John Tan on Buddhism, Quantum Physics, and the “Unified Field”
Madhyamaka · Quantum Field Theory · Wheeler’s Participatory Universe
John Tan on Buddhism, Quantum Physics, and the “Unified Field”
A brief exchange on why emptiness should not be reified as an underlying substrate, why a manifest/unmanifest split runs against Madhyamaka, and what John Tan found worth noting in Wheeler’s participatory universe.
Article Under Discussion
Susanna Yeung, PhD, “The Convergence of Buddhism and Quantum Physics: The Unified Field,” Buddhistdoor Global, 25 September 2026.
John Tan’s Initial Reaction
A friend shared the article with John Tan. His initial reaction focused on the article’s opening framing.
John Tan
The first paragraph already disappoints me:
“With the emergence of the ‘field’ perspective in quantum physics, Buddhism and science have drawn closer than ever. In physics, a ‘field’ is a dynamic, invisible medium that fills all of space-time: a living, vibrating fabric from which particles emerge and into which they dissolve. This ‘unified field’ resonates deeply with the Buddhist concepts of dependent arising or emptiness (yuanqi xing kong; 緣起性空) and mind-only (weishi; 唯識).”
Context, paraphrased
The friend who shared the article explained that it had originally been sent to them and that they had not yet had time to read it closely. They then went back and read it more carefully.
Why the Manifest / Unmanifest Equation Is a Problem
John Tan
There are many places like this:
“Dependent arising corresponds to the manifest world of matter, while emptiness corresponds to the unmanifest quantum field.”
That is almost the opposite of Madhyamaka.
Frankly, it is not well written. The views are all jumbled together, including its treatment of quantum field theory (QFT).
Context, paraphrased
After reading the piece, the person who shared it agreed that the presentation was somewhat muddled. They remarked, with some humor, that once an article invokes both quantum physics and Buddhism, almost any comparison can seem to get a free pass.
John Tan
Although physics seeks deeper unification, it has not discovered an underlying unified field.
A Related Reflection on Physics and Philosophy
Context, paraphrased
The person who shared the article then mentioned having attended a recent London event on physics, philosophy, and consciousness. They found the discussions underwhelming and did not return for the second day. In their recollection, speakers associated with the views of Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking debated cosmological questions such as an eternal universe versus a Big Bang model, at times quite heatedly.
Their broader impression was that physicists do not always examine how their mathematical models translate into philosophical commitments. In their view, some discussions remain focused on the models themselves without fully thinking through the philosophical implications.
What John Tan Thought Was Worth Preserving
John Tan
The article is a complete substantialist reading: an unchanging source → produces changing phenomena → a monistic view.
Only one part is worth noting: Wheeler’s participatory universe—“it from bit.” That is the only point worth preserving, insofar as it treats subject and object as not simply independently given.
Editorial Clarification: “It from Bit”
John Archibald Wheeler’s established formulation is “it from bit.” In his participatory-universe discussion, physical reality is framed in relation to information and to yes-or-no answers elicited through measurement. The point retained in this exchange is deliberately limited: John Tan singled out the participatory challenge to treating subject and object as simply, independently given. He did not identify Wheeler’s proposal with Madhyamaka emptiness.
The exchange ended with the person who had shared the article thanking John Tan for his comments.
Source link: https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/the-convergence-of-buddhism-and-quantum-physics-the-unified-field/
