Consciousness and The Holographic Model of Reality
I have been reading, 'The Holographic Universe,' by Michael Talbot (1991). In this, the author describes a holographic model arising within the new physics. This began from the work of Karl Pribram's discovery of how memories are distributed in the brain, as well as David Bohm's ideas on interconnectedness. Talbot suggested that,
'Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm's fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out
of the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts.'
Bohm's view is that,
'space is as real and rich with the process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy. Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so-called empty space.'
Bohm's ideas have particular implications for the understanding of consciousness. As Talbot argues,
'Bohm rejects the idea that particles don't exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it in the wrong way, by trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.'
In addition,
'Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in degrees of enfoldment and unfolding in matter, which is why plasmas possess alone some of the traits of all living things'.
I am aware that I have only given a very brief sketch of the ideas. However, I am sure that many of the people on this forum have a far more detailed knowledge of physics than I have. So, I am raising the area of debate, wondering if people are familiar with the ideas of David Bohm, the idea of the implicate order and the holographic model. Are such ideas arising in the new physics useful for considering reality and the nature of consciousness? I am also interested in what other ideas about consciousness are offered within the paradigm of the new physics.
'Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm's fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out
of the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts.'
Bohm's view is that,
'space is as real and rich with the process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy. Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so-called empty space.'
Bohm's ideas have particular implications for the understanding of consciousness. As Talbot argues,
'Bohm rejects the idea that particles don't exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it in the wrong way, by trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.'
In addition,
'Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in degrees of enfoldment and unfolding in matter, which is why plasmas possess alone some of the traits of all living things'.
I am aware that I have only given a very brief sketch of the ideas. However, I am sure that many of the people on this forum have a far more detailed knowledge of physics than I have. So, I am raising the area of debate, wondering if people are familiar with the ideas of David Bohm, the idea of the implicate order and the holographic model. Are such ideas arising in the new physics useful for considering reality and the nature of consciousness? I am also interested in what other ideas about consciousness are offered within the paradigm of the new physics.
Comments (167)
I am not aware of Michael Talbot straying into questionable areas, such as astral projection. I am wary of these. I have been reading,'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene, which looks at the idea of superstrings. I am in favour of looking at the most accurate theories available to us.
,
I do believe in following up to date ideas and realise that the theory I wrote about was 1991. The only one thing which I do wonder about is that by focusing on the latest discovery is whether we limit our horizons. I am all in favour of the new, but just try to not be too restricted, because sometimes what is currently popular may be so, with some deeper vision being lost or ignored.
And that doesn't leave you a bit suspicious?
I'm sure he can differentiate his book from his bank account.
I am not sure. We all see parts and wholes, and I not sure where one ends and another begins, because it seems to be about framing and perspectives.
Physicalism ought be avoided.
Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true.
Physicalism is an all-and-some theory, describing a haunted universe.
It pretends to be part of the body of knowledge called physics, but it is not canon.
It can be spotted by identifying areas of overreach, such as "it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts".
I agree that the world and its possibilities seem to be changing rapidly. The only question is whether we can keep up in our theories and philosophy. We need to have expansive minds.
I do agree that physicalism ought to be avoided. I am not a physicist, so may be going into a territory for which I am not fully able to explore. I find the idea of the holographic universe interesting, but I am describing it with a view to weaknesses in it being raised.
Sure, it's an amusement. It's not the whole story.
Consider: Quoting Jack Cummins
Do you see that this is not physics, but physicalism? Bohm has no physical description of consciousness, but he wants there to be one.
But why should mind be describable in the terms used by physicist? Why would such a thing be desirable? How could we know such a description was successful?
Perhaps it's just a case of an old physicist discovering that the descriptions he played with all his life do not suffice to explain the really important stuff - love, belonging, sacrifice - so he indulges in wishful thinking.
What is the alternative?
Literature.
Poetry.
Ethics.
Psychology.
Anthropology.
Gardening.
Cooking.
Caring.
It's a long list.
Quoting Tom Storm
Notice that this is not what physicalism claims. Sure, literature uses physical books, or poetry uses sound, or gardening uses spades and rakes. But physicalism claims that all there is to each is to be found in the descriptions used by physicist.
Can you possibly take one of these and tease out the details?
Notice that this is not contrary to the view that, say, literature could not exist without physical events or measurable things.
I stumbled across this: "We examine the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter, "perceptronium", with distinctive information processing abilities."
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
The existence of a paper like this from a genius like Tegmark says a lot about how little progress science has made on the Hard Problem.
