"This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum froth’)."
In truth, dynamic emptiness has absolutely nothing to do with quantum froth, which could be described using any objects and still make sense. This concept of some unseen physical manifestation of the model arises because of the terms a theoretician chose to identify elements of his mathematical model. They're essentially undefined terms, given meaning by their context in the larger physical system.
A lot of people get lost in the undefined terms, thinking that because we use a familiar word for the term, that the item in the model which the term identifies somehow actually exists. Actually there's no proof that the quantum froth exists as physical object, any more than that light is somehow both a wave and a particle. Rather, wave/particle "duality" is a consequence of different mathematical models which happen to generate results which are consistent with observation.
The "duality" doesn't actually exist, and the way light behaves is so incredibly nuanced that people dedicate their lives to modeling and testing it. Waveness and Particleness are models which produce mathematics consistent with the natural world.
In the cases where more than one mathematical model fits the same set of observations, scientific controversies arise. A Physical theory is accepted when the mathematical model produces results which are consistent with observation, and sufficient experimental work has been done to rule out other mathematical models with overlapping explanatory power.
My thermodynamics professor opened all of his classes by saying "Everything I am about to tell you is a carefully constructed series of lies."
That's just one of the definitions of truth, and a quite naive one at that. Not just philosophy, even epistemology have not been using this for ages.
As someone interested in mindfulness for its own pursuits, I want to learn what's in my teacher's head, rather than listen to them try unsuccessfully to tie that to what's firmly in mine. I'm sorry to say it's distracting :)
--- While it is refreshing that Zen philosophy is supported in many ways by present scientific knowledge, it is also a critique of scientific thought. The scientific tradition requires things up to be cut up — both mentally and physically — into smaller and small pieces to investigate them. It suggests that the only kind of knowledge is empirical and that the rigid laws of scientific method are the only kind that are valid.
Zen implies that this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater — scientific thinking might be immensely useful, but it also does violence to a meaningful conception of life. It tends to screen out the essential connectedness of things. We live in an imprecise world. Nature is extraordinarily vague. Science promotes the idea of hard, clear ‘brute facts’ — but some facts are soft. A ‘cutting-up’ attitude to life gives us dead knowledge, not live knowledge.---
It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.
A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come.
B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation.
It's circular.