laurikainen k v_atoms and consciousness as complementary elements of reality

Eur J Phys 1 1 (l9go) 65-74 Prtnled In the UK 65

Atoms and consciousness as complementary elements of reality

K V Laurikainen Research Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 20 C, SF-001 70 Helsinki, Finland

Received 17 July 1989, in final form 26 October 1989

Abstract. Describing Wolfgang Pauli’s philosophical views is a delicate matter. In addition to his extensive study of Kepler, Pauli published only short epistemological articles (not available in English translation). His extraordinarily wide correspondence is the best source for understanding Pauli’s philosophical thought. Forming a coherent picture of Pauli’s philosophy on the basis of his correspondence is, however, like doing a puzzle where half of the pieces are missing. I have been doing this puzzle for more than ten years, inspired by the exceptionally profound ideas presented in the available documents, and wish to draw more general attention to Pauli’s philosophy.

which Pauli shaped on the basis of quantum theory. It points out in particular that philosophical and psychological viewpoints which Pauli has emphasised, are inconsistent with important trends in basic research today. Characteristic quotations from Pauli’s writings, related to the questions discussed here, are given in the appendix.

This article aims at describing the conception of reality

1. Introduction

As the interest in the philosophical problems of quantum theory is clearly increasing again, I must state with astonishment that the profound epistemological views of Wolfgang Pauli [ l ] seem to have remained totally unnoticed so far. The aim now, in general, is to present and to interpret quantum theory in such a way that the requirements of philosophical ‘realism’ are satisfied. Here ‘realism’ is always understood as requiring that the material ‘outer world’ can be described objectively, i.e. without referring in any way to the psychic properties of the observer [2].

When analysing observations and the theory formation in atomic physics, Pauli was led to a view

Zusammenfassung. Es ist eine delikate Aufgabe, die philosophischen Auffassungen von Wolfgang Pauli zu beschreiben. Nach seiner ausfiihrlichen Kepler-Studie publizierte Pauli nur sehr kurze epistemologische Abhandlungen (die nicht als englische ubersetzungen erhaltlich sind). Seine ausserordentlich umfangreiche Korrespondenz ist die beste Quelle, wenn man Paulis philosophisches Denken kennen lernen will. Will man auf dieser Basis ein Gesamtbild von Paulis Philosophie gestalten, ist es jedoch wie ein Legespiel, bei dem die Stiickchen zur Halfte fehlen. Ich habe dieses Legespiel mehr als zehn Jahre lang gespielt, begeistert von den ausserordentlich tiefsinnigen Ideen, die man in den vorhandenen Dokumenten findet, und nun mochte ich grossere Aufmerksamkeit auf d i e s Philosophie ziehen.

beschreiben, die Pauli auf Grund der Quantentheorie gestaltet hat. Es wird insbesondere darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass die philosophischen und psychologischen Gesichtspunkte, die Pauli betont hat, mit wichtigen Tendenzen in der heutigen Grundlagenforschung unvereinbar sind. Im Anhang sind charakteristische Zitate aus Paulis Schriften gegeben, die Beriihrungspunkte mit den hier diskutierten Fragen haben.

Der Artikel versucht, die Wirklichkeitsidee zu

which is completely opposite to this direction of the endeavour. According to Pauli, it is impossible to make any strict distinction between the ‘inner world’ and the ‘outer world’; in the description of the ‘outer world’, it is, on the contrary, necessary to take into account psychic factors which set essential limitations on the empirical knowledge in general and which have appeared especially clearly in atomic physics (see appendix, AI).

2. Veiled reality

The fact that requires a change in the conception of reality is the renunciation of determinism in atomic

0143-0%07/90/010065 + 10 903 50 @ 1990 IOP Publlshlng Lld 8 The European Physlcal Soclety

66 K V Laurikainen

physics. We are forced to generalise the traditional idea of causality: it is possible to find laws for the statistical mean values of physical quantities but not for their values in individual events. The Copenhagen interpretation implies explicitly the renunciation of deterministic causality. ‘Laws of nature’ have reference only to statistical mean values [3] (see A2).

This must be recognised as a n empirical result of fundamental character. It sets limitations to the rational description of phenomena: such a description cannot refer to individual events but only to their average progress. In individual events, something always comes up which cannot be described in any rational way.

It is the scattering of individual events around the average behaviour that Pauli emphasises as a fact in which the irrationality of reality appears. The regularities we can find in nature are an expression of the rational features of reality, and they make the rational description of nature possible. It is a characteristic feature of Western thought that this rational- ity is considered to be an imperative property of reality: it is presupposed that everything that is real is rational. Pauli calls this belief the repression of the irrational. The breaking down of determinism makes this belief unfounded (see A3).

I have in another connection described in more detail Pauli’s conception of reality and simultaneously criticised some attempts to eliminate the irrationality [4]. I also refer to the Appendix ‘The Possibility of Science and Its Limits’ in my book Beyond the Atom Dl.

A pertinent term for describing the ‘reality itself in quantum theory is veiled reality, introduced by d’Espagnat [S]. We are going to use this term here in perhaps a slightly more general way than d’Espagnat himself, namely for describing the nature of reality in a world where causality is not deterministic but statistical: the irrationality of reality forms a veil which makes each rational description of reality incomplete.

Characteristic of Pauli’s thought is emphasis on the role of the unconscious in the forming of empirical knowledge. He was especially interested in the concept of archetype, which is important both in the psychology of C G Jung and in the Neo-Platonian philosophy of the Renaissance; the latter was a central theme in Pauli’s extensive article concerning Kepler [6] . The emphasis put on the irrationality of reality cannot, in Pauli’s thought, be separated from the role played by the unconscious. The irrationality of reality, i.e. the ‘veil’ which hides reality from human knowledge, is a product of the unconscious processes in our psyche which guide our ‘gestalt’ formation in perception as well as our thought (see A4).

