<p>Dependent origination is about how sorrow &amp; grief arise. It is not related to physics. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-14T21:01:29.137Z
sure, the buddha's primary, perhaps only concern, was in that, but the teaching has been applied to other areas afaik. There are example in the pali canon. i'll find the sources
joel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-14T21:11:54.327Z
ok, maybe it will take a while to find the sources, but an example is the five niyamas (not the positive duties [spoken about on wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama), but those of physical, biological, primitive consciousness, karmic and dharmic nature)
joel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-15T10:44:36.013Z
In a world of dependent origination, how can they not be related? And given both demand direct observation before declaring truth, how could they disagree?
Ilya Grushevskiy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-14T20:12:11.110Z
2020-03-14T20:12:11.110Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Physical theories would be classified under "name and form" in dependent origination:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn9/en/sujato#mn9:52-54.7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN9:52-54.7</a>: Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention—this is called name. The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements—this is called form.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The notion of chance and probability is also discussed in DN1, which describes various views that do not yield an end to suffering:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:2.32.2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN1:2.32.2</a>: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective:  ‘The self and the cosmos arose by chance.’</p>
</blockquote>

<p>DN1 enumerates this and other views and simply states that they are a trap for those interested in the end of suffering:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:3.72.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN1:3.72.3</a>: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Physical theories enable grasping as well as continued existence. We can reliably place artillery shells or subatomic particles where we wish with high probability and evaluate the results using the six sense fields. Yet the search for the end of suffering leads us to understand and relinquish the craving that drives such grasping.</p>

<p>The Buddha therefore acknowledges physical theories. The Buddha also teaches us that the end of suffering cannot be found in those physical theories.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-15T15:17:03.513Z
2020-03-15T15:17:03.513Z
OyaMist
<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rovelli's relational interpretation</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://promienie.net/images/dharma/books/nagarjuna_mulamadhyamakakarika.pdf&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiEgvq7hpvoAhXWMMAKHQE3A0cQFjACegQICRAB&amp;usg=AOvVaw1_Vg2MhsJ45IVq1p_oX_G2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nagarjuna</a> (really the Buddha's anatta doctorine) agree, in that both deny the usefulness of observer independent states of systems. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it."
  Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it." Huike
  said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it." 
  "There,"
  Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>.. Also QM is only probabilistic upon measurement. Measurement is some acceptance of self, an 'x' or a 'y'. </p>

<p>Edit - chance within  QM is qualified by observing a collapse of a wave-function <strong>without</strong> interference by the observer (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">spontaneous collapse</a>).. that is, just a thing, changing in and of itself. This has not been observed even once. </p>

<p>All other interactions within QM are relational - because only upon an observer affecting the observed, does any wave function collapse happen. There is no independent collapse observed yet. If there were, Dhamma would suffer unless there was an underlying layer to QM where collapse was made to become not-independent.. kinda like hidden variables. Both hidden variables and independent collapse seem to be unjustifiable through observed experiments atm though.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-15T21:51:25.530Z
(it is, of course, a personal opinion, so fair enough! .. the last part is also just a musing, to which I don't have a follow on for now :D )
Ilya Grushevskiy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-16T23:07:06.953Z
http://www.corriere.it/la-lettura/17_dicembre_08/carlo-rovelli-nagarjuna-le-cose-sono-solo-relazioni-9e337c3e-dc35-11e7-96bf-2722fd237ccc.shtml
Ilya Grushevskiy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-17T09:25:28.503Z
@IlyaGrushevskiy That (article by Rovelli) says that things exist in relation with each other, but it says nothing about things/measurements being probabilistic.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-15T06:08:30.650Z
2020-03-15T22:06:05.543Z
2020-03-15T22:06:05.543Z
Ilya Grushevskiy
<p>Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada?</p>

<p><strong>Clarification</strong></p>

<p>Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does <em>not</em> depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-14T21:03:02.743Z
@Erik can you elaborate? a buddhist teacher and friend of mine has views on the relationship between the two, and in particular I got the impression that not all interpretations of QM were so
joel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-14T21:10:16.437Z
true, but I'm only using QM as an example. I'm interested more broadly in the question about probabilistic theories
joel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-15T08:15:30.527Z
Why do you think they might be incompatible? Would you be satisfied with an answer which says they're "compatible" (i.e. "not mutually contradictory"), because they describe different things -- or do you reckon that they're not just compatible but are related somehow, if so would you like to mention how? When you say "pratitya samutpada", do you mean "dependent origination" in general, or the doctrine of the 12 nidanas in particular?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-15T14:19:49.800Z
@ChrisW I'm not entirely clear on it, hence the question, but I've extended my answer
joel
<science><metaphysics>
Are probabilistic physics and pratitya samutpada compatible?
# Are probabilistic physics and pratitya samutpada compatible?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-03-14)

Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada?

