In an earlier thread, I noted that one of the reasons (albeit a minor one) I am drawn to Buddhism is because of an intriguing possibility which I believe is coherent but for which I have zero evidence. The possibility comes from the fact that I view physics as:
"An exercise in the modeling of only the interactions of reality upon consciousnesses. It is specifically not a modeling of reality itself."[1]
Now because I see physics like that (and I'm not alone), a question I've often had is:
"Well, if physics doesn't tell me about reality itself, what would a field of study/thought/whatever look like that *would*?"For years my feeling was, "there is no such field". Reality is, as Bernard D'Espagnat[2] puts it, "veiled". I saw things as being, in a very true way, just like The Matrix, except there is no red pill, no glitches or edge effects, nothing[3]. The illusion is perfect. And that word "illusion" is important. Keep it mind.
So then I came across Buddhism. Now as an aside, my primary interest is not actually in this physics/reality thing at all. My initial interest in Buddhism was piqued purely by Matthieu Ricard's TED talk. He talked about training the mind so as to be kinder to others, and to develop personal peace and serenity. Even now, those are more important to me than any ontological implications. But the physics thing is a cool potential bonus.
OK, so the possibility of that bonus really first popped up as I watched a video by Bob Thurman in which he was discussing the Four Noble Truths. The specific topic at the time was the Second Noble Truth, which I understood to be something like
"The cause of suffering is attachment and craving". So did one of his students. So when Thurman said something about "illusion", both the student and I were caught unawares. She asked, effectively on my behalf:
"But I thought the cause of suffering was attachment or craving"And Thurman replied, in that grumpy style of his, waving his hand dismissively:
"Yes, yes, but it's really all about illusion."Huh? Illusion, thinks me. Illusion? Illuuuusion??
Illusion of what!? What am I deluded *about*?The connecting puzzle piece is my encounter with another video, this time by Ajahn Yuttadhammo[4] (a.k.a. Noah Greenspan), a Mahasi trained monk who produces some cool YouTube teachings. In one of those videos he was discussing some of the very effects often discussed on DoH -- jhanas and all that funkiness. But he then made the killer point (and I paraphrase):
"But those things, while nice, are not what we're trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve is an understanding of the underlying nature of reality"I think my heart actually skipped a beat at that point. (Maybe it was stream entry :-) ) I rewound and listened again. "...an understanding of the underlying nature of reality". Gulp. Back to Thurman: I am deluded. Yuttadhammo again: The underlying nature. Illlusion, understanding, illusion, understanding ...
Holy F*ckalamdingdong! Is ... is Buddhism a red pill!!??OK, calm down Johnny, calm down[5]. As I said initially, while I believe this stuff to be completely consistent -- not at all at odds -- with physics, it is sheer, and utter speculation. There is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. But the thing is, there could *never be* any evidence for a theory of reality, because the word "evidence" itself Just Is a name we give for *interactions between* reality and consciousnesses. (Instead, my current working hypothesis is that our only way of getting up close and personal with reality, just as with love, is not via a theory but instead via personal -- oh oh, there's that self again -- experience.)
Still, it is seductive. And as I say it is absolutely consistent with the veiled reality view of quantum mechanics as espoused by d'Espagnat and others. It's a
potential answer to my earlier question of
"Well, if physics doesn't tell me about reality itself, what would a field of study/thought/whatever look like that *would*?". Buddhism! Buddhism may be about precisely that.
As I said, none of this is the primary reason for me looking at Buddhism. But can you imagine the sheer awesomeosity if on enlightenment -- I mean the full blown traditional-interpretation wahoo, not this piddling jhanas and a&p mental gymnastics -- we really and truly get to See The Truth. Gawd, what a party we'll have

OK, all done.
JF
[1] To answer the specific question that triggered this new thread: yes, to a first approximation, I consider myself to be one of those "consciousnesses" with which reality is interacting (those interactions being what I call "physics").
[2] e.g.
"Reality and the Physicist :Knowledge, Duration and the Quantum World."[3] And where, to avoid Putnam's "brain in a vat" challenges, the actual underlying reality is, unlike The Matrix reality, simply ineffable; perhaps the best example of Wittgenstein's "
Whereof one cannot speak, thereon one must remain silent".
[4]
http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ajahn_Yuttadhammo[5] If you want a hint at my reaction, watch Hugh Laurie in this
Blackadder video clip just after Rowan Atkinson answer Laurie's question of "Are you the Scarlet Pimpernel" and Atkinson replies "Absolutely not"