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.
See the end of this lecture where Richard Feynman discusses what quantum theory implies; things are unpredictable. He concludes with what he things science should be like: looking honestly at things without strict prejudice or wanting a specific outcome. And I think it is that which should ideally also be present in Buddhists. That's what I think we should take from physics, mainly. Not the results.
Yes. This is the point imho. Science is not a set of results or a theory but a method. Just like Buddhism. Both do achieve results, but it's the method that matters. The results they both achieve are in complete harmony. In an idealised form they both depend completely on empiricism, testability and repeatability. How could they not converge on truth? It's just that science, being all about the shared observable universe, cannot dig as deep as we can as individuals.
The reason the connection may not be obvious might be that science has yet to come to grips with Buddhism. But, and its a big 'but', science faces many problems that Buddhism solves, so is bound to get to grips with it in the end. Then the reconciliation will be inevitable and we needn't argue about it anymore.
On science forums one often sees discussions of the size of the universe. In physics this question is an eternal riddle. Scientists often do not see that it is a metaphysical question, and that it is well known that it is an undecidable question. So science cannot say anything about the size of the universe. Buddhism can. So to say that Buddhism has nothing to do with science does science no favours.
Or, for another example, the Upanishads say 'the voidness of one phenomenon is the voidness of all'. This is a prediction for science and means that there is no question of there being two separate majisteria. Buddhists study the universe empirically, without preconception or opinion, using logic and experience, and so do scientists. They arrive at conclusions that are perfectly consistent with each other. This cannot be a coincidence.
What is more, Buddhism is way ahead of the game in some areas. The Newtonian universe was wholly inconsistent with that of the Buddha, so Buddhism predicted it was wrong. And it was. But all the way through there was no great difference between science and Buddhism, they just arrived at different results. Buddhism contradicted science's provisional result, but because science, like Buddhism, seeks truth, they ended up in line with each other.
We all live in the same uiniverse, so I fail to see how science and Buddhism can do anything other than be in harmony, just as long as we are talking about the known facts and not comparing Buddhist doctrine with scientific conjectures. The methods are the same, albeit targeted differently, and the results are harmonious. The only disagreement occurs where Buddhist doctrine is contradicted by a conjectural scientific theory, and such disagreements are trivial and temporary.
Maybe the disageement here is between those who see Buddhism as being all about vague visions and intuitions, and those who see it as being all about hard facts and empirical data. Our view may depend on our experience.
Well, a position such as that and "science faces many problems buddhism solves" is exactly this crossing the boundary I was arguing against. It doesn't even really matter what is right or wrong. It's about respecting what current scientific understanding is and what the limits of buddhism are.
Sure, there are people who don't accept the theory of evolution. Sure there are people who don't like the earth is not the center of the universe and neither is a Mount Meru. Sure there are people who don't like nature works by chance. But hey, this is the current understanding. To say the physical world is not based on chance is not in line with the commonly accepted scientific understanding. Of course, be happy to disagree, but I think it's better not to phrase it in ways that don't do justice to this understanding. Like "quantum theory doesn't ... etc". Like these videos also say things anybody with some understanding of the discussed physics would at least get very itchy about. They state things as accepted facts that are all but. Instead, phrase things as "I think quantum theory is wrong". That I can perfectly accept.
Perhaps that's why someone wondered why it's mainly scientists who argue for a separation between religion and science. Maybe they above others realize science needs its own room to play in or it won't come to honest conclusions. Any interference or preconceived ideas disrupts the process. Luckily religion is not the biggest threat to this position, nowadays. Probably it's money more than anything else. But that's another topic.
So anyway, we as practitioners of the Buddha's path also need our room to play in. If we go into our practice with preconceived ideas of no-self, nirvana, the uiverse or whatever, we're bound to hit a wall. We have to allow the truth to be the truth, whatever it is. Because it may be as counter intuitive as quantum science. The Buddha praised faith, but he also praised investigation. First of all, it has to be the right type of faith as I argued before, but I'd also say, don't let too much faith hinder the investigation.
Well, a position such as that and "science faces many problems buddhism solves" is exactly this crossing the boundary I was arguing against. It doesn't even really matter what is right or wrong. It's about respecting what current scientific understanding is and what the limits of buddhism are.
Sure, there are people who don't accept the theory of evolution. Sure there are people who don't like the earth is not the center of the universe and neither is a Mount Meru. Sure there are people who don't like nature works by chance. But hey, this is the current understanding. To say the physical world is not based on chance is not in line with the commonly accepted scientific understanding. Of course, be happy to disagree, but I think it's better not to phrase it in ways that don't do justice to this understanding. Like "quantum theory doesn't ... etc". Like these videos also say things anybody with some understanding of the discussed physics would at least get very itchy about. They state things as accepted facts that are all but. Instead, phrase things as "I think quantum theory is wrong". That I can perfectly accept.
Perhaps that's why someone wondered why it's mainly scientists who argue for a separation between religion and science. Maybe they above others realize science needs its own room to play in or it won't come to honest conclusions. Any interference or preconceived ideas disrupts the process. Luckily religion is not the biggest threat to this position, nowadays. Probably it's money more than anything else. But that's another topic.
So anyway, we as practitioners of the Buddha's path also need our room to play in. If we go into our practice with preconceived ideas of no-self, nirvana, the uiverse or whatever, we're bound to hit a wall. We have to allow the truth to be the truth, whatever it is. Because it may be as counter intuitive as quantum science. The Buddha praised faith, but he also praised investigation. First of all, it has to be the right type of faith as I argued before, but I'd also say, don't let too much faith hinder the investigation.
