{"id":202031,"date":"2022-02-07T12:00:42","date_gmt":"2022-02-07T12:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=202031"},"modified":"2021-12-24T09:34:04","modified_gmt":"2021-12-24T09:34:04","slug":"nobel-winning-physicist-wolfgang-pauli-on-science-spirit-and-our-search-for-meaning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/02\/nobel-winning-physicist-wolfgang-pauli-on-science-spirit-and-our-search-for-meaning\/","title":{"rendered":"Nobel-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on Science, Spirit, and Our Search for Meaning"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>\u201cIt is only a narrow passage of truth (no matter whether scientific or other truth) that passes between the Scylla of a blue fog of mysticism and the Charybdis of a sterile rationalism. This will always be full of pitfalls and one can fall down on both sides.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThe fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer,\u201d physicist and quantum mechanics pioneer Niels Bohr observed while contemplating the nature of reality<\/a> five years after he received the Nobel Prize, adding: \u201cBut that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won\u2019t get us very far.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bohr, who introduced the notion of complementarity<\/a>, went on to influence generations of thinkers, including a number of Nobel laureates. Among them was the Swiss-Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli<\/strong> (April 25, 1900\u2013December 15, 1958) \u2014 another pioneering figure of particle physics and quantum mechanics. Invested in the conquest of truth at the deepest strata of nature, Pauli took up this question of reality as a physical and metaphysical object of inquiry in a rather improbable arena: his friendship with the influential Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, whose entire body of work was centered on the conviction that \u201cman cannot stand a meaningless life.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>

Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli<\/p><\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Pauli\u2019s longtime correspondence and collaboration with Jung occupies a small but significant portion of Figuring<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (public library<\/em><\/a>) \u2014 an exploration of the tessellated facets of our search for meaning<\/a>, from which this essay is adapted. Their unlikely friendship, which precipitated the invention of synchronicity<\/a>, bridged the world of science and the world of spirit, entwining the irrepressible human impulses for finding truth and making meaning \u2014 a kind of non-Euclidean intersection of our parallel searches for understanding the reality within and the reality without.<\/p>\n

Long before he won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his exclusion principle \u2014 the tenet of quantum physics stating that multiple identical particles within a single quantum system cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time \u2014 and around the time he theorized the neutrino, Pauli was thrust into existential tumult. His mother, to whom he was very close, died by suicide. His tempestuous marriage ended in divorce within a year \u2014 a year during which he drowned his unhappiness in alcohol. Caught in the web of drinking and despair, Pauli reached out to Jung for help.<\/p>\n

Jung, already deeply influenced by Einstein\u2019s ideas about space and time, was intrigued by his brilliant and troubled correspondent. What began as an intense series of dream analyses unfolded, over the course of the remaining twenty-two years of Pauli\u2019s life, into an exploration of fundamental questions regarding the nature of reality through the dual lens of physics and psychology \u2014 a testament to Einstein\u2019s assertion that \u201cevery true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist.\u201d<\/a> Each used the tools of his expertise to shift the shoreline between the known and the unknown, and together they found common ground in the analogy between the atom, with its nucleus and orbiting electrons, and the self, with its central conscious ego and its ambient unconscious.<\/p>\n

While there is a long and lamentable history of science \u2014 physics in particular \u2014 being hijacked for mystical and New Age ideologies, two things make Jung and Pauli\u2019s collaboration notable. First, the analogies between physics and alchemical symbolism were drawn not only by a serious scientist, but by one who would soon receive the Nobel Prize in Physics. Second, the warping of science into pseudoscience and mysticism tends to happen when scientific principles are transposed onto nonscientific domains with a false direct equivalence. Pauli, by contrast, was deliberate in staying at the level of analogy \u2014 that is, of conceptual parallels furnishing metaphors for abstract thought that can advance ideas in each of the two disciplines, but with very different concrete application.<\/p>\n

Jung had borrowed the word \u201carchetype\u201d from Kepler, drawing on the astronomer\u2019s alchemical symbolism. More than three centuries after Kepler\u2019s alchemy, Pauli\u2019s exclusion principle became the basic organizing principle for the periodic table. The alchemists had been right all along, in a way \u2014 they had just been working on the wrong scale: Only at the atomic level can one element become another, in radioactivity and nuclear fission. Even the atom itself had to transcend the problem of scale: The Greek philosopher Democritus theorized atoms in 400 BC, but he couldn\u2019t prove or disprove their existence empirically \u2014 a hundred thousand times smaller than anything the naked eye could see, the atom remained invisible. It wasn\u2019t for another twenty-three centuries that we were able to override the problem of scale by the prosthetic extension of our vision, the microscope.<\/p>\n

