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.
Superposition and Buddhist theory
Sile
Veteran
Heard a brief NPR piece on quantum superposition this morning, and I'm curious to explore whether superposition and Buddhist theory jive.
The commonly used example, is unpleasant--a cat is in a box, out of sight, and with it is a vial of poison which has a 50% chance of exploding. According to superposition, the cat is both dead and alive.
I'm hoping this example might work just as well (physicists, correct me?): a black cat is in a box, out of sight, and with it is a vial of nontoxic purple dye which has a 50% chance of exploding. According to superposition, the cat is both black and purple.
[Edit: Still unpleasant. How about the cat is in its favorite sunny room, with a 50% chance of rocketing around the room after its favorite toy, or being fast asleep. According to superposition, the cat is both playing, and fast asleep.]
The summary I've found most helpful is: Superposition holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations. (Wiki)
I know there are a thousand directions in which to go in comparing superposition to Buddhist theory, but what might some of them be? Right off the bat I think of the karmic seeds--that each sentient being has both positive and negative karmic potential at any given moment.
Here's a fun intro to superposition--notice the current comments
The commonly used example, is unpleasant--a cat is in a box, out of sight, and with it is a vial of poison which has a 50% chance of exploding. According to superposition, the cat is both dead and alive.
I'm hoping this example might work just as well (physicists, correct me?): a black cat is in a box, out of sight, and with it is a vial of nontoxic purple dye which has a 50% chance of exploding. According to superposition, the cat is both black and purple.
[Edit: Still unpleasant. How about the cat is in its favorite sunny room, with a 50% chance of rocketing around the room after its favorite toy, or being fast asleep. According to superposition, the cat is both playing, and fast asleep.]
The summary I've found most helpful is: Superposition holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations. (Wiki)
I know there are a thousand directions in which to go in comparing superposition to Buddhist theory, but what might some of them be? Right off the bat I think of the karmic seeds--that each sentient being has both positive and negative karmic potential at any given moment.
Here's a fun intro to superposition--notice the current comments
0
Comments
I don't think superposition works with cats because cats have consciousness (I think they do anyway, I don't know if physics agrees) collapsing the wave function and taking it from potentiality to actuality. But it's been a while since I thought about this, so I'm going to go back and do some reading before I contribute properly to this thread. Which is awesome, thanks for starting it!
Josiah Nott's theory that mosquitoes can transmit yellow fever was ridiculed for decades--along with everyone supporting it--before finally proving out.
At any point in a quest, though, it's certainly valid to ask whether someone is following a trail they believe is worthier than another trail, as far as reducing dukkha.
Quantum superposition and Alzheimer's - batty or important? Who knows:
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2012/01/will-quantum-physics-help-us-cure.html
To me this seems like a description of the observer's limitations; our inability (to date) of measuring both states at once, possibly? Maybe like having a camera that can only take a picture from one angle; theoretically if we could develop a camera to take a picture from all angles at once, this would reflect reality, i.e. we could measure all states simultaneously?
To me this sounds something like "ultimate reality" vs. "conventional reality."
But is the dang cat sleeping or running?? Is this about potential, or actual simultaneous states?
Or something completely different? 0_o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_equation
Another movie on the same theme is The Quantum Activist http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397093/ which I actually liked a whole lot more
So it's not that the cat physically exists in the wave state, but the potentiality for both of the outcomes exist at the same time. The wave function is in a state of "bothness" because it hasn't collapsed resulting in a particular outcome.
At least, that's how I understand it.
We can't measure things accurately because our observation of the phenomena itself changes the way it behaves. Before the observation, it exists solely as potentiality, and our observation collapses the wave resulting in actuality, or the phenomena we observe. See the double slit experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.
Our limitation in observation is also demonstrated by the uncertainty principle that states that we can't know the exact position of an object and it's momentum.
Again, that's my limited understanding.
I wish we had a physicist in these parts. I would bug them allllll day long.
Non physical, and, interestingly, non local, otherwise all phenomena would be determined by the locale of an individual non physical mind which would have to exist independently of all other non physical minds.
Interconnectedness, baby
The four propositions of Buddhist logic are:
- Being
- Nonbeing
- Neither being nor nonbeing
- Both being and nonbeing
That all four propositions are insufficient descriptions of reality sounds like "superposition" to me.
Our conventional understanding is like “measuring” the world around us; and thinking in words and concepts makes the state of superposition collapse and by doing so we create samsara and us in it.
Liberation is not “measuring” and maintaining the miraculous quantum superposition that we are in.
That’s my shot at it anyways.
Without the notion of consciousness, there couldn't be the notion of an object, and without the notion of an object, there couldn't be the notion of consciousness.
You have to deconstruct the idea of consciousness as well as the idea of objects, or rather, this happens naturally when you deconstruct objects, as with the example of the two reeds leaning against one another: if one falls, the whole structure is released.
It might help to imagine samsaric consciousness as light trapped between two mirrors.
'Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html
To see dependent origination you have to let go of the traditional Theravadin view that consciousness in a Buddhist sense means life. And the Buddha said that if you see dependent origination, you see the dhamma.
The truth is the truth whether it is seen or not.
Consciousness as the Buddha spoke of it is consciousness of.
Nothing creates it in a linear fashion; it is co-dependent with name and form (nama rupa):
objects support the illusion of separate consciousness, and consciousness of objects supports the illusion of separate objects.