Pauli was a realist because he especially stressed the importance of striving for a new conception ofreality which would be compatible with atomic physics. His ‘realism’, however, was totally different from the ‘realism’ which aims at describing the ‘outer world’ without any ‘subjective’ elements of psychic origin.

Pauli understood ‘realism’ in a deeper sense: he found the ‘objective’ description of the ‘outer world’ to be impossible because of the psychic processes belonging to the field of the unconscious, taking place in perception and in the formation of theories (see AS).

3. New perspectives for physics

The conception of reality which the researcher has, influences his work more than he usually knows himself. The essential presupposition in natural science is, in general, that all the events in the phenomenal ‘outer world’ have causes in this same phenomenal world. Statistical causality, however, implies that the phenomenal world is open to ‘irrational influences’. The irrationality of reality makes many of the research programmes, which today enjoy a great interest among physicists, unmotivatedt. An example is the investigation of the beginning phases of our universe. In this research, people assume without hesitation that rational laws are capable of explaining the evolution of the universe after the ‘Big Bang’. However, the irrationality of reality, which Pauli strongly emphasises, means that evolution has an irrational aspect which, in each quantum step, appears as a choice between different possibilities. This choice cannot be described by any rational theory. In several places Pauli criticises the way biologists use the concept of ‘chance’ in neo-Darwinistic theories. The same criticism applies to cosmic evolution, if this is considered as a stepwise stochastic process.

Pauli seems to have interpreted the ‘irrationality of reality’ as a teleological aspect, using in this connection the term ‘will’, borrowed from Schopenhauer. This, of course, makes purely rational description of evolution impossible, in principle. Creation can be understood in this way, and this concept, therefore, cannot be excluded from the scientific picture of the world.

In fact, many physicists consider modern cosmo- logical theories to be a scientific counterpart of ‘creation’ or a description of the ‘technique of creation’ if creation itself is considered to be an act which, in principle, belongs to the realm of religion.

The conception of reality which we are now study- ing makes such ideas quite unfounded-a, one can say: unscientific. Creation is irrational by its very nature, and any attempt to describe it with the aid of rational scientific theories implies a fundamental misconception. The great interest in these theories of the evolution of the universe seems to be connected with a ‘scientistic’ belief held by many natural scientists: science is considered as the only acceptable

t Remarks made in this section and in the next one cannot, of course, be directly ascribed to Pauli. They are, however, rather straightforward consequences of the picture of Pauli’s philosophy I have been able to form for myself.

Atoms and consciousness as complementary elements of reality 67

‘religion’ for a scientist. Some scientists actively use these ‘new scientific myths’ in a fight against the traditional religious beliefs, while Pauli often emphasised that for him “the ‘motivating forces’ of both scientific understanding and religious belief are the same”.

Of course such extrapolations approaching the very ‘beginning of the universe’ have certain interest, as some kind of rational game, but one should be more aware of the limits of science than physicists and astronomers seem often to be.

An analogous criticism is needed with respect to the general trend of basic research in atomic theory. In general it aims today at finding a way of rescuing the objectivity of the ‘outer world’, in spite of the problems which the complementarity of the atomic world has created. This means that one tries to describe reality neglecting the role of spirit (of the observer). Thus, the very nature of the basic problems created by quantum theory-as Pauli and many other philosophically oriented physicists have understood the situation-is neglected, as if a materialistic conception of reality is accepted.

I have presented some criticism of such attempts elsewhere [ 1,4] and do not wish to go into details here. An enormous amount of unnecessary work has been done and will continue to be so because of this unfounded aim.

Instead of criticising attempts, which from our point of view are made in the wrong direction, let us think of a positive example of how the consideration of consciousness eliminates the ‘paradoxes’ of quantum theory in a natural way. We think of the typical EPR situation [7], in the form David Bohm has pro- posed for it.

4. The EPR problem

Consider a system of two identical particles with spin +; we call them particles 1 and 2 . At first the particles interact in such a way that a spin-singlet state is produced, and then they fly far apart in a situation where the spin states are not disturbed in any way. The spin state of one of the particles, say particle 1, is a little later observed in a space region A while particle 2 is simultaneously in a region B far from region A (as can be inferred from the conservation of momentum). The question is one of how the observation of the spin state of particle 1 in region A can ‘affect’ the spin state of particle 2 in region B far away.

We consider the simplest case and suppose that the spin states of both particles are observed, at first, by using parallel magnetic fields in the regions A and B. If the spin states are not disturbed, as we supposed, the results of these correlated spin observations are always opposite to each other. This is characteristic of the spin-singlet state which was produced by the interaction of both particles. This is the result with a probability of 100% if the situation is such that the

spin states are not disturbed between the interaction in the beginning and the subsequent observation of the spin states.

It is important to note that the result is independent of the direction of the magnetic fields in A and B, supposing that these fields are parallel. In the spin- singlet state, the spins of the two particles are opposite to each other, but the direction of the spins is indefi- nite. Thus, we can freely choose the direction of the magnetic field in the region A, if only the field in B is then chosen parallel to it.

