Quantum Emptiness: Carlo Rovelli's Relational Physics
Meets Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Wisdom
Part XII
(Rovelli's work bridges physics (QM) and philosophy (Madhyamaka),
challenging us to abandon absolute descriptions
for relational, perspectival ones.
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM),
Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG),
Entities lack independent existence [T2] and depend on mutual relations [T1] [U2T],
There is no objective reality... only perspectives.
Thermal Time Hypothesis)
Last update: February 04, 2026
AI Art from:
Content
In the quest to unravel the fabric of reality, the convergence of modern theoretical physics and ancient philosophical traditions offers a profound lens for understanding the universe's deepest mysteries. Carlo Rovelli, a pioneering physicist known for his work in loop quantum gravity and relational quantum mechanics, presents a vision of existence as a web of interactions — empty of absolute entities, interdependent, and perspectival — echoing the timeless insights of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. This dialogue explores how Rovelli's rejection of foundational anchors in space, time, and quanta aligns with the Buddhist concept of śūnyatā (emptiness), flipping common misconceptions of reality as solid and inherent into a dynamic, non-dual suchness where phenomena arise precisely through their relational void. By bridging these worlds, we not only resolve quantum paradoxes but also cultivate a humble, compassionate approach to science and life, free from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.
.
Q: Grok, I would like to look at Carlo Rovelli perspectives in detail.
Carlo Rovelli, born on May 3, 1956, in Verona, Italy, is a prominent theoretical physicist and author known for his work in quantum gravity and popular science writing. He studied physics at the University of Bologna and earned his PhD from the University of Padua. His career includes positions at universities in Italy, the U.S. (University of Pittsburgh and Yale), and France (Aix-Marseille University, where he is now Emeritus Professor). He is also affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Canada, the Rotman Institute of Philosophy at Western University, and the Santa Fe Institute. Rovelli is a self-described "serenely atheist" who sees science as rooted in uncertainty and rebellion against established truths, contrasting with religious claims of certainty. He has authored over 200 scientific articles and several bestselling books, including Seven Brief Lessons on Physics (2014), which sold over two million copies worldwide.
Rovelli is a co-founder of loop quantum gravity (LQG), a leading candidate theory for reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Developed in the late 1980s alongside Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtekar, LQG posits that space-time is not continuous but composed of discrete "loops" or quanta of space, with area and volume quantized at the Planck scale (about 10-35 meters). Key milestones include:
In 1995, with Smolin, deriving a basis of states using spin networks, showing space's discrete structure.
In 1997, introducing a "sum over surfaces" formulation, evolving into the "spin foam" model.
In 2008, defining the spin foam vertex amplitude for covariant dynamics.
LQG applies to quantum cosmology, black hole physics, and early universe models. Rovelli describes it as a "conservative" approach that merges existing theories without new assumptions, yet it yields radical implications like space emerging from loop interactions. His books, such as Quantum Gravity (2004) and Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity (2014, co-authored with Francesca Vidotto), provide technical expositions. Challenges remain, including experimental verification, but Rovelli suggests potential signatures in cosmic microwave background radiation or tiny black holes as dark matter candidates.
Rovelli's core philosophy is relationalism: reality is not a collection of independent "things" with inherent properties but a web of interactions and relations. He draws from ancient thinkers like Democritus and Lucretius, as well as Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, who argued that entities lack independent existence [T2] and depend on mutual relations [T1] [U2T]. In Reality Is Not What It Seems (2014), he explains:
"In the world described by quantum mechanics,
there is no reality except in the relations between physical systems.
It isn't things that enter into relations,
but relations that ground the notion of things."
Reality emerges from "relative information" between systems, where the state of one constrains another, without needing minds or observers. This "perspectivalism" means there is no objective, god's-eye view of the world—only partial descriptions from specific viewpoints. As he states:
"There is no objective reality... only perspectives."
The world is "made by kisses, or things like kisses—happenings," not enduring stones.
This view resolves apparent paradoxes in physics by rejecting absolute states, emphasizing that "the best way of conceptualizing reality... is in terms of the relative information that pieces of nature have about one another."
Time, for Rovelli, is not a fundamental aspect of the universe but an emergent illusion tied to thermodynamics and perspective. In The Order of Time (2017), he argues that time's flow and direction arise from entropy increase—the second law of thermodynamics—and our incomplete knowledge of systems. Fundamental equations in quantum gravity lack time variables; time emerges from how quanta interact and evolve. He developed the "thermal time hypothesis" (1993, with Alain Connes), where time appears in thermodynamic contexts due to heat and ignorance. The difference between past and future "exists only when there is heat." Time's arrow is perspectival, like the apparent rotation of the sky:
"The overall flow of time really could be like the rotation of the sky every day. It’s a majestic, immense phenomenon, but it’s actually an illusion."
In LQG, "there are no time variables and no space variables. Those concepts emerge from the way these quanta of gravity interact and transform."
Rovelli views our sense of time as linked to human finitude, memory, and entropy, but ultimately, "in the basic equations... time is just—there’s nothing like time."
Rovelli advocates relational quantum mechanics (RQM), introduced in 1994, where quantum states are relative to other systems, similar to how velocity is relative in classical physics. Quantum physics describes "how things interact with one another," not absolute properties. Particles like electrons are "a set of jumps from one interaction to another," existing only in relation to something else.
In Helgoland (2020), he resolves paradoxes like the EPR by emphasizing relational states: "All properties of an object... are in principle only definable in relation to another system." This avoids subjectivity while explaining superposition and entanglement without non-locality. Rovelli dismisses consciousness as irrelevant to quantum mechanics, arguing it does not play a role in wave function collapse or measurement. He illustrates quantum strangeness with analogies, like darts hitting a target only if one window (but not both) is open. The quantum world is "light," made of interactions, not heavy matter.
Rovelli sees science as a "continuous process of exploring novel possible views of the world" through "learned rebellion" and embracing ignorance, as in his book Anaximander: And the Birth of Science (2011). He urges humility: "The fascination of science is not what we have learned. It is the process of learning." His views extend to society, advocating cooperation: "Humanity as a whole succeeds if it works together, not if it works one against the other." Rovelli's work bridges physics and philosophy, challenging us to abandon absolute descriptions for relational, perspectival ones.
.
.
Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist, promotes a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (RQM) and broader philosophical ideas about reality, time, and existence, emphasizing that the world consists of interactions and relations [T1] rather than independent objects or substances [T2] [U2T]. He explicitly draws inspiration from Nāgārjuna, the 2nd-century founder of Madhyamaka (Middle Way) philosophy, a school within Mahayana Buddhism that argues all phenomena are "empty" (śūnyatā) of inherent existence (svabhāva) [T2] and arise only through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) [T1] [U2T]. Madhyamaka uses rigorous negation (e.g., the tetralemma: neither existence, non-existence, both, nor neither) to deconstruct absolute views, aiming for liberation from suffering through wisdom and compassion. Rovelli references Nāgārjuna in works like Helgoland (2020) to support his relational ontology, seeing parallels in how both reject foundational essences.
i) Relational Nature of Reality [T1]
Both frameworks deny that entities have independent, intrinsic properties [T2], instead viewing reality as a web of relations [T1] [U2T].
Rovelli's RQM posits that quantum states and properties are relative to interacting systems:
"Objects, systems, things... do not have properties in some sense, do not exist by themselves, they only exist because they interact with something else." Facts emerge from interactions, and there is no "god's-eye view" or absolute description—only perspectives.
