Emptiness and Quantum Physics

[Supramundane]

There is a classic riddle in the philosophy of mathematics, I think. They debate over whether mathematics is intuitive, i.e., is it there to be found, or is mathematics simply a human construct.

Many books have been written to try to resolve this riddle.

For Buddhism, I think the answer is obvious to everyone.

[Rick]

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.

David Bohm did some interesting work on making language more whole-istic. He called it the rheomode:

"The rheomode is a kind of playful and creative experimentation in the structure of language (grammar and syntax, that is) with an actual serious purpose — to reveal how language structure contributes to our fragmentation in thought and reality, and how it might contribute to the opposite — to a new integration." – https://longsworde.wordpress.com/2019/0 ... -rheomode/

[Rick]

There is a classic riddle in the philosophy of mathematics, I think. They debate over whether mathematics is intuitive, i.e., is it there to be found, or is mathematics simply a human construct.

Many books have been written to try to resolve this riddle.

For Buddhism, I think the answer is obvious to everyone.

For me Buddhism is both.

It points to that which is there to be found, i.e. emptiness.

And it provides lots of different rafts for the journey.

[Supramundane]

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.

David Bohm did some interesting work on making language more whole-istic. He called it the rheomode:

"The rheomode is a kind of playful and creative experimentation in the structure of language (grammar and syntax, that is) with an actual serious purpose — to reveal how language structure contributes to our fragmentation in thought and reality, and how it might contribute to the opposite — to a new integration." – https://longsworde.wordpress.com/2019/0 ... -rheomode/

Very good observation, Rick. I have seen Bohm's name before in the context of biocentrism. Actually, when I read his theory of biocentrism, I had the impression that he was plagiarizing Buddhism to a great extent. Isn't that the theory that reality only exists as a shared moment between observer and the observed? It seems to me that he expounds upon this in a few hundred pages and, from the excerpts that I read, he seemed to be doing a pastiche of Buddhism and presenting it as an orignal theory. I could be wrong, of course.

[Danny]

Isn't that the theory that reality only exists as a shared moment between observer and the observed? It seems to me that he expounds upon this in a few hundred pages and, from the excerpts that I read, he seemed to be doing a pastiche of Buddhism and presenting it as an orignal theory. I could be wrong, of course.

Probabilities or potentials, uncertainties.
Vagueness, suchness etc.

[Svalaksana]

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.

Interestingly, if I remember correctly, Wittgenstein also employed a simile for the use of language, as a ladder to take us to the upper floor, which could afterwards be discarded, and will sound very familiar to most people here who've heard of the raft analogy employed by the Buddha.

[Supramundane]

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.

Interestingly, if I remember correctly, Wittgenstein also employed a simile for the use of language, as a ladder to take us to the upper floor, which could afterwards be discarded, and will sound very familiar to most people here who've heard of the raft analogy employed by the Buddha.

Good point! The ladder is language, if I remember correctly.

And he goes on to say:

"I might say: if the place I want to get could only be reached by way of a ladder, I would give up trying to get there. For the place I really have to get to is a place I must already be at now.

Anything that I might reach by climbing a ladder does not interest me."

Very Zen!

[Kim O'Hara]

That isn't quite how I remembered it so I looked it up and found the between you, you have quoted what I remembered and something I never read:

In philosophy, Wittgenstein's ladder is a metaphor set out by Ludwig Wittgenstein about learning. In what may be a deliberate reference to Søren Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments,[1][2] the penultimate proposition of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (translated from the original German) reads:[3]
6.54
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
Given the preceding problematic at work in his Tractatus, this passage suggests that, if a reader understands Wittgenstein's aims in the text, then those propositions the reader would have just read would be recognized as nonsense. From Propositions 6.4–6.54, the Tractatus shifts its focus from primarily logical considerations to what may be considered more traditionally philosophical topics (God, ethics, meta-ethics, death, the will) and, less traditionally along with these, the mystical. The philosophy presented in the Tractatus attempts to demonstrate just what the limits of language are—and what it is to run up against them. Among what can be said for Wittgenstein are the propositions of natural science, and to the nonsensical, or unsayable, those subjects associated with philosophy traditionally—ethics and metaphysics, for instance.[4]
...
In his notes of 1930 Wittgenstein returns to the image of a ladder[6] with a different perspective:
I might say: if the place I want to get could only be reached by way of a ladder, I would give up trying to get there. For the place I really have to get to is a place I must already be at now.
Anything that I might reach by climbing a ladder does not interest me.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_ladder

And yes, the parallel to the raft simile is close.

