1.a. Nagarjuna & Quantum mechanics

Learning Outcomes

During the course of this lesson, you will:

  • Deepen your understanding of Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics;
  • Investigate the relevance of Buddhist thought to modern physics;
  • Learn about the Buddhist view of interdependence (dependent origination).

1. Introduction

This lesson explores Dr. Carlo Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and how Nagarjuna’s teachings on the nature of emptiness are relevant to modern physics. This lesson also includes an explanation of the three levels of dependent origination and the relationship between the observer and what is observed.

2. Watch

3. Read

1a. The Observer and The Observed: The Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

In his book “Helgoland,” Prof. Carlo Rovelli (1956-) suggests that the Buddhist view of emptiness and interdependence is a useful tool for understanding quantum physics and he explains why the philosophy of Nāgārjuna, formulated almost two millennia ago, is still relevant today. Nagarjuna’s exposition of the Buddha’s teachings is grounded in the idea that all phenomena – objects, persons, mental processes – do not have their own independent, self-sufficient existence, but arise as relational entities through the process of dependent origination. Therefore, they are said to be ‘empty’ of any autonomous and independent essence or ‘self’ (svabhāva). This emptiness (sunyata), according to Nāgārjuna, is the ultimate reality of all things: the complete lack of inherent, non-relational existence. It must be pointed out that emptiness should not be seen as an absolute entity or a fundamental ground of reality, nor should it be taken as an absolute absence, or void. Like everything else, emptiness itself is empty of inherent existence and only arises in relation to phenomena themselves. This is stated in one of the most important Mahayana scriptures, the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra:

“Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form and form is also not other than emptiness.”

The idea that certain properties of physical systems arise relationally, rather than existing inherently, is pervasive in 20th and 21st century physics. Many of the categories that were assumed to be fundamental, such as time, space, matter, and energy, have been shown to be strongly interrelated. According to Albert Einstein’s General Relativity Theory of 1915, the universe has no fundamental, ‘objective’ frame of reference. Even time, space, matter, and energy are not separate and independent entities, as had previously been assumed, but relate to and influence each other very closely. In fact, they can only be said to have definite qualities relative to each other. In addition, certain dualistic concepts seem to break down at a deeper level: space and time are part of a single, four-dimensional reality, whilst matter and energy can be converted into each other, as shown in Einstein’s famous equation .

Prof. Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics applies a similar principle to explain the properties of quantum phenomena. According to this interpretation, the state of a quantum system is not unequivocally defined but is dependent on the observer: there is no universal frame of reference according to which ‘objective’ properties can be determined. Different vantage points may lead to different measurements of the same system. In other words, the relation between the observer and the observed is what leads to the emergence, or observation, of certain features in what is observed; these features do not exist inherently but arise as a result of interdependence. Therefore, the properties of quantum entities can only be determined and observed during an interaction, in that the interaction itself makes those properties manifest. In each case, the act of observation, or the act of interaction, affects the reality of the quantum entity in question. Both Rovelli’s interpretation of quantum mechanics and Nāgārjuna’s exposition of emptiness place strong emphasis on the role of the observer, while clarifying how observers are themselves complex, relational systems.

1b. Without Foundation: Nāgārjuna and Quantum Physics 

The Buddha prescribed a ’middle way’, which he applied in various contexts: in practice, he advocated a path between the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification; and philosophically, he perceived a middle way between the extremes of existence and nonexistence, or between permanence and nihilism. Developing and clarifying the Buddha’s teachings, Nāgārjuna argued that our experience of suffering is rooted in the belief in svabhāva (own being), ‘intrinsic existence’. This is the belief that things are autonomous, independent, and unchanging; and to hold this belief is to succumb to the mistaken extreme of permanence. It is equally mistaken, however, to believe that nothing exists at all – the extreme of nihilism. The ‘middle way’ is to see emptiness as the true nature of reality, where emptiness is not the absence of existence but the absence of intrinsic existence. Another way of expressing this is to say that, because entities lack an intrinsic existence of their own, they can only be said to exist in relation to other entities. Therefore, a ‘middle way’ understanding of ‘Emptiness’ is also an understanding of relationality.

This understanding of ‘relationality’ can also be applied to mundane objects, for example in a scenario of an observer looking at the reflection of a chair in a mirror. The chair’s reflection does not exist autonomously, by itself; instead, it arises as a result of different, interrelated parts: the chair, the mirror, and the observer’s mind. These entities themselves are also not autonomous, but interact with each of the other elements to cause the reflection to appear. Without the chair, there would be no reflection of a chair to observe; without the mirror, there would be nothing to reflect the chair; and without the mind of the observer, there would be nothing to experience the reflection. These considerations may appear trivial when applied to a reflection; yet, as discussed in the following section, a similar reasoning can be applied to ‘real’ objects to demonstrate their lack of intrinsic existence.

1c. Emptiness and Three Levels of Dependent Origination  

Dependent Origination (pratītyasamutpadā) is the Buddhist doctrine of causality. It maintains that all entities are brought into existence by other entities, which in turn have been caused, or brought into existence, by other entities. No entity emerges out of nothing (‘ex nihilo’); rather, they arise from the complex interconnection of multiple causes and conditions. In the words of an early sutra from the Pali canon:

“This existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; this not existing,  that does not exist; this ceasing, that ceases.”

Because entities only come into being through causes and conditions, rather than existing inherently or autonomously, dependent origination is closely interrelated to the idea of emptiness; they can be seen as two sides of the same coin. In Nāgārjuna’s words: “That which originated through dependent origination, this you [the Buddha] maintained to be empty”. Moreover, there is a clear and definite link between dependent origination, the nature of reality, and the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha:

“Whoever sees dependent arising
Also sees suffering and its arising
And its cessation, as well as the path.”

According to Nāgārjuna (and Buddhist philosophy in general), things are mutually dependent – or ‘dependently originated’ – in three distinct ways, on three different levels.

  1. The first level is that of causes and conditions. This is the sense in which dependent origination is described above: everything comes into existence because of the presence of other entities and circumstances. For example, a sprout comes into being from a seed when the appropriate levels of moisture, heat, and nutrients are present.
  1. The second level is by seeing that everything is composed of parts, and nothing is a single unitary thing. For example, an entity can be seen as composed of smaller components; or as having parts in the sense of a house having a roof, walls, windows, and doors, which themselves can be broken down into smaller component parts; or as possessing numerous different qualities, and so forth, such that in numerous ways a thing is dependent on its parts.
  1. The third level involves an analysis of how the mind encapsulates those causes and conditions, parts and collections of parts, by creating a mental concept and applying a label. In this sense, everything exists in dependence on the mind or consciousness that perceives it and labels it according to its preconceptions. There is a sense in which independent objects only exist once they have been conceptualised and labelled as such: for example, until a cloud is seen and labelled a ‘cloud’, it is merely a patch of water vapour; in turn, vapour itself is just a label applied to a collection of water molecules in a gaseous state, ‘water molecule’ is a label given to certain configurations of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and so on.

Lecture Notes

We recommend reading the lecture notes before you start watching the content. This will help you to start contemplating some of the topics before you begin to watch the lecture.

Download Module 4 Lecture Notes