States can be considered the condition of something at a particular time. Embracing this view, that is the instantaneous time, is what manifests the Zeno' paradoxes. If your imagining of Present had no instant, has no state, and had no reference point, then it simply creates a flowing "present" from the past moving into some future. This is quite different than what one can imagine had the Now.

However, if your present can be harness as a stoppage of the flow, with a reference point, and a state, then you are back to Zenos paradox with nothing moving or changing. In other words, time has to be envisioned as a continuous flow or we have paradoxes. You can refer to this for as the Present if you wish. Bergson used the word Dureé.

In such case, your Present, is a process of constant change. There is no instanteous but a movement that represents all that has happened and where it is flowing into. This is fine, as long as it is recognized that there is no state that one can refer to as a Present but rather a continuous flow. It is simply a reimagining of the concept of Present from a state to a flow. However, there is no reference point. Everything is in flux.

Yes, I agree. A "state" cannot be defined in a universe that is constantly changing. This is essentially the Heisenberg principle. Binny wants to define a state when none exists. A quantum interpretation must take this into account which is why Bohm chose to use a Holomovement as his ontological model. The waves are real (whatever they may represent) and the "particles" (really wave perturbations) are most likely to occur at the areas of greatest wave intensity. Since it is holographic in nature, all is entangled and in constant flux, and one can never define a single state.

I'll restate it briefly. There wavefunction is not real. Rather, our uncertainty about the exact quantum state (which is classical in Binney's interpretation) is translated to the particle or particles in these experiments. If we could take into account the exact state of the measuring device, then the uncertainty of the particle's property in question would dissipate, and thus there would be no need for the wavefunction. — Marchesk

The issue with Binney's approach, which has been previously discussed in depth in many books I read, is defining the state of the "measuring device" which must include the device and all that is entangled with the device including the observers. Ultimately, Binney's approach requires knowledge of the state of the universe from some outside perspective. Is this possible?

Given that the Bohm-DeBroglie real, casual interpretation has the most easily understood ontology, has been experimentally supported (Bell, Aspect, and subsequent experiments detailing non-local effects), and leaves open the very critical notion of possibilities and creativity, there seems to be little reason to embrace other interpretations at this time. Both the MWI and Binney's interpretation are inaccessible while Bohm's non-local prediction are continually tested and verified.

One of the "refutations" of Bohm's theory?

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466

It is not surprising that scientists personal views of life may diverge from scientific journal acceptable ideas. The v two fulfill different purposes and do not have to coincide.

That it cannot be made relativistically invariant is a positive. Time as define in Relatively and Einstein is a mess with all of its sci-fi inducing paradoxes, and should be jettisoned.

What Bohm was able to do, and what De Brogle could not figure out how to do, was build a casual, real model for QM that had an ontological basis. But to do this, be had to introduce a Quantum Field (which he later called a holomovement) that is totally undefined.

So what is a Quantum Field? Well for one thing, it is probabilistic in nature. Or as Bohm preferred, it contains possibilities. From this, he proceeded to delve deeper into the meaning of this by considering the nature of creativity and intuition. This, he presents a full ontological model that is real, casual, and not strictly deterministic. He never actually goes so far as to equate his notion of creativity with Bergson's Elan Vital, but he nudges as close as he could to it while still not saying anything that might jeopardize his job. The Copenhagenists were forever on his case, doing everything they could to marginalize his theory. Bell was an enough of a renegade to resurrect it.

It can also be pointed out that De Broglie, in an essay about Bergson's philosophy, spoke quite positively of Bergson's thoughts and how they pre-dated but in many ways predicted quantum physics. It is quite a nice essay.

I am not sure about De Broglie's views, but Bohm is quite clear in his own book, that his model, which he shares with De Broglie is casual but not deterministic. I find this error repeated in many books and websites, which makes me wonder whether they have ever read the source material or if they are all just repeating the same error.

From Science, Order and Creativity

"This shows the interpretation, while being causal is not strictly deterministic. [Bohm's italics]. Indeed in the next chapter it will be shown that the possibility is opened for creativity to operate within a causal framework."

Can someone please explain to me how to quote ?
— Raphi

Highlight the text. — darthbarracuda

On my my tablet, the mechanics of this site are a bit obscure, since some icons are hidden and not intuitively obvious.

For quoting, I first highlight and copy, and then I have to scroll up and a Quote button appears, which I tap. It is very unorthodox.

