Uncertain Love — Buddhism, Quantum Mechanics, Logic, and AI

Since I was a child, I would follow my grandfather to worship Buddha. I'm not sure if my grandfather was a Buddhist, but he firmly believed in the existence of Buddha, in the existence of super powers beyond our world, yet not fully knowable. Back then, when burning ghost money and offering food, it seemed we would sometimes also offer sacrifices to the "White Impermanence" and "Black Impermanence," although I didn't know what they were. Later, in middle school, I learned that the Buddhist saying "It is not the wind that moves, nor the flag that moves, but the mind that moves" is idealism. Then, after reading some books on Zen, they always said that Buddhist teachings rely on enlightenment, which cannot be explained in words. What can be explained is not the true path to becoming a Buddha. Later, during a visit to Fo Guang Shan, I saw a popularization film by Master Hsing Yun saying that Buddha is a human, not a god, and that everyone is a Buddha. Buddhism teaches that everything is empty and that one should not be attached to anything. These are roughly the core memories I, a non-Buddhist who has reverence for Buddhism, have of Buddha. Clearly, my understanding of Buddha is extremely superficial and vague.

In university, I took a class that I only partially understood, but was very attracted to: quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics says that everything has wave-particle duality, meaning I am both a wave and a particle. There’s a famous principle called the uncertainty principle, which states that if the position of a particle is measured more accurately, the deviation of its velocity will be greater, and vice versa. Besides these two points, there are two more of my own thoughts: one is about waves. Waves are very interesting. Each small part basically reflects the overall characteristics of the entire wave, but you can’t completely perceive its full picture like you can with a particle, because it can permeate infinitely, and the observer is also immersed in it. Any measurement we make is actually an interaction with the entire wave, a reaction after it is disturbed. When measured, it is no longer what it was originally, and what it originally was is actually something you can’t fully know, because as soon as you measure it, it is no longer the original it. And if you don't measure it, you can't perceive its existence, even if you are in it or very close to it. Without interaction, then it seems as if it never existed. This is very similar to what Buddhism says about impermanence and unknowability. You can only guess, only understand through enlightenment, but you can never “grasp” it. It is impermanent; it is omnipresent. You are in it. If it is a wave that permeates infinitely, then perhaps you are part of this wave, and you yourself are all the characteristics of this wave, but you still can't truly grasp it. Any attachment you have, any deliberate measurement you make, is a kind of interference to it. After the interference, it is no longer the original it, and even you are no longer the original you. And what exactly is it? You don’t know, and you don’t need to know, because you are actually it.

Another thought is about the means by which we understand the world. When we look at various sciences through which we understand the world, it seems without exception that “seeing is believing.” Science’s measurement of the world mainly relies on light. I don’t understand relativity, but I vaguely believe that in order to accommodate light (to give light a special, unchanging speed), it had to conceptually change time (of course, what time is is originally a problem. When time is measured by light, it is one thing. What if it is measured by touch or mental contemplation?). Our dependence on light is so strong that I can’t help but feel that the world we see is the way it is because we use light to measure it—that is, our way of measuring creates this world. This world is created by our own subjective measurement. If we could not rely on it, what would the world be like? But perhaps we simply can't because we ourselves are some kind of broad wave. If this is the case, then all so-called materialism based on “seeing is believing” is itself idealism.

In 1931, the brilliant and short-lived mathematician Kurt Gödel proposed the incompleteness theorems, shattering the dreams of all mathematicians and philosophers for nearly a thousand years. The basic meaning is that within a self-consistent system composed of a limited number of axioms, there will always be propositions that cannot be deduced by this logical system to be true or false—that is, there will always be unknowable/undecidable problems in this system. It clearly tells us that our attempt to explain the world with a limited number of principles plus logic is futile. Gödel proved that this is impossible.

Recently, AI is particularly hot, and many people are starting to feel that AI will replace humans. But I have a vague feeling that if it is based on the current deterministic (mechanical) judgment of 0s and 1s, then computers should have huge limitations. It completely encounters the undecidable problems mentioned in Gödel’s proof. What will happen if we have quantum computers in the future? I don’t know, because theoretically, quantum computers can not be limited to a limited number of axioms, not limited to 0/1 mechanical judgments.

Buddhism, quantum mechanics, and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems all seem to be telling us:

• The world and human life as a whole are unknowable, at least imprecisely measurable, uncertain.
• It is impossible to describe and regulate the world with limited rules. Things are imperfect and incomplete.
• Furthermore, I vaguely feel that what is seen is largely determined by how it is seen. The local may describe the whole, although the whole is unknowable.

Yet we humans often want what we lack. Those who lack arms want arms; those who lack legs want legs. Life will eventually pass, but we often seek immortality. Love is not eternal, yet we place our hopes on unchanging stones. Perhaps this world is inherently uncertain, inherently impermanent, so we so relentlessly pursue eternity, pursue a definite sense of security. We not only pursue it, but also always want to grasp it, to interfere with it to prove its existence and our own existence. But we don’t know that its existence may not be what we think it is. It is never unchanging. The more you measure it, the more you interfere with it, and the more you interfere with it, the more it is not the original it. After you have tested it countless times to reassure yourself, it has already been changed by you. Like trust, like love, it is uncertain. The more you measure it, the more it disappears. You can only firmly believe, only accept the uncertain fate, accept it, and it will exist, and you will be happy.