So far, our exploration of the world view suggested by modern physics has repeatedly shown that the idea of ‘basic building blocks’ of matter is no longer tenable. In the past, this concept was extremely successful in explaining the physical world in terms of a few atoms; the structures of the atoms in terms of a few nuclei surrounded by electrons; and finally, the structures of the nuclei in terms of two nuclear ‘building blocks’, the proton and the neutron. Thus atoms, nuclei and hadrons were, in turn, considered to be ‘elementary particles’. None of them, however, fulfilled that expectation. Each time, these particles turned out to be composite structures themselves, and physicists hoped that the next generation of constituents would finally reveal themselves as the ultimate components of matter. On the other hand, the theories of atomic and subatomic physics made the existence of elementary particles increasingly unlikely. They revealed a basic interconnection of matter, showing that energy of motion can be transformed into mass, and suggesting that particles are processes rather than objects. All these developments strongly indicated that the simple mechanistic picture of basic building blocks had to be aban- doned, and yet many physicists are still reluctant to do so. The age-old tradition of explaining complex structures by breaking them down into simpler constituents is so deeply ingrained in Western thought that the search for these basic components is still going on. There is, however, a radically different school of thought in particle physics which starts from the idea that nature cannot be reduced to fundamental entities, such as elementary particles or fundamental fields. It has to be understood entirely through

its self-consistency, with its components being consistent both with one another and with themselves. This idea has arisen in the context of S-matrix theory and is known as the ‘bootstrap’ hypothesis. Its originator and main advocate is Geoffrey Chew who, on the one hand, has developed the idea into a general ‘bootstrap’ philosophy of nature and, on the other, has used it (in collaboration with other physicists) to construct specific models of particles formulated in S-matrix language. Chew has described the bootstrap hypothesis in several articles’ which provide the basis for the following presentation. The bootstrap philosophy constitutes the final rejection of the mechanistic world view in modern physics. Newton’s universe was constructed from a set of basic entities with certain fundamental properties, which had been created by God and thus were not amenable to further analysis. In one way or another, this notion was implicit in all theories of natural science until the bootstrap hypothesis stated explicitly that the world cannot be understood as an assemblage of entities which cannot be analysed further. In the new world view, the universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web is funda- mental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations determines the structure of the entire web. Thus, the bootstrap philosophy represents the culmination of a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship, acquired its dynamic content in relativity theory, and was formulated in terms of reaction probabilities in S-matrix theory. At the same time, this view of nature came ever closer to the Eastern world view and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter. The bootstrap hypothesis not only denies the existence of fundamental constituents of matter, but accepts no funda- mental entities whatsoever-no fundamental laws, equations or principles-and thus abandons another idea which has been an essential part of natural science for hundreds of years. The notion of fundamental laws of nature was derived from the belief in a divine lawgiver which was deeply rooted in the

Judaeo-Christian tradition. In the words of Thomas Aquinas: There is a certain Eternal Law, to wit, Reason, existing in the mind of Cod and governing the whole universe.* This notion of an eternal, divine law of nature greatly influenced Western philosophy and science. Descartes wrote about the ‘laws which Cod has put into nature’, and Newton believed that the highest aim of his scientific work was to give evidence of the ‘laws impressed upon nature by Cod’. To discover the ultimate fundamental laws of nature remained the aim of natural scientistsfor the three centuries following Newton. In modern physics, a very different attitude has now developed. Physicists have come to see that all their theories of natural phenomena, including the ‘laws’ they describe, are creations of the human mind; properties of our conceptual map of reality, rather than of reality itself. This conceptual scheme is necessarily limited and approximate,* as are all the scientific theories and ‘laws of nature’ it contains. All natural phenomena are ultimately interconnected, and in order to explain any one of them we need to understand all the others, which is obviously impossible. What makes science so successful is the discovery that approximations are possible. If one is satisfied with an approximate ‘understanding’ of nature, one can describe selected groups of phenomena in this way, neglecting other phenomena which are less relevant. Thus one can explain many phenomena in terms of a few, and consequently under- stand different aspects of nature in an approximate way without having to understand everything at once. This is the scientific method; all scientific theories and models are approximations to the true nature of things, but the error involved in the approximation is often small enough to make such an approach meaningful. In particle physics, for example, the gravitational interaction forces between particles are usually ignored, as they are many orders of magnitude weaker than those of the other interactions. Although the error caused by this omission is exceedingly small, it is clear that the gravitational interactions will have to be included in future, more accurate theories of particles. Thus physicists construct a sequence of partial and approxi-

