Some may be interested in this book. It brings together aspects of Buddhist understanding of the nature of "reality", quantum physics, conciousness, and the latest attempt by modern physicists, Hawking included, at a TOE (Theory of Everything).
Towards the bottom of the page is a free related pdf essay called.
"The Grand Designer: Discovering the Quantum Mind Matrix of The Universe"
Originally posted by lausey New age eastern "philosophers" have borrowed terminology from QM to explain their mystical ideas when they aren't even related.
This has been written about in "The Tao of Physics" in the 70s.
Deepak Chopra won the lg Nobel Prize 12 years ago for having this view.
P.S. This is different from the Nobel Prize.
Methinks Smetham's book is by far more advanced than the ToP
😵
Originally posted by lausey Will have to look into it further. 🙂
Sure thing;
I had the chance to check two chapters of the book prior its publication and I was amazed. Almost a year later I received a note from Lulu.com and I purchased the book on the spot. Smetham is extremely well versed on specific Buddhist schools and he decodes very well various important aspects. Then he drives the reader deep into the QM realm and of course he is backing up his holistic theory with extensive bibliography. Methinks the reader has to take Smetham slow in case s/he is not well versed on either QM or Buddhism, but whatever he offers can be monitored and evaluated easily. The fact that some chapters are covering a bit each other was not at all annoying to me. I enjoyed the book in full and I still find myself digging it here and there again and again😵
"New age eastern "philosophers" have borrowed terminology from QM to explain their mystical ideas when they aren't even related....This has been written about in "The Tao of Physics" in the 70s."
Referring to the "TAO of Physics" as support for the previous statement appears quite contradictory about the two being "unrelated.
I know from my readings of numerous well known physicists with mystical bent BECAUSE of quantum discoveries, they advise not to not make extreme extrapolations as you do find in some new age stuff, quite simplistic and unsupportable.
Thus I am careful when relating the two. My main point usually made is that what has been discovered (not explained even yet) does not present anything that would be in contradiction of the main tenets of Buddhist philosophy. There is on the contrary, indication of possible relation, but this is not able to be established.
For example, the inability to ultimately define or even measure the nature of a particle and the implications of non-locality (at that level of "matter) leaving the ultimate nature of time and space in the air, so to speak, are clearly related to eastern concepts of reality.
"Not this, not that, nor both or neither etc etc."
Penrose and others have done interesting work on the quantum effects at micro sub neurone level of the mind. And mind is not an unknown topic of Buddhism.
I would prefer to say that many new age claims are stretching the findings with obvious bias, but I definitely do not see that the two, quantum science and eastern philosophies, are unrelated.
Originally posted by Taoman "New age eastern "philosophers" have borrowed terminology from QM to explain their mystical ideas when they aren't even related....This has been written about in "The Tao of Physics" in the 70s."
Referring to the "TAO of Physics" as support for the previous statement appears quite contradictory about the two being "unrelated.
I know from my readings of ...[text shortened]... , quantum science and eastern philosphies, are unrelated.
Must get onto Smetham.
>>>the inability to ultimately define or even measure the nature of a particle and the implications of non-locality (at that level of "matter) leaving the nature of time and space in the air<<<
Matter is a false "conceived" acceptance, a binding of captivity in a conscious level, sorta speak, as one searching for the atom manifests it by this searching.
It's a dream state of bondage to one's true freedom, that of Spirit.
Heaven cometh not by observation but is within everyone to SEEK this Truth of experiencing such RIGHT now, or, should I say, as one seeks the Truth and it abundantly be given thee.
Originally posted by Taoman "New age eastern "philosophers" have borrowed terminology from QM to explain their mystical ideas when they aren't even related....This has been written about in "The Tao of Physics" in the 70s."
Referring to the "TAO of Physics" as support for the previous statement appears quite contradictory about the two being "unrelated.
I know from my readings of ...[text shortened]... quantum science and eastern philosophies, are unrelated.
Must get onto Smetham.
The new agers gotta make thier mistakes just like everyone else😉
Originally posted by tacoandlettuce >>>the inability to ultimately define or even measure the nature of a particle and the implications of non-locality (at that level of "matter) leaving the nature of time and space in the air<<<
Matter is a false "conceived" acceptance, a binding of captivity in a conscious level, sorta speak, as one searching for the atom manifests it by this searc ...[text shortened]... g such RIGHT now, or, should I say, as one seeks the Truth and it abundantly be given thee.
I kinda see what your saying but is there really that much difference between seeking and observing?
(I know that seeking implies that you are looking for something in particular, but normal "seeking" with the everyday senses is the same as observation. )
Originally posted by tacoandlettuce ...Heaven cometh not by observation but is within everyone to SEEK this Truth of experiencing such RIGHT now, or, should I say, as one seeks the Truth and it abundantly be given thee.
I desireth to be pedantic and frivolous, If thou must useth Archaic 15th Century English kindly be consistent in one sentence. It is "seekest", not the more modern "seeks", if you are using the more holy sounding "thees" and "thous"
Sameth with Latin me thinketh.
Originally posted by karoly aczel I kinda see what your saying but is there really that much difference between seeking and observing?
(I know that seeking implies that you are looking for something in particular, but normal "seeking" with the everyday senses is the same as observation. )
Most assuredly there is difference, and my hypocrisy is very far from seeking correctly, yet if you knew the hell of encounters that come my way you would understand why it's such a long process of overcoming all that I must.
I would not desire any soul to experience the mental hell wrestling me on a 247 daily basis, nor the discouragement that tries to consume me of it's miserable crap it loves flying my way!
Originally posted by tacoandlettuce Most assuredly there is difference, and my hypocrisy is very far from seeking correctly, yet if you knew the hell of encounters that come my way you would understand why it's such a long process of overcoming all that I must.
I would not desire any soul to experience the mental hell wrestling me on a 247 daily basis, nor the discouragement that tries to consume me of it's miserable crap it loves flying my way!
LOOK MAN THATS JUST THE WAY YOU ARE ok 🙂
Now you may be left-handed and heading for one of the worst hellish planets imaginable , or you may just be a mammas boy, but either way your going to have to...... (aw heck you know the rest)
Originally posted by Taoman I desireth to be pedantic and frivolous, If thou must useth Archaic 15th Century English kindly be consistent in one sentence. It is "seekest", not the more modern "seeks", if you are using the more holy sounding "thees" and "thous"
Sameth with Latin me thinketh.
Quantum Buddhism
26 Oct '10 16:33
Back to Top