The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism

Product Information

I listened again to DeLuca’s lecture to see what I remembered, and to write this in my review as it say, this is why I love quantum physics, even though I don’t understand it. Woit, Peter (2006). Not Even Wrong – the Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-09275-6. Starting with reasonable descriptions of quantum physics, he constructs elaborate extensions, totally bereft of the understanding of how carefully experiment and theory are woven together and how much blood, sweat, and tears go into each painful advance.

In a 2019 commemoration in honour of physicist Geoffrey Chew, one of bootstrap's "fathers", Capra replied to criticisms such as Woit's:DeLuca, like Capra, spent a somee time on comparing quantum physics with the Upanishads, but Capra also compared it to what Buddha had said about the nature of reality. While I could see what they both were talking about, I was not so sure that it could be applied in such a way because what the Buddha and the Upanishads had said were too vague to me. The Tao of Physicsbrought the mystical implications of subatomic physics to popular consciousness for the very first time. Many books have been written in the ensuing years about the connections between quantum theory and the ideas of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, butFritjofCapra’s text serves as the foundation on which the others have been built—and its wisdom has stood the test of time. Its publication in more than twenty-three languages stands as testimony to its universal applicability and its enduring significance. Don't look to Capra for a highly disciplined discourse on particle physics or the nature of cosmology. Nor is this book a deep exploration of Taoism or other Eastern Religious Philosophy. Rather, it is a fascinating mental adventure showing the ways the two schools of thought often developed in parallel and came to similar conclusions from very different beginning points. The author's own words in the epilogue sum it up nicely. "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science, but man needs both."

A special edition of the “brilliant” best-selling classic on the paradoxes of modern physics and their relationship to concepts of Eastern mysticism ( New York Magazine) So what did I get out of reading Capra? Not much. He had some chapters on Hinduism and Buddhism that I understood since I had been in both religions. I saw where he was coming from in regards to his comparisons. But then Capra brought up a vague notion of karma, and I, personally, do not believe in karma. Perhaps the way he sees karma is not the way that it was taught to me by these religions, which end up sounding much like Christianity in that if you do what is wrong you will end up in some hell, and yes, Buddhism and Hinduism both have hells. I think the idea of karma developed over time, as it was not mentioned in the early Vedas that I am aware of, as I had looked, and when it finally was, it was vague. Then one day, a new Upanishad is written and, well, th Peter Woit (2006). Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law. Basic Books. pp.141–145. ISBN 978-0-465-09275-8. Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University, criticized Capra for continuing to build his case for physics-mysticism parallels on the bootstrap model of strong-force interactions set out at the end of the book, [6] long after the Standard Model had become thoroughly accepted by physicists as a better model: [11] I also really liked what Schodinger said about Consciousness: “There is no framework where we find consciousness in the plural.” And this, to me, says what the Upanishads have said about the nature of reality, “All is one,” and this is what some who have meditated have experienced—Bohr adopted the yin yang symbol as part of his coat of arms when he was knighted in 1947, [2] it is claimed in the book that it was a result of orientalist influences.

Replace the idea of knowledge as buildings based on foundations with an idea of knowledge as networks. I have had this book in my possession off and on over the years, ever since I worked for the author, Fritjof Capra, when I lived in Berkeley in the late 70s. I only knew then that he was a physicist, not realizing that there was such a thing as quantum physics, which I was not introduced to until 2000.A striking feature of many of Capra's central arguments is the profound gulf between his premises and his conclusions, which would be simply laughable if it were not for the fact that so many people stand to be badly led astray. For instance, Capra leaps from Einstein's famous equation E=mc