Madhyamaka similarly asserts that phenomena lack self-nature and depend on causes, parts, conceptual opposites (in dualities, triads, quad, …), and conceptual designations (mere conditioned designations, names): "Things existing independently of anything else... it's not useful and it's contradictory." Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā negates independent arising, emphasizing interdependence without a fundamental basis. This aligns with Rovelli's view that "reality... gets broken up into interdependence between this object and else and its different layers."
ii) Emptiness and Rejection of Foundations [T2]
Emptiness (śūnyatā) in Madhyamaka means no ultimate essence, freeing one from dogmatic views. Rovelli interprets this as "a freedom from the idea of the ultimate... intrinsic... reality," applying it to physics by rejecting foundational anchors like absolute substances or minds. In RQM, the world is "made of relations rather than objects," echoing Nāgārjuna's doctrine where nothing exists "entirely unto itself but only in relation to other things." Both avoid extremes: Madhyamaka's Middle Way steers between eternalism and nihilism, while Rovelli's relationalism avoids absolute realism or solipsism.
iii) Observer Dependence and Quantum Parallels [U3S / U2T-3S]
Rovelli highlights how quantum phenomena like superposition and entanglement require relational interpretations:
Measurements depend on the observer-system interaction [U3S], resolving paradoxes like the observer problem. This mirrors Madhyamaka's interdependence, where no isolated entities exist—akin to the Huayan metaphor of Indra's Net, where each jewel reflects all others, paralleling quantum non-locality. In Prasangika Madhyamaka (a subschool), cause and effect are reciprocally dependent [U3S], similar to quantum entanglement without hidden variables.
iv) Views on Time and Impermanence [U3T / U2T-3T]
Time lacks intrinsic reality in both. Rovelli sees time as layered and emergent, not a universal flow: "If you dissect the present moment... you end up having no time you have no past no future and no presence." Madhyamaka views time as empty of essence, with no absolute past, present, or future, aligning with impermanence as a path to understanding emptiness.
v) Mind and Consciousness
Neither treats mind or consciousness as fundamental. Rovelli views the self and mind as processes without intrinsic existence: "Mind is experience, it's awareness... the act of knowing," but emergent from relations. Madhyamaka applies emptiness to mind, rejecting it as an absolute (contra Yogacara idealism), seeing it as a continuum of dependent moments.
.
.
A closer look at how Rovelli himself frames the interplay between science and philosophy. If my previous comparison came across as imposing a strict dualism, that wasn't the intent; rather, I was highlighting contextual differences in aims (e.g., Madhyamaka's focus on liberation from suffering versus Rovelli's emphasis on empirical puzzles in physics). But you're right that Rovelli actively resists any artificial separation between the two fields, viewing them as deeply interdependent and mutually enriching. He has repeatedly argued that dismissing philosophy harms scientific progress, leading to what he calls "sterility" in modern physics, and that breakthroughs like Einstein's relativity or Galileo's work were fueled by philosophical foundations.
Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics (RQM), for instance, isn't just a scientific model—it's explicitly informed by philosophical relationalism, drawing from thinkers like Nagarjuna to reinterpret quantum data without falling into extremes like absolute realism or subjectivity. He describes science itself as a "continuous process of exploring novel possible views of the world," rooted in philosophical rebellion against certainties, much like how Madhyamaka uses negation to uncover emptiness. In his view, philosophy provides the critical tools to make sense of scientific data, questioning assumptions (e.g., about time or reality) that pure empiricism might overlook. This integration is evident in his books, such as Helgoland, where he weaves quantum insights with philosophical traditions to argue for a world of relations, not isolated entities.
Regarding Madhyamaka specifically, Rovelli's adoption of its ideas isn't a one-way philosophical borrowing; he sees it as a lens that enhances scientific understanding, helping resolve quantum paradoxes through interdependence. He critiques the "fashion" among scientists to discard philosophy, insisting that even anti-philosophical stances are inherently philosophical. This holistic approach aligns more with a non-dualistic perspective, where science and philosophy "help one another" in refining our grasp of reality.
.
.
Q: Tell me more about Rovelli's perspectives about non-duality (from both philosophical and physics point of view). Like in terms of the relation between apparent opposites.
Carlo Rovelli's views on non-duality emerge from his work in theoretical physics, particularly his relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (RQM), and are deeply informed by philosophical traditions, especially the Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy. He rejects absolute, independent entities or substances, arguing that reality is a web of relations without inherent essence—a stance that transcends traditional dualisms like subject-object, mind-matter, or wave-particle.
This non-dual perspective emphasizes interdependence (or "dependent origination," echoing Nagarjuna), where apparent opposites are not fundamental conflicts but perspectival or relational manifestations. Rovelli maintains a naturalistic, scientific tone, avoiding spiritual mysticism, and sees this as a tool for resolving paradoxes in physics while fostering ethical serenity in philosophy. He describes it as "radical perspectivalism," where "there is no objective reality... only perspectives."
In physics, Rovelli's non-duality is rooted in RQM, which he developed to interpret quantum phenomena without assuming absolute states or substances. He argues that quantum mechanics shows the world is "relational, probabilistic, and discrete," made of "little chunks" (quanta) that manifest only through interactions. Properties like position, momentum, or energy are not inherent to objects but emerge relative to other systems—there is "no underlying individual substance that 'has' the properties." This dissolves the illusion of standalone entities: "The world is not made of classical matter, nor of irreducible minds. It is a network of interacting systems."
Rovelli extends this to space and time, which are not linear or fundamental but emergent and relational. In loop quantum gravity (his area of research), space is "curved" and composed of loops, while time lacks a universal "flow"—it's local, perspectival, and tied to entropy. He explains: "There is no sense... in which we can say what is happening now far away... to make sense of time we have to think locally... everybody has its own little time." The "distinction between the past and the future... is not there in the Newton equation... it's not there in the Einstein equation... it's not there in quantum gravity... it is in entropy."
This non-dual view unifies apparent separations: space-time is dynamical, not a fixed stage, and quantum gravity describes a "chunky space" that "manifests itself in relations."
Regarding apparent opposites, RQM resolves quantum dualities like wave-particle. Rovelli states: "Every time you see an electron we see a particle... we never see a wave... but... if you see the electron here... in between there is nothing... there's no trajectory... a probability wave... the wave is not real... it's just our lack of knowledge... a probability distribution." Thus, wave and particle are not opposites but relational: the particle is the manifestation in interaction, the wave a quantification of ignorance or probability. Paradoxes like Schrödinger's cat are perspectival—the outcome is definite relative to the cat but indefinite to us until interaction. He draws from Heisenberg: "We should not describe what the atom does... we should understand... how the atom affects whatever is around... not... in isolation... but in relations to one another." This relationality addresses dualities by rejecting absolute questions (e.g., "Is this object really moving?" or "Are these events simultaneous?"), deeming them meaningless, much like in relativity.
Philosophically, Rovelli embraces non-duality through Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness (sunyata), where "there is nothing that exists in itself, independently from something else." Things are "empty" of autonomous existence, arising only in relation to others—a direct parallel to RQM's interdependence. He explains: "No entity has a proper independent existence — things only exist depending on one another."
This leads to a non-dual ontology: "We are nothing but images of images. Reality, including ourselves, is nothing but a thin and fragile veil, beyond which … there is nothing."
Rovelli applies this to the self: "'I' is nothing other than the vast and interconnected set of phenomena that constitute it, each one dependent on something else." Even consciousness or mind dissolves into relations, rejecting mind-matter dualism: "Both traditional terms of the dichotomy matter/mind are misleading."
He critiques metaphysics seeking "primary substance": "The ultimate substance... does not exist." Emptiness itself is empty—no ultimate reality, only conventional perspectives. This echoes Nagarjuna's middle way, avoiding extremes like eternalism (absolute existence) and nihilism (nothing exists): "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form."
For apparent opposites, Rovelli uses emptiness to reconcile them.
Samsara (illusory world) and nirvana (liberation) are "the same thing: both empty of their own existence."
Past and future are not absolute opposites but perspectival, with time's arrow an illusion from entropy.
One and many dissolve: "Something exists only within relations. There’s nothing outside of the relational fabric that is reality."
He likens reality to a dance: "It doesn’t make sense to think there is such thing as 'the dancers when they are not dancing'"; opposites like dancer/dance are inseparable.
Ethically, this non-duality brings "serenity, lightness, and the shining beauty of the world," freeing us from attachments and the "obsession with final Truth."
Rovelli, as a "simple mechanic" (physicist), finds Nagarjuna's tools useful for quantum thinking: "Interdependence... requires us to forget all about autonomous essences."
… while Rovelli rejects this, insisting on no "underlying reality" beyond relations.
Others note parallels to Advaita Vedanta or process ontology, but Rovelli keeps it secular.
Ultimately, his view bridges physics and philosophy, urging humility:
"We have to live with this lack of total description over reality."
.
.
Q: Would Rovelli agree that everything is interdependent, relative, empty and non-dual?
