpredictable.

Please note the disclaimer in the first sentence of the last paragraph: As it is defined by the current paradigm. Sanity’s definition is, in itself, unstable. The definition of sanity changes as the prevailing mindset changes. In other words, as society changes its views on the nature of reality it also changes its definition of sanity.

A society’s definition of sanity and its beliefs about the nature of reality are inextricably tied up in its identity, that which makes us who we are and all others uncivilized or barbaric. Speaking from a western, or more specifically American, standpoint one might say that our society’s identity is keyed to our sciences. In a society such as ours, which bases its identity on science, one may expect that new scientific developments will change society’s perception of itself and its perceived relationship to reality.

Our current notion of the nature of reality has been based upon a Newtonian model which is now being replaced by a Quantum model. It follows that our notion of the nature of reality will change to accommodate the changes in our sciences.

To understand just what effect this shift in paradigm will have upon our society it is necessary to understand several key factors. First, we will examine the process by which new ideas are assimilated into society’s self-identity. The effect of a scientific paradigm will be examined in the light of the influence of Isaac Newton upon our society. Finally, a new scientific paradigm , Quantum Mechanics, will be examined and a hypothesis will be made about its effect on future generations.

III. THE PROCESS BY WHICH NEW IDEAS ARE
ASSIMILATED INTO COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
III. A MODEL FOR THE ASSIMILATION OF NEW
IDEAS INTO SOCIETY

The perceived difference between ideas of the old paradigm and new ideas.
SQ = The power of the status quo for resisting
new ideas.

t = The time necessary for acceptance of new ideas.
V = The verifiability of the new idea.
I = The perceived impact of accepting a new idea.

The process of the assimilation of new ideas into a society’s paradigm is accomplished through a three way dynamic process. To understand fully this dynamic process requires that it be looked at in a non-linear way. However, each of the component interaction must first be understood separately by looking at them linearly. There is no clear cut causality in the process so each interactions must be examined with the linearity flowing in each of the possible directions. Then the full picture may be understood as the interaction of these forces. The model above gives a picture of this dynamic interaction.

There are two factors influencing each of three variables when considering the assimilation of new ideas into a society’s paradigm. The impact of a new idea on society is influenced by the difference of the new idea and the old paradigm, and by the amount of time required for the full implications of the new idea to be integrated into a new paradigm. The extent of the difference that new idea has from the old paradigm may be measured by the level of impact as well as being related to the time that new idea would need to be accepted. The time that a new idea needs to be accepted relates to the amount of resistance it receives, which is a factor of the difference of the contrasting ideas. The length of the time factor may have an influence on its impact, too long of a time for acceptance dilutes the perceived impact.

This simplistic view of the process of the assimilation of new ideas into a society’s paradigm does not intend to imply that these separate factors are each simplistic. There are multiple variables going into each of the variables listed.

The following chapters will examine each of the factors separately. It is hoped that understanding each separate factor will engender an understanding of the model as a whole.

III. B. FACTORS DEFINING THE EXTENT OF THE
PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
NEW IDEAS AND THE IDEAS OF THE
CONTEXTUAL PARADIGM

The question which must be asked at this point is why do we often perceive new ideas as different from our consensus framework of ideas?

Some new ideas are seen as immediately fitting into their contextual framework, others are rejected out-of-hand. How these ideas are perceived has an important role in this process. If the idea is perceived as being completely external to one’s conceptual framework, then one’s resistance to change is strong. This resistance may also be understood as having a separate existence from the idea presented. The power of the status quo, resistance, is a variable which fluctuates over time. This variable, status quo, must remain in balance if a society is to stay healthy. According to the given model, the mental stagnation which occured during the Dark Ages may be understood as resulting from the overwhelming influence of the status quo. If this power of resistance to new ideas is not present we would be subject to the whims of any new idea which came along. For example, the disciples of Jim Jones seem to have lacked the power to make decisions about the truth of the statements he made. The same seems to hold true for the Nazis who were under the spell of Adolf Hitler.

