What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key
Following the overthrow of the classical world picture by the findings of quantum mechanics, physicists have proposed a broad gamut of alternative world views. This book begins with the major recognition that each of these suffers from a certain ‘residual Cartesianism’ that has been smuggled in unconsciously. It turns out that the moment one discards this hidden and problematic premise, quantum theory begins to ‘make sense’ in a way that it never has before. As the author shows, it is now possible, for the first time, to integrate the findings of quantum physics into a world view that is neither forced nor ad hoc, but conforms to the permanent intuitions of mankind. Surprisingly, this treatise can be read not only by scientists, but also by readers unacquainted with the technical conceptions of physics or the quantum-reality literature.
175 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 1995
48 people are currently reading
476 people want to read
About the author
Wolfgang Smith
31 books109 followersWolfgang Smith is a scholar and researcher in the fields of mathematics and physics, but is also a writer on theology, metaphysics, and religion. Because of his unusual qualifications in both scientific and theological disciplines, he is able to write with great authority on many topics of concern to religious and scientific scholars today. He has published extensively on mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology. However, ever since his youth, Smith has had a deep interest in metaphysics and theology. Early on, he acquired a taste for Plato and the neoplatonists, and traveled in India to gain acquaintance with the Vedantic tradition. Later he devoted himself to the study of theology, and began his career as a Catholic metaphysical author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 11, 2012
I liked his quote of Heisenberg at the beginning regarding Cartesian dualism. Heisenberg, in his
Physics and Philosophy
, not only says that the probability wave concept in quantum mechanics "was a quantitative version of the concept of 'potentia' in Aristotelian philosophy" (p. 41), but he also says that the "concept of the soul for instance in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas was more natural and less forced than the Cartesian concept of 'res cogitans,' even if we are convinced that the laws of physics and chemistry are strictly valid in living organisms." (p. 80).
But is "bifurcation" the same as Cartesian dualism? Cartesian dualism is what Heisenberg was speaking of; it definitely plagues science. But Smith is talking about something else because right after saying Cartesian bifurcation is a bad thing for physics proper and that physicists must abandon it, he goes on making the division again between corporeal and physical objects, a division that is not Cartesian dualism. What is the point of talking about, e.g., corporeal object S versus physical object SI? To me these are merely different formal objects of whatever material object one is studying. Is this the point he is trying to make? That not all substantial forms are mathematical forms? SX is merely a physical object, like "water molecule," and S is a directly-sensible object—i.e., sensible without any mediation of instruments—e.g., water that I drink. Smith never really said what the corresponding corporeal object of "molecule" is, or did he? He did talk about how atoms cannot have color, though. Also, what is his distinction between corporeal and subcorporeal?
What the book was good at was getting me to think more about the methods of physics and especially how they must change so we can devise more explanatory physics theories. His section on yin-yang was interesting, and so was his description of how state-vector collapse works. But he needs to define corporeal versus physical object better.
For me the very first chapters and the last sections were the best; everything in the middle was confusing, and, like another reviewer here said, written in a pleonastic writing style. I think his articles are clearer and more succinct, e.g.:
"From Schrödinger's Cat to Thomistic Ontology," The Thomist 63 (1999): 49-63.
I think what Smith advocates is a return to common sense in science and a return from devising fantastic theories with little experimental justification. He wants us to use our entire intellects, not just the mathematical/mechanistic part, and unite many fields of knowledge with physics. This is a noble endeavor, and I commend him for it. He is picking up where St. Albert the Great left off, but The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis by William A. Wallace, O.P., is, overall, higher caliber.
This is a good review:
"Thomism and the Quantum Enigma" in The Thomist Vol. 61 (1997): 455-468 by William A. Wallace, O.P.