mate theories, each of them being more accurate than the previous one, but none of them representing a complete and final account of natural phenomena. Like these theories, all the ‘laws of nature’ they describe are mutable, destined to be replaced by more accurate laws when the theories are improved. The incomplete character of a theory is usually reflected in its arbitrary parameters or ‘fundamental constants’, that is, in quantities whose numerical values are not explained by the theory, but have to be inserted into it after they have been determined empirically. Quantum theory cannot explain the value used for the mass of the electron, nor field theory the magnitude of the electron’s charge, or relativity theory that of the speed of light. In the classical view, these quantities were regarded as fundamental constants of nature which did not require any further explanation. In the modern view, their role of ‘fundamental constants’ is seen as temporary and reflecting the limitations of the present theories. According to the boot- strap philosophy, they should be explained, one by one, in future theories as the accuracy and scope of these theories increase. Thus the ideal situation should be approached, but may never be reached, where the theory does not contain any unexplained ‘fundamental’ constants, and. where all its ‘laws’ follow from the requirement of overall self-consistency. It is important to realize, however, that even such an ideal theory must possess some unexplained features, although not necessarily in the form of numerical constants. As long as it is a scientific theory, it will require the acceptance, without explanation, of certain concepts which form the scientific language. To push the bootstrap idea further would lead beyond science: In the broad sense, the bootstrap idea, although fascinating and useful, is unscientific . . . Science, as we know it, requires a language based on some unquestioned framework. Semantically, therefore, an attempt to explain all concepts can hardly be called ‘scientific’.3 It is evident that the complete ‘bootstrap’ view of nature, in which all phenomena in the universe are uniquely determined by mutual self-consistency, comes very close to the Eastern

world view. An indivisible universe, in which all things and events are interrelated, would hardly make sense unless it were self-consistent. In a way, the requirement of self-con- sistency, which forms the basis of the bootstrap hypothesis, and the unity and interrelation of all phenomena, which are so strongly emphasized in Eastern mysticism, are just different aspects of the same idea. This close connection is most clearly expressed in Taoism. For the Taoist sages, all phenomena in the world were part of the cosmic Way-the Tao-and the laws followed by the Tao were not laid down by any divine lawgiver, but were inherent in its nature. Thus we read in the Tao Te Ching : Man follows the laws of earth; Earth follows the laws of heaven; Heaven follows the laws of Tao; Tao follows the laws of its intrinsic nature.4 Joseph Needham, in his thorough study of Chinese science and civilization, discusses at great length how the Western concept of fundamental laws of nature, with its original im- plication of a divine lawgiver, has no counterpart in Chinese thought. ‘In the Chinese world view’, Needham writes, ‘the harmonious cooperation of all beings arose, not from the orders of a superior authority external to themselves, but from the fact that they were all parts in a hierarchy of wholes forming a cosmic pattern, and what they obeyed were the internal dictates of their own natures.‘5 According to Needham, the Chinese did not even have a word corresponding to the classical Western idea of a ‘law of nature’. The term which comes closest to it is Ii, which the Neo- Confucian philosopher Chu Hsi* describes as ‘the innumerable vein-like patterns included in the Tao’.6 Needham translates lias’principleoforganisation’andgivesthefollowingcomments: In its most ancient meaning, it signified the pattern in things, the markings of jade or fibres in muscle . . . It acquired the common dictionary meaning ‘principle’, but always conserved the undertone of ‘pattern’ . . . There

