Infinite Potential

[exchemist]

Let me demonstrate the "enfolded order" in the number 4/3.

It is 30 seconds long.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QpmsYWWAKoo

All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials)

Large quantities of H2O molecules have 3 enfolded orders, dependent on temperature and pattern density: water (liquid), ice (solid), vapor (gas).
Under the right conditions, these enfolded orders emerge as unfolded physical orders, or patterns in reality.

This seems to be just a fancy - and rather obscurantist - term for emergent phenomena. The physical states of water are emergent: they emerge from having a sufficient number of molecules together. Other emergent phenomena are bulk properties such as temperature or density, neither of which has any meaning in the context of a single molecule.

 

[Write4U]

This seems to be just a fancy - and rather obscurantist - term for emergent phenomena.

All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials) is an obscurantist definition?
On the contrary, it helps in visualizing the initial implication of emergent phenomena before they become expressed and observable. To just say "emergent" does not address the inherent potentials contained in context of temperature and the pattern the molecules are arranged in.
I would call your interpretation as "generalized" in context.

Let me remind you that;
a) the term "potential" is defined as "that which may become reality"
b) the term "enfolded" was defined by Bohm as:

The implicate (also referred to as the "enfolded") order is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order includes the abstractions that humans normally perceive.

Ink droplet analogy[edit]

Bohm also used the term unfoldment to characterise processes in which the explicate order becomes relevant (or "relevated"). Bohm likens unfoldment also to the decoding of a television signal to produce a sensible image on a screen. The signal, screen, and television electronics in this analogy represent the implicate order, while the image produced represents the explicate order.

He also uses an example in which an ink droplet can be introduced into a highly viscous substance (such as glycerine), and the substance rotated very slowly, such that there is negligible diffusion of the substance. In this example, the droplet becomes a thread, which in turn eventually becomes invisible.

"enfolded".

However, by rotating the substance in the reverse direction, the droplet can essentially reform. When it is invisible, according to Bohm, the order of the ink droplet as a pattern can be said to be implicate within the substance.

Also called "laminar flow"

In the words of F. David Peat, Bohm considered that what we take for reality are "surface phenomena, explicate forms that have temporarily unfolded out of an underlying implicate order." That is, the implicate order is the ground from which reality emerges.[4]

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

The physical states of water are emergent: they emerge from having a sufficient number of molecules together. Other emergent phenomena are bulk properties such as temperature or density, neither of which has any meaning in the context of a single molecule.

I believe that just echoes what I posted, no?

 

[exchemist]

All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials) is an obscurantist definition?
On the contrary, it helps in visualizing the initial implication of emergent phenomena before they become expressed and observable. To just say "emergent" does not address the inherent potentials contained in context of temperature and the pattern the molecules are arranged in.
I would call your interpretation as "generalized" in context.

Let me remind you that;
a) the term "potential" is defined as "that which may become reality"
b) the term "enfolded" was defined by Bohm as:
Ink droplet analogy[edit]
more .... more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
I believe that just echoes what I posted, no?

You, mate, suffer from a persistent confusion regarding the word "potential", as many of us have had occasion to point out. There are two main senses of that word in this context: the general one, which you are now employing, and the physics meaning, which is the way the energy associated with a field varies according to location, for example as in the diagrams I provided earlier in this thread. If you could keep these two distinct in your mind, we would all be a lot better off.

The notion that the state "liquid" is somehow "enfolded", i.e. bound up and hidden away, waiting to be revealed, in a water molecule, is not only useless but counterproductive. The liquid state emerges from the interaction of large numbers of molecules, depending on their aggregate properties. It is impossible to know, from the properties of any one molecule alone, what state the material it is part of will be in.

 

[Write4U]

The notion that the state "liquid" is somehow "enfolded", i.e. bound up and hidden away, waiting to be revealed, in a water molecule, is not only useless but counterproductive.

That is NOT what I posted. Read the entire post before you jump to conclusions.

What you call aggregate properties, I identified as temperature and pattern density, IOW aggregate properties.

 

[exchemist]

That is NOT what I posted. Read the entire post before you jump to conclusions.

What you call aggregate properties, I identified as temperature and pattern density, IOW aggregate properties.