But is "bifurcation" the same as Cartesian dualism? Cartesian dualism is what Heisenberg was speaking of; it definitely plagues science. But Smith is talking about something else because right after saying Cartesian bifurcation is a bad thing for physics proper and that physicists must abandon it, he goes on making the division again between corporeal and physical objects, a division that is not Cartesian dualism. What is the point of talking about, e.g., corporeal object S versus physical object SI? To me these are merely different formal objects of whatever material object one is studying. Is this the point he is trying to make? That not all substantial forms are mathematical forms? SX is merely a physical object, like "water molecule," and S is a directly-sensible object—i.e., sensible without any mediation of instruments—e.g., water that I drink. Smith never really said what the corresponding corporeal object of "molecule" is, or did he? He did talk about how atoms cannot have color, though. Also, what is his distinction between corporeal and subcorporeal?
What the book was good at was getting me to think more about the methods of physics and especially how they must change so we can devise more explanatory physics theories. His section on yin-yang was interesting, and so was his description of how state-vector collapse works. But he needs to define corporeal versus physical object better.
For me the very first chapters and the last sections were the best; everything in the middle was confusing, and, like another reviewer here said, written in a pleonastic writing style. I think his articles are clearer and more succinct, e.g.:
"From Schrödinger's Cat to Thomistic Ontology," The Thomist 63 (1999): 49-63.
I think what Smith advocates is a return to common sense in science and a return from devising fantastic theories with little experimental justification. He wants us to use our entire intellects, not just the mathematical/mechanistic part, and unite many fields of knowledge with physics. This is a noble endeavor, and I commend him for it. He is picking up where St. Albert the Great left off, but The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis by William A. Wallace, O.P., is, overall, higher caliber.
This is a good review:
"Thomism and the Quantum Enigma" in The Thomist Vol. 61 (1997): 455-468 by William A. Wallace, O.P.
March 24, 2017
Probably a lengthier treatment of the solution he proposes might have made the book more interesting, however his presentation of “forma” and the intellectual act as key elements to solve the paradoxical relation between the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics and classical physics could have been more compelling. In my opinion he manages to point out the problem in a very effective way (a critique of the Cartesian conception of reality), but the conclusion didn´t have the weight (or the rhetorical weight) necessary for something persuasive. I do take his idea of form as something that delimits the [apparent] chaotic aspect of the quantum world to be thought-provoking, and I think it´s interesting to propose (or re-propose to be more precise, since it is a greek conception as Smith points out) a pure act of intellect over knowledge to explain how we are conscious of the perceptible world, however none of this ideas are explained in detail. My problem is that he states that the physical world is essentially metaphysical, but the relation is not explained enough for me to understand the relation between physics (the observable reality and experiments) and metaphysical conceptions of matter and what he calls the creative act. So I think this book was provocative but too short for the subject.
May 13, 2020
Movie of Wolfgang Smith The End of Quantum Reality is out now to watch online www.vimeo.com/ondemand/theendofquantu...
Has my recommendation for anyone trying to understand the relations of philosophy to science, and the influence they have on culture.
Has my recommendation for anyone trying to understand the relations of philosophy to science, and the influence they have on culture.
March 9, 2023
The reality of physics has been fixed, the cracks are sealed, it is done by Wolfgang Smith, and he is the last living person who can take such attempts.
Smith is a prodigy, he finished undergraduate from Cornell in 18 years, doing triple major (Physics, Philosophy, and Math). He was a mathematics professor at MIT, UCLA and Oregon State University, doing research in the field of differential geometry and publishing in academic journals such as the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Journal of Mathematics, and others. He retired from academic life in 1992.
Smith is a prodigy, he finished undergraduate from Cornell in 18 years, doing triple major (Physics, Philosophy, and Math). He was a mathematics professor at MIT, UCLA and Oregon State University, doing research in the field of differential geometry and publishing in academic journals such as the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Journal of Mathematics, and others. He retired from academic life in 1992.
May 30, 2022
Wolfgang Smith is one of the greatest modern day scientists.
Topics of this book: subject/object relationship, perception, the ontological difference between perceptive and measurable, Aristotelian metaphysics, vertical and horizontal causation.
