Buddhism and Quantum physics

[Jasudho]

Hi, and thanks for your response.

@freedom

What we call “the all” should include everything that we can know of or even have not yet known.

Here’s what the Buddha said about the All, SN35.23:
“Mendicants, I will teach you the all. Listen …
And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called the all.

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

So in the Buddha’s teaching there is no All that not yet known in the way you appear to be suggesting.
From a more philosophical and conceptual standpoint, we can imagine and speak about all kinds of unknown places and things – but the Buddha is teaching from a standpoint of direct experience through the senses here.

@freedom

Nibbana is not beyond the reach of views and concepts. It is to be experienced here and now.

Well, there are many teachings in the suttas that explicitly and implicitly deny this. If there’s thinking, which is conditional and impermanent, there’s dukkha.
SN 22.15 What’s impermanent is suffering. Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
And
SN 12.125 Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing. This is how right view is defined.

This doesn’t mean we don’t or can’t think, of course, only that anything that is impermanent is not nibbāna.

I’m happy that you’re no longer burdened with debt and are feeling lighter and happier!
However, only arahants directly realize “This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.”

@freedom

By stilling all activities, the particle is not created, its quantum field remains calm and peaceful. The “I” is not found.

May I suggest that no physicist has ever suggested an “I” in the quantum world or any other psychological or emotional factors in that domain.
The teaching of Dhamma applies to beings – mostly humans in the Pāli Canon – and is not meant to be applicable to the quantum scale and vice versa.

The 4NT’s are about suffering, dukkha, including its cause and the liberation from it.
IMHO, adding QM into the mix does not help to comprehend the cause of dukkha or aid in its ending. And that’s what the Buddha said was the purpose of his Teachings.

Just sharing some reflections here.
All best

[freedom]

Thanks for your feedback. I will try to clarify what I said:

@Jasudho

So in the Buddha’s teaching there is no All that not yet known in the way you appear to be suggesting.

You never see me, you never see my car but my car and I are not beyond the all. That is what I mean.

@Jasudho

Well, there are many teachings in the suttas that explicitly and implicitly deny this. If there’s thinking, which is conditional and impermanent, there’s dukkha.

I was suffering because of the debt. Now I no longer have any debt, and by wisdom, never pick up any new debt. The absence of debt is the nibbana that I experienced (This is just an example). In that absence, empty of debt, what could be impermanent when there is nothing there regarding to debt?

@Jasudho

May I suggest that no physicist has ever suggested an “I” in the quantum world or any other psychological or emotional factors in that domain

When I said the “I” is not found, I implied the “I” is similar to a particle in the quantum field. However, it is another topic that I do not want to bring up yet.

@Jasudho

adding QM into the mix does not help to comprehend the cause of dukkha or aid in its ending

To me, adding quantum physics into the mix can give new direction to many current problems about tetralemma, nibbana, I have seen many arguments about those topics and they do not go anywhere.

@Jasudho

The 4NT’s are about suffering, dukkha, including its cause and the liberation from it.

With quantum physics, we may have a new direction to understand why craving is the problem? Why is the stilling of all formations, of all activities peaceful? We can see that the excitement of the quantum field will create its particles. Why does the quantum field get excited? What caused this excitement or disturbance? The particles are created then cease. These particles are impermanent, but the quantum field is not even if it is in constant flux. However, this is beyond my ability to explain.

With an open mind, we will see many interesting ideas. If it does not fit with our current understanding, it still gives us a new direction when we are ready for it if we do not reject it.

[Jasudho]

Hi again

@freedom

You never see me, you never see my car but my car and I are not beyond the all. That is what I mean.

Except, in a way you are when you or anything is outside the sense field of the observing mind. The Buddha’s teachings are close to Phenomenology in this aspect, though of course, not limited to philosophical or psychological domains.
What we experience through the All, the senses, is all we can directly experience and work with. Hence, the Buddha’s statement, in this context, that

@Jasudho

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

@freedom

The absence of debt is the nibbana that I experienced

I agree and understand that the absence of a burden or hindrance is sukha, happiness. It’s just that conditional happiness like this, for any of us, is not nibbāna because we haven’t yet extinguished all greed, anger, and ignorance, ( a common “description” of nibbāna in the suttas).

