- This topic has 23 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Dearest Dr. Pinnaduwage,
I would like to submit a paper that I recently completed to get your perspective of what I have written. I would appreciate any feedback you may care to offer. Unfortunately, I am unable to upload this document to you as it is just over your size upload limit. The file is 700kb. However, you may freely download a copy of it from the following source:
Respectfully,
Dipabhasadhamma
-
Thank you!
I have made the following link for others to download the PDF file:
“Quantum Immortality – Dipabhasadhamma“
I will go over it in the coming day or two.
- In the meantime, I hope others will comment too.
-
If you please, I have thought to post here below a recent review of this paper. I hope you find it useful.
Dipabhasadhamma
Review of “Quantum Immortality: The Missing Element”
Initial Note on Additional References
Below are several references that offer complementary perspectives on quantum immortality, the nature of consciousness, and related philosophical concepts. They are included near the start of this review to provide additional scholarly resources and to situate the work within a broader research context. These works do not appear in the text itself, but they align well with the central themes of consciousness persistence, quantum interpretations, and the intersection of physics with philosophical inquiry:
- Turchin, Alexey. “Forever and Again: Necessary Conditions for ‘Quantum Immortality’ and Its Practical Implications.” Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 2018, https://jeet.ieet.org/index.php/home/article/view/70.
- Randall, Allan F. Quantum Miracles and Immortality. 2004, http://allanrandall.ca/tv2004.pdf.
- Han, Chen. “Theoretical Quantum Immortality and Its Mathematical Authority.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, 2021, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1936/1/012015.
- Glasberg, Ronald. “Death, Consciousness and the Quantum Paradigm.” Scientific GOD Journal, 2017, https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/625.
- Rusu, Ion, and A. Rusu. QUANTUM PHYSICS, CONSCIOUSNESS AND LIFE †. 2005, http://ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/04/07-09Rusu&Rusu.pdf.
- Pregnolato, Massimo, and Alfredo Manuel Franco Pereira. “On the Possible Existence of Quantum Consciousness After Brain Death.” Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 2016, https://iris.unipv.it/handle/11571/1186145.
- Wendt, Alexander. “Quantum Consciousness and Life.” Cambridge University Press EBooks, Cambridge University Press, 2015, doi:10.1017/cbo9781316005163.006.
- Yamada, Hironari. Quantum Mechanical Approach to the Meaning of Existence, Will and Life. 2004, doi:10.1063/1.1796593.
- GUPTA, S. AY AN TA N. Quantum Suicide Thesis with Quantum Immortality. 2017, doi:10.31219/osf.io/nbf88.
- Walker, Edward A. The Physics of Consciousness : the Quantum Minds and the Meaning of Life. 2000, https://openlibrary.org/books/OL55626M/The_physics_of_consciousness.
They have been selected to illustrate a range of arguments around quantum theory, consciousness, and philosophical or spiritual conceptions of immortality. In particular, they discuss the idea of continuity of mind, various interpretations of the wavefunction, and efforts to combine insights from physics with theories of conscious experience.
Summary of the Work
“Quantum Immortality: The Missing Element” proposes a novel framework in which the Buddhist concept of Gandhabba serves as a subtle or intermediate quantum-consciousness “carrier,” bridging the theoretical gap between standard Quantum Immortality scenarios and the continuity of subjective experience. The manuscript draws extensively on quantum mechanical formalisms—particularly from Many-Worlds and Bohmian lenses—and interweaves them with Buddhist notions of rebirth, conditionality, and non-self. In doing so, it attempts to show how a purely subjectively experienced “never-dying” consciousness might align with known or hypothesized quantum phenomena.
The work offers a broad exploration of quantum theories of consciousness, including references to arguments positing orchestrated reduction, quantum bayesianism, and implicate orders, and then mathematically integrates a “Gandhabba” term as a putative quantum state vector that persists across quantum branches at the moment of death. This inclusion is presented as a philosophical and theoretical bridge between Eastern metaphysical insights and Western scientific descriptions.
