Re: Implicate order
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 05:08:00PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2013 3:50 PM, LizR wrote: It's a long time since I read Wholeness but I seem to recall coming to the conclusion that Bohm's version was like the MWI with one world singled out (somehow) to be real. Or am I getting mixed up? Was it him who had the idea of pilot waves ? DeBroglie originated the idea, but Bohm developed it. There's a pilot wave of the universe that provides guiding 'channels' for particles. Brent From what I took away from Science, Order and Creativity, this pilot wave idea he calls a quantum potential, which take the form of a nonlocal force field acting on the particles. This quantum potential is also what he calls the implicate order, contrasting the the explicate order of the particles. I get the impression from the late Bohm writing that the implicate order is more fundamental than the explicate order. Also, an MWIer would say that the implicate order is the Hilbert space in which Schrodinger's equation evolves - the explicate order is the Multiverse, the parallel universes of particles as seen by the observers after decoherence has taken place. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Implicate order
On 20 Sep 2013, at 22:06, meekerdb wrote: A book that presents Bohm's QM sympathetically is Quantum Mechanics by James T. Cushing. Note that the book by David Albert, Quantum Mechanics, which introduces very well QM, including Everett, is also quite sympathetic with Bohm's theory. He consecrates a large and final part, and develop some interesting idea. But he does not convince me. Bruno Brent On 9/20/2013 1:00 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Russell, the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book (posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952 image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM and Relativity... I have a - sort of - high level science-reportage: by Reneé Weber: Dialogues with Scientists and Sages (Arkana, 1986) with a reasonable chapter with Bohm - also his references towards Krishnamurti and others. I cannot activate my old computer's stuff on a discussion list stuff called: 'Friends of David Bohm' (early 90s) with lots of details of his stuff. My idea was the connection to Bishop Nicolaus de Cusa's 3 part world (implicare, explicare, complicare - where I figured the 3rd one as math) base for his protegé: Copernicus, saving the latter from the Inquisition - the way I deduced it from Wholeness..., a tortuous 2 decade path. I think the 'Explicate Order' is our physical-world figment, while from the 'Implicate' I erased the 'Order' in my mind: no knowledge about that part so to speak. An 'order' would be exaggerated. After changing into a (similarly heretic?) Rosenite, the Bohm details faded. My agnostic views give me the peace of mind in an extended I dunno. I have a vague idea how to figure the infinity of the complexity (the one(?) beyond our conventional science 'model' of the world) - but only in terms of our knowable items - no hint how the 'beyond model' may be structured (if at all) and of what kind elements. John M On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I've just been reading a book that I procured at a school fete called Science, Order and Creativity, by David Bohm and David Peat. I had read Wholeness and the implicate order in my youth, which on the whole was confusing and unsatisfying. In many ways, this book is too. Yet, I can't quite shake the feeling when reading that there must be some connection between Bohm's implicate order and Hofstaedter's strange loops, and so that he might be onto something important for an understanding of creativity and consciousness. But his books leave me unsatisfied and hungry. For one thing, there is too little contact with the mathematics of QM. Does anyone know of a good introduction to Bohm's ideas? It's clear I'm not going to get it from Bohm himself. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4117 / Virus Database: 3604/1 - Release Date: 09/04/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Implicate order
On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:50, LizR wrote: It's a long time since I read Wholeness but I seem to recall coming to the conclusion that Bohm's version was like the MWI with one world singled out (somehow) to be real. Or am I getting mixed up? Was it him who had the idea of pilot waves ? It was De Broglie, if I remember well. Yet, de Broglie made clear that the piloting mechanism was local. Not sure he would have followed Bohm, who after Bell-Aspect, accepts a non local hidden variable theory, with a potential guiding the particle in a field described by the wave. Note that the potential which guides a universe in a universal wave does emulate the entire multiverse. We still have alternate doppelgangers, but they are not made of particles, despite they participate to the same conversation, about waves consciousness and particles. They are not made of particles, and I guess Bohm would agree (for his theory making sense) that they are not conscious. But with comp there are conscious, in the sense as conscious as us. Bohm leads to explosion of the number of zombies with bodies lacking particles! Bohm's theory, like Copenhagen formulation, postulates the universal wave (the QM multiverse) + a selection principle. Everett's theory postulates the universal wave , but the selection is consciousness classical indeterminacy. (This explains the illusion of the collapse) Comp postulates + and *; and proves from that the existence of a multi- dream, then like in Everett, selection is consciousness classical indeterminacy. (This explains (or must explain, by UDA) the illusion of the collapse *and* of the wave, i.e. the non illusion of matter, i.e. the arithmetical necessary probable perception of the wave in the mind of the average universal number. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Implicate order