@freedom

With quantum physics, we may have a new direction to understand why craving is the problem?

Certainly, you can pursue this if you wish. But may I suggest that for 2500 years, Dhamma practitioners have realized greater peace, happiness, and equanimity – and even nibbāna – without having the slightest clue about QM?

@freedom

current problems about tetralemma, nibbana, I have seen many arguments about those topics and they do not go anywhere.

The debates on the forum, including about the Tetralemma, need not be utterly resolved to 100% agreement for people to still deepen their practices, enjoy the Dhamma while cultivating wisdom and compassion, and ultimately to realize nibbāna is all I’m suggesting here.

Wishing you All the Best!

[freedom]

@Jasudho

Except, in a way you are when you or anything is outside the sense field of the observing mind.

It seems like my understanding about “the all” is different than yours. Even if I never see you, I still can know that you are nothing but form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. I never think you are anything beyond that.

However, it is nice to have some disagreements. That’s how we can improve our understanding.

Thanks for your feedback.

[NgXinZhao]

@Jasudho

Except, in a way you are when you or anything is outside the sense field of the observing mind. The Buddha’s teachings are close to Phenomenology in this aspect, though of course, not limited to philosophical or psychological domains.
What we experience through the All, the senses, is all we can directly experience and work with. Hence, the Buddha’s statement, in this context, that

The sutta did said if anyone tries to posit something beyond the all, they cannot do it because it’s beyond their range.

Outside of the 5 sense fields, we can still use the mind to image/ extrapolate that the person far away is still there.

@freedom

Without observation or measurement, we cannot say anything about it.

The maths of quantum superposition is exact. Just that it’s not classical. Classical means binary on off, here or there, not (complex number) here + (complex number) there

[Jasudho]

Thanks very much.

@NgXinZhao

Outside of the 5 sense fields, we can still use the mind to image/ extrapolate that the person far away is still there.

While the Sabba Sutta doesn’t mention it, I was taking “mind” as a 6th sense. Whatever we conceive or extrapolate in the mind is directly experienced only in the mind, rather than directly experiencing the “outside” objects themselves.
As in MN147 in which mind is listed along with the other senses.

@sujato

The six senses are each analyzed in a threefold way, for example, eye, sights, and eye consciousness. For the physical senses this is fairly straightforward, but for mind consciousness it’s not entirely clear. The mind is, after all, quite different from the other senses, even though we treat it according to the same template.

MN43:
" “Reverend, these five faculties have different scopes and different ranges, and don’t experience each others’ scope and range. That is, the faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. What do these five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to? What experiences their scopes and ranges?”

“These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.”

[Jhana4]

I remember a quote from the late Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. I think he was getting ready to explain walking meditation. It went something roughly like “The real miracle is not to walk on water, but to walk the Earth (with increased awareness)”.

People s-t-r-e-t-c-h Buddhist teaching to make it seem to have some kinship to science.

The real wonder is immersing yourself in a consistent long term meditation process and living by The Four Noble Truths.

No sarcasm or disrespect meant.

[freedom]

@Jhana4

People s-t-r-e-t-c-h Buddhist teaching to make it seem to have some kinship to science.

If science can help to solve my problem I will not mind to use it. I think science is catching up with Buddhism.

[Jhana4]

@freedom

If science can help to solve my problem I will not mind to use it. I think science is catching up with Buddhism.

I consider Buddhism to be one of the most important things I think about on a daily basis.

Science is absurdly ahead of explaining the natural universe than the myths in the Buddhist writings.

I am starting to think that the Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Path may be one of the most powerful mental health tools in existence, though perhaps one of hardest to understand in terms of application.

Western psychology has powerful tools to, and research seems to be promising more.

