* That may not actually be true - some interpretations seem to make distinct predictions, but they are presently out of reach for empirical investigation. — SophistiCat

While not a prediction per se, Bohm's version of the Schrodinger equation implies a quantum potential that can act non-locally, at a distance. This implication inspired Bell to formulate his Theorem which has been experimentally tested many times over. In this regard, the causal, non-deterministic model of Bohm's carries some additional weight. Does this sound reasonable?

Philosophers need to distinguish between ontology and symbols. Math, words, music notes, etc. are symbols not the real thing. They don't even come close to representing the real thing. The best way I've learned to study the nature of nature is by direct observation (the arts are a terrific learning grounds), seeking patterns of differences within similarities and similarities within differences (Bohm on Creativity), and then via intuition (Bergson) create an image that makes sense. This is philosophy.

But if you wish, there is also academic philosophy which is sort of a logic game that can be fun, or there is scientific philosophy which is more or less a complete mess loaded with biases that apparently take at least 400 years or more to shake off. I'm not kidding.

Most of all, be patient, take your time, and do your own inspection of everything. The rewards for a great explorer are enormous.

It was a real pleasure making a complete fool of you, but honestly, even for a beginner it wasn't that difficult. I hope you are spending some time ruminating over your autobiography. As always, you have a choice.

Reality is a wave.

You guys really know your philosophy, but I'd like to add to this boundary question the idea of 0.9 repeater. It goes on for infinity, but it never reaches 1. Surely 1 is a fuzzy boundary that is not crossed. — MikeL

The boundary question is one of quantum interpretation. Quantum theory rejects the idea of a particle, and instead has replaced it with the concept of wave-particle. This is because quanta will sometimes act as a wave, and at other times will behave like a particle depending upon the nature of the measurement being performed. So there is no longer a concept of particle in quanta physics. There hasn't been such a thing in 100 years. It is more like a cloud that has no boundary. What's more, these quantum clouds appear to be entangled (continuous) and are able to act upon each other non-locally at a distance (laboratory observed at the molecular level).

The philosophical issue is that there is no longer is there a real material particle anywhere in quantum theory. If there is an objective-reality, the current evidence heavily favors that objective reality are probabilistic waves that act upon each other non-locally at a distance. In other words, no particle (probably wave perturbations manifest as particles), no determinism, no boundaries anywhere. This is the objective-reality. It is not an epistemological issue.

All this directly impacts the Zeno Paradox issues because not only philosophically but also ontologically one should jettison all notions of divisibility whether it be time or space. The arrow can never stop moving at a point in time. There is no such thing.

In regard to what appears to us as boundaries, you may consider it as areas of the universe that become more substantial (dense) and the recede to less substantial, back and forth maybe like shading in a drawing (which is actually a great analogy of what the substrate of the universe looks like).

But you have been arguing for an actual material field. — apokrisis

I have not argued for materialism since grade school.

What we have is a quantum field which is embued with memory and consciousness. Everything is real. Everything is continuous. Everything is entangled. Everything is probabilistic with uncertain outcomes. In other words, the universe is exactly as we experience it.

https://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n3/full/nphys3233.html

"Assuming that a notion of objective reality exists, our results thus strengthen the view that the wavefunction should directly correspond to this reality."

https://arxiv.org/format/1412.6213

Sometimes it is helpful to ruminate over one's autobiography. It provides lots of insight into oneself.

Unless you can explain to me how the waves in the ocean can exist other than as an activity of the water molecules, it is pointless for you to ask me to try to imagine such a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

The molecules are waves. I already told you that non-local, quantum entanglement had been demonstrated at the molecular level. Try to imagine a continuous wave. This is the universe of the quantum potential field. Everything is created within this and if course since it is continuous everything is entangled, and since the potential acts by form, action at a distance is part of the description. Bell's Theorem is a direct experimental evidence of the Bohm quantum potential.

Sure, Bohm produced both good science and crackpot ideas — apokrisis

I wish to remind you of Wilde's great insight into human nature. It is extremely insightful:

“The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography."

Forget about philosophy. You need to ruminate on your autobiography.

Your propensity for calling everyone and anyone who doesn't buy into your anachronistic materialistic philosophy a crackpot, including one if the great geniuses of modern physics, brings to mind a quote by Oscar Wide:

“The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

How is that for some analytical psychology?

