How things exist - according to Buddhism and Science

Impermanence

At a time when the old feud between science and religion is flaring up again, and common ground between fact and faith seem to be diminishing, one particular branch of Buddhist philosophy may offer some basis for dialog. That branch of philosophy is ontology - or how things exist. Buddhist ontology clearly defines the similarities and differences between the spiritual and scientific worldviews.


Impermanence and Process Philosophy
Buddhism is a process philosophy; it regards change and flux as more fundamental than ‘things’, or ‘things-in-themselves’. 

According to Buddhism, every functioning object is impermanent and constantly changing. In order to produce a change, all things must themselves undergo change.   This has of course been familiar to science from Newton’s times, with every action producing an equal and opposite reaction.
 
Subsequent investigations have revealed that impermanence is pervasive, right down to the interactions of subatomic particles, which can only interact by giving and taking something of themselves, usually photons and gluons.

And as well as going all the way down, impermanence goes all the way up, so things that previous generations regarded as permanent fixtures are now known to be dynamic.  Continents move, collide and break up.  Stars, like our sun, are formed out of debris of previous stars. They burn themselves out then either explode or collapse

So with regard to impermanence,  Buddhism and science are in increasing agreement


The Three Modes of Existential Dependence

‘One single rose arises from its causes, exists in dependence upon its parts, and exists as a mere imputation by conceptual thought.

There are not three different roses but one rose existing in three different ways.’ 

-  Geshe Kelsang Gyatso  in Joyful Path of Good Fortune  p349


This is where the difference between the Scientific Materialist (Physicalist) and Buddhist interpretations of reality become apparent.  

Buddhists claim that three modes of ‘existential dependence’ are necessary to explain the world - dynamics, structure and mind. 

Physicalists say that only two modes - dynamics and structure - are needed, with the mind being reducible to the first two.

In this context, near synonyms for ‘dynamics’ are ‘causality’,  ‘function’ and ‘process’.

Near synonyms for ‘structure’ are ‘mereology’, ‘composition’ and  ‘arrangement’

Physicalism is a reductionist interpretation of science, which claims to explain all mental factors in physical terms.  (There are also more participatory interpretations of science in which the observer is part of the system - e g Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics -  but these, whether they acknowledge it or not, are closer to Buddhism than to reductionist physicalism.)


Physicalism and the Church-Turing Thesis
Fortunately, for the sake of discussion, there is a clear-cut definition of physicalism based on the Church-Turing thesis.   To be a purely physical system, a phenomenon must be capable of being completely simulated by algorithms acting on datastructures (without any unexplained remainder).

Buddhists would claim that there is always going to be an unexplained remainder, because algorithms and datastructures are not self-interpreting. Instead, any assignment of ‘meaning’ has to come from outside the system.



So how does this apply to Roses?

The complete quote from Geshe Kelsang is

‘There are three levels of dependent relationship: gross, subtle, and very subtle. Every functioning thing that we perceive directly is gross dependent-related. For example, a rose arising from its causes is gross dependent-related. However, the rose existing in dependence upon its parts is subtle dependent-related, and the rose existing as a mere imputation by thought is very subtle dependent-related. One single rose arises from its causes, exists in dependence upon its parts, and exists as a mere imputation by conceptual thought’

Causality
We can easily see how a rose can arise from its causes - rose bush, water, nutrients, sunlight etc without paying too much attention to the rose itself.

Structure
The dependence on parts is a bit more subtle. We need to look more closely at the rose to appreciate the complete anatomy of what it is in terms of its parts, which may not be grossly obvious. We may need a microscope to see the pollen and cells of the petals. And the cells have components and subcomponents.

Dependence on mental designation
The third mode of dependent existence, dependence on the mind of the observer, is even more subtle, and is best demonstrated by examining the arbitrary way that a rose comes into and goes out of existence.

Not quite a rose

Is a green shoot a rose?
Is a green bud a rose?
Is a bud showing some petal color a rose?
Has it become a rose when you can see all the petals?

Falling petals

Has it ceased to be a rose when the first petal has fallen?
…or a majority of petals, or all the petals?

No longer a rose

Or do you have to wait till it becomes a rosehip until it ceases to be a rose?

There is no rule which tells us at exactly what stage it becomes a rose and at what stage it ceases to be one. 

The decision is a subjective one,  made by how closely the botanical specimen in our hand matches a ‘generic image’ or picture of a basic rose in our mind.   And the judgement will differ from person to person.  

