My beliefs

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Anyway, I have a ways to go in the book (it is an insightful and facinating read so far!!!), but I was wondering if you have any thoughts about this theory and about this David Bohm fellow?

wow. i've never heard of these theories - clearly my familiarity with the latest thing is 50 years old. from a quick squiz around the web, it looks to me like a building on the copenhagen interpretation, taking it to the next level. definitely one to read.

thanks for the reference!

edit: found a nice biographical page that outlines bohm's work, with particular attention to his development of holographic theory.

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/...e/prat-boh.htm

some excerpts relevant to our discussion:

In 1951 Bohm wrote a classic textbook entitled Quantum Theory, in which he presented a clear account of the orthodox, Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. The Copenhagen interpretation was formulated mainly by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s and is still highly influential today. But even before the book was published, Bohm began to have doubts about the assumptions underlying the conventional approach. He had difficulty accepting that subatomic particles had no objective existence and took on definite properties only when physicists tried to observe and measure them. He also had difficulty believing that the quantum world was characterized by absolute indeterminism and chance, and that things just happened for no reason whatsoever. He began to suspect that there might be deeper causes behind the apparently random and crazy nature of the subatomic world.

Bohm sent copies of his textbook to Bohr and Einstein. Bohr did not respond, but Einstein phoned him to say that he wanted to discuss it with him. In the first of what was to turn into a six-month series of spirited conversations, Einstein enthusiastically told Bohm that he had never seen quantum theory presented so clearly, and admitted that he was just as dissatisfied with the orthodox approach as Bohm was. They both admired quantum theory's ability to predict phenomena, but could not accept that it was complete and that it was impossible to arrive at any clearer understanding of what was going on in the quantum realm.

...

In 1952, the year after his discussions with Einstein, Bohm published two papers sketching what later came to be called the causal interpretation of quantum theory which, he said, "opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality." (David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order & Creativity, Bantam Books, New York, 1987, p. 88.) He continued to elaborate and refine his ideas until the end of his life. In his view, subatomic particles such as electrons are not simple, structureless particles, but highly complex, dynamic entities. He rejects the view that their motion is fundamentally uncertain or ambiguous; they follow a precise path, but one which is determined not only by conventional physical forces but also by a more subtle force which he calls the quantum potential. The quantum potential guides the motion of particles by providing "active information" about the whole environment. Bohm gives the analogy of a ship being guided by radar signals: the radar carries information from all around and guides the ship by giving form to the movement produced by the much greater but unformed power of its engines.

The quantum potential pervades all space and provides direct connections between quantum systems. In 1959 Bohm and a young research student Yakir Aharonov discovered an important example of quantum interconnectedness. They found that in certain circumstances electrons are able to "feel" the presence of a nearby magnetic field even though they are traveling in regions of space where the field strength is zero. This phenomenon is now known as the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, and when the discovery was first announced many physicists reacted with disbelief. Even today, despite confirmation of the effect in numerous experiments, papers still occasionally appear arguing that it does not exist.

there's more, but clearly this is an evolution of thinking that is tantamount to unified theory for reality. brilliant.

[ 11-05-2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: You know, Yorick, the "big wank" is a good point. I take it to mean that you can't have dialectical maturation (and therefore perhaps any maturation) of understanding without an "other." I like it, and I'll think on it. I am not a Pantheist. I think that while every living consciousness (of which we are aware) in the universe grows in a dialectic way, it is not necessarily the case that the universe itself does. For me, the universe doesn't necessarily have consciousness. Creatures in it do, but it just is.

Finally.. someone prepared to discuss the actual idea intead of react to the crudeness.

I do believe we need an "other" to fully mature, especially our character. (I must confess, I've never used the terms "dialectical maturation". )

If only to see ourselves reflected in another for example. Encountering difference is a key element in growth. Exploring differences and finding similarities is a key element in fraternalisation and relatability.

Without an other, there is no need for language or communication. There would be no awareness of self. All would just "be", as you described.

Perceiving the universe to have a consciousness would perhaps start to border on panenthiesm, rather than pantheism. Panentheism holds that the universe is all part of God, but that parts of God are not the universe - hence allowing for a consciouness, or awareness that existed before the universe.

I see the universe as containing Gods handiwork. Like a CD contains my handiwork. If you listen to my work, I am in the CD. I sing directly to you. Or do I? I am far more than the CD. Now, if I were to create music that was itself aware, parts contained that subsequently created, yet still reflected who I am, that would come close to an analogy of the universe as I see it. The artist being God, the CD being the universe.

I would presume God to need nothing. No maturation, no need to forget or rediscover. Not bored, not needing companionship. Not needing anything.

I see creation as an expression. An expression of love. I see life and humanity existing to simply receive and give back that love. Thus free will is necessary. Pain is necessary because it leads to change, to discovery... what I see as being NEW discovery, not regained memory of self.