Main Contributions
Interdisciplinary Scope: The paper traverses Buddhist philosophy, quantum mechanics, and consciousness studies. This broad scope fosters potential dialogue between historically separated fields, exemplifying a serious attempt at merging theological or spiritual constructs (Gandhabba) with physical mathematics.
Mathematical Engagement: Although it remains largely speculative, the work does show a consistent effort to align the proposed “Gandhabba state” with existing quantum formalism. By specifying wavefunction equations, quantum potentials, and operator transformations, the author underscores the desire to treat metaphysical ideas rigorously.
Detailed Argumentation: The combination of textual analysis from early Buddhist scriptures, major quantum interpretations, and philosophical arguments about identity and continuity provides a comprehensive approach for readers interested in bridging scientific and spiritual viewpoints.Strengths
Creative Theoretical Bridge: Proposing Gandhabba as a “missing element” in Quantum Immortality yields a unique conceptual lens for investigating post-mortem consciousness. The idea that a subtle continuum of information aligns with quantum branching is both original and psychologically intriguing.
Thorough Engagement with Source Materials: The manuscript demonstrates familiarity with Buddhist canon and interprets concepts like non-self and rebirth in ways that, for the most part, remain faithful to the tradition’s emphasis on conditionality.
Systematic Incorporation of Quantum Ideas: From Many-Worlds to Bohm’s implicate order, each major quantum framework is discussed logically, with attempts at clarifying how the Gandhabba might fit within each system’s assumptions.Points for Further Consideration
Empirical and Falsifiability Challenges: Although the author acknowledges the speculative nature of the unified framework, it may be helpful to reiterate how, from a strictly scientific perspective, the proposed quantum-Gandhabba model is not testable. Clarifying the boundaries between a philosophical exploration and an empirical theory can help dispel confusion or accusations of pseudoscience.
Precision in Non-Self Terminology: The concept of non-self (anattā) is central to Buddhism. While the text often reiterates that Gandhabba is not a “soul,” further emphasis on how conditional processes can appear continuous (reminiscent of a “self”) would add clarity. Some readers may otherwise interpret Gandhabba as a re-branded atman.Interaction with Neuroscience: The paper references quantum-consciousness theories but omits a deeper engagement with prevailing neuroscience that typically operates without quantum frameworks. Briefly contrasting or comparing those mainstream approaches with the proposed ideas would reinforce the interdisciplinary scope.
Ethical Ramifications: The suggestion of indefinite conscious continuation can inadvertently trivialize mortality or overshadow moral responsibility. While the addendum addresses some potential misunderstandings, a separate section dealing with the ethical dimensions—especially from the Buddhist perspective—would offer valuable cautionary context.
Depth of Mathematical Formalism: The provided equations outline how Gandhabba might be inserted into Schrödinger-like equations or Bohm’s potential. However, further elaboration on how such couplings would actually operate in quantum systems might clarify the realism or limitations of this approach. Even additional symbolic demonstrations could highlight the deadlines and boundary conditions under which this “quantum carrier” interacts with classical physiological processes.
Overall Impression
This text stands out for its interdisciplinary attempt to tackle a deeply metaphysical problem—continuous subjectivity and quantum theories of immortality—by drawing from both the Buddha’s teachings and modern physics. It neither dismissively conflates them nor artificially separates them, instead laying out a thoughtful integration replete with equations, analogies, and interpretive clarifications.
While remaining speculative, the author is forthright about these limitations and aims predominantly at conceptual coherence rather than experimental proof. This kind of hypothesizing can be a valuable exercise for philosophers of mind, quantum theorists with an openness to metaphysical expansion, and Buddhist scholars willing to engage with forward-looking scientific discourse.