is ‘law’ implicit in it, but this law is the law to which parts of wholes have to conform by virtue of their very existence as parts of wholes . . . The most important thing about parts is that they have to fit precisely into place with the other parts in the whole organism which they compose.7 It is easy to see how such a view led the Chinese thinkers to the idea which has only recently been developed in modern physics, that self-consistency is the essence of all laws of nature. The following passage by Ch’en Shun, an immediate pupil of Chu Hsi who lived around A.D. 1200, gives a very clear account of this idea in words which could be taken as a perfect explanation of the notion of self-consistency in the bootstrap philosophy: Li is a natural and unescapable law of affairs and things . . . The meaning of ‘natural and unescapable’ is that (human) affairs and (natural) things are made just exactly to fit into place. The meaning of ‘law’ is that the fitting into place occurs without the slightest excess or deficiency . . . The men of old, investigating things to the utmost, and searching out Ii, wanted to elucidate the natural unescapableness of (human) affairs and (natural) things, and this simply means that what they were looking for was all the exact places where things precisely fit together. Just that.8 In the Eastern view then, as in the view of modern physics, everything in the universe is connected to everything else and no part of it is fundamental. The properties of any part are determined, not by some fundamental law, but by the properties of all the other parts. Both physicists and mystics realize the resulting impossibility of fully explaining any phenomenon, but then they take different attitudes. Physicists, as discussed before, are satisfied with an approximate understanding of nature. The Eastern mystics, on the other hand, are not interested in approximate, or ‘relative’ knowledge. They are concerned with ‘absolute’ knowledge involving an understanding of the totality of Life. Being well aware of the essential interrelationship of the universe, they realize that to explain something means, ulti- mately, to show how it is connected to everything else. As this is impossible, the Eastern mystics insist that no single pheno- menon can be explained. Thus Ashvaghosha:

All things in their fundamental nature are not namable or explicable. They cannot be adequately expresssed in any form of language.g The Eastern sages, therefore, are generally not interested in explaining things, but rather in obtaining a direct non-intellectual experience of the unity of all things. This was the attitude of the Buddha who answered all questions about life’s meaning, the origin of the world, or the nature of nirvana, with a ‘noble silence’. The nonsensical answers of Zen masters, when asked to explain something, seem to have the same purpose; to make the student realize that everything is a consequence of all the rest; that ‘explaining’ nature just means to show its unity; that, ultimately, there is nothing to explain. When a monk asked Tozan, who was weighing some flax, What is Buddha? Tozan said, This flax weighs three pounds’;lO and when Joshu was asked why Bodhidharma came to China, he replied, ‘An oak tree in the garden.‘” To free the human mind from words and explanations is one of the main aims of Eastern mysticism. Both Buddhists and Taoists speak of a ‘network of words’, or a ‘net of concepts’, thus extending the idea of the interconnected web to the realm of the intellect. As long as we try to explain things, we are bound by karma: trapped in our conceptual network. To transcend words and explanations means to break the bonds of karma and attain liberation.

The world view of the Eastern mystics shares with the bootstrap philosophy of modern physics not only an emphasis on the mutual interrelation and self-consistency of all phenomena, but also the denial of fundamental constituents of matter. In a universe which is an inseparable whole and where all forms are fluid and ever-changing, there is no room for any fixed fundamental entity. The notion of ‘basic building blocks’ of matter is therefore generally not encountered in Eastern thought. Atomic theories of matter have never been developed in Chinese thought, and although they have arisen in some schools of Indian philosophy, they are rather peripheral to Indian mysticism. In Hinduism, the notion of atoms is prominent in the Jaina system (which is regarded as unorthodox since it does not accept the authority of the Vedas). In Buddhist philo-