That's so nicely stated.
You know, it always surprises me how sometimes the same people who go nuts about the separation of church and state don't also see the need for the separation of church and science. In both cases, each entity needs that separation to thrive. Where they combine is where each individual allows them to.
You guys know the uncertainty principle isn't about some inherent, universal chance, right? All the uncertainty principle states is that you can't measure something very small without altering it, the cliche example being you can't know a particles position and speed, because by measuring one you inevitably alter the other. This isn't really anything to do with an "uncertainty" aspect of reality, it's just that if you poke a particle to see how fast it's going you're gonna send it off in a different direction, and if you poke it to see where it is you'll slow it down or speed it up in the process.
Also, I don't think Buddha cared about such things, they're just not important to his message.
You guys know the uncertainty principle isn't about some inherent, universal chance, right?
It deals with issues of predictability and chance.
Stephen hawking says: "So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion." (On the Quantum level)
It deals with issues of predictability and chance.
Not strictly true. Quantum mechanics predicts probability distributions for certain events but it does not imply that the events are inherently unpredictable. It is the Copenhagen interpretation which concludes that. Now, the Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted, so it could be said to be part of QM as a community of practice, but it is not part of the formal theory, and there is no scientific evidence supporting it at this stage. Real quantum computation using actual qubits would validate the Copenhagen intepretation, but I actually think that's pretty unlikely.
That's a shame too. Einstein came up with the special theory of relativity because of throwing accepted norms out the window. Then he clung to his ideas and made mistakes.
My money's on Einstein being right. The EPR experiment cast the horns of the dilemma more starkly, but instantaneous nonlocal interaction between hidden variables seems more likely than states being drawn completely unpredictably from probability distributions. The main reason to avoid nonlocal interaction is that it allows for events which are unpredictable given local conditions, whereas the standard probabilistic interpretation of QM axiomatically posits inherently unpredictable events anyway.
It deals with issues of predictability and chance.
Not strictly true. Quantum mechanics predicts probability distributions for certain events but it does not imply that the events are inherently unpredictable.
@fivebells - would you agree that we could calculate probabilities, but we could not make any definite predictions?
You guys know the uncertainty principle isn't about some inherent, universal chance, right? All the uncertainty principle states is that you can't measure something very small without altering it, the cliche example being you can't know a particles position and speed, because by measuring one you inevitably alter the other. This isn't really anything to do with an "uncertainty" aspect of reality, it's just that if you poke a particle to see how fast it's going you're gonna send it off in a different direction, and if you poke it to see where it is you'll slow it down or speed it up in the process.
Also, I don't think Buddha cared about such things, they're just not important to his message.
It's not just a simple problem of measurement as you suggest. Its implication is a fundamental law of nature that things are unpredictable. Or in other words, two experiments with the same starting conditions don't necessarily have the same outcome (for example the double slit experiment). It means no matter how much information you have beforehand, you still can't know exactly what's going to happen. You can only make an educated guess.
Take radioactive decay of an atom. It just happens by chance. Current scientific agreement as per quantum mechanics is that nobody can ever predict when it will happen. It may happen in a second or a year, you can't be sure. We can only speak about chance, its half-life, but we can't predict a specific time, regardless of how much information we have of the atom. It appears to be fundamental of nature such things happen by chance. Hard to accept for some, maybe, but all evidence points this way currently.
I wholeheartedly agree the Buddha didn't care about such things. That's been my point all along. Yet, videos such as the ones posted seem to suggest the Buddha somehow knew such things - of course it mentions all kinds of quantum stuff, but without mentioning the inherent probability in nature, because that seems to fly straight in the face of cause and effect.. That wouldn't be good propaganda for Buddhism.
It points out that sunshine is the result of a quantum event which has a very real effect on the world of classical physics!
I doff my cap and am really pleased to have understood this better now.
Any more enlightenment in future posts will be much appreciated.
Touche!
Sorry the information was little and my post didn't clarify. It basically says that the diffraction patterns lights make (displaying the probability of the arriving somewhere of individual particles) is also measured with molecules of up to 60 carbon atoms - which are quite big. Nowadays even double the size molecules have been shown to display the same behavior and there is no reason the same doesn't happen for bigger objects - say baseballs. So it seems quantum theory applies not just to sub-atomic particles, but to bigger things as well. But in case of baseballs, the wavelengths are so small it's immeasurable, and so in everyday life we don't notice it. Just like we don't notice relativity, another counter intuitive but well supported theory.
As a response to this implication, Einstein said “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”. Because according to QM, the moon isn't defined and it is there by chance.
I'm happy you came to more understanding. Yes, it seems like the sun shining down on us happens by nothing but chance! Good example. And nice article.
@fivebells - would you agree that we could calculate probabilities, but we could not make any definite predictions?
Yes -- just as when asked about a fair coin toss, we can calculate a probability of 50% for heads. However, with sufficiently precise information about a specific coin toss (initial conditions, landing surface) we could predict the outcome with certainty. In other words, there is more going on in a coin toss than we generally measure, but we could measure it, and the subjective probability distribution we could infer from this extra information would be more precise.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that the probability distributions predicted by current theory are as precise as they could possibly be. I.e., there are no "hidden variables" we could measure to allow us to make more precise predictions. It is in a sense the most pessimistic and arrogant assumption you could make: "We already know what's going on, and any imprecision in our predictions must be inherent."* It is not part of the QM formalism, it is just a way of thinking about the predictions the formalism makes. As the paper I linked states, it is a testable but untested scientific hypothesis, but most of the time it is presented as an unquestioned assumption.
