You need to drop the notion of materiality. Everything is quanta waves. The real question is how does the mind create sensations, e.g. sensations of solidity.

That's what I keep asking you – how? What's the mechanism? Saying "mind is quanta" says nothing more informative than e.g. "names are words".

That's what I keep asking you – how? What's the mechanism? Saying "mind is quanta" says nothing more than informative than e.g. names are words. — 180 Proof

How does quanta form into materiality? How does Mind create a sense of materiality? Maybe not in this lifetime. Be satisfied that you are now asking the correct questions.

So you haven't a clue what you're talking about – well I do appreciate the confirmation; but I'd already suspected as much. My questions are "correct" only in so far as they 'smoked you out' of that Platonic cave for a moment. After all, "mind is quanta" and quanta are shadows, therefore mind is shadow, right? ... so the Sun (i.e. light of the real) is otherwise, that is, it's not mind. :clap: Don't bother objecting, Mondo, the implications of your previous posts already say enough to exorcise my fleeting interest in your Berkeleyan redux.

So you haven't a clue what you're talking about – well I do appreciate the confirmation; but I'd already suspected as much. My questions are "correct" only in so far as they 'smoked you out' of that Platonic cave for a moment. After all, "mind is quanta" and quanta are shadows, therefore mind is shadow, right? ... so the Sun (i.e. light of the real) is otherwise, that is, it's not mind. :clap: Don't bother objecting, Mondo, the implications of your previous posts already say enough to exorcise my fleeting interest in your Berkeleyan redux. — 180 Proof

Wasted my time. Shrug.

Just to clarify for you or others, in response to some of the discussion you had yesterday, my own understanding of Bohm's actual idea of the implications order is not as an actual entity as such. He is not an idealist like Berkeley, but just sees mind and body as being beyond duality. I don't think that means that mind or body are more real.

Y'know, if "mind" is just process, or function, in the body akin to (but far more complex than) e.g. digestion, then, of course, (mind/body) duality is a perceptual/conceptual delusion (reinforced by the semantic illusion of subject-predicate duality). Bohm's implicate order, IMO, is analogous to Spinoza's non-manifest substance (which Einstein would have approved of), or even to Schopenhauer's great will, rather than some "cosmic consciousness". Yeah, his later thinking strayed in that direction but all of his serious, lasting work in physics came before.

. Tao, Zen, Sufism ...

. That's the pathless path ... That is the path in which you can go beyond any dualism ...

. I'm glad to know it ...

. But seek not ... That's the path to Awe ... To God ... To Moksha ...

Just to clarify for you or others, in response to some of the discussion you had yesterday, my own understanding of Bohm's actual idea of the implications order is not as an actual entity as such. He is not an idealist like Berkeley, but just sees mind and body as being beyond duality. I don't think that means that mind or body are more real. — Jack Cummins

Bohm indicated that his model leaves open the possibility of consciousness imbued in the Implicate Order. Bohm could only go do far, as he was already ostracized by the "scientific" community for refuting von Neumann, which was heretical. Instead of receiving a Nobel Prize, he was banished.

What Bohm missed was the idea that the Universe was holographic in nature. This is the game changer. His idea that quantum was waves without any collapse (de Broglie saw particles as instaneous eruptions in waves), ended the need for dualism and any need to refer to the idea of particles/matter. It quickly ended all paradoxes, and opened enormous possibilities for new studies based upon instaneous action at a distance. Bell's Theorem and subsequent experiments relating to entanglement and action at a distance, were all based upon Bohm's work.

His idea that quantum was waves without any collapse (de Broglie saw particles as instaneous eruptions in waves), ended the need for dualism and any need to refer to the idea of particles/matter. — MondoR

How would string theory play in to that, or would it, or could it?

How would string theory play in to that, or would it, or could it? — James Riley

I think it was interesting, but a dead end. The interesting part was that "matter" is vibrational. However, a holographic model opens up entirely new realms of thinking, which turns classical thinking upside down, which is what I like about it. Science is 180° wrong in the way it views nature and life.

"Particles" in the Bohm-de Broglie model are areas of high energy concentration. The way I view it is, Mind is concentrating itself and creating "matter", which it feels as solidity.

What's the best lay-explanation (dumbed-down) book I could get to address the holographic model? Preferably with pictures and charts. Thanks.

What's the best lay-explanation (dumbed-down) book I could get to address the holographic model? Preferably with pictures and charts. Thanks. — James Riley

I'm going to fall you, because dumb down explanations, say nothing and answer no questions. But, I can recommend this video and this series as a starting point for highly qualitative exploration. All relevant ideas, including Bohm's, are explored in this series. I go back to it many times, because Robbins is a genius and has packed an enormous amount of ingenuity into his presentations. Just remember, were are not living "in" a holographic field, we are integrated into the fabric by virtue of shared consciousness.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

Thanks. I'll have wait until I get to town because my internet is too limited to watch stuff right now.

dumb down explanations, say nothing and answer no questions. — MondoR

Wow, the holographic model must be pretty deep. I've read some pop physics books by Hawking, et al, and saw Cosmos with Carl Sagan, and I found all that pretty enlightening, all without having to get a PhD in physics/astronomy, etc. Maybe I'll pump the brakes and wait for the field to get a better handle on itself. Thanks, though.

I've been exploring for decades. Understanding takes time and patience.

