Ex-peira: The Scientific Experiment and the Spiritual Experience as Ways of Tryout

1. Entity type Lemma
2. Original titleEx-peira: The Scientific Experiment and the Spiritual Experience as Ways of Tryout
3. Language term English
4. lemma author Tampakis, Kostas
5. lemma category Modern physics :QM - History and philosophy of science
6. Publication date 2015
7. lemma work Chiţoiu, Dan Mihai [Author]. Ex-peira: The Scientific Experiment and the Spiritual Experience as Ways of Tryout
8. lemma manifestations The Scientific Annals of “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi (New Series). PHILOSOPHY
9. Keywords Saint Symeon the New Theologian - Experience - Experiment - Reality
10. Url Click Here
11. Lemma body

    1. The paper emerged under the aegis of the Knowledge Based Society Project, alongside the 2012 “To aim reality” and 2013 "The Spiritual Experience as Scientific Experiment“ papers. It is very close thematically to the later paper. It aims to discuss the similarities between the mystic's experience and the experiment of the scientist. The mystic experience is close to proper scientific experiments, as both are ways of tryout aiming to come closer to a deeper understanding of Reality. The paper starts by discussing the nuances necessary for a proper discussion of science and religion, such as identifying the aspects of science which are not ideologically laden. It then proposes that spirituality, understood properly, is based on experience. Thus, it is very close to a proper scientific experiment, which is also based on scientific experiment. The paper then moves to discussing the thought of the Byzantine author and mystic Saint Symeon the New Theologian, as a way to overcome the linguistic constraints imposed by period and cultural context. The author discusses how the Byzantine horizon, as he calls it, imposed a specific way of talking about spiritual experiences, which has led to a misrepresentation of Saint Symeon. He shows that the key element of providing veracity in spiritual experiences for the Byzantines was tradition. However, the invocation of tradition also led to formalism and to a specific way of talking about spiritual experiences. Saint Symeon thus has a special difficulty of expressing himself within the canonical discourse of his time. The author proposes that what characterizes St. Symeon is his extraordinary experience with a reality which was for him personal and which called into question the uniformity of his era. The author then underscores how to a certain degree, Physics faced a similar situation at the beginning of the 20th century. He discusses the differences and tensions between the classical explanatory model of Physics and the one proposed by Quantum mechanics. He also claimed that there were two different formulations of Quantum mechanics, the Wave and Matrix Mechanics. The paper puts forward that the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics that was eventually instituted was not demonstrably superior to others, but rather it was subjectively epistomologically adequate. Thus, early 20th century Physics registered a peculiar situation of “exposure” at a level of reality, showing a crisis in explanation. The imposition of a certain formal language was a gain when it came to researchers communicating but at the same time a loss, because the investigated reality is more complex than a formalization or an epistemological model. Thus, the risk exists that an explanatory model will limit the way research can investigate reality. This is what the author calls decoherence. The paper ends by reiterating that the mystic experience is closer to what is proper to the scientific experiment, as both are ways of coming closer to what is the deeper understanding of what we call reality.