"Our approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's integrated information framework for neural-network-based consciousness to arbitrary quantum systems"
There's no evidence for IIT. It's impossible to verify if any external information-integrating system is conscious. And there are other problems with it.
The principle of holism is another matter, though. The point about the hologram is that if you break up a holographic image, you don’t get fragments of the image, you get smaller versions of the same image at a lower resolution. That’s why the analogy makes sense.
There’s an Hermetic dictum of ‘man as microcosm’. That sounds obviously absurd when you consider the vast expanse of the Universe and how small, and brief, human existence is. But we have the ability to consider that! The comparison is made in our mind’s eye. We bring a perspective apart from which there is no large or small, near or far.
Check out this discussion.
For an extremely full and deep inquiry sand treatment of a holographic model of consciousness, I would highly recommend Stephen Robbins's Youtube channel:
https://www.academia.edu/44469526/The_Psychological_Interpretation_of_Life
You will not find a more thorough discussion anywhere, including a critique of Bohm and other theories of consciousness.
Yes,. all forms of the physical and non-physicals are a continuous whole, a lá quantum systems. The conception of the universe as discontinuities of the discrete has been totally discredited, yet it's still being taught as fact in outdated science and philosophy classes. Just image the universe as a hologram, being brought to Light by filtered perception. Consciousness illuminates with light.
Yeah, Interesting stuff - I skimmed through it. I simply can't comment as much of the discussion seems theoretical and speculative and none of us here (I suspect) have the qualifications to assess the merits of the arguments at the advanced levels necessary.
I noticed Christof Koch's latest book https://g.co/kgs/LZodgj and read an author interview. It looks pretty interesting to me along the lines of the other current neuro-philosophical authors you have mentioned previously.
Few matters have easy answers. Try getting hold of a plumber over Easter.
Quoting RogueAI
Like human beings. (Metzinger) Prohibitions against murder would either have to be based on something other than "killing of defenseless persons" since we would not be persons after all or we would have to radically update / redefine our folk psychological definition in the law of a "natural person".
I think when these Alexas and Siris can start passing the Turing Test and become companions to a lot of people there will be a sea change in what constitutes a "person". There's a story of a Colonel come to watch a mine-clearing robot at work. It gamely goes from mine to mine, losing pieces of itself until the Colonel can't stand to watch anymore. I think we're naturally sympathetic creatures, and that will extend to machines.
I can't find a tradie to fix a leaking downpipe for love nor money. :meh:
I stumbled across Talbot's book by chance in one of the few shops that were selling books during lockdown. However, I had read Bohm's, 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' previously. When reading that, I had thought more about the implicate order as, perhaps, being like Plato's forms. It seemed to me that what is apparent in the explicate order stems from a non tangible basis.
:point:
You've probably seen Her and some of the other sci-fi. We can already make it so believable, so yeah.
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.
But if someone is uncomfortable with physicalism, they can use "neutral monism". If that's also problematic, one could use Peirce's "objective idealism": matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.
All else failing, you can just use "monism", if you are one.
My own understanding of the ideas of Bohm and Talbot is that these writers are trying to overcome dualism and reductionist determinism. That is by seeing consciousness as being related or 'enfolded' in matter.
I personally don't see how one can get around property dualism, unless one is an eliminativist of sorts.
I wonder if it is possible to go beyond the labels because they may be only approximations and, may be inadequate.
As applied to the world? That's undoubtedly the case.
However, the issue of there being two properties as opposed one seems substantive.
So are you advocating for a dualistic model?
Dual-aspect monism. There's only physical stuff with mental and non-mental components.
I'd like to get to one property, for the sake of parsimony. But I'm unable to do it.
I have read some of your thread on ontology. I can see that you are trying to understand consciousness. It is a complex problem. I ponder it and I think that many on the site do so. I don't think that there are any easy answers, even with the help of neuroscience.
One writer who I think is relevant is Fritjof Capra, who tries to see beyond the Cartesian model, and he draws upon the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. Capra suggests that:
'According to the theory of living systems, mind is not a thing but a process_ the very process of life. In other words, the organizing activity of living systems, at all levels of life, is mental activity. The interactions of a living organism_ plant, animal, or human_ with its environment are cognitive, or mental interactions. Thus life and cognition become inseparably connected. Mind_ or, more accurately, mental process is imminent in matter at all levels of life.'
I am not saying that this solves the problem, but I find what he is saying to be helpful.
I very much agree. It would be boring if it were easy!
Quoting Jack Cummins
That's sensible and likely on track. Not only based on the word he uses "process", but it reminds me of Whitehead to an extent. Based on what you quote there, that still leaves room for non-mental being. If life "plant, animal, or human" are mental activity, what do we do with rocks and rivers? We still have non-mental being.