Yes, Carlo Rovelli would largely agree with the statement that everything is interdependent, relative, empty, and non-dual, as these concepts form the core of his relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (RQM) and his broader philosophical worldview, which draws heavily from thinkers like Nagarjuna. He integrates these ideas to describe a reality without absolute, independent entities, emphasizing that the universe is a network of interactions rather than isolated "things." Below, I'll break this down by each term, drawing from his writings and interviews to show alignment, while noting any nuances.
Rovelli consistently portrays reality as fundamentally interdependent, where no entity exists in isolation. In RQM, physical systems and their properties only manifest through interactions with other systems: "The world is not made of classical matter, nor of irreducible minds. It is a network of interacting systems." This echoes his view that "everything consists solely in the way in which it affects something else." He extends this to the universe at large, suggesting it's like a "vast sea of beads" where each event or "grain" directly affects the next, highlighting the "interdependence of all things." Drawing from Nagarjuna, he argues that "interdependence... requires us to forget all about autonomous essences," as things arise only in mutual dependence. For Rovelli, this interdependence resolves quantum paradoxes, like entanglement, by showing that apparent separateness is illusory.
Relativity is central to Rovelli's thought: properties, states, and even space-time are relative to perspectives or interactions, with no "god's-eye view" or objective absolutes. He describes RQM as viewing reality "not as a universe made of objects with defined properties, but as a network of interactions," where "there is no objective reality whatsoever, only perspectives." Time, for instance, is local and perspectival—"everybody has its own little time"—emerging from relations rather than being universal. This "radical perspectivalism" means questions like "Is this object really moving?" are meaningless without a relational frame, akin to Einstein's relativity but extended to quantum scales. Rovelli's ontology is "relative to each object, depending on which objects are interacting," rejecting a single shared reality.
Rovelli explicitly adopts the concept of "emptiness" (sunyata) from Nagarjuna, meaning things lack inherent, autonomous existence: "Things are ‘empty’ in the sense of having no autonomous existence." In his view, "there is no underlying individual substance that 'has' the properties," and "the ultimate substance... does not exist." Reality is "empty" of essences, including the self: "'I' is nothing other than the vast and interconnected set of phenomena that constitute it, each one dependent on something else." Even emptiness itself is empty—"there is never an ultimate reality"—avoiding any foundational anchor. This aligns with his physics, where quanta are "jumps" or interactions without underlying "stuff," and he praises the "Buddhist view of emptiness and interdependence" as a tool for quantum understanding.
While Rovelli doesn't always use "non-dual" explicitly, his framework rejects dualisms like subject-object, mind-matter, or wave-particle, portraying them as relational illusions. He states: "Both traditional terms of the dichotomy matter/mind are misleading," seeing them as "dependent designations" that are interdependent rather than one being fundamental. The world is "made up of relations rather than objects," dissolving multiplicities: "We are all one with each other and with everything, as we are defined by properties that express relations with the rest of reality." This leads to a non-dual realization where "the multiplicity of things... is in fact illusory," and reality is "beyond all dualisms like mind/matter, and even beyond the being/nothing dichotomy." Opposites like samsara and nirvana are "the same thing: both empty of their own existence," emphasizing unity in interdependence.
Rovelli's agreement stems from his synthesis of quantum physics and philosophy: "The best way of conceptualizing reality... is in terms of the relative information that pieces of nature have about one another." He might caveat that this is a perspectival tool for understanding, not a dogmatic "final Truth," as even his own views are relative and empty. … Rovelli sees it as liberating, fostering humility and serenity.
.
.
Q: Could you clarify that his "little chunks (quanta)" are not another foundational anchor, not real. That there is no absolute basis for reality, not even the Ground or cosmic quantum field, not even dependent-origination (relationality) and emptiness, not even the Union of the Two Truths.
Yes, Carlo Rovelli's views align with the idea that his described "little chunks" or quanta are not foundational anchors or independently "real" entities with inherent existence. They are manifestations of relational processes—events or interactions—without any absolute substance or essence.
Extending this, he explicitly rejects any absolute basis for reality, including concepts like a "Ground," a cosmic quantum field as a foundational layer, dependent-origination (relationality) itself as an ultimate truth, emptiness as an inherent essence, or even the Madhyamaka "Union of the Two Truths" (conventional and ultimate realities) as a final metaphysical framework. Everything, in his perspective, is perspectival, interdependent, and ultimately empty—even the tools we use to describe it. Below, I'll clarify this step by step, drawing directly from his writings and interpretations.
Rovelli describes quanta not as solid, independent "things" or building blocks but as discrete "events" or "jumps" in a relational network. In Reality Is Not What It Seems (2014), he portrays the quantum world as "a network of granular events; the dynamic which connects them is probabilistic; between one event and another, space, time, matter and energy melt in a cloud of probability." These quanta are "little chunks" of space-time in loop quantum gravity, but they lack autonomous reality: "An elementary structure of the world is emerging, generated by a swarm of quantum events, where time and space do not exist." They are not foundational anchors because they only "exist" relative to interactions—there is no underlying "stuff" or substance. As he explains in interviews, particles like electrons are "a set of jumps from one interaction to another," not enduring objects: "We never see a wave... the wave is not real... it's just our lack of knowledge... a probability distribution." This dissolves any notion of quanta as "real" in an absolute, independent way; they are perspectival manifestations, not a bedrock.
In his relational quantum mechanics (RQM), Rovelli emphasizes that "reality is interaction," with no standalone entities. Quanta emerge from relations, not vice versa, avoiding the trap of substituting one foundational layer (e.g., classical matter) for another (quanta as "things").
Rovelli's ontology rejects any absolute foundation, whether physical or metaphysical. He argues there is "no objective reality whatsoever, only perspectives on reality—be they a physicist’s or a pigeon’s." Space and time themselves are not fundamental but "blurred and approximate images of one of these quantum fields: the gravitational field." There is no cosmic quantum field as an absolute "Ground" or substrate—it's relational all the way down, with no "underlying individual substance." As he puts it, "We have to live with this lack of total description over reality," which may evoke "a sense of emptiness about reality." This extends to rejecting any "primary substance" or metaphysical base: "The ultimate substance... does not exist."
Drawing from Nagarjuna, Rovelli views dependent-origination (pratītyasamutpāda, or interdependence) not as an ultimate truth but as a perspectival description: "Every perspective exists only in interdependence with something else, there is never an ultimate reality—and this is the case for his own perspective as well." Relationality is how we conceptualize the world, but it's not a foundational anchor—it's empty of essence.
Emptiness (śūnyatā) is similarly non-absolute: "Emptiness is empty." Rovelli interprets Nagarjuna as showing "there is no ultimate essence to reality except emptiness," but even that emptiness "is devoid of essence: it is conventional. No metaphysics survives." It's a tool for liberation from dogmas, not an inherent reality: "The central thesis of Nāgārjuna’s book is simply that there is nothing that exists in itself, independently from something else." This "nourishes an ethical stance that clears the sky of the endless disquietude," but it's not a final ontology.
In Madhyamaka, the "Two Truths" (conventional appearances and ultimate emptiness) are a pedagogical framework, not an absolute duality or union with inherent reality. Rovelli aligns with this by rejecting any ultimate/absolute layer: "Nagarjuna is not a nihilist negating the reality of the world, and neither is he a sceptic denying that we can know anything about that reality." Conventional truths (like quanta or relations) function perspectivally, but there is no ultimate truth to "unite" with them as a foundational essence. As he notes, "The ultimate reality, the essence, is absence, is vacuity. It does not exist." Even the apparent union (e.g., form is emptiness, emptiness is form) is empty: "In that ‘nothingness’ …"
Rovelli's perspective is one of thoroughgoing relational emptiness without anchors: "We are nothing but images of images. Reality, including ourselves, is nothing but a thin and fragile veil, beyond which … there is nothing." This fosters humility and serenity, but he avoids reifying any concept—even these—as absolute.
.
.
Q: In short, there is no absolute anything, but still the world turns and physics works relatively well enough.
