Higgs boson vs Rebirth

I've recently attended a talk on "Investigating Effects of Past Life on Present Life". The speakers include Ajahn Brahm and Peter Mack. Ajahn Brahm in particular had mentioned that the Higgs boson which recently had a Nobel Prize to its name have less evidence for it than rebirth, he has a Physics degree. 

For the uninitiated, Higgs boson is the last entry in the Standard Model of particle physics, the particle that explains how the rest of the fundamental particles acquire their mass. The Standard Model is used to build up subatomic particles, which leads to atoms, molecules, cells, living beings, the earth, and everything in the universe (not counting dark matter and dark energy). 

Rebirth is saying that after death, if one still have ignorance and craving, there would be a birth again, depending on the kamma (actions) of the individual, the form of the rebirth maybe in human or in other realms (most obvious to us, animal realms). So after death, the kamma and ignorance (including memories, some personalities) are transferred from one body to another. 

Well, seeing that I have a Physics degree too and I'm a Buddhist too, I decided to investigate this.
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-particle-mass-125-gev http://www.atlas.ch/news/2012/latest-results-from-higgs-search.html
From these two websites, the way to find Higgs, an elementary particle is to find the evidence of the things it decays into. If there are events above and beyond the known background noise, then above a certain threshold (which is 5 sigma, or one in a million chance that this is due to the background noise) then the discovery can be claimed. The fact that two different detectors did it without sharing data to each other makes it all the more certain that this is not a fluke, it's real. The way that they know how to find these events is also to gather a lot of data, throw out the useless ones that doesn't fit into the model for detection, and then choose the ones that gives the signal. In a sense, even through it is just two different laboratory announcing the same discovery, the discovery was made by at least a thousand events on each energy levels (or a few hundred events above the background noise) selected among many more collisions events per second, running 24 hours daily in the LHC back in 2012.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200857X This paper detailed how some events are only predicted and expected to be observed to have about 100 or less events per energy level for the distribution. Regardless of the actual no. of events, the statistical analysis would confidently suggests that the Higgs is very unlikely to be a fluke and thus verified.

Now let's see the evidences for rebirth.

It would be instructive to see a case for rebirth first. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT0B4V_kowo

James, a little boy in an American Christian family knows a lot about planes have nightmares about crashing in planes. He said that he was fighting the Japanese in World War Two in a boat called Natoma, as in a previous life where his name was James. There was no normal way for the boy to learn about planes as he was looking at children programmes. Investigation by the skeptical parents and Carol Bowman eventually revealed that there was a pilot named James in the mission in world war two, the plane crashed, and the pilot died. They eventually found previous life James' sister and information no one else could have known were shared. They also had a closing burial for the previous James in the middle of the sea where the boy James broke down and cried. 

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/dr.-stevensons-publications/STE17.pdf
This paper by Ian Stevenson on cases on reported rebirth by American children gave an indication on how the cases for rebirth are investigated. It is mainly through interviews, and cases are considered solved only if there are verifiable names or details about the previous lives that could be found in the real world but would not be possible for the child to learn in any normal way possible (abnormal way would include telepathy, the hypothesis about rebirth is that the knowledge came from memory of the past life). Not only they have to provide the verifiable details many of them are around 20+ details, those details has to confirm with what is found in reality for the cases to be solved.

The paper, published in 1983 said that there was over 2000 cases of such types around the world, assuming half of them are from India, which has 77% of solved cases, it means 770 cases of solid rebirth data to support the theory of rebirth. However, we need to think if we only need one data to show that the worldview of "there is no rebirth" to be false and untenable or do we need more? Typically, more is better, as statistics can be used to determine if the case is by chance or a fluke. However, it is hard to imagine how one can fluke a solid case of rebirth where according to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-1BvpDZwiw and various other sources, there are cases where the family is not a believer of rebirth, there are cases where the children and family do not stand to gain by giving such data to the researchers and there are cases where it is impossible to explain the particular knowledge to be gained by the children other than rebirth. The knowledge can be the habits of the previous lives, the exact hiding place for a secret stash of cash, the shortcuts and knowledge of roads far from the main street, the knowledge of how things were arranged when they were alive in the previous life, and most of all, the emotional connection that cannot be faked between the previous family and the new child.