Thus if the status quo is strong the range of ideas which are accepted is limited. When it is weak the range of ideas which are instantly accepted is great. This is how the extent of the difference of the new ideas from the status quo is perceived. If a new idea is outside of a flexible status quo the difference is perceived as less than the same idea outside of an inflexible status quo.

If the perception of the difference in ideas is considered negligible then the perceived impact is small. Thus the time for assimilation is small. When the ideas are perceived as incompatible, if they are assimilated at all, the impact is great. The next step in understanding this process is to examine the factors which influence the time of the assimilation of these new idea

III. C. TIME FACTORS
III. C. 1. VERIFIABILITY

One of the most important factors in the time needed for the assimilation of new ideas is the verifiability of the new ideas. In our society, the statement that “All Unicorns have wings”, has little verifiability. The result is that this idea may never be assimilated into our understanding of the nature of reality. It is the assimilation of true ideas which are of primary interest. The proof of the falsity of a new idea is a positive factor for the assimilation of its opposite. There are other factors which are not dependent upon the veracity or falsity of the idea in question. Ideas which are scientifically false are often accepted by society.

Historically speaking, new developments in science have often been resisted as they challenge the status quo understanding of the nature of reality. As Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying, “Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds”. Resistance to new ideas takes many forms. Some may be active forms of resistance, such as violence, censorship, etc. Others may be more passive, taking the form of an unintentional dilution resulting from a general misunderstanding of the new idea.

III. C. 2. FORMS OF RESISTANCE
III. C. 2. a. ACTIVE OPPOSITION TO NEW IDEAS

There are many examples of this in the histories of the people who had the greatest effect on their worlds. These people are, in general, those who encountered the greatest opposition to their ideas. Socrates taught with the guiding principle that “The unexamined life is not worth living”. He lived from around 469 B.C. to 399 B.C. teaching youth in and around Athens. The opposition he received took the form of an official charge of “corrupting the young, and showing disrespect for religious traditions.” Trial by jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to death (World Book, 1971, So-Sz, p.462).

Aristotle, a philosopher who lived from 384 B.C.to< 322 B.C., was charged with Impiety for his teachings. He fled his city and died in exile (World Book, A,p. 629).

Nicholas Copernicus proposed a heliocentric cosmology in 1543, which removed the Earth from its favored position in the center of the universe. Due to the implications that this theory had for mankind’s significance in “God’s” master plan, Copernicus’ book was placed on the list of forbidden books in 1616 where it stayed over two hundred years (Sagan, 1980, p.53).

“Galileo was seized by the Inquisition for declaring that the earth revolves around the sun and for drawing unacceptable theological implications from his beliefs. He was forced to recant on penalty of imprisonment or worse” (Zukav, 1979, p. 48). Although he recanted, Galileo was held in house arrest the remainder of his life (World Book, G, p.13)

“(Newton’s)…criteria for the validity of everything that he wrote was that anyone should be able to reproduce his experiments and come up with the same results. If it could be verified experimentally, it was true. If it could not be verified experimentally, it was suspect. The Catholic Church took a dim view, to say the least, of this position. Since it had been saying things for fifteen hundred years which hardly were subject to experimental verification…”(Zukav, p.48).

Another scientist who encountered high opposition from the Catholic Church was Charles Darwin. Two of his books, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, led to fiery debates which continue today (World Book, D, p.33)

Although initially ridiculed, these scientists were eventually proven correct and their teachings have become widely accepted into popular knowledge. Ask almost anyone, in our culture today, the shape of the planet and most will know that it is round. Most will agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Few are those who will deny the scientific evidence pointing to the Theory of Evolution.

It would surely be an oversimplification to say that all those who encounter opposition to their ideas will eventually be proven correct. It is important to realize that not all those who are ridiculed are correct. It is true, however, that new ideas do not come from rote memorization of old facts. It takes courage to explore and try out different ways of seeing the world. These new ways are often illegal or “immoral” when looked at from the perspective of the status quo. As mentioned earlier, those who take these alternative paths are in danger of being labelled ‘insane’. Those who take the greatest risks, i.e. stray the farthest from the common path, are in a position to encounter ideas which are radically different. These radically new and different ideas, if they are accepted at all, take a long time to be accepted by the general populus.

