Emptiness and Quantum Physics

[PeterC]

...Fritjof Capra who linked it to Eastern religions in The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav, who wrote the Dancing Wu Li Masters...

That genre of pseudoscience is really just complete nonsense. Neither dharma nor physics, about as useful as trying to explain microbiology with metaphors from interpretative dance. Less useful, probably.

[Danny]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

something to be wary of.

Yes. And I am. A lot of disservice has been done to both Buddhist philosophy and quantum physics by trying to equate them in a facile way.

It’s called entanglement.

[Rick]

Entanglement™

[Rick]

I remember reading those books as a student in the 70s, and being a little disappointed when I learned that the models had moved on...

If you'd been a student in the 60s, you wouldn't have remembered anything (beyond the vaguest vibe) of what you'd read ... and wouldn't have been disappointed. There's a lesson to be learned from this, but I can't quite see it.

[tobes]

I agree with the skeptical impulse of the thread here, but there are some good reasons going the other way.

HHDL for example, who I think we could agree has excellent knowledge and realisation of emptiness, has engaged in dialogues with physicists over many decades, and he clearly sees some productive entailments.....and these often spill over into his teachings.

The point here is not to lean on his epistemic authority or legitimacy, but simply to see that discourse can take place between these two distinct things, which are not superficial or built on fallacies.

[PeterC]

I agree with the skeptical impulse of the thread here, but there are some good reasons going the other way.

HHDL for example, who I think we could agree has excellent knowledge and realisation of emptiness, has engaged in dialogues with physicists over many decades, and he clearly sees some productive entailments.....and these often spill over into his teachings.

The point here is not to lean on his epistemic authority or legitimacy, but simply to see that discourse can take place between these two distinct things, which are not superficial or built on fallacies.

He has tried, and he has always been very clear that practicing the dharma doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and claim that science doesn't matter, as some "spiritual" people do. These dialogues do seem to emphasize often that there isn't always a lot to discuss. Often they consist of some scientists saying, the research on dreams/consciousness/death/etc. suggests this; and he says, ok, interesting, but let me tell you how it actually works according to my tradition.

Dialogue is always good, but it's also entirely ok to think that these are just different things used for different purposes. I'm not going to start using the Mount Meru model of the universe to plan my holidays (assuming I'm ever able to have a holiday again...), nor am I going to start using the Mercator projection for mandala offerings. In a similar way - if I want to write a website, I'm not going to open up a physics textbook, even if computers rely on electrons to function; and if I happen to find myself playing with the CERN Large Hadron Collidor (admittedly a little unlikely, too), I probably won't reach for a textbook on javascript.

[microbodhi]

As most may know here HHDL was always been interested in science and technology, when he came to India he heard that the Indian Physicist Raja Ramanan had found or suggested similarities in quantum mechanics and nagarjuna's madhyamika. Obviously due to HHDL lamas connection through lineage to Nagarjuna he became very interested, i have seen a few videos and HHDL doesnt seem to take much notice of the western intellectual speculation but he likes that discussions carry on, maybe he just see's it as a platform to advertise Buddhist practice and the importance of bodhicitta and science is one medium.

What both science and the lineage or discovery of buddha dharma can agree upon is that somehow everything is interdependent, there have been some recent findings within science that photons and dna mix, and upon mixing the dna can alter its shape depending on intention be it positive of negative, the photons then can effect a distance outside of the DNA area. If this is peer reviewed or not i am not sure, but its all quite interesting. For me its seems quite obvious that everything is connected and one action even on the subtle or subatomic level will have a knock effect, the parts that are connected to each other in a holistic interdependent whole are probably to many and far to complex for the current models of science. Ultimately what we maybe looking for as a synthesis between science and dharma is complete holistic picture of the whole and one where consciousness has to be included, even if it cant be defined, but that may not be possible through science alone and one would need a buddha mind or to be fully awake to see the whole picture, or at least enough of it for clarity, this is where science will always lack imo, because of the lack of development in the objective and empirical of bodhicitta.

Personally i would say that shunyata~emptiness is not the same as the 99.99% emptiness of an atom, but dont quote me on that, shunyata is perhaps more close to the original Monad, something inconceivable to anything outside of itself, whatever that may be or may not be, nothing can describe it or approach it.

Apart from all this, its all very interesting and i fully support freedom of inquiry both within science and dharma and the communication between the two.

I have my own private studies that i dont make public, due to to many people have fixed definitions of the texts, but in this private space it is totally absorbing and deeply fascinating and eye opening.

[mikenz66]

I remember reading those books as a student in the 70s, and being a little disappointed when I learned that the models had moved on...

If you'd been a student in the 60s, you wouldn't have remembered anything (beyond the vaguest vibe) of what you'd read ... and wouldn't have been disappointed. There's a lesson to be learned from this, but I can't quite see it.

Ha, I guess I missed out on the 60s...

[mikenz66]

The point here is not to lean on his epistemic authority or legitimacy, but simply to see that discourse can take place between these two distinct things, which are not superficial or built on fallacies.