Criticism of such research can be that rebirth cases are mainly by one person: Ian stevenson, what if he decided to fake all his data? http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/past-life-research.html this website shows a lists of past life researchers: Jürgen Keil, Ian Stevenson, Jim B. Tucker, Satwant K. Pasricha, Erlendur Haraldsson, Majd Abu-Izzeddin, Titus Rivas, Antonia Mills, and many others. This list itself has more support than Higgs boson in terms of no. of independent observation of data of rebirth.

In addition, many books has been published for the public over the years on this type of research: http://letusponder.hubpages.com/hub/10-books-about-Reincarnation this website lists 10 books.

Looking at the evidences part, I would say that rebirth has a stronger case for it if only because the evidences and research for it has been around longer than the Higgs, and there are many more independent researchers on the same topic.

The main difference between these two is obviously public opinion which is largely shaped by opinions of scientists and certain religions. http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation3.html#reincarnation3 in this website for example, the author had looked at evidences for rebirth, even in early Christianity, yet reject it because of philosophical grounds (that if rebirth and kamma are true, there would be no beginning and no end, obviously the author has not come across the 4 Noble Truths) and attachment to certain words in the current Bible. The bias in public opinion is not only fueled by attachments to current forms of certain religion (the YOLO, you only live once, meme popular nowadays can also count as part of a belief system) it is also fueled by scientific dogmatism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg Ajahn brahm also mentioned this, the video has actually been removed from the official TEDx website. In this video, it says that the worldview of most people are that science has explained everything we know about the world and the rest is just details to be filled in. This is a belief system. He said that there are 10 dogmas we take for granted from this belief system, none of them stand up very well under close observation.

1. Nature is mechanical, we are machines,
2. Nature is unconscious, we are just an illusion of consciousness since we are made up of atoms, 
3. Laws of Nature are fixed and the same,
4. The total amount of energy and matter is always the same,
5. There are no purposes in nature, evolution, etc...
6. Biological heredity is material,
7. Memories are stored in the brain, via connections,
8. Mind is inside our heads,
9. Psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible, 
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only one that really works, the others maybe placebo effect etc..

These are the default worldview of "educated" people. The speaker, a scientists says that we overlook data that suggests that the constants of nature change (measurements of these changes over time and are averaged out, even these changes over the years, but it's a constant! So nobody bothered to investigate why.), or that our minds extends out of our brains (we can feel if people stare at us from behind). 

 

Alan Wallace in his book Hidden Dimensions, argued that currently the investigation of science is limited by these scientific dogma, not allowing proper research into phenomenons produced by the mind and insisting on unsuitable scientific method to investigate such a different phenomena. In the science of contemplation, he says, one should not demand that all datas to be objective, but subjective, personal experiences of an individual should be a valid data point as a foundation to begin research into the phenomena of the mind. When we investigate biology, we don't use the language of particle physics. 

 

I believe that due to this widespread delusion that scientific dogmatism is scientific method, support and acceptance for rebirth is not there even when the data in this field has been established for so long. Contrasting it with the science which has Albert Einstein, produced quantum physics, the basis of our electronic appliances, atom bombs, Physics has it easy to have the Higgs receiving so much more recognition by the public even before the scientists themselves are completely sure they have discovered it. 

 

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design said that a good model is

1. elegant
2. contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

In this sense, comparing two competing hypothesis of "there is rebirth" and "there's no rebirth, all evidences are coincidences or a conspiracy or anything else", we can see the hypothesis that satisfies the criterias above. 

