Quote:
Originally Posted by OC68  Thanks Alex. Great interview and very informative. I found it interesting how physicists are the most open to research into these issues while psychologists are the least open. I wonder why that is. |
The latest edition of Rupert's book, "A New Science of Life" contains a discussion between him and the late David Bohm.
I think it stands to reason, really. Psychologists and even biologists and neurophysiologists just take standard physics for granted. Never in their training (at least I imagine!) were they asked to consider the possibility that the bedrock of science might not be complete. I did chemistry, and the same was true - you took the basic physics for granted - much like maths. On the other hand, theoretical physicists must think that way a lot.
Erwin Schroedinger speculated about the nature of life (and not just in relation to his cat scenario), and the physicist Roger Penrose is interested in the ultimate nature of consciousness.
David