My career has problem solving as one of the dominant issues between the lines. One thing I have learned is “the right tools for the right job”. Find solutions first, then look for preferred solutions. Don’t exclude possibilities before you start.

Good luck.

[mikenz66]

@freedom

As I see, quantum physics is beyond normal logic. It breaks many conventional rules, and it is hard to understand, unfathomable. However, we can see the similarities with Buddhism.

It’s been a while since I read it, but I highly recommend B Alan Wallace’s book Choosing Reality (and some of his other work). Wallace actually took the time to study Physics, so his book is relatively unique in that he does know something about both Buddhism and Physics. The message I took away from his work was that it was not useful to draw conclusions on a technical level, but on the level of both modern Physics and Dhamma requiring a radical change one’s point of view to understand.

I met Wallace briefly when he gave a talk here recently and we bonded over our disappointment back in the 70s in learning that such works as “The Tao of Physics”. That particular book laid great emphasis on parallels between Eastern thought and a Physics theory which, at the time the book came out, was going out of fashion (replaced by the “Standard Model”). I presume there have been similar claims about currently fashionable theories and I would caution hitching Dhamma to those.

[freedom]

@mikenz66

The message I took away from his work was that it was not useful to draw conclusions on a technical level, but on the level of both modern Physics and Dhamma requiring a radical change one’s point of view to understand.

Thanks Mikenz66,

I brought up this topic in the hope that there will be a discussion about the topic, so I can find interesting ideas to improve my knowledge. I understand that very few people will be interested in this topic because it is abnormal and not very Buddhist. However, that is ok since I believe there will be people who will find this topic interesting.

Yes, this will require a radical change in one’s point of view to see any value in this abnormal topic.

[mikenz66]

It’s certainly worth thinking about, but I would advise reading some books, by people who have studied both Dhamma and Physics deeply. Wallace’s book that I mentioned above is in that category. And don’t expect it to be easy. My fourth-year Physics students struggle to come to grips with Bell’s theorem and the experimental work of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics winners.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

[freedom]

@mikenz66

It’s certainly worth thinking about,

I am glad that I am not alone with my own observations. Since I like simple and easy-to-understand explanations for dummies like me rather than sophisticated theories or grammars that will blow my mind, I just found a good video on YouTube that has similar observations like mine even if there are some points that I do not totally agree with and it does not address the topic that I am presenting here. I think it is worth taking a look with an open mind.

The Secret Connection Between Quantum Physics And Buddhism

[mikenz66]

I’m sorry, but it’s really hard to take this seriously:

This Quantum Field is the very ground from which every atom, all matter, the universe, and our very selves arise from and falls back into.

There is a similar notion within Buddhism. It is called dependent arising or Pratītyasamutpāda.

I don’t think those are accurate statements about either Physics or Dhamma.

The thinking about measurement and quantum mechanics has come a long way since the debates in the 30s between Einstein, Bhor, etc.
It’s been almost 60 years since Bell’s work changed the landscape - pointing out some issues that Einstein, Bhor, and others had missed. This led to the work recognised by the 2022 Nobel Prize, and the dawn of quantum information technology.

The material on the Nobel site is worth reading: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/
See: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/popular-physicsprize2022-3.pdf

The first quantum revolution gave us transistors and lasers, but we are now entering a new era thanks to contemporary tools for manipulating systems of entangled particles.

And there are many interesting videos out there that make a good attempt to explain the issues:

Why Did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics?

Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox

These experiments rule out certain ideas about “local realism” and what you can know about certain quantum systems before you make the measurements. With some imagination one could start comparing these ideas with what the Dhamma says about how we perceive things. I’m not convinced that this is actually helpful in understanding the Dhamma, apart from the obvious observation that understanding either requires a radical change in how we think.

[freedom]

@mikenz66

I don’t think those are accurate statements about either Physics or Dhamma.

I do not accept everything that they say, but I also do not reject them. Those ideas are good for discernment. Sometimes, we think they are wrong, but actually that may be because we misunderstood something, or because of our own way of understanding. Of course, they could be wrong too.

