I find it interesting. Especially since variations on the theme have been around for a long time… the idea that there may be an energy existence that is more malliable and then gives rise, in levels, to the physical.
its too bad for them, they are scientists and they deserve respect.
Buddha once stated that the eight fold path to enlightenment would eventually become antiquated and have to be replaced with a new method (to be introduced by a future Buddha).
Bohm’s theory and others like it make me wonder if physics and the implementation of the reasoning mind might not be this method.
I guess this would necessitate Einstein and Maxwell being Buddhas or at least bodhisattvas, but I could live with that. 
The path to enlightenment is wthout the use of physical manifestations. Science is striving for perfection whereas the journey towards enlightenment is simple in some respects and accessable to everyone.
Z,
I hope you don’t mind if I play the devil’s advocate, since I really don’t disagree with you in spirit.
There is one physical manifestation required to achieve enlightenment, you! A human incarnation is considered to be a great opportunity and vehicle for enlightenment, not to be wasted.
As for perfection, it is my humble opinion that if the eight fold path is practiced correctly, it is indeed a perfection of the art of living, which is why it results in enlightenment.
Now to science, if you have studied Zen or any other form of Buddhism I’m sure you know that the reasoning mind or intellect is not to be relied on due to it’s inherent subjectivity.
My point in the previous post was that it is possible that at some point in the future the intellect could be used to come to the realization of the void, since physics and the other sciences are quickly coming to a consensus concerning the illusionary nature of the universe (string theory, standing waves and quantum mechanics).
A good book on this subject is The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra.
Halfway through this post I accidently deleted it, don’t you hate that?
I hope you take this post in the spirit in which it is given, friendly debate.
Good fortune on your journey!
I think u do make a good pont firehorse and I always conduct myself in a friendly manner. I myself am always happy and never mind a bit of discussion. Differing opinions is a way to learn and progress.
I do understand your point but science is striving for perfection or otherwise to know as much as we can about this universe. This being impossible(I think), science will alwaus be striving for something and never be happy or content with what they have acheived and thus this striving and desire to achieve more will hinder the process or journey to enlightenment.
The goal of science would be to find the ultimate theory known as ‘the unification of physics.’ We have begun to model this theory and have found suggestions that it exists. This theory would take our knowledge as far as science could bring it. Beyond that would be the final mystery for man to solve: ‘WHY?’ Then humans would have complete understanding and as Hawking put it, ‘we would know the mind of God.’
And at what cost this knowlege? The negative karma accumulated by acts such as animal experimentation and genetic manipulation is truly frightening.
While I grant that there is a difference between these and the more cerebral disciplines such as physics and mathematics, I still fear the only purpose this knowlege will ultimately serve is to more brightly illuminate our prison.
Maybe leading us as a whole to the idea of liberation through
non-attachment, maybe not.
Whatever happens, it’s sure to be interesting and dangerous! 
At the present time, we are developing cosmological theories foremost; for example, a tremendous find would be a quantum theory of gravity. We already know the basic laws that underlie all of chemistry and biology. We must solve the theories of the universe before we try to mathematically predict the probable outcomes of complicated and realistic situations. We will not be contracting negative karma with our study of the cosmos, and until we find answers out there, we cannot even begin to speculate how we will go about solving the mysteries of life.
abrickinthewall,
This is true, don’t get me wrong I’m not anti-science, at the least I think it makes for an interesting diversion while we wait for the sun to go nova. At it’s best I feel it’s critical for the survival of our species.
Since you brought up the search for a quantum theory of gravity, I was wondering if you had read about the combining of the various superstring theories into a whole called M-Theory?
I hesitate to give an opinion at this time since I still trying to digest it’s different aspects and intricacies, but I’m very interested in whether you think this is our best bet in intergrating gravity into the “Theory of Everything”?
I thought I’d mention this site for anyone interested in reading about these theories. https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
At this point in time, the M-theory is still largely undefined, but it is the most promising. I’ll share what I know about string theories, how they explain our existence.
Brief history: Attempting to combine the uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics with general relativity did not seem to be working out because it was always predicting that certain observed and measured quantities were infinite. Then the theory of supergravity took precedence but it didn’t make much progress explaining observed particles; and it too had trouble showing itself as being finite. String theories then caught on and have been gaining the most ground since.
For the sake of those not familiar with these concepts, superstrings are basic objects that have a length but no other dimension. For example, the sun and the Earth would be connected by strings that vibrate to send gravitons, keeping the Earth in orbit around the sun.