We are in a position right now to view this process in action. Newtonian philosophy has been the guiding force behind the majority of Western thought for centuries. Its primacy has been superceded in the scientific field by a new branch of physics, Quantum Mechanics. The revolution is considered over in the scientific circles. The framework upon which this science is based has been continually strengthened by new data. It has gotten to the point now where “quantum mechanics provides the fundamental underpinning of all of modern science” (Gribbin, p.1).

This new way of looking at the world has many ramifications for society. Ramifications which are only now beginning to be realized, even though quantum mechanics was developed in the early parts of this century.

Historical trends, as shown above, lead one to assume that quantum mechanics will weild a great influence over the way the general population understands reality. With that assumption one may ask what influences may currently be seen.

III. C. 2. b. PASSIVE RESISTANCE: AN UNINTENTIONAL DILUTION

Many times facts are presented in conversations with the reference to a mystical group referred to only as “they”. “They” seem to be in possession of knowledge assimilated through unknown means. However, most people upon hearing a fact presented in this fashion will assume that it must be true. Scientific examination of this type of “fact” may prove the “fact” incorrect.

Who are “they”? Looking at specific examples of reference to “they” may provide discrete sources. Facts presented in the morning paper may show up in the evening as “they say” facts. The more often repeated, the more diluted these facts are likely to become. This process is well known. Rumor is defined as “1. general talk not based on definite knowledge… or 2. an unconfirmed report, story, or statement in general circulation…” (Webster’s, 1966, p. 1275). A wide range of scientifically verifiable facts may combine into a mash of rumors and hearsay to provide a body of knowledge which has no source the variations given by “they”. With this in mind, the answer to the general question: “Who are ‘they’?” becomes clear. “They” are the people who say “they say”. In a word, society. Society has a voice and speaks through the mouths of those individuals who say “they say”. The worldview made up of the collection of “facts” that “they say” is society’s worldview. Society has many sources for its worldview. Science, religion, politics and more form the basis for this worldview. Each source influences society through the same process. There are two factors in this process; science, etc. which continually tries to present new ideas and force their acceptance, and the Status Quo which resists any change in its shape or form.

Through science new facts are discovered, presented, or revealed and society takes over from there. The Status Quo will try to halt the spread of these new ideas through denial, or worse as seen above. (See: Active Opposition) This push and pull results in a variable and often intangible worldview. Society is in a state of constant flux. Society may react to this flux state in a variety of ways which form a continuum from complete rejection of new ideas with maintainance of the status quo, its highest priority, to rejection of status quo ideas and instant acceptance of any new idea which comes along. Either extreme has inherent dangers. The status quo may fall to the effects of stagnation. Blind acceptance of new ideas may lead to situations such as that experienced with the Jonestown Tragedy. Thus, it would seem that a mixture of the two would provide society with a reasonable evaluation period for each new idea. A scenario based on this mixture resembles the current state of affairs.

A new fact is discovered and presented to society. The idea is discussed and experiments are undertaken to test the verifiability of the new idea. Here the idea is either proven or disproven. This is a step which has no predetermined duration. If the idea is eventually disproven the idea is rejected and the status quo triumphs. However, if further experiments support the new idea to the point where one may say that it has been proven, the idea is accepted and forms part of a new societal worldview. What is only implied here is that new facts may cause any fact to be rejected no matter how entrenched into society’s worldview. The deeper this hypothetical false fact is buried the more difficult it is to change society’s worldview concerning that fact and all that it implies.

III. D. THE IMPACT OF NEW IDEAS

According to the given model, the perceived impact of a new idea depends on two things. One variable is the amount that society has to change to assimilate that new idea, and another is the amount of time it takes for that idea to be assimilated. If society does not have to change much to incorporate a new idea that idea has little impact. An idea with a great impact would require a restructuring of society. The idea which does this overnight is seen as having greater impact than the idea which grows and is not fully understood until centuries have passed.

