Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind

by B. Alan Wallace

Shares the podium with The Tao of Physics & The Dancing Wu Li Masters, and wears the gold medal.—John Tigue, Ph.D., Daemen College

Genres: Buddhism, Science, Philosophy, Physics, Spirituality, Religion, Psychology

232 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

Reviews

[Nancy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. If you want to open your mind and really start to consider taking the blue pill; if you've ever had a disquieting feeling that science isn't actually as infallible, unerring and certain as it makes itself out to be, and if you've ever wondered about other possibilities but you didn't want to explore them through airy-fairy artificial self-help gurus, then this is the book you need to read. For nothing else, it is one of the clearest explanations of quantum physics that I have so far encountered. But it isn't just that (although for that alone, it is worth reading the first half of the book). It is a philosophical examination of science itself, including its metaphysical beginnings, its current dogmas and how 'sure' it really is.

I come from years of absolute scientific realism. I went down that path quite a few years ago, and devoured everything from Dawkins to Feynmann, totally and uncritically accepting everything. But then I studied psychology and by the end of the degree there were doubts. Were things really that cut and dried? As I matured, and became more confident in the legitimacy of my own experience, further doubts began to arise, particularly in light of my own feminist and environmentalist point of view. Once I started exploring Buddhism, the questions just exploded, and this book seemed to explain so much of what I had been wondering about in such clear, cogent and well argued terms.

It also introduces elements of Buddhist philosophy which probably seem totally unrealistic, especially from a scientific realist's point of view. But are they really? Honestly, read the book and make your own conclusions. But don't make them on the basis of Alan Wallace's arguments. Test them, read more, hypothesize, test them again, keep exploring. I mean, isn't that what science expects us to do in the first place?

[Evan Dower · Rating 1 out of 5]

Masturbatory stoner philosophising. The first couple chapters fail to make the book's purpose clear. The author personifies science in a way that makes me think they may not actually understand what they're talking about but rather just cherry-pick bits that support their position while ignoring necessary context. As far as I can tell, the thesis seems to be that the scientific method doesn't provide a complete & fully accurate explanation of reality, so we should abandon it in favor of our subjective opinions/experience of how reality seems like. That is, there can be multiple scientific theories that account for the same results, so it isn't valuable. Except that disproving theories is super useful. It allows us to say "the nature of reality is definitely not like this, though it could be like that or that." And the theories allow us to make useful & accurate predictions. A "subjective theory" seems to me to lack any practical purpose, since by definition it doesn't make predictions that could be confirmed or denied. If two theories producer the same predictions (or no predictions), then I don't see why it would matter if you believe in one or the other. As humans, we make simplified mental models in order to survive & succeed in the world be making predictions about the future. These mental models are just tools for making predictions. It might feel good to believe you understand the nature of reality, but the purpose of mental models (including scientific theories) is to describe predictable behavior, not fundamental nature.

[Frank Jude · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book predates Wallace's Hidden Dimensions but, I think, is better. He argues his case with much more detail and even-handedness. And while his emphasis on the "centrist viewpoint" is one I feel quite sympathetic to myself, I'm not fully convinced. I seem to have much less an issue or problem with mind being an emergent property of the brain. I am not convinced by the evidence -- as yet -- that we need to postulate a non-physical basis for mind.

But this book should be read by any Buddhist and even more by any scientist interested in a deeply penetrating investigation into 'reality' and what that might mean.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this book is the closest I've gotten to taking the red pill in the Matrix. "When first encountering a theory that differs radically from one's accustomed views, skepticism is bound to arise... It is most useful to transform simple skepticism into critical investigation." Whether you believe in Buddhism's teachings or not, this book provides airtight frameworks for believing you can "experience ultimate reality in a manner that transcends language and concept".

[Lukasz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good comparison of modern physics and Buddhism.

[Nick Mather]

A good companion book to Capra's "Tao of Physics", this focuses primarily on Tibetan Buddhist concepts of mind. Wallace does a good job in explaining some of the theories of modern physics and quantum physics and tries to take a very even handed approach with comparing these theories to some Buddhist ideas. Anyone who finds the current trend of reductionistic materialism in science disatisfying, yet also thinks some of the New Age speculations about quantum physics little more than wild flights of fancy, then this book provides a nice, pragmatic alternative.

[Evan Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot urge other people strongly enough to read this book. Irrespective of your current stance on issues such as materialism, scientism, mysticism, etc, you will find value in the straightforward, cogent exploration of these issues presented here.

[Joy Day · Rating 5 out of 5]

awesome