 

1. Rebirth, having a simple, well defined way of how it happens (via kamma) and transmission of kamma and ignorance (includes memory here) from one body to another seems much more elegant compared to having to utilize all sorts of different explanations depending on the weakness of a particular case of rebirth. 
2. Rebirth contains far less arbitrary or adjustable elements (when combined with kamma) to explain why a person is borned poor or rich etc....as compared to the simple luck element which is just a summary of many different complicated variables suggested by the no rebirth theory. Besides, having to use different explanations to refute each individual cases, the no rebirth theory would have much more adjustable elements compared to rebirth theory.
3. Rebirth theory can explain all data suggesting rebirth, no rebirth theory would have a very hard time to explain most of them, in some cases, it is impossible to explain the case without assuming rebirth or very performed telepathy/ miracle. The alternative explanations to rebirth is also not as elegant or they have more adjustable elements.
4. The alternative hypothesis of no rebirth cannot predict any possible thing to verify or falsify. In contrast, there is this prediction system amongst the Tulkus in Tibet where a great master would leave a prediction letter of where to find his or her next life after his passing away.  http://www.dalailama.com/biography/reincarnation

Thus having read all these, I hope that you would leave behind your scientific dogmatism, use an open and critical mind to investigate the links above, especially on evidences of rebirth to see if you're really unbiased, really scientific, what's your honest conclusion?

For me, it's as Ajahn Brahm said, rebirth has already been proven. To avoid this to be a dogma, please do your own research and read up. I did mine. Here's another case to get you started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCcmr6UeNSY

Analysis of Four Elements and the current view of what materials are from Physics

Avatar the Last Airbender, has as its main theme the four elements of olden times. Captain Planet also employs the concepts of Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and adding the mind component: Heart.

Traditionally there is the belief that every physical object is made up of these four elements. I'm going to analyze these elements, the Buddhist interpretation of these, and the Physics knowledge of these.

No. 1: Four elements as states of matter. 

One might see the analogy of Earth-solid state, Water-liquid state, Air-gaseous state, and Fire-plasma state. In Physics, they seem to differ only in the temperature/pressure gradient. However, now we know more than these, in the extreme cold end, there is the Bose-Einstein Condensation, in the extremely hot end, there are the conditions near the Big Bang, including quark-gluon soup and in the extremely high-pressure end, anything classical can be squeezed to become a Black Hole.

No. 2: Literally.

So, let's take them literally, that all other physical things are made up of a combination of earth, fire, water, air. It doesn't make sense now because we know that these are not the fundamental components of what makes our world. It's the atoms and molecules, crystal structures and condensed matter, gases, plasma etc...

No. 3 Historically, 

It is possible that this thinking exists due to the spread of Buddhist teachings into Greek and it has remained unquestioned for almost two thousand years. So according to history, we should go back to the main source to investigate what did the Buddha meant when he taught these.

No. 4 Buddhist interpretation Link

The commentary to the sutta had taught these four elements along with their characteristics of them.

Earth is the solidity element, it contains hardness, roughness, heaviness, softness, smoothness, lightness. Water is the cohesion element, containing flowing, cohesion. Fire is the heating element that has heat, coldness. And finally air, the motion element that has to support, pushing.

So let's stop here for a while and bring in the physics mind to analyze what we have so far. According to ideas in Physics, it makes no sense to talk about coldness, there is only heat that transfers from higher temperature to lower, not cold that transfers from lower to a higher temperature. There is experimental evidence for that in the form of radiation emitting from hotter stuff and even colder stuff. Since the radiation is of the same electromagnetic nature, it does not need two different names. In fact, it makes more sense to call it heat because when a material absorbs the radiation, it gets hotter.

So the commentaries couldn't have been talking about the ultimate heat as it is, or else they are wrong. Indeed, going back to commentaries, the context for teaching the four elements is for the meditator to be able to discern for themselves what does all those 12 characteristics are, one at a time. It is how we can directly see physical reality for ourselves, not really on what physical laws does it works with.

