What is the nature of our reality? Carlo Rovelli & Geshe Tenzin Namdak on Quantum Physics & Buddhism
What this covers
Prof. Carlo Rovelli enters in dialogue with Geshe Tenzin Namdak on the connections between Buddhist philosophy, as exposed by the scholar scholar Arya Nagarjuna, and the discoveries of modern quantum physics.
This teaser is an excerpt of Science and Wisdom LIVE's upcoming e-Learning course on 'Buddhist Philosophy & Quantum Physics', which will be launched in the coming months in collaboration with Jamyang London Buddhist Centre. Besides Dr. Rovelli and Geshe Namdak, the course will also feature Prof. John Dunne and Dr. Michel Bitbol.
Find out more on our website: https://www.sciwizlive.com/e-learning/
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Prof. Carlo Rovelli is a theoretical physicist known for his work in quantum gravity. Born in Italy he has worked in the United States, France and Canada. He has founded the Quantum Gravity group at Aix-Marseille University. He is also a member of the Institute Universitaire de France, honorary professor of the Beijing Normal University, Honoris Causa Laureate of the Universidad de San Martin, Buenos Aires, and a member of the Académie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences. In 1995 he has been awarded the Xanthopoulos Award for “the best relativist worldwide under forty”. Prof. Rovelli has written several global best sellers among which are Seven Brief Lesson on Physics, which was translated in 44 languages, The Order of Time, and the recent Helgoland on quantum theory. He has been included by the Foreign Policy magazine in the 2019 list of the 100 most influential global thinkers.
Geshe Tenzin Namdak first worked as an environmental researcher having graduated in hydrology from Van Hall Larenstein University, The Netherlands. He started studying Buddhism at Maitreya Institute in 1993 and took ordination from His Holiness the Dalai Lama before engaging in his formal studies in Buddhist philosophy and psychology at Sera Jey Monastic University, South India, in 1997. He completed the entire twenty-year Geshe program at Sera Jey in 2017 and the traditional one year Vajrayana study program at Gyume Tantric College in January 2019, the first Westerner to do so. Because of his deep interest and background in science and as a member of Sera Jey’s Education Department he spoke on and organized various dialogues and conferences on contemporary science and ancient contemplative wisdom of the mind and its philosophy. Currently, he is the resident teacher at Jamyang Buddhist Centre, London, and teaches worldwide.
Scott Snibbe is a pioneering interactive artist and augmented reality entrepreneur, is the host of the meditation podcast A Skeptic’s Path to Enlightenment. Snibbe is a twenty-year student of Tibetan Buddhism whose teachers include Geshe Ngawang Dakpa, Choden Rinpoche, Ven. Rene Feusi, Lama Zopa Rinpoche, Gyumed Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Jampa, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Inspired by his teachers, he leads meditations that infuse the pure lineage of the great Buddhist masters with science, humor, and the realities of the modern world. Over the course of a career as a digital artist and entrepreneur, Snibbe has created bestselling art, music, and social apps, and collaborated with musicians and filmmakers including Björk, James Cameron, and Philip Glass. His interactive exhibits have been collected by both science and art museums, including the Whitney Museum of American Art and New York’s Museum of Modern Art.
About Science & Wisdom LIVE: Science & Wisdom LIVE is a project of Jamyang London Buddhist Centre.
Each dialogue explores the middle ground between science and contemplative wisdom, focusing on themes such as the ethics of artificial intelligence, gender equality, climate change, and the benefits of mindfulness and meditation for mental health.
Find Out More: www.sciwizlive.com
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Nagarjuna's Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination and emptiness provides essential conceptual tools for understanding quantum mechanics by eliminating metaphysical prejudices about independent objects with inherent properties, paralleling quantum theory's relational interpretation where systems have no properties outside of interactions.
- Quantum mechanics describes interactions and measurements, not properties of things in themselves; this requires abandoning the classical assumption that objects have independent, intrinsic properties
- Nagarjuna's philosophy dissolves the false search for ultimate, independent reality by showing all phenomena exist only in relation to other phenomena—precisely matching quantum mechanics' relational structure
- Both frameworks reject asking what ultimate reality 'is' in itself, instead describing how things manifest relative to observers and conditions
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Because things are fundamentally interdependent (dependent on causes, parts, and conceptual designation), there is possibility for cause and effect; independence and causal connection are incompatible, so denying independence is the basis for understanding causation.