Thus, it is not necessary to observe the spin state of particle 2 at all: as soon as the spin state of particle l is observed in A, we know with certainty the spin state of particle 2 which is far away in region B. The ‘paradox’ in this situation is that we can ‘influence’ the spin state of particle 2 by turning the magnetic field in A. The direction of this magnetic field can be freely chosen, and as soon as the spin state of particle 1 is observed (it is either ‘up’ or ‘down’ with respect to the field direction), particle 2 in region B also has a definite spin state. It is as if we, by freely turning the magnetic field in A, could ‘turn’ the spin direction of the other particle far away.

This is a typical quantum mechanical situation and it is worth a detailed discussion. Spin is a typical quantum theoretical variable with discrete values (‘up’ or ‘down’) in each definite case.

The ‘paradox’ arises from mixing macrophysical ideas with microphysical ones. Microphysical systems are not describable in any rational way any more than allowed by the quantum theoretical description. In this case both the idea of the spin direction of particle 2 before observation and the ‘turning’ of this direction are macrophysical images which lack a counterpart in the microworld.

It is important to make a distinction, as especially emphasised by d’Espagnat, between the empirical reality which we investigate in physics, and the independent reality which always remains ‘behind a veil’ in empirical research [8]. This independent reality contains irrationality and it can never be described completely in any rational way. ‘Paradoxes’ arise from confusing these two concepts, and people who, in principle, do not accept any irrationality in reality are forced to confuse these two concepts of reality.

The properties of empirical reality are described by using quantum theoretical concepts, and especially the ‘state’ is described with the aid of the state function (wavefunction). The spin-singlet state, formed as a result of an interaction between the particles 1 and 2 , is described with the aid of a spin function which refers to this system as a whole. With the aid of this wavefunction we can make certain predictions of the behaviour of this system with respect to spins. In particular, this wavefunction gives definite probabilities for the spin state of particle 2 , if the spin of particle 1 is given, and in certain cases these predictions are certain (probability 100%). When the spin state of particle 1 is observed, the spin state is changed

60 K V Laurikainen

and we have to form a new state function on the basis of this observation.

Such a discontinuous change of the wavefunction because of an observation is the notorious ‘reduction of the wavepacket’. It does not contain any ‘paradox’, however, if we include the complementary element of reality in the description of the situation: the consciousness of the observer. An observation means ‘becoming conscious of something’. In quantum mechanics it results in a new state function which corresponds to this new knowledge of the situation. Because of an observation we must, of course, change our description of the state because we have ‘become conscious of something’ that we did not know earlier. A ‘paradox’ originates from an attempt to neglect consciousness as the complementary element of reality (see A6).

In the language of the psychological ‘gestalt theory’ we can describe the state function as a ‘gestalt’ (shape) of the system as a whole. This ‘gestalt’ is formed on the basis of the observation we have made of it (including the preparation process which determines the situation in which systems are investigated). In our two-particle system we describe its ‘gestalt’ (its state) with the aid of the spin-singlet function. When the spin of particle 1 is measured, we obtain additional information, and this results in a new ‘gestalt’: we know something of particle 2 alone (particle 1 has been used in the observation and it does not exist any more in our description), and we can describe the spin state of particle 2 with the aid of a certain spin function which again makes certain predictions possible.

This kind of description of microsystems only concerns empirical reality. ‘Paradoxes’ arise if we imagine that we are describing an ‘independent reality’. If we imagine that particle 2 has a certain spin direction before the observation concerning particle 1 is made and that this direction is ‘turned’ in the observation made in region A, then we apply to microsystems macrophysical visions and ideas which do not have any counterpart in the microworld. We imagine that we can describe situations in an independent reality with the aid of the rational pictures and concepts which are applicable in the macroworld. This is the main origin of the ‘paradoxes’ which people find in quantum theory, namely the belief in an independent reality in which everything can be described in a rational way. In fact, we can only reach empirical reality and it has limitations caused by our limited senses and the imperfection of our rational theories.

The ‘influence’ on the spin direction of particle 2 in region B is a purely psychic phenomenon. It is just a result of a new ‘shaping’ (‘gestalting’) of the situation in empirical reality: our vision of reality is changed on the basis of the information. No signal can be trans- mitted in this way. The upper limit of signal velocities in the theory of relativity does not concern the ‘speed’ of our ability to change our view of a situation far away from us on the basis of some additional information! The change does not concern systems in the

‘independent reality’ but just our image of reality which we form on the basis of certain observations.

5. The crucial concepts of physlcs

It remains to try to show what kind of constructive ideas become possible on the basis of this conception of reality. This is a question of intuition and imagina- tion, and I am not able to say much more than to hint at some remarks Pauli made in his letters. If we think that irrationality is connected with the functioning of our unconscious, we should try to form some idea of the main features of the processes that take place in the unconscious in physical theory formation in order to find any natural widening of the rational description of the physical world. It is generally thought that, in the first place, the concepts of space and time are expressions of our psyche, and therefore they must be considered as belonging to the irrational ‘veil’ which we should try to penetrate. Kant calls space and time the forms of perception, characteristic of human psyche, and in the Eastern philosophies they are considered as belonging to the illusions of our senses. Therefore, space and time need special attention if we wish to take an essential step further in physics. In fact, the most important changes in physics, both in the theory of relativity and in quantum theory, have concerned these concepts.

The concept of causality, which is intimately connected with the conception of reality, is also critical in this respect. The most essential change in physics during this century explicitly concerns this concept: the decline of determinism and the introduction of statistical causality. Probably a further clarification of this concept is still needed before physics can essentially proceed.