Now, can you talk to your neurons and tell them I'm not interested in anything they are forced to say? Really, I am not at all interested. Just make your comments to someone else who is awe of you.

point being that if there is no separation between molecules then a wave is impossible. Clearly the separation has not been obliterated or else waves would have been obliterated as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It is a universal. It is the fabric. Imagine the ocean as the universe with waves and waves everywhere. First you must be able to imagine it. Right now, all you can imagine are billiard balls. There cannot be a discussion until you can imagine otherwise. I provided you b with the images, but you cannot universalize it. No matter how large, to wish to compartmentalize it, ultimately make the universe one large particle separated as such from what?

OK, now that we have obliterated separation between electrons, protons, neutrons in a single molecule, you want me to show you how separation is obliterated between molecules.

Ok, look at the molecule. That is how multiple molecules will look with differing amplitudes. BTW, non-locality and entanglement has been laboratory demonstrated at the molecular level.

For whatever reason you need to hold on the anachronistic particle view of the world, so hold on to it. When you are ready to change then change. My guess is that you have some matter-mind philosophy which is dependent upon particles.

As for me, I'm moving full steam ahead with very practical benefits. For one thing, I no longer have to deal with Zeno.

I figure you'd be back trying to save particles. All of materialism rests upon it. It must be saved at all costs, even if it means teaching 17th century physics in the classroom. Feel free to provide your images of the quantum world. Does it look something like billiard balls separated from each other by nothingness? Something like the Bohr atom?

Bohm's causal model says the probabilistic quantum potential field is very, very real, and propagates through distance and effects through form.

Look at it. There is no particle anywhere. That is the difference between a wave and a particle. This is your Bohr model. Note the difference. The quantum model is continuous. No particle. Continuity, no divisibility is the key issue. There is no separation whatsoever.

Please note the similarity between the quantum wave potential and the image of molecule density. A wave is a wave is a wave.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. The image represents density! What the heck more do you need??? It is continuous and dispersed as a wave in a pond of water. Density is continuous and dispersed. It is not a particle. Yet, you still insist on the 17th century billiard ball model. Me thinks that there is an emotional connection here somewhere. Let's drop it. There is nothing left to be discussed. When you are prepared to change, change.

You don't believe that the water consists of molecules of H2O? And do you not believe that the wave is an activity of these molecules? — Metaphysician Undercover

The molecule is a formation of the wave. Here is a depiction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/fig_tab/458975a_F1.html



The complete model that you are referring to is gone. It has been replaced by waves everywhere.

Here is how one artist depicts the human energy field:

So, I'm not sure what "proof" of natural selection you have in mind. Evolution (with or without natural selection) most certainly has met the burden of proof to any reasonable inquirer. — Arkady

Do this is the big claim of science: " That things change". Some due out. Some continue. It comes and it goes. Fine. I think this goes back to Heraclitus and Daoism. But science needs a Designer and so Natural Selection is invented. The designer selects for survival so naturally only the fittest survive except for Stephen Hawkins who is the exception that proves the rule.

Now for evidence of Natural Selection (the Designer) what we have is: well they survived didn't they? Which works of course because it is goal directed. The Designer designs for survival and is near perfect except where it fails. Now how does a man caught in a desert survive: by his wits maybe or must the man for what amounts to the miracle of some mutation that somehow actually works?

What is evolving is the human mind and it is evolving all the time, continuously and is adapting based upon circumstances and experiences. Goal directed science is worthless. And I believe natural selection, whole still a favorite of atheists, had become somewhat of an embarrassment which biologists would rather just pretend isn't there.

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

ou seem to be missing the point, "wave" refers to an activity of particles, so it makes no sense to say there is no particles, only waves, because a wave is composed of particles, usually moving molecules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Better represented would be there measurement of a what appears to be a particle is a manifestation of the experiment. A wave in the ocean may strike a rock and one may only perceive the strike on the rock (the perturbation), but that specific observation is a reflection of what the observer was looking at at. Had the observer shifted his gaze, he would see the complete wave. No particles anywhere it is all waves. Particles are remnants of some (not all) ancient philosophies.

Notice the word "metaphor" here? Like I said, you are taking things which are wave-like, then trying to produce a definition of "wave" from these wave-like things. So you produce a definition of "wave" which doesn't require the wave to be a movement of particles. But this is nonsense because "wave" is used here as a metaphor, and you are trying to say that this metaphorical use of "wave" refers to a real wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually the worst possible metaphor, which is entirely anachronistic is the one you are using, that is a billiard ball-like particle. No such animal anywhere in modern physics though apparently the idea still persists in academic philosophy.

At about 22 minutes if this video you can see a simulation of quantum fields - no particles anywhere.



I have no idea why you keep insisting on particles. Such a notion is antiquated though unfortunately it is still part of some science curriculums.