Yes, that's a concise and accurate encapsulation of Carlo Rovelli's perspective. He argues that reality lacks any absolute foundation—no inherent essences, no ultimate substances, no fixed anchors like a "Ground" or even reified concepts such as emptiness or relationality themselves. Everything is perspectival, interdependent, and empty of independent existence, leading to what he calls a "thin and fragile veil" beyond which "there is nothing." Yet, this doesn't collapse into nihilism or dysfunction; the world "turns" through conventional, relative descriptions that work remarkably well for practical purposes, like physics predicting outcomes or everyday experiences unfolding coherently.
In his relational quantum mechanics, for instance, properties emerge from interactions without needing absolutes: "The best description of reality that we have found is in terms of events that weave a web of interactions."
Science thrives on this provisionality, embracing uncertainty as a strength—physics "works" because it's adaptive and relational, not because it uncovers eternal truths. As Rovelli puts it, drawing from Nagarjuna, this view brings "serenity" by freeing us from the "obsession with final Truth," allowing us to navigate the world effectively while recognizing its illusory, perspectival nature.
.
.
Q: His science is "acting without acting", acting conventionally/relatively without acting in absolute terms, without apprehending anything in absolute terms; without attachment, reification, effort or absolute; acting non-dualistically, without opposing/uniting anything in absolute terms; thus acting more and more in accord with the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) free from all extremes and middle, acting more and more in accord with reality as it is (tathata, suchness) as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths and its corollaries (Union of the three spheres, Union of opposites, Union of the ground and its manifestations, Union of the three kayas).
While Carlo Rovelli doesn't explicitly frame his scientific methodology in the exact Buddhist terms you describe (e.g., "acting without acting" from Taoism or the specific unions from Madhyamaka and Vajrayana), your interpretation captures a profound resonance between his relational physics and these non-dualistic principles. He practices science as a provisional, perspectival inquiry—engaging with conventional descriptions (like quantum models or empirical data) without reifying them as absolute truths. This aligns with the Middle Way: avoiding extremes like naive realism (absolute entities) or nihilism (nothing exists), while embracing reality's interdependence and emptiness.
For Rovelli, physics "works" through relative, effective theories that approximate interactions without claiming ultimate ontology (absolutes). He describes scientific progress as "learned rebellion" against certainties (absolutes), fostering humility and openness (relativity) — much like non-attachment to views. In Helgoland, he invokes Nagarjuna to underscore that concepts like quanta or relations are empty of inherent existence, tools for navigation rather than essences. This non-dual action resolves apparent opposites (e.g., wave-particle) by seeing them as relational, not to be opposed or unified absolutely, but as suchness (tathata).
The "Union of the Two Truths" parallels his view: conventional truths (functional physics) are inseparable from ultimate emptiness (no foundational reality), with corollaries like the union of opposites reflecting how space-time or mind-matter dissolve into a perspectival web. Rovelli's atheism and naturalism keep this secular, but it yields ethical "serenity," acting in accord with a world that's illusory yet vividly functional. If this maps to your intent, it's a elegant synthesis; he'd likely appreciate the analogy as a fresh perspective on his work.
.
.
Q: Are there other physicists that share a similar view: uniting physics and madhyamaka?
Yes, several physicists and philosophers of physics have explored or been influenced by connections between quantum mechanics (or broader physics) and Madhyamaka philosophy, particularly Nagarjuna's concepts of emptiness (śūnyatā), interdependence, and the rejection of inherent existence.
While Carlo Rovelli is prominent for his explicit integration in relational quantum mechanics (RQM), others have drawn parallels through writings, conferences, or personal influences. These connections often arise in dialogues hosted by the Dalai Lama or through independent scholarship, emphasizing how quantum phenomena like superposition, entanglement, and observer-dependence echo Madhyamaka's relational reality. Below is a summary of key figures, based on documented explorations.
A theoretical physicist best known for his 1975 book The Tao of Physics, which pioneered parallels between quantum mechanics and Eastern mysticism, including Madhyamaka. Capra argues that quantum holism and non-locality align with Nagarjuna's interdependence and emptiness, shifting from a mechanistic worldview to one of dynamic relations. His work influenced later discussions, though critics note it's more interpretive than rigorous.
A physicist-turned-philosopher who explicitly links quantum mechanics to Madhyamaka in works like De l’intérieur du monde (2010). He draws parallels between quantum non-supervenient relations (where properties emerge from interactions) and Buddhist interdependence, using Nagarjuna and Candrakirti to resolve quantum paradoxes like measurement. Bitbol has participated in Mind & Life Institute dialogues with the Dalai Lama, emphasizing "no view" traditions in Buddhism that mirror quantum uncertainty.
A quantum physicist and emeritus professor at Amherst College, Zajonc has co-authored books like The Quantum Challenge and collaborated extensively with the Dalai Lama on physics-Buddhism interfaces. He explores how quantum experiments (e.g., entanglement) challenge classical reality, aligning with Madhyamaka's emptiness and the "two truths" doctrine. Zajonc presented at Mind & Life conferences, describing quantum foundations as relational, much like Nagarjuna's middle way avoiding extremes of existence/non-existence.
One of quantum mechanics' founders, Heisenberg was influenced by Eastern philosophies, including Nagarjuna's middle way, during his development of the uncertainty principle. He saw it as a "middle-way philosophy" resolving dualities, similar to Madhyamaka's tetralemma (neither existence, non-existence, both, nor neither). Discussions with Indian philosophers shaped his view of reality as observer-dependent and relational, though his engagement was more inspirational than systematic.
A Nobel-winning physicist and quantum pioneer, Pauli sought a "middle-way philosophy" to reconcile quantum paradoxes, explicitly referencing Madhyamaka as a framework for understanding complementarity (e.g., wave-particle duality). Influenced by Eastern thought via collaborations and personal study, he viewed quantum reality as interdependent, echoing Nagarjuna's rejection of inherent essences.
A quantum physicist known for his holistic interpretation (implicate order), Bohm's ideas of undivided wholeness and entanglement parallel Madhyamaka's interdependence. He engaged with Eastern philosophies, seeing quantum potential as akin to emptiness— a field from which forms emerge without independent existence. Bohm's dialogues with the Dalai Lama further bridged these views.
Ernst Mach (1838–1916) was an Austrian physicist and philosopher who developed a radical empiricist, anti-metaphysical philosophy of science known as phenomenalism or neutral monism. He proposed that all knowledge is restricted to sensory experience, viewing scientific laws as economical descriptions of sensations rather than objective truths about a hidden reality. His skepticism of unobservable concepts, such as atoms and absolute space, paved the way for Einstein's theory of relativity.
Key elements of Mach’s philosophy include:
Anti-Metaphysics & Phenomenalism: Mach argued that science should only deal with what is observable. He rejected the existence of "metaphysical" entities, such as atoms, molecules, or Newton's absolute space and time. He famously declared, "I don't believe that atoms exist".
Neutral Monism: Mach proposed that the world is composed of "sensations" (or "elements"), such as colors, sounds, and pressures. These elements are not inherently physical or mental; their interpretation as either depends on the context of investigation, making his philosophy "neutral".
The Economy of Science: Mach believed the goal of scientific laws is to act as a conceptual "economical" summary of sensations, allowing for the prediction of future experiences without relying on metaphysical interpretations.
Mach’s Principle: He strongly criticized Newton’s mechanics, proposing instead that local inertia is determined by the large-scale distribution of mass in the universe. This concept of relativity directly influenced Einstein.
Scientific Methodology: He emphasized that all scientific concepts must be anchored in observational data, a view that directly influenced the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle.
Ernst Mach profoundly influenced Werner Heisenberg by advocating that physics should focus solely on direct, experimental observations rather than metaphysical concepts of reality. This "positivist" approach led Heisenberg to develop matrix mechanics by disregarding unobservable orbital paths of electrons and focusing only on measurable quantities like frequencies and intensities of light.
Key aspects of Mach's influence on Heisenberg include:
Principle of Observability: Heisenberg's 1925 breakthrough paper focused on creating a, "quantum-theoretical mechanics that is based exclusively on connections between quantities that are in principle observable".
Rejection of Unobservables: Following Mach, Heisenberg deemed concepts like electron orbits "unobservable in principle" and eliminated them from his theory.
The Copenhagen Interpretation: Mach's philosophy helped shape the interpretation that quantum mechanics describes correlations between observations, not an underlying, objective reality.