*Imagine if your job was to make a machine which threw a coin so that it landed heads-up every time, and you said you'd done your best once your machine got heads 50% of the time because a 50% probability is the best prediction anyone could make for any coin toss.
Agreed that all scientific theories are never 100% sure. In a way that's the very basis of science. But it is not pessimistic or arrogant to assume one to be more likely than others. In this case it is also not arrogant but a very fair assumption, because in the end the model is so simple, and evidence is in its favor. If one wants to find a deterministic model, I admit I have no specific knowledge of these theories, but the models probably become very complicated without having real evidence to support them. So far all tries to disprove uncertainty have only made it a stronger theory. So currently, it still holds. Just like the law of gravity still holds until proven false.
In that sense, Buddhism isn't the same as science because it is the idea we can have enlightenment 100% sure. Buddhism isn't based on theories.
Basically, all my earlier posts in this thread are saying that that's a likeable correspondence, but not a particularly edifying or useful one.
In my eyes it could be useful if it reduces some peoples biases that the Buddha was somehow omniscient. That not all that is in the suttas has to be true. That we have to look for ourselves, both in science and religion, so we don't blindly trust ideas people throw at us. So we keep a clear and honest perspective . That's been my hidden agenda here. But yes, I have drifted.
...it is not pessimistic or arrogant to assume one to be more likely than others. In this case it is also not arrogant but a very fair assumption, because in the end the model is so simple, and evidence is in its favor. If one wants to find a deterministic model, I admit I have no specific knowledge of these theories, but the models probably become very complicated without having real evidence to support them. So far all tries to disprove uncertainty have only made it a stronger theory. So currently, it still holds. Just like the law of gravity still holds until proven false.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence in its favor because there has been no attempt to disprove its predictions. As I said above, EPR didn't establish it, it established that any "hidden variables" elaboration would have to involve nonlocal interactions.
It is arrogant and pessimistic to assume that any particular mystery is inherent to the way the universe works, because it blinds people to possibilities which could enrich their understanding and deepen their control over their environments. Imagine if we do find such hidden variables: the nonlocal interaction between them could be used for faster-than-light communication. So yes, it's pessimistic. It would also make the Copenhagen interpretation look pretty silly, wouldn't it? Again, imagine the builder of a coin-tossing machine saying it's impossible to control the outcome of its coin tosses with better than 50% probability of getting heads, because the mysteries of the coin-toss process are inscrutable: They would look pretty stupid if someone applied a rudimentary understanding of mechanics to the problem and made a machine which tossed heads every time. The Copenhagen interpretation is basically saying the same thing in the context of quantum mechanical particles.
Didn't the electron slit experiment show that electrons respond to a detector of one of the slits by acting as a particle moreso and the diffraction pattern went away? Why did the detector change the nature of the particle? Also when one particle was sent slowly after another it still built up a diffraction (slit detector now off). So apparently one electron was interfering with itself and had to go through both slits for that to happen.
I think we don't know why. Great time to be in science.
It is arrogant and pessimistic to assume that any particular mystery is inherent to the way the universe works, because it blinds people to possibilities which could enrich their understanding and deepen their control over their environments.
It is only arrogant if one assumes nature has to abide by predictable laws. In my eyes it is more arrogant to assume mankind should understand things that may not have any particular deterministic mechanics to them at all. In contrast, isn't it a sign of humility to accept we can't understand nature in terms of our everyday experience? And to admit things may happen because of chance? For me it is. And that's quite beautiful because in that sense buddhism is the same in that we can't understand Dhamma in any intellectual way. Both in science and buddhism, nature outsmarts us.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The most widely accepted interpretation of QM is the Copenhagen interpretation, it says that quantum events are probalistic and non deterministic.
The next popular interpretation is the Many Worlds interpretation, it maintains a deterministic universe.
I tend to think that the former is closer to the truth. Many worlds seems to be saying that for every decision made at every moment a new universe is created and every decision made in each of those universes at every moment also creates a new universe.
Experienced introspective first person observations say that mind is an actual non physical 'thing' and I'm willing to buy in to that. If so, that would seem to allow for the observer to play a role in collapsing the wave function.
Any real understanding of QM is frankly beyond me, but I'm satisfied with my take unless it can be shown otherwise. Which even among physicists who understand the maths don't agree, will likely be a while.
Well, just to clarify my example (I really should bow out ), the coin-tosser-machine builder sounds pretty arrogant, right? Claiming that anything mysterious to us is inherently unfathomable is arrogant because ipso facto it's making a self-serving assertion about something we don't understand.
Well, just to clarify my example (I really should bow out ), the coin-tosser-machine builder sounds pretty arrogant, right? Claiming that anything mysterious to us is inherently unfathomable is arrogant because ipso facto it's making a self-serving assertion about something we don't understand.
Yes, the coin tosser guy may be arrogant, but the example is not comparable. Because in the coin tosser case, it's obvious there is hidden mechanics behind it that he just doesn't want to see. Air pressure, coin shape, what have you. But the point in Copenhagen QM is that there is nothing further behind it. It's just the way nature behaves and that's the end of it. It is not about something mysterious or unfathomable, because there is nothing deeper to understand. Do you see the difference?
From a buddhist perspective, is saying phenomena are empty of an ego/self also arrogant? No. To say the five khandas are just that - without any mechanic of "I" behind it - also there, it is a sign of humility. But if one assumes there HAS to be some hidden mechanic, perhaps it seems arrogant. Some may say the Buddha was arrogant or pessimistic and he didn't want to look deeper when in fact there is no deeper to look.
All oceans have a floor and in the case of the nature of matter that floor may very well be that it just happens to work by chance.
