Nature of Reality: Physical,
Metaphysical and Mystical Aspects
Hardev
Singh Virk
Visiting
Professor, SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib- 140 406, India
E-mail:
hardevsingh.virk@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Nature of Reality has been subject
of investigations since historical times both in science and religion. The
physical interpretation of Reality has experienced a dynamic change from
Aristotle to Einstein. Relativity theory and Quantum mechanics have led to
formulations of new concepts regarding space, time, matter and reality.
Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg and the concept of dual nature of matter
and radiation by Louis de Broglie gave a serious blow to the philosophy of
determinism based on Newtonian Mechanics and Cartesian world view. The great
debates between Einstein and Bohr at Solvay Conferences about the inadequacy of
quantum mechanics to describe physical aspect of Reality are a part of history
of science now. EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem have introduced the idea of
connectedness and consciousness in Quantum Reality. Experience is the ultimate
test of truth or Reality for the Indian philosopher. The Reality is
trans-empirical, hence, it cannot be known through sense experience in the way
in which empirical/scientific knowledge is gained. Reality is better understood
or comprehended through intuitive experience for it transcends both the
rational and the sensory aspects of human experience.
Keywords:
Reality, Newtonian World view, Copenhagen Interpretation, Uncertainty
Principle, EPR Paradox, Metaphysics, Mysticism.
INTRODUCTION
Nature
of Reality deals with investigations which fall under three different domains
of knowledge pertaining to Physical Sciences, Metaphysics or Philosophy, and
Mysticism. The queries to be addressed are: What is real? What is the universe
made of? How does it work? What is the origin of life in this universe? Who
created this universe? Physicists and philosophers have been asking these
questions since the dawn of civilization. Greek Philosophers, including
Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, are known as founders of modern philosophy. The
concept of Reality has undergone a revolutionary change ever since the time of
these celebrated Greeks. The study of planetary motion established that there
is perfect order in the Universe. The philosophical quest for the ultimate
Reality, using reason and speculation, transcended the boundaries of physical
Reality. Recent developments in physics have revolutionised the physicist’s
conception of Reality. Today many scientists explore the “metaphysics” of
physics with their powerful instruments. The new insights of the modern physics
into the mystery of the universe have prepared the stage for a dialogue between
science and philosophy.
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF REALITY
Classical notions about Reality: Aristotle is known as founder of
Physics; he wrote the first book of Physics and introduced many metaphysical
principles in physics. Everything had a natural
place and every object had its own nature in his world view. Aristotle made a
sharp distinction between celestial and terrestrial world, the latter being
imperfect, corruptible, and prone to constant change; while the former perfect,
incorruptible and immutable. Aristotle’s philosophy of nature was comprehensive
and highly appealing to the common place wisdom of the day. It gave birth to
monotheistic conceptions of God and a dualistic vision of Reality. The germs of
an anthropocentric worldview were inherent in Aristotle’s philosophy of
science.
Newtonian
mechanics gave birth to a mechanical philosophy of nature. It claimed that
everything could be explained in terms of laws of motion and the interaction
between the material particles. This meant that all things could be explained
in terms of just four fundamental concepts: space, time, mass and force. A
mechanistic worldview or the clockwork universe was the immediate consequence
of Newtonian physics. The divine hand, having set it right in the beginning,
left it undisturbed. There was not scope for divine intervention, chance and
indeterminacy in a deterministic worldview. Reality can be known by using
mathematical tools and all events become predictable in future.
In
the beginning of 20th century, the advent of special theory of
relativity dealt a death blow to mechanical philosophy of nature. Newtonian
mechanics held space, time and mass to be absolute, but relativity theory
showed them to be relative. Quantum mechanics introduced the concept of indeterminacy
and chance in physical measurements. It gave a serious jolt to the mechanical
philosophy of nature.
Scientists
of Vienna circle, better known as Logical Positivists, believed that knowledge
of Reality should be based on sense experience. All valid statements must have
an empirical basis, otherwise they are meaningless. Logical positivists were
antagonist to the use of metaphysics in science. However, mechanical philosophy
of nature seems to be an internally inconsistent, experientially unrealistic
and philosophically unreflective approach to Reality. Einstein2 had
a dig at mathematical approach to Reality: “As far as the laws of mathematics
refer to Reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to Reality.”
