So far so good. We established that magical thinking can play a vital role in scientific discoveries. We also revealed that in quantum physics of the XX-th century magical phenomena, such as participation and mind over matter, were proved to exist not only within magical thinking, but also in physical reality itself. The evidence, which allowed scientists to upgrade magical phenomena from events of the imagination to the events that happen for real, was obtained through rigorous experiments. The belief in the supernatural that modern educated people implicitly hold didn't play a role in these developments.

Yet the same experiments that demonstrated the definitive role of an observer in shaping the states of quantum objects brought physicists to the threshold, beyond which lies the realm of reality where experiments become inconceivable. In this hypothetical realm only mathematics and theoretical reasoning hold sway. And where the empirical verification of theories is impossible, there appears a possibility for the implicit belief in magic to sneak into the body of physical knowledge.

8. Crossing the threshold: From participatory universe to the multiverse

One influential theory of modern physics, which is difficult to distinguish from pure magic, is the so called "many-worlds interpretation" in quantum mechanics. According to this theory, put forward by American physicist Hugh Everett ^[41], any measurement of a quantum object, for example, a fixation of a photon on a photographic plate as a spot of light (usually called "the wavefuntion collapse") creates not a single version of this object, as Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics insists, but splits the universe into the version that we see and the other possible versions, which stay invisible for us. Everett called his interpretation "the universal wave function interpretation", and American physicist Bryce DeWitt later renamed this theory "many worlds interpretation" (MWI)^[42]. DeWitt elaborated that by every quantum measurement an observer unintentionally creates multiple universes-worlds, each including a copy of the observer inside it. It is hard to avoid a conclusion that in this interpretation of quantum measurement an observer is a god or a omnipotent wizard, with the only difference that God of the Bible created the universe willingly by inspiration, whereas the "quantum god" manufactures universes unintentionally. To believe or not to believe in this theory is a matter of preference. The question that some scientists ask is whether this theory can be tested in experiments ^[43]. According to Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark it can, but only at the cost of "quantum suicide". Unfortunately, if the MWI is true (which is yet unknown), then by committing the quantum suicide you might prove this theory to yourself but will never be able to prove it to anyone else ^{[44, p.5]}.

The MWI is not the only theory that proposes the existence of other universes. In the recent decades, there appeared a number of theories in which our universe is only a unit in a potentially infinite number of universes. To mention just a few, hypotheses were proposed for quilted universe, inflatory multiverse, brain multiverse, cyclic multiverse, landscape multiverse, holographic multiverse, and simulated multiverse ^[45]. For example, it was suggested that the simulated multiverse exists on a complex system of computers that is capable to simulate entire universes. An interesting question is who is the holder of this magical system of computers, which can simulate not only stars and galaxies, but life and human consciousness as well? And of course, none of these theoretical constructions can be verified in experiments.

Finally, "string theory" is replacing the point-like particles of matter, such as protons and electrons, by one-dimensional objects called "strings" ^[46]. This theory's advantage is that it explains all known types of elementary particles through these particles' "quantum states"; it also explains all four known fundamental forces - electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear, and gravitation. A distinguished feature of string theory is that it postulates, on top of the known four dimensions (three in space and one in time), other dimensions as well. For example, in the "superstring" version of string theory there are 11 dimensions, with the extra 7 dimensions being packed into a compact "ball" called Calabi-Yau space. With all the advantages of string theory it has been impossible thus far to test this theory in experiment because of the unimaginably small size of the strings (the so called Planck length), and inaccessibility of the "extra dimensions" ^[47]. An extension of string theory is "M-theory", which is trying to unite all the versions of string theory. M-theory suggests that strings are one-dimensional versions of yet more fundamental entity - the two-dimensional membrane, which vibrates in the 11- dimensional space. Some physicists call M-theory "a theory of everything", because in this theory all the diversity of the physical universe is reduced to one theoretical construct. Because vibration of strings and membranes is a final "point of reference" and doesn't conform to any natural causes, this vibration is similar to a magical phenomenon. This might be a reason of why some physicists decipher the term "M-theory" as "magical" or "mystical" theory ^[48].

To summarise, none of these theoretical constructions can be empirically proven. These hypotheses are about the "final cause" of both the observed universe and the hypothetical other universes that can not be observed currently or in principle. Because the final cause can not be further reduced to any natural causes, it is by definition a "something from nothing" type magical event. Through the hypotheses that tacitly imply a magical event, the implicit belief in the supernatural that thus far has been locked deep in the scientists' subconscious, claims its right for public attention.

