Buddhism and Quantum physics

The Watercooler
21

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 ā€œOnly this is correct, everything else is wrong.ā€

22

Iā€™m sorry, but Iā€™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.

But how are you proposing to ā€œcorrect mistakesā€, 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

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:

1 Like
23

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 thereā€™s the quantum woo-woo going around. Misusing quantum concepts to promote their brand of spirituality. We donā€™t want that to happen to Buddhism.

24

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

25

I prefer to see my own mistakes and correct them than trying to correct other peopleā€™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.

26

Hi Freedom,

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Iā€™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 - itā€™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.

2 Likes
27

Thanks Mikenz66,
Of course, I do need to know more about this topic. However, I do not think I need to be an expert in quantum physics to see the similarities of it with what I learned from Buddhism. With this new direction, I can make sense of many difficult dilemmas that I got stuck on before. That is good enough for me now. I do not try to convince anybody that this direction is good or bad. My intention is to find some other serious discernments on the topic so I can learn more. Thatā€™s all. I do not look for advice on whether it is good or bad. If there is no one who will be interested in this topic, I also have no problem with that.

I am glad that you have a very strong background on physics, so I think you will have a very open mind with new ideas even if they seem to be ridiculous, wrong or impractical. Discovery is to explore the unknown, to jump into a place that everybody else rejected or does not want to go.

My intention is to look for new opinions about the topic. Why do we think the observations are wrong or correct? Is superposition a non-observable state? If it is non-observable, can we say it exists? Non-exist? either? neither? Do we see the same tetralemma in Buddhism? With this, do we need any degree in physics to see that?

There are many more things that I have found. However, I understand that there are some people who are allergic to this topic, so I do not want to bother them too much; therefore, I better keep this simple.

28

Thatā€™s a good approach. As I said above, a good place to start would be with B Alan Wallaceā€™s book Choosing Reality. I canā€™t think of any other writings I was particularly impressed by, but of course Iā€™ve not read every book and internet siteā€¦ :rofl:

Good luck!

29

Superpositionā€™s tetralemma at 1:10:50. This is a beautiful lecture to understand about superpositionā€™s tetralemma.

My focus is on the tetralemma that I also see in Buddhism.

30

Thatā€™s an excellent lecture. And I would certainly agree that with both Quantum Mechanics and Dhamma you have to go beyond what your everyday experience tells you.

31

Hereā€™s my take on it. On hold for now. I am focusing on being trained as a monk for now.

Observation means different things in quantum physics vs Buddhism.

Exists needs to be defined properly in philosophical sense, then we can look at it from Buddhist viewpoints of exists and the various interpretations of quantum to see what they think of as real/exist.

Physics and Buddhism is a lot of philosophy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/quantuminterpretation/ I created this subreddit on the way in writing the chapter on interpretations of quantum and Buddhism, but itā€™s still a lot more for me to learn all the interpretations. As I said, itā€™s on hold now.

The main problem with quantum is that the maths doesnā€™t pin down one single interpretation.

The myriad of interpretations compatible with the experiments of quantum tells us that really, to fairly compare quantum to any philosophy including Buddhist philosophy, one has to compare the interpretations one by one.

Most introduction to quantum materials out there uses Copenhagen interpretation as default due to historically itā€™s the most dominant for many decades.

32

I am a physicist and I find some common points between (some interpretations of) quantum physics and some buddhist teachings (e.g. relational quantum physics and anatta - or Nagarjunaā€™s teachings of interdependence). Having said that I find that one can find common points between qm and other religions too and we should be careful of not falling into buddhist exceptionalism.
I had the honour of knowing J. Polkinghorne (a student of Dirac who later became a Pastor and received the Templetonā€™s Prize) in Cambridge (on whose work some of my Masterā€™s work on qm was based) and he found connections between Christianity and QM.

33

With an open mind, I do not hesitate to learn and test anything that can help me to understand what I am pondering no matter if that is Buddhism, Theosophy, Taoism, Science, Hinduismā€¦Therefore, I was sometimes considered not a Buddhist. However, I do not mind that at all. All I focus on is to understand the subject.

In Buddhism, we know that form is not ā€œI, my, mine, myselfā€, but I am not apart from form. What does this mean?

There is a view that takes this as there is no I or no self. Since there is no I, no self then there is also no soul, no atman because this is what we called anatta in Buddhism. With this, it covers all the possibilities of the existence of the self whether it is permanent, unchangeable atman or impermanent, changeable such as soul or ego, true self or not true self.

However, I do not see how this view explains the second part of ā€œI am not apart from formā€? In normal logic, if there is no ā€œIā€ then the statement ā€œI am not apart from formā€ is an invalid statement. In other words, we cannot say ā€œform is not Iā€ but/and ā€œform is I or I am in form or form is in meā€. Some may say that what we call ā€œIā€ in the second part is not the real ā€œIā€, so the ā€œIā€ that is not apart from form is that fake ā€œIā€. However, this contradicts the first part that said ā€œform is not I.ā€ It does not say ā€œform is not real Iā€

When the Buddha is asked if there is a self? He keeps silent then explains that if he says there is a self then it is eternalism, if he says there is no self then it is annihilation. He then points to Dependent Origination as the middle way. What DO is referring to? Not too many people can agree with its implication. Not saying that we have no idea what it is referring to.