Morphic resonance is one component of how it perceives life forms (and the universe as a whole) as conscious habits, however his description of how he arrives at the idea is quite instructive because he's is coming at it from a biological point of view as opposed to a philosophical one. He quite conscientiously and methodically presents all of the "miracles" in current biological "facts". It's a nice read.

So there is no such thing as thinking of "wave forms as opposed to particles" because a wave form is a form that a group of particles has. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that there is no longer any such thing as a particle. What we have is a wave that manifests itself in different ways depending upon how it is being observed. But quite literally particles no longer exist as a reasonable description of nature. Wave fields are closer:

How could there be a wave form without points and boundaries? — Metaphysician Undercover

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-a-particle

"What waves?
Waves are the best metaphor to understand particles and fields. Electrons, in addition to being particles, are simultaneously waves in the “electron field.” Quarks are waves in the “quark field” (and since there are six types of quark, there are six quark fields), and so forth. Photons are like water ripples: they can be big or small, violent or barely noticeable. The fields describing matter particles are more like waves on a guitar string. If you don’t pluck the string hard enough, you don’t get any sound at all: You need the threshold energy corresponding to an electron mass to make one. Enough energy, though, and you get the first harmonic, which is a clear note (for the string) or an electron (for the field).

As a result of all this quantum thinking, it’s often unhelpful to think of particles as being like tiny balls."

Do you observe boundaries between waves in the ocean? It is all continuous with differing amplitudes.

Rather than tiny balls, the processes of the universe should be imagined as such:

But it is wrong to refer wave-like things as an example of what a wave is, because these things aren't waves, they simply have some wave-like characteristics.. — Metaphysician Undercover

If one wishes to begin to form some sort of image in their mind of what the nature of nature might be, one must begin to think of the substrate as a continuity of wave forms as opposed to particles separated by .... what? The wave nature of the universe reveals itself everywhere in everything we observe and do. In dance and drawing and music, waves of rhythm are fundamental. Even the double helix is a wave. There are no points and there are no boundaries. However, we arbitrarily choose boundaries, e.g. the beginning and end of a bone or muscle, for the sake of sharing ideas but in reality the body is continuous. A problem at any point can create a problem anywhere else. This is the heart of holistic medicine - indivisible continuity.

But the universe is mostly a vacuum and lifeless. — Harry Hindu

Myth or fact?

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-universe-is-mostly-empty-space/

"The universe and everything in it, including humans, is mostly “empty space”. However, space is not actually “empty”, it’s filled with quantum fields and dark energy.[1]

In other words, even though the universe and everything in it is mostly empty (to the extent that the human race could fit in a very heavy sugar cube with the space removed), true empty space (a perfect stable vacuum) can’t actually exist in nature.

Phenomena like quark and gluon field fluctuations, and other types of cosmic radiation permeate what we consider empty space. Even if all matter and energy could be removed from a section of space to create a perfect vacuum, the space could not remain “empty” due to vacuum fluctuations, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics.[1][6]"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/physicists-observe-weird-quantum-fluctuations-empty-space-maybe

"Empty space is anything but, according to quantum mechanics: Instead, it roils with quantum particles flitting in and out of existence. "

I think 17th century physics should be expunged from all curriculums. Instead, it is forced fed because of "agendas". There are industrial advantages to maintaining the myth of materialism.

Sheldrake is a biologist who has developed an entirely new way to conceive of life forms. In his books he is meticulous in laying out his injections to current theories and suggests a new theory that is fundamentally based upon energetic forms which he calls morphic resonance. When I initially read their works I quickly recognized the synergy between Bergson, Whitehead, Sheldrake, and Bohm but it was wasn't until recently that I read an interview where Sheldrake acknowledged how Bergson influenced him.

With these authors you have to go to the source. Modern authors totally mangle the ideas in their desire to walk the line between what is academically acceptable (they want to preserve their careers) and what the original authors were presenting. Sheldrake it's the exception. He had no problem calling a spade a spade. So much so that a Ted sponsored talk was banished by the Ted powers to be under pressure from the "scientists" who control the board. As unintended consequences will have it, thanks to the controversy, the video had received over 1 million views.

https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

been discussing in terms of the intractableness of experience. I think you would appreciate it. Can you watch the video and then see if what I am saying makes more sense? — schopenhauer1

I enjoyed the video in the manner it poses "new possibilities". It is fitting that Whitehead and Sheldrake are featured in the video, both of whom are heavily influenced by Bergson.

But "wave" refers to an activity of a substance, and that substance must consist of particles, and space between the particles in order that the wave can move. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have to say this, but such a description is anachronistic Newtonian. While I don't agree with Whitehead's analysis, on the basis of quantum mechanics and his own studies of Bergson, he did endeavor to eliminate the notions of particles and space and such and replace it with processes (activities). One way to think of electrons are as wave perturbations (large amplitudes). Such electrons do not occupy a definite space or time but are in constant in and out flux. This marries well with current understanding of particle theory.

