user11541: Physicists are scientist who study the reality and draw conclusions about it scientifically. After studying what Buddha said it appears to me that Physicists are trapped in a wrong world. They believe in Newton's Law. They believe in Einstein's Universe. They believe in Quantum Mechanics. All the above laws fail to lead to any conclusion about Dhamma as taught by Buddha or other religions worldwide. They do not find any suffering inherent in the Universe because they failed to connect their theories with the beings. For physicists, non-conscious Universe can lead to the emergence of consciousness on its own. For physicists , something which feels Nothing can lead to emergence of feeling on its own. To illustrate imagine a piece of matter kept in the space. According to science that matter will become conscious over a period of time on its own because it will create a juggling of chemicals and that juggling of chemicals is called life and consciousness. That juggling of chemicals produces suffering in the Mankind and by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed. And that is what happening in the west.Similarly they believe that the mind is a result of chemical juggling and when the chemical juggling stops the mind ceases to exists.
My question is : 
Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer? And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?

user254: When I wrote this answer I was not assuming that a "physicist" is a "physicalist" or a "materialist" (see comments below this answer): if that is your assumption, then this isn't a good answer for you.

Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer?
IMO physicists suffer for the same reasons as other people -- it's not exactly because of physics (scientific theories) that they suffer.
Their knowledge of physics doesn't contribute to their suffering -- like (I guess) neither does a farmer's knowledge of agriculture, nor a linguist's knowledge of grammar, etc.
But physics doesn't address (explain) the cause of human suffering, and so it doesn't offer much solution IMO. For that reason a suffering physicist may find physics unsatisfactory, and appreciate the Dhamma for its insights into phenomena (e.g. feelings) which are outside the scope of physics.
Is one good thing about physics, that it might be a preliminary training in emptiness?

And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?
As for whether you can teach (or help) a physicist, I don't think it's easy to help anyone (physicists included) -- see also How to explain what Buddhism is?
On this site, people ask questions: so they're active participants in their own learning. More generally I suppose you might help a physicist learn dhamma but maybe not if they're not interested and won't participate.
My personal opinion is that attempts to mix Buddhism and Physics sound like nonsense, by the way -- e.g. explaining Buddhist cosmology using modern cosmology, quantum mechanics with consciousness, atoms with kalapas and so on -- so don't try to do that, i.e. it's more helpful to give good explanations of Buddhism than bad explanations of Physics.

Also, I doubt that anyone "believes in" Einstein's universe, to the extent that they think that Einstein's universe is all there is (i.e. is a complete description of everything). Instead, Einstein's "theories" are soon as good "models" of some observations, i.e. of some aspects of reality.
IMO the fact that Einstein's laws don't explain suffering or love or anything else is only proof that Einstein didn't explain everything, not proof that what he didn't explain doesn't exist.
It's possible too that some Physicists get some consolation from their beliefs. There's this famous story:

Besso died in Geneva, aged 81. In a letter of condolence to the Besso family, Albert Einstein included his now famous quote "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein died one month and 3 days after his friend, on 18 April 1955.

One of my complaints about Physics is that it has nothing to say about sila; but that doesn't have to mean that physicists are immoral.

by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed
I think that's a different topic: not physicists but psychiatrists, medical doctors, and "recreational drug" users.
I think that scientists believe that meditation (and discipline) can be effective too, under certain circumstances (if it's practised in the right way) -- see for example The Pursuit of Happiness.

user471: The Buddha started out with the goal of finding the end of suffering and he found it. The Dhamma is his teaching of how to reach the end of suffering. The Parable of the Simsapa Leaves showed that the Buddha knows more than he revealed, as part of his enlightenment.
Physics and science in general has a different goal. It has the goal of trying to understand how the universe works, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation.
While the Buddhist path is an empirical one based on personal practice and personal evidence, science is another type of empirical path based on physical evidence. Both have different goals.
When scientists say that the mind is based on chemical and electrical interactions in the brain, that is simply their hypothesis based on the available physical observations. However, science is continuously progressing, and their understanding of how this works would improve over time. This does not mean that science will over time become the same as the Dhamma. But they may get closer.
I tried to explore in this answer, the possibility that physics is getting closer to the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, I tried to consider the possibility that the Buddhist description of hungry ghosts may fit microorganisms in this question. If you look up YouTube video talks of physicist Prof. Lawrence Krauss, you would find that physics is slowly finding reasons for the lack of intelligent design in the study of cosmology. In this answer, you can find the links between neuroscience and Buddhist meditation.
Also, you can read the 14th Dalai Lama's "Science at the Crossroads" talk given in 2005. Excerpt below:

Although Buddhist contemplative tradition and modern science have
  evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, I
  believe that at heart they share significant commonalities, especially
  in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology. On the
  philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep
  suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a
  transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul,
  or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science
  prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and
  life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of
  cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions
  emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist
  investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of
  knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of
  the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and
  testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of
  reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over
  scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may
  be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference,
  its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of
  experience. Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often
  remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified
  insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to
  modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology
  as found in ancient Buddhist texts.


user111: All unenlightened beings suffer including scientists. I suppose the real question is whether scientists will ever realize the four noble truths. Unless there's a radical change in how they approach reality, I do not see that happening any time soon. 
The real issue is that mainstream science still does not acknowledge that there is a mental aspect to the universe. They think of the mind as a byproduct of the brain. Any scientific research done based on that hypothesis will never lead to the understanding of the four noble truths.