A generic image of a rose in our mind

There is no fixed specification for a rose ‘out there’ that tells us when an opening bud becomes a flower, or when a fading flower becomes a hip, any more than there is for when a high-sided tray becomes a box,  or at what stage of disassembly Milinda’s chariot becomes a heap of firewood.

Neither is there any permanently existing 'specification' , 'divine blueprint' or 'ideal form' of the various rose species that differentiates them one from another, or from other members of the rose family. 

Looking back along the evolutionary timeline, the judgement as to when and at what point the ancestral rosoid became a rose, is quite arbitrary.

The Rose Family (Rosaceae)

The involvement of the observer’s mind in creating reality is very subtle for everyday objects, but becomes more obvious at the quantum scale of reality.

Read more at Buddhist Philosophy

Is the Mystery of the Mind beyond the Limits of Science?

'The mind is not the brain'
 - Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

Science cannot explain how events in the brain produce mental experiences, or how mental intentions produce effects in the brain, such as those which are transmitted via the nervous system to give rise to the voluntary movement of muscles.  This gap in our understanding of mind/brain interactions is known as The Hard Problem.

Over 140 years ago John Tyndall wrote:
"... the passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought, and a definite molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of the organ, which would enable us to pass, by a process of reasoning, from the one to the other. They appear together, but we do not know why. 

Were our minds and senses so expanded, strengthened, and illuminated, as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the brain; were we capable of following all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric discharges, if such there be; and were we intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the problem, "How are these physical processes connected with the facts of consciousness?" The chasm between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable. 

Let the consciousness of love, for example, be associated with a right-handed spiral motion of the molecules of the brain, and the consciousness of hate with a left-handed spiral motion. We should then know, when we love, that the motion is in one direction, and, when we hate, that the motion is in the other; but the "Why?" would remain as unanswerable as before."

And in those intervening 140 years, science has made no progress whatsoever in addressing these questions.

So why is the Hard Problem so hard?

Is it just that we aren't yet smart enough to solve it, or is it that we never will be smart enough to solve it?  Or is the Hard Problem totally different from any other scientific problem because it involves a non-physical system: the Mind?

Read the full article at Rational Buddhism.

Quantum Buddhism - Buddhist Particle Physics

Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life - Tharpa

Partless Particles - a Logical Impossibility
The 8th century Indian Buddhist Scholar Shantideva rejected the possibility of Partless Particles:

'(93) If there is space between the partless particles of a sense power and those of its object,
How can you maintain that they have met?
But if there is no space between them, they must mix and become completely one;
In which case, what is it that meets with what?

(94) But one partless particle could never penetrate another
Because they would both be equal in size without any empty space inside.
Without penetrating, they could not mix;
And without mixing, they could not meet.

(95) To say that two partless things can meet is completely illogical. If it were possible, you would be able to detect it; So please show me an example! '

- Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life p 167

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso adds:
'All forms have parts because they are composed of particles. Some Vaibhashika and Sautrantika schools assert that the tiniest particles do not have parts because they are physically indivisible, but according to the Madhyamika school they have directional parts and so are mentally divisible. If even the smallest forms have parts, it follows that all gross forms that are composed of them also have parts.' - Ocean of Nectar p 164


Inherent existence of Partless Particles
So according to these Buddhist philosophers, a Partless Particle would be inherently existent. It would exist undetectable in splendid isolation, unable to exchange any part of itself with any other entity, or accept into itself any part of any other entity.

Such a particle would thus be incapable of taking part in any process or manifesting its existence in any way. It would be completely defined by its own nature and would be incapable of changing by undergoing any internal changes of state.


Avoiding the infinite regression
But if partless particles cannot exist, how can we avoid the infinite regress of small building-blocks being composed of even smaller building-blocks, all the way down for ever?

This infinite regression...

... doesn't happen!

Wavefunction probability distribution
The resolution of this apparent contradiction came with discoveries in quantum physics in the early twentieth century. When physicists arrived at the stage where further subdivision was no longer possible, they did indeed find numerically irreducible particles. However these particles are no longer discrete 'things', but are smeared out into a myriad of fuzzy probabilistic 'parts' - a continuum of probabilities distributed in a wave function throughout space.

Wavefunction diagrams from Wiki schools

The fact that the particles are no longer discrete entities is demonstrated by the double-slit experiment, where single electrons (and more recently other individual particles, including comparatively large molecules such as fullerenes,) appear to pass through two separate slits simultaneously.


