Dalai Lama Hosts Mind and Life Conference

On October 27-31, His Holiness the Dalai Lama met with leading western scientists at the Sixth Mind and Life Conference. Mind and Life is a biannual forum designed to foster dialogues between Tibetan Buddhists and Western scientists. This topic for this conference was "The New Physics and Cosmology."

Bringing the most current knowledge available to the dialogues, five leading physicists, one Chinese humanities professor - a scholar of history and philosophy of China and two translators came to Dharamsala to engage in five days of conversation with His Holiness. Each morning, one of the scientists would present an aspect of modern physics. In the afternoon, discussion was encouraged between His Holiness and among the participants.

The Dalai Lama also invited Tibetans from the educational field as well as monks. He explained that he wanted to share the great benefit that he has gotten from talking with the scientists. This benefit will be further shared by the publication of forthcoming books, he explained, but the personal feeling and atmosphere of discussions with scientists was important as well.

The Dalai Lama described the strong similarities between the Buddhist and scientific approaches. "In Buddhism in general the basic attitude is that in the beginning one should maintain a skeptical attitude, even of the Buddha's own words. This skeptical attitude brings forth questions which bring forward clearer answers and investigations. So the attitude relies more on investigation than faith." The Western scientists agreed with His Holiness's skeptical approach. Said Prof. Anton Zeilinger, "Skepticism is the only road to new knowledge."

The Dalai Lama noted the importance for Buddhism of the dialogues with scientists. In Buddhist ethical discourse, there are two kinds of wrong views, asserting that which doesn't exist to be existent and denying the existence of that which does exist. So for Buddhists, understanding what is really there is extremely important. "Therefore scientific findings are very helpful to Buddhist thinking," he said "Furthermore, some Buddhist thinking may give scientists some new places to look."

Quantum Mechanics and wave particle duality

Prof. Anton Zeilinger started the explanation of modern physics by providing an overview of how different the Quantum Mechanical view of the universe is from the Classical view. "In classical physics we believe the mountains are there even if we don't look at them. In Quantum Mechanics, this belief doesn't work anymore."

He went on to demonstrate the new physics experimentally. First he showed the wave aspect of light. He set up a laser pointed at a pinhole and then two small slits. The light formed alternating light and dark vertical bars. "The interpretation of this experiment when it was done is that light is a wave. [Where the bar is bright, the waves add to and strengthen each other. Where the bar is dark, the waves cancel each other.] We know now [this effect] works for light, water waves, radio waves, atoms and even small molecules. So it is a universal phenomenon [everything has wave properties]."

Then he demonstrated the particle nature of light. He used the photoelectric effect, where electrons are ejected from a metal surface when illuminated by light. He had a gadget which clicked every time it caught an electron. When he held it up to the light, it clicked furiously. When he covered it, the gadget stopped clicking. "[Einstein explained] the simple way to understand this experiment is to assume light is made of particles called photons. The photon kicks out an electron and that's it, like one ball kicks out another ball. It's a very simple picture." Profl Zeilinger laughingly noted that Einstein got the Nobel prize for this explanation, not for his theory of Relativity, because Relativity was considered too radical at the time.

The amazing thing that Prof. Zeilinger described is [in the first experiment] a single photon of light can display wave properties by apparently taking two paths at once. And as long as we don't try to tell which path it took, we get one result. When we try to figure our which path it took we get a different result. Prof. Arthur Zajonc said, "This is the measurement paradox. If you determine which path the photon takes, then the interference disappears." This odd property is called wave-particle duality, or complementarity.

Prof. Zeilinger continued, "This is a point that is new in modern physics. The observer decides by choosing the apparatus which of the two features, particle or wave, is reality. So the observer has a very strong influence on nature. That goes beyond anything in classical physics."

Prof. George Greenstein pointed out how large a shift this represents in Western scientific thought. "Science asks very limited questions. It asks how much does this weigh. When you answer that question it doesn't matter who you are. If you are happy or sad you will still get the same answer. The observer is irrelevant. Anton has shown us something where the observer is very relevant. It has only been in this century that we have discovered things for which the observer is relevant, and that is pressing us into these [new spiritual] considerations. But until this happened, there was no reason for scientists to care about their spiritual nature."

