Friday, September 06, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Rucker's Infinity, (or
whatever)
Dear John,
Bohm's statement is quite coherent with his philosophy.
SNIP
In its "implicate order" Bohm is explicitely against comp
or even AI.
I like very much Bohm. He is clear and honest in its
investigations.
Abandoning comp is natural for a Quantum Mechanician who want
keep ONE (substantial) universe.
Bruno Marchal
I do not recall (read Bohm hurriedly in the
early 90s) Bohm having excluded AI or even comp from 'his' implicate, the
('so far' and shrinking)
unknown, as I took it. I felt the implicate
(order?) as an 'open unknown'.
Furthermore it was a surprise to me reading
"Bohm a QM-cian".
I thought he wanted to bring QM and
Relativity together after 1952 .
Then turned into a (nat. sci.) philosopher.
A good one IMO.
Anyway my thoughts are those of an outsider.
I may be wrong.
John M
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
---Original message---
Dear Bruno, you wrote:
> In a nutshell I would say that natural
numbers exists and no more
> (like Pythagoreans!) ....<
How do you relate to David Bohm's
observation that "numbers
do NOT exist in nature, only as the
products of the human mind"?
(I wouldn't mix rhythm or quantity with
numbers, the digital constructs)
John Mikes