On the contrary you wrote this: "All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials)". And then you chose the phases of water as your first example.

 

[Write4U]

And then you chose the phases of water as your first example.

Yes, and how did I describe the emergent properties of large numbers of H2O molecules?
I merely copied Tegmark's example of emergent states of large numbers of H2O molecules.

But it seems to me that you only consider the term potential as a property that is immediately available such as electrical potential.
I am using the term as I generally defined as: "that which may become reality" in context of the OP title
"Infinite Potential", or the "enfolded universal order" from which all of reality emerges.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and how did I describe the emergent properties of large numbers of H2O molecules?
I merely copied Tegmark's example of emergent states of large numbers of H2O molecules.

But it seems to me that you only consider the term potential as a property that is immediately available such as electrical potential.
I am using the term as I generally defined as: "that which may become reality" in context of the OP title
"Infinite Potential", or the "enfolded universal order" from which all of reality emerges.

Then you did the right thing to copy his example of an emergent property, but took a wrong turn when you stated that all emergent properties are "enfolded". It's the enfolding bit I am taking issue with, as it makes no sense in the context of phases of water, as I have explained.

Re "potential", no, I said in my previous post that both senses of the word (i.e. the literary and the physics meanings) are recognised. I use the word in both senses, too. But I know which sense I am employing and I make sure I do not mix the two of them up. Potential in the sense of your OP in this thread related to the infinite square wave potential used to confine the particle in a box. That is potential in the physics sense: the energy in a field that is a function of position (along the x-axis in that case). It is infinite because it is represented by two vertical lines extending up to infinity on either side of the box. That is highly artificial but simplifies the scenario (if it only extended to a finite height, then it would be possible for the particle to "tunnel "out of the box - and one does not want to confuse neophyte students with that at the beginning.) The Morse potential I gave you a picture of, that models the restoring force in a chemical bond when vibrations are excited in it, is a more real example, so again, the energy is a function of extension or compression of the bond along the x axis: energy that depends on position. So that too is a potential in the mathematical physics sense.

That usage is far more narrowly specific - and mathematical - than potential in the literary sense, which just means that-which-has-the-capacity-to-be realised, e.g. "She has the potential to become President of France", or "This is a potential disaster".

The problem is when a person starts flip-flopping between the two meanings. That invariably leads to nonsense. And that is where you were trying to go, in fact, in post 2, wanting to misinterpret the "infinite potential" of the particle in a box as some kind of mystical capacity in the real world, rather than a mere mathematical device, used in an artificial scenario for teaching purposes.

 

[Write4U]

That usage is far more narrowly specific - and mathematical - than potential in the literary sense, which just means that-which-has-the-capacity-to-be realised, e.g. "She has the potential to become President of France", or "This is a potential disaster".

But you go from one extreme to another.

I am merely quoting Websters

po·ten·tial, adjective

1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
   "a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers"
   
   Similar: possible, likely, prospective, future, probable, budding, in the making, latent, embryonic,
   inherent, unrealized, undeveloped.
   
   
2. developing, dormant, noun

1. 1. latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
   
   Similar: possibilities, potentiality, prospects, promise, capability, capacity, ability, power, aptitude,
   talent, flair, what it takes

And of course: Potential.

1. PHYSICS
   the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
   "a change in gravitational potential"

Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.

The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his
Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]

That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge. Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]

In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained. Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential. In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, and standard electrode potential. In thermodynamics, the term potential often refers to thermodynamic potential.

With greatest respect for the application of the term in physics, my use of the generalized definition is perfectly appropriate in the abstract context of "that which may become reality" or "Infinite Potential" as David Bohm used it in Bohmian Mechanics.

 

[exchemist]

But you go from one extreme to another.

I am merely quoting Websters

po·ten·tial, adjective

1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
   "a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers"
   
   Similar: possible, likely, prospective, future, probable, budding, in the making, latent, embryonic,
   inherent, unrealized, undeveloped.
   
   
2. developing, dormant, noun

1. 1. latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
   
   Similar: possibilities, potentiality, prospects, promise, capability, capacity, ability, power, aptitude,
   talent, flair, what it takes

And of course: Potential.

