You know it occurs to me that various Abhidhamma projects are in some sense closely related. They ponder elements, atoms and irreducible substances. They didn’t have the experimental tradition to go with it, just the observational tradition. So in that sense it is related to the work of physical theorists (especially those that do not have an instrumentalist approach) if not so much the work of physics. 
1 Like
Yes, I also mentioned those before after pondering briefly. The Abhidhamma projects are, to my mind, intended to construct all-encompassing metaphysical models that suit their interests. In this sense, their metaphysics includes discussions of matter, mechanics, cosmology, etc. And I think you are right. They do not seem to have done actual experimentation, though they did use empirical reasoning. I think it’s probably another vague similarity between Abhidhamma-era Buddhism and Greek philosophy after Socrates.
That seems right @Vaddha. Also, important to point out that what I think we’re attempting here in this thread is not so much construction of physical theories as deconstructing them so as to see if we can find any universal. That is what I think is in keeping with the Phena sutta. If we an find universals they might act as objects of desire or a basis for building up new Abhidhamma theories. Conversely, undermining the belief in the universals that modern physical theories offer I think is quite related to Buddhism. At least in my mind.
The experiment is to see the ultimate realities with the mind sharpened by samadhi. And see if it aligns with the Abhidhamma.
Your favourite: Emptiness.
to say there’s no universal is itself a universal statement.
Fair. I meant experimentation in the physical sciences sense.
Yeah but this is philosophy not physics. See the talk of instrumentalism. Abhidhammikas can’t argue against Scientism or Physicalism and then make the same kind of category error with their ancient scriptures. All the best venerable
Only if we believe in the lack of essence in things as an affirming negative. I don’t. Also, important to point out once again I’m not claiming direct perception of emptiness.
I heard of meditation instructions where one can try to increase the earth element in kalapas and see how the colour, smell etc changes. So it’s also there. dependent origination etc. It’s causation and thus similar to physics experiments.
1 Like
Sounds like a visualization exercise. I don’t think visualizing photons after meditation to do an experiment would hold up in a peer-reviewed journal. But I’m not a physicist, what do I know!
1 Like
What kind of error? I got lost in your reasoning line.
I don’t understand this. Your statement of no universal is still meant as a universal. If it is applied to itself, then it becomes non-universal, implying that there’s something universal. If there’s something universal, then the statement of nothing universal is false.
Let’s keep it simple then. I can’t find an essence in anything I’ve looked for. Nothing seems to satisfy in my search for essence. I haven’t looked at every phenomena or experienced every phenomena therefore I am not qualified to say that I know every phenomena lacks essence.
Still, it is my hypothesis that if I keep searching, no matter how hard I try and no matter what I look at, I will not be able to find an essence. You could say I have faith that universally things lack essence. The pattern will remain: the search for an essence in things will continue to come up empty. Finding a single thing that does not come up empty will be enough to falsify this hypothesis.
Sorry, you lost me again. Can you instrumentally tell, what it looks like for a thing to have essence, or else the statement that things have an essence or no essence becomes empty statement because of being unable to be tested.
Imagine a liar, who always lies. If they say “this sentence is a lie,” what happens if they are lying? Then it would mean the sentence is not a lie, but that would render the original statement false! And someone who intentionally says a false statement is …
Just to relate back to the discussion before. I believe that the Buddha claimed that he knew all things to be empty because he knew that any valid referent would have to fall within the sense spheres. What he called “the all” or “the world.” I believe that he did not comment on what is “beyond” or “not beyond” or both or neither of that, because it would be groundless. Those statements and assertions would also just be grounded in sense experience, or ‘contact.’
Photons and electrons and so on are things people talk about after experiencing data and other sensory phenomena. So if the Buddha found that all sense experience is dependently arisen and empty, then it would automatically include the whole world in his definition of the term. This is why I said before that interpretations of quantum mechanics, if they had a bearing on emptiness, would be problematic: they would undermine the foundation of the Buddha’s assertions on it. It would entail a new set of epistemological and ontological assertions, and it would seem to require some kind of omniscience, which is arguably impossible.