I did like Alan Wallace's book Choosing Reality, which avoids most of the problems of the other books, by not making a big deal about technical details of quantum mechanics etc. Wallace actually took the time to learn about both Physics and Buddhism...


Mike

[haha]

Here is different perspective of reasoning. Emptiness is synonymous for Nagarjuna. If one examines MMK, its verses, context, logic, etc. are more relatable to sravaka scriptures, Jainism, earlier Brahmanism. Even though they have fundamental deference, one will find similar logic and reasoning. Narrative of QP and emptiness is just to attract certain group of people into the Buddhism. It could be just a skillful means. I do not know how much there is own insecurity. I lack the basic understanding of QP, other than random reading in some topics.

How much one gives talk on QP, its reality is just on the periphery of outside world and mostly related with five consciousness, whereas emptiness would transcend all dichotomy (i.e. outside, inside, outside- inside, beginning-ending, etc.)

[LastLegend]

Are there any quantum physics lovers out there?

I've always been interested in the weirdness of the quantum realm, but it's only lately I've begun to appreciate how deep the QP rabbit hole goes!

Some aspects of the essence of QP seem to me to be strikingly similar to Nagarjuna's (non-)views on emptiness.

It's something like: At the heart of both, the more you try to divide into this or that, the further you go astray.

Emptiness is non-view?

[Rick]

Emptiness is non-view?

How about: Emptiness is a view that lays bare the negative consequences of having views.

[Rick]

Here is different perspective of reasoning. Emptiness is synonymous for Nagarjuna. If one examines MMK, its verses, context, logic, etc. are more relatable to sravaka scriptures, Jainism, earlier Brahmanism. Even though they have fundamental deference, one will find similar logic and reasoning. Narrative of QP and emptiness is just to attract certain group of people into the Buddhism. It could be just a skillful means. I do not know how much there is own insecurity. I lack the basic understanding of QP, other than random reading in some topics.

How much one gives talk on QP, its reality is just on the periphery of outside world and mostly related with five consciousness, whereas emptiness would transcend all dichotomy (i.e. outside, inside, outside- inside, beginning-ending, etc.)

I agree, emptiness is a lower layer of the onion than QP. I don't know what's lower (more fundamental) than emptiness. Brahman? Silence? Brie?

[haha]

I agree, emptiness is a lower layer of the onion than QP. I don't know what's lower (more fundamental) than emptiness. Brahman? Silence? Brie?

Emptiness could have different meaning in different context. Even in the MMK, it has different meaning in different chapters. Four Noble Truths are very common but the same time very profound teaching of Buddhism; one aspect of truth of suffering/dukkha satya is emptiness. From another perspective, emptiness is the aspect of dharmadhatu. It is the ultimate reality, there is no further layer.In another context, it is a means to cut all fabrication or to eliminate of all standpoints, obsessions, etc.

Brahma is ultimate reality of different group of people; outsider of their tradition, it is read as BrahmA or attainment of jhanic attainment. It has the connotation of complete perfection (i.e. their santi mantra of purnamada). It cannot be the lower layer or core of the emptiness. They are incompatible. Their understanding of the phenomena is radically different; their understanding of the ultimate reality and conventional reality is irreconcilable. At the end, they regard Madyamika/emptiness is just dry ratiocination (susk-tarka-patun) or anubhayarthabadi. But, fallacy always comes because of clarity aspect of mind, svaprakasa/self-illuminating in both systems. That is not the ultimate reality in both systems.

For the case of silence: the silence is not really silence. It is just a discourse. It is a narrative to make other’s argument silence. Then, whose silence we are talking. When somebody invited Sakyamuni, he used to be silent. So, it is the silence of consent. And whose silence we are talking, silence of Vimalakirti or silence of Subuti, or silence of Sariputra (i.e. silence of the Vimalakirti Sutra). Or it is the silence of Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana. Or it is the silence when asking about Brahma. Silence has its own connotation. It is not deeper layer of emptiness.

Brie? I do not know what it is intended for.

[Rick]

Thoughtful and illuminating post, haha. Thanks!

For Vedantins, Brahman is the ultimate 'lowest' layer of reality. Buddhists disagree.

I'm using silence as a metaphor for tathātā, the ultimate bare-bones reality.

Brie? I do not know what it is intended for.

Consumption! (French cheese ...)

[Supramundane]

As most may know here HHDL was always been interested in science and technology, when he came to India he heard that the Indian Physicist Raja Ramanan had found or suggested similarities in quantum mechanics and nagarjuna's madhyamika. Obviously due to HHDL lamas connection through lineage to Nagarjuna he became very interested, i have seen a few videos and HHDL doesnt seem to take much notice of the western intellectual speculation but he likes that discussions carry on, maybe he just see's it as a platform to advertise Buddhist practice and the importance of bodhicitta and science is one medium.