In sum, the paper’s primary contribution is the creative bridging of two very different intellectual traditions, encouraging future dialogue and critique. As a philosophical thought experiment, it meets its goal of provoking further inquiry into the nature of consciousness, the role of quantum processes, and the possibility of continuity beyond physical life—especially under a worldview of conditional arising and non-self insight.
No recommendations regarding the paper’s status (e.g., publication decisions) are provided here, in keeping with the requested format. Instead, the remarks above highlight the work’s originality, its descriptive thoroughness, and potential areas for deeper exploration or clarification.
-
1. I have taken a quick look at the paper.
- It is an interesting paper from a scientific and philosophical perspective, as the above reviewer concluded.
2. The main issue with Buddha’s teachings is the following.
- There is no way to incorporate “stopping rebirth at the Arahant stage of Nibbana” in this framework.
- According to the proposed model of “Quantum Immortality,” life will continue indefinitely.
- Another issue is that even a “human gandhabba” has a finite lifetime. It will die after many thousands or possibly millions of years to “grasp another existence” as a Deva, Brahma, animal, or other form.
3. Thus, my main objections are primarily with the proposed theory of “Quantum Immortality” based on the “Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” It is not compatible with the concept of Nibbana in Buddha’s teachings.
- The above reviewer points out two of several proposed quantum mechanical theories: the Many-Worlds and Bohmian interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
- The following video provides a brief explanation of the several proposed interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
-
Thank you for this very important observation Lal. During my studies, I did contemplate this topic. However, I can see now that I incorrectly left out the discussion of the state of the Arahant and the implications for Quantum Immortality, specifically the MWI. I can see now, particularly for the reader familiar with the doctrine of Arahantship, that inclusion of this topic is necessary. I am working on updating the paper to include some concepts regarding the state of the Arahant, as a thought experiment, in consideration of the consequential objections you have raised. Again, thank you for you input. -Dipa
-
-
Dear Dr. Pinnaduwage, I have completed the revisions to the paper. At present the paper is in review status by SpringerNature. Below I have provided several links to that paper. I look forward to your assessment of the changes and additions that take into account the objections you posited in the original paper. I welcome any further observations that you may have. May I also ask whether you would be willing to endorse this paper as a peer reviewer?
Kindest regards,
Dipabhasadhamma
-
-
You asked: “P.S. To minimize reading time, could you please provide the page numbers where the questions I raised are addressed?”
Yes, of course. I have prepared a separate document of the section you are interested in reading.
Thank you
-
Dear Dr. Pinnaduwage,
In the “About” section of this puredhamma.net, you make the statement: “As in science, here, I will treat Buddha Dhamma as a theory and explore whether it provides a consistent picture of our world.” I hope that my paper, in some small way, may provide a bit of that picture you speak of. Thank you for choosing to read the paper. I respect the work that you have done on this site, and so, thought of you when completing this paper.
Many kind regards,
Dipabhasadhamma
-
-
I appreciate your efforts to incorporate the issue of an Arahant into your model.
1. While reading your paper, I realized the following: the root problem I have is with the original theory of Quantum Immorality, grounded in the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
- Quantum mechanics (QM) — in any form whatsoever — will never be able to describe the world. The reason is that all theories of QM are based on theories that attempt to describe the world in terms of elementary particles of matter.
- In contrast, according to Buddha’s teachings, all phenomena have mental activities as their precursor.
2. I have discussed this in several posts on the website.
- See, for example, “The Double Slit Experiment – Correlation between Mind and Matter?” and “Views on Life – Wrong View of Materialism.”
- Those are two posts in the sections, “Buddhism – Inconsistencies with Science” and “Origin of Life.”
3. I think you have done a good job of trying to incorporate the issue of an Arahant into your model per the other QM theories out there. So, the other reviewers are likely to accept it.
- But it may not be a good idea to put me as a reviewer due to the above reasons.
- To emphasize, my key issue is the following: QM adopts a mathematical formulation (wave functions) to describe the motion of particles. Thus, QM at its core is trying to view the world as composed of particles. However, the Buddha taught that all material phenomena arise based on mental processes. This is also discussed in the new series, “Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta – New Series.” In other words, mental processes cannot be expressed in terms of wavefunctions.