“because it's empty of inner existence that's why this possibility for correlation and cause and effect yeah so that's the first level so to say of conventional truth that proves the ultimate one”
Quantum mechanics is constructed not as a description of properties of things but as a description of how things affect us when we interact with them, focusing on measurement outcomes rather than pre-existing intrinsic properties.
“quantum physics uh surprisingly very surprisingly seems to block us from doing so because the way it's constructed is not as a description of properties of things but as a description of how um things affect us when we interact with uh with them”
Emptiness itself is empty—even emptiness depends on the object that is empty; emptiness of the pen depends on the pen, so there is interdependence between the phenomenon and its ultimate nature, making both conventional and ultimate reality complementary aspects.
“even emptiness itself is imputed in the sense that emptiness doesn't exist all from its own side when i say emptiness of the pen that depends on the pen itself right emptiness is always related with an object and that object is empty of inner and existence and that what we call the emptiness of that particular object so even to the level of emptiness itself there is this dependence right”
Conventional and ultimate reality are two aspects of the same coin in Nagarjuna's philosophy; conventional truth (interdependence and causation) proves ultimate truth (emptiness of inherent existence), and vice versa.
“we have two types of reality we have a conventional one and we have an ultimate one and they actually in the nature of depend origination they two sides of a coin they do different realities to be described but one proves the other”
Systems have no properties by themselves, only properties relative to other systems; when a system manifests itself to an observer, that manifestation exists only as an interaction between the two, not as an intrinsic state.
“if this is the central idea of relational quantum mechanics if one uh uses this idea suddenly the the the the type picture makes sense because we think of the world of interacting things which don't have properties by themselves only have properties relative to one another”
In relational quantum mechanics, the observer is also a quantum system, so an object manifests properties only relative to a specific observer, not absolutely; what you observe about me is different from what I observe about myself because we are in different relational positions.
“the server is also quantum system and uh if i'm server you scored can observe me and for you i'm a system so i'm at the same time i'm a server and a system so therefore uh when an object manifests myself to me this manifestation since you're not interacting with me and the object only happens relative to me and not relative to to you”
A chair (or pen) cannot be located in any of its parts (armrests, legs, etc.), nor in their collection, nor in any spatiotemporal region; yet conventionally the chair exists; this illustrates that the chair exists only through conceptual imputation on a suitable material basis, not as an independently locatable entity.
“the chair of course conventionally there is a chair there right which is has particular properties of being hard and suitable to sit on et cetera et cetera but actually if you look for it it's not in in the arm rests it's not in the individual parts it's not in the collection it's just imputed upon a mere collection of individual parts that is a suitable base to be called a chair right so that also you can see many different levels of independence appraiser role and we cannot actually find an inner and chair out there but on the conventional level it exists right”
The relational interpretation of quantum mechanics solves the interpretive crisis by showing that properties manifest relative to specific observers, making the measurement problem coherent: there is no gap between measurements because there is no 'state' independent of interaction.
“if this is the central idea of relational quantum mechanics if one uh uses this idea suddenly the the the the type picture makes sense because we think of the world of interacting things which don't have properties by themselves only have properties relative to one another and if we try to to make the overall story doesn't fit together but then so this is relation quantum mechanics”
Quantum mechanics describes what happens at measurement interactions but says nothing about what happens between measurements; attempts to describe the in-between reality force us into problematic stories like Heisenberg's view that nothing exists between measurements, or wave-function descriptions where particles spread across space.
“quantum mechanics describe what happened in these measurements but doesn't describe what happened between these measurements so we have a system an observer and and and something happened between the two the observer gets some information about the system uh and then it happens again and quantum mechanics tell us um what's going to happen next and next and next at this interaction but nothing about what happened between”
There are three nested levels of dependent origination: (1) causal dependence—objects depend on causes and conditions for production and dissolution; (2) parthood dependence—objects depend on their constituent parts and the collection of those parts; (3) conceptual dependence—objects depend on mental imputation and labeling based on suitable bases.