This is also why I don’t think there is a true distinction in early Buddhism between “selflessness” and “emptiness.” A distinct form of ‘selflessness’ is really just a reification of the senses or aggregates, what @josephzizys calls the “fictionalist” argument, I believe. But now it’s tangential. As for the related question:
Say someone rejects Scientism. They say that scientists who make measurements and so on of the physical world are unable to honestly claim they have seen ultimate reality or what the whole world is made of, such as Physicalism. They say that those are philosophical claims and questions that are not confirmed or denied by scientific research. So say they propose an instrumentalist application of science, where it is just science without ontological commitments.
Then they go to Abhidhamma class, and suppose they experience flashing particles in meditation. If they claim to have ‘seen ultimate reality’ which is irreducible or independent and existent apart from all perceivers, do you see how that would be the same category error as scientism? Just that rather than modern physics, it’s Medieval metaphysics manuals + meditation, and rather than physicalism its some kind of atomism or classification of “ultimate realities.” That too is just philosophical speculation without recognizing it. No “ultimate realities” have been proven. All that’s likely happened is that someone had some confirmation bias of Medieval metaphysics manuals based on a temporary meditation experience.
2 Likes
Imagine an underlying scientific reality so compelling, so universal, so observed by every and all scientific perceivers, so fundamental, so ultimate, so inherent, so real that even the instrumentalists couldn’t deny the essence of this underlying reality. Nearly every scientist that doesn’t take an instrumentalist approach thinks they’ve already found it or that science will one day find it.
I think what you’re saying here is that if physicists did indeed construct an ultimate theory that so compelling told of a fundamental essence to things that this would be highly problematic to the foundations of Buddha’s assertions. I think I’d agree. However, what is remarkable is that the story of physics over the last 100 years is moving farther and farther from this rather toward it. So much so that one of the leading quantum gravity theorists wrote a book about how his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was unnervingly similar to what he said he understood Nagarjuna to be speaking about 
What about the quantum field? Or in string theories, fundamental strings?
Strings we don’t need to speak of as they are not observed and the theory does not reproduce the standard model. The QFT’s of the Standard Model do not account for gravity and are thus incomplete. We don’t know what will replace the Standard Model + GR but we know our current picture is incomplete and thus we can find no essence there. We also don’t know how to solve the measurement problem or even if there is a solution.
It could be that the laws governing the universe are non-computable. That is an outcome that none expect, but it could be possible and if they are non-computable, then good luck trying to find an essence.
@yeshe.tenley Apologies if my writing was unclear!
What I meant to say is the opposite! 
That I don’t think what physicists say has much to do with Buddhist emptiness. My reasoning is in the same post there. Feel free to disagree and discuss! 
This does not mean that I think what physicists say is ultimately wrong, useless, or invalid. I just think that Buddhism and Physics are talking about something separate from one another. I don’t deny there are connections. But it’s like a poet who writes about an experience of something that happens to sound like some scientifically observable phenomenon in interstellar space. It’s interesting coincidence. One does not affirm or refute the other.
To be fair, I think they are more related than a poem and science. But not that much more related.
I would call this ‘interesting’ but not at all ‘what Nagarjuna was talking about.’ I don’t think Nagarjuna knew the slightest thing about quantum mechanics, and less so do I think he wrote about it. But that’s just my opinion!
In modal logic there is a distinction between three types of things:
- Things which are possibly true (true in at least one logically possible world)
- Things which are necessarily true (true in every logically possible world)
- Things which are actually true (true in the real world, which just happens to be one possible world)
Are you saying that “nothing has an essence” is possibly, necessarily, or actually true? (Or maybe you don’t agree with my framing, and you think none of the above).
2 Likes