Philosophy (1) Part 1: How can we compare quantum mechanics and Buddhism? | Beyond Confines

[@Anuvatudom]

I think this analysis is one of the best on the comparison between Buddhism and Quantum physics. It is a very cautious and objective analysis, not too superficial as many others. This would lay a solid foundation for further exploration of more similarities later on. Thanks for making this video. An eye opening!

[@reynoldsbeng3756]

Quantum mechanics describes the mechanism of Force. Force is expansive and orthogonal at the surface. Surface tension resulting orthogonal force resists the expansive force. So surface tension describes the elasticity of the surface of molecules. The observations of particles is that of expanding 720 twisting expanding light viewed from matter with life, which is the resultant of all forces expanding

[@markcounseling]

MB: “The analogy between Buddhism and quantum physics is not about views of the world, it is about criticisms of views of the world...The analogy is not positive, it is negative.”

[@ahkaufuan4932]

Emptiness in Buddhism is NOT just absence of intrinsic properties. It is also full of potentialities from which all “things” manifest.

[@quantumbuddhism9993]

Absolutely correct!

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

But where do we hear that in Buddhism. What we do hear is all phenomenon are empty of inherent being. The only near correlate to what you have said that I can think of is that this empty of inherent being is parallel to dependent arising. How so? Because if something can only arise dependent on another something then the former something does not have independent or inherent existence. So the two axioms amount to the same thing. No own being. Since all phenomena are empty of own being, or just empty, then it is said that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, and this is just again saying that form or appearance is empty even as it appears because it does not appear independently on its own. So this too is a negative expression.

[@hellboundtruck123]

⁠@@DavidKolbSantoshempty of inherent existence means since all things are interdependent nothing exists independently, hence no permanence or impermanence. The essence of the teaching is that ultimately we are not different but one with everything. Everything is relative, even time exists only if we exist. You need to get into sarvastivada and vaibhashika schools and mainly and importantly Nagarjuna’s madhyamika school.

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

@@hellboundtruck123I guess you can't read very well, did you not see that I said this? "empty of inherent being is parallel to dependent arising. How so? Because if something can only arise dependent on another something then the former something does not have independent or inherent existence. So the two axioms amount to the same thing." This concept of own being is from Nagarjuna NOT Sarvāstivāda...the Sarvāstis believed that the Dharmas had own being/svabhāva. And time, in Sarvastivada, according to the view of Vasumitra (which was the most widely accepted in the Savastivada school) is due to those Dharma's change of state of the three times periods i.e. a dharma not yet arisen in cognition is in the condition of the future time-phase, arisen, it is in the present, and subsided, it is in the past time-phase. But for the Sarvastivada the Dharma always exists and has svabhāva, so it is not empty in the context of Nagararjuna's thought of emptiness, which meant empty of svabhāva.

[@kindface]

@@DavidKolbSantosh You were clear until the last sentence. I think your last sentence was wholly unnecessary and in fact confuses the lay reader. With that exception, I actually found your comment very well written and clear - thanks for sharing.

[@jakecarlo9950]

Awesome!