But I hadn't heard of Capra before, I'll have to check him out. Thanks for the recommendation. :)
That's one way to think about it. It's curious that even if we want a single property, we can't escape having to postulate two.
Quoting Jack Cummins
No. The map =/= the territory; that's why maps are useful (inadequate yet indispensable) as maps – because they are abstractions from the terrain – that approximate, thereby are fallibilistic and revisable.
It is probably a paradox. You can't have mind without body and vice versa, but probably as Sartre suggested, 'Existence precedes essence.'
That's my type of language. :cool:
Almost all of what there is is 'bodies-without-minds' (though no minds-without-bodies) in so far as we're talking about individuals, but you're right, IMO, about categories, or the ways reality can be described (i.e. conceived of).
Btw, I don't see how Sartre's existential mantra is relevant here ... what am I missing?
I just logged into this thread, which fizzled out about a week ago and saw the reference to Koch's book, which looks fascinating. I actually started this thread at the same time as the one on mysteries, but that has brought me back to thinking about the interrelationship between body and mind. I don't know why I brought the Sartre quote in, but I think that I had just been reading him that morning. I definitely agree that it is problematic to speak of minds without bodies. I may have spoken in such ways a few times, and I definitely think that some dualism has drifted in that direction.
I'm not convinced.
Well, if you're a panpsychist you'd probably argue that rocks and rivers have some experiential or mental component.
I don't think that's the case. But I can't offer evidence in either direction honestly. I can only use my intuition. I don't see evidence that points to these things having mind of any kind.
Perhaps you have some other kind of argument in mind? I'm all ears. :cool:
There is no reason to invoke dualism. "Matter", is an ancient and completely outmoded way of looking at things. Everything is quanta (Mind). How does quanta (Mind) create matter? By compression of waves. Just like water becomes ice. How do we "feel" it differently? Feeling is an interesting idea as it is something the Mind created.
I am certainly wishing to go beyond dualism. Strangely, I began this thread just before I began the one on mysteries. I was feeling a bit frustrated because it was several hours before I got a reply on this, so I started the one on mysteries of philosophy. Strangely,I began getting a few replies on this thread and loads on the one on mysteries. However, my own reading and reflections in response to replies on my thread on mysteries have led me back to thinking beyond dualism. That is the direction of my thinking and reading currently, which is why I logged into this thread this morning. So, I am in favour of pursuing ideas beyond dualism, for any people who are interested.
I don't, really, but I do like to think out loud.
Most of this thread is over my head. However, when I read it, I get hints of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts." And then I wonder about the parts themselves. What is the difference between a rock and a single cell that makes up our brain? Nothing, really. Unless we impute to the cell it's own consciousness, either independently (no different than the rock), or as as part of the whole (in which case, what of the rock?).
I understand the distinction between what we can learn from a rock, and the rock itself teaching. I get that. But I'm not so sure the rock isn't teaching. I'm reminded of the old saying "What does a rock say?" . . . . "It's your move." The time scales involved here might be inconceivable to us.
Where religious folks might talk about a "Devine spark" or a physicist might talk about electricity or what have you, both are talking about something more than just the parts. When matter comes together in a certain way, through whatever forces, maybe a spark is generated simply by the combination alone, and life begins for the biologist, or electricity is generated by the widget for the physicist. Now, if this state of affairs lasts long enough, the universe (All) may have developed an awareness of itself. All parts came together in such a way as to create the spark of All. All then wanted to perceive itself and assigned a conscious perception to each part, including rocks.
Here's the part I sense, intuitively, but have no way of proving: All became so "Godly" (for lack of a better term) that it could both precede the parts coming together, and be a following result of their combination at the same time. Based upon my previous chronology, it is hard to make that leap, for surely All could only do that after the events that created All brought All into being. But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All.
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.
Side bar digression: When breaking rocks for a construction project one time, I got to thinking about all this and wondered if I was somehow disrespecting the rocks. That night I had a dream. The rocks were telling me, laughing, that they enjoyed the activity. They were all on their way from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico and they were glad to watch me work.
I am interested to receive your reply and as you are aware I am a seeker trying to make sense of ideas. I keep coming across ideas about going beyond dualism or binary thinking. In many ways, some of the ideas are beyond my understanding, especially as I am not a physicist. I came across the idea of the holographic perspective of reality a few weeks ago, and in further aspects of my reading in the last few days. So, I am just pursuing it as an interesting area of exploration.