So far I have been primarily concentrating on how magical phenomena infiltrate physics of the microworld. And what is happening in physics of the megaworld - cosmology?

9. Magic of the megaworld

It has always seemed to me that the Big Bang is an event that is no less magical than is the biblical version of world's creation by God in six days. For the infinitesimally small fraction of a second (and for the human perception - instantly) the universe emerged form virtually "nothing" - an incredibly dense and tiny point called the point of singularity - and has been inflating ever since ^[49]. By definition, when something as big as the universe emerges from something the size of almost a mathematical point - this is a "something from nothing" magical event, which escapes the known laws of physics. What makes this event look even more magical is that in this magically inflated universe there appears an observer who is able to understand this universe and is puzzled by the impossibility to logically explain its origin.

In his book "Farewell to reality. How fairy-tale physics betrays the search for scientific truth" British physicist Jim Baggott refers to an old philosophy problem: If a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody around to hear, does it make a sound? According to Baggott, the answer depends on how we define sound. There is no sound as subjective quality, but there is sound as "auditory waves in the air" ^[14]. Baggott's answer is incomplete, because the notion "auditory waves in the air" is a result of human intellectual activity, hence this notion (as all notions of science for that matter) is a product of human consciousness. This implies that without a human being who hears the sound or thinks about the sound, however we defined it, the sound isn't there. And what is there? There is "something", about which we can say nothing except: if this "something" interacts with our ears, we experience what is called "sound", and which we understand by creating the concept "sound waves in the air".

The same applies to the universe as a whole. Without a person who experiences sounds and colours of the universe and creates theories about what they are, there is only "something". There are no photons and electrons, no black holes, no stars and planets without a human being who thinks and reasons about these entities. One might ask: Does it mean that people, like artists, create the universe as they wish? Of course it doesn't. The universe exists independently of our consciousness, as "something" out there. But what this "something" really is like we can only find out if we "mix" this "something" with our consciousness, like we mix sugar with water. Literally "mix with", and not "get through" our consciousness like a light beam gets through clear glass. The beam of light gets through clear glass unchanged, but the "something" of the universe, when it mixes with our consciousness, creates a unique "fusion". This fusion we then call electrons, stars and galaxies.

It is because physical universe is a part of our own mind that we can understand the laws of nature. Something, which is not a part of our conscious experience, like the other universes, can not be understood in principle. Exactly because the physical world is a part of our mind, we observe the wonderful "tuning" of the universal physical constants to each other in such a way that their "ensemble" makes it possible for life and humans to exist ^[50]. Indeed, if one of those fundamental constants (e.g., the gravitational constant g, which defines the speed of the universe's expansion) were just a little bit different, life in the universe would be impossible. Likewise, if the universe were a little bit younger or older that it is now, there would be no us, because there would be no the elements from which our bodies are built. So, who tuned the "piano of the universe" so finely? Who was that wizard, which made the fundamental constants fit so perfectly to each other that life became possible in the universe?

The awareness of this problem gave rise to the "anthropic principle" in cosmology ^[51]. The strong anthropic principle, introduced by Brandon Carter in 1973, suggests that the emergence of conscious observers (and therefore, life) was pre-determined from the beginning in the structure of the universe. It is easy to conclude from the strong anthropic principle to the classic argument of intelligent design, which was put forward by British theologian William Paley in 1802. If, when crossing a field, I come across a stone - Paley reasons - I am likely to think that the stone has always been there. If, however, I came across a watch, I would think that a craftsman had made it, because it is unlikely for a mechanism as complex as the watch to have emerged on its own. Because the strong anthropic principle does not exclude the Creator, some scientists argue in favour of the weak anthropic principle, which says that the universe's fine tuning is a chance event, and because our universe is so nicely tuned for us to exist, we can only observe this universe and none of the other ^[52]. The weak anthropic principle leads to a conclusion that there must be an infinitely large number of universes from which our universe is the only lucky one to have human observers. But the hope to avoid the Creator by downgrading the anthropic principle is an illusion. As I argued above, a chance event in its own right is a non-causal "something from nothing" magical event. Instead of one purposefully created universe that the strong anthropic principle implies, the weak anthropic principle allows for the possibility of an infinite number of magical events.