@Sabre, you're just begging the question. "It's not mysterious or unfathomable because there is nothing deeper to understand," is exactly the attitude in Copenhagen QM which I'm criticizing as arrogant. It may be that we've hit the ocean floor, but as that paper I linked shows, that is a testable hypothesis which has been adopted as an unquestioned assumption. It is being implicitly tested now by the attempts to build scaleable quantum computers, and either we'll end up with a working quantum computer, or in the efforts to understand why we didn't, we will find hidden variables. It's a shame that it's taken most of a century to accidentally test the critical blind spot in QM theory created by this assumption.
It's absolutely arrogant to say phenomena in general are empty of self. Try telling that to the next person you meet and see how far you get. The Buddha wouldn't do it. To observe phenomena as they arise and view them as empty of self is a useful technique for ending suffering, but that's different from taking an ontological position on the question. "I can't see one" is different from "There is none."
There are too many unknowns to draw conclusions now, is my view. :-/
Exactly. Yet, the videos do draw -or very much imply- such conclusions by drawing parallels between Buddhist ideas and scientific ideas, but not presenting either accurately.
Science and Buddhism are not in disagreement, but neither are they in the implied agreement. Not that that's important, really. Because people have been practicing Buddhism effectively before current scientific understanding was present.
The videos aside, I say there are at least four stances to take in regards to the question of whether or not Buddhism and Science are in agreement. 1 Science has demonstrated that they are in agreement. 2 Science has demonstrated that they are not in agreement. 3 Science has not demonstrated that they are or aren't in agreement. 4 I don't know whether science has demonstrated whether they are or aren't in agreement. A fifth one could be about the differences in viewpoints between the scientists... or the view that science somewhat shows a parallel but not yet very well. Lots of possible view points, and neither is "the current scientific understanding." imo, since I don't think that refers to anything substantial.
@Sabre, you're just begging the question. "It's not mysterious or unfathomable because there is nothing deeper to understand," is exactly the attitude in Copenhagen QM which I'm criticizing as arrogant. It may be that we've hit the ocean floor, but as that paper I linked shows, that is a testable hypothesis which has been adopted as an unquestioned assumption. It is being implicitly tested now by the attempts to build scaleable quantum computers, and either we'll end up with a working quantum computer, or in the efforts to understand why we didn't, we will find hidden variables. It's a shame that it's taken most of a century to accidentally test the critical blind spot in QM theory created by this assumption.
Well, it's the way science works. The simplest explanation is the one most likely. If there is no proof for hidden variables there is no need to assume them. The theories and experiments work perfectly without them. Only when theories and experiments need or imply that things exist it is reasonable to assume their existence. Like the Higgs Boson. In the case of the hidden variable it is not like this because everything currently seems to fit without them. So as long as current agreed understanding is not unproven, its all but arrogant to take it as the correct interpretation.
But in the end arrogance is a personal feeling. I for one think it is humbling when one accepts nature can't be understood in terms of determinism. If you think that is arrogant, just shows it is just our personal experiences/views projected on things that make us feel a certain way. What's true or not has nothing to do with it.
It's absolutely arrogant to say phenomena in general are empty of self. Try telling that to the next person you meet and see how far you get. The Buddha wouldn't do it. To observe phenomena as they arise and view them as empty of self is a useful technique for ending suffering, but that's different from taking an ontological position on the question. "I can't see one" is different from "There is none."
This is a point of view of some teachers, I know. Many don't share it but I don't think that has anything to do with arrogance if one thinks or experiences there to be no self. Because arrogance would come from a sense of self. But I won't go further into it because it is not the topic. And also here, what's true may have nothing to do with it. However, the Buddha did say that the path leads towards humility.
But then again, is it not here you take the position one can't understand whether there is self or no self?... One can't understand the deeper mechanics? Yet here it is not arrogant.. "I can't see one (hidden variable)" is different from "there is none", the latter of which according to you is an arrogant position in the case of QM.
There are too many unknowns to draw conclusions now, is my view. :-/
Exactly. Yet, the videos do draw -or very much imply- such conclusions by drawing parallels between Buddhist ideas and scientific ideas, but not presenting either accurately.
Science and Buddhism are not in disagreement, but neither are they in the implied agreement. Not that that's important, really. Because people have been practicing Buddhism effectively before current scientific understanding was present.
The videos aside, I say there are at least four stances to take in regards to the question of whether or not Buddhism and Science are in agreement. 1 Science has demonstrated that they are in agreement. 2 Science has demonstrated that they are not in agreement. 3 Science has not demonstrated that they are or aren't in agreement. 4 I don't know whether science has demonstrated whether they are or aren't in agreement. A fifth one could be about the differences in viewpoints between the scientists... or the view that science somewhat shows a parallel but not yet very well. Lots of possible view points, and neither is "the current scientific understanding." imo, since I don't think that refers to anything substantial.
6. It doesn't matter either way.
When the Buddha was alive, scientific understanding was shit. Still, he got enlightened.
But then again, is it not here you take the position one can't understand whether there is self or no self?... One can't understand the deeper mechanics? Yet here it is not arrogant.. "I can't see one (hidden variable)" is different from "there is none", the latter of which according to you is an arrogant position in the case of QM.
Well, it's the way science works. The simplest explanation is the one most likely. If there is no proof for hidden variables there is no need to assume them. The theories and experiments work perfectly without them. Only when theories and experiments need or imply that things exist it is reasonable to assume their existence. Like the Higgs Boson. In the case of the hidden variable it is not like this because everything currently seems to fit without them. So as long as current agreed understanding is not unproven, its all but arrogant to take it as the correct interpretation.