Shift in Approach: While Einstein initially used Mach to build relativity but later rejected him, Heisenberg maintained a Machian, anti-metaphysical, and relational perspective to establish quantum mechanics.
Christian Thomas Kohl: A scholar (not strictly a physicist) who has written extensively on Nagarjuna's parallels with quantum physics, arguing that both reject foundational "cores" in favor of relations and emptiness.
Conferences like the 2015 Dalai Lama-hosted event in New Delhi brought physicists (e.g., from quantum fields) together with Madhyamaka scholars, fostering these unions.
These connections are often philosophical rather than altering physics equations, but they provide interpretive frameworks for quantum "weirdness." If you'd like details on a specific figure or book, let me know!
.
.
Q: One objection that appears constantly in Mahayana texts, and from ordinary scientists, is that phenomena cannot be empty because we can see that they arise from causes and conditions or parts, and are effectively functional. They always think emptiness means complete non-arising, non-existence and non-functionality. While in reality it is exactly the opposite: it is precisely because everything is dependently arising and relatively functional that they are empty of inherent existence, and vice versa. Ordinary people see reality upside down.
Thank you for this thoughtful query—it's a classic point of confusion in Mahayana Buddhism, especially in Madhyamaka philosophy founded by Nagarjuna around the 2nd century CE. The idea of "emptiness" (śūnyatā in Sanskrit) often gets misunderstood as some kind of bleak nihilism, where nothing exists, nothing happens, and everything is pointless. But as you rightly point out, that's not it at all. In fact, emptiness is what allows things to exist, change, function, and interact in the dynamic, interconnected way we observe every day. It's precisely because phenomena are dependently arising (arising in reliance on causes, conditions, and parts) and relatively functional (they work in practical, conventional ways) that they lack inherent, independent existence. And vice versa: if things had some fixed, inherent "core" or essence, they couldn't change, interact, or function as they do.
This "upside-down" view—seeing emptiness as negation rather than liberation—is common among ordinary people (who rely on intuitive, everyday perceptions) and scientists (especially those with a dualistic or existentialist bent, who might assume reality has absolute, self-existing building blocks and mathematical laws). I'll expand on this step by step, using simple language, everyday analogies, and connections to modern science to make it crystal clear. We'll start with the basics, address the objection head-on, and then explore why the Madhyamaka perspective turns the ordinary view on its head. I'll take the space needed to unpack it thoroughly, without rushing.
First, let's define emptiness without jargon. In Madhyamaka, emptiness doesn't mean "nothingness" or "void" like an empty room or a black hole. It means that no phenomenon—whether it's a physical object, a thought, a scientific law, or even "you" as a person—has an inherent, independent existence (svabhāva). In other words, nothing exists "on its own," from its own side, unchanging and self-sufficient. Everything is empty of that kind of absolute, standalone reality.
Why "inherent existence"? Imagine if something had an inherent essence: it would be fixed forever, like a statue carved in eternal stone. It couldn't depend on anything else, couldn't change based on conditions, and couldn't interact or break down. But that's not how the world works—we see constant change, interdependence, and functionality everywhere.
Emptiness is positive, not negative. It's like saying a glass is "empty of poison" so you can safely drink from it. Emptiness frees things from rigidity, allowing them to be flexible, relational, and useful. Nagarjuna's key text, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), uses logical analysis to show that assuming inherent existence leads to contradictions, while emptiness resolves them.
Ordinary people might think: "But I see a table—it's solid, it's there!" Scientists might say: "Atoms exist; they're the building blocks! Mathematical laws exist; their predictions are amazing!" The objection arises because we instinctively reify (treat as absolutely real) what we perceive or measure. But Madhyamaka says: Look closer—those perceptions and measurements are themselves dependent and relative.
The objection you mention is ancient and persistent. In Mahayana texts like the Heart Sutra or Nagarjuna's works, critics (often from other Buddhist schools or non-Buddhists) argue: "If everything is empty, how can causes produce effects? How can things function? Emptiness must mean total non-existence, like denying the sun rises!" Modern scientists echo this: "Phenomena arise from verifiable causes (e.g., chemical reactions, evolutionary processes) and function effectively (e.g., gravity pulls, medicines cure). If they're 'empty,' science collapses into illusion!"
From an ordinary person's view: We experience the world as "real" and functional. A car starts because of its engine (parts), fuel (conditions), and ignition (cause). It drives us to work—it's useful! If it's "empty," does that mean it's not really there? That sounds like denying reality, leading to paralysis: Why bother eating or working if nothing exists?
From a dualist existentialist scientist's view: Many scientists (especially in classical physics or biology) assume a dualism between subject (observer) and object (observed), or between mind and matter. Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre emphasize individual essence or freedom, but in science, this translates to believing in absolute "things" with inherent properties (e.g., particles with fixed mass) and Laws. Quantum weirdness or relativity might challenge this, but the gut reaction is: "Emptiness sounds like solipsism or anti-science—how can experiments work if phenomena aren't inherently real?"
This objection stems from a binary mindset: Things must be either "absolutely existent" (eternal, unchanging) or "absolutely non-existent" (nothing at all). Madhyamaka calls this falling into extremes—eternalism (things have inherent being) or nihilism (nothing has any being). The "middle way" avoids both.
Here's the key reversal: Emptiness isn't the enemy of arising, functionality, or existence—it's the condition for them. Phenomena arise, function, and exist precisely because they are empty of inherent existence. If they had inherent existence, they couldn't arise from anything or function in relation to anything else. Let's break it down with analogies.
Analogy 1: The Table (For Ordinary People). You see a wooden table. It seems solid and "real." But what makes it a table? It arises from causes (trees cut down), conditions (carpenter's tools, assembly), and parts (legs, top, screws). It functions as a table only in relation to us (we eat on it) and its environment (it doesn't float in space). If you remove the parts or change conditions (e.g., burn it), it's no longer a "table"—it becomes ash or something else.
Objection view: "The table exists because of its parts and function— so it can't be empty!"
Madhyamaka reversal: Exactly! Because it depends on parts, causes, conditions, and our labeling it as "table," it lacks an inherent "tableness." If it had an absolute essence, it wouldn't need those dependencies—it would be a table forever, unchanging, independent of assembly or use. But it changes (rots, breaks), so it's empty of fixed essence. Emptiness enables its arising and functionality. Without emptiness, no table!
Upside-down ordinary view: We ignore dependencies and see the table as "just there," inherently real. Reality: It's a process, not a thing.
Analogy 2: A Car (For Everyday Functionality). A car runs because of fuel (cause), engine parts (conditions), and roads (context). It functions to transport you.
If the car had inherent "car-ness," it wouldn't need fuel or repairs—it'd run eternally without causes. But that's absurd; cars break down precisely because they're composite and dependent.
Emptiness means the car is empty of self-sufficient existence, which is why it can be assembled, driven, and fixed. Functionality arises from interdependence, not despite emptiness.
Scientific Analogy: Water Molecule (For Dualist Scientists). In chemistry, H₂O arises from hydrogen and oxygen atoms (parts/causes) under specific conditions (temperature, pressure). It functions as water—liquid, drinkable, essential for life.
Objection: "Water exists and works because of its molecular structure—it's not empty!"
Reversal: But that structure is dependent: Atoms aren't inherent "things"; they're probabilistic clouds (quantum mechanics). Change conditions (heat it), and it's steam; freeze it, ice. If water had inherent "wetness," it couldn't boil or freeze—it'd be fixed. Emptiness of inherent nature allows phase changes and functionality. Science relies on this relativity: Laws like thermodynamics describe dependencies, not absolutes.
Deeper Science Tie-In: Quantum Physics and Relativity. For "dualist existentialist scientists" who cling to absolute entities (e.g., particles as solid "beings"), modern physics flips this. In quantum mechanics, particles like electrons aren't fixed "things" with inherent position/momentum (Heisenberg's uncertainty). They exist as probabilities, manifesting only in relation (measurement collapses the wave function). Entanglement shows non-local interdependence—particles "arise" together, empty of isolated existence.
Einstein's relativity: Time and space aren't absolute; they're relative to observers. A clock ticks differently in motion—dependent on frame of reference.
