Psychoanalysis: Art and/or Science? A Brief Contribution from Quantum Mechanics

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For Knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.

One of the fallouts from living in a world where Newtonian physics colors our everyday experience—observation, measure, and, most importantly, replication (repeatability)—is that it promotes the distinction between what is art and what is science. Art is, by definition, unique. Its tools are many, e.g., metaphor, color, movement, mystery—which are not realties we necessarily associate with Newtonian scientific observations. Newtonian physics commands attention not only because in our macro world it works, and works very well, but because its repeatability gives it an exact stability, which is a necessary experience in our everyday life. Freud tried to make his theoretical understanding and models of the mind universal and verifiable, knowing that without such a perspective his science would be suspect. His theoretical models are, ultimately, just that, i.e., models—a fact that some psychoanalysts have difficulty accepting.

The clinical practice of psychoanalysis is, by definition, not exactly repeatable, given the individuality of the parties involved. Consequently, psychoanalytic clinical interventions have been criticized for not being scientific. Their individuality suggests an art rather than science. I have obviously summarized this critique of psychoanalysis from the perspective of a Newtonian worldview.

I might add, also, that the religious denominational aspect of the various theoretical psychoanalytic schools has not helped present psychoanalysis as a scientific discipline. A scientific mode of operation is dedicated

to pursuing truth—but such a quest is, by necessity, an ever open and ongoing question. Truth, in a scientific framework, has more to do with process than possession.

It is very difficult to briefly summarize even a few of the findings of quantum physics, even after nearly a hundred years of discovery and exploration. Having said that, let me try. One of the most basic findings is the conclusion, to Einstein's disbelief, that God (or, the Ancient One—Einstein's designation) does play dice with the world. That is to say that from quantum findings there is no possibility of exact repeatability; rather we live in a world of high probability and not the exact repeatability evidenced in Newtonian experience. Such a finding of high probability vis-à-vis strict determinism is basic and should modify our understanding of free association and dream interpretation.

Turning to clinical practice, I would like to offer a brief overview of how some of the basic findings of quantum thought can be of help in our understanding of psychoanalysis. Each quantum observation—that is, interaction—is necessarily unique although following a prescribed protocol. An observation, for example, of a proton—relative to its location and momentum—is necessarily individualized. By very force of its nature, it is not exactly repeatable but only generically so. Part of the mystery of quantum findings is that each observation of a proton, for example, creates the proton, although it is always waiting to be created—so to speak. (D. W. Winnicott's reflections might be of help here). A proton always exists as an excitation in an energy field and it is simultaneously created by observation. (Similarly, light is both a wave and a particle, as the double-slit experiment established). I would like to ask the reader to see a parallel here with clinical interventions, e.g., interpretations. There are of course a set of procedures and protocols for a quantum observation as there are valid guidelines which any analyst follows in formulating interpretations and/or interventions.

Of course we are talking analogy here; but analogy in the quantum world is what we have. All we understand of the quantum world, as Niels Bohr reminds us, are our mental concepts, not the quantum world itself. In terms of process, each quantum observation is necessarily unique. Just as each psychoanalytic intervention is unique. Just as each work of art is unique. The reality of the necessary individuality of each quantum

observation has, I believe, bearing on the practice of clinical interpretations and interventions. That is, individuality is not per se unscientific. It has a valid reflection in quantum observations.

Additionally, one of the more profound mysteries of quantum findings is the reversibility of cause and effect. John Wheeler, from Princeton University, demonstrated how changing an effect can change a cause—something we are not familiar with in our macro world. By way of analogy, a patient telling and retelling his or her thoughts, phantasies, dreams and/or hopes does, in fact, change his/her history. When patients experience that the past is likewise the present and that the present re-creates the past, they are creatively mirroring Wheeler's findings. Richard Fenyman, speaking to this past/present experience, named the process whereby a proton takes every possible route – even backward in time—“sum over histories.” That psychoanalytic technique necessarily demands a high degree of creativity is obvious; that psychoanalysis itself is an exercise in creativity is obvious.

Is psychoanalysis an art or a science reflects a question mirroring macro consciousness. It is simultaneously both. Just as, by way of comparison, a proton is both created by observation and also always exists.

Quantum mechanics findings have been repeatedly validated – just pick up your cell phone and you will appreciate what quantum mechanics has made possible. And, as I have briefly outlined, there is more than an interesting parallel between quantum mechanics experience and psychoanalytic practice.1

Such a conclusion does no violence to the reality that psychoanalysis is a profoundly human enterprise. That is, one pained human being listening to another as Bion reminds us; one particularly sensitive and introspective clinician listening to his/her unconscious in order to hear another, as Reik depicts. I used the above quote from Einstein as a reminder to myself and others that true scientific growth comes from the imagination as much as from measurable procedures.

Psychoanalysis is a science of the mind; it proposes certain models to understand the complexity of human experience—as does any science. What I am proposing is that its clinical procedures are more understandable using quantum models rather than Newtonian models. In its best moments psychoanalysis offers models of understanding—not concrete existent realities—similar to quantum mechanics postulates. A scientific mindset is more than comfortable with usable but simultaneously changeable models. A willingness as well as a dependency upon testing models, and retesting, is evidence of a scientific mindset just as an appreciation and experience of creativity in responding to individuality is a mark of art.

A willingness to examine what one is doing—be it scientific and/or artistic or both—necessarily is basic to any pursuit of who we are.