sophy, atomic theories have arisen in two schools of Hinayana Buddhism, but are treated as illusory products of avidya by the more important Mahayana branch. Thus Ashvaghosha states: When we divide some gross (or composite) matter, we can reduce it to atoms. But as the atom will also be subject to further division, all forms of material existence, whether gross or fine, are nothing but the shadow of particularisation and we cannot ascribe any degree of (absolute or inde- pendent) reality to them.‘* The principal schools of Eastern mysticism thus agree with the view of the bootstrap philosophy that the universe is an interconnected whole in which no part is any more fundamental than the other, so that the properties of any one part are determined by those of all the others. In that sense, one might say that every part ‘contains’ all the others and, indeed, a vision of mutual embodiment seems to be characteristic of the mystical experience of nature. In the words of Sri Aurobindo, Nothing to the supramental sense is really finite; it is founded on a feeling of all in each and of each in all.‘3 This notion of ‘all in each and each in all’ has found its most extensive elaboration in the Avatamsaka school of Mahayana Buddhism* which is often considered to be the final culmination of Buddhist thought. It is based on the Avatamsaka Sutra, traditionally believed to have been delivered by the Buddha while he was in deep meditation after his Awakening. This voluminous sutra, which has so far not been translated into any Western language, describes in great detail how the world is perceived in the enlightened state of consciousness, when ‘the solid outlines of individuality melt away and the feeling of finiteness no longer oppresses us.‘14 In its last part, called the Candavyuha, it tells the story of a young pilgrim, Sudhana, and gives the most vivid account of his mystical experience of the universe, which appears to him as a perfect network of mutual relations, where all things and events interact with each other in such a way that each of them contains, in itself,

all the others. The following passage from the sum, paraphrased by D. T. Suzuki, uses the image of a magnificently decorated tower to convey Sudhana’s experience: The Tower is as wide and spacious as the sky itself. The ground is paved with (innumerable) precious stones of all kinds, and there are within theTower Iinnumerable) palaces, porches, windows, staircases, railings, and passages, all of which are made of the seven kinds of precious gems . . . And within this Tower, spacious and exquisitely orna- mented, there are also hundreds of thousands . . . of towers, each one of which is as exquisitely ornamented as the main Tower itself and as spacious as the sky. And all these towers, beyond calculation in number, stand not at all in one another’s way; each preserves its individual existence in perfect harmony with all the rest; there is nothing here that bars one tower being fused with all the others in- dividually and collectively; there is a state of perfect intermingling and yet of perfect orderliness. Sudhana, the young pilgrim, sees himself in all the towers as well as in each single tower, where all is contained in one and each contains all.15 The Tower in this passage is, of course, a metaphor for the universe itself, and the perfect mutual interfusion of its parts is known in Mahayana Buddhism as ‘interpenetration’. The Avatamsaka makes it clear that this interpenetration is an essentially dynamic interrelation which takes place not only spatially but also temporally. As mentioned previously,* space and time are also seen as interpenetrating. The experience of interpenetration in the state of enlighten- ment can be seen as a mystical vision of the complete ‘boot- strap’ situation, where all phenomena in the universe are harmoniously interrelated. In such a state of consciousness, the realm of the intellect is transcended and causal explanations become unnecessary, being replaced by the direct experience of the mutual interdependence of all things and events. The Buddhist concept of interpenetration thus goes far beyond any

scientific bootstrap theory. Nevertheless, there are models of subatomic particles in modern physics, based on the bootstrap hypothesis, which show the most striking parallels to the views of Mahayana Buddhism. When the bootstrap idea is formulated in a scientific context, it has to be limited and approximate, and its main approximation consists in neglecting all but the strong interactions. Since these interaction forces are about a hundred times stronger than the electromagnetic ones, and many more orders of magnitude stronger than weak and gravitational interactions, such an approximation seems reasonable. The scientific bootstrap, then, deals exclusively with strongly interacting particles, or hadrons, and is therefore often called the ‘hadron bootstrap’. It is formulated in the framework of S-matrix theory and its aim is to derive all properties of hadrons and their interactions uniquely from the requirement of self-consistency. The only ‘fundamental laws’ accepted are the general S-matrix principles discussed in the previous chapter, which are required by our methods of observation and measurement and thus constitute the unquestioned framework necessary for all science. Other properties of the S matrix may have to be postulated temporarily as ‘fundamental principles’, but will be expected to emerge as a necessary consequence of self-consistency in the complete theory. The postulate that all hadrons form sequences described by the Regge formalism* may he of that kind. In the language of S-matrix theory, then, the bootstrap hypothesis suggests that the full S matrix, and thus all the properties of hadrons, can be determined uniquely from the general principles because there is only one possible S matrix consistent with all three of them. This conjecture receives support from the fact that physicists have never come close to constructing a mathematical model which satisfies the three general principles. If the only consistent S matrix is the one describing a// properties and interactions of hadrons, as the bootstrap hypothesis assumes, the physicists’ failure to construct a-consistent partial S matrix becomes understandable. The phenomena involving hadrons are so complex that it is