1. PHYSICS
   the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
   "a change in gravitational potential"

My use of the generalized definition is perfectly appropriate in context of "that which may become reality".

I am not disputing that.

As I have explained, the issue is when you flip-flop between the physics usage and this general literary usage, as you started to do in post 2, by following the particle in a box potential with a video about "infinite potential" in the literary sense.

That, as I say, leads to nonsense. There is zero connection between the two.

But this is a loop we have been round before. I doubt you will understand the point this time either.

So it's now "Over and out" from me.

 

[Write4U]

I am not disputing that.

As I have explained, the issue is when you flip-flop between the physics usage and this general literary usage, as you started to do in post 2, by following the particle in a box potential with a video about "infinite potential" in the literary sense.

That, as I say, leads to nonsense. There is zero connection between the two.

Yes , but that was not to demonstrate the behavior of photons , but to ask the question if a photon has infinite potential to stay in motion.

In any case, thanks for your considered responses. I do learn from these productive exchanges.

 

[James R]

I completely agree with exchemist's comments, but just for emphasis...

I am merely quoting Websters

po·ten·tial, adjective

1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
   "a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers".

That is the ordinary, everyday meaning of "potential", which nobody disputes.

And of course: Potential.

1. PHYSICS
   the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
   "a change in gravitational potential"

That's a layman definition that roughly captures two usages of the word "potential" in Physics. It is not completely accurate, but it points in vaguely the right direction. Of course, it's hard to be completely accurate without including some equations and the like; we're talking about physics, after all. The language of physics is math, at least to some extent. Things often don't translate clearly if you just stick to English.

With greatest respect for the application of the term in physics, my use of the generalized definition is perfectly appropriate in the abstract context of "that which may become reality" or "Infinite Potential" as David Bohm used it in Bohmian Mechanics.

Was Bohm talking in vague generalities about the common usage of the word "potential", then? I thought his Bohmian mechanics was an actual attempt at a physical theory. If so, then I'm sure he would have used "potential" in the physics sense, not in the vague New Age sense in which you want to use it. It is possible, of course, that at some point Bohm himself lost touch with science and drifted to the sort of vague wishy-washy pseudoscience you seem to most enjoy.

 

[James R]

Yes , but that was not to demonstrate the behavior of photons , but to ask the question if a photon has infinite potential to stay in motion.

Translating...

Perhaps you're asking in layman terms:

"Does a photon have or show an infinite capacity to stay in motion into the future?"

The answer to that would appear to be "yes", although the word "infinite" in there is a complete mystery that really needs explanation before a definite answer can be given.

Alternatively, you're attempting to ask a physics question:

"Does a photon have infinite energy when it stays in motion?"

The answer to that is a clear "No, it doesn't."

Since the answer in the first case is a qualified "yes", while the answer in the second case is a definite "no", you might start to see why it's important to be clear about your usage of a word like "potential". You also might start to think about what you actually mean when you use a word like "infinite" as a qualified to a word like "potential". If you don't mean anything in particular, but you're just vaguely trying to convey a sense of wonder at the big wide universe, or something New Agey like that, then you're probably not talking about science at all.

 

[exchemist]

I completely agree with exchemist's comments, but just for emphasis...

That is the ordinary, everyday meaning of "potential", which nobody disputes.

That's a layman definition that roughly captures two usages of the word "potential" in Physics. It is not completely accurate, but it points in vaguely the right direction. Of course, it's hard to be completely accurate without including some equations and the like; we're talking about physics, after all. The language of physics is math, at least to some extent. Things often don't translate clearly if you just stick to English.

Was Bohm talking in vague generalities about the common usage of the word "potential", then? I thought his Bohmian mechanics was an actual attempt at a physical theory. If so, then I'm sure he would have used "potential" in the physics sense, not in the vague New Age sense in which you want to use it. It is possible, of course, that at some point Bohm himself lost touch with science and drifted to the sort of vague wishy-washy pseudoscience you seem to most enjoy.

I can't trace any evidence that Bohm used the term infinite potential (apart from in its mathematical physics sense). I suspect it may be something other people have imputed to him.