There is no foundation to this illusion, and it is suffering.
might prove useful.
"According to the Madhyamaka schools, the ultimate reality of the aggregate of consciousness is the naturally abiding buddha-nature. All sentient beings are endowed with the aggregate of consciousness.
The Madhyamaka schools assert that the ultimate nature of this consciousness, which does not truly exist, which does not inherently exist, and which does not exist by way of its own nature, is what allows transformation to take place within our minds. It gives us the ability to limitlessly enhance the qualities of our minds and bestows upon us the capacity to eliminate every defilement. This is the context in which buddha-nature should be understood to function.
The ultimate nature of our own consciousness, which is the result of our karma, and Buddha's consciousness, which is the result of the accumulation of the two types of merit, are the same. Neither our consciousness nor Buddha's consciousness inherently or truly exists. The conventional mode of existence of both of these consciousnesses is also the same--a state of mere experience that is luminous and clear.
So if the ultimate nature of consciousness is buddha-nature, does it follow that the ultimate nature of a mistaken consciousness--such as the consciousness that grasps at true existence--is also buddha-nature? The ultimate nature of this consciousness is not buddha-nature. This is so because the substantial continuum and the continuum that is similar to the previous cause of this mistaken consciousness have an end. The end is the attainment of enlightenment, at which point all mistake consciousnesses will cease. A second reason is that the more our minds become habituated to the consciousness that grasps at true existence, the less they have the capacity for limitless enhancement. Also, mistaken states of consciousness are not stable, as they have no valid basis, being based on ignorance."
~Yangsi Rinpoche, Practicing the Path: A Commentary on the Lamrim Chenmo
But what helped me in practice was 'projecting senses out to an object'. The idea is to investigate where the senses project out from, and see that there isn't anywhere, so they don't.
I'll get back to you on it
The consciousness of the skandhas and dependent origination has a fairly precise definition in terms of personal experience. It is awareness of certain aspects of experience as they relate to your current intentions and behavioral tendencies. For instance, if you want a glass of water on a table across the room and there is someone in the way of you getting it, you might be aware of that person primarily as an obstacle, and that collapsed view of the situation is an example of the consciousness aggregate.
I'm using it (consciousness/vinnana) as the Buddha used it, meaning the supporting factor of name and form, the illusion of projecting out from self to a sense object. The ancient illusion of looking out at the world from the window of the soul.
My point is not that consciousness is colours and form drawn on darkness, my point is that what you see as consciousness isn't consciousness.
For Buddha there is nothing that can be said of objects.
'[The Buddha:]
As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind
goes to an end
that cannot be classified,[2]
so the sage free from naming activity
goes to an end
that cannot be classified.
[Upasiva:]
He who has reached the end:
Does he not exist,
or is he for eternity
free from dis-ease?
Please, sage, declare this to me
as this phenomenon has been known by you.
[The Buddha:]
One who has reached the end
has no criterion [3]
by which anyone would say that —
for him it doesn't exist.
When all phenomena are done away with,[4]
all means of speaking
are done away with as well.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.06.than.html
http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
Sati believes consciousness is a thing in a place that can move. In the same way, the annihilationist views consciousness as a thing in a place that can be present or absent.
The Buddha did not even address the idea of life as an object that could be present or absent. He taught the end of suffering through the deconstruction of self.
The difficulty he addressed in the simile of the reeds supporting each other, in the system of dependent origination, was how to deconstruct deconstruction, which is rather like a detective who is also the murderer, and is thus unable to solve the mystery.
My general feeling on science is that as it progresses, it comes closer to certain theories or views which Buddhism has been getting at for a long time. I find this exciting, since some of these Buddhist theories are ones I subscribe to, and it's nice to see them validated scientifically--interfaith dialogue, if you will.
A simple example is the Buddhist theory that meditation can change one's state of mind; initially disregarded or even mocked, meditation is now a subject of scientific study wherein measurable changes can be measured and mapped.
For me, it's a bit of both--hoping to understand science better, via things I'm more familiar with in Buddhism, and visa versa. As long as both science and Buddhism are considered useful, I would respectfully disagree that lines of inquiry between them aren't useful.
But if you've already been-there-done-that, I can definitely see how this would be of little interest! As for me, I'm still trying to figure out if the cat is awake or asleep, and I have confidence that certain Buddhist theories on reality will probably help (or at least help me) get closer to understanding superposition.
Also, as a linguist, I suspect there are Buddhist terms which get closer to "superposition," and as I do a lot of my knowledge-seeking via language, I think that will be helpful, or at least a useful exercise. As a linguist I also realize that many terms don't have exact correlations between disciplines or languages--but sometimes it's the difference that makes the difference, to my lame brain at least.
I guess that might be a good question--what, if any, Buddhist terms people are aware of come close to "superposition?"
http://www.quantumbuddhism.com/topic001.html
Snip:
"Electrons passing through this apparatus, in so far as we are able to fathom the matter, do not take route h and do not take route s and do not take both of these routes and do not take neither of these routes; and the trouble is that those four possibilities are simply all of the logical possibilities…"
- David Z Albert (twentieth century physicist)
"It’s character is neither existent, nor non-existent,
Nor both existent and non-existent, nor neither.
Centrists should know true reality
That is free from these four possibilities."
- Bhavaviveka (1st century Madhyamika)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45269935/Svatantrika-Prasangika