Approach to Physical Reality: a note on Poincaré Group
and the philosophy of Nagarjuna.
David Vernette, Punam Tandan, and Michele Caponigro
We argue about a possible scenario of physical reality based on the parallelism between Poincaré
group and the sunyata philosophy of Nagarjuna. The notion of ”relational” is the common denom-
inator of two views. We have approached the relational concept in third-person perspective (ontic
level). It is possible to deduce different physical consequence and interpretation through first-person
perspective approach. This relational interpretation leave open the questions: i)we must abandon
the idea for a physical system the possibility to extract the completeness information? ii)we must
abandon the idea to infer a possible structure of physical reality?
POINCARÉ GROUP
There are two universal features of modern day physics
regarding physical systems: all physical phenomena take
place in 1)space-time and all phenomena are (in princi-
ple) subject to 2)quantum mechanics. Are these aspects
just two facets of the same underlying physical reality?
The research is concentrate on this fundamental point.
The notion of space-time is linked to the geometry, so an
interesting question is what geometry is appropriate for
quantum physics[3]. Can geometry give us any knowl-
edge about the nature of physical space where the phys-
ical laws take place? Can geometry give us the possible
scenario of the physical reality? A fundamental aspect of
a geometry is the group of transformations defined over
it. Group theory is the necessary instruments for ex-
pressing the laws of physics (the concept of symmetry is
derived from group theory.)[4].Physics and the geometry
in which it take place are not independent. We retain
there is a close relationship between space-time struc-
ture and physical theory. Space-time imposes univer-
sally valid constraints on physical theories and the uni-
versality of these laws starts to become less mysterious
(i.e. various paradox). The invariance under the group
of transformations is a fundamental criterion to classify
mathematical structures. Poincaré introduced notion of
invariance under continue transformations. The Poincaré
Group is the group of translation, rotation, and boost
operators in 4-dimensional space-time. Now, some nat-
ural questions are: does space exist independently
of phenomena? Itself has an intrinsic significance? A
system defined in this space through physical law could
exist by itself? We call ”absolute” reality the reality of a
system that do not depend by its interaction with other
system. The problem is that we have not a single system.
In this brief note, we abandon the idea of absolute reality
and we argue in favor of a relational reality, because re-
lational reality is founded on the premise that an object
is real only in relation to another object that it is inter-
acting with. In the relational interpretation[2], the basic
elements of objective reality are the measurement events
themselves. This interpretation goes beyond the Copen-
hagen interpretation by replacing the absolute reality
with relational reality. In the relational interpreta-
tion the wave function is merely a useful mathematical
abstraction. Some authors proposes that the laws of na-
ture are really the result of probabilities constrained by
fundamental symmetries. Relational reality is asso-
ciated with the fundamental concept of interac-
tions. These later analysis of the ”relational” notion
bring us to approach the same problem utilizing the sun-
yata philosophy of Nagaujuna.
CONCEPT OF REALITY IN THE PHILOSOPHY
OF NAGARJUNA
The Middle Way of Madhyamika refers to the teach-
ings of Nagarjuna, very interesting are the implications
between quantum physics and Madhyamika. The basic
concept of reality in the philosophy of Nagarjuna is that
the fundamental reality has no firm core but consists
of systems of interacting objects. According to the
middle way perspective, based on the notion of empti-
ness, phenomena exist in a relative way, that is, they are
empty of any kind of inherent and independent existence.
Phenomena are regarded as dependent events existing
relationally rather than permanent things, which
have their own entity. Nagarjuna middle way perspective
emerges as a relational approach, based on the insight of
emptiness. Sunyata (emptiness) is the foundation of all
things, and it is the basic principle of all phenomena. The
emptiness implies the negation of unchanged, fixed sub-
stance and thereby the possibility for relational existence
and change. This suggests that both the ontological con-
stitution of things and our epistemological schemes are
just as relational as everything else. We are fundamen-
tally relational internally and externally. In other words,
Nagarjuna do not fix any ontological nature of the things:
• 1)they do not arise.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1665v1
• 2)they do not exist.