At around the time I was intrigued by Wittgenstein I was equally intrigued by a similar conclusion about the limits of systematic thought from Godel. There's a link to his theorem for the page I just quoted.
Oh, and there was a book called Godel, Escher, Bach which I enjoyed enormously...


Kim

[Aemilius]

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:)

I doubt the truth of what you say. It sounds like just another piece of racist or cultural propaganda, that people easily believe because they have never known or met Ramanujan and they know that he was born in India.

[Svalaksana]

Thanks Supramundane and Kim. I wasn't sure of the exact wording, as I read it many years ago, but I was left with the distinct impression that the meaning was somewhat similar to the raft analogy.

I should check out the author David Bohm you mentioned, seems like he puts out some interesting concepts. Gödel's incompleteness theorems are a good example to explain our trouble in acquiring complete knowledge when under a specific set of rules (Turing's halting problem may be another instance as well?), and in this case the arithmetic notation is replaced by grammar and syntax, one would say. I've had Gödel, Escher, Bach in my to-read list for a long time, thanks for reminding me of it. Perhaps I'll acquire it and give it a read this year.

[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:)

I doubt the truth of what you say. It sounds like just another piece of racist or cultural propaganda, that people easily believe because they have never known or met Ramanujan and they know that he was born in India.

I'm afraid it is all true.

The film was very accurate and won many awards.

"LSU College of Science: Your PhD advisor was the chief mathematical consultant for the movie The Man Who Knew Infinity, which is very exciting. Is there much opportunity in mathematics to help media and film organizations "get the science right"? 

Karl Mahlburg: For anyone in a specialized professional field, it is always a challenge to accurately represent the nature of the work to the general public - ask any lawyer for a list of the inaccuracies in TV courtroom dramas! In the case of the film, Professor Ken Ono of Emory University was the mathematical consultant (and he was indeed my Ph.D. advisor when I attended graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison). I am happy to report that by his account the producers and actors were very receptive to his input, and the result is a portrayal that is very accurate mathematically (even including some of Ramanujan's rare and infamous mistakes!) Furthermore, the actors Jeremy Irons and Dev Patel spent some time in their character studies learning to appreciate mathematical proofs."

Ramanujan claimed to have been inspired by the Goddess Namagiri to whom he attributed many of his discoveries. Remember that he came from India in a time before the computer. He did not have access to a library and did a lot of his work on a slate with a piece of chalk. This is what led some to believe he was an imposter. 

I don't understand where racism comes in? Or you are calling me a racist?

[Aemilius]

I have looked at the Mathologer's videos and explanations of Ramanujan's puzzles, and there is no mention of any kind of Hindu god. Ramanmujan seems like straightforward mathematics. If you now come with some Hindu god and dream state prophetic exclamations, it is like coming from another planet, where Ramanujan is not a true mathematician at all. Do you see ?

[Supramundane]

"While the beauty of the story has long impacted all students of mathematics, the nature of Ramanujan’s mathematical genius, and how he himself perceived it, tends to be less explored. Hardy called it some kind of deep ‘intuition’, but Ramanujan openly stated that he received the mathematical inspiration and sometimes whole formulas, through contacting the Hindu Goddess Namagiri while dreaming. Ramanujan was an observant Hindu, adept at dream interpretation and astrology. Growing up, he learned to worship Namagiri, the Hindu Goddess of creativity. He often understood mathematics and spirituality as one. He felt, for example, that zero represented Absolute Reality, and that infinity represented the many manifestations of that Reality.
“An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.”

It takes two seconds to google my friend.

[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.

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.