11541: <p>Physicists are scientist who study the reality and draw conclusions about it scientifically. After studying what Buddha said it appears to me that Physicists are trapped in a wrong world. They believe in Newton's Law. They believe in Einstein's Universe. They believe in Quantum Mechanics. All the above laws fail to lead to any conclusion about Dhamma as taught by Buddha or other religions worldwide. They do not find any suffering inherent in the Universe because they failed to connect their theories with the beings. For physicists, non-conscious Universe can lead to the emergence of consciousness on its own. For physicists , something which feels Nothing can lead to emergence of feeling on its own. To illustrate imagine a piece of matter kept in the space. According to science that matter will become conscious over a period of time on its own because it will create a juggling of chemicals and that juggling of chemicals is called life and consciousness. That juggling of chemicals produces suffering in the Mankind and by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed. And that is what happening in the west.Similarly they believe that the mind is a result of chemical juggling and when the chemical juggling stops the mind ceases to exists.</p>

<p>My question is : </p>

<p>Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer? And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?</p>
 254: <p>When I wrote this answer I was <em>not</em> assuming that a "physicist" is a "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">physicalist</a>" or a "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">materialist</a>" (see comments below this answer): if that <em>is</em> your assumption, then this isn't a good answer for you.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer?</strong></p>

<p>IMO physicists suffer for the same reasons as other people -- it's not exactly <em>because of</em> physics (scientific theories) that they suffer.</p>

<p>Their knowledge of physics doesn't contribute to their suffering -- like (I guess) neither does a farmer's knowledge of agriculture, nor a linguist's knowledge of grammar, etc.</p>

<p>But physics doesn't address (explain) the cause of human suffering, and so it doesn't offer much solution IMO. For that reason a suffering physicist may find physics unsatisfactory, and appreciate the Dhamma for its insights into phenomena (e.g. feelings) which are outside the scope of physics.</p>

<p>Is one good thing about physics, that it might be a preliminary training in emptiness?</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?</strong></p>

<p>As for whether you can teach (or help) a physicist, I don't think it's easy to help anyone (physicists included) -- see also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7258/254">How to explain what Buddhism is?</a></p>

<p>On this site, people ask questions: so they're active participants in their own learning. More generally I suppose you might help a physicist learn dhamma but maybe not if they're not interested and won't participate.</p>

<p>My personal opinion is that attempts to mix Buddhism and Physics sound like nonsense, by the way -- e.g. explaining Buddhist cosmology using modern cosmology, quantum mechanics with consciousness, atoms with <em>kalapas</em> and so on -- so don't try to do that, i.e. it's more helpful to give good explanations of Buddhism than bad explanations of Physics.</p>

<hr>

<p>Also, I doubt that anyone "believes in" Einstein's universe, to the extent that they think that Einstein's universe is all there is (i.e. is a complete description of everything). Instead, Einstein's "theories" are soon as good "models" of some observations, i.e. of some aspects of reality.</p>

<p>IMO the fact that Einstein's laws don't explain suffering or love or anything else is only proof that Einstein didn't explain everything, not proof that what he didn't explain doesn't exist.</p>

<p>It's possible too that some Physicists get some consolation from their beliefs. There's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Besso" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this famous story</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Besso died in Geneva, aged 81. In a letter of condolence to the Besso family, Albert Einstein included his now famous quote "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Einstein died one month and 3 days after his friend, on 18 April 1955.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One of my complaints about Physics is that it has nothing to say about <em>sila</em>; but that doesn't have to mean that physicists are immoral.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed</strong></p>

<p>I think that's a different topic: not physicists but psychiatrists, medical doctors, and "recreational drug" users.</p>

<p>I think that scientists believe that meditation (and discipline) can be effective too, under certain circumstances (if it's practised in the right way) -- see for example <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/meditation/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Pursuit of Happiness</a>.</p>
 471: <p>The Buddha started out with the goal of finding the end of suffering and he found it. The Dhamma is his teaching of how to reach the end of suffering. The <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Parable of the Simsapa Leaves</a> showed that the Buddha knows more than he revealed, as part of his enlightenment.</p>

<p>Physics and science in general has a different goal. It has the goal of trying to understand how the universe works, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation.</p>

<p>While the Buddhist path is an empirical one based on personal practice and personal evidence, science is another type of empirical path based on physical evidence. Both have different goals.</p>

<p>When scientists say that the mind is based on chemical and electrical interactions in the brain, that is simply their hypothesis based on the available physical observations. However, science is continuously progressing, and their understanding of how this works would improve over time. This does not mean that science will over time become the same as the Dhamma. But they may get closer.</p>

<p>I tried to explore in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7539/471">this answer</a>, the possibility that physics is getting closer to the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, I tried to consider the possibility that the Buddhist description of hungry ghosts may fit microorganisms in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22352/471">this question</a>. If you look up YouTube video talks of physicist Prof. Lawrence Krauss, you would find that physics is slowly finding reasons for the lack of intelligent design in the study of cosmology. In <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22229/471">this answer</a>, you can find the links between neuroscience and Buddhist meditation.</p>

<p>Also, you can read the 14th Dalai Lama's "<a href="https://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Science at the Crossroads</a>" talk given in 2005. Excerpt below:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although Buddhist contemplative tradition and modern science have
  evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, I
  believe that at heart they share significant commonalities, especially
  in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology. On the
  philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep
  suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a
  transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul,
  or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science
  prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and
  life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of
  cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions
  emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist
  investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of
  knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of
  the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and
  testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of
  reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over
  scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may
  be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference,
  its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of
  experience. Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often
  remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified
  insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to
  modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology
  as found in ancient Buddhist texts.</p>
</blockquote>
 111: <p>All unenlightened beings suffer including scientists. I suppose the real question is whether scientists will ever realize the four noble truths. Unless there's a radical change in how they approach reality, I do not see that happening any time soon. </p>

<p>The real issue is that mainstream science still does not acknowledge that there is a mental aspect to the universe. They think of the mind as a byproduct of the brain. Any scientific research done based on that hypothesis will never lead to the understanding of the four noble truths.</p>