A book that presents Bohm's QM sympathetically is Quantum Mechanics by James T. Cushing. Brent On 9/20/2013 1:00 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Russell, the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book (posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952 image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM and Relativity... I have a - sort of - high level science-reportage: by Reneé Weber: Dialogues with Scientists and Sages (Arkana, 1986) with a reasonable chapter with Bohm - also his references towards Krishnamurti and others. I cannot activate my old computer's stuff on a discussion list stuff called: 'Friends of David Bohm' (early 90s) with lots of details of his stuff. My idea was the connection to Bishop Nicolaus de Cusa's 3 part world (implicare, explicare, complicare - where I figured the 3rd one as math) base for his protegé: Copernicus, saving the latter from the Inquisition - the way I deduced it from Wholeness..., a tortuous 2 decade path. I think the 'Explicate Order' is our physical-world figment, while from the 'Implicate' I erased the 'Order' in my mind: no knowledge about that part so to speak. An 'order' would be exaggerated. After changing into a (similarly heretic?) Rosenite, the Bohm details faded. My agnostic views give me the peace of mind in an extended I dunno. I have a vague idea how to figure the infinity of the complexity (the one(?) beyond our conventional science 'model' of the world) - but only in terms of our knowable items - no hint how the 'beyond model' may be structured (if at all) and of what kind elements. John M On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I've just been reading a book that I procured at a school fete called Science, Order and Creativity, by David Bohm and David Peat. I had read Wholeness and the implicate order in my youth, which on the whole was confusing and unsatisfying. In many ways, this book is too. Yet, I can't quite shake the feeling when reading that there must be some connection between Bohm's implicate order and Hofstaedter's strange loops, and so that he might be onto something important for an understanding of creativity and consciousness. But his books leave me unsatisfied and hungry. For one thing, there is too little contact with the mathematics of QM. Does anyone know of a good introduction to Bohm's ideas? It's clear I'm not going to get it from Bohm himself. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4117 / Virus Database: 3604/1 - Release Date: 09/04/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Implicate order
It's a long time since I read Wholeness but I seem to recall coming to the conclusion that Bohm's version was like the MWI with one world singled out (somehow) to be real. Or am I getting mixed up? Was it him who had the idea of pilot waves ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Implicate order
Dear Russell, the Peat book seems to be on the physicist's side, just as the Hiley-book (posthumus D.Bohm co-authored) which even pictures DB close to his 1952 image when his idea started to eliminate the differences of QM and Relativity... I have a - sort of - high level science-reportage: by Reneé Weber: Dialogues with Scientists and Sages (Arkana, 1986) with a reasonable chapter with Bohm - also his references towards Krishnamurti and others. I cannot activate my old computer's stuff on a discussion list stuff called: 'Friends of David Bohm' (early 90s) with lots of details of his stuff. My idea was the connection to Bishop Nicolaus de Cusa's 3 part world (implicare, explicare, complicare - where I figured the 3rd one as math) base for his protegé: Copernicus, saving the latter from the Inquisition - the way I deduced it from Wholeness..., a tortuous 2 decade path. I think the 'Explicate Order' is our physical-world figment, while from the 'Implicate' I erased the 'Order' in my mind: no knowledge about that part so to speak. An 'order' would be exaggerated. After changing into a (similarly heretic?) Rosenite, the Bohm details faded. My agnostic views give me the peace of mind in an extended I dunno. I have a vague idea how to figure the infinity of the complexity (the one(?) beyond our conventional science 'model' of the world) - but only in terms of our knowable items - no hint how the 'beyond model' may be structured (if at all) and of what kind elements. John M On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: I've just been reading a book that I procured at a school fete called Science, Order and Creativity, by David Bohm and David Peat. I had read Wholeness and the implicate order in my youth, which on the whole was confusing and unsatisfying. In many ways, this book is too. Yet, I can't quite shake the feeling when reading that there must be some connection between Bohm's implicate order and Hofstaedter's strange loops, and so that he might be onto something important for an understanding of creativity and consciousness. But his books leave me unsatisfied and hungry. For one thing, there is too little contact with the mathematics of QM. Does anyone know of a good introduction to Bohm's ideas? It's clear I'm not going to get it from Bohm himself. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Implicate order
On 9/20/2013 3:50 PM, LizR wrote: It's a long time since I read Wholeness but I seem to recall coming to the conclusion that Bohm's version was like the MWI with one world singled out (somehow) to be real. Or am I getting mixed up? Was it him who had the idea of pilot waves ? DeBroglie originated the idea, but Bohm developed it. There's a pilot wave of the universe that provides guiding 'channels' for particles. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