I've been exploring for decades. Understanding takes time and patience. — MondoR

Like a yogi on a mountain top.

Like a yogi on a mountain top. — James Riley

Not at all. I explore by actually experiencing and observing all aspects of life. I imagine sitting on a mountain might be sufficient, but I doubt it. I am quite sure just reading what others have written is equally insufficient.

Not at all. — MondoR

So understanding takes more than time and patience?

As I said in my prior message to you, it takes exploration with skillful observation. This is learned with practice. One doesn't become a captain of a ship by reading books or chatting.

One doesn't become a captain of a ship by reading books or chatting. — MondoR

So what are you doing here?

I understand what it's like to not know a subject well enough to explain it to others. Sometimes books are a good way to share knowledge, or so I've heard.

I created the thread and I don't mind Mondor writing in it. I invent them like notebooks for people to experiment with ideas. The idea of holographic reality is speculative, so I invite any into this little adventure.

So what are you doing here?

I understand what it's like to not know a subject well enough to explain it to others. Sometimes books are a good way to share knowledge, or so I've heard. — James Riley

They are just one point in a journey. They are actually quite wanting because one cannot express an experience in words. However, they can provide clues.

Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true. — Banno

I don't think this is correct. Here are some definitions of "physicalism."

• The philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.
  
• The thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental.
  
• The metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical...

I wouldn't call myself a physicalist, but I think it's consistent with my understanding of how things work. It doesn't say anything about at what organizational level - physics, chemistry, biology, cognitive science, psychology - a phenomenon should be understood.

I created the thread and I don't mind Mondor writing in it. — Jack Cummins

I don't mind him writing in it either. I'm genuinely curious about "holographic reality" and wanted to learn more about it. But apparently it can't be expressed in words, so I was curious as to why all the writing.

All I asked for was a book; one point in a journey. "No book", and "no point in the journey" would have answered my question and sent me off on a journey without books, in search of clues, or not. Like I said, I guess I'll wait until there is a point in the journey.

Have you read Tegmark's MU conjecture? I'm interested in your objections or, even better, a plausible refutation. — 180 Proof

I haven't read Tegmark, although I have read some summaries. From that quick look, it appears that there is no way, even in theory, to test his understanding. If that's true, then it's not physics, it's metaphysics. Just like the dozens of different interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's not true or false, it is useful or not.

Do you read science fiction? If so, I steer you toward a neat book by Jeremy Robinson - "NPC." NPC means Non-Player Character in a video game. That's a character who is created by the game to interact with actual players but who has no awareness. The book follows a scientist who is trying to show that reality is a simulation by killing people he considers NPCs. The philosophical issues are handled in a very satisfying manner. If you have Kindle Unlimited, you can read it for free.

You've probably seen Her and some of the other sci-fi. We can already make it so believable, so yeah. — j0e

Yeah, but that was Scarlett Johansen. What if it had been Gilbert Gottfried?

I know that you seem to question the idea of a holographic perspective, but do you think that the idea of an implicate order makes sense at all? I do believe that neuroscience is important but it does seem to end up becoming completely reductive. — Jack Cummins

From what I read about the implicate order, it sounds very much like Taoism. The difference to me is that the Tao is metaphysics while Bohm claims the implicate order is physical reality. You've mentioned Fritjof Capra before. That's what bothers me about "The Tao of Physics." He mixes up the Tao, metaphysics, with quantum mechanics, physics. For me, the connection between them is purely metaphorical. Lao Tzu has no physics to teach us. Heisenberg was not a mystic.

I get the impression that if you accept the idea that there are a lot of worlds other than this one, a lot of quantum mechanics' problems go away (the Many Worlds Interpretation). — RogueAI

There are a bunch of interpretations of quantum mechanics that are consistent with observed phenomena. It appears, although there is some disagreement, that none of them, including the multiverse, can be verified, even in principle. If that is true, then they are equivalent. If that's the case, it makes sense to pick the simplest description - the Copenhagen Interpretation. None of it means anything, just calculate.

All I asked for was a book; one point in a journey. "No book", and "no point in the journey" would have answered my question and sent me off on a journey without books, in search of clues, or not. Like I said, I guess I'll wait until there is a point in the journey. — James Riley

I offered you a video as a starting point. In life, one cannot understand anything without exploration. Only universities offer such myths. There is no simple way no explain a holographic conception of the universe. You can start somewhere, and if you are curious enough about the subject, you keep searching, and not just in books. You are trying to understand the nature of nature. That takes work.

Anyway, when I look at a rock, it may be "looking" back at me. I try to imagine all it has seen and will see and what it has shown to All. — James Riley

So, a billion years ago, a volcano erupted and spread lava over a large area. The lava cooled and became igneous rock. The cooled lava had been covered by 1,000 feet of sedimentary and igneous rock. The pressure of all that rock changed the physical and chemical makeup of the rock. The rock was uplifted into mountains, eroded, mixed with other eroded material, and deposited into the sea as a sedimentary rock. Again, it was covered and metamorphosed. The overlying rock was eroded by a river until the deposited rock was exposed. Then the rock was removed by humans from a quarry and crushed into 2 inch pieces for road building.

So, when did the rock become conscious? What would it remember? Was it conscious all the time, first as magma, then as lava, then as igneous rock, then as individual particles, then as sedimentary rock, then as broken stone? Of what use is there in calling the rock conscious? You certainly have changed the meaning of the word entirely.