Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@seeker242 I see your point. But also it was true for them. No?
There are two possibilities.
1. today they become aware that they are going to die and become convinced of it. Therefore their truth has changed. Nothing is eternal. This is in line with Buddhism.
2. They are not aware they are going to die until too late. Their belief is preserved and they never stop believing they are not going to die until death happens.
In both cases they were convinced of a thing and that was their truth...
@seeker242 I see your point. But also it was true for them. No?
There are two possibilities.
1. today they become aware that they are going to die and become convinced of it. Therefore their truth has changed. Nothing is eternal. This is in line with Buddhism.
2. They are not aware they are going to die until too late. Their belief is preserved and they never stop believing they are not going to die until death happens.
In both cases they were convinced of a thing and that was their truth...
/Victor
Yes, it was true for them at the time. It was their truth, but since their minds were clouded with ignorance, they could not see the truth as it actually is. What they see is their own truth, which is really not truth but simply products of ignorance that they think is the truth, aka delusions. The Buddha did teach that there is an absolute truth that is not dependent on what anyone thinks or believes about it, right? Anicca, dukkha and anatta will always be fundamentally true regarding existence, even when people believe otherwise or even believe the opposite. This is what the Buddha taught as I understand it. The truth of the Dhamma is eternal, is it not?
Yes, it was true for them at the time. It was their truth, but since their minds were clouded with ignorance, they could not see the truth as it actually is. What they see is their own truth, which is really not truth but simply products of ignorance that they think is the truth, aka delusions. The Buddha did teach that there is an absolute truth that is not dependent on what anyone thinks or believes about it, right? Anicca, dukkha and anatta will always be fundamentally true regarding existence, even when people believe otherwise or even believe the opposite. This is what the Buddha taught as I understand it. The truth of the Dhamma is eternal, is it not?
Yes that is what I believe too. There are a lot of people discussing what exactly in Dhamma that is unchangeable but I think most agree that the definition of Nibbana is most certainly not changeble.
It is actually logically speaking the most brilliant definition of something absolute I have ever come across. Anatta, anicca and dukkha are easily derived from the concept of Nibbana because they are the description of the anti thesis. (Not saying it is easy to understand and accept them). So I guess they must be immutable too. Of course from these axioms follow the rest of the Dhamma but I think it is difficult to say that something beyond these things are totally immutable.
And I also believe that the Illusion that is the base of the ego is why people see 'truths' where there are none. This is so for any person at any station in life also accomplished scientists. Because those that have not had time to contemplate and understand these basic concepts of buddhism are stuck in the illusion with no way to lift themselves out no matter how intelligent or educated they are.
I have come across a few people who have realized some portion of these immutables for themselves without ever being in contact with buddhism but they are few and their understanding is often scetchy.
The Dhamma is supposed to be tested. When advancing along it you grow more and more confident that it works because every step is described and can be tested by most anybody. Knowleadge is supposed to grow through personal experience.
In science this is not so.
But your first paragraph sounds quite similar to the scientific approach. And looked at one way the 4 Noble Truths are just a hypothesis which we verify through practice.
The Dhamma is supposed to be tested. When advancing along it you grow more and more confident that it works because every step is described and can be tested by most anybody. Knowleadge is supposed to grow through personal experience.
In science this is not so.
But your first paragraph sounds quite similar to the scientific approach. And looked at one way the 4 Noble Truths are just a hypothesis which we verify through practice.
That it can be tested is one thing. In what degree it really is is another. Once a hypothesis is proven it is seldom tested again until real need arises but in Buddhism every step must be walked by every practioner.
So let me get this right: you argue that criticising Buddhism through the eyes of science is irrational, but to criticise science through the eyes of Buddhism is somehow valid? lolwut
So let me get this right: you argue that criticising Buddhism through the eyes of science is irrational, but to criticise science through the eyes of Buddhism is somehow valid? lolwut
one is science, the other is a philosophical religion. or a religious philosophy... take your pick.
Well said Federica. And what does "Better" mean?
@Paradox and @Bodha8 Please try reading the first paragraph of my initial post.
Here it is for your conveniance:
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
one is science, the other is a philosophical religion. or a religious philosophy... take your pick.
Well said Federica. And what does "Better" mean?
@Paradox and @Bodha8 Please try reading the first paragraph of my initial post.
Here it is for your conveniance:
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
My argument is left dubious on purpose.
Thanks /Victor
Sorry Vic, But your own title says "Why Buddhism is BETTER than Science". Not too hard to miss!
one is science, the other is a philosophical religion. or a religious philosophy... take your pick.
Well said Federica. And what does "Better" mean?
@Paradox and @Bodha8 Please try reading the first paragraph of my initial post.
Here it is for your conveniance:
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
My argument is left dubious on purpose.
Thanks /Victor
Sorry Vic, But your own title says "Why Buddhism is BETTER than Science". Not too hard to miss!
When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
Apples ---- Lemons criteria: sweetness Lemons: fail
duh.
Beyond that: your style of debating is unpleasant and disrespectful. That's really what I get from this thread.
""Monks, do not wage wordy warfare, saying: 'You don't understand this Dhamma and discipline, I understand this Dhamma and discipline'; 'How could you understand it? You have fallen into wrong practices: I have the right practice'; 'You have said afterwards what you should have said first, and you have said first what you should have said afterwards'; 'What I say is consistent, what you say isn't'; 'What you have thought out for so long is entirely reversed'; 'Your statement is refuted'; 'You are talking rubbish!'; 'You are in the wrong'; 'Get out of that if you can!'
"Why should you not do this? Such talk, monks, is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or to Nibbana. (.....).""
I am rude and disrespectful to those that are rude and disrespectful to me. Its just that I am much better att being rude and disrespectful when I choose to than most others are.
But thanks for your concearn.
What was the hint aimed at? Which of these things have I said and where exactly?
/Victor
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I don't see Buddhism creating new technologies, curing diseases previously thought incurable, nor do I see it helping us understand the universe on a physical level. On the other hand I do not see science helping us understand the universe on a spiritual level, nor do I see science helping us come to terms with ourselves.