I have a vague understanding of the holograph, but it's a lay-understanding for sure. I've no doubt, though, that All would be fine with it's perception, and the perception of it's parts, being the observation of, or participation in a holograph. And not. (And whenever I say this or that, I don't mean to imply a two-valued orientation; I also assume all possible stops along the way in between and outside of.)
Yes, if you consider the Universe as a hologram, and we are all part of it, you can imagine the movement within the hologram, and perception as a reconstructive beam. Light and Mind and Quanta are synonymous.
Time is not linear, it is the experience of change.
There is no reason to entertain dualism. Everything is light/quanta in a holographic form.
Sounds good to me. My point was simply that, where people might perceive All's perception of itself as having come about as a result of the the parts being in place first, that chronology doesn't necessarily apply to All.
Sure, this is a good place to think out loud. What you're talking about makes sense. In so far as we are conscious, we can say in very general terms, that consciousness is molded matter or matter organized in a certain way. There's a problem of course, which you point out in your rock example. How can matter possibly be conscious? When we look at things, they don't seem to exhibit any manifest - visible - aspects that could tell us they have experience.
But either mind is found in some way at the bottom of physical stuff, as a dormant potential let's say, or we have no idea at all as to how it could even exist. Then again everything at bottom is physical stuff. So it is quite surprising. Perhaps a rock, modified by God (to put in a colorful manner), could be modified in such a way that it could have experience.
If what you say about rocks is true, that is, if they could experience - which they may - then existence is a mistake. I hope your wrong in this case.
Quoting James Riley
This is also a big problem. I think it's related to the problem of "The One and the Many". Are there many things in the world, say, isolated beings or are things at bottom undifferentiated? I tend to favor the view, like it seems you do too, that all is one. But maybe at a certain step of complexity, things become individual "to themselves", so to speak.
I should add, I think these topics are way over everybody's head. We just pretend to understand these things. :sweat:
I don't know how that follows?
Quoting Manuel
Upon my first reading, I was going to object to your first sentence, but your second sentence brought me home. My mother and I argued about a thesis a friend wrote, where he was using terms like Universal Pantheist (hereinafter UPN) and Universal Panentheist (hereinafter UPNN). My mom rides with UPNN, which is in accord with your first sentence. And when I explained my limited understanding of QM, and how that made me UPN, I explained it thus: If I were to say there is a bunch of gods but they are all really just different interpretations or manifestations of one god, then I would be denying the reality of the individual gods separately as gods (like your second sentence). And, since I believe God (which I'd rather call All) is capable of being both at the same time, I'd have to ride wit UPN since it accounts for UPNN and UPN and the absence of both. After all, it would be a weak sauce indeed if infinity could not account for the absence of itself. If could not, then it would be finite. Which, of course, it is. That's the whole before/after, part/whole thing. I'm no QM guy, but I see them heading in that direction.
I see the whole as greater than the sum of the parts, while seeing the whole as granting wholeness to the parts in it's perception of itself, all while being less than each part. Thus, a rock "perceives" from it's point of view, even if we can't fathom it. I can't remember the name of the theory but it has something to do will all possible manifestations of all possibility being true (like infinite universes and infinite alternatives of manifestations of reality). If that were the case, which I believe it is, then each perspective must be had (and not). Therefor, the rock has one.
I only threw out the rock's time line as a possible reason why we can't fathom how it functions. Hell, I don't think even the geologist understands what he's saying when he talks about a million years, much less billions and more. We can throw the terms around to help us grasp ideas, but as it was opined above, these are but maps and not the terrain of time.
I simply mean that if rocks and rivers were conscious in some way, then the way we treat things we consider to be non-mental, would be way too horrible.
Quoting James Riley
I see. Yeah, that view is plausible. I personally use the word "nature" that way I can use the terms "mental" and "non-mental" with more ease. If you speak of God, then that puts intention and a mind of some kind in the picture automatically. "All", as you said, is a better term. I'd only ask you, does this "All" include "non-mental" stuff, or would you be of the view that there is no "non mental" stuff: all is part of one mind?
Quoting James Riley
Sure, that's a rational option. It could be something like that, or it could be something that we can't help postulate. We simply cannot help but attribute human aspects to the world: "The leaves wanted to fall", "The flower is looks for the sun", "The river races to the sea", etc. I understand we need to be able to use words to talk to each other. It could be that we are simply using the wrong approach to think about the way the world appears to us.
But I can't say with much certainty. I tend to favor the view that we construct the world according to our cognitive, intellectual and genetic capacities. How this things "in here" (in the head) relates to whatever is out there, is very obscure, not to say a mystery which is what I think, but avoid saying too much. But my intuition is that there is non-mental being.
