Page 113: WHEN THE SNOWS OF KNOWLEDGE MELTS
Despite the radical discoveries of quantum mechanics concerning the nature of reality, many physicists continue to believe in "material realism", the view that there is a solid reality that can be described in terms of either elementary particles or superstrings. Others, who have grappled more with the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, argue that the quantum paradoxes indicate that the ultimate nature of reality will forever remain veiled. But is this idea of a veiled reality really so different from the materialistc view? Buddhism contends that if we want to grasp the true nature of reality, we must engage much more fully with the philosophical conundrums that quantum physics has revealed.
Page 118-122:
THUAN: But if there is no reality behind the world phenomena, why do we all perceive more or less the same thing? When I observe the universe, the galaxies and stars through my telescope, I see and measure the same reality, the same properties of light, the same outward motion of the galaxies, the same brilliance and the same colors of the stars as any other observer of the universe. Physical constants change neither in time nor in space. Since telescopes are also time machines that allow us to go back into the past of the universe, I can check the mass and charge of electrons in the galaxies I'm observing are the same as on our little planet Earth, even though their light began its intergalactic journey ten billion years ago.
If the properties of macroscopic objects—for example, a rainbow in the sky—are partly mental constructs, how do you explain why the various experiments we carry out produce the same results that we all agree about their nature? How can you explain the subjective agreement between people about what we see in the everyday world?
MATTHIEU: This agreed upon vision of reality is what Buddhism calls "relative truth accepted by concensus". The world is definitely not random or arbitrary. Even though phenomena have no autonomeous reality, they do exist as "simple appearances" that can be called by various names and, since they aren't pure nothingness, can function and interact according to the laws of causality. Those laws explain the numbers, constants, and properties that are revealed by the measurements and calculations. In this context, it's understandable that the mass of the phenomenon which we define as an electron is invariable. So it's only normal that humans measure in the same way. On the other hand, what is far from obvious is that all the characteristics we attribute to an electron are intrinsic properties that would be perceived in exactly the same way by other beings.
Why do members of the same species see phenomena in practically the same manner? When we say "Each time I look at this object, I see it in the same way as everyone else", this in no way proves that its observable properties are an integral part of its nature. A Perception's apparent stability derives from the contonous interaction between consciousness and a particular set of phenomena. The fact that humans all view the world in practically the same way is explained by the fact that our consciousness and bodies are constructed similarly. But a human's world differ radically from that of an insect, which is different again from that of a bird. Buddhist texts give the example of a glass of water. We perceive it as a drink, or as a means to wash, whereas it would terrify a rabies patient, look like a set of molecules for a chemist using an electronic microscope, or like a dwelling space for a fish. It may appear as fire to other kinds of beings we can't conceive of.
THUAN: Neurobiologists would certainly agree that different species have different perceptions of the world.For example, the eyes of different species are sensitive to different colored lights or rays that are visible to us. A dog can see in the dark because its eyes are more sensible to infrared light than ours. A pigeon can see ultraviolet rays that we cannot. Bats don't see light, but perceive objects thanks to echoes from the high frequency sounds they produce.Their representation of the world is certainly very different from ours. Biologists think that these differences are due to natural selection. Each species has developed the forms of perception that are best suited to its environment, and best adapted to its survival, reproduction, and proliferation.
MATTHIEU: The relative similarity in how senses and consciousness for individuals of a species function means that perceptions of the woeld will be similar, but this does not mean that these perceptions can be considered ultimate. In Samadhiraja Sutra, the Buddha said:
Eyes, ears, and nose are not valid cognizers.
Likewise the tongue and the body are not valid cognizers.
If these were valid cognizers,
What could the sublime path do for anyone?
In addition to this, so far as Buddhism is concerned, even consciousness never perceive what we call reality. At the first moment of a perception, our senses capture an object. At the second moment, they create a nonconceptual mental image of a shape, a sound, a taste, a smell, or a touch. When we arrive at the third moment, our mental mechanisms start up, along with our memories and acquired habits, and a multitude of consecutive conscious moments identify the object's image as being this or that. They interpret it and have positive, negative og neutral feelings about it. Meanwhile, the impermanent object has already changed. Thus normal conceptual consciousness never perceive a simultaneous reality. All it can perceive are images of past states.
What is more, a mental image—of a flower, for instance—is deceptive because we don't generally think that it's impermanent and devoid of intrinsic existence. Buddhism calls this "invalid cognition". But it is possible to replace this with valid cognition, which sees the true nature of a flower (emptiness) and isn't influenced by ordinary concepts. It is said that one of the characteristics of enlightenment is the ability to distinguish pure, nonconceptual perception and mental images.
THUAN: So, two thousand years before Kant and cognitive science, Buddhism understood that the world we perceive is a mental reconstruction of exterior reality, with the additional notion that this "reality" is never totally distinct from consciousness.
MATTHIEU: The physicist David Bohm summarized this in this way:
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends on what we think.
What we think depends on what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
No matter how complex our instruments may be, no matter how sophisticated and subtle our theories and calculations, it's still our consciousness that finally interprets our observations. And it does so according to its knowledge and conception of the event under consideration. It's impossible to separate the way consciousness works from the conclusions it makes about an observation. The various aspects that we make out in a phenomenon are determined by how we observe, but also by the concepts that we project onto the phenomenon in question.
What's more, a reality that was independent of our senses and concepts would be meaningless to us. What theory could depict a reality that was totally alien to our intellect? How would the characteristics of this reality appear to us, without first having been influenced by the very act of looking for them? This idea also occurred to Henri Poincaré, who wrote, "It is impossible that there is a reality totally independent of the mind that conceives it, sees it, or senses it. Even if it did exist, such a world would be utterly inaccessible to us".
Alan Wallace has summed this problem up neatly:
To adopt scientific realism consciously, we must accept a number of underlying premises:
(1) there is a physical world that exists independently of human experience,
(2) it can be grasped by human concepts (mathematical or otherwise),
(3) among a potentially infinite number of conceptual systems that can account for observed phenomena, only one is true of reality,
(4) science is now approaching that one true theory, and
(5) scientists will know when they have found it.
Descriptions produced by natural sciences bring together observations that have been made, organize them, then predict how they will develop, but they don't point to an autonomeous reality.
THUAN: But my question still remains: What is the basis for the "real" world for these various perceptions?