That you'd see this as suggesting that there's no present rather than saying "per this way of systematically thinking about things, it suggests there's no present, therefore we must have royally fucked up somehow with this approach to systematic thinking" is ridiculous. That's the worst sort of theory worship. — Terrapin Station

I would say that "Living in the Now" one form of theory worship. What we are living in is constant change. Constant, never stopping, no matter how much one wish to measure or idolize the Present, it simply cannot be done.

The "morphing" is the present. — Terrapin Station

The issue is that the cannot find a present within a process. It is impossible. There is no instantaneous non-motion within a continuous motion. Try as anyone might, it is impossible to b stop the passage of time (motion) to create a present. It is gone into the past memory. The notion of present has to be jetisoned, otherwise one has to deal with Zeno's paradox. There is no instantaneous moment of now or present. It doesn't exist. What there is is a continuous, process of flux. Actually, Heraclitus had it right.

In regards to the double slit conundrum, the Bohm-De Broglie real wave-particle interpretation handles it quite eloquently as long as you can tolerate non-local action at a distance. I personally have no problem with the notion since a holographic wave universe seems quite reasonable.

I am not suggesting that the equations are incorrect or that they do not have some usefulness - albeit quite limited. What I am suggesting is the elevation of the mathematical abstraction to the level of some metaphysical theory of the universe, in particular the notion of some 4D space-time continuum. It is unnecessary though no doubt fun for sci-fi buffs.

I think we should stick with gravity. Much more concrete than the lavish notion of space-time. I feel the pull of gravity and yes, gravity will have an effect on things.

There cannot be a moment, a present, an instantaneous, within constant motion. Such a notion creates paradoxes, the most famous ones being set forth by Zeno. What you can have is a fleeting , vague notion of a present that vanishes as quickly as it may be conceived.

So mathematics is a by-product of laws of physics which permit the representation of one physical system by another ... — tom

More precisely, mathematics is an symbolic and convenient tool, a certain subset of which scientists convert into a Law, imbuing the equations with a certain quality of permanence and incontrovertibly such that no one dare to deny - until new equations are introduced. I wonder when the concept of a Law of Physics or Nature was first introduced?

The issue is pinpointing a "present" if everything is in a continuous state of motion and change. One cannot. It is analagous to the quantum problem of attempting to measure simultaneously position and momentum. All motion is lost when measuring position which is impossible since everything is in a constant state of motion. Thus we must give up the notion of Present in order to acceed to the constant motion. What we have is an accumulated past (all that has happened) morphing into some future. The instance of Present cannot exist within constant evolution. It is helpful to view memory or experiences as a holographic field with new experiences being impressed within it.

Mathematics is a tool to view a very narrow slice of what surrounds us. Scientists invent this tool to measure and predict to a level of necessary practicality for a very specific purpose. This narrow view of life cannot be elevated to a complete metaphysics of nature, especially when the equations themselves are necessarily in conflict because of their own peculiar nature.

Space-time is as real as probability waves. Einstein's greatest feat was transforming Lorentz's transformation equations into fodder for sci-fi writers. A magnificent example of science elevating its concocted mathematical equations into a rather strange metaphysics.

If you have an interest in Bergson, you may want to have a look at The Physicist & Philosopher, Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time, by Jimena Canales. I got my copy at the library but subsequently purchased it so that I have it as a permanent resource in my library. A fascinating combination of history, science, and philosophy. Since reading this book and reading subsequent reviews and critiques, my views have changed substantially.

I guess now one has to wonder who or what has made the rules and the physical laws. I think that is probably another discussion entirely. — Mike

Such a discussion must first entertain that such Laws do exist or do the "rules of nature" evolve as does everything else. I would say there is no way to falsify such a doctrine and thus becomes its own metaphysical viewpoint.

My view is that the so-named Copenhagen Interpretation, was a well-meaning attempt by Bohr to draw a line between the Schrodinger Equation and the metaphysics that may result from the equation, which is is stark contrast to the metaphysics that competing theories, such as General Relativity, might presume. Einstein at times was quite adament about the mathematics of his theories should be elevated to a concrete metaphysics.

But not all early QM theorists, such as De Brogle, felt as bound as Bohr, and did present a concrete view of the reality of the Quantum equation. De Broglie was brow beaten by Bohr and Heisenberg to accept the Copenhagen stance, but this did not prevent De Broglie from writing essays concerning the metaphysics, in particular his discussion of Bergson's metaphysics and it's possible compatibility with QM. Later Bohm resurrected the De Broglie real wave theory and himself extended his thinking into a description of a holographic universe.