by no means certain whether the complete self-consistent S matrix will ever be constructed, but one can envisage a series of partially successful models of smaller scope. Each of them would be intended to cover only a part of hadron physics and would therefore contain some unexplained parameters repre- senting its limitations, but the parameters of one model may be explained by another. Thus more and more hadron pheno- mena may gradually be covered with ever-increasing accuracy by a mosaic of interlocking models whose net number of unexplained parameters will keep decreasing. The adjective ‘bootstrap’ is thus never appropriate for any individual model, but can only be applied to a combination of mutually consistent models, none of which is any more fundamental than the others. As Chew has put it, ‘A physicist who is able to view any number of different partially successful models without favoritism is automatically a bootstrapper.’ A number of partial models of that kind already exist, formulated in S-matrix language and describing certain aspects of hadron phenomena. The most successful of them are the so-called ‘dual models’ which make extensive use of the dual description of hadron reactions in terms of direct and cross channels.* These models incorporate, for the first time, two of the three general principles** plus the crossing property of the S matrix and the Regge formalism. They constitute so far the most promising attempts at carrying out the bootstrap programme. The picture of hadrons which emerges from these bootstrap models is often summed up in the provocative phrase, ‘every particle consists of all other particles’. It must not be imagined, however, that each hadron contains all the others in a classical, static sense. Rather than ‘containing’ one another, hadrons ‘involve’ one another in the dynamic and probabilistic sense of S-matrix theory, each hadron being a potential ‘bound state’ of all sets of particles which may interact with one another to form the hadron under consideration.*** In that sense, all hadrons are composite structures whose components are

again hadrons, and none of them is any more elementary than the others. The binding forces holding the structures together manifest themselves through the exchange of particles, and these exchanged particles are again hadrons. Each hadron, therefore, plays three roles: it is a composite structure, it may be a constituent of another hadron, and it may be exchanged between constituents and thus constitute part of the forces holding a structure together. The concept of ‘crossing’ is crucial for this picture. Each hadron is held together by forces associated with the exchange of other hadrons in the cross channel, each of which is, in turn, held together by forces to which the first hadron makes a contribution. Thus, ‘each particle helps to generate other particles, which in turn generate it.“’ The whole set of hadrons generates itself in this way or pulls itself up, so to say, by its ‘bootstraps’. The idea, then, is that this extremely complex bootstrap mechanism is self-determining, that is, that there is only one way in which it can be achieved. In other words, there is only one possible self-consistent set of hadrons- the one found in nature. In the hadron bootstrap, all particles are dynamically composed of one another in a self-consistent way, and in that sense can be said to ‘contain’ one another. In Mahayana Buddhism, a very similar notion is applied to the whole universe. This cosmic network of interpenetrating things and events is illustrated in the Avatamsaka Sutra by the metaphor of Indra’s net, a vast network of precious gems hanging over the palace of the god Indra. In the words of Sir Charles Eliot: In the heaven of Indra, there is said to be a network of pearls, so arranged that if you look at one you see all the others reflected in it. In the same way each object in the world is not merely itself but involves every other object and in fact is everything else. ‘In every particle of dust, there are present Buddhas without number.‘18 The similarity of this image with that of the hadron bootstrap is indeed striking. The metaphor of Indra’s net may justly be called the first bootstrap model, created by the Eastern sages some 2,500 years before the beginning of particle physics.