Humbling to accept it as a personal or social failure, arrogant to conclude the failure results from an inherent property of matter. It's never arrogant to admit to not knowing something, which is my position. It is arrogant to claim that something you don't know is unknowable, which is what the Copenhagen interpretation does. BTW, you are bordering on argument from authority by appealing to the popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation. One of the ways science works is by critical thinking. (Though I suppose neither of us will be investigating this particular question in any significant way.)
One other avenue by which it works is inquiry into mysterious phenomena, but this avenue gets shut down by unsupported theorizing about the mystery being inherent to the system under study. For instance, it took centuries for someone to come up with the Copernican model of the solar system, because the weird epicycles apparent in Earth's reference frame were modeled as inherent to the system, making it impossible for most people to even entertain the question of what caused them. The Copenhagen interpretation similarly sweeps aside the possibility of deeper causal mechanisms underlying the statistical predictions of current QM.
It is arrogant to claim that something you don't know is unknowable, which is what the Copenhagen interpretation does.
No, it doesn't. Saying things happen by chance is just that, saying things happen by chance. It is not saying that there is something you don't know that is unknowable. Again, there is no mystery here. Probability is a very simple thing without any magic to it. Perhaps that's where you perceive the arrogance which I just can't see.
That aside, a scientific model is not necessarily a claim to truth. It is a way of describing how phenomena happen and how they may be predicted. If the model happens to be chance based, so be it. If in the end it is not, it is not. We don't have the right to say what's better, more or less arrogant.
If you read back you'll see that I never claimed any scientific point of view to be arrogant. Instead I called it arrogant when one thinks nature has to abide by their preconceived conditions. But that's not a scientific point of view, that's a personal reflection. Just as seeing things as pessimistic is.
But what does this still have to do with Buddhism.. I don't know. So I'll leave it at this for now.
Perhaps this is interesting. "It will be difficult [to explain], but the difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from you saying to yourself 'but how can it be like that?' " (yes I like Feynman)
Oh, I just thought of a better, example: What if, when the world rediscovered Mendelian genetics, it had concluded that Mendel's statistical predictions of inheritance frequency reflected some kind of intrinsically unpredictable binomial distribution for which no deeper mechanism could be found? Had that been the case, it might have taken much longer to identify the mechanism of genetic inheritance from chromosomes. The Copenhagen interpretation is essentially the same kind of ignorance.
No, it doesn't. Saying things happen by chance is just that, saying things happen by chance. It is not saying that there is something you don't know that is unknowable. Again, there is no mystery here. Probability is a very simple thing without any magic to it.
In every other application of probability theory that I am aware of, probability distributions represent ignorance (the not-knowing kind, not the I-don't-want-to-know kind.) Why do we say a coin has a 50% chance of landing heads-up? Because we don't know the precise conditions in which it's thrown. If we do, then we can give a more precise distribution. (See fig. 2, p. 67.) In other words, in every other application probability distributions are subjective in the sense that their precision reflects the information used to calculate them. More information leads to more precise distributions.
It's only in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that probability distributions are seen as having some kind of independent ontological reality, i.e., that the ignorance is swept under the rug as inherently unknowable. (The ignorance implied by the imprecision in the distributions predicted by QM, that is.)
But what does this still have to do with Buddhism.. I don't know. So I'll leave it at this for now.
Totally agree, but somehow, I can't put this down. Judging from the thoughts which proceed my coming over here to check for a response, I am showing off and compensating for a deep sense of inadequacy to the job of becoming a valued member of society. It is shameful, and I should go meditate.
I think this conversation has been fascinating (and remarkably well-mannered considering the topic). I have learned LOADS - I have done lots more reading and can actually follow your conversation (with occasional dashes off to Google.)
I find it an enormous change in my world-view that the beginning of things are (at present) 'inconstruable' (which is, what I understand by Quantum Indeterminancy).
I think the attempt to trace the arising of phenomena would have fascinated Shakyamuni - for me it changes my view of co-production and karma.
I'm not sure I see what the issue of indeterminancy, probability etc. has to do with the topic at hand, albeit it is completely fascinating. If the universe operates partly in unpredictable ways this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the relationship between Buddhism and science.
The Copenhagen interpretation is, it seems to me, useless. It explains nothing. We still need an interpretation of the interpretation. I'd say Buddhism is it. This has to be plausible when one sees how weird QM makes the world. The idea that the universe is a quantum fluctuation, for instance, seems bang in line.
But whether the theories of science are in line with Buddhist doctrine is not really an issue. The issue is only whether Buddhist practice can be considered scientific. So far I've seen no reason to say it is not.
Buddhism makes claims about the world. Should science say, oh well, it's religion, a different magisteria, so we can't examine these claims? How, for instance, is scientific consciousness studies going to make any progress if it places Buddhist ideas off-limits? I think we can answer this by looking at the current parlous state of it.
I'm not sure I see what the issue of indeterminancy, probability etc. has to do with the topic at hand, albeit it is completely fascinating. If the universe operates partly in unpredictable ways this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the relationship between Buddhism and science.
Ha - back to that old chestnut. I maintain that there is no separation between Truth.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
The study of one is the study of the other.
For instance, this thread has helped my shape my understanding of phenomenal existence and that has modified my understanding of conditioned co-production.
I'm not sure I see what the issue of indeterminancy, probability etc. has to do with the topic at hand, albeit it is completely fascinating. If the universe operates partly in unpredictable ways this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the relationship between Buddhism and science.