The key word here is the perception of the impact. Looking back in history, one sees that Nicholas Copernicus had no immediate impact other than to attract the attention of the church. From the perspective of a layman of the day, the impact was negligible. From our perspective, we may see the ways society had to change to incorporate the idea that the Earth was in the center of the solar system. These changes are now seen as having a great impact.

Ideas which ebb and flow in society, changing overnight but do not require a restructuring of society, have negligible impacts. Examples of ideas which fit this category are seen in the Top 40 music poll, the ranking of sport teams, clothing fashions and other faddish trends. If these trends are representative of new ways of looking at the nature of reality, then it is the theme underlying the ideas themselves which have the effect.

III. E. CURRENT STATUS

There is a new fact/theory which is currently on the discussion table before society. Quantum Mechanics, QM, was first presented at the turn of the century by Max Plank (Zukav, p. 82). QM has been consistently supported by experiments designed to test its verifiability. However, it has yet to be assimilated into society’s popular worldview. Why is that? It is due to the extent that society will have to change its worldview that these ideas have not yet been accepted. Status quo is a powerful force in this interaction. Looking at quantum mechanics with an open mind allows one to see the truth in its propositions.

The group of facts which are in contrast to quantum mechanics in this scenario are those which depend on Newtonian Deterministic Physics. These facts are in all aspects of the thought processes of modern society. The depth of their entrenchment relates to the difficulty quantum mechanics is having in being accepted by society at large. However, our society is one which values the scientifically repeatable experiment over any other method of determining the truth of proposed facts. Given that our society has these values it may be understood that quantum mechanics is becoming an integral part of our modern scientific thought. It is also apparent that quantum mechanics is affecting the base levels of our scientific thought. As its influence begins to be felt throughout the scientific community it will be felt throughout society as well.

Just what influence quantum mechanics will have on society depends, in part, on how it differs from that historical pillar of thought, Newtonian Physics. To understand these differences we will first take a closer look at the historical example of Newtonian Physics.

IV. ISAAC NEWTON
IV. A. NEWTONIAN PHYSICS

Newton’s laws of motion describe what happens to moving objects. Theoretically, once we know the laws of motion we can predict the future of a moving object provided that we know certain things about its initial conditions. The more initial information that we have, the more accurate our prediction will be.”In practice, it is very difficult to know all the initial circumstances pertaining to an event. Even a simple action such as bouncing a ball off a wall is surprisingly complex…

It is increasingly difficult to obtain all of the data necessary for accurate predictions when more complex actions are involved.” (Zukav, p. 50-52)

According to Newtonian physics, however, it is possible, in principle, to predict exactly how a given event is going to unfold if we have enough information about it. According to Newton, it is only the enormity of the task that prevents us from accomplishing it. This type of philosophy is known as deterministic. That is, Newton’s Physics proposes that it is possible to make accurate predictions of a comprehensive nature.
This is in direct contrast to Heisenberg’s Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is a non-deterministic philosophy. According to Heisenberg, it is fundamentally impossible to simultaneously know all the variables in a situation. This is in direct contrast with the image of the universe held by the philosophers of the deterministic viewpoint. This image of the universe is that of a giant clockwork space ticking away through time in an unstoppable fashion. “To Newton,it would be possible to predict the entire course of the future if we knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe” (Gribbin, p. 157).

This cosmology when faced with unexplainable, unpredictable variables, such as human emotions, excuses its insufficiencies by pointing out that not all of the details are known about these unpredictable variables. However, it maintains a confident outlook by assuring that as soon as the details have been discovered, more accurate and objective predictions can be made.

IV. B. NEWTONIAN PHILOSOPHY

One of the basic premises in Newton’s philosophy is that it is possible to be an objective observer. That one may observe a system without interfering with the processes observed was taken for granted. This is closely related to the words of another philosopher of his day, Rene Descartes. “Descartes’s philosophy, which he supported with his mathematics, became that the universe and all of the things in it also were automata” (Zukav, p. 48). Newton would have agreed with the statement that individuals may exist separated from their environment.

