Love mystery? There's no need to embrace mysticism. Rather, embrace modern science. You end up with genuine mystery, not a religiously-tinged variety.
Case in point: the cover story in this week's New Scientist, "Reality Check." The online title is "Quantum Weirdness: the battle for the basis of reality."
This video, Reality's Hidden Layers, that is based on the story tells you the basics. Something has to go -- reality, relativity, causality, free will. They can't all coexist as how they are currently understood to be.
Here's how the cover story ends.
Rudolph doesn't have an answer – no one does. But he reckons the problem is that we are still hopelessly anthropocentric.
The growing disconnection between our experience of the world and the results of quantum experiments, he says, are simply a modern version of the ever-more complex epicycles that Ptolemy and those who followed him used to explain the motions of the heavenly bodies. The problem back then was that we could only see the planets as revolving around Earth; it took Copernicus to turn things around, and suddenly all was plain and simple.
Perhaps we have constructed theories such as relativity and quantum theory with a similarly limited view, in thrall this time to a sense of space and time that might not exist beyond ourselves. "We think time and position and so on are important variables for describing the world because we evolved to perceive them," says Rudolph. "But whatever is going on down there doesn't seem to worry about them at all."
So there you have it. When the light shines on that the half-silvered mirror, what we see is hardly a reflection of the world as we would like to know it. Reality, relativity, causality, free will, space and time: they can't all be right. But which ones are wrong?
Maybe we will never know which ones are wrong. Maybe reality "as it is," if those words even make any sense, will be forever hidden from us.
After all, the universe is some 14 billion years old. We humans came on the scene a few hundred thousand years ago. Our scientific understanding of the universe, and also of ourselves, is in its infancy.
As the quotation above, plus the video, note, humans evolved to survive, not to comprehend the cosmos. What worked for us on the grassy plains of Africa -- such as understanding cause and effect as it related to prey/predator behavior, hunting/gathering, and such -- may not be attuned to how reality is on much subtler levels.
This doesn't mean that religiosity, spirituality, mysticism, supernaturalism, or other non-scientific ways of comprehending reality are any better suited to figuring out what reality is all about.
Limitations of the human brain, body, and mind are universal. Gurus as well as physicists have them; meditators as well as astronomers have them. We can't escape our peculiar Homo sapiens way of looking upon the world.
What would be truly remarkable is that a species which recently evolved on Earth, one planet orbiting one sun that is one of several hundred billion stars in a galaxy that is one of a hundred billion of so in the visible universe that may be but one of countless in a multiverse cosmos, somehow quickly managed to understand the inner workings of reality.
I deeply doubt this has happened.
As the New Scientist story strongly implies, reality doesn't care about us; it isn't about us; how humans see things likely bears little or no resemblance to how those things are in themselves (again, if "in themselves" has any meaning -- another mystery we are clueless about).
Awe seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate attitude toward the cosmos.
Believing that we are close to comprehending it... utterly inappropriate.