The Copenhagen interpretation is, it seems to me, useless. It explains nothing. We still need an interpretation of the interpretation. I'd say Buddhism is it. This has to be plausible when one sees how weird QM makes the world. The idea that the universe is a quantum fluctuation, for instance, seems bang in line.
But whether the theories of science are in line with Buddhist doctrine is not really an issue. The issue is only whether Buddhist practice can be considered scientific. So far I've seen no reason to say it is not.
Buddhism makes claims about the world. Should science say, oh well, it's religion, a different magisteria, so we can't examine these claims? How, for instance, is scientific consciousness studies going to make any progress if it places Buddhist ideas off-limits? I think we can answer this by looking at the current parlous state of it.
In part, I think you're correct. The discussion has gotten bogged down in scientific detail.
But when you say "But whether the theories of science are in line with Buddhist doctrine is not really an issue. The issue is only whether Buddhist practice can be considered scientific. So far I've seen no reason to say it is not", I think you're a little off base. Let me put it this way: if someone said to me that Buddhist tends to be a little more scientific in nature than other religions, I would say that yes, that is probably true. It's less doctrinal than most religions, and we are expected to learn things more through trial and error -- which is, in a sense, a somewhat scientific approach to life. But when someone says that Buddha's enlightenment visions were scientific...no, visions are not scientific. Millions of people have visions, and we don't class them as scientific. Even if a vision is correct, it still doesn't mean a vision is a scientific path to knowledge. Is there any scientific research that supports the various levels of heavens and hell portrayed in Buddhism. Is there a mountain in the center of the earth that is the center of the universe? There are tons of unscientific beliefs in Buddhism.
Now, having said all that, do I believe that science trumps Buddhism, or conversely that Buddhism trumps science? No. Each has its own realm of interest. And, as you point out, science should be able to consider Buddhism, and Buddhism should consider science. I always feel a little sorry for the rare scientist who believes that scientific fact is the only basis for life...because among other things, scientific fact ignores morality or the concept of a social contract among people.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
Neither are actually about capital T Truth. Scientific truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research. Religious truths are about meaning. Religious truths don't have to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
Neither are actually about capital T Truth. Scientific truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research. Religious truths are about meaning. Religious truths don't have to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
Although I like the way you put it, it is the perfect example of a slippery slope.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
Neither are actually about capital T Truth. Scientific truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research. Religious truths are about meaning. Religious truths don't have to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
You can reverse what you have said though and say religious truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research and scientific truths are also about meaning.
I don't think we can distinguish them in this way.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
Neither are actually about capital T Truth. Scientific truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research. Religious truths are about meaning. Religious truths don't have to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
You can reverse what you have said though and say religious truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research and scientific truths are also about meaning.
I don't think we can distinguish them in this way.
Religious truths change of course, why wouldn't they, but they are necessarily very slow to change. Meaning is essential.
Scientific truths can be rather meaningless facts. Reliability is essential.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
Neither are actually about capital T Truth. Scientific truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research. Religious truths are about meaning. Religious truths don't have to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
Although I like the way you put it, it is the perfect example of a slippery slope.
Comments
The reason the connection may not be obvious might be that science has yet to come to grips with Buddhism. But, and its a big 'but', science faces many problems that Buddhism solves, so is bound to get to grips with it in the end. Then the reconciliation will be inevitable and we needn't argue about it anymore.
On science forums one often sees discussions of the size of the universe. In physics this question is an eternal riddle. Scientists often do not see that it is a metaphysical question, and that it is well known that it is an undecidable question. So science cannot say anything about the size of the universe. Buddhism can. So to say that Buddhism has nothing to do with science does science no favours.
Or, for another example, the Upanishads say 'the voidness of one phenomenon is the voidness of all'. This is a prediction for science and means that there is no question of there being two separate majisteria. Buddhists study the universe empirically, without preconception or opinion, using logic and experience, and so do scientists. They arrive at conclusions that are perfectly consistent with each other. This cannot be a coincidence.
What is more, Buddhism is way ahead of the game in some areas. The Newtonian universe was wholly inconsistent with that of the Buddha, so Buddhism predicted it was wrong. And it was. But all the way through there was no great difference between science and Buddhism, they just arrived at different results. Buddhism contradicted science's provisional result, but because science, like Buddhism, seeks truth, they ended up in line with each other.
We all live in the same uiniverse, so I fail to see how science and Buddhism can do anything other than be in harmony, just as long as we are talking about the known facts and not comparing Buddhist doctrine with scientific conjectures. The methods are the same, albeit targeted differently, and the results are harmonious. The only disagreement occurs where Buddhist doctrine is contradicted by a conjectural scientific theory, and such disagreements are trivial and temporary.
Maybe the disageement here is between those who see Buddhism as being all about vague visions and intuitions, and those who see it as being all about hard facts and empirical data. Our view may depend on our experience.
Sure, there are people who don't accept the theory of evolution. Sure there are people who don't like the earth is not the center of the universe and neither is a Mount Meru. Sure there are people who don't like nature works by chance. But hey, this is the current understanding. To say the physical world is not based on chance is not in line with the commonly accepted scientific understanding. Of course, be happy to disagree, but I think it's better not to phrase it in ways that don't do justice to this understanding. Like "quantum theory doesn't ... etc". Like these videos also say things anybody with some understanding of the discussed physics would at least get very itchy about. They state things as accepted facts that are all but. Instead, phrase things as "I think quantum theory is wrong". That I can perfectly accept.
Perhaps that's why someone wondered why it's mainly scientists who argue for a separation between religion and science. Maybe they above others realize science needs its own room to play in or it won't come to honest conclusions. Any interference or preconceived ideas disrupts the process. Luckily religion is not the biggest threat to this position, nowadays. Probably it's money more than anything else. But that's another topic.
