Emptiness and Quantum Physics

[Rick]

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.

[narhwal90]

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

something to be wary of.

[Kim O'Hara]

Far too often we see arguments like, "A is weird and B is weird so A must be the same as B."
It's a very simple logical fallacy but it's obviously very attractive.


Kim

[Rick]

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.

[Rick]

Far too often we see arguments like, "A is weird and B is weird so A must be the same as B."
It's a very simple logical fallacy but it's obviously very attractive.


Kim

Yes, correspondence by association. Easy to go awry with it.

An equally nasty mistake is to assume that, because X and Y are not the same, they are not similar.

[CompassionateJourney]

I'm not ashamed to say that my layman interest in Quantum Physics actually led me to Buddhism.

[Matt J]

I think QP provides strong evidence that matter is empty, and also paradoxical. HHDL referred to its findings the only time I saw him.

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.

[Rick]

I think QP provides strong evidence that matter is empty, and also paradoxical. HHDL referred to its findings the only time I saw him.

QP also shines light on the Pratītyasamutpāda nature of matter. And, depending on how you interpret the data, it might even include consciousness in the mix. But this is where things get dicey ... non-dualistos are sometimes guilty of spinning or misinterpreting QP to prove/promote their views. It's easy to build conceptual bridges between QP and Eastern philosophies, but it's very hard to get it right, as I'm sure HHDL would agree!

[Rick]

I'm not ashamed to say that my layman interest in Quantum Physics actually led me to Buddhism.

Exactly the opposite for me! My interest in Buddhism, especially emptiness, led me to QP. But the deeper I get into QP, the more I realize it's not quite what I thought it would be. It's even weirder. Thus far I haven't made a dogged effort to follow the math of QP, I'm still at the "Ooooh! Ahhhhh!" stage of understanding the concepts. Did your interest in QP include grappling with the math?

[Matt J]

There's a good book on that--- The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. Per the science professor authors, science is very uncomfortable with importing consciousness into the mix, but it is probably necessary.

I think QP provides strong evidence that matter is empty, and also paradoxical. HHDL referred to its findings the only time I saw him.

QP also shines light on the Pratītyasamutpāda nature of matter. And, depending on how you interpret the data, it might even include consciousness in the mix. But this is where things get dicey ... non-dualistos are sometimes guilty of spinning or misinterpreting QP to prove/promote their views. It's easy to build conceptual bridges between QP and Eastern philosophies, but it's very hard to get it right, as I'm sure HHDL would agree!

[Rick]

There's a good book on that--- The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. Per the science professor authors, science is very uncomfortable with importing consciousness into the mix, but it is probably necessary.

Afaik most Eastern philosophies are uncomfortable importing science into the mix, but the Big Picture probably calls for both spirit and science.

Thanks for the book suggestion, I'll check it out.

[Matt J]

I think the reason for that is that science is always changing. If you tie your path to science, then it will have to change when science changes. I remember in my lifetime, science said that the brain didn't change after a certain age. Now neuroplasticity is all the rage.

Anakka Harris, Sam Harris' wife, also wrote an interesting book called Conscious. She reached out to a number of luminaries in the neurological/biological sciences who said they didn't think the "hard problem" would be solved, and were secretly more open to some sort of panpsychism. However, no one wants to challenge the current materialist paradigm and risk their careers.

Afaik most Eastern philosophies are uncomfortable importing science into the mix, but the Big Picture probably calls for both spirit and science.

Thanks for the book suggestion, I'll check it out.

[mikenz66]

I think the reason for that is that science is always changing. If you tie your path to science, then it will have to change when science changes. I remember in my lifetime, science said that the brain didn't change after a certain age. Now neuroplasticity is all the rage.

Yes, a classic example relevant here is that the Bootstrap Model that was made so much of in The Tao of Physics went out of favour just as that book came out.


Mike

[Rick]

I think the reason for that is that science is always changing. If you tie your path to science, then it will have to change when science changes.