Buddhism and Science are different things for a reason. Neither of them are better than the other. It is a bad comparison, sorry.
I don't see Buddhism creating new technologies, curing diseases previously thought incurable, nor do I see it helping us understand the universe on a physical level. On the other hand I do not see science helping us understand the universe on a spiritual level, nor do I see science helping us come to terms with ourselves.
Buddhism and Science are different things for a reason. Neither of them are better than the other. It is a bad comparison, sorry.
I like the way you explained that. Concise, yet rather profound.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
IMO the title of the post isn't really what the OP was about and Vic hasn't done himself any favors with his approach but I think possibilities sums the point up nicely with:
Apples ---- Lemons criteria: sweetness Lemons: fail
I did read the first paragraph of your post, along with the title, that's what I based my post on. However I took your words at face value, thinking you were attempting to make a serious argument, but now that you've admitted that your own words are "dubious" and unreliable there isn't much more I can say.
I don't see Buddhism creating new technologies, curing diseases previously thought incurable, nor do I see it helping us understand the universe on a physical level. On the other hand I do not see science helping us understand the universe on a spiritual level, nor do I see science helping us come to terms with ourselves.
Buddhism and Science are different things for a reason. Neither of them are better than the other. It is a bad comparison, sorry.
I did read the first paragraph of your post, along with the title, that's what I based my post on. However I took your words at face value, thinking you were attempting to make a serious argument, but now that you've admitted that your own words are "dubious" and unreliable there isn't much more I can say.
No I did not say that my words were unreliable. And I am making a serious argument.
Sorry its my bad english acting up. I mean ambigious not dubious. As in can have two or more meanings.
IMO the title of the post isn't really what the OP was about and Vic hasn't done himself any favors with his approach ...
The Title was supposed to provoke. And you are right that it might not have been the best way to set out. But I think I am getting the responses I tought I would get.
Until now nobody has found any flaw in any of the arguments I presented. Which is promising.
“A truth in Buddhism is what you are yourself convinced is the truth. Nothing else! A truth in Science is what others have told you is the truth. Blind faith in authority is required!”
There is no distinction between truth in Buddhism, or truth in science. Truth is an unchanging constant in the universe; an assertion, idea, proposition... is either true or not. How can you convince yourself of a truth? You’re talking like a member of the Christian flock or a devout follower of some other absurd, dogma led religion.
There is no blind faith in authority required in science; that’s the whole idea. Science is entirely reliant upon the concept of Constructive Doubt. You create a theory, and then do your best to prove it wrong; the polar opposite of faith.
Sorry if anyone has already made similar points about this discussion!
There is no distinction between truth in Buddhism, or truth in science. Truth is an unchanging constant in the universe; an assertion, idea, proposition... is either true or not. How can you convince yourself of a truth? You’re talking like a member of the Christian flock or a devout follower of some other absurd, dogma led religion.
I would rather say that talking about an 'unchanging constant in the universe' is what sound religious to me.
That is like trying to define God.
I am talking about what people experience as the truth. Which in contrast we, mere mortals, know something about.
There is no blind faith in authority required in science; that’s the whole idea. Science is entirely reliant upon the concept of Constructive Doubt. You create a theory, and then do your best to prove it wrong; the polar opposite of faith.
Sorry if anyone has already made similar points about this discussion!
I agree that that is what people in general believe. But that is far from correct.
Earlier in the discussion I gave a counter example to a similar statement.
Can you without using Google prove to me that the earth revolves about its axis? Or that the earth is round(ish) ?
Most people can not do that. Instead they have FAITH in scientists and schoolbooks and teachers that make that claim, that the earth is round and revolves aroung its axis.
Hi everyone. Interesting debate. I'm a much better scientist than buddhist, so i'll have to argue using scientific terms, though it shouldn't matter.
No a fact is NOT the same every time because the method to test and its premisis change over time.
Something is a Fact because people agree that it is. There is no other criteria.
It is commenly known that through scientific experiment the hypothesis that the earth revolves around its own axis was DISAPPROVED by the ancient Greeks. And the fact that earth did not revolved could be tested by anybody using an experiment. Because their understanding of Science (physics in that case) was so different from todays understanding.
Think about what Physics will be at in a decade. All the Facts, as you say, that we hold so dear today might or might not be a fact tomorrow.
/Victor
I think this post best demonstrates a misunderstanding of what science is. A basic assumption of science is that there exists a reality outside our own perception of it. So, for instance, the world always was round, even when we thought it was flat. Maybe one day we'll change our minds in the face of some bizarre evidence, but that won't change the fact that the world always was in one state or another.
If you want the technical jargon, Kant explained it best with the knowable world of phenomena and the unknowable world of noumena. Science only explains the knowable world. When physicists talk of things such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle they refer to an aspect of reality which is intrinsically impossible to measure. If it can't be measured it is not subject to scientific knowledge.
The only thing the Greeks ever disproved was mathematical conjecture. They preferred to use pure logic rather than empiricism to discover the world. This is in direct contrast to the scientific method. (For example the Greeks reasoned that women must have less teeth than men - but they never thought to actually look and count). Ptomely was not a scientist.
An interesting parallel to buddhism and science is that neither should be holding any fact dear.
On the contrary Buddhism explains that intrinsic value is created by the Human mind. Again it is called Anatta.
/Victor
Everything with value is indeed created by the human mind, values exist no-where else. This doesn't change the nature of reality. Values are to do with what subjective import we place on something. Science has nothing to do with this and can happily measure the world around us without placing any value on those measurements.
Plus i thought thought Anatta referred to the concept of non-self - could you explain or provide a link to info on how this relates to Idealism (the concept that the world exists only in one's mind)? Not that i don't enjoy these types of discussions (normally find them on science forums though) but are they not in a similar vein to the imponderables - ultimately distractions to our practice? I'd like just to be able to sit for a while, let alone engage in such lofty discussion.