What both science and the lineage or discovery of buddha dharma can agree upon is that somehow everything is interdependent, there have been some recent findings within science that photons and dna mix, and upon mixing the dna can alter its shape depending on intention be it positive of negative, the photons then can effect a distance outside of the DNA area. If this is peer reviewed or not i am not sure, but its all quite interesting. For me its seems quite obvious that everything is connected and one action even on the subtle or subatomic level will have a knock effect, the parts that are connected to each other in a holistic interdependent whole are probably to many and far to complex for the current models of science. Ultimately what we maybe looking for as a synthesis between science and dharma is complete holistic picture of the whole and one where consciousness has to be included, even if it cant be defined, but that may not be possible through science alone and one would need a buddha mind or to be fully awake to see the whole picture, or at least enough of it for clarity, this is where science will always lack imo, because of the lack of development in the objective and empirical of bodhicitta.

Personally i would say that shunyata~emptiness is not the same as the 99.99% emptiness of an atom, but dont quote me on that, shunyata is perhaps more close to the original Monad, something inconceivable to anything outside of itself, whatever that may be or may not be, nothing can describe it or approach it.

Apart from all this, its all very interesting and i fully support freedom of inquiry both within science and dharma and the communication between the two.

I have my own private studies that i dont make public, due to to many people have fixed definitions of the texts, but in this private space it is totally absorbing and deeply fascinating and eye opening.

I wonder if you've heard of the mathematician, Ramanujan, who made many of his discoveries at night as he slept. He would awake many times during the night and jot down conclusions that he had come to.

Unfortunately, he would not remember the calculations leading up to such conclusions, which caused skepticism in many quarters. Nonetheless, after he died, his notebooks were found, and mathematicians realized that he was correct in all respects. He was a great genius.


For years after, they culled his notebooks and actually made discoveries based on some of the notes he made in the margins.


When you think about it, mathematics is nothing but exploring relationships between different things. You set out in numbers, for example, the relationship between speed and distance and time. All numbers do, in fact, is paint the relationships in spacial and temporal reality, relationships in number or in distance, etc.

Mathematics can reach an almost mystical level and you know what I mean if you have read the works of Wittgenstein. He maintained that a new language had to be created in order to describe reality since the existing language was full of improprieties and non-precise meanings; he this proposed a new language which would reduce semantics and semiotics to ultimate meaning. It would be interesting if buddhism could make such an attempt. If I'm not mistaken, Wittgenstein never attempted the chore.

My point is that there seems to be an intersection between Buddhism and mathematics and science, but it is very subtle.Mathematics attempts to quantify relationships while Buddhism attempts to explain their meaning.

[Aemilius]

Here is a very good video by Mathologer how Ramanuja solved a mathematical problem while he was cooking food:

[Aemilius]

I wonder if you've heard of the mathematician, Ramanujan, who made many of his discoveries at night as he slept. He would awake many times during the night and jot down conclusions that he had come to.

Unfortunately, he would not remember the calculations leading up to such conclusions, which caused skepticism in many quarters. Nonetheless, after he died, his notebooks were found, and mathematicians realized that he was correct in all respects.

I don't think that is completely correct, these are commonly known facts about him:

" Seeking mathematicians who could better understand his work, in 1913 he began a postal partnership with the English mathematician G. H. Hardy at the University of Cambridge, England. Recognizing Ramanujan's work as extraordinary, Hardy arranged for him to travel to Cambridge. In his notes, Hardy commented that Ramanujan had produced groundbreaking new theorems, including some that "defeated me completely; I had never seen anything in the least like them before", and some recently proven but highly advanced results."

"During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations). Many were completely novel; his original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime, the Ramanujan theta function, partition formulae and mock theta functions, have opened entire new areas of work and inspired a vast amount of further research. Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct. The Ramanujan Journal, a scientific journal, was established to publish work in all areas of mathematics influenced by Ramanujan, and his notebooks—containing summaries of his published and unpublished results—have been analysed and studied for decades since his death as a source of new mathematical ideas. As late as 2011 and again in 2012, researchers continued to discover that mere comments in his writings about "simple properties and similar outputs" for certain findings were themselves profound and subtle number theory results that remained unsuspected until nearly a century after his death. He became one of the youngest Fellows of the Royal Society and only the second Indian member, and the first Indian to be elected a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Of his original letters, Hardy stated that a single look was enough to show they could have been written only by a mathematician of the highest caliber, comparing Ramanujan to mathematical geniuses such as Euler and Jacobi."

Another interesting Mathologer video about his work:

[Supramundane]

I am only judging by the film, A; it seemed to suggest, perhaps for dramatic purposes, that there was skepticism over the veracity of some of his claims and over his genius. After his death, however, all doubt had been dispelled.

When asked how he had arrived at some of his conclusions, he explained that they came to him in a dream; or that a Hindu god had visited him; obviously, this did not convince everyone at Cambridge:)

[Danny]

That’s reminds me of a time back in the early 90’s sitting at the kitchen table spending all day on one equation.
Presented my paper to the tutor. When the professor sent back the paper... red ink all over it with the comments, this is very inventive, but here’s the simple example to get there.