Alternatively, there could be a very obscure kind of mentality in most things that connects everything together.
Quoting James Riley
Yeah. It's hard to make sense of what these statements amount to, absent us.
I can see how that would be the case, especially if we anthropomorphize. But I'm willing to think that these "others" would not perceive our treatment of them as horrible as we might think. Kind of like the rock getting busted up. I also think of fear and it's evolutionary benefits, and how the benefits may not make much difference to a deer who experiences it, and yet, while still horrible, may not be as horrible as it would be for, say, a predator that is not as wired for fear as is the deer. That is one reason I don't hunt predators. While there are exceptions, I don't think they are meant to be hunted, at least not as a matter of course. I also think of personal experiences that I have had with cold. It's very difficult for me to articulate, but I know there are "states" that one can be in, as a result of acclimation, where cold is not perceived like it is when in other states. Diving into a cold mountain lake is one thing for a person who does not live cold, and it's a lesser thing for one who lives cold. We used to be tougher. Nature is tough. I can't think of much that is tougher than a rock.
None of this is utilized by me as an excuse for my treatment of others, assuaging a guilt. But I get the feeling that nature would rather us engage her on a primal basis than to ignore her in our sprint away. Especially since we really aren't going anywhere and we seem to be missing out on life.
Quoting Manuel
I'd say, that by my definition of All, it would have to be both/and, and neither/not. I'm not sure how All would answer your question, but I'm stuck here perceiving my assignment, and trying to figure a way to perceive that which was not assigned to me (I'd love to hunt Bison Latifrons). Because, again, my definition of All would suggest there is a way. I'm fairly certain that when I die, that will happen, but it would be cool if I could do it now. And be choosy about it. Then again, I hear nature calling me back to life to enjoy her now. I'm torn.
Quoting Manuel
:100:
I have heard the ocean example before, but I keep getting bogged down in molecules and whatnot. So I found attraction in the hologram example, thinking that maybe it was more like an indivisible wave, like that which the QM scientist perceives before it gets nailed down. I love the idea of particles, because I think they help us, like maps, but I get the feeling they are just that, and not the terrain. I suspect they are both, but when I think of a hologram I like to think it is the non-particle manifestation of reality.
These are very suggestive.
I'm not that brave.
I've had other experiences, some in the course of ordinary life, others, well... in college :grimace: way back when, that at least illustrate how powerful the mind can be, given the fact that most of us, most of the time, take it for granted. It doesn't provoke or incite much awe or bafflement for many, it seems to me.
However, I would not say that anything deep that I have experienced is an indication of anything else other than the power of the mind. The main reason for saying this, is that you can easily get these cult types, who base authority on personal experience. I try to avoid giving too much metaphysical significance to these things, however strong they may be. But again, I could be wrong.
Having said that, I know where you are coming from. And it makes sense, both in the human case, as well as in the case of predators and prey.
Quoting James Riley
The only reference that comes to mind for me, is that state before I was born. No matter how hard I try, none of the words I use in ordinary life apply to that state such as "fear", "joy", "love", "pain", "long" etc. etc. After death, I suspect the state will be the same as the state before birth. Who knows? It might be nice to be a universal mind of some sort, but I can't fathom what such a thing would feel like or be like.
Yes, thinking in terms of particles, or anything discrete, is a major hindrance to grasping the nature of reality. Daoism and other philosophies always use waves in their imagery.
I agree on the cult thing. I was just using the personal experiences of the mind to show not what it is capable of, but what it may be perceived as being incapable of. There is a thread here on knowing what it's like to be something else (or the impossibility of that). They were talking about bats. I'm going two steps further, to plants and rocks. Our limitations are not the limits. I like to guess about what is not, resting in the comfort of knowing that, from the perspective of All, it is. We are the is not part.
I was just re-reading Plato/Socrates and they were discussing before birth and after death. He made a fun case for it.
Yeah, I posted a bit on that thread.
And a :100: on this last sentence.
Plato is awesome to this day. Crazy, having relevant things to say 2000 years after death.
Mind is just exploring, learning just creating many different things. Some of them are puzzles, like a magicians act. All to explore new ways of to manifest itself.
I am sure that there are limitations In our understanding of philosophy and I prepared to explored to explore the possibilities, with a view to the most accurate and deeper understanding of the mind. I am certainly not wishing to limit this, but open possibilities arising arising from the current understanding of mind.
Mind and Quanta are the same. It creates using itself.
I don't think so. PBS Space Time devoted several episodes to explaining the holographic principle. It's mostly over my head, but he gets the main idea across.