Hi everyone. Interesting debate. I'm a much better scientist than buddhist, so i'll have to argue using scientific terms, though it shouldn't matter.
Hi twobitbob
no worries.
Thank you for your answer.
I think this post best demonstrates a misunderstanding of what science is. A basic assumption of science is that there exists a reality outside our own perception of it. So, for instance, the world always was round, even when we thought it was flat. Maybe one day we'll change our minds in the face of some bizarre evidence, but that won't change the fact that the world always was in one state or another.
Then I have a couple of questions for you.
1. What exactly is the shape of the earth? 2. If we even came to know exactly once and for all what shape it is in one day (which we are never going to do) would it matter for us today?
Au contrar is it not what shape we currently believe is its shape that matters how we perceive the world today? I say believe because according to yourself the true shape of the world is not actually known. It is only a abstract thought constructed by us?
I.e. even if we in a hundred years find out that the earth is flat with purple dots it is a scientific fact today that the earth is round no?
And that is even though everybody knows that now and then scientific facts are stood on end?
Am I getting this right?
If you want the technical jargon, Kant explained it best with the knowable world of phenomena and the unknowable world of noumena. Science only explains the knowable world. When physicists talk of things such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle they refer to an aspect of reality which is intrinsically impossible to measure. If it can't be measured it is not subject to scientific knowledge.
What buddhism (IMO) would say is that both these worlds are constructs of the human mind. And therefore still part of this world in opposition to the experince of Nibbana...(I know what you are going to say but please say it anyway
The only thing the Greeks ever disproved was mathematical conjecture. They preferred to use pure logic rather than empiricism to discover the world. This is in direct contrast to the scientific method. (For example the Greeks reasoned that women must have less teeth than men - but they never thought to actually look and count). Ptomely was not a scientist.
I am not talking about Aristoles or Ptomely. They are the once who's view of the world prevailed before this guys views (I think):
The experiment that was carried out (if I have not mixed things up) was the dropping of a cannon ball out of a tower. The hypothesis was that if the earth revolved the canonball would fall away from the tower due to the earths rotation. Which it obviously did not and Aristarchus theory was disapproved due to that times poor understanding of Physics.
Much like it seems we today have misunderstood the absolute nature of the speed of light.
Everything with value is indeed created by the human mind, values exist no-where else. This doesn't change the nature of reality. Values are to do with what subjective import we place on something. Science has nothing to do with this and can happily measure the world around us without placing any value on those measurements.
You forget the value your subject (already and obviously) has placed in those measurements. Science does not measure. People measure and place subjective value in those measurements. It is a common oversight made by scientists.
On one hand you say there is no value other than that which is created in the human mind and then you say 'except these measurements...'
Am I missing something?
Plus i thought thought Anatta referred to the concept of non-self - could you explain or provide a link to info on how this relates to Idealism (the concept that the world exists only in one's mind)? Not that i don't enjoy these types of discussions (normally find them on science forums though) but are they not in a similar vein to the imponderables - ultimately distractions to our practice? I'd like just to be able to sit for a while, let alone engage in such lofty discussion.
The self arises when you give value to something to which the self can adher, cling to.
The arising of the self is the same thing as giving something value. As long as the subject exists nothing objective can be perceived.
Therefore Anatta that the self is an illusion is the same as saying that value is illusion Which I think you and I agree on?
I am not saying that the objective worlds does not exist. On the contrary Buddhism accepts the objective world. It is just not a thing that we without attaining nibbana can perceive.
From Udana: Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncre- ated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible. But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed.
Please do scrutinize this statement. Because I have no real reference to give other than my own conjecture.
1. What exactly is the shape of the earth? 2. If we even came to know exactly once and for all what shape it is in one day (which we are never going to do) would it matter for us today?
Au contrar is it not what shape we currently believe is its shape that matters how we perceive the world today? I say believe because according to yourself the true shape of the world is not actually known. It is only a abstract thought constructed by us?
I.e. even if we in a hundred years find out that the earth is flat with purple dots it is a scientific fact today that the earth is round no?
And that is even though everybody knows that now and then scientific facts are stood on end?
Am I getting this right?
We are pretty sure the earth is roughly an oblate spheroid. The roughly comes from whether you start counting from the atmosphere or surface, a value judgement humans will have to make. Once that judgement is made, science and maths can tell us the shape to arbitrary precision. The value comes from us choosing what significance a measurement makes, but the measurement itself will not be affected by this value. Think of measuring the height of a person: tall or short are relative terms, value judgements based maybe on cultural values, average heights etc. but the ruler measures the same height no matter our thoughts on it.
If it turns out the earth is flat with purple dots, then our previous view of a round earth was mistaken, but at the time was a scientific fact, though how we got it so wrong would be interesting. The point is, if a proposition is considered immutable then it is not scientific.
The best real life illustration is gravity. Newtons laws have been found, in certain circumstances, to be wrong. They still hold true well enough to send objects to the edge of our solar system but in extremes the laws are wrong. They have since been modified, by Einstein, to account for new things we observed, not available to Newton. There are, however, still gaps in our understanding and it is likely our understanding of gravity will be modified many times. Newton's laws are still considered a fact as they still agree, with everyday experience, but we must acknowledge the laws were incomplete, as are our existing laws.
What buddhism (IMO) would say is that both these worlds are constructs of the human mind. And therefore still part of this world in opposition to the experince of Nibbana...(I know what you are going to say but please say it anyway
I don't know what i'm going to say. I don't know enough buddhist scripture to comment. Either it states both worlds are constructs of human mind, or it states neither are constructs of human minds, or it is silent on this issue. Perhaps you could point out which scriptures?
I am not talking about Aristoles or Ptomely. They are the once who's view of the world prevailed before this guys views (I think):
The experiment that was carried out (if I have not mixed things up) was the dropping of a cannon ball out of a tower. The hypothesis was that if the earth revolved the canonball would fall away from the tower due to the earths rotation. Which it obviously did not and Aristarchus theory was disapproved due to that times poor understanding of Physics.
Much like it seems we today have misunderstood the absolute nature of the speed of light.