The medium, if one can call it such, is interwoven with that which emerges from it. Bohm referred to it as the Implicate/explicate Order while ac simple analogy would be a wave emerging from an ocean, the ocean being the mind/consciousness.

This video posted in another thread discusses, near the end, the nature of processes and waves as opposed to particles.


https://youtu.be/6Uy5-mOGgC8

A gradual boundary is still a boundary, and I think you are speaking nonsense calling this a "compactness" of energy. The energy cannot be compacted unless something compacts it, and this would be the boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a difference between continuity of substantiality and boundary. A wave is continuous with no point of demarcation. It continuously flows from one to another the difference being, shall we say, the amplitude. This is, btw, the essence of Bohm's quantum potential. The potential works via form not distance.

The selection of particular traits in populations of organisms in response to particular environmental pressures is well-documented — Arkady

Nonsense, any environment will nurture an endless number of variations that come and go. A cockroach can survive as well as a Zebra in a jungle as can bird. They survive by learning as does a human when confronted with new environments. It is the mind that is evolving, and thank goodness for that. I would be dead if I waited for the next miracle of spontaneous mutation.

What science offers it's one miracle after another and then declares it a product of some manufactured phrase called Natural Selection (the Designer). I prefer the simpler story that the mind is learning and evolving.

It comes down to this: did Natural Selection manufacture mind by some miracle or did mind manufacture the creation story of Natural Selection. Given the mind's proclivity toward creative stories and myths, particularly when it comes to Genesis, I am inclined toward the latter.

Since the memory, is not the occurrence itself, then the memory is a symbol of the occurrence and memory is symbolism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Memory is fundamental. The words we use to attempt to describe it (always inadequately and too late) are our symbolic ways to sharing.

I agree, and believe there are many such boundary issues. Resolution of these issues requires speculation and hypotheses (philosophy), as well as empirical trials (science). — Metaphysician Undercover

Philosophically the way to resolve paradoxes is to flip ideas on their head. Zeno's paradoxes are resolved by simply observing that motion and time are indivisible. In other words the problems are created by giving divisibility ontological status. Ditto for paradoxes arising out giving Special Theory of Relativity ontological status and it is the reason (philosophically speaking) why STR can never be resolved with QM. STR it's designed to resolve measurement questions not ontological issues. Hence the Twin Paradox and all of the others (e.g. moving train in a barn).

The heart of Begson's philosophy is continuity of duration and space, which is why DeBroglie have him credit for quantum ideas that predated QM by several decades.

. A real boundary between X and Y would consist of something which is neither X nor Y, but prevents the two from mixing. The piece of fruit, does not mix with the surrounding air to become a homogenous thing because the chemistry of these two keeps them separate. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no boundary here. There is a gradual and not so gradual fall off in substantiality or compactness if energy. Food moves from substantial to unsubstantial via the digestive process which begins with the bite. What is left behind is still embedded in the energetic universe that surrounds us. It is a continues flow like a cloud forming rain (insubstantial to substantial) and the rain then melting into the ground. Never a hard boundary in this process of conversion.

. But referring back to the individual is inconsistent with your fundamental principle that there is no boundaries and therefore no individuals. — Metaphysician Undercover

Individuals would be analogous to waves in an ocean. They are no hard boundaries but they are all there.

Are you claiming that the present, as the division between future and past, is an artificial division? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. The present doesn't exist as it continuously moves into memory (the past). There is no way to freeze it. The future is an image in memory (the past) of some possible actions (Bergson's virtual actions).

I have no problem finding a boundary between the fruit and the rest of the universe. This boundary is what allows me to pick up the fruit and move it this way and that way, in relation to other things. — Metaphysician Undercover

The boundary is a cloud. There is no hard boundary though there is a continuum of substantiality. Physicists have acknowledged this in their research of particles. In fact, everything seems to be connected, even non-locally. Daoists arrived at the same idea but observing the macro and how everything flows from one to the other. I flow directly into the rest of the universe. There is no nothingness floating in between me and everything else.

Similarly time flows continuously. One cannot freeze it. This is what Zeno's paradox is all about. To create an ontology around freezing creates unresolvable paradoxes. Bohm once wrote where there are paradoxes there is something that needs to be looked at in an entirely new way. Spacel and time had to be looked at as indivisible, otherwise paradoxes abound.