-
Dear Dr. Pinnaduwage,
Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and cogent reflections on my manuscript. I deeply appreciate the time and care you took in raising such important phenomenological and ontological points. Your observations bring valuable clarity to key philosophical tensions, and I fully understand the weight of the concerns you’ve expressed.
I will take your insights seriously and reflect on them carefully. Should I address these points in a future revision of the paper, I will be sure to inform you and share the updated version. Your engagement has been genuinely helpful in deepening the scope and integrity of this work.
This paper was initially inspired by the pioneering research of scholars like Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, David Chalmers, and others contributing to the evolving field of consciousness studies. My goal has always been to explore possible bridges between contemporary theory and ancient insight, and your feedback plays a meaningful role in that exploration.
With sincere appreciation,
Dipobhāsadhamma Anācariyako -
Thank you very much for sharing your work with us.
- Please don’t hesitate to ask questions as you navigate through the links I’ve pointed out.
- Our goal is to comprehend the “previously unheard teachings of the Buddha” to the best of our capability. They have been hidden for centuries, and now we are starting to recover them, thanks to the efforts of Waharaka Thero.
- However, I believe there is still much more to be done to refine our understanding. This has been an amazing experience for me, and my hope is that many more will be interested in Buddha’s teachings as we uncover deeper aspects. Your work could get more people exposed to the teachings.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Dear Lal, “Your work could get more people exposed to the teachings.” Yes, this is specifically the point of my efforts. Like a painter, a canvass artist, not everyone is going to like the work or even understand a work of art. However, art inevitably evokes some kind of response, good or bad, but there is a communicative connection nonetheless. Thank you for your response. -D
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Dear Lal, I have uploaded the latest version of the Quantum Immortality paper. In this edition I have attempted to address the points you made regarding QI and Arahants. I have given this much thought and modified many of the equations, phenomenology and theories. Now, mind you, I want to stress that my intentions are not to prove the Buddha’s teachings with physics or prove physics to be in line with what the Buddha taught. I do believe that one of your observations is most correct; by doing this I may ignite a dialogue or at the very least, provide a portal through which physicists and other researchers may become exposed to the Buddha’s phenomenology and teachings. From my own observations it does not appear that many Quantum or Particle physicists have much knowledge of the Buddha’s teachings. On the other hand, several other researchers in the field of Consciousness Research have dabbled in the possible connection between what the Buddha taught and what the field of research has, of late, revealed.
I appreciate your assistance and in the end, I do hope that you will consider, that although you may not agree with many aspects of my theories, you might see the benefit in my research. To that end, I would greatly appreciate it if you would re-consider a peer review. At present, my paper is under review with Springer Nature. At present I have cleared the technical, declarations and concept reviews. As you know, getting a paper published by an organization such as this, would go a long way in advancing readership population. A peer review of my paper would also provide exposure for the Pure Dhamma site. Again, to this end, please reconsider.
Here is the link to the completed paper: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m5nrm1k87ukyo8eo5um89/QuantumImmortality2ndEdition-Rev080625.pdf?rlkey=v7niz967bnudqwqf9o07k76hl&dl=0
Dipobhasadhamma
-
-
-
I received the PDF. Following is an easily downloadable file:
QuantumImmortality-Dipabhasadhamma-Aug 6 2025
- I will try to read it over the weekend, as I need to work on the new post first. Thank you!
-
I have the following observations.
1. Modern science is based on physics, which is the study of the physical world. Starting with physics (trying to probe elementary constituents of matter and its related properties like heat and electromagnetism), scientists have expanded into more complex entities with chemistry, biology, and zoology.
- In the early days, scientists studied the physics of matter (gravity, motion of particles, etc.) and energy (heat, electromagnetism, etc.) separately. However, Einstein’s mass-energy equation (E = mc^2) made the connection between matter and energy.