Both versions of the anthropic principle implicitly involve an element of the belief in the supernatural in still another way. Indeed, according to astrology, there is a magical kinship, or sympathy, between people and planets. But the "pre-established harmony" between the human mind and the laws of nature is a core feature of the anthropic principle as well. Hence the link between the participation phenomenon in astrology and the anthropic principle: an astrologist can read a person's fate by using the "language of planets", and a modern scientist or an engineer can "speak" to nature using the language of physical laws.

10. Conclusion: From the Standard Model to magical physics

I started this paper with the question: How and why did it turn out that some influential theories of modern physics and cosmology describe events, which are indistinguishable from magic? In my search for an answer I turned to the recent psychological studies of magical thinking and magical beliefs in modern people. These studies revealed that magical thinkingis wired in the human mind and shows up in dreams, art and fantasies. Since magical thinking is confined to the realm of the imagination, it doesn't contradict modern person's belief in science and peacefully coexists with logical thinking in the person's mind. By contrast, the belief in magic in modern industrial cultures is proclaimed to be a fallacy and is thought to remain only in children and a small number of superstitious adults.

Yet further psychological enquiry has shown that modern educated adults, who consciously consider themselves non-believers in magic, deep in the subconscious still believe in the supernatural. Psychological defences, built by modern education and the dominant belief in science and rationality, prevent this hidden belief in magic from ascending to the reflective consciousness. When these defences are undermined, the hidden belief in the supernatural can get access to the realm of reflective thinking and rationally controlled behaviour. In some circumstances, modern rational adults not only reason magically, but also behave as if magic were real.

Philosophical and psychological analyses have established that there is a link between magical and scientific types of thinking in the search for truth. Magical thinking operates in the subconscious through symbols and is a "generator of ideas": it supplies scientific thinking with a pool of "theories in the making" . Scientific thinking is a conscious process and selects from that pool those theories, which resonate with objective reality. In the process of this selection, scientific thinking uses two main criteria: verification by experimental facts and compliance of the "theories in the making" with the general body of existing physical knowledge.

As physics proceeded from the macroworld into the micro- and megaworlds, the concept of a physical object changed. From an object that can be seen by a naked eye the physical object turned into an object, which can be deduced from traces it leaves in various mediums and observation devices. No longer supported by direct sensual experience, the physical object increasingly depends on structure of experimental devices and methods of observation. The fundamental link between human consciousness and physical objects, which in classical physics has been denied to protect objectivity of knowledge, in quantum physics becomes evident. As a result, some phenomena pertinent to magic, such as "mind over matter" and "participation", appear in physics under the names of Copenhagen interpretation and quantum non-locality. Nevertheless, up till 1970-th of the XX-th century quantum physics, currently called the Standard Model ^[53] coordinated its theories with experimental facts. The magic-like phenomena in physics were proven empirically, and the implicit belief in magic played no role in this.

Finally, when theoretical physics moved further away from empirical reality and in the realm of such theories as the string theory and the many worlds theory, experiments become impossible. A major reality check criterion - verification by experimental facts - that was used to separate the "plausible" hypothetical constructions supplied by magical thinking from the "drafts", which were influenced by hidden magical beliefs, disappears. The only remaining criterion - compliance of the "theories in the making" with the general body of current physical knowledge - is significantly more flexible and "soft" than the experimental reality check. The "softened" border between magical and scientific thinking made it possible for the implicit belief in the supernatural, which in modern rational individuals is lurking in the subconscious, filter through into some theories of modern physics. What in the world of classical physics is magic (e.g., to create a universe by performing a certain action), in some theories of modern physics (e.g., the "many worlds" theory) is proclaimed reality. Physical scientists, who otherwise reject magic as superstition and fallacy, become more benevolent when magical evens come to them clad into sophisticated mathematics and inaccessible to experimental reality check.

Is this process a step forward toward the truth, or a step back toward medieval astrology and alchemy? I think it's a bit of both, and this process is unavoidable. There was a time when physics separated itself from magic, to allow the humankind to make an explosive leap forward in its capacity to control nature. What made this leap possible was the idea of objectivity of knowledge rooted in the invention of a scientific experiment. Now physical science approached the borderline where it again, at a more advanced level, faced the phenomenon of magical participation - the deep level unity between the mind and matter. Beyond this borderline the realm of concepts lies so general that experimenting with the underlying reality becomes impossible. Some physicists stop at this threshold, but others, armed with mathematics and the imagination, venture into this uncharted territory.

