tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post5370148555482187632..comments2024-01-08T06:21:35.864-08:00Comments on Notes in Samsara: Quantum Physics and the Dalai Lama? Or, Science and Buddhism: the Real DealMumon Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01116967568502451788noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-40584204413045384662018-10-17T22:44:27.746-07:002018-10-17T22:44:27.746-07:00Nice work!! I have found it quite useful. Keep upd...Nice work!! I have found it quite useful. Keep updating with valuable information...Regards.<br /><a href="https://blog.mindvalley.com/buddhists-texts/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.mindvalley.com/buddhists-texts/</a>Mindvalleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07258228697025638864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-55036443677195545582017-06-05T15:37:18.598-07:002017-06-05T15:37:18.598-07:00The phrase "essentially the exact same" ...The phrase "essentially the exact same" is a self-negating statement. That and the fact that the Dalai Lama didn't actually say this make this entire argument somewhat moot. It's the blogger claiming that they are the same, not Tenzen Gyatso.Liam Beanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172836011364271422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-7956054882200523962010-06-25T06:42:44.126-07:002010-06-25T06:42:44.126-07:00Buddhist philosophy's central point is the dep...Buddhist philosophy's central point is the dependence of things, the space between two things. This is<br />important in quantum physics. Here a keyword is entanglement: When quantum objects are seperated they are still together. The space between two objects is important.<br /><br />Christian Thomas Kohl<br />http://ctkohl.googlepages.comchristianthomaskohlhttp://ctkohl.googlepages.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-26448984144134403552010-05-23T15:51:04.953-07:002010-05-23T15:51:04.953-07:00David:
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is fu...David:<br /><br />The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is fundamental to quantum physics. Anybody who's studied it knows that.<br /><br />And that's precisely why I thought it was useful to call out the Tricycle blogger, who claimed to be repeating the meaning of what the Dalai Lama said. Of course it's not the same thing, but it <i>is</i> implied when one says that there is some essential sameness between what Nagarjuna wrote and the subject matter of quantum physics. <br /><br />And why do I know? <br /><br />Because I've studied both of them.Mumon Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116967568502451788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-45266581999864061252010-05-23T14:57:38.669-07:002010-05-23T14:57:38.669-07:00Who cited the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Wh...Who cited the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? What ancient text are they talking about? I don't know who the "they" are that you're talking about. This is one guy from Tricycle. Sorry, but I feel like you are kinda doing what you advised Barbara not to do on her blog.<br /><br />I am well aware that Nagarjuna was Indian and not Tibetan, though I fail to see what that has to do with anything. <br /><br />I apologize for being so contrary, but I just don't get what the hubbub is all about.Davidhttp://theendlessfurther.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-68413006215687621312010-05-23T11:33:55.587-07:002010-05-23T11:33:55.587-07:00David:
I quote from the Tricycle blog:
Obviously...David:<br /><br />I quote from the Tricycle blog:<br /><br /><i>Obviously, the fact Buddhists are able to cite <b>an ancient Buddhist text that says essentially the exact same thing as this cutting edge field</b> of western scientific inquiry </i>[i.e., quantum physics]<i> is quite impressive to the physicists.</i><br /><br />So they're saying exactly what I said they were saying.<br /><br />And one quibble: Nagarjuna was not Tibetan.Mumon Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116967568502451788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-17578461394091194732010-05-23T09:30:44.845-07:002010-05-23T09:30:44.845-07:00I don't know that anyone is saying that Quantu...I don't know that anyone is saying that Quantum physicists are saying the same thing the Tibetan Buddhists are or that Buddhists can cite an ancient Buddhist text that says essentially the same thing as what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does, and as far as I know, Deepak Chopra does not teach Buddhism.Davidhttp://theendlessfurther.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-19363277639674676752010-05-23T07:22:39.617-07:002010-05-23T07:22:39.617-07:00To put it simply: Quantum physicists are not sayin...To put it simply: Quantum physicists <i>are not</i> saying the same thing the Tibetan Buddhists are.<br /><br />Buddhists are <i>not</i> able to cite an ancient Buddhist text that says essentially the exact same thing as what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does, and Western physicists would approach this pretty much the way <a href="http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2010/03/deepak-chopra-versus-theoretical.html" rel="nofollow">one did with Deepak Chopra</a>.<br /><br />Claims like this are worse than superfluous, they presume there some kind of "magic" going on in Buddhism that does not accurately represent Buddhism <i>or</i> science.Mumon Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116967568502451788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7756920.post-74412316058572932052010-05-22T11:16:55.709-07:002010-05-22T11:16:55.709-07:00I’m sorry but I don’t understand what your complai...I’m sorry but I don’t understand what your complaint is. I may be at a loss to understand because I was a liberal arts kind of guy who just got by in science. I don’t think the article you cited implied that quantum physicists are out to prove anything, just that “they eventually get to a point where they can no longer prove anything.” <br /><br />I also don’t understand why some folks have such a hostility towards comparing science and Buddhism. I don’t know if that is the case with you or not. I might be too dumb to catch your drift. Maybe the issue is more about science and religion in general, but who decreed that they should forever be separate? I can’t speak for everything the Dalai Lama or Deepak Chopra have said about religion and science, but I think for the most part they are merely engaging in analogy, which is one of the most fertile sources of inference, although conclusions from analogy, despite sometimes having a very high probability, are hypothetical. <br /><br />Often lay people, and some philosophers, speculate and conjecture at random, without following any method in forming philosophical ideas. That may be the nature of the complaint from scientists. Frankly, I suspect it has more to do with “un-scientific” folks encroaching on what they feel is their territory. <br /><br />I also don’t get what the Dalai Lama said that is objectionable. In what you presented in your post, all he is saying is that Dharma practice uses an investigative method that is analogous to a scientific method. I don’t think he is trying to imply that it is the same as “Scientific Method.” <br /><br />A more “scientific” philosopher, and I would put both Nagarjuna and the Dalai Lama in that category, follows an order of procedure, the chief aim of which is to distinguish knowledge from hypothesis and to obtain an organized body of knowledge as a foundation upon which any supplementary, hypothetical ideas may be based. What’s wrong with that?<br /><br />Again, I studied poetry not physics, so forgive me if I have missed your point.Davidhttp://theendlessfurther.comnoreply@blogger.com