Buddhists insist that the concept of interpenetration is not comprehensible intellectually, but is to be experienced by an enlightened mind in the state of meditation. Thus D. T. Suzuki writes : The Buddha [in the Gandavyuhal is no more the one who is living in the world conceivable in space and time. His consciousness is not that of an ordinary mind which must be regulated according to the senses and logic . . . The Buddha of the Gandavyuha lives in a spiritual world which ’ has its own rules.19 In modern physics, the situation is quite similar. The idea of every particle containing all the others is inconceivable in ordinary space and time. It describes a reality which, like the one of the Buddha, has its own rules. In the case of the hadron bootstrap, they are the rules of quantum theory and relativity theory, the key concept being that the forces holding particles together are themselves particles exchanged in the cross channels. This concept can be given a precise mathematical meaning, but is almost impossible to visualize. It is a specifically relativistic feature of the bootstrap, and since we have no direct experience of the four-dimensional world of space-time, it is extremely difficult to imagine how a single particle can contain all other particles and at the same time be part of each of them. This, however, is exactly the view of the Mahayana: When the one is set against all the others, the one is seen as pervading them all and at the same time embracing them all in itself.” The idea of each particle containing all the others has not only arisen in Eastern mysticism, but also in Western mystical thought. It is implicit, for example, in William Blake’s famous lines : To see a world in a grain of sand And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.

Here again, a mystical vision has led to an image of the boot- strap type; if the poet sees the world in a grain of sand, the modern physicist sees the world in a hadron. A similar image appears in the philosophy of Leibniz who considered the world as being made of fundamental substances called ‘monads’, each of which mirrored the whole universe. This led him to a view of matter which shows similarities to that of Mahayana Buddhism and to the hadron bootstrap.* In his Monadology, Leibniz writes : Each portion of matter may be conceived of as a garden full of plants, and as a pond full of fishes. But each branch of the plant, each member of the animal, each drop of its- humors, is also such a garden or such a pond.21 It is interesting that the similarity of these lines to the passages of the Avatamsaka Sutra mentioned before may stem from an actual Buddhist influence on Leibniz. Joseph Needham has argued 22 that Leibniz was well acquainted with Chinese thought and culture through translations he received from Jesuit monks, and that his philosophy might very well have been inspired by the Neo-Confucian school of Chu Hsi with which he was familiar. This school, however, has one of its roots in Mahayana Buddhism, and in particular in the Avatamsaka (Chinese: ha-yen) school of the Mahayana branch. Needham, in fact, mentions the parable of Indra’s net of pearls explicitly in connection with the Leibnizian monads. A more detailed comparison of Leibniz’ notion of ‘mirroring relations’ between monads with the idea of interpenetration in the Mahayana seems to show,. however, that the two are rather different, and that the Buddhist conception of matter comes much closer to the spirit of modern physics than that of Leibniz. The principal difference between the Monadology and the Buddhist view seems to be that the Leibnizian monads are fundamental substances which are seen as the ultimate constituents of matter. Leibniz begins the Monadology with the words, The monad of which we shall here speak is merely *The parallels between Leibniz’ view of matter and the hadron bootstrap have recently been discussed; see C. Gale, ‘Chew’s Monadology’, journal of History of Ideas, vol. 35 (April-June 1974), pp. 339-48.