 

[Write4U]

Was Bohm talking in vague generalities about the common usage of the word "potential", then? I thought his Bohmian mechanics was an actual attempt at a physical theory. If so, then I'm sure he would have used "potential" in the physics sense, not in the vague New Age sense in which you want to use it. It is possible, of course, that at some point Bohm himself lost touch with science and drifted to the sort of vague wishy-washy pseudoscience you seem to most enjoy.

I can't trace any evidence that Bohm used the term infinite potential (apart from in its mathematical physics sense). I suspect it may be something other people have imputed to him.

This is what I found.

Infinite Energy Potential

The Unified Field — the zero point vacuum of spacetime — is infinite in its energy potential. Quantum physics tells us that every quantum particle has an infinite potential of possibilities as to when and where it will manifest (and only comes into local manifestation, or "collapses the probability field", when we put our attention on it — the consciousness/energy interplay).

Quantum physics also theorizes that contained within every cubic centimeter (a mere small sugar cube in size) there is an approximate energy density/mass of 1094 grams (10 with 94 zeros following it). That's 39 orders-of-magnitude more mass/energy than the entire known Universe in every cubic centimeter! Suffice it to say, when you add up all the cubic centimeters that make up the entire known Universe the total amount of energy is of such an incomprehensible magnitude we might as well consider it infinite.

From the perspective of cosmometry, every manifestation in the Universe is a stepping down of this infinite energy potential into very small and discrete energy events. Even the most powerful nuclear explosion is but the most minute fraction of the true energy potential of the spacetime field, and yet in our human experience it's an enormous and truly life-threatening power. Tapping into the greater energy potential is not something to pursue lightly.

"What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, "quantized" wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea." - David Bohm

https://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential.html

I cannot see any distinction in "meaning" of any use and application of the term "potential".

In any context, the term potential has a common denominator of "a latent excellence that may become reality".

 

[exchemist]

This is what I found.

Infinite Energy Potential

"What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, "quantized" wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea." - David Bohm

https://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential.html

I cannot see any distinction in "meaning" of any use and application of the term "potential".

In any context, the term potential has a common denominator of "a latent excellence that may become reality".

OK so you have not found an instance of Bohm using the expression "infinite potential" either.

 

[Write4U]

OK so you have not found an instance of Bohm using the expression "infinite potential" either.

You're right, so far no luck.
But getting close.

Infinite Potential begins with a story by Bohm’s one-time student Dr David Schrum:
“It was a night and we were walking under the stars, a black sky. David looked up at the stars and said: ‘Ordinarily, when we look to the sky and we look at the stars, we think of the stars as objects far out and that they have space in between them. But there is another way we can look at it. We can look at the vacuum, the emptiness, as a plenum, as infinitely full rather than infinitely empty, and that the objects are like little bubbles – little vacancies – in that vast sea.’ So he had me look at the night sky in a different way – as one living organism.”

This conversation serves as a good introduction to Bohm’s most important theory – the idea of the implicate order – which, as the film goes on to demonstrate, has the potential to overturn our ideas about the world and about ourselves as radically as the heliocentric universe of Copernicus did in the seventeenth century.

https://besharamagazine.org/metaphysics-spirituality/david-bohm-infinite-potential-paul-howard/

But where Bohm did use the term "potential" I have no doubt that he knew what he was talking about and used the term in the proper context. There is even an equation named "Bohm potential"

Quantum potential

The quantum potential or quantum potentiality is a central concept of the de Broglie–Bohm formulation of quantum mechanics, introduced by David Bohm in 1952.

Initially presented under the name quantum-mechanical potential, subsequently quantum potential, it was later elaborated upon by Bohm and Basil Hiley in its interpretation as an information potential which acts on a quantum particle. It is also referred to as quantum potential energy, Bohm potential, quantum Bohm potential or Bohm quantum potential.

Quantum potential

In the framework of the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the quantum potential is a term within the Schrödinger equation which acts to guide the movement of quantum particles. The quantum potential approach introduced by Bohm[1][2] provides a physically less fundamental exposition of the idea presented by Louis de Broglie: de Broglie had postulated in 1925 that the relativistic wave function defined on spacetime represents a pilot wave which guides a quantum particle, represented as an oscillating peak in the wave field, but he had subsequently abandoned his approach because he was unable to derive the guidance equation for the particle from a non-linear wave equation. The seminal articles of Bohm in 1952 introduced the quantum potential and included answers to the objections which had been raised against the pilot wave theory.