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.
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.
. 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 ...
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.
How would string theory play in to that, or would it, or could it?
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Like a yogi on a mountain top.
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.
So understanding takes more than time and patience?
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.
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.
I don't think this is correct. Here are some definitions of "physicalism."
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 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.
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.
Yeah, but that was Scarlett Johansen. What if it had been Gilbert Gottfried?
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.
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.
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.
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.
One would expect them to be similar, since they are describing the same thing. There difference is in how they express the image. Any physicist who is interested in discovering the nature of nature will ground their thoughts on some metaphysical model. Many quantum physicists have some metaphysical model that they discuss. Schrodinger had, and de Broglie wrote about his.
It is my understanding that, in a hologram, each piece contains the whole. That certainly isn't true of the ocean.
The ocean is the wave, the wave is the ocean. There cannot be any distinction between the two.
Why are you worried about where I start? Look, apparently this is something you are still playing with. That's cool. I did a Google search and came up with some hits. I assume you have an issue with those sources and would hate to see a neophyte like me get mislead by some authors who put pen to paper. Thus, you decided to not cite them. There is absolutely no reason why you should have faith in my ability to read a book and not be snookered.
Start where you want. I answered you the best I can.
It always was and always will be.
Quoting T Clark
Well, since I'm not a rock, it's hard for me to know. Probably a lot less than what it already forgot. But maybe nothing. Some folks have lost their memory and they're still conscious. Maybe their memory is written in stone.
Quoting T Clark
I suspect it was.
Quoting T Clark
It get's people like you asking questions. But I think it's the height of arrogance for humans to think that everything has to have a "use." Thus, let me stipulate, for the sake of argument, that it has no use for any who don't want to perceive it. Some might think that if we don't know it, it must not exist. Okay.
Quoting T Clark
Think of that whole bat thread, about the ability to know what it is to be something else. Now think of those creatures who have a life cycle of, say, 24 hours. How do they perceive us? Well, however they perceive us, it is, by huge orders of magnitude, so much closer to us than we are to rocks, if we are to use the time scale of a rock. But I think you missed my point: Where All is perceiving itself through the unique angle of T Clark, and where T Clark just happens to think he's conscious, so too, All can perceive a perspective of itself through the rock and, just as All imbued you with what you call consciousness, All can imbue the rock with a consciousness that T Clark cannot perceive.
I will. Thanks for trying.
If "everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical", then only the description of these physical properties is true. The description of physical properties the study of physics. If everything is physical, then everything is the subject matter of physics. If there is nothing above and beyond physics, then physics is the study of everything.
There are three "...isms" we might do well to differentiate: Materialism, Physicalism and Scientism.
Materialism is the notion that everything is matter. No one holds to that view since Newton spoke of action at a distance.
Physicalism is the view that every puzzle can be explained in the terms used by physicist. It is the view that all that is, is physical properties, that everything is physical.
Scientism is the view that problems are to be solves exclusively by the application of science.
Neither of these work, each consists in "haunted universe" statements that can neither be proven not falsified. They fall to the Socratic trick of applying them to themselves: where in the equations of physics can you find physicalism? What scientific analysis shows scientism to be justified?
I like that.
I don't know why physicalism has to imply physics can explain everything. Another thing is to say that everything we know and love is made of physical stuff.
I don't see the necessary connection between "physicalism" and physicSalism.
Or we can speak of neutral monism....
And I said that this isn't true, but I guess it depends on your definition of "explain." Cells, viruses, organs, tissues, organisms can not behave in any way that is inconsistent with physical laws. On the other hand, physics principles can not be used to predict how living organisms will be created, evolve, or behave. Although I don't have evidence, my intuition tells me that it is not possible, even in principle. If I'm right, your definition of what physicalism means is wrong. The correct definitions are in my previous post.
Recall tho that she was just a voice, and a voice is enough to fall in love with. Even a textstream is a enough. I know of couples who seduced/fell-for one another on sites like LiveJournal.
Btw, thanks for the recommendation. I've been reading scifi since grade school but Jeremy Robinson's book seems (from what I can glean on Amazon) to be the kind I'm not fond of, namely, a thriller window-dressing as science fiction. That genre mashup works better for me in movies (e.g. Inception, Existenz, The Matrix, The 13th Floor, etc) than in books. I prefer scifi writers who have explored "simulated reality" like Greg Egan, Iain M. Banks, Charles Stross, Philip K. Dick & Stanislaw Lem.
One of the main characters is a police officer trying to solve the murders, so yes, there is some of that. But it is real science fiction. What I really liked was how the philosophy was right out in the open on the page in a really convincing way. Very Cartesian.