• 3)they are not to be found.
• 4)they are not.
• 5)and they are unreal
In short, an invitation do not decide on either existence
or non-existence(nondualism). According the theory of
sunyata, phenomena exist in a relative state only, a kind
of ’ontological relativity’. Phenomena are regarded
as dependent(only in relation to something else) events
rather than things which have their own inherent nature;
thus the extreme of permanence is avoided.
CONCLUSION
We have seen the link between relational and in-
teraction within a space-time governed by own geom-
etry. Nagarjuna’s philosophy use the same basic con-
cept of ”relational” in the interpretation of reality. We
note that our parallelism between the scenario of physi-
cal reality and the relational interpretation of the same
reality is based on third-person perspective approach
(i.e. the ontic level, relational view include the observer-
device). Different considerations could be done thought
first-person perspective approach, in this case we retain
the impossibility to establish any parallelism. Finally,
we note that probably the relational approach stimulate
the interest to fundamental problems in physics like: the
unification of laws and the discrete/continuum view[1].
——————
⋄David Vernette, Punam Tandan, Michele Caponigro
Quantum Philosophy Theories www.qpt.org.uk
⋄ qpt@qpt.org.uk
[1] Vernette-Caponigro: Continuum versus Discrete Physics
physics/0701164
[2] Rovelli C. Relational quantum mechanics, Intl. J. theor.
Phys. 35, 1637-1678 (1996)
[3] note -1- It was suggested, for instance, that the universal
symmetry group elements which act on all Hilbert spaces
may be appropriate for constructing a physical geometry
for quantum theory.
[4] note -2- Some authors retain the symmetry is the ontic
element, and the physical laws like the space-time are sec-
ondary
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701164
	Poincaré Group
	Concept of reality in the philosophy of Nagarjuna
	Conclusion
	References

  We argue about a possible scenario of physical reality based on the
parallelism between Poincare group and the sunyata philosophy of Nagarjuna. The
notion of "relational" is the common denominator of two views. We have
approached the relational concept in third-person perspective (ontic level). It
is possible to deduce different physical consequence and interpretation through
first-person perspective approach. This relational interpretation leave open
the questions: i)we must abandon the idea for a physical system the possibility
to extract completeness information? ii)we must abandon the idea to infer a
possible structure of physical reality?

Approach to Physical Reality: a note on Poincaré Group
and the philosophy of Nagarjuna.
David Vernette, Punam Tandan, and Michele Caponigro
We argue about a possible scenario of physical reality based on the parallelism between Poincaré
group and the sunyata philosophy of Nagarjuna. The notion of ”relational” is the common denom-
inator of two views. We have approached the relational concept in third-person perspective (ontic
level). It is possible to deduce different physical consequence and interpretation through first-person
perspective approach. This relational interpretation leave open the questions: i)we must abandon
the idea for a physical system the possibility to extract the completeness information? ii)we must
abandon the idea to infer a possible structure of physical reality?
POINCARÉ GROUP
There are two universal features of modern day physics
regarding physical systems: all physical phenomena take
place in 1)space-time and all phenomena are (in princi-
ple) subject to 2)quantum mechanics. Are these aspects
just two facets of the same underlying physical reality?
The research is concentrate on this fundamental point.
The notion of space-time is linked to the geometry, so an
interesting question is what geometry is appropriate for
quantum physics[3]. Can geometry give us any knowl-
edge about the nature of physical space where the phys-
ical laws take place? Can geometry give us the possible
scenario of the physical reality? A fundamental aspect of
a geometry is the group of transformations defined over
it. Group theory is the necessary instruments for ex-
pressing the laws of physics (the concept of symmetry is
derived from group theory.)[4].Physics and the geometry
in which it take place are not independent. We retain
there is a close relationship between space-time struc-
ture and physical theory. Space-time imposes univer-
sally valid constraints on physical theories and the uni-
versality of these laws starts to become less mysterious
(i.e. various paradox). The invariance under the group
of transformations is a fundamental criterion to classify
mathematical structures. Poincaré introduced notion of
invariance under continue transformations. The Poincaré
Group is the group of translation, rotation, and boost
operators in 4-dimensional space-time. Now, some nat-
ural questions are: does space exist independently
of phenomena? Itself has an intrinsic significance? A
system defined in this space through physical law could
exist by itself? We call ”absolute” reality the reality of a
system that do not depend by its interaction with other
system. The problem is that we have not a single system.