The greeks were not experimentalists, manifest in Aristarchus' 'experiment'. They did not employ the scientific method, though were great thinkers in their own right.
You forget the value your subject (already and obviously) has placed in those measurements. Science does not measure. People measure and place subjective value in those measurements. It is a common oversight made by scientists.
On one hand you say there is no value other than that which is created in the human mind and then you say 'except these measurements...'
Am I missing something?
Refer back to the ruler and measuring people's height. The ruler provides a number. If you also measure the same person you will get the same number. Given the same number, we might then argue about whether the person is tall or short - science gives us the number but tells us nothing about tall or short, which we create.
The self arises when you give value to something to which the self can adher, cling to.
The arising of the self is the same thing as giving something value. As long as the subject exists nothing objective can be perceived.
Therefore Anatta that the self is an illusion is the same as saying that value is illusion Which I think you and I agree on?
I am not saying that the objective worlds does not exist. On the contrary Buddhism accepts the objective world. It is just not a thing that we without attaining nibbana can perceive.
Self is an illusion, i can agree to. We also agree values come from humans - it would follow that values come from a sense of self (assuming most of our values come from people with a sense of self). The only difference that most values are not the product of a single human, but a collective of humans each bringing their sense of self. However, like you say the objective world still exists, and rulers of various complexity, but all just rulers at the end of the day, can measure it.
Therefore, i would consider science and buddhism to be in different domains: science measures the objective world and nothing else, while buddhism is concerned with the self, or rather the illusion of self.
From Udana: Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncre- ated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible. But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed.
Maybe this passage is profound, maybe not. Unfortunately i am not not wise enough to even understand it, let alone determine it's value.
I feel I need sometime to elaborate an answer. Unfortunately I am going to be away on business for some days. I will get back to you in the weekend at the latest!
2. If we even came to know exactly once and for all what shape it is in one day (which we are never going to do) would it matter for us today?
I forgot to answer this specific question. It would matter for telecommunications, various earth science measurements, the airline industry etc. Whether those things matter for us today is each persons' opinion.
We are pretty sure the earth is roughly an oblate spheroid. The roughly comes from whether you start counting from the atmosphere or surface, a value judgement humans will have to make. Once that judgement is made, science and maths can tell us the shape to arbitrary precision. The value comes from us choosing what significance a measurement makes, but the measurement itself will not be affected by this value. Think of measuring the height of a person: tall or short are relative terms, value judgements based maybe on cultural values, average heights etc. but the ruler measures the same height no matter our thoughts on it.
I agree with the first and second sentance. But not the rest!
Neither science nor maths can tell us the shape to ARBITRARY precision. It can tell us the shape to a certain degree that is limited by the precision of the method and tools involved in measuring.
The 'ruler' does NOT measure the same height every time. That is why often scientific measurements are made several times on the same object and are presented with an significance level. Right?
Think of the ruler measuring a human. The human is different tall at different times of day. Being tallest at morning and shrinking afterwards when the disks between the vertebrae (or something) slowly compact.
The ruler itself will differ in length and width depending of preassure and temp.
That is why calibration is such an important role in practical science.
So in the time when the ruler was calibrated using the meter rod kept in Paris (I think it was) at a certain temp and pressure and then when the ruler was calibrated using laser. The measurements of an unchanging body would still differ.
I.e. The mesurements will have changed. The EXACT unchanging measurement is a illusion created by the human mind. Just as anatta principal describes. Value that a certain measurement is the correct factual measurement one is given to a measurement. That too is a value ascribed to a measurement.
If it turns out the earth is flat with purple dots, then our previous view of a round earth was mistaken, but at the time was a scientific fact, though how we got it so wrong would be interesting. The point is, if a proposition is considered immutable then it is not scientific.
True!
The best real life illustration is gravity. Newtons laws have been found, in certain circumstances, to be wrong. They still hold true well enough to send objects to the edge of our solar system but in extremes the laws are wrong. They have since been modified, by Einstein, to account for new things we observed, not available to Newton. There are, however, still gaps in our understanding and it is likely our understanding of gravity will be modified many times. Newton's laws are still considered a fact as they still agree, with everyday experience, but we must acknowledge the laws were incomplete, as are our existing laws.
And now Einsteins propositions about absolute nature of light is about to change...
This is my point. The truth we perceive changes over time due to a number of things.
I don't know what i'm going to say. I don't know enough buddhist scripture to comment. Either it states both worlds are constructs of human mind, or it states neither are constructs of human minds, or it is silent on this issue. Perhaps you could point out which scriptures?
Well one of the scriptures is the one I quoted from Udana. As you can see all things we can think of are considered created. And thus not Nibbana. That was what I though you might rebuke. That even Nibbana is a man made concept and thus according to the definition NOT Nibbana. But I guess that is too trivial a paradox?
The greeks were not experimentalists, manifest in Aristarchus' 'experiment'. They did not employ the scientific method, though were great thinkers in their own right.
I would rather say that it was A scientific method that predated todays. I hope you agree that even todays method is prone to change? And thus the results produced will change over time ...? Such as measurements...? (See above and below)
When would you say that the Scientific method as you see it came into practise? Just for the sake of argument.
Self is an illusion, i can agree to. We also agree values come from humans - it would follow that values come from a sense of self (assuming most of our values come from people with a sense of self). The only difference that most values are not the product of a single human, but a collective of humans each bringing their sense of self. However, like you say the objective world still exists, and rulers of various complexity, but all just rulers at the end of the day, can measure it.
Therefore, i would consider science and buddhism to be in different domains: science measures the objective world and nothing else, while buddhism is concerned with the self, or rather the illusion of self.
Buddhism describes the world since describing the world is the same as describing the self and vice versa. They are not separete things. IMO.
Since as I explained above even the measurement of a thing will change as our knowleadge of the theory of measurement and our tools change a fact will change from day to day.
According to yesterdays calibration the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall. According to a later calibration and more precise measurement he was 190.067 cm tall. But what is he actually? What is the truth?
