My View of the World

I had come across a bit of Schroedinger's philosophy while reading The Masks of God by Joseph Campbell. I found the paragraph to be very spiritual and very beautiful. At the time, it was a surprise to me to find that the author of the piece was one of fathers of modern quantum theory. It took me a couple years, but I finally found it; and I was very impressed. While those who mainly want to know about wave mechanics may not be interested in a work of philosophy, I find the works very mystic and spiritual. In all, this is a very good book for those who like philosophy, and/or are interested in the philosophy of one who was in forefront of what is known about reality today.

This is an amazing book; beautiful and well written. Schrodinger wrote these essays at a time when one could espouse a world-view other than strict reductionist materialism without being attacked by practitioners of the religion of "scientism".While he was himself a materialist, Schrodinger saw into areas of biology and genetics which opened new doors into the thinking of his day and which are still amazing scientist and laymen alike.

The foolish statements of great scientists too. As someone who admires Schrodinger a great deal (his What is Life? is one of the great science books, in my view), enjoys reading philosophy a great deal, this book, like much philosophy and religion, is just nonsense. It's interesting, he's clear and often compelling. But, it's not particularly logical, despite the trappings of logic, and mostly, poppycock. The idea that there is one great mind or consciousness - whatever you want to call it - must be proved to have any credibility, b/c as he readily admits, it sure seems like we each have our own one. All he proves is that there are a lot of things that we don't know and that eventually, all science and reason must rely to some degree on metaphysics and the like. Well, that's not groundbreaking. Not that he pretended to have invented any philosophy. He was just explaining what others had said. Though it's called "his view," it's mostly based on Vedic philosophy and some more modern philosophers, like Schopenhauer and Kant.As much fun as mysticism and this kind of metaphysical, speculative thinking is, they lead nowhere. Science, even if it is based on metaphysics too and faith in reason, at least gets you somewhere with it. And Schrodinger was exceptionally good at it. While imagination is part of science, left to itself, it's just entertainment. And that's all this is, speculative feeling, awe and wonder, and ultimately . . . blather.Great mind, good writer. But, I'd skip this one.

The book is very interesting. In my understanding Schrodinger talks about ideas that are now called "non duality". The book does not read easily.

One of the most enlightening books I have ever read.

If you're hoping for a tie-in between philosophy and quantum physics, look elsewhere. The author explicitly excludes that from his discussion right in the introduction.It is not always very well written. Especially the second half is a bit rambling and disjoint. Nevertheless, Shrodinger's philosophy is interesting. A westerner's take on monism such as that found in Advaita Vedanta.

I am sorry to say that I find the contents quite a rambling of thoughts and writings penned with little or skimmed knowledge of topics. For example, when the author talks about experiencing a tree (page 14-16) and writes "But what if I am standing in front of that tree, not alone but with some of my fellow human beings, ... we all perceive the tree in the same way?" ..and continues with this impression of common perception. This is only possible if everyone has all the senses in order (sight, touch, hearing etc). If one of these fellow beings is blind or does not have the sense of smell, etc, everyone will NOT be perceiving the tree the same way.Second topic - "vedantic vision" - the example the author sites "many faceted crystal" is not a common example in vedanta, and I am not even sure where the author got this example from. The most common one is that of a pot made of clay; the clay continuing to exist after the destruction of the pot and being used to make another pot or plate, etc.At the end of this section he writes "when, without hope or future reward, he gives to relieve a stranger's suffering what he cannot spare without suffering himself" (page 22). How does the author know that the person who gives has to suffer? he has not ventured into the mind of the giver to make this statement. If he had, then he would not be making this statement. Suffering is personal, for example if a mother forgoes her food to feed her child, does she suffer? or does she feel happy, content, satiated?. The mother sees/views this differently than an onlooker.Third topic - On page 8, the author writes on Buddhism "(This negative attitude has ... a thing is neither A nor not-A, but yet it is not a 'neither A nor not-A')...". The author is always viewing things as objects!. That which cannot be described directly, it can only (if at all be described) by indicating what it is via negation. The subject (here in the sense of subject/object not subject physics) cannot describe the subject without objectifying the subject. The author has not studied or has no idea of even attempting to understand Buddhism. What he writes are just his opinions and like the title indicates -- his view of the world -- which in my opinion is rather flawed due to the lack of in depth knowledge in what he writes. He is a materialist no doubt.When one has not studied something in depth, it is best to leave it to the masters and experts and say that "I do not know, because I have not spent time on it". I am sure that Buddhist and other religious scholars when asked about Schrodinger's physics would be humble enough to say "I do not know" and not try to write about it based on cursory knowledge of the topic/subject.One last note, I do not know if this is what Schrodinger meant to say, because I am reading a translation and not his original. I say this only because I have read translations of books (the original and the translations) and they have all rarely convey with correctness what is being said in the original. More often than not, the translator's opinion or understandings creeps into the translation.With all due respect, Schrodinger was a great physicist!!