Einstein
realized a new vision of the universe. His theory of relativity has altered the
long-held scientific assumptions of Newtonian mechanics and changed radically
the way we look at the world. Relativity shows that our knowledge of Reality is
not limited by sense perception only, but brings home to us that Reality is
often much deeper than what can be perceived by our senses. Materialism which
refuses to go beyond what is observable by the senses has been shown to be an
inadequate philosophy of nature.
Quantum Nature of Reality: The Copenhagen interpretation3
of quantum mechanics was the first and the most prevalent response to the
quantum Reality question. Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were the founding
fathers of Copenhagen interpretation which was not acceptable to Einstein, the
father of Relativity theory. The key idea in the Copenhagen denial of deep
Reality was that the quantum entities did not have dynamic attributes of their
own; it was only in the act of measurement that they received dynamic attributes.
Principles of Uncertainty and Complementarity were the corner stones of
Copenhagen interpretation, proposed by Heisenberg and Bohr, respectively.
The
discovery of Uncertainty principle is the most significant development in the
history of science. It puts a natural limit to the precision attainable in the
quantum world. It must be noted that this limitation is imposed not by
practical difficulties of measurement but by theoretical considerations, by the
very nature of Reality itself. There will always be a finite inaccuracy and
uncertainty; this is a law of nature. Since precise knowledge of the present
state of affairs of a phenomenon is not possible, precise prediction of its
behaviour also becomes impossible. Hence the quantum world and its Reality are
indeterminate.
Principle
of Complementarity highlights the linkage between different aspects of Reality.
For instance, the particle nature and wave nature of light are mutually
exclusive in the sense that the presence of one excludes that of the other.
Thus this principle argues that even items which appear incompatible are united
at a deeper level. What appear opposites need not be contradictory, but may be
two poles of the same deeper reality. The principles of Complementarity and
Uncertainty show the unbreakable link between the act of observation and our
picture of Reality. Bohr sums up his outlook on quantum Reality4.
“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical
description. The task of physics is not to find out how nature is; Physics
concerns what we can say about nature.” In the Copenhagen interpretation, there
is no Reality in the absence of observation, or in the other words, observation
creates Reality. The conceptual weakness of the Copenhagen interpretation is
that it regards both the measuring device and the measurement act as ultimately
unanalysable.
Consciousness and Quantum Reality: David Bohm5 explains the
limitation of Copenhagen interpretation by introduction of a new concept: the
implicate order. The implicate order is a process of enfoldment and unfoldment
in a multi-dimensional space. The entire universe with all its fields and
particles is an unfoldment of this implicate order. It implies an organic
vision of the universe unlike the classical emphasis on fragmentation.
Another
important aspect of the quantum revolution is that it highlights the role of
consciousness in creating Reality. According to Eugene Wigner6: “It
is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully
consistent way without reference to the consciousness. It will remain
remarkable that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that
the content of the consciousness is an ultimate Reality”.
John
Stewart Bell7 developed a model of Reality known as Bell’s theorem:
Reality must be non-local, which means that at a fundamental level, the
different isolated objects of our experience are connected in an intimate and
immediate way. Where quantum physics revealed the inadequacy of our common
sense ideas to deal with the microscopic world, Bell’s theorem showed the
inadequacy of the same to deal with the macroscopic phenomena.
EPR
(Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) Paradox aims to show that quantum theory was
incomplete since it fails to give a full description of nature. The key idea of
EPR is the assumption of locality or the principle of local causes. According
to this principle, what happens in one place is in no way dependent on an
experimenter or an event at another place, where the distance between the two
places are ‘space-like’ separated. EPR effect seems to indicate a super –
luminal (faster than light) communication8.
Bell’s
theorem resolves the contradictions of EPR Paradox. Bell stated that either the
statistical predictions of quantum mechanics or the principle of local causes
must be wrong. Experimental proof of Bell’s theorem established that assumption
of locality collapses while statistical assumptions on which Bell based his
theorem are correct. To show that the principle of locality is false, it should
be shown that what happens in one area is dependent on the changes that an
experimenter makes in a distant space - like separated area. Thus in Bell’s
theorem, non-locality imposes itself as a fundamental Reality against our
common sense idea of the world as consisting of different parts.
