What do you think?
Rate this book
The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind
Classical physics states that physical reality is local, or that a measurement at one point in space cannot cannot influence what occurs at another beyond a fairly short distance. Until recently this seemed like an immutable truth in nature. However, in 1997 experiments were conducted in which light particles (photons) originated under certain conditions and traveled in opposite directions to detectors located about seven miles apart. The amazing results indicated that the photons "interacted" or "communicated" with one another instantly or "in no time," leading to the revelation that physical reality is non-local--a discovery that Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos view as "the most momentous in the history of science." In pursuing this groundbreaking argument, the authors provide a fascinating history of developments that led to the discovery of non-locality and the sometimes heated debate between the great scientists responsible for these discoveries. What this new knowledge reveals, the authors conclude, is that the connection between mind and nature is far more intimate than we previously dared to imagine. What they offer is a revolutionary look at the implications of non-locality, implications that reach deep into that most intimate aspect of humanity--consciousness.
256 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 2, 1999
13 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 23, 2013
Everyone has their own list of favourite books and this is one of mine. There is something brilliant and understated about this book, that makes me want to pick it up every now and again and digest the contents. In doing so it's almost like disappearing down the rabbit hole - the world that you thought you lived in suddenly ceases to exist, and here's the alternative reality slapping you in the face, shouting "wake up, you're dreaming." Of course, there's no Mad Hatters, tea parties or Red Queens, but there maybe a set of troublesome twins!
The hook of this compact, yet concise volume is the authors' opinion, expressed on the back cover, that the discovery and scientific confirmation of non-locality is "the most momentous in the history of science."
For the lay-person walking past a bookshelf in a shop and idly perusing the jacket, they may be forgiven for mumbling "non-what?" under their breath and putting it back, convinced that the apple dropping on Newton's head or Darwin's theory of evolution or Einstein's theory of relativity were the most momentous discoveries in the history of science, not the "non-what" thing scribbled on the back of this book.
For others, reading that statement about this thing called "non-locality" and then deciding, due to an inquisitive nature, to pick up the book and read it, were rewarded with a red pill.
Now, I'm also one for the wonders of experience. It's perfectly OK reading a book like this and trying to grasp the fact that your consciousness is in some way entangled (as an observer) with the outcome of subatomic experiments and is neither distinct from the experiment in space nor time. You can only imagine it, as it's something I doubt the vast majority of us would have first-hand experience of. However, it's quite another thing to think of the subtleties of your everyday life, your actions, the consequences of your actions, your dreams, feelings of deja-vous, interesting coincidences, then to read this and come to the realisation that there was a very good reason why Carl Jung had a twenty-year friendship with renowned physicist Wolfgang Pauli in which they talked about such things.
If you're still confused, and don't know whether the rabbit hole is real or whether this life is real, take heart in this. During a recent poll, leading quantum physicists were asked the following question, “Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?� Roughly half said no and half said yes.
What does that mean exactly? It means that there's something terribly wrong with the world and nobody has quite figured out what it is.
However, if you read this book and peruse on its contents it may bring you closer to understanding what that thing is.
That's maybe why I keep picking it up every now and again!
The hook of this compact, yet concise volume is the authors' opinion, expressed on the back cover, that the discovery and scientific confirmation of non-locality is "the most momentous in the history of science."
For the lay-person walking past a bookshelf in a shop and idly perusing the jacket, they may be forgiven for mumbling "non-what?" under their breath and putting it back, convinced that the apple dropping on Newton's head or Darwin's theory of evolution or Einstein's theory of relativity were the most momentous discoveries in the history of science, not the "non-what" thing scribbled on the back of this book.
For others, reading that statement about this thing called "non-locality" and then deciding, due to an inquisitive nature, to pick up the book and read it, were rewarded with a red pill.
Now, I'm also one for the wonders of experience. It's perfectly OK reading a book like this and trying to grasp the fact that your consciousness is in some way entangled (as an observer) with the outcome of subatomic experiments and is neither distinct from the experiment in space nor time. You can only imagine it, as it's something I doubt the vast majority of us would have first-hand experience of. However, it's quite another thing to think of the subtleties of your everyday life, your actions, the consequences of your actions, your dreams, feelings of deja-vous, interesting coincidences, then to read this and come to the realisation that there was a very good reason why Carl Jung had a twenty-year friendship with renowned physicist Wolfgang Pauli in which they talked about such things.
If you're still confused, and don't know whether the rabbit hole is real or whether this life is real, take heart in this. During a recent poll, leading quantum physicists were asked the following question, “Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?� Roughly half said no and half said yes.