Not much theoretical work is performed nowadays that may impact QM metaphysical interpretations, but recent experimental results from an NIST are noteworthy in its support of "spooky action at a distance" being a real aspect of quantum metaphysics.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html

My view is that QM is basically the Schrodinger equation (and it's offshoots), which is a symbolic mathematical equation used to predict the location of an election. What exactly is the equation describing falls within the realm of metaphysics,. Some scientists have speculated what this metaphysics might be (referred to interpretations), but such metaphysics is purely philosophical in nature. For myself, I consider the mathematical equations convenient tools to assist scientists in their processes of measuring and predicting within their tolerance levels. QM itself is entirely probabilistic which may provide some hints as to the stuff it is attempting to measure.

If, as some suspect, information is memorized in holographic form, and the brain is acting as the reference wave, then it would be possible for people to communicate directly (telepathically) without the need for three dimensional instruments. It is possible that twins, and others, who share closely compatible brain functions, might already be doing this on a limited basis.

As for extra dimensions, who knows, there may be wave forms that carve out information and processes that cannot be referenced by our brain waves, but for now, the universe we live in is more than enough challenge for me.

I think that what is most striking in difference between religion and philosophy is in the approach to faith. Faith, like the two aforementioned terms, cannot be easily defined without ignoring important shades of meaning which the word takes on. It's a practice, it's a type of belief, it's a state of mind, it's a value, it's many things.

But in a religion what it does is different from what it does in a philosophy -- in a religion faith is a justification. But in philosophy, while faith can play as motive, it can never be provided as a justification. It may be an (honest, admitted) reason for a stance to some interlocutor or audience, but the expectations of philosophy is that in addressing said audience you will not expect faith to compel said audience to whatever it is you are proposing. — Moliere

I agree to an extent. But now we are talking more about style rather than substance. Hence, the dogma is there it is just we don't publically call it dogma or admit to it. Instead we might call it foundational or a core belief system.

I agree. One cannot single out one type of group as being more or less dogmatic. It varies by degree and where the dogma is taught.

Depending upon the religion, it may be characterized as more or less dogmatic. This is totally dependent upon the nature of the local group. For example, Universalist-Unitarian groups and individuals may be far more open to new ideas than a group of Skeptics. It all depends.

I believe that the differences in philosophy, religion, and science for that matter, is the degree of faith that an individual places in the process. A religious person might still be always asking the next question, while a philosopher or scientist can become quite dogmatic about their faith in their own brief system. Ditto for a philosopher or scientist. I have found that there is no set way to define a person by the group that he or she chooses to belong to. As always, the individual defines who he or she is. The group is a device for further inquiry or immobility, as the person sees fit.

Don't you think evolution by natural selection is better described by "change within a species leading towards better survival and reproduction mechanisms" (or something like that). That definition seem way more appropriate considering what we know about it as educated beings. In that way, the fact that the organism is suffering is not a factor forcing change. It can affect it, but it is not mandatory. — Raphi

It's impossible to prove that all change is due to natural selection for survival. What would be the proof? The species survived? Well in this case, natural selection had worked very poorly since so many species disappear.

One can make a case that many, if not most, activities in human experiences have very little to do with survival. More broadly, I would propose that all activities are associated with learning, learning to live longer being a subset of the larger initiative. In this context, suffering is a whisper (or maybe a shout) to try something else.

I would say that our experiences are our own and are subject to change as is all memory. There could of course be disagreements with others which can change the nature of an experience. Everything is constantly evolving and in flux. Nothing can be said to be concrete.

What I would suggest is that evolution can be precisely described as "change brought about by learning". Suffering is merely a signpost directing the pupil to a different path for learning. In other words, if it is hurting them try something else.

The issue with any and all translations is that they are limited by and reflect the experiences and worldview of the translator. So in the case of the Dao De Jing, we are for the most part reading whatever the translator wishes to relate about their worldview, whatever that may be. But even if reading the Chapters in the native language there still remains the question of meaning in time (which evolves), and the reader's own worldview and life experiences.

Such be the case, the Dao De Jing is as understandable or understandable as a good read of Shakespeare, and as with Shakespeare, meaning will change as the reader's experience evolves. As for me, I look upon the Dao De Jing, not as a book of wisdom but rather a book of chants that ancient people sang together to utter their view of life. It the view that is not too dissimilar from Heraclitus who saw the universe as Lagos in flux. If nothing more, this thought is enough to make these two philosophies worthwhile to study. The ideas of the Fao De Jing are for us to discover and in so doing provide us with a deeper understanding of the universe. Such an understanding can only be derived via experience though books can certainly lead us to different paths to explore.

I believe that expression of creativity is the impetus of life and art is a medium for sharing this expression with others so as to give impulse to creativity. There is little purpose to life if not to create.