SuttaCentral

Is reality a game of quantum mirrors? A new theory suggests it might be

14 Likes

Sounds like Indras net. Still, there is that which knows the net.

1 Like

"Everything that exists, exists by convention and labelling "

"Astrophysicist Trịnh Xuân Thuận argues that the Buddhist idea of “subtle impermanence”, which refers to the idea that everything is constantly changing extremely rapidly is consistent with “our modern scientific conception of the universe” which holds that everything is in constant motion.[103] He also compares the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness (the idea that nothing has an intrinsic nature) with the findings of quantum physics, which understands that sub-atomic particles cannot be understood as being real solid entities with fixed properties such as momentum and position (this is one understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).[104] Thuận cites Erwin Schrödinger who said that “it is better not to view a particle as a permanent entity, but rather as an instantaneous event. Sometimes these events link together to create the illusion of permanent entities.” Thuận sees this understanding of sub-atomic particles as similar to the understanding of reality in Buddhist metaphysics.[105]

Thuận and Matthieu Ricard also discuss the similarities between Buddhist views of interdependence and phenomena such as quantum nonlocality and Mach’s principle in The quantum and the lotus. [106] According to Thuận, the views of Bohr and Heisenberg seem to support the Buddhist view that physical particles do not exist as independent phenomena, but can only be said to exist in dependence on our conceptual designations and the process of observation. This view of the quantum world is sometimes called the Copenhagen interpretation.[107]

The Italian theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli cites Nagarjuna in his book Helgoland, a defense of the relational interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which understands quantum properties as arising from the relations between quantum phenomena. According to Rovelli, “properties of an object are the way in which it acts upon other objects; reality is this web of interactions.”[108] Rovelli thinks that the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nāgārjuna resonates with the relational view of Quantum Mechanics and provides a conceptual understanding of reality that does not need a metaphysical foundation. Rovelli writes that “Nāgārjuna has given us a formidable conceptual tool for thinking about the relationality of quanta: we can think of interdependence without autonomous essence entering the equation.”[109]

Oxford physicist Vlatko Vedral, in his Decoding Reality, mentions the Buddhist theory of emptiness as an ancient example of the philosophy of “relationalism.” Vedral, who argues for an interpretation of Quantum physics based on information theory, states that “Quantum physics is indeed very much in agreement with Buddhistic emptiness.” He states that “we will never arrive at ‘the thing in itself’ by any kind of means. Everything that exists, exists by convention and labelling and is therefore dependent on other things.”[110] This is similar to some forms of Buddhist philosophy (such as Madhyamaka) which hold that everything is merely conceptual.[110]

Physics professor Vic Mansfield has also written on the similarities between the modern understanding of time and special relativity and Madhyamaka thought.[111] According to Mansfield, an appreciation of how these two traditions understand time as a relative phenomenon can aid a deeper understanding of both and that “a nontrivial synergy between these two very different disciplines is possible.”[112] Mansfield also argues that this kind of dialogue is important for Buddhism because “if Buddhism is to come to the West, in the best and fullest sense of the term, then interaction with science is both inevitable and necessary for a real transplant to take place.”[112]"—Wikipedia

Note on SN 1.61:

The Sutta highlights the power of ‘name.’ Everything comes under its sway. The Comm. observes: ‘There is no being or formation without a name, whether this be attached primordially or by convention. Even when people do not know a particular tree or stone by this or that name, it will still be called a ‘no-namer’ (anaamako ).’ This over-riding power of name has been recognized by Lao-tse too, when he calls it the ‘mother of all things.’ In magic, one’s knowledge of the secret names of spirits is deemed a weapon effective in itself against their evil influence. In panegyric, the ability to muster a wide range of epithets is considered a rewarding skill.

Everything comes under the sway of name as a result of man’s urge to familiarize himself with the world. Sorting out, naming and defining things, are practical necessities in ordinary life, since they help us avoid ‘tripping-over,’ just as in the case of one groping in the dark. There is a constant need to re-cognize things and the easiest way of doing it, is by putting a sign on them. While the five senses have their own separate modes of indentation, mind largely relies on the labeling-mode of attaching a name, in the course of its own groping. Since mind partakes of the ‘range’ (visaya) and pasture (gocara) of the other five senses as well (M. I. 295.), its own mode of indentation has a preponderating influence over the rest. Thus, perceptual data of the five external senses, in all their permutations and combinations, finally come to be assigned names and pigeon-holed as ‘things.’ This convenient but superficial indentation beclouds the mind and prevents the immediate understanding of sense-contact (phassa). Its mode of apperception, therefore, is largely a process of ‘imagining’ and ‘figuring-out’ of objects located in the darkness of ignorance, and in its blind groping, the phenomenon of sense-contact as such, hardly receives any serious attention.

The over-riding power of name could only be nullified by the process of ‘attending-by-way-of-matrix’ (yoniso manasikaara) in order to understand the very structure of sense-experience. By comprehending the phenomenon of sense-contact for what it is, the imaginary world of ‘things’ will cease to obsess the mind. When the light of wisdom is turned on, there will be no ‘groping-in-the-dark,’ and consequently, no necessity to imagine or ‘figure-out’ things, for one now ‘knows and sees’ for oneself that there is ‘No-thing.’ (‘Jaanato passato natthi ki~ncana.m’ — Ud. 80: ‘Naught for him who knows and sees.’).—Nanananda

“What is it that overwhelmed[18] everything? What is it that nought else excels? What is it that to which one thing Everything else its course doth bend? 'Tis name that has overwhelmed everything Nought else exists that excels name And Name itself is that one thing Beneath whose sway all others came.[19]

— SN 1.61

“these are the world’s designations, the world’s expressions, the world’s ways of speaking, the world’s descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them.”—DN 9

There are two simultaneous realities, and insight involves coming to grips with that. Knowledge of emptiness proceeds in steps and even the first should be labelled “emptiness” in contrast with “conventional”.

“And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.”—MN 121

1 Like

Wondering if there is any connection to mirror neurons in human and bird brains to the appearence of reality as a game of quantum mirrors. Mirror neurons help us to learn through mimicking, understand others motivation, intention and behavior and perhaps develop empathy. V.S Ramachandran has speculated that mirror neurons may provide the neurological basis of human self-awareness; they can be turned inward for introspection.

1 Like

Yes, using the concept of mirror. That’s about it.

Mirror neurons seems to utilise the copying, mimicking property of mirror images.

Quantum mirror is actually just another recently developed quantum interpretation, called relational interpretation. The mirror property used is that both object and subject are in relation to each other, mirror image is in relation to the original. However, there’s no need for the sameness, or copying, mimicking property of the mirror, as obviously the subject can be very different from the object.

The imagination of only one mirror may suggest one side truly exist, the other is an illusion, whereas relational QM is more of both sides are mirrors, no underlying ontology, what exist is only relations. The mirror analogy becomes somewhat inadequate.

1 Like