Abstract: The scientific method relies on metaphysical assumptions that alone cannot construct a complete worldview. Therefore, the search for ultimate truth requires looking beyond empirical evidence to explore inner understanding.
Keywords: pseudoscience, David Bohm, Niels Bohr, Copenhagen model, guidance field, teleology.
Although we have now moved beyond Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804, Encyc., here), he once delineated the
metaphysical boundaries that must be observed to remain within the scientific paradigm. In contrast, the “New
Age” phenomenon blends foreign metaphysical categories with traditional ones. The late physicist
David Bohm (cf. Pratt, 1993, here) has been associated with this approach. While undoubtedly
brilliant — possessing a clarity of style that even Bohr might have
envied — I argue that he and certain other physicists commit the Hegelian error of projecting
their unconscious onto the external world. This leads to an overestimation of science’s scope and generates
pseudo-scientific mythologies.
Giambattista Vico (1668 – 1744, Encyc., here) mounted a heroic, though ultimately unsuccessful, challenge to
this trend during the Enlightenment’s ascent. He argued that Descartes, Newton, and their contemporaries were
merely “picking the raisins out of the cake” — focusing exclusively on
reality’s quantifiable aspects, which constitute only a minor portion of human experience. Vico sought to
restore myth and culture to their rightful prominence, thereby countering the emerging hegemony of the scientific
paradigm.
The subsequent development of Western thought is rather shocking. Simply because scientists had mastered the
mechanics of inanimate bodies, many intellectuals believed that virtually everything — including
society itself — could be understood through logic and mathematics. This represented a profound
overestimation of Newton’s and Laplace’s achievements. For the first time, humanity could precisely
predict a small portion of reality, and scholars became so intoxicated by this success that they imagined it would
unlock explanations for everything. All subjective notions of the soul could be safely discarded. Thus,
intellectual energy continues to flow in this direction: only the quantifiable merits serious scholarly
attention.
A prime example of scientific overreach is Bohm’s “guidance field,” which resembles the
Aristotelian concept of teleology (Wiki, here). However, teleology lies outside the scientific paradigm. Similarly, cosmic
non-locality violates accepted scientific principles. According to this view, even if physicists conducted
experiments in underground shelters, an external force — whether called “God’s
finger” or a “guidance field” — would still influence particle rotation.
Regardless of how sophisticated the terminology, such non-local forces remain unacceptable to scientists, as they
belong to an archaic paradigm: pantheism. These notions originate from an era when the human unconscious was
projected onto the external world. Science emerged only when we learned to distinguish the mythological from the
empirical.
When studying thinkers like David Bohm, one must make this same distinction — separating their
mythological conceptions from those that align with scientific principles. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake similarly
postulates a universal “morphogenetic field” — essentially a guidance field for
biological phenomena (Encyc., here). Such thinkers appear unaware of the unconscious mind’s influence. Consequently, their
theories become an amalgam of unconscious projections and scientific concepts. Wolfgang Pauli (Encyc., here) once engaged in
a telling exchange with a young physicist (possibly Bohm himself). When the physicist asked, “But surely,
Pauli, you don’t think what I’ve said is completely wrong?” Pauli famously replied, “No, I
think what you said is not even wrong.”
From a scientific standpoint, these mytho-scientific ideas are indeed “not even wrong” because they
cannot be falsified. This likely explains why Niels Bohr (Encyc., here) remained entirely aloof when meeting Bohm. There was
simply nothing to discuss — Bohm’s ideas weren’t even wrong. In fact, Bohm might be
correct. Perhaps an external force does guide every particle. Perhaps an “implicate order” exists in
nature rather than in the human unconscious, as modern psychology suggests. Bohm’s ideas aren’t
necessarily false simply because they transcend the metaphysical limits prescribed by philosophers like Kant.
However, while potentially valuable to religious thinkers, they offer nothing to scientists. Science must, as far
as possible, adhere to the principle of locality and explain phenomena through prior and local conditions.
This does not necessarily mean that science will ever fully explain nature’s workings. Perhaps God is
involved as well. We may ultimately need to acknowledge that a universal spirit governs what remains beyond our
understanding. But before resorting to this final asylum ignorantiae, we must rigorously adhere to the scientific
paradigm.
It is crucial to distinguish science from unconscious projections. Wolfgang Pauli exemplified this distinction.
C. G. Jung (Encyc., here) writes that Pauli was “chock-full of archaic material” when he first entered
Jung’s office. During subsequent analysis, his unconscious produced remarkable revelations, documented in
“Psychology and Alchemy,” Part II (Jung, 1980). Pauli, on the brink of breakdown, had no choice but to
confront the reality of the unconscious. Thus he discovered what Bohm failed to recognize: that another reality
exists beyond the external world. This explains why Pauli spoke of “the reality of the symbol.” When we
remain unaware of inner reality, we inevitably project it outward. Through this realization, Pauli successfully
separated his scientific thinking from unconscious mythological symbols, earning recognition as “the
conscience of physics.”
Similarly, Niels Bohr refused to venture into metaphysics. He remained content with classical metaphysical concepts
from Newtonian physics. By applying the principle of complementarity, we can retain these classical categories. In
this sense, he maintained harmony with Kant. Bohr argued that we must accept two fundamental facts of nature: the
quantum of action and the phenomenon of mind. These present themselves as irrational, irreducible factors that we
must accept as nature’s givens. By refraining from questioning their origins and proceeding to develop our
scientific understanding — while recognizing these contingent factors as incontestable
foundations — we avoid metaphysical pitfalls. This, I believe, was Bohr’s position.
Can we accept the orthodox quantum theory, i.e. the Copenhagen model (cf. Best, here)
without becoming dissatisfied with its limited metaphysics? I believe so, but
only if we follow Pauli’s example and acknowledge the reality of the unconscious. The psychological effect is
that we lose the compulsion to project the unconscious onto the external world. Consequently, the unconscious no
longer manifests as extravagant metaphysical constructions. We can turn inward when seeking ultimate truth. Since
scientific reality ultimately depends on inner categories, science cannot provide fundamental truth. Thus we may
follow Bohr’s path, remaining content with the realization that metaphysical questions may have no rational
answers — they are answered only in the inner world.
© Mats Winther, 2001.
References
Best, B. ‘The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’. (here)
‘Bohr, Niels Henrik David’. Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Encyclopedia.com. (here)
‘De Broglie–Bohm theory’. Wikipedia article. (here)
‘Formative causation’. Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Encyclopedia.com. (here)
‘Jung, Carl Gustav’. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Encyclopedia.com. (here)
Jung, C. G. (1980). Psychology and Alchemy. Bollingen Series. Princeton University Press.
‘Kant, Immanuel’. Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Encyclopedia.com. (here)
‘Not even wrong’. Wikipedia article. (here)
‘Pauli, Wolfgang’. Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Encyclopedia.com. (here)
Pratt, D. (1993). ‘David Bohm and the Implicate Order’. (here)
‘Vico, Giovanni Battista’. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Encyclopedia.com.
(here)
See also:
Winther, M. (2001). ‘The Morphic Deception’. (here)