Pauli often repeats the remark that the spacetime continuum is rather too easily introduced into contem- porary physics (see A7). He seems to have expected that one should start from a discrete physics rather than from a continuum, a concept belonging to the macroworld. In this respect, the ideas of Ted Bastin, Pierre Noyes et a/ seem interesting, but the limiting case of macrophysics is not satisfactorily described in these attempts so far [9]. Some interesting discrete ideas have also been presented by Ari Lehto [lo]. In general, interest in discrete physics has been aston- ishingly weak so far. It is as if some mathematical ideas, perhaps ideas concerning topology, are still missing, before it will be possible to find a way for a natural transition from discrete microphysics to con- tinuous macrophysics.

It is obvious that this problem is intimately connected to the great problem of a harmonious comb- ining of the ideas of the theories of relativity and quantum physics. The theory of relativity is a macrophysical theory and presupposes, in its present form, the spacetime continuum, while quantum theory intro- duces discontinuity into physics. The question of a


harmonious fusion of these great theories is decisive, and the development of a purely discrete physics may be necessary as a starting point.

Quantum field theories explicitly concern these questions. It is important to note that Pauli was not at all satisfied with the present field theories. He found the concept of field to be unsatisfactory, both in the form in which it appears in classical field theories and in its quantum theoretical form. He found metaphysical analogies between the concept of field in physics and the concept of the unconscious in psychology [ 1 l]. Thus, for Pauli the concept of field seems to have had a very decisive role, closely connected with the role of the spirit in the conception of reality (see A8).

6. Irrationality and Creativity

It is important to notice that in the process in which we form a picture of the empirical reality (form a ‘gestalt’ for it) there is always a certainfreedom. In the spin experiment, we can freely choose the direction of the magnetic field to be used when measuring the spin of particle 1. When we have made our choice, nature also has a choice in reacting to the problem we have posed to it: nature ‘chooses’ either the state ‘spin up’ or ‘spin down’ for particle 1. This is the very nature of the ‘irrationality of reality’: nature always ‘makes a choice’ between different states which are possible according to the statistical law. In general, there are different possibilities, and nature ‘chooses’ between them in each individual case.

After these two choices have been made-ne is made by the observer, the other one by nature-a certain state (situation) has been created in the empirical reality. The irrationality of reality always contains a possibility for creating something new. Empirical reality is created in those choices made by the observer and by nature, and the irrationality implies afreedorn which makes the creativity possible (see A9).

The creative element in the world is clearly connected with the future; the conservative element, which finds its expression in the laws of nature, is connected with the past. ‘This moment’, ‘now’, contains both of these aspects, and the constructive creativity presupposes a balance between these basic elements of existence.

These remarks perhaps show that the irrationality of reality opens new vistas, not only for physics itself but also for its relations to more general questions of existence. Such views will be discussed in another journal [ 121.

The normal attitude among physicists today is to presuppose that everything in physics can be described without any reference to psychic or metaphysical concepts. It is important, however, to think that empirical knowledge is based on unconscious processes in which the observer ‘becomes conscious of something’. These unconscious processes also produce our basic concepts. It is quite arbitrary to cut off the other part of the process of observation, consciousness,

only because paying attention to it presupposes other kinds of ideas than we are familiar with in physical research. Irrational aspects of reality cannot be omitted only because it is not possible to describe them in the same convincing way as rational aspects.

Logic without intuition creates a distorted picture of the world-even in pure physics! Clarity (Klarheit) and truth (Wahrheit) are complementary, as Bohr often said.

Appendlx. Quotations from Pauli’s letters and articles

The quotations presented in this appendix aim to give characteristic examples of Pauli’s writings related to the questions discussed in this article. The English translations of letters have been made by Eugene Holman, Department of English, University of Hel- sinki, and are taken from the author’s book Beyond the Atom [l], where the original German text has also been published. Pauli’s articles quoted here are not available in English translation.

Al. The unity of the ‘outer world’ and the ‘inner world’

Letter to Markus Fierz, October 13, 1951 (PLC? 0092.078)

Now there comes the major crisis of the quantum of action: one has to sacrifice the unique individual and the ‘sense’ of it in order to save an objective and rational description of the phenomena. If two obser- vers d o the same thing even physically it is, indeed, really no longer the same: only the statistical averages remain, in general, the same. The physically unique individual is no longer separable from the observer- and for this reason it goes through the meshes of the net of physics. The individual case is occasio and not causa. I am inclined to see in this occasio which includes within itself the observer and the selection of the experimental procedure which he has hit upon -a revenue of the anima mundi which was pushed aside in the seventeenth century (naturally ‘in an altered form’). La donna e mobile-so are the anima mundi and the occasio.

Here something has remained open which pre- viously appeared to be closed, and it is my hope that new concepts, which are uniformly simultaneously physical and psychological, can force themselves through this gap in place of ‘parallelism’. May ‘more successful offspring’ attain this.

t Pauli letter collection; see [l].

70 K V Laurikainen

Naturwissenschaftliche und erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte der Ideen vom Unbewussten (1954 Dialectica 8/41

Diese Problematik ist ein Teil der in der Quanten- mechanik wesentlichen Tatsache, dass die Wechsel- wirkungen der Messinstrumente mit dem beobachteten System teilweise unbestimmbar bleiben, sobald die Endlichkeit des Wirkungsquantums ins Spiel kommt. Zur Festlegung der Eigenschaften der atomaren Objekte hat der Beobachter gemass dieser Theorie die freie Wahl zwischen Versuchsanordnungen, die einander im allgemeinen ausschliessen. Insbesondere betrifft dies Bewegungsgrosse und Energie einerseits, den taumzeitlichen Ablauf der Prozesse andererseits (Heisenbergs Unsicherheitsrelation, N Bohrs Kom- plementaritat). Die Stellung des Beobachters andert sich dementsprechend in der Quantenphysik von der eines verborgenen Zuschauers zu der eines Han- delnden, dessen Wirkungen auf das von ihm mit geeigneten Instrumenten beobachtete System nicht mehr kompensiert werden konnen.