But I can see from your list that you like depressing science fiction. Never liked PKD. Don't let @Noble Dust hear that. I haven't read anything by Egan or Banks. I'll take a look. Like Stross, but even he can be pretty bleak. I've been trying to decide whether to spend the money to get the newest "Laundry Files" book or wait for it to come to the library in kindle format. Never got into the "Merchant Prince" stuff. I saw two movie versions of "Solaris" and may have read the book back in my youth. As I said, depressing.
We seem to be missing each other. I specifically said that you can not derive the laws of biology, cognitive science, or psychology from physics. I guess we should leave it at that.
But if I answer it, it isn't rhetorical anymore. Isn't that right?
The panpsychist concept can be explained as variables of nonlocal causality that synchronize wavicles instantaneously over relatively large distances as they move, a quantum wind. I think electric charge is a key coordinating component, but more factors undoubtedly exist. This might theoretically account for synchronicity in consciousness if scientifically observable somehow.
The holographic aspect is a manifestation of this nonlocal causality in three dimensional sense-perception, and it more generally has a fractallike geometry from being built out of basic units of entangled superposition (wavicle blending) which can take effect as consciousness on multiple scales, from the organic brain to the entire biosphere and perhaps beyond.
My intuition is that almost all matter has a modicum of consciousness, but the kind of awareness differs depending on the organization of basic units. The properties from which minds are constructed might be pervasive as size and shape, even if these constituents at a foundational level have no full-fledged motives. The sensing of objects as nonmental arises from qualities such as shape and size which are just as real as consciousness but not directly involved in the substance of being aware, though this boundary might be flexible and perhaps indistinct.
Jumping in without even knowing what this thread is since I was randomly summoned, but...
My love of PKD can be summed up in this quote from him (written in a diary not intended for anyone's eyes):
"I am a fictionalizing philosopher, not a novelist; my novel and story-writing ability is employed as a means to formulate my perception. The core of my writing is not art but truth. Thus what I tell is the truth, yet I can do nothing to alleviate it, either by deed or explanation. Yet this seems somehow to help a certain kind of sensitive troubled person, for whom I speak. I think I understand the common ingredient in those whom my writing helps: they cannot or will not blunt their own intimations about the irrational, mysterious nature of reality, and, for them, my corpus of writing is one long ratiocination regarding this inexplicable reality, an investigation and presentation, analysis and response and personal history. My audience will always be limited to those people." - In Pursuit of VALIS: Selections from the Exegesis
As far as I can tell, "panpsychism" posits an ad hoc appeal to ignorance (i.e. WOO-of-the-Explanatory-Gap) from which is 'derived' what amounts to nothing more than, in effect, a compositional fallacy (i.e. if some part has 'phenomenal experience', then the whole has (varying degrees of discrete(?)) 'phenomenal experience).
How does "panpsychism" not beg the question it's designed to answer, namely, what in the first place – fundamentally – gives rise to "psyche" (i.e. consciousness, sentience, experience, awareness, etc)?
And is this speculation about nature even testable in any corroborable way?
I don't personally subscribe to panpsychism, though it makes a nice controversial conversation prompt. I'm more of a panprotopsychist: the elements which compose consciousness are present at a very fundamental level, though not nearly exhaustive of matter's total nature.
It would be corroborable by experimenting with entanglement and superposition, correlating psychology to quantum biochemistry in the brain and body that interface it with all kinds of organ systems and environmental phenomena, and the like.
Interesting. Any experiments you can cite? Or thought-experiments currently entertained in scientific papers or books by physicists?
Nice quote. Thanks.
I am not sure why it bothers you that Fritjof Capra combines quantum physics, metaphysics and Taoism. I know that you really love Lao Tzu's writing, and I do still plan to read his writings, but it is just that I have so many books which I am reading at the same time.
I know that some of the metaphysics related to mysticism can be a bit abstract. However, bearing in mind what you said in your mysticism, I am wondering is what bothers you is the possible idea of hidden reality, or realities, beyond the manifest world?
I'm not sure how far along research is at this point, but the organic mind itself in my estimation is probably superpositions of entanglement systems within entanglement systems or "coherence fields" (see recent science pertaining to photosynthetic reaction centers for a verified instance of the essential idea) involving specially adapted classes of molecule, integrated by the brain's electrical field. For the sensitivity of quantum processes to energy fields, see magnetoreception (wikipedia). This article by Johnjoe McFadden gives the basic idea of standing waves in the brain and what their integrating role might be: https://aeon.co/essays/does-consciousness-come-from-the-brains-electromagnetic-field. If you haven't read it already, I discussed this topic in depth with posters at this site in some of my threads:
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly
The Double-slit Experiment and Quantum Consciousness
That's a good start.