The main characteristic of string theories is that they only seem to be consistent if space-time has either 10 (M-theory, 11) or 26 dimensions, rather the 4 we know of. There are many string theories as there are millions of different ways in which extra-dimensions could be curled up. But in 1994 we discovered dualities, which hold that different string theories and different ways of curling up extra dimensions could produce the same results in our observable 4 dimensions.
Even further, as well as particles and strings, there are found to be p-branes which occupy higher-dimensional volumes in space. This indicates a democracy among supergravity, string, and p-brane theories; they fit together like a puzzle, none more fundamental than the next. They seem to be different approximations of a theory that are valid in different situations, the M-theory. But even if the M-theory didn’t work out as there wasn’t a single formula there could be different formulations for different situations that would agree in situations where more than one could be applied.
String theory provides the ideal way of overcoming the normal restriction of general relativity that one cannot travel faster than light or back in time. The idea is to take a shortcut through the extra dimensions. These dimensions are so curled up that we cannot even observe them, much less have matter travel through them (with our current technology). But why are these dimensions curled up? It is clear that life as we know it can only exist in regions of space-time with one time dimension and three space dimensions that are not curled up. Any less dimensions and organisms with digestive tracts would be split in half. Any more dimensions and gravity and quantum mechanics would not operate anything like the way we need them to. The Earth would not have a stable orbit around the sun and electrons would not orbit the nucleus of an atom correctly. See the connections? We are beginning to figure the theories that govern both the very large and the very small, a fundamental step in devising the unification of physics.
Our conditions and the string theories satisfy the weak anthropic principal which states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space-time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in this region should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions necessary for their existence.
One of the things I love about learning is how much knowledge you can gather by reading and rereading different descriptions and explanations of one subject. Since I am still working on completely grasping the whole of these concepts, your post is of great help.
Another thing I read elsewhere that I found interesting is:
This statement led me to go back and reread a bunch of stuff on standing waves, which I find really interesting! On a side note, one of my other interests is Nano-technology and I thought I’d pass this little tidbit on:
This article is a couple of years old, in case you look for the published findings in the journal Science.
This and many more recent breakthroughs have such far reaching implications that I really don’t know where to start! It will undoubtedly touch every, and I mean every, part of our lives.
I am becoming tired now, but I may go into this more in a later post. I do want to thank you for your post, I really enjoyed it! 
It’s great to know that we are learning from each other, that’s what its all about! Thank you for your information on these are very intriguing subjects.
An interesting subject I came across in a science magazine recently was on neutrinos. They are extremely small, possibly massless, neutral elementary particles that interact with matter through the weak nuclear force. Matter is practically transparent to them as they carry no electrical charge. Stars produce neutrinos in extensive amounts by nuclear fusion and decay processes. Since their interaction with matter is so minimal, they travel through the Earth and us unrestrained. 100 trillion of them pass through our body in one second.
some links if interested:
Nutrinos are in the class of particles that always move at the speed of light right? Sorry, I don’t have time to read that article right now or it may answer my question. I know tachyons are theoretical particals that always move faster than the speed of light, I know there is a classification for the ones that travel less than the speed of light, and I think the ones like nutrinos that move at the speed of light (if nutrinos are one, I think they are though) are classed as luxons or something like that.
Legionaire,
Very interesting, I wonder what their note on a superstring would be?
Has anyone read about the new advances in photon entanglement (Einstein’s - Spooky Action at a Distance)? They have now been able to entangle three photons! This is one of the first steps towards a quantum computer and then possibly A.I. 
Here is the best site on it I could find-
https://www.nature.com/nsu/990114/990114-9.html
Neutrinos can actually travel faster than the speed of light when escaping an imploding star (supernova).
Firehorse- That technology is amazing! Any articles with information relating to A.I?
abrickinthewall,
Sorry it took so long. I was under the impression that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, so I had to do some research. I found this which indicates that I may have been wrong.
Here’s a site you’re going to love, it has not 1, but 8 great articles about A.I. Make sure you read the one entitled The machines are in control, it is way ultra!
Hey everyone. i just wondered what the topics name (impicate and explicate order) has to do with what you just wrote. As far as i know nothing ever was observed to travel faster than light. it seems that everything with what we call a mass is limited by the speed of light. only “information” has been observed to be able to outspeed light. that means that nothing material can travel faster than light. the relation to implicate or explicate orders might be that the laws of physics as we understand it yet is only the explicate or unfolded stuff. the implicate order of the universe might consist of immaterial “information-like”- stuff.
Here’s my reading suggestion for everyone interested:
David Bohm - the implicate order (or something like that)
(He also wrote a good book on superstring-theory)
Take care
Raven24
O.K. that’s why i didnt find any relation to the topic, i read page two only.
Raven24