Yes, I know of Ramanujan, and as it has been stated he himself claimed that the knowledge came from Ganapati ( Ganesh ), who is an embodiment of dhyana, dhyana and svapna dream state are related in consciousness , for me i can accept, for western science it maybe a problem, majority of the rupa's are based on mathematics and geometry, there is a deep subtle esoteric science ~ vidyas behind all this, that not many are aware of and would become to tiresome to go into explanations and we are dealing with infinity on these levels and its the limitations of our language as humans that is the problem, plus i am only neophyte on this but i do have some experience of certain higher knowledge being passed down in dreams and i can trace the rupa which revealed it, i mostly keep these things private due to the scepticism and limitations of the rational mind and the dull intellect of scholars. Ramanujan obviously had refined samskaras to be able to express them in mathematical format, im not a mathematician so i cant comment on his works but i am aware and open to divine possibilities being revealed to the ones that are worthy to receive.

[PeterC]

...for western science it maybe a problem, majority of the rupa's are based on mathematics and geometry, there is a deep subtle esoteric science ~ vidyas behind all this, that not many are aware of and would become to tiresome to go into explanations and we are dealing with infinity on these levels and its the limitations of our language as humans that is the problem...

...i mostly keep these things private due to the scepticism and limitations of the rational mind and the dull intellect of scholars. Ramanujan obviously had refined samskaras to be able to express them in mathematical format, im not a mathematician so i cant comment on his works but i am aware and open to divine possibilities being revealed to the ones that are worthy to receive.

It must be tiresome for someone as greatly enlightened as you to interact with such limited, dull minds as us, oh worthy one. Particularly when you can't express the deep, subtle esoteric science that you have discovered through your realization.

[Archie2009]

...for western science it maybe a problem, majority of the rupa's are based on mathematics and geometry, there is a deep subtle esoteric science ~ vidyas behind all this, that not many are aware of and would become to tiresome to go into explanations and we are dealing with infinity on these levels and its the limitations of our language as humans that is the problem...

...i mostly keep these things private due to the scepticism and limitations of the rational mind and the dull intellect of scholars. Ramanujan obviously had refined samskaras to be able to express them in mathematical format, im not a mathematician so i cant comment on his works but i am aware and open to divine possibilities being revealed to the ones that are worthy to receive.

It must be tiresome for someone as greatly enlightened as you to interact with such limited, dull minds as us, oh worthy one. Particularly when you can't express the deep, subtle esoteric science that you have discovered through your realization.

[microbodhi]

...for western science it maybe a problem, majority of the rupa's are based on mathematics and geometry, there is a deep subtle esoteric science ~ vidyas behind all this, that not many are aware of and would become to tiresome to go into explanations and we are dealing with infinity on these levels and its the limitations of our language as humans that is the problem...

...i mostly keep these things private due to the scepticism and limitations of the rational mind and the dull intellect of scholars. Ramanujan obviously had refined samskaras to be able to express them in mathematical format, im not a mathematician so i cant comment on his works but i am aware and open to divine possibilities being revealed to the ones that are worthy to receive.

It must be tiresome for someone as greatly enlightened as you to interact with such limited, dull minds as us, oh worthy one. Particularly when you can't express the deep, subtle esoteric science that you have discovered through your realization.

Well PeterC, lets not make this personal. I think its quite obvious that science cant answer everything, and also something's are beyond words, silence and what comes out of silence is very important within meditation traditions.


Unfortunately the empiricists wants to fit the infinite into the finite, the sceptic wants everything to proved to him or else it doesnt exist.

Like Ramanujan has said, he couldn't explain exactly how his equations came to him, this would not have been a problem for him because of the higher intellect, buddhi~ supramental intellect is aware of the infinite and unexplainable and the constant expansion and infinite potential of the infinite.

In Vedanta for example Vak or speech comes in 4 ways, the lowest form is verbal, then there is mind speech, wisdom speech or supramental ( cosmic speech) and then there is profound silence the emptiness, that which is only heard within its own source, which cant be known outside of its own source, it is not silence as we know it but is not a sound that is within the other 3 vaks, in the other 3 vaks there is only manifestation of it as extensions into nama and rupa.