His Holiness laughed and noted, "It is ironic and amusing that the physicists, approaching through an analysis which is purely from a physicists' point of view confined to purely physical phenomena seem to be arriving at a point where they may be just opening the door to Buddhist emptiness."

Quantum Mechanics and the nature of knowledge

Prof. David Finkelstein described how the new physics has changed our understanding of knowledge itself. "Classically we thought when you knew as much as you could about something, you knew everything about it. Today we have to recognize that there are many times when you know as much as can be known, and yet do not know everything."

Prof. Zeilinger described how this works in practice. "If I roll a die, in classical physics I can make a mental picture to explain why I get a three. I can build up a chain of reasoning for how this happens [even if I didn't predict the result]. In classical physics we call this subjective randomness. It is just my ignorance [that prevented me from being able to predict the outcome, in this case a three.]"

"In quantum physics we have a different kind of randomness, objective randomness. [For a quantum event] it's not just that I don't know. If you'll permit me to use simple words, the particle itself doesn't know. And if there were God, he doesn't know either, until it happens. This is the first time in physics we cannot build a chain of reasoning. [For a large number of events] we can build a chain of reason. [But] the individual event is completely random. There is no explanation."

His Holiness described the implications for Buddhism: "In some cases it may be because our current limitations of knowledge and limitations of the instruments, but in some cases it could be an objective feature of the reality that there cannot be an explanation."

"When speaking of the omniscience of the Buddha, there can be some special instances, or anomalous circumstances [where even he cannot know]," he added.

Prof. Zeilinger went on to describe how he felt about the new physics. "When I look back at the previous century, it was the century of mechanics. Physicists thought the world, including us, was a big mechanical machine which evolves according to certain laws. This I find a very boring view, a very sad view. The new view is much nicer, much more open, because there are things happening with no cause. You cannot explain them in a mechanistic way."

Relativity and Absolutes

Another important aspect of the new physics is Einstein's theories of spacetime. Prof. David Finkelstein first described the Special Theory of Relativity. "[Physics has no conception of absolute motion.] One can only speak of relative motion. This was discovered by Galileo. [Einstein's] new discovery is that all observers, no matter how they are moving, will agree on the speed of a particular light wave. That's an astonishing paradox.

"From the point of view of classical physics, one could imagine one could catch up with the light wave, and then it would seem to be at rest. The whole point of [Special Relativity] is that one cannot catch up with light waves. No matter how we move, they always seem to travel at the speed of light relative to us. And this requires a revision both in our notions of space and of time."

Einstein's more general theory of spacetime is called General Relativity. It changes the way we understand geometry. "The basic idea is that not only the laws of nature, but even the concepts of nature must be local. In the geometry of Euclid, it is meaningful to say two lines are parallel even though they're very far apart. For the physicist the question comes up, 'How do you know?' And in Einstein's way of thinking, it is impermissible to deduce as a fundamental concept such comparison of remote things because we are not in both places. We must describe the procedure [by which we measure them]."

"This principle of locality is the second cornerstone of modern physics. Complementarity is one, locality is the other. The struggle [of modern physics] is to bring them together. As it were, to marry Heisenberg and Einstein, who did not like each other."

"[A relativity theory explains how one point of view is related to other points of view. The discovery of relativity theories, or relativism, did not stop with Einstein.] I think of the development of physics as a growth of relativism. Every increase in relativism is an increase in our understanding of the complexity of the observer, of the number of possible observers, and of the influence of the choice of the observer on the phenomena. Quantum theory is just the latest stage in this growth of relativism."

Western vs. Buddhist Logic

The new physics has even changed the very foundation of science, logic. Prof. Finkelstein said, "The two main changes of logic in this century are the breakdown of the law of the excluded middle, and the breakdown of the distributive law. Both turn out to be consequences of incompleteness."

"[The distributive law is] the simplest law which breaks down for quanta. If you have two properties A and B, A or not-A is true. B or not-B is true. Classically you would then say that one of the following cases must hold. A and B, or A and not-B, or not-A and B, or not-A and not-B. It is very easy to demonstrate with polarizers a situation where all four of these are false."