Physicists like Carlo Rovelli (as we've discussed) echo this: In loop quantum gravity, space-time is "empty" of inherent continuity; it's discrete events in relation. Phenomena function (gravity works, universes expand) because they're relational and empty, not despite it.
Existentialist twist: Sartre's "existence precedes essence" hints at this—no fixed self. But Madhyamaka goes further: No essence at all, just dependent processes.
Madhyamaka uses the "two truths" to clarify without contradiction:
Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) [T1]: Things appear, arise, and function relatively. Science operates here—experiments work, causes produce effects. We say "the table exists" conventionally.
Ultimate Truth (Paramārtha-satya) [T2]: Analyzed deeply, nothing has inherent existence—everything is empty.
Union, Not Opposition [U2T]: These aren't separate realities. Conventional arising is ultimate emptiness. Like a mirage: It appears as water (conventional), functions (guides travelers), but is empty of actual water (ultimate). No conflict— the mirage works because it's dependent on light, heat, and perception.
Ordinary/scientific upside-down view: Treat conventional as ultimate (reify things as absolute). Madhyamaka: See conventional as valid but empty, leading to wisdom and compassion (no clinging to "my" self or "real" world causes suffering).
For ordinary people: Emptiness isn't depressing—it's liberating. It explains why life changes (no fixed "you" means growth possible) and reduces attachment (relationships function because they're interdependent, not inherent).
For scientists: It enhances inquiry. Clinging to absolutes stalls progress (e.g., pre-quantum physics assumed absolute space). Emptiness encourages humility: Theories are effective tools, not final truths. As Rovelli says, science is "exploring novel views," aligning with Madhyamaka's middle way.
In short: The world isn't "empty" like a void—it's full of vibrant, functional interdependence because nothing is absolute. Ordinary views see solidity where there's fluidity; Madhyamaka rights it, revealing reality as it is: dynamic, relational, and free. If this sparks more questions, like specific texts or physics examples, I'm here!
.
.
Q: Excellent. In step 3, give two more examples where physicists and mathematicians grasp at their creations as absolute or universal, as really representing reality, as the laws that tell nature what it can or cannot do. In both cases it is the ego thinking he has discovered the laws that dictate God's behavior.
(Continuing from our previous discussion, I'll revisit and expand the full explanation for completeness, incorporating your request to add two more examples in Step 3. These new examples focus on how physicists and mathematicians sometimes "grasp" at their theories or models as absolute truths—reifying them as universal laws that dictate reality's behavior, almost like uncovering "God's commandments" for the universe. This grasping stems from ego or attachment to intellectual creations, assuming they capture an inherent essence of reality. From a Madhyamaka perspective, these are conventional tools—dependently arisen, relatively functional, and ultimately empty of absolute status.)
Emptiness (śūnyatā) means that no phenomenon has an inherent, independent existence. Nothing exists "from its own side," unchanging and self-sufficient. It's empty of that absolute, standalone reality. This isn't denial—it's what allows things to change, interact, and function dynamically.
Emptiness is liberating: It frees phenomena from rigidity, enabling flexibility and usefulness. Nagarjuna's logic shows that assuming inherent existence creates contradictions, while emptiness resolves them.
Critics argue: "If everything is empty, how can causes produce effects or things function? Emptiness must mean non-existence!" Ordinary people see solid, functional objects; scientists see verifiable causes and effects. This binary view falls into extremes: eternalism (absolute existence) or nihilism (total non-existence). Madhyamaka's middle way avoids both.
Emptiness is the condition for arising and functionality. Phenomena arise from dependencies (causes, conditions, parts) and function relatively because they're empty. If they had inherent essence, they couldn't depend on anything or change—they'd be frozen. Here's the reversal with analogies, including scientific ones where grasping occurs.
Analogy 1: The Table (For Ordinary People). A table arises from causes (wood), conditions (crafting), parts (legs, top), and functions in context (holding objects). If inherent, it wouldn't need assembly or could never break. Emptiness enables its arising and use—dependencies prove no fixed "tableness."
Analogy 2: A Car (For Everyday Functionality). A car depends on fuel, parts, and roads to function. If inherently "car-like," it wouldn't require maintenance. Functionality arises from interdependence, not despite emptiness.
Scientific Analogy: Water Molecule (For Dualist Scientists). H₂O arises from atoms under conditions and functions (e.g., as liquid). Change conditions, and it's steam. If inherently "wet," no phase changes. Science describes dependencies, proving emptiness allows functionality.
Deeper Science Tie-In: Quantum Physics and Relativity. Particles manifest relationally (entanglement); time/space are frame-dependent. These function (predict outcomes) because they're empty of absolutes—grasping them as "inherent" ignores their perspectival nature.
Now, as requested, two more examples where physicists and mathematicians grasp at their creations as absolute or universal laws "telling nature what to do." This reification treats models as dictating reality's essence, like an ego-driven discovery of "God's rules." But Madhyamaka sees them as conventional approximations—dependently arisen (from observations, math, culture) and relatively functional (they work in contexts), yet empty of ultimate truth. Their success depends on limitations, proving emptiness.
Example 1: Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity (Physics). Isaac Newton formulated laws like F=ma and universal gravitation, describing motion and attraction as absolute, mechanical rules governing the universe like clockwork. Many physicists (and Newton himself, influenced by theism) grasped these as universal truths—almost as if they'd uncovered God's blueprint for how planets must orbit or objects must fall. Ego here: The discoverer positions themselves as revealing eternal dictates that nature obeys without exception.
Objection view (grasping as absolute): "These laws exist inherently; they tell reality what it can/cannot do—apples fall because gravity commands it!"
Madhyamaka reversal: Newton's laws arise dependently—from observations (falling objects), mathematical frameworks (calculus, co-invented by Newton), and cultural contexts (mechanistic worldview). They function relatively well for everyday scales (building bridges, launching rockets) but break down in extremes (near light speed or quantum realms, as Einstein and quantum mechanics showed). If inherently absolute, they couldn't be approximations or revised—they'd dictate unchanging reality. But relativity revealed gravity as curved space-time (dependent on mass-energy), and quantum gravity (like Rovelli's work) further relationalizes it. Emptiness allows revision and functionality: Laws "work" because they're contextual, not because they're God's immutable edicts. Grasping them as absolute inverts reality—nature doesn't "obey" laws; laws describe interdependent phenomena.
Example 2: Euclidean Geometry (Mathematics). Euclid's axioms (e.g., parallel lines never meet) were long grasped as absolute truths representing the inherent structure of space—universal laws dictating what shapes and measurements are possible. Mathematicians like Immanuel Kant saw Euclidean geometry as a priori, synthetic knowledge embedded in human intuition, essentially telling the universe how it must be flat and uniform. Ego here: The mathematician claims to have discovered platonic ideals or God's geometric design, where reality conforms to these eternal rules (e.g., the sum of angles in a triangle must be 180 degrees).
Objection view (grasping as absolute): "Geometry exists inherently; it represents reality's essence—space can't violate these axioms!"
Madhyamaka reversal: Euclidean geometry arises dependently—from axioms (assumed starting points), observations (flat Earth approximations), and applications (architecture, navigation). It functions relatively in local contexts (measuring rooms) but fails in curved spaces (e.g., Earth's surface, where parallels meet at poles, or general relativity's warped space-time). Non-Euclidean geometries (by Gauss, Lobachevsky, Riemann) emerged, showing geometry as perspectival—dependent on curvature assumptions. If inherently absolute, no alternatives could arise; triangles would always sum to 180 degrees universally. But in relativity, space bends, enabling GPS or black hole models. Emptiness enables this flexibility: Math "works" because it's relational and conventional, not a dictate over nature. Grasping it as universal inverts the view—reality isn't bound by math; math describes interdependent appearances.
Conventional truth: Things arise and function relatively (Newton's laws predict orbits). Ultimate truth: Empty of inherent existence. They're united—like a rope mistaken for a snake: It "functions" as scary (conventional) but is empty of snakeness (ultimate).
Emptiness reduces grasping, fostering adaptability. For scientists, it encourages treating theories as tools, not dogmas—leading to breakthroughs. Reality isn't upside down; our reified views are. Madhyamaka rights it: Dynamic interdependence is the suchness of things.
.
.