Ibidem

Es erscheint mir nun iiberaus bemerkenswert, dass auch die neueste Richtung in der Psychologie des Unbewussten, namlich die von C G Jung vertretene, eine Entwicklung in Richtung der Anerkennung des Nichtpsychischen in Verbindung mit dern Problem der psychophysischen Einheit genommen hat. Der erste Schritt hierzu war ihre Begegnung mit der Alchemie, die ich hier als ein echtes ‘Symbol’ auffassen mochte. . .

Dem Nichtpsychischen versucht Jung durch einen besonderen Begriff ‘psychoid’ Rechnung zu tragen, ferner durch eine Veranderung seines alteren Begriffes ‘Archetypen’, der ursprunglich synonym mit ‘urtiim- liches Bild’ gebraucht wurde. Dieser Begriff der Psychologie Jungs, den ich hier nicht als bekannt voraussetze, moge durch die folgenden chronologisch geordneten Zitate, auch hinsichtlich seiner allmah- lichen Veranderung und Entwicklung kurz erlautert werden. Er ist nicht zu trennen von Jungs bereits erwahnter Idee einer kollektiv-archaischen Schicht des Unbewussten, die imstande ist, mythologische Motive spontan zu reproduzieren.

Theorie und Experiment (1952 Tire de Dialectica 6/2)

Ich mochte deshalb in Anlehnung an die Philosophie Platos vorschlagen, den Vorgang des Verstehens der Natur sowie auch die Begliickung, die der Mensch beim Verstehen, das heisst bewusstwerden einer neuen Erkenntnis empfindet, als eine Entsprechung, das heisst als ein zur Deckung kommen von praexistenten inneren Bildern der menschlichen Psyche mit ausseren Objekten und ihrem Verhalten zu interpretieren. Die Brucke zwischen den Sinneswahrnehmungen auf der

einen Seite und den Begriffen auf der andern Seite, die von der reinen Logik nicht konstruiert werden kann, beruht nach dieser Auffassung auf einer unserer Will- kur entzogenen kosmischen Ordnung, die von der Welt der Erscheinungen verschieden ist und sowohl Psyche als Physis, sowohl Subjekt als Objekt umfasst.

Die moderne Psychologie hat betreffend die Erkenntnissituation den Nachweis erbracht, dass jedes Verstehen ein langwieriger Prozess ist, der lange vor der rationalen Formulierbarkeit des Bewusstseins- inhaltes durch Prozesse im Unbewussten eingeleitet wird: auf der vorbewussten Stufe der Erkenntnis sind an Stelle von klaren Begriffen Bilder mit starkem emotionalem Gehalt vorhanden, die nicht gedacht, sondern gleichsam malend geschaut werden. Die gesuchte Briicke zwischen Sinnesempfindungen und Ideen oder Begriffen scheint durch anordnende Operatoren oder Faktoren (die ich aber im Gegensatz zu Bernays nicht als ‘rational’ bezeichnen mochte) bedingt zu sein, von denen auch die vorbegrimiche Schicht der symbolischen Bilder beherrscht wird. Es ist interessant, dass das Wort ‘Archetypus’, das zum Beispiel Kepler fur die (platonischen) praexistenten Bilder verwendet, nunmehr von C G Jung auch fur unanschauliche, anordnende Faktoren, die sich sowohl psychisch als auch physisch manifestieren sollen, gebraucht wird.

A2. Statistical causalltylstatistical correspondence

Letter to Fierz, November 26, 1949 (PLC 0092.063)

Bohr’s expression ‘correspondence’ served as an aid to me when, then, I was trying to give a name to the positive principle which lies at the basis of quantum mechanics. (After putting forward wave mechanics he continues to speak of a ‘correspondence argument’ ”see Naturw. 21 245-250, 1933, particularly the passage on page 246, top of the second column.) That statistical behaviour of many similar individual systems which have no contact whatsoever with another (‘windowless monads’), without, on the other hand, being causally determined, has, of course, in quantum mechanics been interpreted as the last law-governed fact which cannot be further reduced (approximately as was the case for Galileo with respect to uniformly accelerated falling bodies). In my lecture on complementarity, originally published in the journal ‘Experientia’ and now available as an offprint, I thus tried to use the expression ‘correspondence’ in a more general sense than Bohr had, in a way which would specifically characterise the positive side of a quantum mechanical description of nature. It is certainly this statistical correspondence which mediates between continuum (wave image) and discontinuum (particle image). (This in a somewhat more general way than the mediation between ‘quantum theory’ and ‘classical theory’ in Bohr’s writings.) There I did not explicitly


state that for me the intellectual derivative of the ‘correspondentia’ of the Middle Ages (‘correlations’) clearly seem to glimmer through in the term ‘correspondence’. In both cases, however, we are concerned with a form of describing nature in terms of laws which transcends normal causality and which is based on some kind of analogy. (This is also the case with Leibniz’s pre-estabilised harmony.)

The single systems of quantum mechanics are ‘windowless monads’ and, nevertheless, the correct fraction can always be found which reacts as calcu- lated (apart, naturally, from the expected statistical fluctuations).

