The Tao of Physics brought 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, but Fritjof Capra’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." At the heart of the matter is Mr. Capra's methodology – his use of what seem to me to be accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply rooted connections. Thus I agree with Capra when he writes, "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science but man needs both." What no one needs, in my opinion, is this superficial and profoundly misleading book.

In a 2019 commemoration in honour of physicist Geoffrey Chew, one of bootstrap's "fathers", Capra replied to criticisms such as Woit's: I joined the Vedanta Society in early 2000s, and a man named Dave DeLuca came to the temple in San Diego and gave a lecture on The Four Yugas. He had a section in it where he talked about Quantum Physics. Much like Capra’s book, he used the teachings of Quantum theory as a way to compare it with Hinduism. I liked his lecture so much that obtained his lecture and still have it. It wasn’t the comparison to Hinduism that I liked, but the way physicists saw the nature of reality. (I didn’t last in Vedanta, but that is another story.) 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.

Become a Member

Eric R. Scerri (1989). "Eastern Mysticism and the Alleged Parallels with Physics". American Journal of Physics. 57 (8): 687–692. Bibcode: 1989AmJPh..57..687S. doi: 10.1119/1.15921. S2CID 121572969. Replace ‘objective science’ with ‘epistemic science’, where the approach to decide what counts as knowledge adapts to the subject studied. 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—

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. 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, thLeon M. Lederman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and current Director Emeritus of Fermilab, criticized both The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters in his 1993 book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? [9] Fritjof was a really interesting person, that is, what I knew about him, which wasn’t much since I was only his housekeeper. Cleaning homes was how I got through college. Victor N. Mansfield, a professor of physics and astronomy at Colgate University who wrote many papers and books of his own connecting physics to Buddhism and also to Jungian psychology, [4] complimented The Tao of Physics in Physics Today: [5] [6] However, it is not without its critics. Jeremy Bernstein, a professor of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology, [7] chastised The Tao of Physics: [8]