The Bohm quantum potential is closely linked with the results of other approaches, in particular relating to work by Erwin Madelung of 1927 and to work by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker of 1935.

Building on the interpretation of the quantum theory introduced by Bohm in 1952, David Bohm and Basil Hiley in 1975 presented how the concept of a quantum potential leads to the notion of an "unbroken wholeness of the entire universe", proposing that the fundamental new quality introduced by quantum physics is nonlocality.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential

 

[James R]

This is what I found.

[cites pseudoscience page]

Ah yes. cosmometry.net. That well-known archive of Bohm's writings and a trusted authority on physics in general.

Why you would cite this an example of Bohm using the term "infinite potential" is a mystery. But then again, you are accustomed to responding to specific questions and challenges with completely irrelevant things.

I cannot see any distinction in "meaning" of any use and application of the term "potential".

This is what happens when you make no effort to learn the difference between science pseudoscience.

 

[Write4U]

Ah yes. cosmometry.net. That well-known archive of Bohm's writings and a trusted authority on physics in general.

Why you would cite this an example of Bohm using the term "infinite potential" is a mystery. But then again, you are accustomed to responding to specific questions and challenges with completely irrelevant things.

This is what happens when you make no effort to learn the difference between science pseudoscience.

Frankly, I could not care less about the term "infinite potential". I didn't invent it and to me it is meaningless, other than Bohm's "Quantum Potential" that apparently is so large that it might as well be infinite as far as human science is concerned.

Why you should select my informal citation of someone else's term for a very large number as an item for debate is a mystery to me. Are you saying that regardless of my perspective, Bohm's "quantum potential " is not science?

 

[James R]

Frankly, I could not care less about the term "infinite potential". I didn't invent it and to me it is meaningless...

Well, you brought it into this conversation.

So I guess we won't be hearing any more about "infinite potential" from you in future, then?

, other than Bohm's "Quantum Potential" that apparently is so large that it might as well be infinite as far as human science is concerned.

That's one clue that ought to be a red flag to warn you that cosmometry.net is bunk.

A number like $$10^{94}$$, or whatever, is nowhere near infinite. Human science has some understanding of what infinite actually means; I'm not so sure about cosmometry.net.

Why you should select my informal citation of someone else's term for a very large number as an item for debate is a mystery to me.

You made it an item for debate, in your conversation with exchemist and (later) myself.

As you so often do, you wanted to mash together a New Age meaning of the term "potential" with a technical meaning from science, to pretend that there is no meaningful distinction to make between the two. And here you are, trying to pretend that there's no meaningful distinction to make between the actually infinite and the reasonably-large-but-finite.

Are you saying that regardless of my perspective, Bohm's "quantum potential " is not science?

Certainly, Bohm's quantum potential either is or is not science, regardless of your perspective.

Unless you give me a suitable context, I'm not in a position to adjudicate on whether Bohm used the term "quantum potential" in a scientific or pseudoscientific sense. He might have even done both, in different contexts. You'd have to give me some specifics.

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps you're asking in layman terms:
"Does a photon have or show an infinite capacity to stay in motion into the future?"

No, I accepted that a photon does stay in motion

The answer to that would appear to be "yes", although the word "infinite" in there is a complete mystery that really needs explanation before a definite answer can be given.

Of course if capacity to stay in motion into the future is not forever, then that begs the question how long it can stay in motion. If it does stay in motion forever, then that would imply an infinite potential to do so, no?

In relation to the term "infinite potential", this was the actual question I posed to the forum:

Question: If a particle in a box never comes to rest, does that imply a potential of infinite energy?

What is so obscure and difficult to understand about that?

So far the answer is; "it would appear so" which to me sounds very tentative and not much more informative than my question .

Why do you always have to complicate a simple question? You either know the answer or you don't.
There is no need to unpack the question and look for hidden variables (Bohm).....