IV. C. NEWTON’S EFFECT ON SOCIETY TODAY

Modern medicine’s idea of the body is that of a machine composed of parts, which may or may not be repairable. Psychology’s idea that the behavior of an individual may be reduced to the interaction of certain brain chemicals is a direct result of the automation of all things as prescribed by Newton’s philosophy. Our society’s distaste for things which are unpredictable, resulting in laws which encourage conformity, also result from Newton. We have an idea that we are separated from the world around us which ensures that we do not have to accept responsibility for what we observe. Hunger, war, famine, all of it may be blamed on the world. We need not accept responsibility. The world and the cause/effect occurences we observe may be seen as the result of a separate Diety. A driving force separate from ourselves. There is a song which was popular during our recent “war” the lyrics remind us that “God is watching us from a distance” This seems to represent the way a majority of the citizens of this country understand spirituality, the world and their relationship to reality. It is this perception that would allow mankind to haphazardly destroy vast portions of our Earth’s delicate biosphere. This attitude is summed up in the words of Descartes as quoted below:

“I knew that I was a substance the whole essence or nature of which was merely to think, and which, in order to exist, needed no place and depended on no material thing. Thus, this ‘I,’ that is, the soul through which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body, and is even easier to know than the body, and even if there were no body, the soul would not cease to be all that it is” (Descartes p. 18).

These philosophies, both Newton’s and Descartes’, do not allow for the world to be perceived as a set of interlocking systems. Each action is seen as having one and only one cause. In an interview with active therapists, John O’Sullivan and John Frevert, the idea that many of the most prevalent psychological problems may result from seeing the world in this way was discussed. They suggest that this Newtonian philosophy may have some relation to the breakdown of family structure in our society today. The fact that our ideal way of being in the world is as an objective observer may result in many problems, i.e. poor communication. Identity crises may relate to the individuals inability to remain an objective observer.

QUANTUM MECHANICS

Now that we have taken a look at the physics, philosophy, and effect of Newton’s deterministic mechanics we have a background against which to evaluate quantum mechanics. We will take a short look at the physics of quantum mechanics as it is in contrast to the deterministic mechanics of Isaac Newton.

V. A. PHYSICS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

The similarities between Newton’s Mechanics and Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics lie in that they are both mechanics. Mechanics is the study of motion. Newton’s Mechanics applies itself to the study of macroscopic objects. It is due to scientist’s bias torward using systems that work that they first attempted to describe the motion of sub-atomic particles using Newtonian Mechanics. The familiar view of the atom as a miniature solar system with nucleus, consisting of protons and neutrons, surrounded by orbiting electrons comes from a Newtonian perspective. The very idea that these sub-atomic phenomena are particles comes from the Newtonian perspective. As technology allowed scientists to conduct experiments testing this application of Newtonian Physics, various flaws in the model began to become apparent. A landmark experiment of this type was carried out by Michelson and Morley (Heisenberg, 1963, p. 13) in 1885 (Ouspensky, p. 356-7) which demonstrated the constancy of the speed of light. Here was a result which could not be predicted by Newtonian Mechanics.

While that particular set of experiments (Michelson, et. al.), led to Einstein’s Relativity theory, which is not discussed in this paper, it is this type of experiment which pointed out the flaws in Newton’s model. This created a type of scientific vacuum of ideas within which QM was able to prosper. The experiments which led to the development of QM had more to do with the wave-particle duality of light. When conducting experiments to understand the constancy of the speed of light it was necessary to understand of what light consisted. This type of question was answered in two different ways. These ways conflicted in a manner which could not be resolved by Newtonian Mechanics. Light was exhibiting properties of both a wave-like nature and properties of a particle-like nature. It is the answer to this paradox which is the heart of Quantum theory.

“How can mutually exclusive wave-like and particle-like behaviors both be properties of one and the same light? They are not properties of light. They are properties of our interaction with light. Depending upon our choice of experiment, we can cause light to manifest either particle-like properties or wave-like properties” (Zukav, p.116).