There is an old Chinese proverb story about dr frog who lived in a well, he wants to measure everything according to his senses and location, but his friend who had seen the vast ocean said there was no comparison to his tiny pond, the tiny pond is the normal ordinary human mind, full of attachment's and measurement's, how does one measure the infinite.

In terms of worthiness, there is criteria known as adhikara, which is free from kelsha, envy they say is terrible thing.

There is also a story you may wish to contemplate, the fox and the grapes

The infinite is known by surrendering attachment to the finite, the self, the limitation of individual power.

Its not that i have discovered anything unique or special to what anyone has or can do, what i said is that in certain channels what becomes discovered is a waste of time to discuss to certain people, and is best left to keep meditating and growing internally or within the same source that it was discovered, because by coming out one often bumps into mundane sceptics, who dont really understand what the way is, for these people it best they first practice getting rid of klesha, learning to let go of that which limits and develop the practice best way they can, from this stance there will be great help from yet unknown sources that are willing to become known.

[PeterC]

something's are beyond words, silence and what comes out of silence is very important within meditation traditions...

Like Ramanujan has said, he couldn't explain exactly how his equations came to him, this would not have been a problem for him because of the higher intellect, buddhi~ supramental intellect is aware of the infinite and unexplainable and the constant expansion and infinite potential of the infinite.

In Vedanta for example ...

There is an old Chinese proverb...

The infinite is known by surrendering attachment to the finite, the self, the limitation of individual power. ...

All prapanca, I’m afraid. Talk to me about Ramanujan when you understand his work.

[microbodhi]

something's are beyond words, silence and what comes out of silence is very important within meditation traditions...

Like Ramanujan has said, he couldn't explain exactly how his equations came to him, this would not have been a problem for him because of the higher intellect, buddhi~ supramental intellect is aware of the infinite and unexplainable and the constant expansion and infinite potential of the infinite.

In Vedanta for example ...

There is an old Chinese proverb...

The infinite is known by surrendering attachment to the finite, the self, the limitation of individual power. ...

All prapanca, I’m afraid. Talk to me about Ramanujan when you understand his work.

Thank you, i can see your rather frustrated because the ocean does not fit in the pond, i could be wrong but being polite i always thought was part of the dharma. Meditation can help to slow down thoughts and deal with frustration and empty the mind, filling the mind with concepts and ideas is opposite way and not the way to true discovery.

As said I am not a mathematician but i understand to some degree Ganesh through sadhana ,Vedanta and the Indian Psyche, due to living within that tradition, majority of Indians would agree with me. This post is also about Emptiness/ shunayata, which in Indian thought is always nirguna formless, according to Sanskrit language there is no way that language can convey this, its acintya inconceivable , you made a challenge to me to discuss esoteric meaning, and made some assumptions. This becomes a problem for thinkers and people who want empirical proof, just as there is a problem to fully connect quantum physics and shunyata and other Buddhist or Eastern concepts (not that they are concepts), you cant teach or learn introspect.

I understand the empirical philosophy is trying its best, and your tone is why some areas are not discussed totally by natives or people who are a bit deeper, in fact natives of Buddhist and Vedanta are fast declining to enter into debates and express the ideas due to pressure of the empiricists to fit everything into a box, SHOW ME NOW. Its the opposite direction and why silence is such a beautiful thing.

You maybe more clever than a simpleton and neophyte like me, of this there is no doubt and i look forward to you explaining and proving shunyata and nirguna, although i am more than happy with any small progress i make within my practice, its benefits and insights which even a child can understand, but intellectuals have lots of baggage.

My problem with intellectual class systems is exactly your type of tone, you get frustrated if its outside of your box, if people cant explain the way that you want it to be explained and decide that its papancha, people may approach ultimate reality through maths and some others can approach it via another way, the way is not important what is important is progress of being liberating from suffering, is your maths helping you to become free from suffering and limitation of the self as an experience?

[PeterC]

Thank you, i can see your rather frustrated because the ocean does not fit in the pond...

Don’t presume. I’m not frustrated - I’m just vaguely amused to see such a long and confused discussion of something you admit you don’t understand. Have you even read Ramanujan’s notebooks? No, of course not. But because you know a little about his story you think you have a deeper understanding than people who have. You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself to come to that conclusion.