A rather startling assumption in the author's part.

As for the actual flow of time, real time, the duration of life, everyone who is alive has experienced it every day of their life.

But doubt casts a shadow over everything - your assumptions AND your methods. It's great to think of philosophy as an investigation but what if our technique is wrong or our clues are faulty? What then? — TheMadFool

I change direction. I'm only interested in understanding nature. The more I look the better my skills.

The problem with logic is that you never go beyond where you are and the only skill that you are honing is restatement of what you already know. If you want to enhance your skills in life you have to go out there and experiment and do it. I don't look for certainty. I look for knowledge that allows me to grow.

But memory comes from a stable structure of neurons in your brain now. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

And you know this how? Had anyone ever seen your memory?

The girl on the Physics Stack exchange explicitly said, well, time is not a boundary factor in this experiment. And I asked, this means, it's a timeless wave. Where else in physics would you see something analogous? I didn't get an answer, but for all I know, there might be a quotidian answer. — Wayfarer

You are absolutely on track. Bohm's book I mentioned is a good read and will confirm. His theories were rejected because of the nature of the quantum field but action at a distance is more experimentalky verified, the Chinese have demonstrated that at a minimum it acts 10,000x the speed of light. Space-time (which doesn't exist) had nothing to do with anything, not even gravity. The Relativity equations have no ontological merit.

Do what I do, ignore the common physicist and search for the exceptional like Erik Verlinde. They are rare (as Bohm was rare) but it is worth the hunt, since you'll actually get some usable insights.

So - I don't see my approach as 'confusing'. As far as I'm concerned, I have asked a novel question. — Wayfarer

It's a great observation, and when the experts are embarrassed (because they really don't get it), they call it gobblygook. Bohm agrees with you. What matters is the form for the information. For further reading I recommend Science, Order, Creativity by Bohm, Hiley.

Post that on Physics Forum I dare you — apokrisis

Don't want to upset too many of them during their fund raising efforts. You think I take them any more seriously than the average myth maker. Rather than read the actual works they read Wikipedia (like others who say Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic).

what is causing the interference pattern is outside, or not a function of, space-time' is indeed 'gobbledygook'? Or do you think it's a valid inference? — Wayfarer

Of course you are correct. There is no space-time under quantum physics. That is why the latest theoretical physicists are abandoning it and apparently treating quantum as purely information and gravity as a product of information entanglement. When Bohm wrote about the quantum potential in his equations 60 years ago, he stated quite emphatically that it acted instantaneously because the field was everywhere (now being discussed as a holographic field) and it relied wholely in the form of information anticipating today's research direction. He also wrote that space-time would have to be reworked, again anticipating the latest direction of theory physics.

It's strange that we have to make do with the line of best fit. — TheMadFool

The issue is that there is no fit at all. The Big Bang was totally fabricated so that science had their own Genesis story to be taught in textbooks. And when the Big Bang starts to fall apart completely, science comes up with another whopper by declaring that 95% of the universe is completely invisible, but just enough is there to keep the Big Bang myth going. 95%!!! They just made up a whole universe out of thin air!!!

Now why do you think scientists are so reluctant to admit they are totally wrong and just made the whole thing up ?

The expert speaks. — apokrisis

The thing is the self-proclaimed expert is 100% wrong. Not even a modicum of study or understanding of Bohm's works. How did you put it? Too concrete. No where near the flights of imagination like other theories?

So reality is both fully deterministic and fundamentally tychic in your book — apokrisis

Nope. Totally 100% wrong again.

Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.” — schopenhauer1

Oh, I think it is quite conscious, just more quiet about it. The most evolved may not have to go around patting itself on the back. Remember, these life forms have been around a heck of a lot longer than humans.

Hey, in a way I agree with you. To have a bird's life. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that is the point. Personally I like the whales or maybe the highest form of life, the great Methusalah tree. Now that's living. Maybe a bit too meditative though.