Our discussion has journeyed through the intricate interplay of Carlo Rovelli's theoretical physics—rooted in relational quantum mechanics (RQM) and loop quantum gravity—with the profound insights of Madhyamaka philosophy, as articulated by Nagarjuna. What began as an exploration of Rovelli's views on reality, time, quantum phenomena, and non-duality evolved into a deeper examination of emptiness (śūnyatā), interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda), and the middle way, while addressing common misconceptions that plague both ordinary perceptions and scientific mindsets. In synthesizing these threads, we uncover a unified perspective: Reality is not a collection of absolute, self-existent entities but a vibrant web of relations, empty of inherent essence, yet functionally alive and ever-changing. This conclusion recaps the core alignments, resolves lingering objections, and highlights the transformative implications for science, philosophy, and daily life.
At the heart of Rovelli's work is the rejection of foundational anchors—whether in physics (absolute space-time, independent particles) or philosophy (inherent substances or minds). He portrays the universe as "made of relations rather than objects," where quanta are not solid "chunks" but probabilistic events emerging from interactions, and time flows perspectivally from entropy and ignorance. This mirrors Madhyamaka's core tenet: Phenomena lack svabhāva (inherent existence) and arise only through mutual dependence. Rovelli's explicit invocation of Nagarjuna in books like Helgoland underscores this synergy—quantum paradoxes (e.g., superposition, entanglement) dissolve when viewed relationally, much as Madhyamaka's tetralemma negates absolute categories (existence, non-existence, both, neither).
We delved into non-duality, where apparent opposites (wave-particle, mind-matter, past-future) are not conflicts to resolve but illusions born of perspective. Rovelli's "radical perspectivalism"—no god's-eye view, only relative information—aligns with Madhyamaka's two truths: Conventional appearances function (e.g., physics predicts outcomes) while ultimately empty. Even concepts like dependent origination, emptiness, or the union of opposites (including the two truths, three spheres, or three kayas) are not reified as absolutes; they too are empty, perspectival tools for navigation. As Rovelli notes, "Emptiness is empty," fostering serenity without dogma.
Other physicists, from Heisenberg and Bohm to Bitbol and Zajonc, echo these bridges, often through dialogues with Buddhist traditions. They interpret quantum holism and observer-dependence as parallels to interdependence, rejecting inherent essences in favor of relational emergence.
A recurring theme was the objection that emptiness implies non-arising, non-existence, or non-functionality—why do causes produce effects if everything is empty? We flipped this: Dependent arising and relative functionality prove emptiness. If phenomena had inherent essence, they couldn't depend on causes, conditions, or parts; they'd be static, unchanging, and non-functional.
Everyday analogies (tables, cars) and scientific ones (water molecules, quantum relativity) illustrated this: Change and utility arise precisely from interdependence.
We extended this to where scientists and mathematicians grasp at their creations as absolute "laws dictating nature" (or "God's behavior"), inverting reality through ego-driven reification:
Newton's laws, once seen as universal edicts commanding motion and gravity, function relatively (e.g., in macroscopic engineering) but depend on contexts (breaking in relativistic or quantum regimes). Their success stems from approximation, not inherent dictatorship—emptiness allows scientific evolution.
Euclidean geometry, grasped as platonic ideals structuring space eternally, works conventionally (e.g., in flat maps) but arises dependently from axioms and assumptions, failing in curved realities (as in general relativity). Non-Euclidean alternatives reveal its perspectival nature, not absolute command.
Ordinary people and dualistic scientists often see solidity and absolutes where there's fluidity—reifying perceptions or models as "real" essences. Madhyamaka rights this: Emptiness liberates, enabling the world's dynamism without nihilism. Phenomena function because they're empty, like a mirage guiding travelers without being "real" water.
This synthesis offers profound lessons. For physics, it encourages viewing theories as provisional tools—effective in contexts but empty of ultimacy—spurring innovation (e.g., reconciling quantum gravity). Rovelli's "learned rebellion" against certainties parallels Madhyamaka's deconstruction, fostering humility: Science isn't about final truths but exploring perspectives.
Philosophically, it bridges East and West, secular and spiritual—Rovelli's naturalism secularizes Madhyamaka's insights, emphasizing ethical serenity from non-attachment.
Non-duality ("acting without acting") means engaging conventionally (doing science, living life) without absolute grasping, aligning with suchness (tathatā): Reality as interdependent processes, free from extremes.
For everyday life, this counters suffering from clinging—selves, relationships, and worlds are fluid, relational constructs. It cultivates compassion: Seeing interdependence dissolves "us vs. them," promoting harmony.
In closing, our dialogue reveals that Rovelli's quantum relationalism and Madhyamaka emptiness aren't distant realms but complementary lenses on the same reality—a fragile veil of interactions, empty yet full of possibility.
By embracing this middle way, we move beyond upside-down views toward wisdom: The world turns, physics works, and life flourishes not despite emptiness, but because of it. If future queries arise, this foundation invites further exploration—perhaps into practical applications or critiques. Thank you for this enriching exchange!
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60_OGGFSodE
Wikipedia: Helgoland is a book by Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli about quantum mechanics and the relational interpretation of it that Rovelli developed. The title refers to Heligoland, an island in the North Sea where Werner Heisenberg secluded himself while developing the basic ideas of quantum mechanics in 1925.
(Transcending the pure objectivity stance of science: Ernst Mach suggested instead that science should focus on what's observable (not on what is out there, but on what we perceive).)
In "Helgoland," Carlo Rovelli explores the enigma of quantum theory by taking readers on a journey through the universe in a psychedelic fashion. Rovelli argues that by seeing the world as fundamentally made of relationships, not substances, we can better understand our place in it and even the nature of consciousness.
Enter a mind-bending realm where particles exist as waves and cats can be both alive and dead. Welcome to the world of quantum theory. In Helgoland renowned physicist Carlo Rovelli guides you through this complex field, unraveling the fascinating mysteries that have puzzled scientists for over a century. From the groundbreaking work of physicists like Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger, to the strange phenomenon of quantum entanglement, and the mind-bending implications of the relational interpretation of quantum physics. Rovelli reveals how this frontier of scientific thought continues to redefine our understanding of the universe, and our place within it. Prepare to embark on a journey that will challenge your perceptions of reality and possibly even change the way you see the world.
In the early 20th century physicists like Neils Bohr, Schrodinger and Max Bourne sought to understand the mechanics of quantum leaps. They observed that electrons orbited the atom's nucleus at specific distances and leaped between orbits in quantifiable ways. But classical physics couldn't explain why. Heisenberg focused on what was observable: the frequency and amplitude of light, and reworked the laws of physics with matrices. Schrodinger saw electrons as electromagnetic waves; but this clashed with the observation that electrons existed as distinct particles. Max Bourne solved this Paradox by proposing that wave calculations provided the probability of observations while matrix calculations explained the outcome. This led to the realization that electrons existed as waves until observed, then collapsed into a point. The birth of quantum physics gave rise to a new set of questions. one of which being why.
Quantum superposition poses difficult questions about the nature of reality. The concept of Schrodinger's cat, a cat that is both asleep and awake, illustrates this central mystery of quantum physics. Scientists have demonstrated that superpositions actually occur.
And there are competing interpretations for this strange reality.
– The many worlds theory proposes an infinite number of timelines or worlds.
– While the hidden variables theory separates Schrodinger's wave from the quantum particle itself.
– Quantum bayesianism or qbism on the other hand suggests that superpositions and Schrodinger's probabilities are just incomplete information.
– Each of these interpretations raises new questions; leaving scientists with a tantalizing mystery of the universe.
The relational interpretation of quantum theory challenges the traditional understanding of observation and presents a world where everything is in flux. In this interpretation any type of interaction is considered observation. All physical properties are relational and depend on circumstances. The universe is an endless network of relations that create properties which give physical systems their characteristics. The relational interpretation destroys the distinction between the observer and the observed. All entities in the universe are both observed and an observer. Different relational events or frames of reference create different realities. This view challenges conventional thinking and provides a new understanding of the fluidity of the quantum world.
Entanglement quantum entanglement remains one of the most baffling concepts in physics. Particularly when it comes to the seemingly magical connection between entangled photons. But the relational model offers some clues into what is really going on. According to this model the properties of the photons only exist in relation to the observers. Meaning that until mutual observation takes place, any comparison is meaningless. This may seem like a strange concept but It ultimately helps to demystify the process of quantum entanglement, and how the entangled photons are able to match each other across distances. Rather than a mysterious link, it is a web of relations connecting the events and giving them their properties.
