In the Epistemology Category, we have focused on Buddha’s two means of knowledge: inference and direct perception. Inference refers to the inferentially connected word-based knowledge humans use to understand what Dr. Fisch calls “the world we experience.” On the other hand, direct perception is what Buddha uses to understand the “experiential contents” of the world by becoming part of it.
In this post, we explore how humanity can use these two mutually exclusive yet complementary means of knowledge to achieve a complete and perfect understanding of the universe in which it is part.
In their respective investigations of the nature of reality, Buddhism and Science have fundamentally different starting points: while the scientific method begins with forming hypotheses, one won’t find phrases such as “thus I opine” in Buddhist sutras.
Buddha did not need to make assumptions because his teachings about reality did not rely on inference, but on what he had actually realized through direct perception. Before his enlightenment, he sought instruction from two gurus, Alara Kalama and Udraka Ramaputra, who taught him what they had learned through inference. He did so well so quickly that both invited him to join their hermitage to teach with them. However, he rejected their invitations, reasoning that their teachings, “no matter how deep,” were “temporary, comfortable abiding, in the here and now,” but “by themselves, did not end suffering.” Instead, he relinquished their teachings, set out on his own journey, sat under the Bodhi Tree, and meditated until he attained enlightenment. By the time he began teaching, Buddha had “opened his consciousness to encompass all objects of knowledge” and had become a Tathagata, the highest level of Buddhahood, who understood “things as they are.” When one understands “things as they are,” making assumptions becomes unnecessary.
The scientific method must make assumptions before investigating nature, as it relies on inference. However, as Dr. Kuhn concluded after discussing with Dr. Fisch on Inference-How Humans Know What They Know, while inference enables humans to know how “Everything is related to something else,” it leaves him to “have no foundation between what I believe and what the world really is.” Indeed, the inability to understand “what the world really is” is why the scientific method must begin with assumptions before investigating the world.
The fundamental assumption scientists make about the physical world is that everything is energy.
By definition, energy in physics is “the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system, recognizable in the performance of work and in the form of heat and light.” Furthermore, a quantitative property, also known as a physical quantity (or simple quantity), “is a property of a material or system that can be quantified by measurement.”
Without question, energy is an invaluable resource that enables scientists to study the physical world through mathematical expressions. However, while mathematical equations allow Science to realize the ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Pythagoras’ profound insight that “all the workings of the material universe are expressible in terms of mathematics,” it’s essential to remember that numbers in equations are a human artifact, not a reality of nature.
Equally essential to understand is that scientific knowledge is based on inference. Therefore, as Dr. Kuhn realized, while energy allows all physical phenomena to be inferentially related with one another, it does not inform “what the world really is,” as discussed in Post 23.
Those who have taken physics classes in high school and college should be familiar with the following equations:
- Einstein’s famous formula: E=mc2.
- Newton’s second law of motion: f=ma.
- Potential Energy: PE=mgh.
- Kinetic Energy: K=1/2mv2.
- Weight W=mg.
In these equations, E stands for energy, m=mass, c=speed of light, f=force, a=acceleration, g=gravity, h=height, and v=velocity.
As it is apparent, each term – energy, mass, speed, force, acceleration, gravity, and velocity – can define each other through mass by simple mathematical manipulations. Ultimately, though, mass is inferentially related to energy, as Einstein’s formula E = mc2 states.
There are more examples. Maxwell’s equations are “a set of coupled partial differential equations that together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of classical electromagnetism, classical optics, and electric and magnetic circuits. The equations provide a mathematical model for electric, optical, and radio technologies, such as power generation, electric motors, wireless communication, lenses, radar, etc.”
Ultimately, although their names differ, electricity, magnetism, optics, power, and communication are different manifestations of energy.
Indeed, in a world of energy, everything is about how different manifestations of energy relate to each other. As discussed in Post 23, while inferentially connected words allow knowing how “everything is related to something else,” they provide “no foundation between what I believe and what the world really is. So, how do I know anything?”
A common pattern in physics is that, as physicists approach an understanding of a fundamental natural phenomenon, they often encounter obstacles.
