edgar-mitchell

128
The Way of the Explorer
to know about something, we must first label what it is we observe, and
then assign qualitative attributes such as size, weight, color, beauty, what
have you, and finally ways to describe how much of the attribute is present.
In science, “how much” is defined by numerical measure. In ordinary language
we use adverbs. We can unequivocally state that mathematics is a
linguistic creation of mind, not an intrinsic characteristic of nature, because
it depends upon how we assign labels to nature, and then quantify
those labels. Waves, particles, apples, and pitchforks are the blue and red
lines on the map, not the roads and highways themselves. And this distinction
is fundamental in resolving questions of mind/matter interaction. The
map is not the territory.
The concept of waves and particles, and their associated measures, is
the best metaphor from the macro-world that we currently have for basic
physical reality, because energy, which is common to both, is not something
we can readily picture. 2 Early in the 20th century scientists understood
even less about how the brain/mind assimilates information than we
do today; that is to say, how it is we know what we know. The Cartesian
conclusion that the role of mind in physical measurement was unimportant,
dominated science until late in the 20th century. But the framers of
quantum theory recognized that the observer’s mind was somehow important
in the observation, and that there were hidden mental traps lurking in
the invisible quantum world. They consistently warned us not to create
and rely upon visual images of the underlying quantum reality, but rather
to place faith only in the measurements derived from experiment. This
became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. As
many scientists of the period were dogmatic materialists, they were skeptical
because quantum theory seemed to enter the forbidden mystical domain
of theology—which indeed it was. They preferred a physics that was
mechanistic. But how else can questions about consciousness be addressed,
and the Cartesian dualism resolved, except by addressing the issue of mind
While the Copenhagen interpretation helped avoid one mental trap, it set
up another involving the meaning of measurements, which still creates
controversy.
The uncertainty principle specifies that complementary variables may
not be measured with equal precision simultaneously. It also defines the
limit of precision (thus the limit of our knowing) in the measurement. The
newcomer to physics often chafes at the idea that there is a limit to the
precision of a measurement. He or she wants to believe that with better
instruments or technique the desired precision can be obtained. But this is
just the natural conclusion of the erroneous belief that waves and particles
represent distinctly different entities, when in fact they do not. Better
instruments will never change that.