[SciWiz]

Hi Roberto,

Unfortunately, Prof. Dunne is not active on this forum and I am by no means an expert in Dharmakirti’s philosophy. I’ll attempt to answer as best I can.

Dharmakirti argues that something is real if and only if that entity can have causal efficiency, that is, it must be able to bring about some form of change. From this definition, it follows that any real entity must be changing moment-by-moment, because no entity can produce an effect while remaining unchanged (for a complete proof, see [1]).

Let’s go back to the problem of the “ontology” (mode of existing) in quantum physics, that is: what can we say about a quantum system between measurements? Can we state that it is really “existing”, just somewhere out of our (experimental) sight? If so, how does it exist?

Dharmakirti’s view seems to challenge the idea that there is an unchanging entity (say, an electron) that keeps on existing in a concrete way between measurements. To me, Dharmakirti’s theory invites us to stop thinking about an electron (or any other fundamental particle) as something static, that remains the same throughout all interactions it goes through and keeps on existing in a concrete way between measurements. Instead, we can think of a constantly changing, dynamical entity – more like a field, than a concrete particle. In fact, a modern formulation of quantum mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, treats particles as oscillations in quantum fields (that are therefore in constant change and evolution), rather than concrete and independent entities. Perhaps Dharmakirti would have agreed with this formulation, which unfortunately we could not discuss extensively in the course (if you’d like to read more about it, [2] might be a good place to start).

Regarding the connections between the Yogacara and Madhyamaka schools: Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff have edited a collection of essays on this topic [3]. I haven’t read it myself, but it would seem like a very good place to start reading on this topic if you’re interested in academic work. Vol 9 of “The Library of Wisdom and Compassion” by HH Dalai Lama and Ven. Thubten Chodron, “Appearing and Empty”, also contains an excellent (and more accessible) review of the various Buddhist tenets schools. For more information about the Yogachara school, you could also look into “Inside Vasubhandu’s Yogacara” (Ben Connelly).

Hope this helps! Good luck with your studies.
Marco

[1] “Dharmakirti”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/)
[2] Richard Webb, “What is quantum field theory?” (https://www.newscientist.com/definition/quantum-field-theory/)
[3] Jay Garfield (ed.) and Jan Westerhoff (ed.), “Madhyamaka and Yogācāra: allies or rivals?”, Oxford University Press (2015) (https://academic.oup.com/book/27502)

[SciWiz]

Hi Richard, thanks for the question.

What you write is totally correct. The short answer is: there’s no hard boundary, the theories become increasingly inaccurate when applied outside of their proper domain.

When we will have a unified theory of quantum physics and gravitation (aka quantum gravity), general relativity and quantum physics will turn out to be an approximation of that theory – in the same way that Newtonian physics turns out to be an approximation of general relativity when masses and speeds are those typical of the macroscopic world around us.

To be more specific: Quantum physics can be applied to extremely small objects (e.g., processes at the molecular scale or smaller).

Relativity theory is the right theory to use when objects of large mass are involved (I’d say, roughly, from the size of a small moon onwards – so yes, on a cosmological scale) and/or objects moving at very high speed (roughly, you start getting noticeable effects from something like 5% or so of the speed of light upwards. The closer you get to light speed, the greater the effect). But there are theoretical complications when you try to combine it with quantum theory.

Outside these two domains (macroscopic objects, not extremely massive, and low speeds compared to the speed of light), Newtonian physics is a good approximation.

One of the necessary skills in science is to know what’s the best level of approximation that allows you to describe the phenomenon you’re interested in with the necessary accuracy, without focussing on unnecessary details: for example, if you want to study the motion of a bicycle, you don’t need to study the quantum wavefunction of each of its constituent particles, nor the way its mass distorts spacetime according to relativity theory: Newtonian laws of motions will provide you with the right tradeoff between accuracy and level of detail.

Best wishes, and good luck with your studies!
Marco

[SciWiz]

Hi mjuliekim,

I think this question is very much related to the answer I gave to your previous question (point number 4). Maybe we can continue the discussion there!

Marco

[SciWiz]

Hi again,

As you correctly wrote, events on a quantum scale are not predictable. Outcomes of quantum processes are not completely pre-determined by the laws of physics. However, the evolution of their probability distribution is: that’s exactly what Schroedinger’s equation does. This is unrelated to the question of granularity and whether space-time is continuous or granular.

Regarding granularity: I believe that Rovelli talks about granularity in the context of space-time, which in his theory of quantum gravity is not continuous but discreet. So, granularity is not a property of “things” but of space-time itself.

I’m not exactly sure how this property relates to entanglement and non-locality; if you’re interested in this topic, I’d recommend this Scientific American article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacetime-is-not-necessarily-continuous/

Hope this helps!
Marco

[SciWiz]

Hi mjuliekim,

Many thanks for your questions.

As a general comment: relational quantum physics is not a theory of consciousness. To the best of my knowledge, it does not contain any statements about the difference between physical objects and self-aware beings. However, my understanding is that Rovelli’s view is that consciousness emerges from the interaction between material particles.

1) I would not say that this is a direct implication of relational quantum physics. Rather, it follows from the two following statements: a) Our subjective perception of reality is shaped, to a certain extent, by our neural circuits. b) These, in turn, are subjected to the process of natural selection that shapes the evolution of life on this planet (and perhaps on others, too!). There is scientific evidence (e.g., from the field of evolutionary psychology) that not only our bodies are adapted to the environment in which our ancestors lived, but also our minds. Short answer is: yes, evolution selects for representations of the world that enhance the likelihood of survival and reproduction, rather than correct perceptions of reality as it is.