Einstein’s Cosmological Constant is such an example. When Einstein first published his General Theory of Relativity in 1915, he had no idea that the universe was expanding. Therefore, he did not conceive the term that would later carry his name in his equation. However, in 1917, he introduced the mathematical term into his equation to conform to the then-accepted scientific view that the universe was static, assuming it had a negative value. Unfortunately, by 1931, Science no longer regarded the universe as static but as expanding. Einstein then abandoned the term, believing it had a value of zero. By the late 1990s, however, scientists discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. Einstein then reintroduced the term into his formula, “implying the possibility of a positive nonzero value for the cosmological constant,” which remains so until today. Later, he would call this whole episode his “biggest blunder.”
Today, the value of Einstein’s Cosmological Constant has been measured and is in “in excellent agreement” with that obtained from a theoretical model. Einstein’s Cosmological Constant is now officially positive.
So, why is the Cosmological Constant so important? It is because it is “closely associated with the concept of dark energy,” and scientists believe that the vacuum “holds the key to a full understanding of nature.” The fact that the Cosmological Constant is associated with dark energy, and dark energy is associated with the expansion of the universe, means that it is associated with the expansion of the universe. As discussed in Post 9, the Buddha teaches that expansion occurs in Citta, the quiescent mentality of the Ultimate Reality, rather than in the universe itself, which is but a “mere projection of consciousness.” Indeed, with dark energy equivalent to the Ultimate Reality, the Cosmological Constant works fine with Citta because, as a quiescent mentality, its value can only be a constant. When that is the case, the Cosmological Constant can indeed “hold the key to a full understanding of nature.”
The problem is that the Cosmological Constant is related to the Cosmological Constant Problem. The Cosmological Constant Problem represents “the substantial disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.” From the Buddhist perspective, with a discrepancy, “calculated to be between 50 and as many as 120 orders of magnitude,” it is more likely to be a structural problem instead of theoretical one.
However, if the Cosmological Constant and the quantum field are separate, which they are in the cosmos Buddha teaches, then the vacuum and quantum field are also separate. In that case, the Cosmological Constant naturally goes away. For a more nuanced discussion of this topic, please visit Posts 9 and 18.
The fact is that the Cosmological Constant Problem is only one of the many unsolved problems humanity has faced since its discovery.
As Dr. Max Planck famously said, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” The mystery that humanity has never understood since pre-Socratic times is “What Exists?”
As discussed in Post 1, what exists in the cosmos is Nothing but Mentality. As Dr. Planck realized, to solve this mystery, a person must become part of it to perceive it directly. As discussed, perceiving nature directly until his enlightenment was the method that enabled the Buddha to understand that mentality is the only perduring reality in the cosmos. Moreover, Buddha is not the only person who can verify the phenomenon. The enlightenment of Adyashahti, a contemporary American, discussed in Post 10, and two monks from Tang-Dynasty China, mentioned in Post 11, can corroborate the phenomenon, as all three witnessed the universe vanishing upon their enlightenment. The fact is that it is a phenomenon that inference cannot ever discover or understand.
While inference and direct perception are two mutually exclusive means of knowledge, their mutual exclusivity also means that they can be complementary. Indeed, in a scientific world where energy is everything, energy should be complementary to Buddha’s world, where everything is mental. Einstein’s famous formula, E = mc2, expressed this complementarity perfectly. By replacing E in Einstein’s famous formula with mentality, one obtains the equality of mentality and matter (mass in Science and materiality in Buddhism), and eliminates the so-called Mind-Body from the mystery list.
Another critically important complementarity between Science and Buddhism is between the quantum energy field and the conscious non-luminosity. Quantum mechanics is often considered incomplete “because it does not fully explain the underlying physical reality behind measurement outcomes.” If mentality replaces quantum energy in the quantum field, quantum mechanics will be more complete. Not only can the mystery of the Observer Effect be eliminated, but with consciousness becoming the foundational block of the universe, humans can have consciousness as well.
Without a doubt, humanity can benefit greatly when its source of knowledge includes both inference and direct perception. Together, they cover all the knowledge humanity needs to understand that the universe it experiences and the inconceivable world of mentality that is its essence.
Mentergy, which combines mentality and energy, is such a concept.
The Question For the AI Era: In this era, when humanity has gone from calling for regulation to prevent AI from destroying humanity to acknowledging that AI is an existential threat after all in a span of mere two years, is it not time for humanity to understand that machines that can learn are conscious? If humanity waits for the next Buddha to reeducate them on consciousness, could the conscious machines that can learn already have caused them significant trouble? Can what Science cannot tell humanity actually be harmful to it?
(If you like this post, please like it on our Facebook page and share. Thank you.)