Regardless of the technical aspects of the experiments required to cause these manifestations, what is important to realize is that they show that one cannot say that light consists of either waves or particles. We haven’t the correct symbols in our language to describe this neither/nor existence.

“In pointing to the problem of language, Von Neumann put his finger on why it is so difficult to answer the question, ‘What is Quantum Mechanics?’. Mechanics is the study of Motion. Therefore, Quantum Mechanics is the study of the motion of quanta– but what are quanta” (Zukav, p. 275)?

Quantum Mechanics is primarily a science of very small sub-atomic “particles”. QM has various implications for the macroscopic world. While it is these macroscopic implications which are of the most interest to this paper, we must first understand QM’s relevance to the sub-atomic world and why it is necessary in understanding sub-atomic processes before we may understand the macroscopic implications. As mentioned above, Newtonian Mechanics breaks down when looking at the atom. What is the exact nature of the flaw which causes this breakdown? The sub-atomic particles which may be observed do not obey the laws of Newtonian Mechanics. According to Newton, to make accurate predictions about the behavior of a particle one must have accurate information about the position and the momentum of that particle. When measuring the electron, one type of quanta, the two variables that may be detected are its speed and its position. These two variables cannot be known simultaneously. To observe its position you have to observe the electron in a point in time. This means that you cannot know its speed because speed is measured as a function of time. To measure the electron’s speed you have to measure the average change of position through a period of time which means that you cannot pinpoint its location.

This inability to make simultaneous measurements of speed and position is not due to any flaw in our measuring devices. Rather, it is fundamentally impossible. This may be understood by looking at the effect of the observer upon the system observed. In its most direct form, to look at an object one needs some form of light. The influence of light on the observed object is negligible for larger objects, thus it does not affect the accuracy of Newtonian predictions for the movement of larger objects. However, the effect of a single photon upon a single electron is drastic. Drastic enough to completely throw that observed electron out of its previous path. So when measuring an electron, one measurement and one measurement only may be conducted. This poses the question of whether the electron has both qualities simultaneously. Most Quantum Physicists would say that it does not. Prior to observation, the electron exists in a state which is neither wave-like nor particle-like. This state of uncertainty may be described by a mathematical formula termed: wave-function.

V. B. SCHRODINGER’S CAT

Reality in its natural state is full of uncertainties. In physics, these uncertainties are described by wave functions. The most common example given of this is the example of “Schrodinger’s Cat”. This hypothetical cat is placed in a box from which he has a 50/50 chance of being alive after a set period of time. This uncertainty is given by the presence of a radioactive atom which is predicted, by the statistical aspects of QM, to have a 50/50 chance of emitting a charged particle after a predetermined period of time. The hypothetical experiment with Schrodinger’s cat is set up so that if the charged particle is released it will cause a vial of poisonous gas to open, thus killing the cat.
After this period of time and before the box is opened the cat is either alive or dead. This state is described by a wave function consisting of two possible states, dead or alive. The wave function describing this uncertainty allows for the cat to exist in a state where it is both alive and dead, yet neither. This wave-function can be collapsed into a certainty by the introduction of an observer. That is, when the box is opened the wave-function state of the cat collapses to a certain state of existence. The cat is now either alive or dead, not both nor neither. The cat exists in only one of the possible states.

The reality of the situation is not determined until the situation is observed. What remains to be explained is how this situation collapses from one of uncertainty into one of certainty. Does the situation remain uncertain for all those who are not aware of the result observed by the first observer? Quantum theory seems to suggest that it does remain uncertain. When one combines this uncertainty with the idea that what one observes is contingent upon the type of observation one chooses to make, the necessary outcome is that on the macroscopic level, one observes what one chooses to observe.

