The biggest problem with Wheeler's delay experiment is that people find that the law of causality is not applicable. The cause and effect of things are out of order because of time. "Fruit" will also affect "cause". Explain in common language that you don't know whether you planted melons or beans at first. But if you bring a melon basket when picking, you will find that the melon you planted has a bean basket. You will find that you planted beans from the beginning. If you don't bring anything, you won't take out the basket until the last minute, and you don't even know what it is. As a result, the melon basket still gets melons, and the bean basket still gets beans. This is Wheeler's delay experiment.

Of course, it is still possible to give a scientific explanation. For example, whether a photon is a wave or a particle, there is no need to distinguish it so clearly. We can say that it has the properties of both waves and particles. For example, we don't say whether this is a melon or a bean now, just say-vegetables! In our opinion, it was incorrect to classify this vegetable as melon or bean before. This is something that our current technology cannot accurately describe. This is the attitude of ordinary scientists towards this experiment. Don't try to explain if you don't understand. Put it aside. We will know when science develops in the future.

There is also a saying that time is just an illusion in the physical world. Rooted in our body structure, we can only feel the one-way passage of time, but in fact, the law of causality is two-way. So the result can also determine the reason. It's a little mysterious. It is also related to Buddhism. Actually. Buddhism believes that our understanding of the whole world is unreal and illusory. The reason is that our understanding of the whole world is based on "eyes, nose, tongue, body and mind", and eyes, nose, tongue, body and mind have their own limitations. Causing us to misunderstand the world. Therefore, Buddhism says that the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body are all "covers", that is, covering, which blinds people's true self and makes people unable to understand the world.

It is worth noting that in Buddhism, meaning is also illusory. It is generally believed that Buddhism is idealism. In fact, Buddhism even denied the "heart". The "heart" recognized in Buddhism is the true self, which is different from what we generally think of as "heart", that is, consciousness. Since Buddhism denies the existence of meaning, no matter what Wheeler's delayed experiment is, these phenomena observed by eyes, nose, tongue and body on the basis of "phase" and the laws summarized by "meaning" are illusory.

If consciousness is not the heart, then what is the heart? This is the goal pursued by eminent monks and Buddhist believers in past dynasties. After realizing one's true nature and understanding one's nature, one will be fully enlightened, that is, nirvana, the ultimate goal pursued by Buddhist believers.

——————————————————————————————————————

Answers to supplementary questions:

Because I am only a Buddhist and have limited knowledge of science, the following answer may be one-sided from my own point of view:

Answer the question about faith first. At the forefront of quantum physics, there are many theories that are actually difficult to distinguish between belief and science. Many theories are also scientists' own ideas. For example, according to the string theory, which is very popular now, the universe should have 1 1 dimensions. Because only in this way can some equation parameters in string theory have practical physical significance. It's like a scientist saying, "I believe this is the world." This attitude is actually similar to faith. Not "I can prove it", but "I believe it". Because science does not have enough means to confirm these inferences at present. So you can say that these are all beliefs.

This reminds me of allusions about tides. At the beginning, only after humans mastered all the knowledge of 1, that the earth is round (geography), 2, gravity (physics) and 3, that the earth moves around the sun and the moon moves around the earth (astronomy), did they finally give a reasonable explanation for the tides. Before this, all kinds of explanations were really different, but many scholars believed that their explanations were reasonable. Now some things in quantum physics are the same as before. Because it is beyond the current knowledge of human beings, it is impossible to get a perfect explanation, and all kinds of theories are just beliefs. Only by waiting patiently for the further development of science and technology in the future can many things be explained in retrospect.

Then, about the ultimate truth. I think the first thing to do is to find out what the final truth is.

1, if the ultimate truth is to describe the world objectively, I believe science can't do it in the end. Because science itself is not objective! All basic physical concepts are subjectively defined! Like time. What is the time? The most classic definition of physics is that time is produced by material movement and is a manifestation of material movement. Without material movement, there is no time. It makes sense to see it here. Then, if we continue to dig deeper, what is the movement of matter? Does the change of object's spatial position count as motion? If it's up to you. So, how to define the change of spatial position? When do we say that the spatial position of an object has changed? Attention! At this time, a very subjective factor must be introduced-the observer! In other words, the change of the spatial position of an object, this phenomenon, must be defined by an observer!

The basic physical concepts, time, motion, force, trace back to the source, and eventually find the ghost of an observer. Without observers, physical quantities cannot be defined. How can we say that science can objectively describe the physical world when we cannot get rid of the position of an observer?

2. If the ultimate truth is to know yourself and understand "what am I". Science has just started in this field. As I said before, since even objective physics can't get rid of the ghost of observers, if we want to seek truth, we should study observers directly. In fact, Buddhism is better at studying the topic "What am I" than science. It is good that you say that the language of Buddhism is vague and emotional. But considering that the goal of Buddhism is not to explain the world from the beginning, but to save all beings in reincarnation, it is understandable. You can think of Buddhism as a kind of psychology, and its research object is the human heart. In psychology, many concepts are different from those in physics. Then, because all the sentient beings the Buddha wants to educate are ancient people, not everyone has received a good education, so there is no way to use emotional language. In my opinion, there are two Buddhist scriptures written in a way that smacks of modern scientific analysis, one is the Shurangama Sutra, and the other is the theory of land by the yoga teacher. Compared with these two classics, Freud's analysis of psychological activities still stays at a very superficial level. In addition, the Shurangama Sutra also has a lot of space for the Buddha to explain the objective material world. Worth seeing!

Finally, I want to say that science is more convincing than Buddhism. A big reason is that we have received science education since childhood, and it took decades to receive education and do scientific experiments in the classroom. We all agree that the charm of science lies in the fact that scientific theories can be proved. But how much time have we spent on Buddhist practice? Buddhist theory can also be demonstrated, but too few people dare to try and persist. The Buddha pointed out a path of positive nirvana. But few people succeed in the end, because the experience path of Buddhism is to challenge themselves, and it is too difficult to conquer the external objective world and self-mind.

I hope my answer can help you. thank you