Ebook: Buddhism and Modern Physics From Individuals to Relations Volume 1_ Non-Technical Summary

The focus of this book is investigation of the distinctions between the independent individuality
and interactive relationality of physical, non-living phenomena as described by some interpretations
of contemporary physics and Buddhism. Neither physics nor Buddhism are monolithic systems, but
rather have many different schools of thought. Generally, however, Buddhist philosophy focuses on
relationships more than objects, and actually proposes that independent individual physical things or
independent ‘external’ phenomena do not exist. Some interpretations of physics propose views that
are consistent with that Buddhist view.
Consistent with Western philosophy and especially physics usage, we define a phenomenon as
the object of one’s senses, what we detect by them and infer by our reasoning to exist separately or
externally. The question remains whether there are such things independent of perception and our
conceptions about them—a question that modern Western philosophy and Buddhism have examined
extensively. Indeed, the modern physics of quantum mechanics and relativity has brought a scientific
focus to this question also, resulting in explicit experiments exploring the relationships. Hence, we
will examine this question here as a ground that must be firmed in order to talk about physical reality
altogether. My conclusion is that it is reasonable to assume that such a reality exists, and we proceed
based on that conclusion. However, it remains an open question what the nature of that reality might
be. This will form the focus of our exploration.
A phenomenon may be an object, entity, event, interaction, process or property. Properties may
be relational (extrinsic) or intrinsic. In this language, the Buddhist view, therefore, is that completely
independent intrinsic properties do not exist. We will take that view as a hypothesis and examine it
critically. We will work at the intersection of four disciplines: philosophy of science, Buddhist
philosophy, Western analytic philosophy and physics. The focus of our study in terms of Buddhist
philosophy will be Madhyamaka, the ‘middle way’.
The Western approach is typically an attempt to understand the ultimate nature of physical
reality of essentially independent physical entities and relations between them. This is the objectoriented
view. The Madhyamaka view is to determine the relational interdependence existing
throughout phenomena. This is the relationality view.
We will rely heavily on results from physics research. Contrary to many books in the genre of
Buddhism and science, this one takes a very favorable view of science, and in particular physics. I
am a physicist with graduate training and decades of work in the field. Additionally, I have
extensively studied philosophy of science as part of research for an older master’s degree and recent
Ph.D. research. While science does not seem to be the only form of knowledge, I will justify the view
that if we are to have the best understanding of physical reality that we can have now then we must
use the best physics knowledge that we currently have. However, we must distinguish such
knowledge that we can trust from such knowledge that is tentative or developing.
We start with an exploration of the nature of science. We discuss, explain and justify the
standard views and the standard elements of how to distinguish science, physics and physics theories
from other enterprises and conceptual structures. However, contrary to the more commonly promoted
view that I label ‘fundamentalist’—that the ultimate nature of reality can be found in the most basic of
physical phenomena and components—and ‘universalism’—that all truths pertain universally—I
rather argue for a pluralist interpretation of scientific knowledge that I name Physical Pluralism. It
surprised me when I discovered pluralist physics views during research for my dissertation—I
started as a universal fundamentalist—and I only slowly became convinced that a pluralist system of
some sort could be valid and have factual correspondence with the physical world. I am not quite a
born-again pluralist, but I do find significant justification for the view.
We must note early in the discussion that the purpose of Buddhist philosophy is to relieve
suffering of all sentient beings. Buddhist teachers describe the way to such relief in teachings on a
personal path. The purpose of Buddhist philosophy is not to philosophically convince someone about
the nature of physical reality or to have them believe in a highly abstract conceptual framework.
Rather, its purpose is to show them how we can be free of such suffering by following a personal path
that generally involves learning, contemplating and meditating. The first of these three uses
conceptual mind, the second uses a mixture, and the third leads us into use of other aspects of our
human cognitive structures, what we might call non-conceptual awareness.
Yet, Buddhism also teaches that there are two aspects of confusion that cause suffering: (1)
mistaken views about the nature of reality and (2) conflicting emotions. The Buddha summarized this
view in the well-known four noble truths. We will not examine the personal path towards liberation
from the suffering that is due to conflicting emotions except in a very indirect way. Specifically, if the
reader is looking for guidance in her own path and struggles with emotional conflict, the author
suggests she look elsewhere. Additionally, if the reader is interested in views about the nature of
mind, this book will not provide much guidance.