However calling the evolution of a set of observables a "probability wave" is misleading as there is no actual wave in a material sense — apokrisis

Well that's your metaphysics and can be rejected for being too "nothing".

Bohmian Mechanics is real. The quantum potential wave field is real. The "particles" (actually field wave perturbations) are real. Action at a distance is built-in and predicted by the model. The delayed choice is easily explained without resorting to "going back in time". The only thing going for Copenhagen is that it v is so embedded into quantum textbooks that it would be an embarrassment for scientists when it is finally tossed out. And tossed out it will be, because unlike the West, China is not married to an antiquated model and is streaming full speed ahead into all types of quantum technology that will leave the Western nations in the dust. Recently they measured that action at a distance is at b least 10,000 times the speed of light and may very well be instantaneous as predicted by the Bohmian model. They have also successfully b verified entanglement from a satellite which b is the basis for a new encryption technology they are building.

I guess I cannot show you the mind of other animals, but based on their behavior and the fact that they lack linguistic ability- I can feel confident saying that other animals don't really reflect very much on why they are alive or the value of existence, or other existential questions. — schopenhauer1

Who knows what they may be thinking? Probably nothing like humans and so what? They may have evolved beyond humans and just enjoying life.

Yes, a major point- humans can do this and are the only Earthly animals to do this. — schopenhauer1

I have no idea what evidence you have to conclude this.

For the non-scientists who do get the gist of the issue, one really can't speak of non-local, spooky action at a distance (now confirmed at the molecular level) and still have any hope for space-time, now can we?

Space-time metaphysics (that all it is) is irrelevant to quantum and current quantum scientific activity is working to replace it, so why lose any sleep over it? As it turns out, Bohm mechanics reconciles the wave patterns without resorting to "wave collapses" in space-time.

It’s interesting that you’re so utterly adamant that David Bohm’s theories of quantum physics are the correct ones, — Wayfarer

It will evolve but easily explains all of the wave collapse paradoxes, predicts spooky action at a distance (Bell was an advocate for Bohm Mechanics) and is real. He should have received a Nobel Prize but was implicated as a Communist sympathizer during the McCarthy era and the Copenhagen crowd never forgave him for showing how wrong they were in claiming a real, cause equivalent was impossible (yes, they claimed it was impossible so he hurt their feelings).

whereas in all other regards you are completely dismissive of the idea that science deals in objective truths. — Wayfarer

For the most part, maybe over 90%, science is no different from Wall Street and exists to make money and grow in power. Any one who challenges it is ostracized. Bohm's treatment was a disgrace but scientists had to keep the government funding coming in during the McCarthy era and beyond. Industry and government is in charge and they carefully place their puppets in position of authority.

It must be useful being able to define ‘the truth’ in such a way that it supports any argument you wish to put forward at the time, but it does entail some loss of overall credibility in my view. — Wayfarer

There is no "truth here". Just lots of pieces of a large puzzle that people have put together. It will evolve, but it works and had practical applications and insights. Much, much better then the ridiculous mess that science has put together, but then again it doesn't matter since science had become a make work business with lots of featherbedding.

As for the video, the guy hasn't read Bohm. He calls it deterministic (impossible) which Bohm explicitly rejected. Bohm called it causal. The quantum potential in Bohm Mechanics is still probabilistic and leaves open a causal interpretation that allows for choice. He does point out the "action at a distance", one of the reasons it was rejected, was shown by Bell and all experiments since is real.

Calling it certainly wrong because it doesn't conform to Relativity is bone-headed. In fact, recent research work confirms it. Now you understand I ignore everything scientists say and always do my own research using source material where feasible.

But of course you would be 'programmed' to behave in certain ways consistent with my first-person experience, so as to appear self-aware. There's no way for me to explicitly prove that another entity is truly self-aware and experiencing the sense of 'I' that I do. I would have to have a way to temporarily 'plug in' to your first-person experience. — CasKev

At some point in one's life one had to jettison these notions of proof and someone programming them, and just come up with a model of nature and life that makes sense and provides real insight. But of course one can treat the whole thing like Sci Fi game and just have fun and forget about insights.

