Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Write4U, Dec 6, 2020.
The part I quoted to say I disagreed with it, of course.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So you disagree with Bohm's perspective of a fragmented world?
1 FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS
The title of this chapter is ‘Fragmentation and wholeness’. It is especially important to consider this question today, for fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them. Thus art, science, technology, and human work in general, are divided up into specialities, each considered to be separate in essence from the others.
Becoming dissatisfied with this state of affairs, men have set up further interdisciplinary subjects, which were intended to unite these specialities, but these new subjects have ultimately served mainly to add further separate fragments. Then, society as a whole has developed in such a way that it is broken up into separate nations and different religious, political, economic, racial groups, etc. Man’s natural environment has correspondingly been seen as an aggregate of separately existent parts, to be exploited by different groups of people. Similarly, each individual human being has been fragmented into a large number of separate and conflicting compartments, according to his different desires, aims, ambitions, loyalties, psychological characteristics, etc., to such an extent that it is generally accepted that some degree of neurosis is inevitable, while many individuals going beyond the ‘normal’ limits of fragmentation are classified as paranoid, schizoid, psychotic, etc. The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today.
Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder, and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who have to live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. Indeed, to some extent, it has always been both necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, and to separate them, so as to reduce his problems to manageable proportions; for evidently, if in our practical technical work we tried to deal with the whole of reality all at once, we would be swamped.
So, in certain ways, the creation of special subjects of study and the division of labour was an important step forward. Even earlier, man’s first realization that he was not identical with nature was also a crucial step, because it made possible a kind of autonomy in his thinking, which allowed him to go beyond the 2 wholeness and the implicate order immediately given limits of nature, first in his imagination and ultimately in his practical work. Nevertheless, this sort of ability of man to separate himself from his environment and to divide and apportion things ultimately led to a wide range of negative and destructive results, because man lost awareness of what he was doing and thus extended the process of division beyond the limits within which it works properly.
In essence, the process of division is a way of thinking about things that is convenient and useful mainly in the domain of practical, technical and functional activities (e.g., to divide up an area of land into different fields where various crops are to be grown). However, when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man’s notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives (i.e. to his self-world view), then man ceases to regard the resulting divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and his world as actually constituted of separately existent fragments.
Being guided by a fragmentary self-world view, man then acts in such a way as to try to break himself and the world up, so that all seems to correspond to his way of thinking. Man thus obtains an apparent proof of the correctness of his fragmentary self-world view though, of course, he overlooks the fact that it is he himself, acting according to his mode of thought, who has brought about the fragmentation that now seems to have an autonomous existence, independent of his will and of his desire.
Men have been aware from time immemorial of this state of apparently autonomously existent fragmentation and have often projected myths of a yet earlier ‘golden age’, before the split between man and nature and between man and man had yet taken place. Indeed, man has always been seeking wholeness – mental, physical, social, individual.......more.
Does any of this remind of what's happening in today's world?
Here endeth the lesson.
We will now sing the hymn number 94," Oh Bohm our Help in Ages Past".
Thanks for that insightful critique. I'm sure everyone learned from that thoughtful response.
Now that you mention is, probably yes, at least in part.
I disagree that these things are considered "separate in essence". Maybe some people think of them that way.
That sounds very reminiscent of the old Creationist "missing link" arguments. With that kind of thinking, every time somebody finds a missing link, the Creationists simply say there are now two missing links instead of the original one. You found a link, B, between A and C? Well, that just means that there are "missing links" between A and B, and between B and C. Those people are never satisfied.
It sounds like Bohm is against categorisation, for some reason. Not to categorise means to have a disorganised, unapproachable mess.
I don't know what he's blathering on about, here.
All that is due to "fragmentation" is it? Wow! This fragmentation stuff sounds really bad! Who'd have thought that every problem has such a simple, unifying cause? It's almost too simple. Almost.
So, on the one hand Bohm recognises the importance of compartmentalisation, but on the other hand he doesn't like it. So what?
Wild speculation here about "man" losing awareness of what he was doing etc.
Or ... man realises that some conceptual or theoretical divisions are useful for precisely the reasons that Bohm himself previously appeared to recognise, but also that those conceptual divisions do not necessarily represent hard boundaries in the "real world".
Delusions about previous "golden ages" are common enough. The only novel spin Bohm is putting on this is his claim that it happens due to the "fragmentation" he is rambling on about.