What does that mean exactly? It means that there's something terribly wrong with the world and nobody has quite figured out what it is.
However, if you read this book and peruse on its contents it may bring you closer to understanding what that thing is.
That's maybe why I keep picking it up every now and again!
November 23, 2019
Non-Local Universe (Kafatos & Nadeau)
Did a magnificent job (though I’m a rookie in the fields) at covering the history of our scientific world views interacting with our spiritual values—something often relatable to metaphysics. Something I go heavily into in my Fusis work. For Example:
"The experimental verification of nonlocality is the most convincing demonstration to date of the unity of the cosmos that Einstein viewed as the “foundation for inner security.� (Nadeau & Kafatos)
Here we have a glimpse of the passion and even spirituality behind the science. They speak on creating science that relates one’s mind to the world rather than strictly to the brain or our spoken truths (they go a lot in Nietzsche and dualism). First they have a great introduction that covers how to choose a science that ties mind and world. This resonates with Systems Biology and their ideas on quantum physics offer the science for interactions between all beings of nature.
After four chapters on quantum physics they go into how the metaphysics of these (quantum) scientific truths can help create a "New Epistemology for Science�. This is one of the most important books of my life and current work. I highly recommend it. Here is another lovely quote:
P. 175 “The philosophical postmodernists were correct in assuming that scientific knowledge exists in human subjective reality and wrong in assuming that this knowledge is not privileged in coordinating our experience with physical reality.� (Nadeau & Kafatos)
Did a magnificent job (though I’m a rookie in the fields) at covering the history of our scientific world views interacting with our spiritual values—something often relatable to metaphysics. Something I go heavily into in my Fusis work. For Example:
"The experimental verification of nonlocality is the most convincing demonstration to date of the unity of the cosmos that Einstein viewed as the “foundation for inner security.� (Nadeau & Kafatos)
Here we have a glimpse of the passion and even spirituality behind the science. They speak on creating science that relates one’s mind to the world rather than strictly to the brain or our spoken truths (they go a lot in Nietzsche and dualism). First they have a great introduction that covers how to choose a science that ties mind and world. This resonates with Systems Biology and their ideas on quantum physics offer the science for interactions between all beings of nature.
After four chapters on quantum physics they go into how the metaphysics of these (quantum) scientific truths can help create a "New Epistemology for Science�. This is one of the most important books of my life and current work. I highly recommend it. Here is another lovely quote:
P. 175 “The philosophical postmodernists were correct in assuming that scientific knowledge exists in human subjective reality and wrong in assuming that this knowledge is not privileged in coordinating our experience with physical reality.� (Nadeau & Kafatos)
June 16, 2012
A very well crafted and self-consistent argument for taking the Copenhagen interpretation and complementarity principle to their logical limits, in order to understand the implications of non-local experiments.
Such as the idea that we can only have knowledge that is limited to working via complementary pairs (part/whole,wave/particle,etc). That science is limited to this, making any talk of an ontological reality beyond complementary pairs "metaphysics".
David Bohm, for example, is presented as making a metaphysical leap in his ontological holism model. After reading a lot of Bohm's work, this book offers a thought-provoking critical point of view.
A main theme of the book is scientific idealism vs realism. Nadeau turns this on its head and makes the assumption of an ontological reality "out there" beyond our limited knowledge look idealistic, metaphysical. Accepting that we can only know complimentary pairs of data from our instruments is more "realistic".
The concepts this book presents regarding the complimentarity of parts and wholes, in biology for instance, are particularly interesting. As well as the concluding model of the two forms of nonlocality - spatial and temporal(the delayed choice experiment) forming a complimentary pair through which we are limited in our knowedge of the "real" nonlocality "out there".
Such as the idea that we can only have knowledge that is limited to working via complementary pairs (part/whole,wave/particle,etc). That science is limited to this, making any talk of an ontological reality beyond complementary pairs "metaphysics".
David Bohm, for example, is presented as making a metaphysical leap in his ontological holism model. After reading a lot of Bohm's work, this book offers a thought-provoking critical point of view.
A main theme of the book is scientific idealism vs realism. Nadeau turns this on its head and makes the assumption of an ontological reality "out there" beyond our limited knowledge look idealistic, metaphysical. Accepting that we can only know complimentary pairs of data from our instruments is more "realistic".
The concepts this book presents regarding the complimentarity of parts and wholes, in biology for instance, are particularly interesting. As well as the concluding model of the two forms of nonlocality - spatial and temporal(the delayed choice experiment) forming a complimentary pair through which we are limited in our knowedge of the "real" nonlocality "out there".
May 27, 2010
Not very well done.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.