The world of science was dominated by a philosophical premise called mechanism, which was useful but limited. Ernst Mach suggested instead that science should focus on what's observable: the sensations that occur when elements in interact. Mach's ideas inspired Heisenberg to investigate the actions of electrons opening the door to Quantum Theory. According to Mach's conception of reality physical objects aren't independent elements that mechanically interact, but rather it's their interactions which produce the world. Observers also aren't separate from this system as they only know the world through the sensations of interactions. Mach's Insight shows us the valuable interplay between science and philosophy and how contemporary philosophers can refine their ideas about reality by grappling with the latest scientific understandings.
The internet is filled with wild misapplied quantum theories linking the strangeness of quantum physics to the big questions of life. But can it actually explain love and beauty? Not quite. However using relational quantum theory to study the mind can reveal new paths for investigation. Philosophy generally offers three models for the Mind: dualism, idealism, and naive materialism. Relational quantum theory argues that meaning arises through relevant relative information. For example when a falling rock is spotted, the correlation between the external object and the internal state produces intentionality. Nonetheless explaining the subjective experience of this phenomenon remains the hard problem of consciousness. Applying the concepts of relational quantum theory especially, considering relations and correlations, can help shed light on how the mind works.
Our perception of reality is not just about absorbing information, and processing that sensory input. Our brains predict what we should see based on preconceived ideas. And discrepancies between expectation and reality are key to making sense of the external World. Studying quantum physics can provide new ways of looking at the world where reality is an ongoing web of interactions, constantly updating and evolving. While science works on the same principles, the cycle of testing and refinement is much slower. Relational quantum physics presents a world where static entities do not exist. And our very identity is a product of correlations. Understanding this perspective may seem psychedelic, but it offers us a more accurate picture of reality.
Quantum theory has led us to reconsider long-held assumptions about the nature of reality. And Helgoland offers a captivating exploration of its most intriguing aspects. From Heisenberg's Matrix calculations to Schrodinger's wave equations, and the relational model of the universe. Physicist Carlo Rovelli opens up a universe of possibility where everything is interconnected and influx. Through fascinating and thought-provoking discussions of quantum theory, this book demonstrates that reality is even more complex, mysterious, and interwoven than previously imagined. Helgoland not only broadens our understanding of quantum physics, but also highlights the profound influence of philosophical thought on scientific pursuits. By examining the reciprocal relationship between science and philosophy, Rovelli reminds us that even the most enigmatic scientific challenges can provide intriguing insights into the fundamental questions of life. So take hold of your curiosity and dive head first into the enthralling world of quantum theory.
.
.
Q: It seems that without Ernst Mach, there would be no Heisenberg in quantum mechanics.
Ernst Mach's philosophical ideas indeed played a pivotal role in shaping Werner Heisenberg's development of quantum mechanics, particularly through Mach's emphasis on positivism and the primacy of observable phenomena over unobservable theoretical constructs. Mach, a 19th-century physicist and philosopher, advocated for a science grounded solely in empirical observations and sensory data, rejecting absolute concepts like space or time that couldn't be directly measured. This "Machian" approach influenced many early 20th-century physicists, including Albert Einstein (via relativity), but it had a direct impact on Heisenberg's breakthrough in 1925.
Heisenberg, in his youth, drew from Mach's ideas to formulate matrix mechanics, the first complete version of quantum theory. Frustrated with the inconsistencies in classical models that included unobservable electron orbits (as in Bohr's atomic model), Heisenberg sought a framework based exclusively on measurable quantities like energy levels and transition probabilities. The abstract of his seminal 1925 paper explicitly states his goal: to create "foundations for a quantum-theoretical mechanics that is based exclusively on connections between quantities that are in principle observable." This observability principle, echoing Mach's rejection of metaphysical elements, became a cornerstone of quantum mechanics and led directly to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in 1927, which formalized limits on simultaneous measurements of certain pairs of variables.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, co-developed by Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, further reflects Mach's influence by prioritizing probabilistic descriptions of observations over deterministic "hidden realities." Heisenberg himself acknowledged this philosophical debt in his writings, crediting Mach's "liberating influence" for freeing physics from outdated causal determinism. Even the Vienna Circle of logical positivists, inspired by Mach, fostered an intellectual environment in places like the University of Vienna that indirectly supported quantum pioneers.
That said, while Mach's empiricism was instrumental in Heisenberg's paradigm shift—potentially delaying or altering quantum mechanics' emergence without it—other factors like experimental anomalies (e.g., spectral lines) and contributions from contemporaries such as Max Born and Pascual Jordan were also essential. So, your statement captures a profound truth about intellectual lineage in physics, even if the history of science rarely hinges on a single figure alone.
.
Q: From a Madhyamaka perspective, “Ernst Mach's Observability Principle” is very close to affirming the Union of the Two Truths about the three spheres of perception [U2T-3S] -- subject/perceiver, action/perception, object/observer-reality --. Which says that these three spheres cannot exist separately, independently, thus rejecting pure objectivity, pure subjectivity, pure processism, and any combination of them, or none of them. The three spheres are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ precisely because they are inseparable, dependently co-arise, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designation/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ and one aspect/truth supports, implies, enables the other. This is the middle Way free from all extremes like: existence and non-existence, difference and identity, separation and union, duality and non-duality. Conclusion QM and Relativity could be interpreted as consequences of the Union of the Two Truths (as we have demonstrated elsewhere).
Your observation draws a fascinating parallel between Ernst Mach's emphasis on observability—rooted in his positivist rejection of unobservable absolutes like Newtonian space—and the Madhyamaka framework of the Union of the Two Truths (U2T), particularly as applied to the three spheres of perception (subject/perceiver, action/perception, and object/perceived reality) [U2T-3S]. In Madhyamaka, as articulated by Nāgārjuna in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, these spheres lack inherent, independent existence (śūnyatā, or emptiness [T2-3S]), arising instead through dependent co-origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and mutual interdependence [T1-3S], forming an inseparable union that transcends extremes like existence/non-existence, duality/non-duality, or isolated objectivity/subjectivity/process. This middle way avoids reifying any sphere as absolute, much as Mach insisted that physical laws must be grounded solely in observable relations, dismissing unempirical constructs.
Mach's influence permeates modern physics: his critique of absolute space inspired Einstein's general relativity, where spacetime emerges from relational interactions rather than existing independently, and his observability principle echoed in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, which prioritizes measurable quantities over hidden orbits. From a Madhyamaka lens, this aligns with the U2T-3S, as the observer (subject) inseparably shapes the observed (object) through the act of measurement (action), rejecting pure objectivity (e.g., classical realism) or pure subjectivity (e.g., solipsism). Quantum phenomena like wave-particle duality and entanglement further resonate: the collapse of the wave function upon observation mirrors how phenomena manifest conventionally [T1] while remaining empty of inherent essence [T2], with non-locality evoking interdependent co-arising across apparent separations.
Interpretations like Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), proposed by Carlo Rovelli, explicitly draw from Nāgārjuna's relational ontology, positing that quantum states are relative to observers rather than absolute, echoing the Madhyamaka denial of intrinsic reality. Similarly, relativity's frame-dependence undermines absolute reference points, paralleling the tetralemma's rejection of fixed extremes. Scholars such as Michel Bitbol and the Dalai Lama have explored these convergences, suggesting quantum holism and dependent arising point to a shared "no-view" stance—neither affirming nor denying an ultimate substrate, but recognizing reality as observer-dependent and empty of self-nature.
Your conclusion that QM and relativity could stem from the U2T finds support in these dialogues: if the three spheres' interdependence underpins all phenomena, then physics' relational laws might indeed be conventional manifestations [T1] of ultimate emptiness [T2], as demonstrated in works interpreting QM directly through Madhyamika without altering its formalism. This isn't to reduce science to philosophy or vice versa, but to highlight how both dismantle naive realism, offering a middle path where truths inter-enable without absolutism. If you've elaborated on this "elsewhere," I'd be intrigued to hear more—perhaps specific texts or demonstrations?