Doesn't this contradict the findings of quantum mechanics - that something only comes into existence (probability waves collapsing into particulate matter) once it is observed? — CasKev

Quantum suggests that the observer is entangled with the system. The so-called Copenhagen wave-collapse interpretation is nonsense, but it fun because it yields so many paradoxes. The interpretation that makes senses and avoids paradoxes as well as predicting "spooky actions at can distance" is the Bohm model which is real and which Bohm first used to develop a prototype of the Holographic Universe.

Cumulative memory is constantly changing in the present moment, but is every aspect of our past already firmly established, — CasKev

No memory and history is constantly changing. Everything is always in flux.

For example, did dinosaurs actually exist, or was that 'memory' just part of the story consciousness created to explain our existence in the present moment? — CasKev

The bones exist. They change over time. What happened before we can only guess, and that is what science does. It makes up a story by guessing. We can never know, but we can enjoy the bones and the story behind it.

That brings up a point about personality. What is personality? How is it constructed? — schopenhauer1

Personality is personal memory/experiences. It is a point of view constructed by your mind based upon what it has learned. It would be the same for all forms of life differences only in kind.

It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, — CasKev

Exactly. I had the same response once to a lecturer who claimed she was making her own universe. I told her to try to take my wallet and she might notice another mind at work.

greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, — CasKev

Yes, we are all waves in an ocean.

The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... — CasKev

It is all weaved into the fabric of the universe. There is no collapse and it is not in the mind. It is all around us with a holographic-like wave-form. The biggest obstacle to understanding the universe is the concept that is taught (incorrectly) from childhood that it's in the brain. It isn't. No more than people live in TV sets. The TV broadcasts spread out everywhere and are shared in this manner. The TV is only receiving and transmitting which is analogous to the brain.

or is the past constantly adjusted to reflect the collective memories of all conscious entities that exist at any one time? — CasKev

The universal memory is constantly morphing.

I agree. To me it's an experiment going completely out of control. Definitely headed toward a poor outcome.

How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface. — bahman

It's a new idea for me. Another similar "idea" could have formed elsewhere or it could be completely new for the universe. It's like snowflakes, similarities with differences.

Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated. — bahman

The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations.

Depending on how you define the concept of emergence, you can say that pretty much any event is emergent. This is to emphasize that the concept of emergence must be clearly defined. — Magnus Anderson

I agree.

we have transcended our animal nature. Tech, bio, and mens don't always jive. — Bitter Crank

You think that Facebook and mass pollution moves us up the hierarchy? I'm sure you realize that humans just create trash that cannot be environmentally recycled. As far as I'm concerned the human experience has become an experiment in greed, overconsumption, and enormously excessive trash throw-off. I wonder how it will be turn out?

But humans reach a new evolutionary plateau, by being able to ask ‘why do this’, — Wayfarer

There is no reason to believe that human life is more or less evolved than other life. Other life may have long ago answered this question and evolved beyond it. What one can say is that some forms of life, such as humans, do like to to think in terms of a hierarchy. I wonder if other forms of life look at human existence as quite barbaric and silly? It's possible.

When idealists hijack quantum mechanics — jorndoe

No one is hijacking anything. Physicists are reworking the model of the universe around quantum information and entanglement. Information implies a Mind. It is just that scientists can't use that word so they use consciousness or quantum information instead. Keeps the materialist troops happy.

Realm of mind is however is different from realm of material to me. — bahman

There is no reason to take a dualist stance. It can be considered all the same stuff, quantum information if you will.

The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind.

There is chaos but this chaos is subsumed to order. I think that Perice said something along the lines — Magnus Anderson

Peirce said: 1) there was Chance Tychism and from this came 2) Mind and from this came 3) Matter, matter being effete Mind.