In this case the only thing left to be taken as a truth is what we at the moment are convinced is the truth. That is first the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall and then he was 190.67 cm tall. This is the position of Buddhism.
To recap and connect the dots!
According to the scientific method Scientist nr 1 makes a measurement and publishes them. Scientist nr 2 reproduces the measurement and the results. They mutually agree on their findings and conviction is born in their minds. The Hulk is 190.1 cm tall. It is now a scientific fact. (Yes I know it takes a little bit more than that.)
Next day scientis nr 3 uses an improved method of measurement and discovers that the Hulk is only 190.067 cm tall. His results are scrutinized and repeated by others. And together a new consensus is born and the scientific community agrees that the Hulk is 190.067 cm tall.
BUT that communal fact would never have gained credibility unless the individual scientists were CONVINCED that the measurements were true.
So mutual consensus first requires individual conviction.
And also after a fact is acertained the laymen will BELIVE in its value not knowing precisely how science works and will be happy with that.
In buddhism to get somewhere belief is not enough conviction from personal experience is required every step of the way.
From Udana: Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncre- ated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible. But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed.
Maybe this passage is profound, maybe not. Unfortunately i am not not wise enough to even understand it, let alone determine it's value.
Can you think of a better definition to base a binary logical system on? . I cant.
2. If we even came to know exactly once and for all what shape it is in one day (which we are never going to do) would it matter for us today?
I forgot to answer this specific question. It would matter for telecommunications, various earth science measurements, the airline industry etc. Whether those things matter for us today is each persons' opinion.
Have a good business trip.
Thanks it was short but exhausting. .
What I mean is that it really does not matter for telecommunications etc TODAY, what science/facts we come by tomorrow. What we know today is what can have a meaning today.
Thank you for your patience. /Victor
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
There's a quote I'll have to paraphrase because I can't find it exactly but its something like, "Science isn't reality, it's what we can say about reality."
This is what I was taught at school. Our scientific worldview is only an approximation of the world. I.e. it is a model created in the human mind to describe the world. It is never to be mistaken for the world itself! It becomes obvious since that approximation changes all the time.
Lets say there is a objective worldview that EXACTLY describes the world. But since we can only experince approximations of it in our mind made models we can never know what it is. In the above example our methods can be more and more refined to measure the Hulks height more and more accuratley BUT we will never know the exact height of the Hulk...
So any arbitrary models validity can never be measured in comparison to that 'exact' worldview and therefore ALL worldviews has the same objective truthvalue in comparison to the objective exact one.
That is Anatta principal. Nothing has any (objective) value, other than the subjective value ascribed it by the subjective self. That is the illusion IMO.
We are pretty sure the earth is roughly an oblate spheroid. The roughly comes from whether you start counting from the atmosphere or surface, a value judgement humans will have to make. Once that judgement is made, science and maths can tell us the shape to arbitrary precision. The value comes from us choosing what significance a measurement makes, but the measurement itself will not be affected by this value. Think of measuring the height of a person: tall or short are relative terms, value judgements based maybe on cultural values, average heights etc. but the ruler measures the same height no matter our thoughts on it.
I agree with the first and second sentance. But not the rest!
Neither science nor maths can tell us the shape to ARBITRARY precision. It can tell us the shape to a certain degree that is limited by the precision of the method and tools involved in measuring.
The 'ruler' does NOT measure the same height every time. That is why often scientific measurements are made several times on the same object and are presented with an significance level. Right?
Think of the ruler measuring a human. The human is different tall at different times of day. Being tallest at morning and shrinking afterwards when the disks between the vertebrae (or something) slowly compact.
The ruler itself will differ in length and width depending of preassure and temp.
That is why calibration is such an important role in practical science.
So in the time when the ruler was calibrated using the meter rod kept in Paris (I think it was) at a certain temp and pressure and then when the ruler was calibrated using laser. The measurements of an unchanging body would still differ.
I.e. The mesurements will have changed. The EXACT unchanging measurement is a illusion created by the human mind. Just as anatta principal describes. Value that a certain measurement is the correct factual measurement one is given to a measurement. That too is a value ascribed to a measurement.
/Victor
The problem you describe is a practical one, not a fundamental one. You refer to the validity of the tool, in this case the ruler. The validity is a measure of how accurately a tool measures what it is supposed to measure.
If the human is a different height at different times of day, then we need specify at what time of day to make measurements (same for anything else which might influence height), so we can standardise things. If the ruler changes length with temperature and pressure then we can measure this expansion and accordingly change our height measurements, or get a ruler that does not change with temperature/pressure.
We have measured the earth to arbitrary precision, and the height of our hypothetical man. Increasing the accuracy of our measurement will not change the fact the earth is roughly oblate spheroid (i get the impression you may enjoy the maths of chaos theory, which effectively states there is no end to the precision of the actual shape of the earth, similar to how you describe anatta). Also, by making our ruler more and more accurate what new things are we learning. What more do we know by saying a person is 1.749436398304m tall compared with 1.7494m tall. Nothing of practical use - the precision is then arbitrary.
Well one of the scriptures is the one I quoted from Udana. As you can see all things we can think of are considered created. And thus not Nibbana. That was what I though you might rebuke. That even Nibbana is a man made concept and thus according to the definition NOT Nibbana. But I guess that is too trivial a paradox?
/Victor
One may escape the paradox if one considers nirvana not to be a man made concept. I'm not even sure nirvana is a concept at all...
I would rather say that it was A scientific method that predated todays. I hope you agree that even todays method is prone to change? And thus the results produced will change over time ...? Such as measurements...? (See above and below)
When would you say that the Scientific method as you see it came into practise? Just for the sake of argument.
/Victor
I disagree: the Greeks relied on inductive reasoning, which is why their maths was so good, but eschewed deductive reasoning which is the linchpin of science. But yes, it is quite possible that another method for knowing objective reality will supersede the scientific method.
Hard to say exactly when the scientific method started. There are lose examples of it in the bible and the kalama sutra. Roger Bacon was an early proponent of what we consider the modern scientific method, culminating with the works of Kepler, Galileo and Newton at which point it is safe to say the 'scientific' age had begun.