2. In the meantime, mental phenomena and inquiries into fundamental reality (unchanging principles that underpin reality itself) were studied separately and fell under the category of philosophy.
- These were termed “metaphysics” (implying “beyond physics” or “not amenable to physics”). For example, questions like “Why does anything exist at all?” or “What is the ultimate structure of existence?” are metaphysical because they can’t be settled by experiments
- They were mostly philosophical in nature. Different philosophers presented vastly different ideas, which could not be proven or disproven with the tools of physics (or science and mathematics in general).
3. As we saw in #1 above, Einstein’s mass-energy equation (E = mc^2) made the connection between matter and energy.
- Furthermore, quantum mechanics has some features (quantum entanglement, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc.) that make it appear “mysterious” compared to classical physics, where the predictions are intuitive and transparently deterministic.
- The “hard problem in consciousness” (discussed in philosophy) is also mysterious, just like quantum phenomena: the question of how consciousness can arise in a brain made of inert matter.
- When quantum mechanics emerged in the early 1900s, many people began to connect the two, speculating that the newly discovered quantum theory would explain how consciousness arises in the brain.
4. However, the root problem of the approach in #3 is the following.
- Most of those proposals to connect quantum phenomena to mental processes presume that consciousness arises in the brain. In other words, they attempt to identify quantum processes in the brain, and more specifically, in neurons. Yet, neurons are macroscopic particles and not in the quantum regime!
5. The proposed theory of “Quantum Immortality” based on the “Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” does not specifically refer to consciousness arising in the brain.
- It is a very general theory (more like a philosophical argument) without specificity.
- It is solely based on the time development of a wave function. Wave functions are used to calculate the trajectories of microscopic particles or energy packets.
6. Buddha’s worldview is exactly the opposite. Mental phenomena are the root cause of material phenomena.
- However, there is a connection to quantum mechanics in the following way. Kammic energy (generated in javana cittas defiled with raga, dosa, moha) is the precursor to both living and non-living matter, i.e., both the living beings and their environments.
- These subtle energies overlap the energies involved in quantum mechanics (QM). The “unusual properties of microscopic particles/energies addressed in QM” are also displayed by kammic energies. A good example is “quantum entanglement”, which is the ability of two spatially separated “entangled particles” to respond to each other instantaneously. See “Quantum Entanglement – We Are All Connected.”
7. However, I believe the paper on “Quantum Immortality: The Missing Element” should be published because it can initiate a productive discussion on the intriguing subject of consciousness between the two camps.
_____________
I am not sure a review like the above can be helpful for getting the paper accepted. If so, I would be happy to do so, and I can address any other points you can bring to my attention.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Follow-Up: Your Insight and Invitation for Peer Review
Dear Lal,
First, thank you deeply for your thoughtful and comprehensive commentary. Your dual perspective—as both a physicist and a Pāli scholar—is precisely the kind of informed, multidimensional analysis this paper was designed to invite. Your reflections affirm that the dialogue between modern physics and the Buddha’s phenomenology is not only possible, but urgent and worthy of intellectual rigor.
That said, I’d like to invite you—despite your reservations—to consider performing a full peer review of Quantum Immortality: The Missing Element. Let me offer a few reasons why your review would be uniquely impactful, regardless of whether you fully endorse all the theories presented:
1. You Represent the Essential Counterbalance
Your view—that speculative attempts to unite quantum mechanics and consciousness risk conflating physics with metaphysics—is precisely the kind of intelligent skepticism that will keep the discussion grounded. Rather than seeing this as an obstacle, I see it as invaluable. Your critical stance would act as an intellectual anchor, keeping the paper from drifting into untestable abstraction. This allows readers to engage both the possibilities and the limitations of the proposed model with greater clarity.
