edgar-mitchell

Invisible Realities 129
Problems also arise when we consider what is required to measure at
this tiny scale. We must keep in mind that it takes at least a single photon
of light to illuminate and thereby measure a particle. And to know in
science is to measure. The energy imparted to the particle through the act
of observing changes the attributes of the particle and makes its future
state uncertain, a fact that must be considered in the measurement process.
Historically, some have reasoned that the attempt to know is not only
the cause of the uncertainty, but that it is, therefore, the process of knowing
that influences the quantum processes of nature. But neither idea is
correct. It is with this interpretation, however, that the Cartesian edifice
of separateness of mind and matter begins to crumble.
The fuzzy line between existence and knowing was destined to become
even more confused by this interpretation, and led to more paradoxes. Some
modern textbooks still produce contradictory viewpoints that reflect the
desperation of those attempting to interpret quantum theory. It took 70
years of experimental evidence and an understanding of how the mind
manages information to bring some clarity to the issue. The account I am
presenting here relies only upon analysis of mind processes, consciousness,
and information. Yet it is corroborated by the experimental evidence from
physics. It has occurred to me that the principles of complementarity and
uncertainty apply equally well and in the same manner to the two means
by which each of us observes: the sensory, or outer experience; and the
inner, subjective experience. These two modes of observation are complementary
in that both are required to complete our picture of reality. Yet
they have different characteristics, and are not equally valid for all observations.
The outer experience reaches its zenith in the scientific method,
and is characterized by specificity, precision, and detail, and most often
uses the language of mathematics—it is understood intellectually. The highest
expression of the subjective experience is in the ineffable mystical insight.
It is characterized by holistic patterns, and lack of precision, but deep
feelings of certainty. By necessity, it must be expressed through metaphor,
analogy, archetypal imagery, and the arts—its effect is emotional. The notion
that science and religion are mutually exclusive expressions because they
each emphasize a different mode of observation is no more valid than the
idea that waves and particles are separate physical things. In both cases
complementarity and uncertainty prevail, and in both cases it is mind that
gives meaning to experience. Dogmatic acceptance of the Cartesian duality,
particularly in the Western mind, has created an artificial barrier.
Although science arose and has flourished for nearly four centuries as a
result, a new synthesis is now required in order to proceed. Objective observation
is not, strictly speaking, possible, as all observation is inherently a
subjective experience.