And the belief in the supernatural, which thus far has been imprisoned in the basement of the subconscious, is getting through into the very heart of physics - theories of the origin and structure of the universe.

Bibliography

1. Subbotsky, E. (2010). Magic and the mind. Structure, functions and development of magical thinking and behavior. New York: Oxford University Press

2. Clarke, A.C. (1962). Hazards of prophecy: The failure of imagination. In Arthur C. Clarke "Profiles of the future: An enquiry into the limits of the possible". A collection of works. New York: Harper & Row.

3. Kaku, M. (2008) Physics of the impossible. A Scientific exploration into the world of phasers, force fields, teleportation, and time travel. New York: Doubleday.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroprosthetics

6. http://www.almaclassics.com/excerpts/Ruslan_Lyudmila.pdf

7. Nemeroff C., Rozin P. (2000). The making of the magical mind: The nature and function of sympathetic magical thinking. In Rosengren K. S., Johnson C. N., Harris P. L. (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific and religious thinking in children (pp. 1-34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

8. Subbotsky E. (2011). The ghost in the machine: Why and how the belief in magic survives in the rational mind. Human Development, 54, 126-143.

9. Subbotsky, E. (2005). The permanence of mental objects: Testing magical thinking on perceived and imaginary realities. Developmental Psychology, 41, 301-318.

10. Subbotsky, E. (2007) Children's and adults' reactions to magical and ordinary suggestion: Are suggestibility and magical thinking psychologically close relatives? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 547-574.

11. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Принцип_относительности

12. http://newfiz.narod.ru/rel-opus.htm

13. http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf

14. Baggott, J. (2013). Farewell to Reality. How fairy-tale physics betrays the search for scientific truth. London: Constable.

15. Horgan, J. (1997). The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the twighlight of the scientific age. London: Little, Brown & Co.

16. Isaakson, W. (2007). Einstein: His life and universe. New York: Simon & Shuster.

17. Stent, G. (1969). The coming of the Golden Age. N.Y.: Natural History Press.

18. Wilson, C. (1971). The occult. A history. London: Random House.

19. Whitley, D.S. (2008). Cave paintings and the human spirit. The origin of creativity and belief. New York: Prometheus Books.

20. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1968). The art of prehistoric man in Western Europe. London: Thames & Hudson.

21. Mithen, S. (2005). The prehistory of the mind. A search for the origins of art, religion and science. London: Thames & Hudson.

22. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алхимия

23. http://www.logosapologia.org/exo-vaticana-giordano-brunos-extraterrestrial-diabolicus/#_edn2

24. Фрейд З. Я и Оно. http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Psihol/freyd/ya_ono.php

25. Мамардашвили, М., Пятигорский, А. (2009). Символ и сознание: Метафизические рассуждения о сознании, символике и языке. М. Прогресс-Традиция.

26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kekulй ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

28. Berne, J. & Radunsky, V. (2013). On a beam of light: A story of Albert Einstein. New York: Chrinicles Books.

29. http://harpers.org/blog/2009/02/einsteins-human-cosmos/

30. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

32. Lйvy-Bruhl, Lucien. The Primitive Mentality (English translation). Paris: Alcan, 1923.

33. Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777.

34. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

35. Eberhard, P. H. & Ross, R. R. (1989).Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication. Foundations of Physics Letters, 2, 127-149.

36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

38. Donati, O, Missiroli, G F, Pozzi, G (1973). An Experiment on Electron Interference. American Journal of Physics, 41, 639-644.

39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

40. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

41. Everett H. (1957). Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454-462.

42. DeWitt, B.S., Graham, R.N. (Eds)(1973). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics. Contains Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, 3-140.

43. Green, B. (2011). The hidden reality: Parallel universes and the deep laws of the cosmos. London: Allen Lane.

44. Tegmark, M. (1997). The interpretation of quantum mechanics: Many worlds or many words? http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf

45. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory.

47. Woit, P. (2007). Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the continuing challenge to unify the laws of physics. London: Vintage.

48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

49. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

50. Davies, P. (2006). The Goldilocks enigma: Why is the universe just right for life? London: Allen Lane.

51. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

52. Barrow, J. & Tipler, F. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. New York: Oxford University Press.

53. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Размещено на Allbest.ru