Einstein
believed that quantum theory was incomplete and hence inadequate to describe
the nature of Reality. As a whole, there seems to be contradictions, logical
paradoxes and speculative jumps inherent in quantum theory in explaining the
physical Reality. Bell9 and some of his supporters share the view
that the quantum mechanical description of natural phenomena will be superseded
in future. Each model of Reality of the physicists is thus also indicative of
the unexplored regions of Reality. Concept of Reality has undergone a sea
change since the times of Aristotle. Let us probe the metaphysical and mystical
roots of Reality and explore the possibilities of a dialogue between Science
and Religion.
METAPHYSICAL
NATURE OF REALITY
Metaphysics is a systematic and
sustained inquiry into the nature of ultimate reality. It is an attempt to know
the reality as against mere appearance. Metaphysics is the bridge between
science and religion. Religion relies both on reason and revelation in its
attempt to study the nature of Reality. In the Mandukya Upanishad, the method of inquiry into the states of
experiencing, waking, dreaming and deep sleep is frequently adopted.
To the Indian philosopher,
experience is the ultimate test of truth10. Since the reality is
trans-empirical, it cannot be known through sense experience in the way in
which empirical objects are known. It is known through intuitive experience (anubhuti), it is the experience of the
highest level, for it transcends both the rational and the sensory aspects of
human experience with which we are normally acquainted.
Since the ultimate reality is
trans-empirical, the Hindu philosophers rely on scripture (sruti) for obtaining the knowledge of the real. Discursive
reasoning functions at the relational level. Since the ultimate reality is
distinction-less, reason is not competent to comprehend it. So the proper
ground of rational knowledge is immediate experience, which differs from
experimentation in science.
The truth, which the scripture
speaks about, is the direct outcome of the intuitive or mystic experience of
the ancient seers. It contains what is borne out by their direct and authentic
experience. Though the scripture is authoritative, the knowledge which one
derives from it is only mediate. The knowledge, which is revealed by the
scripture, must become a matter of experience; only then revelation would have
fulfilled its mission. A man who has realised the integral experience, there is
no need for him to depend on any external authority in the form of a scripture.
His wisdom is self-certifying or self - revealed.
According to Upanishads, Brahman or Atman, which is the ultimate Reality, is of the nature of existence (sat), consciousness (cit), and bliss (ananda). It is one only and non-dual. The pluralistic universe is
only an illusory appearance of Brahman or
Atman due to Maya or avidya (ignorance). There are two views of reality in the Upanishads, the cosmic view and the
acosmic view. These two views serve as the bases for the theistic and
absolutistic schools of Vedanta. Hindu Philosophy of Vedanta considers this
word as Maya (illusion) and lays
stress on Reality beyond appearance in phenomenal world.
MYSTICAL ASPECTS OF REALITY
In
contrast to scientific knowledge, mysticism is concerned with a direct
experience of Reality. It is by transcending intellectual knowledge and sensory
perception that we come to the “absolute knowledge” of the Reality. According
to Fritzof Capra11: “The knowledge of Reality in mysticism is the
direct experience of undifferentiated, undivided, indeterminate ‘suchness’. In
mysticism knowledge of the ultimate Reality cannot be attained through
reasoning because it transcends our conventional modes of language”.
The
process of scientific research tells us that an experimental enquiry into the
nature of Reality cannot discard either reason or intuition. Since both these
abilities are integrated in the one human being, a mutual complementarity of
the two is essential. The significance of intuition and reason is quite evident
in our life and they must complement each other in our search of Reality. There
cannot exist a rebellion between truth and truth. The pragmatism of the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory indirectly affirms the desperate
quest for integration. As Gary Zukov12 puts it: “ The rational part
of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part
of us which we had ignored since the 1700’s, our irrational side”.
Modern
science has come up with the most exciting discovery of the interconnectedness
of the universe. The vastness of the Universe poses no threat to its
interconnectedness. This phenomenon is found both at the local and cosmic
levels, both in the ontological and epistemological levels. This progressive
trend towards greater unification enabled science to transcend the apparent
contradictions of several pairs of opposites, e.g., force and matter, particles
and waves, motion and rest, existence and non-existence. The scientific
research has established interconnectedness of all material beings tracing
their common origin to quarks and leptons. The Human Genome Project has proved
the unity in diversity of the living world.