I myself find this statement interesting. I think it comes from the new Quantum Field theory.

This Quantum Field is the very ground from which every atom, all matter, the universe, and our very selves arise from and falls back into.

This is a very similar concept with Theosophy, Hinduism and Taoism as I could understand them.

They tried to compare that to dependent arising in Buddhism. We may think that this is a wrong comparison, but it also depends on how we understand dependent origination. In fact, we have so many different interpretations of DO, and not too many people agree with others.

I can see that as similar to oneness, source, absolute reality concept in other religions. However, I think they are not very Buddhist, and I also do not want to discuss them here.

We know that rupa or matter is energy (E = mc2). When namarupa ceases, what will happen to that energy? Of course, energy cannot be destroyed, so we cannot say when namarupa ceases, nothing is left. If not, where does it go?

When we keep our mind open, we will find many interesting things, and we can see our own mistakes so we can correct them. This is the best thing that we can do for ourselves. This reminds me about an advice from the Buddha to avoid “Only this is correct, everything else is wrong.”

[mikenz66]

I’m sorry, but I’m not impressed by their discussion of physics, which is why I provided some links to reasonably accurate discussions of physics that really does challenge our ideas of reality. By all means investigate things, but consult some reputable sources.

@freedom

When we keep our mind open, we will find many interesting things, and we can see our own mistakes so we can correct them.

But how are you proposing to “correct mistakes”, or judge random YouTube videos?

The people who developed quantum field theory, such as Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, who shared the 1965 Nobel prize, spent many years studying and developing the necessary physics and mathematics

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1965

There is plenty of interesting material presented by experts at various levels of sophistication, about their work and subsequent work. You can even watch Feynman explaining his insights:

[NgXinZhao]

Agreed, this subject of Buddhism and Physics is not easily done by those who are not very well versed in both of them. And subpar comparison is harmful for there’s the quantum woo-woo going around. Misusing quantum concepts to promote their brand of spirituality. We don’t want that to happen to Buddhism.

[thomaslaw]

If quantum physics refers to the world/the sense spheres, then, the world, according to SN 35.85 = SA 232, is “empty of self or of anything belonging to self”. Cf.:
Pages 93-94 from the-fundamental-teachings-of-early-buddhism_Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (138.3 KB)

[freedom]

@mikenz66

But how are you proposing to “correct mistakes”, or judge random YouTube videos?

I prefer to see my own mistakes and correct them than trying to correct other people’s mistakes. Their mistakes could also be my mistakes. When I see their mistakes, I review to see if I make the same mistakes? If they are willing to listen to me, then I will let them know what I think. If not, I have no trouble with that. To me, that is how I understand for now, and that is how they understand at this time.

A full cup can no longer receive anything.

Quantum field theory is a new theory. We will not get new thing if we reject it.

Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong

[mikenz66]

Hi Freedom,

@freedom

I prefer to see my own mistakes and correct them than trying to correct other people’s mistakes. Their mistakes could also be my mistakes. When I see their mistakes, I review to see if I make the same mistakes? If they are willing to listen to me, then I will let them know what I think. If not, I have no trouble with that. To me, that is how I understand for now, and that is how they understand at this time.

A full cup can no longer receive anything.

Quantum field theory is a new theory. We will not get new thing if we reject it.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I’m afraid you need to read a lot more about the basics. Quantum field theory has been around for a long time. The Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga Nobel Prize I mentioned was for developments in QFT (then often called Quantum Electrodynamics as only the electromagnetic interaction was well understood then - the weak and strong interactions were worked out in the next few decades).

See Quantum field theory - Wikipedia for a summary.
There are, of course, many unanswered questions in Physics, but to even understand the questions takes considerable effort .

Just to be clear, I am not an expert on the latest developments in Quantum Field Theory - it’s not my research area. However, I have taught various courses on Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, Relativity, Electrodynamics, and other areas of Physics for more than three decades. My research students use quantum mechanical calculations in our research on optical materials.