“the second level of conventional truth according to interpretation of nagajuna is that you know not only cause and effect but also the dependence among individual parts within the object the pen right it's kind of the different direction and different parts you can take out you know the the the cover and and the pop and the different kind of little kind of particles of the ink etc etc so that means there's a huge collection of particles and a collection of those individual particles and there's a correlation between those two because that correlation between those two is present that's why the particles don't exist from their own side neither the collection does exist from a downside right”
Emptiness in Buddhist philosophy means the absence of something specific—for example, 'the room is empty of an elephant' means the elephant doesn't exist in the room, but the absence does exist; understanding what something is requires understanding what it is not.
“you know i always uh use the example of the elephant is a very famous example of philosophy that the room is empty of an elephant right so that means the elephant doesn't exist in the room but the absence of the elephant exists right so that's why nagajuna and many forms in philosophy we talk about what it's not to understand what it is”
Classical mechanics allows us to decompose the world into discrete systems with intrinsic properties; quantum mechanics, by contrast, blocks this approach by being constructed as a theory of measurement outcomes rather than intrinsic properties.
“in classical mechanics we can't think at the uh an external at the world the world we interact with as a set of system or object with properties uh it doesn't need to be naive is we don't need to be particle and stones and things like that but we can think of the world by by breaking it in systems and each system has a property it's it's itself it's characterized and and quantum physics uh surprisingly very surprisingly seems to block us from doing so”
A pen exists conventionally with properties like shape and color, but ultimately it depends on causes (material conditions, artisan action) for production and disintegration, and on parts (cap, body, ink) for its constitution—therefore it lacks independent existence from its own side.
“the pen itself or the glasses has different aspects right has a shape a color that's kind of a conventional aspect we perceive with our eye perception then also the pen has also a nature of interdependence and well it vendors cause an effect there's also property of the pen right that it changes moment by moment yeah so that's one level of interdependence that actually proves that the pen cannot exist all by itself it depends on things other than itself that's true for its production that's true for its disintegration”
Particle-wave duality arises because we cannot consistently describe an electron as having a definite position between measurements; between manifestations as a particle, the electron must be described as a wave spreading through space, manifesting all positions simultaneously.
“typically an electron always manifests itself as a particle being in a point but in the theory you cannot think that between one manifestation and the other it is somewhere and you describe it as a wave opening up in space so this is the famous particle wave duality of quantum theory”
Nagarjuna's philosophy teaches that entities in relation do not have independent reality by themselves; to talk meaningfully about relations, the relata themselves cannot have independent intrinsic being—this is the conceptual core needed to think coherently about quantum mechanics.
“even more than that when you talk about relation this is the genius of that you're forced to think that the the the the actual entity in in relation do not have reality by themselves this was a shock for me because in a sense it's it it says well this is exactly the way of thinking that one needs to be able to talk about system that manifests itself to one another without need of thinking them of existence by themselves outside this manifestation”
Ultimate reality in Buddhist philosophy means that phenomena are empty of inherent, independent existence because they depend on causes, conditions, constituent parts, and conceptual designation—the pen exists conventionally but cannot be found to exist from its own side.
“when we call though about emptiness from the point of view of ultimate reality then we say empty of inner and existence right so that the pen doesn't exist from its own side because it's dependent on causing conditions so that's one level of dependent origination causing conditions which is a conventional truth that proves the ultimate truth”
Dependent origination in Buddhism establishes that all phenomena lack inherent, independent existence because they arise in dependence on causes, conditions, parts, and conceptual designation—nothing exists from its own side.
“with interdependence we prove this nature of emptiness or ultimate reality so we have two types of reality we have a conventional one and we have an ultimate one and they actually in the nature of depend origination they two sides of a coin they do different realities to be described but one proves the other”
Just as Rovelli found that the properties of particles emerge from interactions between them rather than inhering in individual particles, Nagarjuna teaches that objects (like a pen) emerge from the interplay of their constituent parts—neither the parts alone nor the collection exists from its own side.
“scarlet just indicated that the particles don't have really properties is the event between particles that has the property right so in a similar way the pen being in the nature of interdependence of course in fact relationships proves that the pen doesn't exist from its own site because it comes into being by causing conditions or that itself it disintegrates by certain kind of temperatures for example to this full extent is completely disintegrated by courses and conditions other than itself so there's a correlation between interdependence of the pen which proves that the pen doesn't exist all by itself right”
Nagarjuna rejects the notion that mind is ultimate reality, and instead dissolves the conventional/ultimate reality distinction by refusing to ask what ultimate reality 'is'—opening an ontological space where conventional phenomena remain meaningful without needing metaphysical grounding.