What had originally attracted Pauli to the famous psychiatrist was Jung\u2019s work on symbols and archetypes \u2014 a Keplerian obsession that in turn obsessed Pauli, who devoted various essays and lectures to how Kepler\u2019s alchemy and archetypal ideas influenced the visionary astronomer\u2019s science. In physics, he saw numerous analogies to alchemy: In symmetry, he found the archetypal structure of matter and in elementary particles, the substratum of reality that the alchemists had sought; in the spectrograph, which allowed scientists for the first time to study the chemical composition of stars, an analogue of the alchemist\u2019s oven; in probability, which he defined as \u201cthe actual correspondence between the expected result\u2026 and the empirically measured frequencies,\u201d the mathematical analogue of archetypal numerology.<\/p>\n

But Pauli recognized that the dawn of quantum physics, in which he himself was a leading sun, introduced a new necessity to reconcile different facets of reality. Nearly a century after the trailblazing astronomer Maria Mitchell \u2014 a leading figure in Figuring<\/em> \u2014 asserted that \u201cevery formula which expresses a law of nature is a hymn of praise to God,\u201d<\/a> Pauli reflected in one of his Kepler lectures:<\/p>\n

It would be most satisfactory of all if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality. To us [modern scientists], unlike Kepler and Fludd, the only acceptable point of view appears to be one that recognizes both<\/em> sides of reality \u2014 the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical \u2014 as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously.<\/p>\n

[\u2026]<\/p>\n

In my own view it is only a narrow<\/em> passage of truth (no matter whether scientific or other truth) that passes between the Scylla of a blue fog of mysticism and the Charybdis of a sterile rationalism. This will always be full of pitfalls and one can fall down on both sides.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Illustration by Hugh Lieber from Human Values and Science, Art and Mathematics<\/em><\/a> by Lillian Lieber<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Four decades before the revered physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who popularized the term black hole<\/em><\/a>, made his influential assertion that \u201cthis is a participatory universe [and] observer-participancy gives rise to information,\u201d<\/a> Pauli wrote to Jung:<\/p>\n

Modern [particle physics] turns the observer once again into a little lord of creation in his microcosm, with the ability (at least partially) of freedom of choice and fundamentally uncontrollable effects on that which is being observed. But if these phenomena are dependent on how (with what experimental system) they are observed, then is it not possible that they are also phenomena (extra corpus) that depend on who observes them (i.e., on the nature of the psyche of the observer)? And if natural science, in pursuit of the ideal of determinism since Newton, has finally arrived at the stage of the fundamental \u201cperhaps\u201d of the statistical character of natural laws\u2026 then should there not be enough room for all those oddities that ultimately rob the distinction between \u201cphysics\u201d and \u201cpsyche\u201d of all its meaning?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And yet Pauli was careful to recognize that \u201calthough [particle physics] allows for an acausal form of observation, it actually has no use for the concept of \u2018meaning\u2019\u201d \u2014 that is, meaning is not a fundamental function of reality but an interpretation superimposed by the human observer.<\/p>\n

Complement with Carl Sagan on science and spirituality<\/a> and Einstein\u2019s historic conversation<\/a> with the Nobel-winning Indian poet and philosopher Tagore, then revisit other excerpts from Figuring<\/em>: Emily Dickinson\u2019s electric love letters<\/a> to Susan Gilbert, Margaret Fuller on what makes a great leader<\/a>, the story of how the forgotten pioneer Harriet Hosmer paved the way for women in art<\/a>, Herman Melville\u2019s passionate and heartbreaking love letters<\/a> to Nathaniel Hawthorne, and astrophysicist Janna Levin\u2019s stunning reading<\/a> of the Auden poem that became the book\u2019s epigraph.<\/p>\n

_______________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> My name is Maria Popova<\/a> \u2014 a reader, a wonderer, and a lover of reality who makes sense of the world and herself through the essential inner dialogue that is the act of writing. <\/em>The Marginalian<\/em> (which bore the unbearable name Brain Pickings<\/a> for its first 15 years) is my one-woman labor of love, exploring what it means to live a decent, inspired, substantive life of purpose and gladness. Founded in 2006 as a weekly email to seven friends, eventually brought online and now included in the Library of Congress permanent web archive, it is a record of my own becoming as a person \u2014 intellectually, creatively, spiritually, poetically \u2014 drawn from my extended marginalia on the search for meaning across literature, science, art, philosophy, and the various other tendrils of human thought and feeling. A private inquiry irradiated by the ultimate question, the great quickening of wonderment that binds us all: What <\/em>is<\/em> all this? (More<\/a>\u2026) <\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 themarginalian.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cIt is only a narrow passage of truth (no matter whether scientific or other truth) that passes between the Scylla of a blue fog of mysticism and the Charybdis of a sterile rationalism. This will always be full of pitfalls and one can fall down on both sides.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":202033,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[1177,1911,805],"class_list":["post-202031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-inspirational","tag-inspirational","tag-science-and-spirituality","tag-spirituality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202031\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/202033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}