But observation is dependent on words. To observe is to "notice", or take note of what is happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hellen Keller was able to sense way before she learned the words. Words are for sharing. I can observe a structure (a tree) and create a new rendition of that structure without naming it anything. Symbolism is not required to observe. What is required is memory of the observation. In fact, many times a memory, e.g. a dream, is indescribable. It is a feeling.

Actual direct one observation and intuition is all that an artist needs. A picture is worth a thousand words. Even music and dance can communicate feelings that words can never hope to describe. This is why I suggest that all philosophers who are truly interested in understanding the nature of nature, as opposed to understanding what Plato or Kant may or may not have meant, study the arts not the books.

Books makes one a slave of words and mathematics a slave of numbers. That is not nature. Nature is in sound, movements, and images.

You mean, I should study "How the Big Bang created Natural Selection via Natural Laws in Unnatural Ways". I always thought this was a matter of faith? The short hand, of course, would be "It just Happened". Or the alternative would be, "God created it all".

Just by making up some new phases doesn't make atheism any less religious.

Very quickly, we come to see that there is nothing "natural" about natural selection, — Arkady

So now it is "unnatural selection"? I wonder how that would look in the textbooks?

and we must ask again why it would be that God chose to create humans through one of the few pathways which makes him seem unnecessary to the process.

For the same reason Natural Selection chose it.

Please. It's a silly story for those who are looking for religion. Believe in the story if you wish, but my own preference is for something more entertaining, though I do get a laugh whenever someone recites the parable of "How a human was created by the Natural Selection". The big difference being if course, the scientific designer is natural.

You know, atheists have every bit of that religious tone they accuse theists of. All of that righteous anger and proselytization of their dogma. They even excommunicate from their hallow halls of academia. Quite a dogmatic group these atheists are. Of course, not to question their faith that the Big Bang created it all.

Natural selection is science's designer. It is a made up term. No evidence other than the world as it exists. Atheists need to believe in something as that is what they believe in, and they give themselves a part in the back for believing in Natural Selection as opposed to God. Cute.

As for creating a God in the image of man, what the heck do you think scientist 's do when they create a Gene and Brain in the image of man? All biology does is stuff every possible attribute of humans in the Brain/Gene, without any evidence whatsoever. They see color, OK, there it is right in the those neurons. They see recognition of sound. There it is, stuffed into that gene.

All biology/neurology is is pulling whatever science wants out of a hat, and ram it down the throats of students and makes sure it sticks. If you want an A, you better learn to parrot this story exactly.

We derive knowledge from others, so our principles of communication dictate how we derive knowledge — Metaphysician Undercover

Sharing it ideas is helpful in providing direction and clue, but ultimately one must rely on direct observation and intuition. This is how the Daoists accumulated their vast knowledge. Without direct experience too much is lost including that which cannot be communicated in any fashion and certainly b not via words or math.

It is a division between what has been (past) and what may be (future). — Metaphysician Undercover

No such division exists. It is a continuum. The division is artificial since duration continues without interruption. Call it b what you wish, it is all arbitrary with no hard boundary. It is for this reason that any symbolic approach will utterly fail and the search for truth and facts will equally fail. All is in continuous flux and cannot be frozen. You can try but then the infinities and infinitesimals will start popping up all over.

food and eat it without eating the entire universe — Metaphysician Undercover

Try finding the boundary between the fruit, you, and the universe. Impossible. But keep trying.

Perfectly clear. Though I do enjoy it whatever atheists play this sleight of hand.

I have never seen any evidence of that thing called natural selection. What the heck is that? A natural designer as opposed to an unnatural one.

Atheists give a pass on natural selection just like theists give a pass on God. Why? Because they want to believe in something. Otherwise exactly the same. Just the words are different so atheists can feel more scientific.

..... natural selection — Arkady

There is science's designer. Calling it natural is cute, but a keen observer will catch the sleight of hand. As a matter of observation, such a term had no meaning other than to replace the more commonly used word God.

When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question. — Harry Hindu

Science has its God Creator and it is called the Big Bang that created everything in approximately the same amount of time. When choosing between religious stories of creation, I always go for the one that is most entertaining, which in this case is the Bible.

Bergson was an academic, and in such capacity had to walk a fine line between what he wished to express vs. what he could express. He was obviously constrained by academia in general and specifically by materialists/determinists.

With that said, we have our own creative minds and can do with his ideas as we wish. One can improve on some of his ideas by reading the unreadable Whitehead, or the very readable Rupert Sheldrake. Stephen Robbins stays away from the Elan vital, but does a beyond remarkable job expanding on Bergson's ideas on memory. Of course background on Eastern philosophy also really helps. It's all good, especially if one is open to the possibility of the primacy of the mind.