I still have not grasped the full implications of this book, but what I've glimpsed from it, it is phenomenal. Our perceptive faculties (intellect in the original sense of the word), allow to intuit the reality around us. This has not been acknowledged since Descartes, and this causes an alienating view of reality. The answer to Quantum Mechanics proves to be the answer to our current meaning crisis.
Topics of this book: subject/object relationship, perception, the ontological difference between perceptive and measurable, Aristotelian metaphysics, vertical and horizontal causation.
I still have not grasped the full implications of this book, but what I've glimpsed from it, it is phenomenal. Our perceptive faculties (intellect in the original sense of the word), allow to intuit the reality around us. This has not been acknowledged since Descartes, and this causes an alienating view of reality. The answer to Quantum Mechanics proves to be the answer to our current meaning crisis.
December 27, 2018
Wolfgang Smith has a phenomenal mind which really shines in this book. It is full of interesting ideas and clear thought, even if the writing is not quite as lucid. Smith delivers a counter to cartesian thought and provides a quite original hylemorphic perspective, showing that quantum mechanics is open to realist interpretations.
March 9, 2019
I bought the book as a curious person about quantum physics (QF). Turned out it´s not really about it. Most of the book is just some abstraction, tho QF is kind of abstract, I wanted a book to learn about that area of physics. Only in the last 30ish pages said more about the physicist discoveries and principles of QF. Quite complicated book to read.
February 29, 2016
Nunca a expressão "não julgues o livro pela capa" foi tão verdadeira.
January 4, 2023
Confirms a lot of my own suspicions and some of my own criticisms of the materialist and "scientistic" paradigm. You will see much use of exposing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, and of hypostatising ones models of reality and confounding them with reality itself. In its place reality is to be seen as fundamentally unitary and constantly recreating itself. The problem with quantum paradox comes because we want to find its causal source within our own model of realty, our own hypostatised space-time framework. Yet, this itself is an emergent aspect of reality.
I appreciate the importance of the intellective act, though I would call this intuition. And I appreciate the way he finds a way through the maze of space time physics without either succumbing to it, or to the idealist/relationalist other extreme, and remains open to the physical reality as it presents itself to us. At the same time exposing the fallacious simplifications of things such as naive empiricism and recognising how theory-laden our observations all are.
I am a bit less convinced with vertical causation and appeals to intelligent design. These seem to be more aspects of his own intellective/intuitional act that he is confounding with the scientific aspect, and trying to have his cake and eat it in a way, and combine scientific reasonings and methodology with intuition in a kind of closed loop that can never realistically be formed.
Nevertheless, this book is a well written, well researched, good counterpoint to much of the needless confusion you will find in mainstream approaches to quantum theory due to their inability to countenance metaphysical lines of reasoning or to have the courage of their convictions to apply their own intuition to the problem. (Bohm, Heisenberg possible exceptions that he does consider in this book)
I appreciate the importance of the intellective act, though I would call this intuition. And I appreciate the way he finds a way through the maze of space time physics without either succumbing to it, or to the idealist/relationalist other extreme, and remains open to the physical reality as it presents itself to us. At the same time exposing the fallacious simplifications of things such as naive empiricism and recognising how theory-laden our observations all are.
I am a bit less convinced with vertical causation and appeals to intelligent design. These seem to be more aspects of his own intellective/intuitional act that he is confounding with the scientific aspect, and trying to have his cake and eat it in a way, and combine scientific reasonings and methodology with intuition in a kind of closed loop that can never realistically be formed.
Nevertheless, this book is a well written, well researched, good counterpoint to much of the needless confusion you will find in mainstream approaches to quantum theory due to their inability to countenance metaphysical lines of reasoning or to have the courage of their convictions to apply their own intuition to the problem. (Bohm, Heisenberg possible exceptions that he does consider in this book)
May 2, 2022
O autor tenta dar uma explicação simples sobre a física quântica e suas implicações filosóficas, infelizmente perdeu credibilidade ao misturar esoterismo com tudo...
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews