Science and Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Freawaru »

Hi Meindzai,
meindzai wrote:
Freawaru wrote:
Does physics really examine rupa?
rupa = form/physicality/materiality. By definition,that's *all* physics does, and it cannot acknowlede anything outside physicality and stil be considered physics.
You misunderstood me. Yes, physics examines matter (and energy). But I doubt that rupa refers to that. The rupa realms are not physical for example, rupa deva have form but no physical body consisting of electrons and protons and neutrons and fields....
Rupa consists of the elements: fire, earth, water, and air. This is not what physics acknowledges or investigates.
Sure it does. It just doesn't classify the above as "elements" anymore.
I have not seen any similarity between the physical classifications (particles, four interactions) and Theravadan rupa (elements). Do you see any similarity?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dan,
Dan74 wrote:This is a nice story and it sure does drive its point home, and yet the very founders of QM and many who followed spent a fair bit of time worrying how to interpret it and what it all means philosophically. Also serious mathematical physicists like Penrose, have been "guilty" of those crimes your professor has mentioned - positing quantum origins of consciousness, for example.
Yes, and Penrose has been criticised repeatedly, especially by philosophers, for some of his meanderings.

Much of the meanderings of the 1930s were rendered irrelevant by Bell in the 1960s, and subsequent experiments, which showed that what Einstein would have liked (a local realistic theory) does not agree with experiment. Therefore, I don't take the early discussions on quantum mechanics too seriously, since they are often arguing about what are now moot points.
Dan74 wrote: So it's not all so clear cut, but sure it is hard science in the way it models observable events.
And that's the point. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory we have, predicting the g-value of the electron (how an electron reacts to a magnetic field) to better than one part in 10 to the power of 10.

And, of course, an overwhelming amount of modern technology (e.g. semiconductor chips and lasers) are based on harnessing the quantum properties of matter and light...

Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Does science adequately recognise "the observer"?

Is there an appreciation that all the scientist can observe is via their senses, or are they always artificially shunted out of the process, as if the observations are somehow 100% objective or independent?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Dan74 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Does science adequately recognise "the observer"?

Is there an appreciation that all the scientist can observe is via their senses, or are they always artificially shunted out of the process, as if the observations are somehow 100% objective or independent?

Metta,
Retro. :)
The observer is integral to QM (perhaps Mike can clarify beings a physicist). My understanding is that at the particle level any measurement will actually change the object/phenomenon being measured. Even photons (light) bouncing off can effect a change in the movement of electron. But it seems to go deeper than that.

In psychology, observer is recognized more in the sense that you mean above. Reporting your own level of happiness, for example. Self-reference and observer bias becomes huge in these kinds of situation, hence a lot of delusion...
_/|\_
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: Does science adequately recognise "the observer"?
It depends what you mean by an "observer".
retrofuturist wrote: Is there an appreciation that all the scientist can observe is via their senses, or are they always artificially shunted out of the process, as if the observations are somehow 100% objective or independent?
Yes, but if the senses are just reading numbers off a computer screen then there isn't as much subjectivity to it as estimating the magnitude of variable stars by staring through a telescope, for example.

Mike
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by Freawaru »

mikenz66 wrote: And that's the point. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory we have, predicting the g-value of the electron (how an electron reacts to a magnetic field) to better than one part in 10 to the power of 10.

And, of course, an overwhelming amount of modern technology (e.g. semiconductor chips and lasers) are based on harnessing the quantum properties of matter and light...

Mike
And it even predicted completely new stuff like the Aharanov-Bohm effect, countering classical assumptions people had grown used to for generations.
The Aharonov–Bohm effect, sometimes called the Ehrenberg–Siday–Aharonov–Bohm effect, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which an electrically charged particle shows a measurable interaction with an electromagnetic field despite being confined to a region in which both the magnetic field B and electric field E are zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To everybody who is interested in Quantum Mechanics but does not want to enter the deep mathematics I suggest

"QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard P. Feynman
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princ ... 897&sr=8-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Science and Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

Yes, that's a nice book.

There's a collection of the videos that were made during Feynman's practise run for those talks at University of Auckland around 1980. I think they are on the internet here on Vega (which was set up by Harry Kroto):
http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's quite impressive watching Feynman fill up the blackboards in those lectures...

Mike
Post Reply