Distribution of single particles fired one at a time through top slit...


Distribution of single particles fired one at a time through bottom slit...


What you would expect with both slits open...

What actually happens with both slits open...


To quote Wiki:
'The double-slit experiment has been of great interest to philosophers, because the quantum mechanical behavior it reveals has forced them to reevaluate their ideas about classical concepts such as "particles", "waves", "location", and "movement from one place to another".

In contrast to the way of conceptualizing the macroscopic world of everyday experience, attempting to describe the motion of a single photon is problematic. As Philipp Frank observes, investigating the motion of single particles through a single slit can obtain a description of the pattern of photon strikes on a target screen. However, "the pattern of fringes for two slits is not the superposition of the two patterns for single slits. Hence, there is no law of motion that would determine the trajectory of a single photon and allow us to derive the observed facts that occur when photons pass two slits." Experience in the micro world of sub-atomic particles forces us to reconceptualize some of our most commonplace ideas.'


For a full explanation of the double-slit experiment see:

The Feyman Double Slit

Quantum Phenomena

Double Slit Experiment

An Analysis of Madhyamaka Particle Physics


This probabilistic behavior is logically inevitable
So, bizarre as this non-localised, two-places-at-once quantum behavior of fundamental particles may appear, we are forced to conclude that it is necessary in order to avoid two even worse logical absurdities, either...


[i] The absurdity of inherently-existing, partless fundamental monads.

or

[ii] The absurdity of an infinite regress of ever smaller components and subcomponents which can never bottom out. (If it did terminate it could only do so at the level of inherently-existing, partless fundamental monads, which brings us back to absurdity [i] )

Avoiding components having subcomponents all the way down
The infinite regress 'downwards' into infinitely deeper levels of particles, subparticles, sub-subparticles etc is avoided by sending the infinity 'sideways' into a probability cloud of an infinite number of 'possible' instances of the particle. The infinity is necessary in some form or other to avoid having a partless particle which is a 'thing in itself'.


Reality and delusion
The biological aspects of our minds have evolved to reify the world around them, to project independent inherent existence on all phenomena.   This works well enough for everyday phenomena, but breaks down at fundamental levels, where nature simply rejects our attempts to project our delusions on the foundations of reality.



TIP - If some aspects of Buddhist beliefs seem unfamiliar, obscure, or confusing, then bear in mind that Buddhism is a process philosophy.   Difficult aspects of Buddhism (and quantum physics) often become much clearer when viewed from a process perspective.



- Sean Robsville



RELATED ARTICLES:

Rational Buddhism

Buddhism, Quantum Physics and Mind

Quantum Buddhism

---

Buddhism Subject Index

---

Essentialism, Ideal Forms, Plato, Buddhism and Generic Images.

Ocean of Nectar - cover picture of Chandrakirti,
the Buddhist philosopher who formulated
the rejection of essentialism - Tharpa

Plato and Essentialism

Essentialism is the philosophical theory that particular instances of objects derive their identity as members of a class by 'participating in', or by reference to, an Ideal Form which is their 'essence'.

The theory was first formalised by Plato, who said 'We customarily hypothesize a single form in connection with each of the many things to which we apply the same name. ... For example, there are many beds and tables. ... But there are only two forms of such furniture, one of the bed and one of the table.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

Thus there are countless tables in the world but the form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.

Plato held that the world of forms is separate from our own world (the world of substances) and also is the true basis of reality. Removed from matter, forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, Plato believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of forms with one's mind. (But see boxiness and trayfulness for a refutation of this argument)


Inherent existence of Ideal Forms
A form is aspatial (outside the world) and atemporal (outside time).

Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period. It did not start, there is no duration in time, and it will not end. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever or mortal, of limited duration. It exists outside time altogether.

Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location. They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental. [In Buddhist terminology we would say they are 'inherently existent'. ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_forms


Darwinism versus essentialism
Similarly plants, animals etc were thought to derive their form by 'reference to' or 'participating in' the Ideal Form of Rose or Dog etc (see Evolution for a refutation of this)

In Buddhism, essentialism is known as 'production from inherently existing other' (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - Ocean of Nectar p187) and was rejected by Chandrakirti in the seventh century AD.

But it took well into the twentieth century for essentialism to be banished from the West, probably due to the influence of Plato in philosophy and Creationism in religion (Ideal Forms of all the separate and distinct species were believed to have originated in the mind of God and then were implemented in the six days of creation.)