The major topic discussed here is the physical nature of physical reality, especially as
discussed by modern science and philosophy of science. When we have an accurate understanding of
that nature, then at least some of the sources of suffering may be obviated.
Some Buddhist teachers court Western philosophy and scientific knowledge, and some say that
there is no basis for dialogue, due partly to the drastically different purposes and partly due to their
respective non-intersecting premises. However, this is not my view, and we will, therefore, discuss
the ways in which these disciplines intersect. The main intersections are that each requires we test the
tenets and conclusions directly, rather than use blind faith, and each seeks the truth—‘the truth will set
you free’. These, I think, are sufficient for dialogue.
The first step in such a dialogue is to be open to question all of our pre-existing beliefs. We
will discuss the need for empirical testing of our beliefs, and rely heavily on such testing in
determining what is true. Without such empirical testing, we must rely solely on logic and intuition,
yet in physics research, those have frequently failed us. The balance of these ingredients is necessary
for comprehensive understanding.
Buddhism also uses logic and empirical testing. In Buddhism there are traditionally four kinds
of knowledge that include (1) direct cognition, which corresponds to reliance of empirical evidence;
(2) inferential cognition, which corresponds to use of logical analysis in philosophy and theoretical
thinking in science. In addition, Buddhism relies on words of the Buddha and yogic direct cognition,
which is personal expert testimony. We will also put much stock in such testimony by philosophers
and scientists, yet not take it as gospel. Rather, we will question and test it against empirical findings,
just as we will do the same to the relevant sacred tenets of Buddhist philosophy. Just as we now
judge that Einstein made serious errors, we might have to say the same about some of the ancient
Buddhist scholars and enlightened meditation masters when they argue using ancient philosophies
concerned with the nature of physical reality. We have learned much in 2,500 years, which should
surprise no one. None of my analysis, however, reflects on my extremely high respect, devotion and
allegiance towards Buddhist teachings regarding a personal journey towards liberation from all kinds
of suffering. I find them unexcelled and comprehensive.
Nonetheless, in contrast to many books in this genre and in the more general literature of
Buddhist philosophies, this book does not leave the Buddhist concepts explained uncritically. This is
not a presentation of Buddhist gospel. We will examine those philosophies and arguments in detail,
but with the purpose to see if they are true in our context. Buddhist scholars have discussed and
debated these philosophies for 2,500 years, and there have been many disagreements. We will add to
the discussion.
The central Buddhist concept that we discuss and use is shunyata—pronounced shun-ya-ta.
Most scholars and Buddhist teachers translate this as ‘emptiness’, or more accurately ‘being empty of
inherent nature’. We examine this concept not simply as it is explained and argued by Buddhists and
philosophers of Buddhism, but also against contemporary standards of what makes logical,
philosophical, scientific and physics sense. I conclude and demonstrate that many—if not all—of the
standard arguments for shunyata as a universal principle in the domain of physical reality are
philosophically weak, perhaps even illogical, and it is very difficult to find correspondence with
empirical scientific understanding of the nature of that reality when we apply what I have called
fundamentalist interpretations. When we apply pluralist interpretations, we find more coincidence.
Hence, although the ancient arguments may not hold up to what we know now—which should
not surprise us—I find that there is sufficient reason to take shunyata as a hypothesis and test it against
current physics knowledge. When we interpret shunyata within the knowledge framework of Physical
Pluralism, and with application of contemporary standards of philosophical logic, we discover its
relevance, importance, and some truth.
This Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary provides a brief introductory treatment of the topic
designed for the general audience. You may read Volume 1 independently from Volume 2:
Comprehensive Edition. Both volumes provide background and develop concepts from a nontechnical
and non-specialized starting point. However, this Volume 1 stops there, while in Volume 2
we examine extensive treatments of controversies, complexities and technical details, plus elaborate
explanations and examples. Volume 2 contains hundreds of citations and footnotes, while Volume 1
has no footnotes and few citations, although both have complete bibliographies.