Now compare this to Daoism:

First came 1) The Dao (Mind) then came 2) Opposites as waves (Yin/Yang) as a manifestation of the Dao then came 3) Creative energy (Qi) as a inner manifestation of the waves.

What so both have common? The Mind. And was does the Mind do? It explores and learns. Induction, as some may call it is fundamental to experienced life. It is not a question of logical validity.It is what life does.

The Big Bang is absolute nonsense, and I was happy when noted quantum scientist Erik Verlinde said philosophically he didn't buy into the Universe all came about as a result of various Big Whoosh out v of no where. His own work follows more along the lines of the universe as developing from quantum entanglement of information - a totally new approach thank goodness, one that makes sense scientifically as opposed to the religious overtones of the current theory.

The Big Bang is so bad at correlating with current observations, that scientists have to make up (yes, the Sci Fi aspect of current science rears its head yet again), "invisible" dark energy and dark matter that make up 70% and 25% of the universe respectively in order to account for anti-gravity forces (I thought they told us that the universe is curved space time?) This article will give you a glimpse at how torturous it has become for scientists to hold on to their myth that they have been teaching as the Scientific Genesis for decades.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/dark-matter/

The only certainty that we have is that experience exists.
— bahman

Are you certain of that?

If your answer is yes, then that makes two certainties. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I would state it otherwise. I would say that experiences (memories) is what defines us.

The only certainty that we have is that experience exists — bahman

Not that experience exists (as if it floating in some sort of vacuum) but rather we (our minds) are experiencing. It is one and the same - mind and memory.

Yeah, but would you call that instinct? — schopenhauer1

It's all memory of a specific sort derived from exactly the same evolutionary activity.

I guess my evidence is that animals don't just reject learning something. — schopenhauer1

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. One only has to read about the affairs of circuses.

My guess is that in many respects, other life forms are for more evolved than humans, but we only get glimpses of it now and then.

It is the magnitude of the leap in such an opposing direction as well as the clarity and specificity of the description that is so astounding. In my opinion, the single greatest philosophical accomplishment in modern philosophy. No one comes close.

Rich - sorry about barging into your thread. I will butt out now. — Wayfarer

No problem at all. Did I suggest otherwise? If so, I apologize. I've been enjoying what you and everyone else have been discussing.

Or maybe he just invented it, and the nature of his invention dovetails with the inventions of this generation of physicists — Joshs

He definitely intuited it and what he intuited went againstall of the established science of his age. And while he enjoyed great popularity and a Nobel Prize for a short period of time, materialists in both science and philosophy quickly worked to banish him from academia and the popular press, preferring their materialist godfather Einstein.

All of his works predated by several decades the new scientific discoveries of quantum behavior and holographic photography which is absolutely mind-boggling.

As the holographic universe unfolds along with quantum physics it becomes more and more remarkable v how prescient was Bergson. De Broglie, one of the original quantum theorists, wrote a long essay 70 years ago describing how many of Bergson's ideas dovetailed was was later discovered as quantum physics. Stephen Robbins shows how Bergson's holographic theory of mind and perception preceded the discovery of holography by two decades, and now corresponds to the latest efforts by quantum scientists to explain the nature of the universe in holographic terms.

Putting aside the genius of Bergson, one must ask, how the heck did he do it?? My best guess is that he intuited a model that somehow fit the nature that he observed in a multidimensional manner. Absolutely amazing.

3. The universal cosmic subject has a drive to move beyond itself to something better. — Justin1

Nothing in my own observations would support such a notion. The universe is changing in all kinds of ways. Pollution has never been worse. All there is is universal experimentation and evolution. I hope it works out OK for the universal mind.

Consciousness, it seems to me, is the fundamental stuff behind all that exists. — Sam26

Of course. It is inevitable. However, if a scientist wishes to have continued access to funding, it is advisable to use the term quantum information entanglement. Certain words get funding and others do not.