Wahrscheinlichkeit und Physik (1954 Dialectica 8/2)

Erst die Wellen- oder Quantenmechanik konnte die Existenz primarer Wahrscheinlichkeiten in den Natur- gesetzen behaupten, die sich sonach nicht wie zum Beispiel die thermodynamischen Wahrscheinlichkeiten der klassischen Physik durch Hilfsannahmen auf deterministische Naturgesetze zuruckfiihren lassen. Diese umwalzende Folgerung halt die iiberwiegende Mehrheit der modernen theoretischen Physiker- allen voran M Born, W Heisenberg und N Bohr, denen auch ich mich angeschlossen habe-fur unwiderruflich.

A3. The irrationality of reality


Hierdurch bekommt die Beobachtung den Charakter der irrationalen, einmal{Gen Aktualitat mit nicht vor- hersagbarem Resultat. Uberdies bedingt die Unmog- lichkeit, die Versuchsanordnung zu unterteilen, ohne das Phanomen wesentlich zu andern, einen neuen Zug von Ganzheitlichkeit im physikalischen Geschehen. Diesem irrationalen Aspekt der konkreten Erschei- nungen, die der Aktualitiit nach festgestellt sind, steht gegenuber der rationale Aspekt einer abstrakten Ord- nung der Moglichkeiten von Feststellungen mit Hilfe des mathematischen Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriffes und der $-Funktion.

Draft entitled “Das ‘Ganzheitsstreben in der Physik’ und der Konflikt ‘Naturwissenschaft-gefuhlsmassig- intuitive Gegenposition’ ” 1953 (PLC 0092.107)

Recently the word ‘wholeness’ is used by Bohr more regularly and more frequently, always in conjunction with ‘complementarity’, among other things also within physics. This happens when he speaks of the wholeness and indivisibility of an experimental procedure used in quantum mechanics. He wants, indeed to include this wholeness and indivisibility in the definition of the ‘phenomenon’, since the observation interrupts the connection of phenomena in an ‘irrational’ way. It is this irrationality of observation

which prevents the $-function from remaining ‘P1atonic’“that is to say, from remaining in a ‘metaphysical space’. Because of it the ‘reality’ of the $-function becomes ‘symbolic’, which is something completely different from ‘crystal clear’, very much to the distress of the Spinozists (Einstein), the Car- tesians (de Broglie) and the intellectual aestheticians (Schrodinger).

Bohr is typically antiplatonic (cf to his complementarity of ‘clarity’ and ‘truth’) and he now would like to see in ‘complementarity’, as it was manifested in physics, a general model f o r the resolution of conflicts, for unifying pairs of opposites-I myself like to say conjunctio. For example, he attempted to apply this to ethics (good-evil, justice-love), but he was particularly interested in applying it to the opposition physis- psyche (the psycho-physical problem). For him the central point here is always observation.

Why does Bohr have a so extraordinarily strong aversion to the concept of the ‘unconscious’? Seen completely apart from the personal views he con- tinuously points out that the utilisation of this concept in the psychology of the unconscious has resulted in too little attention being paid to the role of observation. He says that in this psychology it should also be emphasised that after each observation a new phenomenon comes into being. He senses here at once a certain danger that the concept of the ‘unconscious’ has the tendency to withdraw Platonically into a ‘metaphysical space’. The symbol which expresses reality validly and adequately must, rather, differently from what is the case in classical physics and in such things as its field concept, also give expression to the irrational intervention of observation and its consequences as potentiality.

It is only in this sense that the ‘struggle for wholeness in physics’ can be a model (if you desire, a ‘prefiguration’) for the larger conflict Kepler versus Fludd. Personal is not the opposite of objective! What I mean by the ‘objective significance of the counter position to the natural sciences’ is an opposition to private. For example, a call to an institution of higher education is personal, but not private. That which is personal can also be of interest for everyone, for the universality, for the public. This is what the dreams under discussion appear to me to be emphasising and this is what I have designated as ‘objective’. The position which stands in opposition to the natural sciences is thus not private, it may well be personal. Actually, every feeling is personal, even if feeling is as widespread as thinking. Perhaps ‘personality’ is specifically this unique irrational intervention in the phenomena, which can only be expressed in ‘objective’ description of natural science symbolically, as a possibility.

The only thing I wanted to say in the Kepler article was the following: in its struggle for wholeness modern physics gives a model for the unification of opposites (conjunctio). The problem of Kepler versus Fludd has re-emerged to the surface today as a conJict

72 K V Laurikainen

and it demands a conjunctio, both in the world of ideas and in the life of concrete personalities.

A4. Archetypes as the bridge between spirit and matter

See the quotations in A l .

Natunvissenschaftliche und erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte der Ideen vom Unbewussten (1954 Dialectica 8/41

Dieses unterschwellige Etwas, das gleichsam von hinter der Szene das Bewusstsein lenkt, wurde das ‘Unterbewusste’ genannt. Freud, sein erster Entdecker und Erforscher, wollte es ursprunglich zuruckfuhren auf aus dem Bewusstsein Verdrangtes, so dass dieses Unterbewusste durch aufheben der Verdrangung wieder beseitigt werden kann.

Das ‘Unterbewusste’ envies sich bald als von ver- wickelterer Struktur als urspriinglich angenommen wurde. Insbesondere fuhrte Jung den Nachweis, dass es nur zum kleinen Teil aus Verdrangtem, zu einem wesentlichen Teil jedoch aus archaischen, kollektiven Inhalten besteht, die vorher niemals im Bewusstsein waren und eben die Autonomie und Eigengesetzlich- keit des ‘Unbewussten’ bedingen, wie es, zur alteren Terminologie der Philosophen zuriickkehrend, nun wieder genannt wurde.