So anyway, we as practitioners of the Buddha's path also need our room to play in. If we go into our practice with preconceived ideas of no-self, nirvana, the uiverse or whatever, we're bound to hit a wall. We have to allow the truth to be the truth, whatever it is. Because it may be as counter intuitive as quantum science. The Buddha praised faith, but he also praised investigation. First of all, it has to be the right type of faith as I argued before, but I'd also say, don't let too much faith hinder the investigation.
In that we can observe it the wave function has already collapsed and 'unpredictably' has already collapsed with it. No 'chance' remains.
The 'chance' world you talk about is very real but only at sub-atomic scales.
I am enjoying having to read and learn more about this subject...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html
You know, it always surprises me how sometimes the same people who go nuts about the separation of church and state don't also see the need for the separation of church and science. In both cases, each entity needs that separation to thrive. Where they combine is where each individual allows them to.
All the uncertainty principle states is that you can't measure something very small without altering it, the cliche example being you can't know a particles position and speed, because by measuring one you inevitably alter the other. This isn't really anything to do with an "uncertainty" aspect of reality, it's just that if you poke a particle to see how fast it's going you're gonna send it off in a different direction, and if you poke it to see where it is you'll slow it down or speed it up in the process.
Also, I don't think Buddha cared about such things, they're just not important to his message.
Stephen hawking says: "So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion." (On the Quantum level) I think you are right that the Buddha cared only about ending suffering.
However, I think he would appreciate individuals wanting to know more about reality, 'scientific' or otherwise.
Take radioactive decay of an atom. It just happens by chance. Current scientific agreement as per quantum mechanics is that nobody can ever predict when it will happen. It may happen in a second or a year, you can't be sure. We can only speak about chance, its half-life, but we can't predict a specific time, regardless of how much information we have of the atom. It appears to be fundamental of nature such things happen by chance. Hard to accept for some, maybe, but all evidence points this way currently.
I wholeheartedly agree the Buddha didn't care about such things. That's been my point all along. Yet, videos such as the ones posted seem to suggest the Buddha somehow knew such things - of course it mentions all kinds of quantum stuff, but without mentioning the inherent probability in nature, because that seems to fly straight in the face of cause and effect.. That wouldn't be good propaganda for Buddhism.
I found a really good article that explained it well for me.
It points out that sunshine is the result of a quantum event which has a very real effect on the world of classical physics!
I doff my cap and am really pleased to have understood this better now.
Any more enlightenment in future posts will be much appreciated.
Touche!
As a response to this implication, Einstein said “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”. Because according to QM, the moon isn't defined and it is there by chance.
I'm happy you came to more understanding. Yes, it seems like the sun shining down on us happens by nothing but chance! Good example. And nice article.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that the probability distributions predicted by current theory are as precise as they could possibly be. I.e., there are no "hidden variables" we could measure to allow us to make more precise predictions. It is in a sense the most pessimistic and arrogant assumption you could make: "We already know what's going on, and any imprecision in our predictions must be inherent."* It is not part of the QM formalism, it is just a way of thinking about the predictions the formalism makes. As the paper I linked states, it is a testable but untested scientific hypothesis, but most of the time it is presented as an unquestioned assumption.
*Imagine if your job was to make a machine which threw a coin so that it landed heads-up every time, and you said you'd done your best once your machine got heads 50% of the time because a 50% probability is the best prediction anyone could make for any coin toss.
Edit: I accidentally the whole grammar.
Not that there is no 'beginning' but that it is unconstruable.
I like that Quantum Indeterminancy says just that - not just that we can't know a quantum thing but that it cannot be known.
In that sense, Buddhism isn't the same as science because it is the idea we can have enlightenment 100% sure. Buddhism isn't based on theories.
It is arrogant and pessimistic to assume that any particular mystery is inherent to the way the universe works, because it blinds people to possibilities which could enrich their understanding and deepen their control over their environments. Imagine if we do find such hidden variables: the nonlocal interaction between them could be used for faster-than-light communication. So yes, it's pessimistic. It would also make the Copenhagen interpretation look pretty silly, wouldn't it? Again, imagine the builder of a coin-tossing machine saying it's impossible to control the outcome of its coin tosses with better than 50% probability of getting heads, because the mysteries of the coin-toss process are inscrutable: They would look pretty stupid if someone applied a rudimentary understanding of mechanics to the problem and made a machine which tossed heads every time. The Copenhagen interpretation is basically saying the same thing in the context of quantum mechanical particles. Totally agree with you there, and thanks for the reminder to focus on what's important. I should bow out of this conversation.
I think we don't know why. Great time to be in science.
The next popular interpretation is the Many Worlds interpretation, it maintains a deterministic universe.
I tend to think that the former is closer to the truth. Many worlds seems to be saying that for every decision made at every moment a new universe is created and every decision made in each of those universes at every moment also creates a new universe.
Experienced introspective first person observations say that mind is an actual non physical 'thing' and I'm willing to buy in to that. If so, that would seem to allow for the observer to play a role in collapsing the wave function.
Any real understanding of QM is frankly beyond me, but I'm satisfied with my take unless it can be shown otherwise. Which even among physicists who understand the maths don't agree, will likely be a while.
From a buddhist perspective, is saying phenomena are empty of an ego/self also arrogant? No. To say the five khandas are just that - without any mechanic of "I" behind it - also there, it is a sign of humility. But if one assumes there HAS to be some hidden mechanic, perhaps it seems arrogant. Some may say the Buddha was arrogant or pessimistic and he didn't want to look deeper when in fact there is no deeper to look.
