A Holographic Metaphysics, Bohm's Implicate Order, and Bergson
I found this fascinating video, created by Stephen Robbins, which describes the nature of the holographic universe metaphysics in terms of the Bergson's philosophy and Bohm's quantum physics and Implicate Order. What is described is a universe of holographic memory that it's reconstructed by the waves from the brain. The brain does not store images in itself. It is the mechanism for filtering and retrieving images images embedded the the universal holographic field, as a TV antenna might. Interestingly this is very much aligned with Rupert Sheldrake's views and metaphors of morphic resonance fields. They all share the view that the universe is a process and not a thing.
The video may befuddle those who b do not have a background in Bergson or Bohm but for those who did, it creates a while new concept of the universe that one may wish to contemplate. I consider this state-of-the-art metaphysics.
https://youtu.be/0Z7eQAM-JD8
The video may befuddle those who b do not have a background in Bergson or Bohm but for those who did, it creates a while new concept of the universe that one may wish to contemplate. I consider this state-of-the-art metaphysics.
https://youtu.be/0Z7eQAM-JD8
Comments (8)
Certainly many metaphysicses can be, and are, proposed. ...most of which (such as the one you describe) need various assumptions and brute-facts.
Michael Ossipoff
That's all very nice, but I was just talking about merit.
No doubt there's much creative drama involved, etc. I guess I never doubted that.
But the fact remains that your metaphysics depends on assumptions and brute-facts.
Alright, I accept your answer that I quoted above is your best answer to that statement. Discussion concluded.
Forgive me for emphasizing merit, instead of resorting to invoking the "creative intuition" and "deeper understanding" of someone else..
Invocation of authority is a familiar Internet substitute for answering comments, criticisms or questions regarding your statements.
I've encountered that at another philosophy forum, but, not here, until now.
Anyway, invocation of authority makes little sense, because academics and authors don't even agree.
One person expressed the idea you spoke of, in one of the interviews on Kuhn's "Closer to Truth", but it's not often heard.
Michael Ossipoff
Merit is subjective as is any idea put forth. To penetrate requires many skills that takes time to develop and these skills can come from many, many different sources. A philosopher might study mathematics, physics, psychology, economics, history, literature, different cultures, the arts, music, meditation, sports, philosophy and via this multi-prong approach observe patterns and from these patterns maybe come to a new thought about the nature of nature via creative intuition. It is a long journey and everything that one observes on this journey is useful in creating this new idea.
Well, academics have a saying: "Publish or Perish". So maybe, for that reason, it's necessary for academic philosophers to perpetually proliferate philosophies, elaborate new terminology, etc.
Sorry, but all this invoking of someone else's long-time-acquired skills just doesn't count as an argument, an answer or a justification for a metaphysics. ...or something with any relevance to the comparison of two metaphysicses.
Quoting Rich
Well, Ockham's Principle of Parsimony is pretty-much universally-accepted as a standard for merit.
Say that there are two metaphysicss. One of them makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.
The other one largely consists of assumptions and brute-facts.
Metaphysicses can't be proven, and so your subjective relativism can try to claim that one is as good as the other, even though one of them is assumption-ridden.
I don't expect to convince you about that merit-difference. I'm just pointing this out for the record, for anyone else who encounters this discussion.
As pointed out in another recent discussion-thread, people have their own reasons for believing as they do, and often or usually it's entirely futile to expect to get through to them regarding the merits of their beliefs.
Michael Ossipoff
Let's just say it has no merit. It is just a brute fact. And that others like it equally has no merit (argumentum ad populum).
Spoken like a fully true-believing Relativist.
"Any statement, any standard, is no better than any other, and is only a brute fact"
...presumably justifying and supporting a metaphysics that's built upon, consists of, a stack of assumptions and brute-facts.
All right, Rich, I give up. It's completely evident now that nothing that I say will reach you, and I hereby quit that effort.
(As I often say, at this point in a "discussion", when I subsequently don't answer something that Rich says, it doesn't mean that Rich has said something irrefutable. It means only that I've given up trying to communicate with Rich in this "discussion".)
Michael Ossipoff
I mean we could speak to the masses, but then we would be subjected to argumentum ad populum.
Or, we can agree that you have the final say, but then that would be confronted with argumentum ad verecundiam.
So what is left?
I guess just arguing that the other person's ideas are brute facts while ours aren't.
In any case, I understand you perfectly. It's not a brute fact if you say it isn't. I get it.