Ibidem

Die angefurten Zitate mogen dem Leser ein Bild geben von der Funktion des Begriffes ‘Archetypus’ in der Jungschen Psychologie und seiner Wandlung von der ursprunglichen Bedeutung des ‘urtiimlichen Bildes’ zum unanschaulichen Strukturelement des Unbewuss- ten, einem Regulator, der Vorstellungen anordnet. Personlich erblicke ich hierin erste Anzeichen des Erkennens von Ordnungsprinzipien, die in bezug auf die Unterscheidung psychisch-physisch neutral, aber im Gegensatz zur konkretischen psychophysischen Einheitssprache der alten Alchemie ideal-abstrakt, das heisst an und fur sich unanschaulich sind.

AS. A new conception of reailty is necessary

Letter to Fierz, August 12, 1948

When the layman says ‘reality’ he usually thinks that he is speaking about something which is self-evidently known; while to me it appears to be specifically the most important and extremely difficult task of our time to work on the elaboration of a new idea of reality. This is also what I mean when I always emphasise that science and religion must have something to d o with one another . . . That which I have in mind with respect to the new idea of reality I would

like to preliminarily name: the idea of the reality of the symbol.

A6. The irrational reductlon of the state function

See PLC 0092.107 cited above in A3.


See the quotation at the beginning of A3.

Wenn trotz der logischen Geschlossenheit und der mathematischen Eleganz der Quantenmechanik bei einigen Physikern eine gewisse regressive Hoffnung besteht, der geschilderte erkenntnistheoretische Sach- verhalt moge sich als nicht endgultig enveisen, so liegt dies meines Erachtens an der Macht traditioneller Denkformen, die unter dem Namen ‘Ontologie’ oder ‘Realismus’ zusammengefasst werden. Auch die Physiker, die sich nicht einseitig zu den ‘Sensualisten’ oder ‘Empiristen’ zahlen, miissen aber die infolge des Postulatcharakters dieser traditionellen Denkformen mogliche und infolge des Vorhandenseins der Quan- tenmechanik unerlassliche Frage stellen, ob diese Denkformen eine notwendige Bedingung fur die Moglichkeit der Physik uberhaupt sind oder o b ihnen andere, allgemeinere Denkformen gegenubergestellt werden konnen. Die Analyse der theoretischen Grund- lage der Wellen- oder Quantenmechanik hat gezeigt, dass die zweite Alternative die zutreffende ist.

Am klarsten sind die Postulate der in Rede stehen- den Denkformen in ihrer Anwendung auf die Physik von Einstein formuliert worden, zum Beispiel neuer- dings in der Fassung: ‘Es gibt so etwas wie den realen Zustand eines physikalischen Systems, was unabhan- gig von jeder Beobachtung oder Messung objektiv existiert und mit den Ausdrucksmitteln der Physik im Prinzip beschrieben werden kann.’ Auch diese For- mulierungen Einsteins umschreiben jedoch nur das Ideal einer besonderen Form der Physik, namlich der ‘klassischen’ Form. Dieses von Einstein so treffend charakterisierte Ideal mochte ich das des losgelosten Beobachters nennen. In der Tat sind ‘seiend’ und ‘nicht-seiend’ oder ‘real’ und ‘irreal’ keine eindeutigen Charakterisierungen von komplementaren Eigen- schaften, die nur kontrolliert werden konnen in statis- tischen Versuchsreihen mit verschiedenen frei wahl- baren Anordnungen, die einander unter Umstanden ausschliessen. Die neue Theorie verallgemeinert viel- mehr jene klassischen Ideale und Postulate. Diese logische Verallgemeinerung hat sich unter dem Druck der unter dem Stichwort ‘Endlichkeit des Wirkungs- quantums’ zusammengefassten physikalischen Tat- sachen als schliesslich befriedigende Losung friiherer Widerspruche in einer hoheren Synthese heraus- gebildet: Die mathematische Erfassung der Moglich- keiten des Naturgeschehens in der Quantenmechanik envies sich als ein genugend weiter Rahmen, um die


irrationale Aktualitut des Einmaligen aufzunehmen. AIS Zusammenfassung des rationalen und des irrationalen Aspektes einer wesentlich paradoxen Wirklich- keit kann sie auch als eine Theorie des Werdens bezeichnet werdent.

Dass der mathematische Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff sich auch in dieser neuen, mit ‘Komplementaritat’ bezeichneten Situation bewahrt hat, scheint mir hdchst bedeutungsvoll. Es scheint diesem eine Wirk- lichkeit in der Natur zutiefst zu entsprechen, da er fur den zwischen Kontinuum (Welle) und Diskontinuum (Teilchen) vermittelnden Typus der Naturgesetze, welche die klassisch-deterministische Naturerklarung verallgemeinern und fur die ich den Namen ‘statistische Korrespondenz’ vorgeschlagen habe, eine tragfahige logische Grundlage geliefert hat.

A7. Space time continuum in modern physlcs

Letter to Fierz, March 30, 1947 (PLC 0092.039)

I’m more and more expecting a further revolutionis- ing of the basic concepts in physics. In connection with this particularly the manner in which the spacetime continuum is currently introduced into it appears to me to be increasingly unsatisfactory. (Naturally it is brilliant not to use time any more for sequencing causal series-as once in May-but rather as a play- ground of probabilities. If, however, instead of ‘brilliant’ we say ‘foolhardy’ it would be at least as true. Something only really happens when an observation is being made, and in conjunction with which, as Bohr and Stern have finally convinced me, entropy neces- sarily increases. Between the observations nothing at all happens, only time has, ‘in the interval’, irrever- sibly progressed on the mathematical papers.)