In fact, essentialism still lingers on as Creationism in some backward places :
'Even today Darwin's overthrow of essentialism has not been completely assimilated .... the Darwinian mutation, which at first seemed to be just a new way of thinking about kinds in biology, can spread to other phenomena and other disciplines, as we shall see. There are persistent problems both inside and outside biology that readily dissolve once we adopt the Darwinian perspective on what makes a thing the sort of thing it is, but the tradition-bound resistance to this idea persists.' (Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea , p 39)


Buddhism and the problem of universals
So if Buddhism rejects inherently existing ideal forms or essences, how does it deal with the problem of universals?

Well, instead of ideal forms it has the complete opposite - totally empty conceptual holes known as 'generic images'. These are double negative logical constructions. Thus the generic image of an elephant is the opposite of non-elephant. Double-negation may seem a rather strange way of identifying anything, but there is some evidence that negation may be a more efficient algorithm for identification than 'mapping-on', see Generic Images.

- Sean Robsville

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rational Buddhism

Essentialism in Physics, Chemistry and Biology

Generic Images in Buddhism

Inherent Existence in Buddhist Philosophy

Evolution is no Threat to Buddhism

Existence, Impermanence and Emptiness in Buddhism

Sunyata - the emptiness of all things

Why Beauty Matters - Spiritual Art versus the Cult of Ugliness




Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_forms,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

---

Buddhism Subject Index

---

Generic Images in Buddhism

Twenty iterations of a binary search will generate
a 'logical hole' corresponding to a generic image.

Identification of an object through its generic image

Our mind identifies an object by means of a mental generic image of that object, where the generic image, not the object itself, is the appearing object of our conceptual mind.

A conceptual mind knows its object through the appearance of a generic image of that object, not by seeing the object directly.

However, the generic image is the negative of a negative, a kind of 'logical hole'.

To quote Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in Understanding the Mind, page 24:

"When we think of or remember an object, say an elephant, there appears to our conceptual mind an object that is the the opposite of non-elephant. This appearance is the generic image of elephant. Even though there is no actual elephant in front of us, nevertheless there is a generic image of elephant appearing to our mind. Thus our conceptual mind apprehends elephant through the generic image of elephant. We can apply this to all other phenomena"


The generic image is therefore the appearance of a non-non-elephant.

Like a toddler with one of those wooden peg puzzles, it's almost as if when I produce a generic image of a dog, I do so not by producing a stand-alone positive image of a dog, but by producing an image which is specified to fit into a dog-shaped mental hole,

But why is the generic image a double negative? How does this help the mind 'map it on' to the perceived object. The reason seems to be concerned with efficiency of information processing.

Consider the game Twenty Questions, sometimes known as Animal, Vegetable and Mineral (which has now been computerised) . By following the process of elimination (excluding everything that is non-object) it is possible to arrive at a conceptual 'hole' into which only one object will fit, and to do this within only 20 (or 25 in the computer game) yes/no questions.

To quote Wiki:

"The game suggests that the information (as measured by Shannon's entropy statistic) required to identify an arbitrary object [by elimination] is at most 20 bits. The game is often used as an example when teaching people about information theory. Mathematically, if each question is structured to eliminate half the objects, 20 questions will allow the questioner to distinguish between 2^20 or 1,048,576 objects. Accordingly, the most effective strategy for Twenty Questions is to ask questions that will split the field of remaining possibilities roughly in half each time. The process is analogous to a binary search algorithm in computer science."

A positive-to-positive matching of a perceived elephant to an image of an ideal elephant would require tedious bit-by-bit matching (how many bits of information do you need to positively specify an elephant?) The method of elimination is more efficient. The possible elephant is matched to its 'logical hole' and if it fits then it is indeed an elephant.

This also clearly demonstrates how the mind recognises objects without recourse to mapping on to some Platonic 'ideal form' or 'inherently existing other'. In fact, the generic image is a complete opposite of a Platonic Ideal Form. For whereas the Ideal Form is inherently existent, the generic image is totally and completely empty, being a 'logical hole' formed by exclusion of anything and everything else.

However both Platonic Forms and Generic Images claim to specify the same objects. Thus Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form.

- Sean Robsville

RECENTLY UPDATED AT  
Madhyamaka Conceptualism, Universals and Category Recognition 


 

Related Posts
Roger Scruton on Algorithms, Data Structures and Mind

How things exist - according to Buddhism and Science

All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace


Rational Buddhism 

---

Buddhism Subject Index

---