Prof. Finkelstein then used polarizing filters set at 45 degrees to each other to show this breakdown. He called the first one A, and the second one B. Not-A would be a filter at 90 degrees to A, and not-B would be a filter at 90 degrees to B. Any photon passing A and then B should pass another set of A and B polarizers without being impeded. But that can't be guaranteed for any photon, so A and B is false. Rotating the pair of polarizers make all the other permutations false too, so none of the previous logical statements could be true. His demonstration shows that quantum logic is different from classical logic.

His Holiness described how in the Buddhist system also, for different experiential realms, different logical systems were appropriate. He pointed out that conventional analysis in Buddhism is concerned with appearances. The various scientific logical systems would fit here. But ultimate analysis, which has as its aim the fundamental nature of reality, has its own experiential and logical system.

Prof. Finkelstein pointed out that by considering dynamics as Einstein did geometry, one concluded that the law of nature changes with the content of nature, and that perhaps such variations in the law are all there are in the world. He asked the Dalai Lama if such a possibility was studied in a Buddhist cosmology.

His Holiness replied that a similar conception occurs in the Madhyamaka school, which likewise takes the law of nature (dngos po'i chos nyid) to be changing.

Cosmology

His Holiness described the extensive Buddhist cosmology. "In the Abhidharma system, they speak of a billion-fold world system. This complex configuration would be a Buddhist galaxy. It would have a billion worlds in it. [In this system, a world is only counted if it is inhabited by sentient beings.] In the Vajrayana tradition, they speak of clusters of billion-fold world systems. So they speak of a billion of billion-fold worlds." And they describe clusters of those clusters.

George Greenstein noted that "in terms of these hierarchies, [Buddhism has a] striking parallel with modern astronomy. The planets go around the sun. Within our galaxy the sun goes around the galaxy and so do all the other stars. Galaxies form into clusters of galaxies. Ten or 1000 galaxies will form a cluster.

"These clusters seem to form into this very large pattern which was only recently discovered which looks like a sponge, in which the galaxies lie on curving sheets and there are vast regions with nothing inside called voids. [It is as if] the galaxies lay on the surfaces of soap in a froth of soap suds. These are the biggest structures we have ever seen."

"[Furthermore] what has been a speculation for hundreds of years is now a fact, that there are many other planets. Whether these other worlds could support life, we don't know, but it's getting more and more possible that there is life around other stars, lots of other stars."

Integrating Science and Buddhism

The openness of the dialogues contrasted with the schism that developed between Western science and Western religion. As Prof. Arthur Zajonc explained, "In the West, there was a tension between the inner world of the spirit and religion and the outer world of the mastery of nature. Then a division took place. The religious world said, 'If you will say nothing about morality and about the inner world, then we'll give you the outer world.' At that time science was very weak and religion was very powerful. Now things have shifted. In the West, the power of science and technology is very great."

Prof. Piet Hut described his vision of how Western science and spirituality could be united. "When having dialogues between science and Buddhism or science and religion, many people talk about building a bridge. I think the bridge metaphor is partially correct, but I don't like it so much. I think if we go into the canyon [between the two] to the roots of science and the roots of Buddhism, that's where new knowledge comes from. I think there is the real meeting point. It is very interesting to talk about the Big Bang and talk about the Buddhist equivalent or the Christian equivalent of the origin of the world. But even more interesting is the process of knowledge formation.

"I have the feeling that Western science is still very young. It is only 400 years old. Buddhism and other religions are much older. [Up till now] science has been like a teenager, very arrogant, trying to find new ways of looking at things. I think science is getting a little older now, maybe early 20's. It is beginning to think that maybe other people have something interesting to say."

His Holiness also expressed an interest in bringing Western science and Buddhism together. "All human activities should be beneficial to humanity. Modern science ultimately should bring more happiness, peace and comfort to the world. In the past, people thought they could achieve their goals through prayer. I think that is extreme. I am a Buddhist, so I do not believe in a Creator. It is not enough to pray to God or even to pray to Buddha for our goals. We have to work to achieve our goals. Science mainly deals with material things, and that is very necessary. At the same time, it is wrong to assume that all human problems can be solved through material means. Therefore it is very important to form a joint effort, material development and internal spiritual development. That is my aim." And the aim of everyone else at the conference too. Let's get to work.