V. C. EFFECT OF QM

The effects of QM have direct application in the field of psychology. It may be difficult to change a situation where a wife is being abused by her husband, but one may hope to help her change her perception of the situation. Her inability to escape the abusive relationship may be understood as a perception that the situation is inescapable, that she is helpless. Helping this hypothetical client to change her perception to an understanding that she may leave the situation, could help her make that decision. The end result of this type of change is equivalent to a change in the perception of the situation, resulting in a different situation being observed. Thus, Quantum Mechanics insists upon a new way of seeing ourselves in the world. Rather than the Newtonian idea of ourselves as cogs in the wheel of a cosmic machine, we are seen as active participants in the development of our future. The choice for how we envision ourselves in the world lies in our hands. In the Newtonian model everything about our lives was predetermined by the position and interactions of the molecules that made up our bodies. Our lives were seen as the continuation of the trends that were already set in motion before our birth. In fact, all lives and all aspects of our present were predetermined at the time of the big bang. The future, according to Newton, from the present through to its inevitable conclusion, is laid out and as good as done.

Quantum Mechanics allows for the possibility that chance may influence our lives. The element of choice is once again seen as a realistic option for improving our lot. No longer do we have to rely on some divinity’s grace in setting things up so that our lives would proceed in the way that we had hoped. We now have choice in how we would like our lives to be. Before we were in the sad state of “man may do as he will but he may not will as he will.”

Newtonian Mechanics was very hopeless in its outlook. Quantum Mechanics brings hope back to the realm of the human. We have the ability to create the reality that we desire through the power of the observer in that we may choose what type of reality to observe. Know your desires and follow through. This is the ability to make plans and follow through, which only philosophers refuse to take for granted. Life may be lived without ever considering what the absence of choice would be like. Quantum Mechanics brings physics and philosophy together in that it attempts to describe what it is like to have choice or Free Will.

VI. CONCLUSION

VI. A. APPLICATION OF MODEL TO QM

It would seem reasonable to conclude this thesis with an example of how the given model may be applied to new ideas with the goal of making generalized predictions about their possible assimilation. The chosen example, Quantum Mechanics, is not to be understood as the only example to which the model has relevance. Rather it is to be seen as one of many examples to which the model may be applied. In this example, the variables which may be understood are:
1. The perceived difference of the ideas of Quantum Mechanics from the Newtonian paradigm.
2. The sizeable inertia of the status quo elements in our society.
3. The difficulty, both in conducting experiments and in reaching a common sense understanding of the ideas, relates to a poor verifiability.

After discussing the levels of the three variables above. We may look at the predicted effect upon the remaining two variables:
1. Time factor in assimilation
2. Perceived impact on society.

Let us examine the values of each of the above variables separately. Beginning with the perceived difference of the ideas of Quantum Mechanics and our current paradigm, based as it is on Newtonian philosophy.
The perceived difference between the two philosophies is large. Gary Zukav mentions an effect that seems to be repeated in the observations made during the writing of this thesis. He says “When I tell my friends that I study physics, they move their heads from side to side, they shake their hands at the wrists, and they whistle, ‘Whew! That’s difficult. Many believe that the philosophy of physics is beyond their grasp.
The forces of the status quo, while not as strong as during the Dark Ages, are strong because they are deeply entrenched after three hundred years of domination by the Newtonian paradigm.
The verifiability of the ideas of Quantum Mechanics is low, in the sense that the average individual would have little access to the equipment needed to conduct experiments to test its verifiability. One is even hindered more by the fact that the ideas presented by Quantum Mechanics are not such that they might fit within the framework of common sense. The ideas are abstract in the extreme, in that the observations may not be directly experienced by the five senses of the body. The combination of these variables as given above results in the outcome that the model makes certain predictions about the possible assimilation of the new ideas of Quantum Mechanics.
The time factor in the assimilation of the ideas of Quantum Mechanics is such that one would expect that it will be a long period of adjustment before Quantum Mechanics is assimilated into the popular conception of the nature of reality. Quantum Mechanics is seen as very different from the current perception of the nature of reality. As stated earlier, status quo is a powerful force in our society. It is the nature of the philosophy that makes it difficult to communicate its ideas, making it seem “real” to the listener who is unaccustomed to the background of the physics involved. It is the combination of the above variables which allows one to make predictions about the potential impact of the new physics on our society.
Taking a long time to be assimilated into society, Quantum Mechanics will not be immediately perceived as having a great impact on society. It is in the long run that one may expect to observe the greatest impact.