**Clarification**

Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does *not* depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.

**Tags:** science, metaphysics

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @Erik can you elaborate? a buddhist teacher and friend of mine has views on the relationship between the two, and in particular I got the impression that not all interpretations of QM were so  
> **username_0**: true, but I'm only using QM as an example. I'm interested more broadly in the question about probabilistic theories  
> **username_1**: Why do you think they might be incompatible? Would you be satisfied with an answer which says they're "compatible" (i.e. "not mutually contradictory"), because they describe different things -- or do you reckon that they're not just compatible but are related somehow, if so would you like to mention how? When you say "pratitya samutpada", do you mean "dependent origination" in general, or the doctrine of the 12 nidanas in particular?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I'm not entirely clear on it, hence the question, but I've extended my answer  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-03-14. Score: 2

Dependent origination is about how sorrow & grief arise. It is not related to physics.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: sure, the buddha's primary, perhaps only concern, was in that, but the teaching has been applied to other areas afaik. There are example in the pali canon. i'll find the sources  
> **username_0**: ok, maybe it will take a while to find the sources, but an example is the five niyamas (not the positive duties [spoken about on wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama), but those of physical, biological, primitive consciousness, karmic and dharmic nature)  
> **username_3**: In a world of dependent origination, how can they not be related? And given both demand direct observation before declaring truth, how could they disagree?  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-03-15. Score: -1

Physical theories would be classified under "name and form" in dependent origination:

> [MN9:52-54.7](https://suttacentral.net/mn9/en/sujato#mn9:52-54.7): Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention—this is called name. The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements—this is called form.

The notion of chance and probability is also discussed in DN1, which describes various views that do not yield an end to suffering:

> [DN1:2.32.2](https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:2.32.2): It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: ‘The self and the cosmos arose by chance.’

DN1 enumerates this and other views and simply states that they are a trap for those interested in the end of suffering:

> [DN1:3.72.3](https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:3.72.3): In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Physical theories enable grasping as well as continued existence. We can reliably place artillery shells or subatomic particles where we wish with high probability and evaluate the results using the six sense fields. Yet the search for the end of suffering leads us to understand and relinquish the craving that drives such grasping.

The Buddha therefore acknowledges physical theories. The Buddha also teaches us that the end of suffering cannot be found in those physical theories.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-03-15. Score: -3

[Rovelli's relational interpretation](https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002) and [Nagarjuna](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://promienie.net/images/dharma/books/nagarjuna_mulamadhyamakakarika.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEgvq7hpvoAhXWMMAKHQE3A0cQFjACegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1_Vg2MhsJ45IVq1p_oX_G2) (really the Buddha's anatta doctorine) agree, in that both deny the usefulness of observer independent states of systems.

> Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it."
> Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it." Huike
> said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it."
> "There,"
> Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."

.. Also QM is only probabilistic upon measurement. Measurement is some acceptance of self, an 'x' or a 'y'.

Edit - chance within QM is qualified by observing a collapse of a wave-function **without** interference by the observer ([spontaneous collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory)).. that is, just a thing, changing in and of itself. This has not been observed even once.

All other interactions within QM are relational - because only upon an observer affecting the observed, does any wave function collapse happen. There is no independent collapse observed yet. If there were, Dhamma would suffer unless there was an underlying layer to QM where collapse was made to become not-independent.. kinda like hidden variables. Both hidden variables and independent collapse seem to be unjustifiable through observed experiments atm though.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: (it is, of course, a personal opinion, so fair enough! .. the last part is also just a musing, to which I don't have a follow on for now :D )  
> **username_3**: http://www.corriere.it/la-lettura/17_dicembre_08/carlo-rovelli-nagarjuna-le-cose-sono-solo-relazioni-9e337c3e-dc35-11e7-96bf-2722fd237ccc.shtml  
> **username_1**: @IlyaGrushevskiy That (article by Rovelli) says that things exist in relation with each other, but it says nothing about things/measurements being probabilistic.  

---