2. Highlighting Philosophical Boundaries Strengthens the Paper
The paper does stretch into philosophical terrain, particularly by invoking models like final-state projection and drawing analogies with arahant cessation. Your remarks clarify where the boundary between science and metaphysics truly lies—and thus, your review would allow the paper to explicitly demarcate that boundary. This makes the paper more philosophically honest and more scientifically responsible.
3. Your Framework Could Form a Parallel Model
You’ve suggested that kammic energy may more precisely account for phenomena that quantum theory only metaphorically touches. Your review could offer readers a Pāli-based alternative model of continuity and cessation—one that reinforces the primacy of the mental in a non-materialist paradigm. Rather than dismissing the quantum analogies, your perspective refines their scope and elevates the Dhamma’s explanatory power.
4. A Review from You Signals Cross-Disciplinary Credibility
Should the paper reach publication, your name as a reviewer carries weight: a physicist who is fluent in Abhidhamma and critical of reductionist interpretations of both science and Buddhism. This lends gravitas and legitimacy to the project, showing that the conversation is happening among serious scholars with diverse orientations—not just advocates of speculative synthesis.
5. Your Review Could Be Published as a Counterpoint
Depending on the journal, there may be an opportunity to include your critique—should you choose—as an editorial comment or counterpoint, initiating the very dialogue you mentioned in your final remark. What better way to ensure that “productive discussion between the two camps” is not just proposed, but actually demonstrated in the paper’s reception?
In closing, I wish to reiterate that your voice—whether supportive, critical, or ambivalent—is crucial. I do not seek a rubber stamp. I seek an honest and elevated exchange that models what respectful inquiry between the Buddha’s philosophy and theoretical physics might look like at its best.
With gratitude and respect,
Dipobhasadhamma -
If I agree to do a full review, how would it work?
- Do you first need to get permission from the Editor, or are you thinking about just forwarding my review to the Editor?
- The journals I dealt with, the Editor would ask me for suggestions for reviewers in rare occasions. I never submitted the name of a suggested reviewer without the Editor asking for one.
-
Dear Lal,
Thank you for your willingness to consider a full review. I greatly appreciate your openness and engagement with the material—it adds significant value to the work, regardless of the outcome.
To answer your question: formal peer reviews are indeed typically coordinated at the discretion of the journal’s editorial board, and I fully understand that unsolicited reviews are not the norm. That said, there are two possible paths forward, depending on your comfort level and the journal’s submission procedures:
Option 1: Independent Review Shared Alongside Submission
This would not be an official peer review requested by the editor, but rather a supplemental scholarly review that I submit as part of my cover letter or appendix. It would be clearly labeled as an independent assessment by a subject-matter expert (with your credentials), and I would frame it as a critical perspective that helps delineate the boundaries and speculative nature of the work.
This could:
- Strengthen the submission by showing the work has already undergone cross-disciplinary scrutiny;
- Offer editors additional perspective—even if they later choose to initiate their own peer review process;
- Serve to highlight the diversity of opinion within this space, which is part of the paper’s purpose.
Of course, many of the more prestigious Journals require a double-blind review. However, I do not intend on submitting to these journals. Most of the Journals including Springer, do not require double-blind reviews.
Option 2: Await Journal Invitation for Formal Peer Review
Should the paper move forward in the review process and the journal requests reviewer suggestions, such as in a double-blind review, I would then provide your name—only with your consent. The editor would reach out to you directly, and you could proceed under their usual protocols.
I understand that Option 1 is somewhat unconventional, but in cases like this—where the paper spans two distinct fields and is designed to provoke interdisciplinary discussion—a reviewer with your background provides precisely the balance and insight that could enrich both the editorial process and eventual readership. You may also know of another associate that may be interested in reviewing this paper. Perhaps this would serve to provide additional perspectives and expand the reader population. Therefore, I believe that Option 1 is the way to go.
Please let me know your thoughts, and I’ll proceed according to your preference. Either way, I remain deeply grateful for your engagement.
With sincere respect,
Dipobhasadhamma -
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.