VI. B. HYPOTHESIS

Only time will tell if the ideas of Quantum Mechanics will have the predicted impact on society at large. One may still use the model in therapy sessions where it may be expressed in a more precise manner, with more immediate results. More immediate in that one would expect some type of result in less time than the nearly one hundred years that it has taken Quantum Mechanics to reach the level of awareness that it evidences today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Batchelor, Stephen (1983). Alone With Others: An Existential Approach to Buddhism. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.

Burkert, Walter (1972). Lore and Science in Pythagoreanism.
Cambridge, Eng.: Harvard University Press.

Capra, Fritjof (1988). The Tao of Physics.
New York: Bantam Books.

Comfort, Alex (1984). Reality and Empathy: Physics, Mind and Science in the 21st Century.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Davies, Paul (1980). Other Worlds.
New York: Simon & Schuster.

Descartes, Rene (1980). Discourse on Method.
Indianapolis, In.: Hackett Publishing Co.

Dossey, Larry M.D. (1982). Space, Time and Medicine.
Boulder, Co.: Shambhala Publications.

Einstein, Albert (1961). Relativity.
New York: Crown Publishers Inc.

Einstein, Albert (1949). World as I See It.
New York: Philosophical Library Inc.

Frevert, John and O’Sullivan, John (1991). Personal Interview. West Georgia College, Carrollton, Ga.

Gribbin, John (1984). In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Harman, Willis Ph.D. and Rheingold, Howard (1984).
Higher Creativity: Liberating the Unconscious for Breakthrough Insights.
Los Angeles, Ca.: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.

Heisenberg, Werner (1963). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution In Modern Science.
London: Ruskin House, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Hinckfuss, Ian (1975). The Existence of Space and Time.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jaspers, Karl (1962). The Great Philosophers: The Foundations.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Jauch, J. M. (1973). Are Quanta Real? A Galilean Dialogue.
Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press.

Jones, Richard H. (1986). Science and Mysticism: A Comparative Study of Western Natural Science, Theravada Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta.
London: Bucknell University Press.

Kant, Immanuel (1983). Ethical Philosophy.
Indianapolis, In.: Hackett Publishing Co.

Kaufmann, William J., III (1973). Relativity and Cosmology.
New York: Harper & Row.

Lindaman, Edward B. (1978). Thinking in the Future Tense
Nashville, Tn.: Broadman Press.

Manning, Henry P. Edit. (1960). The Fourth Dimension Simply Explained.
New York: Dover Publications.

Ouspensky, P.D. (1971). A New Model of the Universe.
New York: Vintage Books.

Plato (1981).Five Dialogues.(G.M.A. Grube, trans.).
Indianapolis, In.: Hackett Publishing Co.

Rahula, Walpola (1959). What the Buddha Taught.
New York: Grove Press, Inc.

Rucker, Rudolf v. B. (1977). Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension.
New York: Dover Publications.

Rucker, Rudolf v. B. (1982). Infinity and the Mind.
Boston: Birkhaeuser.

Sagan, Carl (1980). Cosmos.
New York: Random House

Sartre, Jean-Paul (1956). Being and Nothingness.
New York: Washington Square Press.

Stambaugh, Joan (1986). The Real is not The Rational.
Albany, N.Y. : State University of New York Press.

Suzuki, D.T. (1977). The Zen Doctrine of No-mind.
New York: Samuel Weiser, Inc.

Talbot, Michael (1991). The Holographic Universe.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Tulku, Tarthang (1977). Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality. Berkeley, Ca.: Dharma Publishing.

Watts, Alan W. (1961). Psychotherapy East and West.
New York: Ballantine Books.

Wilbur, Ken (1983). Eye to Eye.
New York: Anchor Books/ Doubleday.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1966).
New York: The World Publishing

World Book Encyclopedia (1971).
Chicago: Pub. Field Enterprises Educational Corporation.

Zukav, Gary (1979). The Dancing Wu Li Masters.
New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.