According to yesterdays calibration the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall. According to a later calibration and more precise measurement he was 190.067 cm tall. But what is he actually? What is the truth?
In this case the only thing left to be taken as a truth is what we at the moment are convinced is the truth. That is first the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall and then he was 190.67 cm tall. This is the position of Buddhism. /Victor
This is the position of science also.
According to the scientific method Scientist nr 1 makes a measurement and publishes them. Scientist nr 2 reproduces the measurement and the results. They mutually agree on their findings and conviction is born in their minds. The Hulk is 190.1 cm tall. It is now a scientific fact. (Yes I know it takes a little bit more than that.)
Next day scientis nr 3 uses an improved method of measurement and discovers that the Hulk is only 190.067 cm tall. His results are scrutinized and repeated by others. And together a new consensus is born and the scientific community agrees that the Hulk is 190.067 cm tall.
BUT that communal fact would never have gained credibility unless the individual scientists were CONVINCED that the measurements were true.
So mutual consensus first requires individual conviction.
And also after a fact is acertained the laymen will BELIVE in its value not knowing precisely how science works and will be happy with that.
In buddhism to get somewhere belief is not enough conviction from personal experience is required every step of the way.
/Victor
In western thought, Kant made a distinction between phenomena and noumena; the knowable world of our senses and the unknowable world as it really is, respectively. Kant reasoned that we can never know the world as it really is as we can only know the world through our senses, which will always be flawed to some degree. We can only arrive at greater approximations of noumena. Where we seem to differ is that I believe (and it is only a belief) that there is a noumena, an objective reality outside ourselves which will continue to exist even if no-one is there to witness it. You seem to be suggesting there is only phenomena and the universes existence is contingent upon something witnessing it.
The Dalai Lama calls Buddhism a science of mind, using Popper's criteria. So how can it be at odds with science? Is it at odds with physics maybe? How could it be so? Only if it is a false doctrine could it be at odds with physics.
Rather, I would say that physics is a good place to check out the doctrine, to see if it stands up. After all, if Newton had been right about the universe then Buddhism would have had to be false. As it is not false it was physics that had to change. We discovered that we require a more subtle and seemingly paradoxical theory than Newton's, something suspiciously like Buddhism, to explain the facts.
My prediction is that an understanding of Buddhist doctrine would be be vital for an understanding of quantum cosmology. I'd even go so far as to suggest that a failure to understand or even take seriously the doctrine is holding physics back. So I would not accept that there is any opposition between them.
Of course, there is plenty of opposition between some scientists and buddhists, but it has yet to be shown there is any need for it.
Comments
There are two possibilities.
1. today they become aware that they are going to die and become convinced of it. Therefore their truth has changed. Nothing is eternal. This is in line with Buddhism.
2. They are not aware they are going to die until too late. Their belief is preserved and they never stop believing they are not going to die until death happens.
In both cases they were convinced of a thing and that was their truth...
/Victor
I am sorry I took that the wrong way. I just checked him out. Seems cool to me.
Thanks.
It is actually logically speaking the most brilliant definition of something absolute I have ever come across. Anatta, anicca and dukkha are easily derived from the concept of Nibbana because they are the description of the anti thesis. (Not saying it is easy to understand and accept them). So I guess they must be immutable too. Of course from these axioms follow the rest of the Dhamma but I think it is difficult to say that something beyond these things are totally immutable.
And I also believe that the Illusion that is the base of the ego is why people see 'truths' where there are none. This is so for any person at any station in life also accomplished scientists. Because those that have not had time to contemplate and understand these basic concepts of buddhism are stuck in the illusion with no way to lift themselves out no matter how intelligent or educated they are.
I have come across a few people who have realized some portion of these immutables for themselves without ever being in contact with buddhism but they are few and their understanding is often scetchy.
/Victor
Or am I missing something?
/Victor
/Victor
Here it is for your conveniance:
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
My argument is left dubious on purpose.
Thanks
/Victor
Namaste
So now that you know what do you think?
Ayobowan!
criteria: sweetness
Lemons: fail
duh.
Beyond that: your style of debating is unpleasant and disrespectful. That's really what I get from this thread. ^^ Just a hint.
I am rude and disrespectful to those that are rude and disrespectful to me.
Its just that I am much better att being rude and disrespectful when I choose to than most others are.
But thanks for your concearn.
What was the hint aimed at? Which of these things have I said and where exactly?
/Victor
Buddhism and Science are different things for a reason. Neither of them are better than the other. It is a bad comparison, sorry.
Well put.
/Victor
Sorry its my bad english acting up. I mean ambigious not dubious. As in can have two or more meanings.
/Victor
Please note the total lack of emoticons.
/Victor
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/948/scimakelatex.56224.none.html
Oh yeah and I suppose I should tell you that I love you too.
Kisses and Hugs.
/Victor
Until now nobody has found any flaw in any of the arguments I presented. Which is promising.
/Victor
A truth in Science is what others have told you is the truth. Blind faith in authority is required!”
There is no distinction between truth in Buddhism, or truth in science. Truth is an unchanging constant in the universe; an assertion, idea, proposition... is either true or not. How can you convince yourself of a truth? You’re talking like a member of the Christian flock or a devout follower of some other absurd, dogma led religion.
There is no blind faith in authority required in science; that’s the whole idea. Science is entirely reliant upon the concept of Constructive Doubt. You create a theory, and then do your best to prove it wrong; the polar opposite of faith.
Sorry if anyone has already made similar points about this discussion!
Also I assume you mean 'scientists' rather than 'science'? If you do I'm afraid I disagree with this point too.
That is like trying to define God.
I am talking about what people experience as the truth. Which in contrast we, mere mortals, know something about.
I agree that that is what people in general believe. But that is far from correct.
Earlier in the discussion I gave a counter example to a similar statement.
Can you without using Google prove to me that the earth revolves about its axis? Or that the earth is round(ish) ?