That was quite a fairly good link you provided, thanks. I am not as knowledgable as I would like to be on physics but I am seeing it as an important area recently. I am impressed by @Enriques ideas, though I find them hard to grasp.
I was just reading a bit earlier that William Reich adopted a holographic understanding.
Sounds like me. :up: I went to Google on "Holographic Universe" and "Books" and I found a bunch. If you were to not care about the possibility that I might be compounding my own stupidity, or if you were to simply trust my ability to dip my toe, is there a book you would cite as the best the opposition currently has to offer? (I like hard copies to curl up with).
Yes. I am the sorcerer, you are the demon.
Actually, I just wanted to say hi.
An Introduction To Black Holes, Information And The String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe by Leonard Susskind & James Lindesay.
Caveat: "Here be equations!" Not a physics textbook but not a layperson's pop-sci read either. Go slow, bite-sized chunks, only 200pp. Definitely not "new age" woo-woo bs.
Also, I've started it a few times, skipped around some, never got through it. I'm a RQM groupie anyway. :smirk:
Taoism and physics are two different kinds of things. Apples and oranges. Electrons and summer squash. Galaxies and love. Taoism is metaphysics. It says nothing about the world, it only describes how we talk about the world. It's not right or wrong. It has no truth value. Physics is... physics. It describes the behavior of the universe and it's parts. It can be right or wrong.
Taoism and physics can be similar metaphorically, which is interesting. Unfortunately, it makes it tempting to mistake a figure of speech for reality.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I currently have three books in my kindle queue that I bought based on recommendations of people here on the forum in the past few weeks. That doesn't count all the others further down the list.
Thanks, will do. It's in my cart and when the wife hits "send" I will have some taffy to chew on.
:100: :clap:
[quote=Laozi]The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.[/quote]
[quote=Richard Feynman]If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics.[/quote]
Forgot this in my last post.
I don't believe there is anything hidden. It's all out there for us to experience. Alan Watts wrote that the only mysteries are things we have hidden from ourselves. Here's my favorite quote. I haven't used it here in the forum in almost a week. Franz Kafka:
There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen. Don’t even listen, just wait. Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you.
I don't understand the how of quantum mechanics, but I completely understand the why. It's just because.
That's accepting, not understanding.
I think most of the goofiness I've seen around the subject of quantum mechanics comes from failure to accept it, not failure to understand it. I'm not quite as smart as Feynman, but I can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in my head at the same time without whining or exploding.
Worth discussing, but this is the wrong thread.
:100:
I am not really in favour of talking about non tangible worlds. I am just looking at a Ralph Metzner's 'Opening to Inner Light: The Transformation of Human Consciousness', in which the author looks at the various metaphors which are common to most traditions. These include awakening and seeing beyond illusion. For example, in some traditions there is the idea of maya, or illusion, especially the idea that, 'Absolute beingness, is real; all else is illusion, mirage, flickering shadows, dreams.' However, Metzer sees this as a metaphorical way of seeing. Perhaps, all we have within any philosophy is metaphors and models as a means of trying to view our experiences, as we oscillate between the mundane or mystical interpretations.
Perhaps, the idea of the 'hidden' is metaphorical or symbolic.
From the article you linked to: “If mvd (mass*velocity*distance) is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically. According to Vic, the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential."
I agree that neurotransmitters and their diffusion or transport probably taking place at hundreds of miles per hour is not likely to be involved in the superposition effects I'm proposing, which seems obvious from the fact that medications targeted to modify their concentrations do not produce hallucinations like LSD, psilocybin, etc. But molecular complexes amounting to systems of standing waves, or entangled superpositions in terms of individual wavicles, will have negligible velocity according to that definition, so perhaps the mass and distance values can be much larger. These basic standing waves amongst certain classes of biochemical arrays in cells may blend with global electromagnetic fields of the brain and body arising from nervous tissue etc. to produce a hybrid coherence field of extremely intricate complexity. This could be sufficient to generate the basic sensory field of perception.
It should also be considered that cytoskeletal fibers may fix biochemical pathways in very specific orientations, thus conserving energy with extreme efficiency, so from the emerging quantum cell perspective h could generally be much more resilient to velocity than models based on traditional solution chemistry suggest.
I'd have to get into the mathematical details to prove this, but using intuition, what else could qualia be besides compound wavelengths, a subjective "color" or more precisely a wide variety of quantum resonances?