Sheldrake's recent morphic resonance talk (2013)

I have never found Bohm's ideas easy to get into. I mean he rearranges the Schroedinger equation into a different form, which inevitably generates the same predictions as the conventional version. Then we get the idea of implicate/explicate order etc which seems to come from nowhere and be remarkably vague.

I am probably doing it a great injustice, so perhaps a god link would help.

David
 
I have never found Bohm's ideas easy to get into. I mean he rearranges the Schroedinger equation into a different form, which inevitably generates the same predictions as the conventional version. Then we get the idea of implicate/explicate order etc which seems to come from nowhere and be remarkably vague.

I am probably doing it a great injustice, so perhaps a god link would help.

David

Implicate Order

Referring to the persistent inability of science to reconcile Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum theory, Bohm suggested that what was required was not so much new theories and ideas but a radical new order within physics. The Implicate Order would be such a new order. According to Bohm physics is still dominated by what he called the Cartesian Order. That is, an explicate notion of space and time which, in turn is expressed using Cartesian co-ordinates - every point in space-time being well defined and corresponding to a set of numbers. The considerable practical success of the Cartesian order lies in the fact that the motion and transformations of objects in space are describable by differential equations. By contract, an Implicate Order would proceed via some different descriptive scheme, such as an algebra.

But, according to Bohm, the Implicate Order does not apply to quantum physics alone but is also an appropriate way to view the processes of consciousness. The neuroscientist, Karl Pribram, for example, has used the holographic analogy in his model of the way memory is distributed in a delocalised manner across the brain. Bohm also felt that the Implicate Order provided insights into the ways we perceive the world and work with ideas. In this sense the Implicate Order is a little like Bohr's Complementarity - an idea born out of physics which extends into more general fields of consciousness, art and culture.

Yet Bohm has left behind him a number of questions as to how we are to interpret his writings on the Implicate order and how this concept may be extended and applied. After all, Bohm was always developing his ideas so that what he wrote or lectured about the Implicate Order at one period may not be exactly the same in an other. Currently these ideas are being explored by Bohm's long-time collaborator, Basil Hiley, at Birkbeck College, London; by the philosopher Paavo Pylkaanen and by others.

Attached are notes relating to the Implicate Order. Bear in mind that these are speculative and unedited.
 
I have never found Bohm's ideas easy to get into. I mean he rearranges the Schroedinger equation into a different form, which inevitably generates the same predictions as the conventional version. Then we get the idea of implicate/explicate order etc which seems to come from nowhere and be remarkably vague.

I am probably doing it a great injustice, so perhaps a god link would help.

David
try this simple biography http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement/

Bohm is perhaps best known for his early work on the interactions of electrons in metals. He showed that their individual, haphazard movement concealed a highly organized and cooperative behavior called plasma oscillation. This intimation of an order underlying apparent chaos was pivotal in Bohm's development.

Bohm's idea wasn't speculative. It is proved out in advanced engineering applications of today, such as electron flow in carbon nano tubes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect

The Aharonov–Bohm effect is important conceptually because it bears on three issues apparent in the recasting of (Maxwell's) classical electromagnetic theory as a gauge theory, which before the advent of quantum mechanics could be argued to be a mathematical reformulation with no physical consequences. The Aharonov–Bohm thought experiments and their experimental realization imply that the issues were not just philosophical.
The three issues are:
  1. whether potentials are "physical" or just a convenient tool for calculating force fields;
  2. whether action principles are fundamental;
  3. the principle of locality.
Because of reasons like these, the Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by the New Scientist magazine as one of the "seven wonders of the quantum world"

Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental. In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect

David - getting Bohm means gronking the idea that "mere" potentialities (or real-world probabilities) are part and parcel of the variables of reality.
 
From - "Lifework", linked on the other Bohm thread
To clarify these concepts with an analogy, consider a video game. The first implicate order corresponds to the screen, which is capable of producing an infinite variety of explicate forms or images. The images on the screen, which constitute the explicate order, can be regarded as manifestations of the first implicate order. The second implicate order corresponds to the computer, which provides the information that organizes the various forms in the screen, or first implicate order. Finally, the player of the game represents a third implicate order, whose actions and inputs organize the second implicate order. This creates a closed loop, and creative possibilities can emerge over time. - Bohm

I see this as Bohm's try at describing a mutli-level organization, where the whole of working reality draws different (but required) types of structure and meaning (fire from the equations). What is important is that Bohm's models of interaction are finding new applications and still inspiring new thinkers. Time will tell which process models best conform to natural events, but even if some of Bohm's ideas are wrong they are top-notch thinking and help science.

I find the idea of holographic information storage fascinating. But I must admit I don't understand how it is linked to Bohm's implicate order.
 

What a wonderful outburst of posts you have made. I have been enjoying them.

There was a section called notes in the link from Peat. wow good reporting of the questions Bohm left hanging. Here is a segment on topic:

Rupert Sheldrake, in his discussions with Bohm, suggested that the notion of the Implicate order as underlying the Explicate is, in a certain sense, a return to a type of Platonism. In his image of the cave, Plato suggests that the world of appearances is the shadow of a more profound world of Forms or Ideas. In reading Bohm one sometimes gets a similar impression, that the Explicate world is some sort of reflection of a deeper Implicate Order.
 
What a wonderful outburst of posts you have made. I have been enjoying them.

There was a section called notes in the link from Peat. wow good reporting of the questions Bohm left hanging. Here is a segment on topic:

Thanks, just adding in stuff I've read in the past.

Plus these threads help me organize things for myself!

It does seem the Implicate Order can be helpful to Platonists like Penrose, given their desire for the world here to be descended from a more orderly reality.

Though according to Basil Hiley Bohm seemed interested in quantum "non-mechanics" so not sure how orderly the Implicate Order is...though I guess one can have a non-mechanistic order...
 
Durr: Sheldrake's ideas from the perspective of modern physics

So my interest in Sheldrake's ideas is mainly directed to the question of whether the observations he cites, and the interpretations he offers, which he calls "unconventional," might be interpreted as indications that biological processes should be regarded as directly connected--and not merely by analogy with--the dynamics familiar to an atomic physicist.

In my view, as a quantum physicist, the burden of proof ought to be reversed: it is not the advocates of a more holistic point of view who should be obliged to convince those who argue for an analytical/mechanistic approach of the necessity of additional structures of relationships; on the contrary, the mechanists ought to explain why the more complex structure of relationships that undoubtedly exists at the foundations, and is well-known to us from physics, should remain so totally invisible. An important point here is that the new physics includes the classical physics as a limiting case. Therefore, in a sufficiently imprecise view, the new physics should not contradict the established findings of the mechanists (Bohr's correspondence principle), but only refine and supplement them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

In the Dutch television show A Glorious Accident (1993) six scientists talk about their visions on their work and the world. Journalist Wim Kayzer asks them: how far did you come in your understanding of our thoughts an actions? What did science really bring us at the end of the 20th century: knowledge or also understanding?

An interview with the British writer and biologist Rubert Shledrake. He studied cell biology, but [after] focused more on parapsychology. He wrote about the morphic field, telepathy, psychic theories and the possibility of life on other planets.
 
Back
Top