Quantum Physics, Idealism, Subjectivism, Realism, Omnipresence and Immanence — the Importance of Definitions
The purpose of this article, as will soon become clear, is to describe the almost nightmarish problems we encounter when trying to discuss philosophical issues. It could therefore be seen as a plea for some clearer, unambiguous definitions.
The title of an article by Paul Austin Murphy caught my eye this week: ‘The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Not Idealist in Nature’. As I’ve been suggesting recently that quantum mechanics is idealist in nature (in this article), I thought that I had better investigate further.
He opens immediately by saying that “there are almost as many varieties of idealism as there are idealists”, mentioning subjective, absolute, and pluralist as examples, which is obviously not intended to exhaust the possibilities. This was news to me, so I was left wondering exactly what kind of idealist I am.
The situation was complicated further when soon afterwards I read an article by Gerald R. Baron, in which he contrasted scientific realism, defined as the belief that “matter exists whether minds perceive them or not”, and idealism, the belief that “matter exists only as constructs of minds or mind”. This left me even more confused, because on that basis I could be considered both an idealist and a scientific realist, even though Baron seems to think that they are mutually exclusive. (It depends, however, on what he means exactly by ‘minds’).
To complicate the matter even further, in relation to quantum physics, Murphy makes a further distinction between idealism and subjectivism, saying that there are clear differences between them, even though he concedes that the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, and that he had a problem disentangling the two. (He is arguing that quantum physics is subjectivist rather than idealist, as stated most clearly in our ensuing correspondence.)
Confused? I certainly was. Then, to make matters even worse, on a different theme, I entered into some correspondence with Sender Spike who had written an article on the nature of God. I have recently expressed my belief in a God both transcendent and immanent. He was not directly responding to me, but rejects this, favouring the idea of omnipresence, which he contrasts with immanence. It was not clear to me the difference between them. If I have understood the terms correctly, then I could be considered a believer in both omnipresence and immanence.
Here are the definitions as found in the Oxford English Dictionary: omnipresent means “(of God) present everywhere at the same time”, while immanent means “(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe”. If God permanently pervades the universe, how could such a being not be present everywhere?
I’m going to spend the rest of the article trying to shed some light on all the above, beginning with the relationship between quantum physics and idealism. These, according to Murphy, are the beliefs of idealists (or at least the type of idealists he is discussing):
- that a body ceases to exist the moment we turn our backs to it
- that everything only exists in the individual mind or in some kind of collective mind
- that there is no object in idealism — we only have a subject or subjects.
I do not agree with any of those statements. The first seems especially strange, and appears to be disproved by some modern technology. For example, if I’m going out but want to watch a certain TV programme, I can set my hard drive to record it. Upon my return, if I find that the programme has indeed been recorded, it is hard to believe that the hard drive disappeared while I was out, suddenly reconstituted itself when I enter the room, and miraculously retrieved and recorded the programme even though it was broadcast in the past. And all this because of something to do with my consciousness!
Despite this, I nevertheless consider myself to be an idealist. The Oxford English Dictionary defines idealism as “any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind”. This is far simpler than the brand of idealism that Murphy is discussing, and arguing against. It would also seem to be consistent with statements made by physicists from the early days of quantum physics, two of the most notable being:
- “The universe is looking less like a great machine, and more like a great thought” (Sir James Jeans)¹.
- “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter” (Max Planck)².
That is all we need to understand by the term idealism, that what we perceive to be matter is in some way dependent on the activity of mind. In that sense quantum physics would seem to be idealist.
The statement by Jeans leads one immediately to ask the question, who or what is thinking the universe into existence? The reasonably obvious answer is God (however you choose to understand that term). This might offer an answer to the hard drive recording problem. Murphy himself suggests the possibility that the object we have turned our backs on might still exist “in the mind of God” or “in some other being’s mind”. If no one else was present while I was out, that excludes the second possibility, apparently leaving only God as the possible candidate for this collapse of the wave function.
I’m not sure how seriously Murphy would take that suggestion. He says that certain passages from Heisenberg and others “have provided grist to the mill for various idealists, mystics, New Agers and whatnot”. I think I detect a somewhat pejorative tone there, so I assume that he has a distaste for such views. He may, however, have provided the answer to the issue he is discussing. After all, an immanent God, according to the dictionary, is present everywhere and permanently pervades the universe. That would be the entity which guarantees the continuity of matter whether or not we are looking at it.
This would shed light on the issue that Gerald R. Baron was discussing. He defines scientific realism as the belief that “matter exists whether minds perceive them or not”, and idealism as the belief that “matter exists only as constructs of minds or mind”. According to my understanding of idealism, both are true. Matter does continue to exist independently of the minds of observers, but does require the mind of God to think it into existence. It is therefore a construct of mind.
I’ll turn now to Sender Spike’s issue of omnipresence and immanence. Because I could not immediately understand the distinction he was making, I asked him to elaborate. This was his reply:
“I understand immanence as ‘present as a natural and permanent part of something’ (which is the Cambridge English dictionary definition). That naturally means that something which is immanent cannot be omnipresent (it is immanent within something else where it is not). That would already require two ‘substances’ plus space. If immanence (and implied duality) meant just ‘the other side of a coin’, the whole concept of immanence is moot (or illusory) because we are talking about the coin in its entirety”.
Whatever point he is making is very subtle, because it’s not immediately obvious to me what the difference is between something which is present as a natural and permanent part of the universe, and something which permanently pervades and sustains the universe. Or, if there is a difference, does it really matter? It clearly matters to Sender Spike, so I’ll try to get to the bottom of what he is saying here. If I understand him correctly, his complaint is that immanence implies something external to the material universe which permeates it. His understanding would therefore be something closer to Pantheism, if understood as “a doctrine which identifies God with the universe” (Oxford English Dictionary), therefore suggesting omnipresence. Interestingly, the same dictionary offers an alternative definition of Pantheism, a doctrine which “regards the universe as a manifestation of God”, which is what I understand by the term ‘immanence’. (The Wikipedia entry on immanence says that it “holds that the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world”.) According to that interpretation, there would therefore be no difference between Pantheism and belief in immanence, in which case Sender Spike and I would be in agreement, when according to him we are clearly not.
So what can we deduce from all the above? As I said at the beginning, discussing metaphysical issues can be something of a nightmare, since there are some serious problems with the language used. Can we not agree upon a much clearer set of definitions?
===========================================================
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, psychology, science, Christianity, politics and astrology. All these articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here).
===========================================================
Footnotes:
1. The Mysterious Universe, Cambridge University Press, originally 1930, quote from 1947 edition, p137
2. lecture given in Florence, 1944