In this brief note, we abandon the idea of absolute reality
and we argue in favor of a relational reality, because re-
lational reality is founded on the premise that an object
is real only in relation to another object that it is inter-
acting with. In the relational interpretation[2], the basic
elements of objective reality are the measurement events
themselves. This interpretation goes beyond the Copen-
hagen interpretation by replacing the absolute reality
with relational reality. In the relational interpreta-
tion the wave function is merely a useful mathematical
abstraction. Some authors proposes that the laws of na-
ture are really the result of probabilities constrained by
fundamental symmetries. Relational reality is asso-
ciated with the fundamental concept of interac-
tions. These later analysis of the ”relational” notion
bring us to approach the same problem utilizing the sun-
yata philosophy of Nagaujuna.
CONCEPT OF REALITY IN THE PHILOSOPHY
OF NAGARJUNA
The Middle Way of Madhyamika refers to the teach-
ings of Nagarjuna, very interesting are the implications
between quantum physics and Madhyamika. The basic
concept of reality in the philosophy of Nagarjuna is that
the fundamental reality has no firm core but consists
of systems of interacting objects. According to the
middle way perspective, based on the notion of empti-
ness, phenomena exist in a relative way, that is, they are
empty of any kind of inherent and independent existence.
Phenomena are regarded as dependent events existing
relationally rather than permanent things, which
have their own entity. Nagarjuna middle way perspective
emerges as a relational approach, based on the insight of
emptiness. Sunyata (emptiness) is the foundation of all
things, and it is the basic principle of all phenomena. The
emptiness implies the negation of unchanged, fixed sub-
stance and thereby the possibility for relational existence
and change. This suggests that both the ontological con-
stitution of things and our epistemological schemes are
just as relational as everything else. We are fundamen-
tally relational internally and externally. In other words,
Nagarjuna do not fix any ontological nature of the things:
• 1)they do not arise.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1665v1
• 2)they do not exist.
• 3)they are not to be found.
• 4)they are not.
• 5)and they are unreal
In short, an invitation do not decide on either existence
or non-existence(nondualism). According the theory of
sunyata, phenomena exist in a relative state only, a kind
of ’ontological relativity’. Phenomena are regarded
as dependent(only in relation to something else) events
rather than things which have their own inherent nature;
thus the extreme of permanence is avoided.
CONCLUSION
We have seen the link between relational and in-
teraction within a space-time governed by own geom-
etry. Nagarjuna’s philosophy use the same basic con-
cept of ”relational” in the interpretation of reality. We
note that our parallelism between the scenario of physi-
cal reality and the relational interpretation of the same
reality is based on third-person perspective approach
(i.e. the ontic level, relational view include the observer-
device). Different considerations could be done thought
first-person perspective approach, in this case we retain
the impossibility to establish any parallelism. Finally,
we note that probably the relational approach stimulate
the interest to fundamental problems in physics like: the
unification of laws and the discrete/continuum view[1].
——————
⋄David Vernette, Punam Tandan, Michele Caponigro
Quantum Philosophy Theories www.qpt.org.uk
⋄ qpt@qpt.org.uk
[1] Vernette-Caponigro: Continuum versus Discrete Physics
physics/0701164
[2] Rovelli C. Relational quantum mechanics, Intl. J. theor.
Phys. 35, 1637-1678 (1996)
[3] note -1- It was suggested, for instance, that the universal
symmetry group elements which act on all Hilbert spaces
may be appropriate for constructing a physical geometry
for quantum theory.
[4] note -2- Some authors retain the symmetry is the ontic
element, and the physical laws like the space-time are sec-
ondary
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701164
	Poincaré Group
	Concept of reality in the philosophy of Nagarjuna
	Conclusion
	References