“it would object that it seems to me to object to the day that the mind is the ultimate reality which is something a a scientist don't like doesn't like because i want to understand the mighty mind in terms of something else uh normal language is ultimate reality nor matters you know god is intimidating and this doesn't leave us in the confusion it leaves us an incredible beautiful clear open space where i myself i'm not an entity anymore um my glasses are not an entity anymore nevertheless i can keep talking about myself in the glasses”
Nagarjuna's philosophy, specifically its relational and anti-essentialist stance, has liberated Rovelli from metaphysical prejudices about independent reality that were blocking genuine understanding of quantum mechanics.
“i found like a joint tool a conceptual tool obviously i didn't know anything about quantum physics obviously right that's not the point but the conceptual tour in which the uh it's liberating with respect to the prejudice about reality uh which i felt was was was strong in in my in our mind which was blocking us from being comfortable with quantum mechanics”
If a system has no properties except those manifested in interactions, then there is nothing to describe about it between interactions—the system is, in a sense, nothing in itself, only the interactions matter.
“if a system have no properties i mean what does mean a particle has no position no velocity no angular momentum no energy nothing unless interacting what is it okay it seems there's nothing there nothing to talk about”
Geshe Lhakdor's reading of Nagarjuna closely parallels Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics, particularly in the idea that mind/observer is not ultimate reality but is itself empty of inherent existence and part of the interdependent whole.
“if you see what we call a pen is based upon a particular basis that is suitable to be called a pen having all the right features or able to write hold it in a particular way etc etc so having all those kind of features or qualities so to say produces the idea okay this we impute as a pen or this we impute as an electron depend on how the electron for example reacts with its environment and we see the properties and then we say okay this we classify as an electron right”
Nagarjuna's fundamental radicality lies in questioning any attempt to find a fixed, solid ground or starting point upon which to build understanding of reality; his negation is not about denying the conventional world but about rejecting the search for ultimate, independent reality.
“what really impressed me in nagarjuna is his radicality in questioning any attempt to find a starting point a fix a ground a solid ground upon which to build our understanding of of of reality um the thai book is in a sense is it's all negative not this not this not this not that um and this is uh i this captured me completely”
Nagarjuna's approach is radically deflationary about metaphysics: it does not affirm alternative positive claims about reality but systematically negates all attempts to establish a fixed ground or ultimate foundation.
“the thai book is in a sense is it's all negative not this not this not this not that um and this is uh i this captured me completely because it's not only um don't try to think the objects by themselves but it's also uh don't ask the wrong question which is uh what is ultimate reality”
Rovelli's learning process showed that despite mastering quantum mechanics' formal apparatus as a student in the 1970s, he was not genuinely understanding it; years of reflection revealed the need for fundamental reconceptualization leading to his relational interpretation.
“i started quantum mechanics in the 70s as a student it seemed all clear to me uh i i read the books i did the exercises i could compute and a number of years later talking and thinking and under the influence of a lot of people i realized that that was totally wrong i was not understanding what to me um so this started a process of trying to make sense of it that slowly uh through various passages became the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics”
Niels Bohr famously stated that anyone who isn't shocked by quantum theory hasn't understood it, indicating that the theory's correct predictions coexist with deep interpretive puzzles about what the theory tells us about reality.
“niels bohr who famously said that anyone who isn't shocked by quantum theory hasn't understood it and quantum mechanics is so precise in its predictions but physicists still have a really hard time agreeing on what the theory tells us about the world”
Many physicists decline to give any interpretation of what quantum physics says about the world; they treat the theory as a purely predictive tool without ontological claims.
“there even a lot of physicists who decline to give any interpretation of what quantum physics says about the world”
Rovelli was initially skeptical of connecting Indian or Chinese philosophy with modern science based on earlier unsuccessful attempts, but was persuaded by repeated suggestions from colleagues to engage with Nagarjuna.
“i was very skeptical of going that direction um because some older attempts to connect uh indian or chinese philosophy with uh modern science i was not impressed by them so i resisted the idea but then somehow everybody was asking me have you read nigel julius or redneck and for me it was a shock”