Like most religions, I'm sure you can read in analogies to "today's world" or anything else you want to shoehorn into the rhetoric.
Exactly, he recognizes the importance of compartmentalization, but IMO, he was also advocating for the necessity of keeping sight of the inter-connectedness to the greater whole.
The whole thing started as a singularity and it still is, except it's a lot bigger.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have no problem with that. My problem is the part where he claims that people who ought to know better have lost sight of that interconnectedness.
Is that not because that was true (witness the apparent conflict between QM and GR), until the recent renewed interest in the "wholeness" and coincidentally, a resurgence of interest in Bohmian Mechanics.
Paying lipservice to the "essence" of a Universal Wholeness is not the same as applying the concept in a practical sense.
De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia
The Axiomatic Method in Mathematics
There is no conflict between QM and GR. The only problem (and it's a biggy) is that GR isn't a quantum theory. But that has nothing to do with "wholeness".
Also, you speak as if Bohmian mechanics is more mainstream these days than it used to be. As far as I'm aware, it's still on the fringes of physics. Physicists being physicists, there will always be some who take an interest. There's always more research to do. But that's as far as it goes. Most physicists never study any of Bohm's non-mainsteam work.
You make it sound as if mainstream science dictates the work of physicists. I disagree or at least would consider that shortsighted.
IMO, physicist consensus dictates mainstream science.
But if people ignore the work by otherwise recognized mainstream scientists, I suggest that is a serious lack of recognition of the scientist's whole body of related work.
Roughly speaking, I'd say that mainstream science consists of those parts of science that have proven most fruitful towards progressing knowledge. Quantum mechanics is mainstream, for example, because it explains so much and because it has driven the development of many useful techniques and technologies. Bohmian mechanics is not mainstream because it has not led to new discoveries in physics or to new technologies. In fact, it doesn't achieve anything that other philosophies of quantum physics don't do equally as well.
That's not to say that things will necessarily always stay as they are now. Some people are working on Bohmian ideas. Who knows? They might eventually produce something useful, or even cause a revolution. Anything is possible.
Physics, like every specialist field of study, is a big topic. Professionals need to decide how they will allocate their valuable time and effort. While there are always some who choose to follow less-traveled roads in the hope of a breakthrough, the majority tend to build on those methods and ideas that have already proven their worth time and again.
This is not to say that Bohm is ignored. Physicists are a curious lot. Some might make a hobby of Bohmian mechanics, or learn about it in their spare time. Some come across it by accident through Bohm's more mainstream contributions.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, if you're outside the profession, you aren't necessarily in the best position to judge what is considered important and what is peripheral from the point of view of the average insider (whoever that is). A popular writer, for example, can sometimes turn a fringe scientist (or, more often, a fringe idea of a well-known scientist) into a celebration in the popular culture (or some segment of it), while the professionals continue on with business as usual, observing the resulting public fan club with a bemused expression.
Actually, the opposite is true.
The de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory solves the wave-particle duality problem!
I don't think so. It retains the same wave-particle duality as standard quantum mechanics.
No it does not. In fact its main difference is that it does away with the particle/wave duality.
First published Fri Oct 26, 2001; substantive revision Mon Mar 27, 2017
In the double slit experiment, Bohmian Mechanics
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!the paths of real particles traveling from the two slits to the detector to look like something like this: The above image shows particles travelling in non-straight paths.
The Pilot wave is a Universal Guiding wave being traversed by a particle which has a definitive velocity and position at all times.
Okay, Write4U, thanks for that.
So Bohm manages to retain particles as particles, but only at the expense of creating a new entity: pilot waves.
It seems to me that pilot waves are themselves mysterious things that do odd things (IIRC, they are even supposed to move backwards in time, or do something else that's weird time-wise), so I'm not convinced this is an improvement on standard quantum mechanics, which has only the wave function and the measurement procedure.
UVW....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have always wondered what the Pilot Wave actually is.
Yes, the theory has problems to be sure. But it may have connection to other standing hypotheses.
This sounds confusing, but intriguing.
The deeper one looks the more interesting it all becomes....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This may well be the most informative video I have seen.
Are Pilot waves Gravity waves or Faraday waves?
As far as I am aware, though, there's no way to detect them, which is why this idea is called an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's kind of a meta-theory.
Neither. If they exist at all, they will be their own special thing.
Could this be related:
Question: Is it possible that particles walk on fluid space by their own oscillations, or is fluid space vibrating which causes the particle to walk?
Separate names with a comma.