No. 5 The Suttas Links: MN28, MN 140

I'll just copy and paste them here:

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.

"And what is the liquid property? The liquid property may be either internal or external. What is the internal liquid property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's liquid, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's liquid, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal liquid property. Now both the internal liquid property & the external liquid property are simply liquid property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property and makes the liquid property fade from the mind.

"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, & consumed with fever; and that by which what is eaten, drunk, consumed & tasted gets properly digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now both the internal fire property & the external fire property are simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.

"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.

And interesting enough, there is a fifth one,

"And what is the space property? The space property may be either internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind.

From these it is clear that the Buddha meant this as another way of thinking about our bodies and the world outside of us in a simplistic way with the main goal of us seeing things as they are, not mine. So that disenchantment would arise.

The Buddha was not interested in advancing Physics when he taught this.

No. 6 Four Elements as fundamental particles

Earth: hardness, roughness, heaviness, softness, smoothness, lightness. 

This would translate to interaction forces between the fundamental particles, if not for the presence of water, so I would map this as the substance, eg. quarks, electrons itself. 

Water: flowing, cohesion.

Gluons, or force particles between the substances. 

Fire: heat, coldness.

Temperature as scalar field across spacetime. A non zero temperature also corresponds to particles as the Unruh effect demonstrates. 

Air: supporting, pushing. (motion)

Energy itself? Kinetic energy, potential, etc, can also be part of gluons. 


Updated for No. 6. 

Earth is the solidity element, which is Pauli’s exclusion principle for fermions. The particle physics terminology is found in the poster you posted. For bosons, like light, can occupy the same space at the same time. Pauli’s exclusion principle for fermions, specifically electrons means no 2 electrons can share the same exact quantum properties in the same space and at the same time. This allows for atoms to be built and chemistry. Since the normal solidity we experience via touch is from electromagnetic repulsion between the electron clouds of the atoms, the element of solidity somewhat includes the electromagnetic force as well.

Water is the element of cohesion, which is easiest to map to all the bosons, the force carrier particles. That are the 4 fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force, as well as any other fundamental force we might discover in the future.

Air is the element of motion, thus it’s basically kinetic energy.

Fire is the element of heat, so temperature. The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics which says that nothing can reach absolute zero temperature (0 Kelvin) is one guarantee that there’s the element of fire everywhere. Black holes used to be thought of as not having temperature, but after Hawking’s radiation discovery, it too has a temperature.

If we want to see a unifying commonality behind the 4, we can see it as energy. Fire is heat energy, Air is kinetic, water is gravitational potential energy, electromagnetic energy (electricity, light etc), Earth is E=mc2, mass-energy.

Let’s see if everything everywhere would have these 4 elements as claimed by the Abhidhamma. Fire is verified to be universal due to the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Air, motion is sort of guarantee as well due to the abolition of Newtonian’s absolute space with the general and special relativity, hmmm… maybe gravity should be part of the air. Also, there’s zero point energy due to the uncertainty principle of momentum and position. As things get closer to absolute zero, the momentum becomes closer to zero and if the uncertainty of the momentum becomes small enough, the particle’s position becomes fuzzy, so motion is always there in the quantum world.

Water, yes, so far as we know, gravity interacts with every particle, as well as the weak nuclear force, but maybe dark matter doesn’t interact with the weak nuclear force, that’s why we cannot find them yet in particle accelerators.

Earth, fermions are explained (Pauli’s exclusion principle), well, if we include mass as part of the earth, all particles which interact with the Higgs are counted. Which leaves photons and gluons. Maybe the push-pull relationship they exert on the fermions does explain some of their earth-like properties. Like we can use light to push spacecraft with solar sails as light too has pressure. Or just a simple inverting of the water part, since fermions are interacted by bosons in the water analysis, then we can just say that all bosons interact with at least one fermions.

So the notion of kalapas having all 4 elements each might not be too crazy a notion. Just needs creative mapping.