When someone asks if the soul and the body are identical or the soul and the body are different things, the Buddha tells us that view arises because of grasping. However, In DN7, the Buddha says that if a noble monk enters and remains in jhanas, it is appropriate to say of him that the soul and the body are identical or the soul or the body are different things. However, even if the Buddha also knows and sees like that, he does not say so. Why? To me, because the Buddha understood superposition.

We can see the superposition process of the soul and body here. (Note that what we call soul here is simply mind or ā€œfeeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness.ā€)

When the perception of the body is still there (in rupa jhanas), we can say the soul and the body are identical. What we feel, perceiveā€¦ are simply about the body or the mind. However, when the perception of the body is no longer there (in arupa jhanas), that means when there is no more observation of the body, we can say that the soul and the body are different. What we feel, perceiveā€¦ are not about the body.

When there is no observation of both the body and the soul (cessation of feeling and perception), we are in the superposition state of the soul and the body. At this step, we can no longer be identified with anything. In other words, when there is no more observation, we cannot determine anything about that superposition state. However, this does not mean that there is nothing there. According to superpositionā€™s concept as I understood, it contains an infinite number of potential states. This is why the Buddha does not say if the body and the soulā€¦ He simply says: when this is, that is. When this is not, that is not.

ā€œThis isā€ is the outcome of an observation. ā€œThe soul and the body are identicalā€ is the outcome of an observation. The ā€œselfā€ is the outcome of an observation. The Buddha never says that the self does not exist!

Superposition helps me make sense of many difficult concepts and implications in Buddhism. However, since this is my own approach and understanding, there will be many objections, so I will better keep it simple.

1 Like
34

Conditioned.
Hence, one is under ignorance of not knowing.

The teachings are transcendent, meaning it can help one to transcend the duality, eg. existence (birth and death) which in itself is suffering.

Itā€™s not about self or no self but rather Not-self because the great illusion is to be known and seen.

He does, Unborn. (There is that dimensionā€¦ā€¦)

Superposition ā€¦ā€¦ donā€™t think this is the same here? depends on the definitions? Do you have a solid definition?

35

As I see, self is the outcome of an observation, no self is the outcome of an observation, not self is also the outcome of an observation.

With observation, we can only know and see the manifestation of the superposition state. This state can only be known by direct experience, not by observation. The great illusion is its manifestation.

I am referring to DN7.

What different are you referring to?

36

Bold text above is contradictory.
Self and no-self by normal observation is ok, but not for not-self, as you mentioned, itā€™s by direct experience only. So this direct experience isnā€™t a normal observation.

If the above superposition state is what your reference as superposition is, then unborn would be the equivalent here.

This isnā€™t beyond the ALL but still counts as direct experience.

Therefore your statement above:

has nothing to do with DN7 above.

37

When we can say that ā€œit is not selfā€ then that is an observation.

To me, self, no self, not self , true self, fake selfā€¦ are simply views of self. They are called doctrine of self.

It could be. I also think so. However, I leave it open for more exploration.

I just try to show what I think great illusion is.

38

Since not too many people are interested in this topic, I will go alone for now.

We cannot observe or measure the superposition. However it does not mean that the superposition is nothing, empty. In fact, it is the real state. It is simply that we cannot pinpoint or describe what it is. However, it can be known by direct-knowing. This is an internal-knowing or subjective-knowing.

What we can observe through the senses is the manifestation of this real state. The manifestations are conditioned by the observation. Without observation, they do not manifest.

This superposition state can be known by direct experience only. Observation is the knowing through the six senses. This is an external-knowing or objective-knowing. By observation through the senses, all we can know is just the manifestations, not the real superposition state. This is what we call the great illusion.

However, we normally take these manifestations as real and true while we have no idea about the superposition. These manifestations are conditioned and impermanent, but since we take them as real and true, we cling to them, identify with them and suffer life after life.

The superposition state is obtained when we drop all desires for external observations which are driven by ignorance. When there is no more observation or consciousness through the senses we will reach this state.

When the observation through the six senses is ceased, we reach the superposition state. However, this does not mean that the current manifested aggregates also ceased. This is what we call nibbana with residue. The current manifested aggregates only cease at death. Here, the remaining is just the body.

It is hard to control the senses without seclusion; therefore, jhanas practice always requires seclusion as a prerequisite unless one is already mastered and can control the senses.

In Buddhism, meditation is the practice of direct knowing. The less we depend on external knowing through the six senses (objective-knowing), the more we come closer to direct knowing or subjective-knowing.