See also Enz C P 1987 The Space, Time and Field Concepts in Wolfgang Pauli’s Work Symp. on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1987: The Copenhagen Interpretation 60 Years after the Como Lecture Sin- gapore: World Scientific)

A8. The concept of field

Letter to Fierz, October 3, 1951 (PLC 0092.077)

This matter now brings me to another one which was also treated in your essay: the difficulties with the field concept which result from matters of principle. You presented the ‘regulation’ for the reality of the field very nicely on page 14: ’But Faraday thought that the field must be present, whether we prove it or not, exactly in the way, as we believe, that man exists, whether we look on him or not.’ The further addition

t Man kann mit F Gonseth das Zusammenspiel der beiden Aspekte als ‘dialektisch’ bezeichnen.

can be made: ‘exactly as we assume that the move- ment of the moon is the same, whether we observe it or not’ (which goes considerably beyond its mere existence)$. That is naturally the entire snag, with respect to both physics (quantisedfield theory) and the psychological analogy.

I am of somewhat different opinion than you in that I do not ascribe the same significance to the impos- sibility of empty space in quantised field theory as you. In my opinion the snag in quantised field theory nevertheless remains quite the same as in non-quantised classical field theory: it should be the case that a field would not be mathematically or logically con- ceivable without the experimental bodies required for its measurement. In actual fact, however, it is like this in the present theory: if we take e # 0, thus describing light fields, then these, whether classical fields or photons, are mathematically possible without charges; if we take e = 0 and describe electrons, positrons and photons (Schwinger), this is mathematically possible without the heavy masses which are part of the measuring devices which are needed in order to obtain a measurement of the fields or density of charge in small spaces (of the order h/mc, m = electron mass). The true relation of complementarity between the possibility of perceiving the same physical objects, either as fields or as experimental bodies (measuring devices) (the first case after other objects function as measuring devices) is not expressed in the formalism used today. (NB Of what use is it to me that no empty space is possible?)

A9. The creation of a new state (new attributes) in an observation

See quotations in A3.

Letter to Bohr, February 15, 1955 (PLC 0014.51)

‘Like the moon has a definite position’ Einstein said to me last winter, ‘whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects. Observation cannot create an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to thepossibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made.’ I hope, that I quoted Einstein correctly; it is always difficult to quote some- body out of memory with whom one does not agree. It is precisely this kind of postulate which I call the ideal of the detached observer.

In quantum mechanics, on the contrary, an observation hic et nunc changes in general the ‘state’ of the

1 I might name that ‘the classical idea of objective reality in the cosmos’.

74 K V Laurikainen

observed system in a way not contained in the mathematically formulated laws, which only apply to the automatical time dependence of the state of a closed system. I think here on the passage to a new phenomenon by observation which is technically taken into account by the so-called ’reduction of the wavepackets’. As it is allowed to consider the instru- ments of observation as a kind of prolongation of the sense organs of the observer, I consider the unpredictable change of the state by a single observation-in spite of the objective character of the results of every observation and notwithstanding the statistical laws for the frequencies of repeated observation under equal conditions-to be an abandonment of the idea of the isolation (detachment) of the observer from the course of physical events outside himself.

To put it in non-technical common language one can compare the role of the observer in quantum theory with that of a person, who by its freely chosen experimental arrangements and recordings brings forth a considerable ‘trouble’ in nature, without being able to influence its unpredictable outcome and results which afterwards can be objectively checked by everyone.

References

[l] Laurikainen K V 1988 Beyond the Alom. The Philosophical Thought of Wolfgang Pauli (Heidelberg: Springer). This book is essentially based on the correspondence stored in the Pauli Letter Collection (PLC) at CERN

von Meyenn K (ed) 1984 Wolfgang Pauli: Physik und

Erkenntnistheorie (Facetten der Physik, Band 15) (Braunschweig: Vieweg)

Enz C P and von Meyenn K 1988 Wolfgang Pauli. Das Gewissen der Physik (Braunschweig: Vieweg)

[2] Herbert N 1985 Quantum Reality. Beyond the New Physics (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday)

[3] Pauli analyses the fundamental significance of statistical causality, e.g. in his letter to Fierz of October 13, 1951 (PLC 0092.078). See also Pauli’s ‘Editorial’ in 1948 Dialecfica 2 No 3/4

of Modern Physics 1987 ed P Lahti and P Mittelstaedt (Singapore: World Scientific) p 209

[S] d’Espagnat B 1983 In Search of Reality (Heidelberg: Springer) ch 9

[6] Jung C G and Pauli W 1952 Naturerklarung und Psyche (Zurich: Rascher) p 109

[7] d’Espagnat B 1979 Sci. Am. November 128

[4] Laurikainen K V 1987 Symposium on the Foundations

Lahti P and Mittelstaedt P (ed) 1985 Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics: 50 Years of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment (Singapore: World Scientific)

[S] See [S] and d’Espagnat B 1987 Found. Phys. 17 507 [9] Bastin T 1971 Quantum Theory and Beyond ed T

Bastin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p 213. The idea has been developed further by Noyes P et 01, especially at the meetings of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association.

[IO] Lehto A 1984 On (3 + 3)-Dimensional Discrete Space- Time (Report Series in Physics, University of Helsinki, HU-P-236)

[l l] Enz C P 1987 Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics [4], see also Beyond the Atom [l] pp 84, 91 and 130

[l21 Laurikainen K V, Zygon; J . Religion Sci. submitted

laurikainen k v_atoms and consciousness as complementary elements of reality

Documents