All oceans have a floor and in the case of the nature of matter that floor may very well be that it just happens to work by chance.
It's absolutely arrogant to say phenomena in general are empty of self. Try telling that to the next person you meet and see how far you get. The Buddha wouldn't do it.
But in the end arrogance is a personal feeling. I for one think it is humbling when one accepts nature can't be understood in terms of determinism. If you think that is arrogant, just shows it is just our personal experiences/views projected on things that make us feel a certain way. What's true or not has nothing to do with it. This is a point of view of some teachers, I know. Many don't share it but I don't think that has anything to do with arrogance if one thinks or experiences there to be no self. Because arrogance would come from a sense of self. But I won't go further into it because it is not the topic. And also here, what's true may have nothing to do with it. However, the Buddha did say that the path leads towards humility.
But then again, is it not here you take the position one can't understand whether there is self or no self?... One can't understand the deeper mechanics? Yet here it is not arrogant.. "I can't see one (hidden variable)" is different from "there is none", the latter of which according to you is an arrogant position in the case of QM.
When the Buddha was alive, scientific understanding was shit. Still, he got enlightened.
One other avenue by which it works is inquiry into mysterious phenomena, but this avenue gets shut down by unsupported theorizing about the mystery being inherent to the system under study. For instance, it took centuries for someone to come up with the Copernican model of the solar system, because the weird epicycles apparent in Earth's reference frame were modeled as inherent to the system, making it impossible for most people to even entertain the question of what caused them. The Copenhagen interpretation similarly sweeps aside the possibility of deeper causal mechanisms underlying the statistical predictions of current QM.
That aside, a scientific model is not necessarily a claim to truth. It is a way of describing how phenomena happen and how they may be predicted. If the model happens to be chance based, so be it. If in the end it is not, it is not. We don't have the right to say what's better, more or less arrogant.
If you read back you'll see that I never claimed any scientific point of view to be arrogant. Instead I called it arrogant when one thinks nature has to abide by their preconceived conditions. But that's not a scientific point of view, that's a personal reflection. Just as seeing things as pessimistic is.
But what does this still have to do with Buddhism.. I don't know. So I'll leave it at this for now.
Perhaps this is interesting. "It will be difficult [to explain], but the difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from you saying to yourself 'but how can it be like that?' " (yes I like Feynman)
It's only in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that probability distributions are seen as having some kind of independent ontological reality, i.e., that the ignorance is swept under the rug as inherently unknowable. (The ignorance implied by the imprecision in the distributions predicted by QM, that is.) Totally agree, but somehow, I can't put this down. Judging from the thoughts which proceed my coming over here to check for a response, I am showing off and compensating for a deep sense of inadequacy to the job of becoming a valued member of society. It is shameful, and I should go meditate.
I think this conversation has been fascinating (and remarkably well-mannered considering the topic). I have learned LOADS - I have done lots more reading and can actually follow your conversation (with occasional dashes off to Google.)
I find it an enormous change in my world-view that the beginning of things are (at present) 'inconstruable' (which is, what I understand by Quantum Indeterminancy).
I think the attempt to trace the arising of phenomena would have fascinated Shakyamuni - for me it changes my view of co-production and karma.
My mind is now better-informed.
So thanks.
The Copenhagen interpretation is, it seems to me, useless. It explains nothing. We still need an interpretation of the interpretation. I'd say Buddhism is it. This has to be plausible when one sees how weird QM makes the world. The idea that the universe is a quantum fluctuation, for instance, seems bang in line.
But whether the theories of science are in line with Buddhist doctrine is not really an issue. The issue is only whether Buddhist practice can be considered scientific. So far I've seen no reason to say it is not.
Buddhism makes claims about the world. Should science say, oh well, it's religion, a different magisteria, so we can't examine these claims? How, for instance, is scientific consciousness studies going to make any progress if it places Buddhist ideas off-limits? I think we can answer this by looking at the current parlous state of it.
There is no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
The study of one is the study of the other.
For instance, this thread has helped my shape my understanding of phenomenal existence and that has modified my understanding of conditioned co-production.
Seriously, quite a lot.
Either way I have been studying the Dharma.
But when you say "But whether the theories of science are in line with Buddhist doctrine is not really an issue. The issue is only whether Buddhist practice can be considered scientific. So far I've seen no reason to say it is not", I think you're a little off base. Let me put it this way: if someone said to me that Buddhist tends to be a little more scientific in nature than other religions, I would say that yes, that is probably true. It's less doctrinal than most religions, and we are expected to learn things more through trial and error -- which is, in a sense, a somewhat scientific approach to life. But when someone says that Buddha's enlightenment visions were scientific...no, visions are not scientific. Millions of people have visions, and we don't class them as scientific. Even if a vision is correct, it still doesn't mean a vision is a scientific path to knowledge. Is there any scientific research that supports the various levels of heavens and hell portrayed in Buddhism. Is there a mountain in the center of the earth that is the center of the universe? There are tons of unscientific beliefs in Buddhism.
Now, having said all that, do I believe that science trumps Buddhism, or conversely that Buddhism trumps science? No. Each has its own realm of interest. And, as you point out, science should be able to consider Buddhism, and Buddhism should consider science. I always feel a little sorry for the rare scientist who believes that scientific fact is the only basis for life...because among other things, scientific fact ignores morality or the concept of a social contract among people.
You can reverse what you have said though and say religious truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research and scientific truths are also about meaning.
I don't think we can distinguish them in this way.
Scientific truths can be rather meaningless facts. Reliability is essential.