Most people can not do that. Instead they have FAITH in scientists and schoolbooks and teachers that make that claim, that the earth is round and revolves aroung its axis.
/Victor
/Victor
If you want the technical jargon, Kant explained it best with the knowable world of phenomena and the unknowable world of noumena. Science only explains the knowable world. When physicists talk of things such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle they refer to an aspect of reality which is intrinsically impossible to measure. If it can't be measured it is not subject to scientific knowledge.
The only thing the Greeks ever disproved was mathematical conjecture. They preferred to use pure logic rather than empiricism to discover the world. This is in direct contrast to the scientific method. (For example the Greeks reasoned that women must have less teeth than men - but they never thought to actually look and count). Ptomely was not a scientist.
An interesting parallel to buddhism and science is that neither should be holding any fact dear. Everything with value is indeed created by the human mind, values exist no-where else. This doesn't change the nature of reality. Values are to do with what subjective import we place on something. Science has nothing to do with this and can happily measure the world around us without placing any value on those measurements.
Plus i thought thought Anatta referred to the concept of non-self - could you explain or provide a link to info on how this relates to Idealism (the concept that the world exists only in one's mind)? Not that i don't enjoy these types of discussions (normally find them on science forums though) but are they not in a similar vein to the imponderables - ultimately distractions to our practice? I'd like just to be able to sit for a while, let alone engage in such lofty discussion.
no worries.
Thank you for your answer.
Then I have a couple of questions for you.
1. What exactly is the shape of the earth?
2. If we even came to know exactly once and for all what shape it is in one day (which we are never going to do) would it matter for us today?
Au contrar is it not what shape we currently believe is its shape that matters how we perceive the world today? I say believe because according to yourself the true shape of the world is not actually known. It is only a abstract thought constructed by us?
I.e. even if we in a hundred years find out that the earth is flat with purple dots it is a scientific fact today that the earth is round no?
And that is even though everybody knows that now and then scientific facts are stood on end?
Am I getting this right?
What buddhism (IMO) would say is that both these worlds are constructs of the human mind. And therefore still part of this world in opposition to the experince of Nibbana...(I know what you are going to say but please say it anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
The experiment that was carried out (if I have not mixed things up) was the dropping of a cannon ball out of a tower. The hypothesis was that if the earth revolved the canonball would fall away from the tower due to the earths rotation. Which it obviously did not and Aristarchus theory was disapproved due to that times poor understanding of Physics.
Much like it seems we today have misunderstood the absolute nature of the speed of light. You forget the value your subject (already and obviously) has placed in those measurements. Science does not measure. People measure and place subjective value in those measurements. It is a common oversight made by scientists.
On one hand you say there is no value other than that which is created in the human mind and then you say 'except these measurements...'
Am I missing something? The self arises when you give value to something to which the self can adher, cling to.
The arising of the self is the same thing as giving something value. As long as the subject exists nothing objective can be perceived.
Therefore Anatta that the self is an illusion is the same as saying that value is illusion Which I think you and I agree on?
I am not saying that the objective worlds does not exist. On the contrary Buddhism accepts the objective world. It is just not a thing that we without attaining nibbana can perceive.
From Udana:
Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the
fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any
other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing
still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor
development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.
There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If
there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncre-
ated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the
originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated,
Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the
born, the originated, the created, the formed.
Please do scrutinize this statement. Because I have no real reference to give other than my own conjecture.
/Victor
I am still trying to figure out which of the 100ish possible meanings one should apply to that sentence...
Care to enlighten me please @ClayTheScribe?
/Victor
Thanks
Victor
If it turns out the earth is flat with purple dots, then our previous view of a round earth was mistaken, but at the time was a scientific fact, though how we got it so wrong would be interesting. The point is, if a proposition is considered immutable then it is not scientific.
The best real life illustration is gravity. Newtons laws have been found, in certain circumstances, to be wrong. They still hold true well enough to send objects to the edge of our solar system but in extremes the laws are wrong. They have since been modified, by Einstein, to account for new things we observed, not available to Newton. There are, however, still gaps in our understanding and it is likely our understanding of gravity will be modified many times. Newton's laws are still considered a fact as they still agree, with everyday experience, but we must acknowledge the laws were incomplete, as are our existing laws.
This guy is a great scientist, this is a talk on the scientific method which explains it well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&list=FLzjP69dFZugCsYVK6Z4nSbw&index=8&feature=plpp_video I don't know what i'm going to say. I don't know enough buddhist scripture to comment. Either it states both worlds are constructs of human mind, or it states neither are constructs of human minds, or it is silent on this issue. Perhaps you could point out which scriptures?
The greeks were not experimentalists, manifest in Aristarchus' 'experiment'. They did not employ the scientific method, though were great thinkers in their own right. Refer back to the ruler and measuring people's height. The ruler provides a number. If you also measure the same person you will get the same number. Given the same number, we might then argue about whether the person is tall or short - science gives us the number but tells us nothing about tall or short, which we create. Self is an illusion, i can agree to. We also agree values come from humans - it would follow that values come from a sense of self (assuming most of our values come from people with a sense of self). The only difference that most values are not the product of a single human, but a collective of humans each bringing their sense of self. However, like you say the objective world still exists, and rulers of various complexity, but all just rulers at the end of the day, can measure it.
Therefore, i would consider science and buddhism to be in different domains: science measures the objective world and nothing else, while buddhism is concerned with the self, or rather the illusion of self. Maybe this passage is profound, maybe not. Unfortunately i am not not wise enough to even understand it, let alone determine it's value.
I feel I need sometime to elaborate an answer. Unfortunately I am going to be away on business for some days. I will get back to you in the weekend at the latest!
Unless I find some free time during my journey...
/Victor
Have a good business trip.
Neither science nor maths can tell us the shape to ARBITRARY precision. It can tell us the shape to a certain degree that is limited by the precision of the method and tools involved in measuring.
The 'ruler' does NOT measure the same height every time. That is why often scientific measurements are made several times on the same object and are presented with an significance level. Right?