2) I think that discoveries in quantum physics point towards emptiness of absolute properties as the fundamental essence of reality. In this sense, I’d say that Buddhism and quantum physics agree. I do not think quantum physics would ever postulate something akin to Buddha Nature, however, as it is a physical theory, not a theory of consciousness/mind. I do hope that one day we’ll see a comprehensive theory that includes quantum physics, consciousness studies, and traditional wisdom; that, in my opinion, would point to something akin to Buddha Nature – but that’s outside the purview of extant quantum physical theories.

3) In principle, it could, but then, we still know very little about consciousness and its relation to what we perceive as the physical world. I would say that we are still far from having a scientific answer to this question, and it’s a matter of personal reflection and beliefs.

4) I’m not by any extent a qualified Buddhist teacher, but I’ll share some personal reflections:

In his book “Notes on Complexity”, Buddhist scientist Neil Theise says something along these lines: that entities appear as solid and independent only from the perspective of their level of complexity. From the point of view of an atom, there is probably nothing like an ethical action. For example, there is no experience of morality in a carbon atom belonging to a piece of bread that is being given to a hungry person. Neither there is from the perspective of the whole planet Earth; that’s just a bit of organic matter being transformed in another bit of organic matter. However, on the human level, the giver and the receiver experience generosity. So no, generosity and ethics do not exist intrinsically: they are, like everything else, a relative phenomenon.

Another perspective is that science describes the world as a place of objects. Ethics, religion and philosophy are concerned with the world as an arena for action. These two descriptions are complementary; what appears to be a flow of matter and energy (the bread passing from hand to hand, in the previous example) from the point of view of science, is an act of generosity, from the perspective of ethics. Both descriptions are true and complementary. So I wouldn’t say that ethics is nothing more than a blurring phenomenon: is part of our lived experience as human beings – which of course is relative, like everything else.

Hope this helps! Good luck with your studies,
Marco

[SciWiz]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your comment. You touch on a very important point: quantum theory is centred around the concept of observation/measurement causing the collapse of the quantum wave function. But what exactly constitutes a measurement or observation is not univocally defined, and changes between different formulations of quantum physics.

In some interpretation, such as the von Neumann-Wigner formulation, a conscious observer is necessary to cause the collapse of the wave function. As you correctly observe, the observer could be the cat itself, not necessarily a human experimenter.

In other interpretations, no conscious observer is needed. For example, in Rovelli’s relational interpretation, any quantum system can act as observer. It does not necessarily require the presence of subjective experience; an atom interacting with another is “measuring” its state. However, in this case, different observers (be they atoms, cats, or scientists) will have a different perception of the world.

More generally, according to the Neo Copenhagen interpretation (Lesson 2, Module 1), different observers formulate different descriptions of the world. This is also the case in Rovelli’s interpretation as well as QBism. In these paradigms, the cat has access to the information about the state of the atom, the detector, and the poison, and will therefore experience a classical-like reality were everything only has one value. And simultaneously, the scientist in the lab will describe the state of the atom, the detector, and the cat inside the box as a superposition of decayed/not decayed and dead/alive. From the scientist’s perspective, this is the correct description of the system.

Again, this paradox was formulated precisely with the intention of showing that quantum theory does not, as you say, make sense! Its logic is puzzling for our minds used to macroscopic reality.

I hope this helps, and best luck with your studies.
Marco

[SciWiz]

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for letting us know you’re having the same issue. So it seems about the layout in the mobile/tablet version of the website. We’ll start looking into this and see how we can improve the experience.

Warmly,

Sajda

[SciWiz]

Hi Ruth,

Thanks for your thought-provoking question.

I don’t know the exact definition of ‘process’ in the context of process philosophy. In physical terms, I would think of a process as the sequential unfolding of events, where the most basilar ‘event’ could be a single interaction between two systems. The properties of the systems, in themselves, are not “absolute”: they arise through the interaction itself. In fact, even their existence as separate and independent systems is not absolute: I’d say that their appearing as two separate systems is the result of their relation with each other.

This sounds paradoxical, and it reveals the limitations of our language (in my understanding, many modern languages are very object-oriented, rather than process-oriented; David Bohm, for one, was very interested in this). In the additional content for this module (if I’m not mistaken), Dr. Bitbol and Prof. Rovelli discuss precisely this paradox: we say that systems arise through relating, but we have a hard time describing a relation existing a priori, without first considering the two entities that are relating.

My personal take on this question is that there are dynamical processes, something that manifests itself through change in time… The temptation of our analytical mind (and language, too) is to say that that exists objectively as an entity – whether it is a mind manifesting as thoughts and feelings, or an electron manifesting as a localised particle. In fact, all we can say is that there is a dynamical process manifesting through relations with other processes, but it doesn’t have a solid, independent, and stable existence.

I hope this helps, and I’d love to read other comments and ideas from other students.

Best wishes, and good luck with your studies!
Marco

[SciWiz]

Hi Carole,

Thanks for posting this issue here. We have not (yet) heard this problem from others – maybe it has to do with the mobile version of our website. We’ll have a look into this and report back to you per email.

Warmly,

Sajda

[SciWiz]

Thanks so much for introducing yourself here, Ruth! So nice to meet you at our Q&A yesterday.

[Author]

Posts