a simple substance, which enters into composites; simple, that is to say, without parts.’ He goes on to say, ‘And these monads are the true atoms of nature, and, in a word, the elements of all things.‘23 Such a ‘fundamentalist’ view is in striking contrast to the bootstrap philosophy, and is also totally different from the view of Mahayana Buddhism which rejects all fundamental entities or substances. Leibniz’ fundamentalist way of thinking is also reflected in his view of forces which he regards as laws ‘imprinted by divine decree’ and essentially different from matter. ‘Forces and activity’, he writes, ‘cannot be states of a merely passive thing like matter.‘” Again, this is contrary to the views of modern physics and of Eastern mysticism. As far as the actual interrelation between the monads is concerned, the main difference to the hadron bootstrap seems to be that monads do not interact with each other; they ‘have no windows’, as Leibniz says, and merely mirror one another. In the hadron bootstrap, on the other hand, as in the Mahayana, the emphasis is on the interaction, or ‘interpenetration’, of all particles. Furthermore, the bootstrap and the Mahayana views of matter are both ‘space-time’ views which see objects as events whose mutual interpenetration can only be understood if one realizes that space and time, too, are interpenetrating. The bootstrap hypothesis is not yet firmly established and the technical difficulties involved in its implementation are con- siderable. Nevertheless, physicists already speculate about extending the self-consistent approach beyond the description of hadrons. In the present context of S-matrix theory, such an extension is not possible. The framework of the S matrix has been developed specifically to describe the strong interactions and cannot beapplied to the rest of particle physics, the principal reason being that it cannot accommodate the massless particles which are characteristic of all the other interactions. To enlarge the hadron bootstrap, therefore, a more general framework will have to be found, and in this new framework some of the concepts which are at present accepted without explanation will have to be ‘bootstrapped’; they will have to be derived, that is, from the overall self-consistency. According to Geoffrey Chew, these might include our conception of macroscopic

space-time and, perhaps, even that of human consciousness: Carried to its logical extreme, the bootstrap conjecture implies that the existence of consciousness, along with all other aspects of nature, is necessary for self-consistency of the whole.25 This view, again, is in perfect harmony with the views of the Eastern mystical traditions which have always regarded con- sciousness as an integral part of the universe. In the Eastern view, human beings, like all other life forms, are parts of an inseparable organic whole. Their intelligence, therefore, implies that the whole, too, is intelligent. Man is seen as the living proof of cosmic intelligence; in us, the universe repeats over and over again its ability to produce forms through which it becomes consciously aware of itself. In modern physics, the question of consciousness has arisen in connection with the observation of atomic phenomena. Quantum theory has made it clear that these phenomena can only be understood as links in a chain of processes, the end of which lies in the consciousness of the human observer.* In the words of Eugene Wigner, ‘It was not possible to formulate the laws of [quantum theory1 in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.‘26 The pragmatic formulation of quantum theory used by the scientists in their work does not refer to their consciousness explicitly. Wigner and other physicists have argued, however, that the explicit inclusion of human consciousness may be an essential aspect of future theories of matter. Such a development would open exciting possibilities for a direct interaction between physics and Eastern mysticism. The understanding of one’s consciousness and of its relation to the rest of the universe is the starting point of all mystical experience. The Eastern mystics have explored various modes of consciousness throughout centuries, and the conclusions they have reached are often radically different from the ideas held in the West. If physicists really want to include the nature of human consciousness in their realm of research, a study of Eastern ideas may well provide them with stimulating new viewpoints.

Thus the future enlargement of the hadron bootstrap, with the ‘bootstrapping’ of space-time and of human consciousness it may require, opens up unprecedented possibilities which may well go beyond the conventional framework of science: Such a future step would be immensely more profound than anything comprising the hadron bootstrap; we would be obliged to confront the elusive concept of observation and, possibly, even that of consciousness. Our current struggle with the hadron bootstrap may thus be only a foretaste of a completely new form of human intellectual endeavor, one that will not only lie outside of physics but will not even be describable as ‘scientific’.27 Where, then, does the bootstrap idea lead us?This, of course, nobody knows, but it is fascinating to speculate about its ultimate fate. One can imagine a network of future theo,ries covering an ever-increasing range of natural phenomena with ever-increasing accuracy; a network which will contain fewer and fewer unexplained features, deriving more and more of its structure from the mutual consistency of its parts. Some day, then, a point will be reached where the only unexplained features of this network of theories will be the elements of the scientific framework. Beyond that point, the theory will no longer be able to express its results in words, or in rational concepts, and will thus go beyond science. Instead of a boot- strap theory of nature, it will become a bootstrap vision of nature, transcending the realms of thought and language; leading out of science and into the world of acintya, the un- thinkable. The knowledge contained in such a vision will be complete, but cannot be communicated in words. It will be the knowledge which Lao Tzu had in mind, more than two thousand years ago, when he said: He who knows does not speak, He who speaks does not know.*8