Think of the ruler measuring a human. The human is different tall at different times of day. Being tallest at morning and shrinking afterwards when the disks between the vertebrae (or something) slowly compact.
The ruler itself will differ in length and width depending of preassure and temp.
That is why calibration is such an important role in practical science.
So in the time when the ruler was calibrated using the meter rod kept in Paris (I think it was) at a certain temp and pressure and then when the ruler was calibrated using laser. The measurements of an unchanging body would still differ.
I.e. The mesurements will have changed. The EXACT unchanging measurement is a illusion created by the human mind. Just as anatta principal describes. Value that a certain measurement is the correct factual measurement one is given to a measurement. That too is a value ascribed to a measurement.
True!
And now Einsteins propositions about absolute nature of light is about to change...
This is my point. The truth we perceive changes over time due to a number of things.
Well one of the scriptures is the one I quoted from Udana. As you can see all things we can think of are considered created. And thus not Nibbana. That was what I though you might rebuke. That even Nibbana is a man made concept and thus according to the definition NOT Nibbana. But I guess that is too trivial a paradox? I would rather say that it was A scientific method that predated todays.
I hope you agree that even todays method is prone to change? And thus the results produced will change over time ...? Such as measurements...? (See above and below)
When would you say that the Scientific method as you see it came into practise? Just for the sake of argument.
Buddhism describes the world since describing the world is the same as describing the self and vice versa. They are not separete things. IMO.
Since as I explained above even the measurement of a thing will change as our knowleadge of the theory of measurement and our tools change a fact will change from day to day.
According to yesterdays calibration the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall. According to a later calibration and more precise measurement he was 190.067 cm tall. But what is he actually? What is the truth?
In this case the only thing left to be taken as a truth is what we at the moment are convinced is the truth. That is first the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall and then he was 190.67 cm tall. This is the position of Buddhism.
To recap and connect the dots!
According to the scientific method Scientist nr 1 makes a measurement and publishes them. Scientist nr 2 reproduces the measurement and the results. They mutually agree on their findings and conviction is born in their minds. The Hulk is 190.1 cm tall. It is now a scientific fact. (Yes I know it takes a little bit more than that.)
Next day scientis nr 3 uses an improved method of measurement and discovers that the Hulk is only 190.067 cm tall. His results are scrutinized and repeated by others. And together a new consensus is born and the scientific community agrees that the Hulk is 190.067 cm tall.
BUT that communal fact would never have gained credibility unless the individual scientists were CONVINCED that the measurements were true.
So mutual consensus first requires individual conviction.
And also after a fact is acertained the laymen will BELIVE in its value not knowing precisely how science works and will be happy with that.
In buddhism to get somewhere belief is not enough conviction from personal experience is required every step of the way.
Can you think of a better definition to base a binary logical system on?
And as you suspect it has other depths.
/Victor
What I mean is that it really does not matter for telecommunications etc TODAY, what science/facts we come by tomorrow. What we know today is what can have a meaning today.
Thank you for your patience.
/Victor
This is what I was taught at school. Our scientific worldview is only an approximation of the world. I.e. it is a model created in the human mind to describe the world. It is never to be mistaken for the world itself! It becomes obvious since that approximation changes all the time.
Lets say there is a objective worldview that EXACTLY describes the world. But since we can only experince approximations of it in our mind made models we can never know what it is. In the above example our methods can be more and more refined to measure the Hulks height more and more accuratley BUT we will never know the exact height of the Hulk...
So any arbitrary models validity can never be measured in comparison to that 'exact' worldview and therefore ALL worldviews has the same objective truthvalue in comparison to the objective exact one.
That is Anatta principal. Nothing has any (objective) value, other than the subjective value ascribed it by the subjective self. That is the illusion IMO.
/Victor
If the human is a different height at different times of day, then we need specify at what time of day to make measurements (same for anything else which might influence height), so we can standardise things. If the ruler changes length with temperature and pressure then we can measure this expansion and accordingly change our height measurements, or get a ruler that does not change with temperature/pressure.
We have measured the earth to arbitrary precision, and the height of our hypothetical man. Increasing the accuracy of our measurement will not change the fact the earth is roughly oblate spheroid (i get the impression you may enjoy the maths of chaos theory, which effectively states there is no end to the precision of the actual shape of the earth, similar to how you describe anatta). Also, by making our ruler more and more accurate what new things are we learning. What more do we know by saying a person is 1.749436398304m tall compared with 1.7494m tall. Nothing of practical use - the precision is then arbitrary.
personally, I words as 'better' 'worse' 'good' 'evil' just don't give me a nice feeling
Hard to say exactly when the scientific method started. There are lose examples of it in the bible and the kalama sutra. Roger Bacon was an early proponent of what we consider the modern scientific method, culminating with the works of Kepler, Galileo and Newton at which point it is safe to say the 'scientific' age had begun. This is the position of science also. In western thought, Kant made a distinction between phenomena and noumena; the knowable world of our senses and the unknowable world as it really is, respectively. Kant reasoned that we can never know the world as it really is as we can only know the world through our senses, which will always be flawed to some degree. We can only arrive at greater approximations of noumena. Where we seem to differ is that I believe (and it is only a belief) that there is a noumena, an objective reality outside ourselves which will continue to exist even if no-one is there to witness it. You seem to be suggesting there is only phenomena and the universes existence is contingent upon something witnessing it.
Rather, I would say that physics is a good place to check out the doctrine, to see if it stands up. After all, if Newton had been right about the universe then Buddhism would have had to be false. As it is not false it was physics that had to change. We discovered that we require a more subtle and seemingly paradoxical theory than Newton's, something suspiciously like Buddhism, to explain the facts.
My prediction is that an understanding of Buddhist doctrine would be be vital for an understanding of quantum cosmology. I'd even go so far as to suggest that a failure to understand or even take seriously the doctrine is holding physics back. So I would not accept that there is any opposition between them.
Of course, there is plenty of opposition between some scientists and buddhists, but it has yet to be shown there is any need for it.