Everything is always changing, right? Tying your path to anything allegedly unchanging has got to sooner or later get you treading water.

Rather than embracing the current models of science, embrace the process. Likewise for Buddhism. T-shirt idea:

Embrace the Process!

[Rick]

Yes, a classic example relevant here is that the Bootstrap Model that was made so much of in The Tao of Physics went out of favour just as that book came out.

What, in zee nutshell, is the Bootstrap Model ... and why did it fall out of favor?

[Archie2009]

There's a good book on that--- The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. Per the science professor authors, science is very uncomfortable with importing consciousness into the mix, but it is probably necessary.

I think QP provides strong evidence that matter is empty, and also paradoxical. HHDL referred to its findings the only time I saw him.

QP also shines light on the Pratītyasamutpāda nature of matter. And, depending on how you interpret the data, it might even include consciousness in the mix. But this is where things get dicey ... non-dualistos are sometimes guilty of spinning or misinterpreting QP to prove/promote their views. It's easy to build conceptual bridges between QP and Eastern philosophies, but it's very hard to get it right, as I'm sure HHDL would agree!

Looking at the table of contents, it isn't until page 221 (of the second edition) of the book that consciousness is introduced, the second to last chapter. If the preceding 15 chapters are simply another exposition of QP for the layman, it might be best to borrow the book from the library and read just the last three chapters...

[PadmaVonSamba]

Someone told me this a long time ago...

[Rick]

See, even Amitabha was into QP!

[mikenz66]

Yes, a classic example relevant here is that the Bootstrap Model that was made so much of in The Tao of Physics went out of favour just as that book came out.

What, in zee nutshell, is the Bootstrap Model ... and why did it fall out of favor?

I'm not an expert, but it was a model where, in oversimplified terms, everything was made out of everything else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_model
That was an appealing to Fritjof Capra who linked it to Eastern religions in The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav, who wrote the Dancing Wu Li Masters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters

Here's a discussion of The Tao of Physics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University, criticized Capra for continuing to build his case for physics-mysticism parallels on the bootstrap model of strong-force interactions, long after the Standard Model had become thoroughly accepted by physicists as a better model:[9]

The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution one month earlier that led to the dramatic confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory clearly had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at that time). What is harder to understand is that the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened. The foreword to the second edition of 1983 claims, "It has been very gratifying for me that none of these recent developments has invalidated anything I wrote seven years ago. In fact, most of them were anticipated in the original edition," a statement far from any relation to the reality that in 1983 the standard model was nearly universally accepted in the physics community, and the bootstrap theory was a dead idea ... Even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore. It has been joined by some other books on the same topic, most notably Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened.

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...


Mike

[mikenz66]

Yes, a classic example relevant here is that the Bootstrap Model that was made so much of in The Tao of Physics went out of favour just as that book came out.

What, in zee nutshell, is the Bootstrap Model ... and why did it fall out of favor?

I'm not an expert, but it was a model where, in oversimplified terms, everything was made out of everything else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_model
That was an appealing to Fritjof Capra who linked it to Eastern religions in The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav, who wrote the Dancing Wu Li Masters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters

Here's a discussion of The Tao of Physics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University, criticized Capra for continuing to build his case for physics-mysticism parallels on the bootstrap model of strong-force interactions, long after the Standard Model had become thoroughly accepted by physicists as a better model:[9]

The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution one month earlier that led to the dramatic confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory clearly had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at that time). What is harder to understand is that the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened. The foreword to the second edition of 1983 claims, "It has been very gratifying for me that none of these recent developments has invalidated anything I wrote seven years ago. In fact, most of them were anticipated in the original edition," a statement far from any relation to the reality that in 1983 the standard model was nearly universally accepted in the physics community, and the bootstrap theory was a dead idea ... Even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore. It has been joined by some other books on the same topic, most notably Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened.

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...


Mike