Capra13 has established
parallels between the principal theories of modern physics and the mystical
traditions of the East, viz., Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. For example, we
have no direct sensory experience of the four-dimensional space-time continuum,
and whenever this 'relativistic' reality manifests itself we find it very hard
to deal with it at the level of intuition and ordinary language. A similar
situation exists in Eastern mysticism. The mystics seem to be able to attain
non-ordinary states of consciousness in which they transcend the
three-dimensional world of everyday life to experience a multi-dimensional
reality, which is impossible to describe in ordinary language.
Opposed to the mechanistic
conception of the world is the view of the Eastern mystics14 which
may be characterized by the word 'organic', as it regards all phenomena in the
universe as integral parts of an inseparable harmonious whole. For the Eastern
mystic, all things and events perceived by the senses are interrelated,
connected, and are but different aspects or manifestations of the same ultimate
Reality. Our tendency to divide the world we perceive into individual and
separate 'things' and to experience ourselves in this world as isolated egos is
seen as an 'illusion' which comes from our measuring and categorizing
mentality. The division of nature into separate objects is, of course, useful
and necessary to cope with everyday environment, but it is not a fundamental
feature of Reality. For the Eastern
mystic, any such objects have, therefore, a fluid and ever-changing character.
The Eastern worldview is thus
intrinsically dynamic, and contains time and change as essential features. The
cosmos is seen as one inseparable Reality -forever in motion, alive, organic -
spiritual and material at the same time.
Mysticism is the art of union with Reality15.
A mystical state has the quality of ineffability. It thus resembles a state of
feeling rather than a state of intellect. The mystic experience is imbued with
a noetic quality, a quality of transience and of timelessness. There are many
stages of evolution in the life of a mystic. Ultimately, the mystic attains the
perfect union with God and he cries: 'I am God - aham brahm asmi'. It is a well-known fact that mystics feel that
exalted state of ecstasy but fail to describe it in ordinary language. The
mystics use the simile of a dumb person who cannot describe the taste of candy16.
Saith Kabir: "Such state is like the
dumb tasting of sugar, which in no way can be described".
Mystics believe in the integral or
holistic experience of Reality. We need not rest content with the partial
truths revealed by astronomy, by physics, by biology, by history; each true in
its own field, none complete in itself, none giving the whole picture; nor yet
with the truth of mathematics or the truth of language, primarily truths of
expression, obeying rules which men themselves have made. Beyond all these,
beyond the contradictions of each separate truth, lies concealed the supreme
and final truth.
The realm of mystic experience is a
Reality beyond the comprehension of our senses. But there is clear evidence in Sri
Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS)17 regarding the transcendental nature of
this phenomenon:
"In this realm, one sees but without the eyes; one
listens but without the ears;
One walks but without the feet; one works but without the
hands;
One speaks but without the tongue; thus attaining life in
death.
O Nanak,
one meets the God after realisation of the divine law".
REFERENCES
1. A. Pamplany and J. Kozhamthadam,
East – West Interface of Reality, ASSR
Publications, Pune, p. 13-33
2. Fritzof Capra, The Tao of Physics,
Bantam Books : New York, 1984, p. 27
3. Pampalany and Kozhamthadam,
East-West Interface of Reality, ASSR Publications Pune, p. 45 (Copenhagen
interpretation was developed at Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, hence known
by its name).
4. Richard Morris, The Nature of
Reality, Noonday Press : New York, 1987, p. 104
5. W. Kilmister, Review Article on
David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order, British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 32 (1981) p. 305
6. Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality,
Anchor Books : New York, 1987, p. 27-28
7. Henry Stapp, S-Matrix Interpretation
of Quantum Theory, Physical Review D, 3(1971), p. 1303
8. Paul Schilpp, Albert Einstein :
Philosopher – Scientist, Harper and Row : New York, 1944, p. 85
9. J.S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable
in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, 1988, p. 27
10.
Mahadevan, T.P. Essays on Hinduism
(Ed. L.M. Joshi), Punjabi University, Patiala, India, 1968.
11. Fritzof Capra, The Tao of Physics,
Bantam Books: New York, 1984, p.16.
12. Gary Zukov, p. 62 (cited in ref. 7).
13.
Capra, F. The Tao of Physics. Shambhala, Berkeley, USA, 1975.
14.
Capra,F. Modern Physics &
Eastern Mysticism. J. Transpersonal Psychology, 8(1)(1976), pp.20-40
15.
Happold, F.C. Mysticism, Viking
Penguin, 1991.
16.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Kabir, P. 334
17.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M 2, P. 139