I see God as being outside space and time itself. That he is omnipotent because what has happened, will happen and is happenning has, to him, already occured. Within a glimpse.

A Jewish book I read described all creation and all life, as God glimpsing and seeing to the end of time. A vision of his.

Interesting stuff.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: You know, Yorick, the "big wank" is a good point. I take it to mean that you can't have dialectical maturation (and therefore perhaps any maturation) of understanding without an "other." I like it, and I'll think on it.

Could you elaborate, in lay terms, on what you mean by :"can't have a dialectical maturation of understanding without an "other""

Sorry but I ran 'dialectical' through the dictionary, but I am still having trouble figuring out what point you are driving at.

[Maelakin]

I believe he is referring to self-discovery. If you hold a discussion with yourself, you will always arrive at the same result because you lack a differing perspective to explore. The interaction between people leads to varying experiences that result in learning. As we grow, we adjust out viewpoints according to the experiences we have in life.

So when you take the Pantheistic view of everything being of one, you bring yourself to a point where further understanding of one could never occur. In essence, all your life experiences would be nothing more than experiencing yourself, and as such, you would be incapable of learning anything beyond the scope of what you already know.

As a disclaimer, I don’t hold an opinion here as of yet. I was just elaborating on what I believe Timber meant.

[Timber Loftis]

Diving in, and for those philosophy wonks out there, forgive me and correct me as need be:

The Dialectic briefly defined at dictionary.reference.com.

A good intro on GWF Hegel and his philosophy, including the dialectic.

I spent a lot of time searching, but couldn't find the dialectic primer I wanted. A dialectic is a process, applicable to many things. You may have seen this pattern mentioned before: THESIS -- ANTITHESIS -- SYNTEHSIS.

For me, the dialectic is the one central thing I fall back on to understand a lot about life. I find truth in it, a real identification of the patterns by which thought, history, nature, and the universe works.

Thought, for instance. Our brain works through categorization, especially where language is concerned. I walk into a room and I see this weird chair/stool with no back and a little platform attached to the front -- think of a smaller version of a studen't desk with no back. (This is used by some secretaries as a dictating station). First, my mind says "chair" (harkening to Plato's forms and that perfect version of chair that exists in the heavens and dictates my general notion). Well, it's not a chair I've seen before, so my mind says "wait, what if it's NOT a chair." Okay, I go with this antithesis notion for a while, and run through my catalogue of verbal categories for this thing. Determining it's not really a stool, bed, couch, or other thing, I return to chair. Yes, it is a chair, and now my notion of what chair is becomes modified -- the synthesis. (As you can see thesis-antithesis-synthesis is an incomplete and rudimentary way to understand this). This little bit of growth I have accomplished at the end of this dialectical pattern (and the beginning of the next) is what I (and only I, AFAIK) refer to as "dialectical maturation."

Here's another notion of a dialectic, in example as applied to history:
_______________________________
Dialectical histories: GWF Hegel's notion of the dialectic thinks of all history as a constant tension between two opposites (the "thesis" and the "antithesis") which come into conflict and then ultimately sort of combine (into the "synthesis"). Here's a simple example. Aristotelian science enabled thinkers to study the world in ways that they never had before (this is the thesis). In doing so, however, they discovered that Aristotelian models contained serious limitations. This recognition (the antithesis) helped Aristotelian science to overcome itself in order to produce the synthesis: Galilean science. Hegel's dialectic is a tidy way of historicizing Galileo's thought. Dialectical understandings of history inform the thought of thinkers like Hegel, Marcuse, Fukuyama, and others.
_________________________________

Discussions are inherently dialectical -- because the two thesis "poles" are the two folks having the discussion. And, a group discussion simply has more than one "antithesis" -- it works the same.

Anyway, this dialectic pattern is identified as a universal pattern that you can see all over, from historical trends to artistic trends (classical -- medieval -- Rennaissance, for instance) to political trends -- such as this one:
____________________________________
History progresses through stages:

Stage I :

Thesis = Tribal Society
Antithesis = Caste of Priests/Nobles
Synthesis = Feudal/Monarch


Stage II:

T=Feudal/Monarch
A=Bourgeoisie
S=Capitalism

Stage III:

T=Capitalism
A=Proletariat
S=Communism

{eidt} Note how each time, the Synthesis becomes the new thesis and the process of maturation continues.
____________________________________

If you can't tell by now, Hegel was central to a lot of thinkers, including Nietsche and Marx. Nietsche, for instance, in Beyond Good and Evil used antithetical examples of the classical societies in the Dionysian tradition (exemplified by Athens -- compassion and spirituality and intelligence being virtuous) and the Appollonian tradition (exemplified by Spara -- where strength and dedication were virtuous). He found that in each society, the "good" was defined completely differently, one being a "master morality" and one being a "slave morality". Hegel had already overcome this in his essays on how the slave becomes the master under normal circumstances, completing that thread of the dialectic. But, Nietsche wanted society to transcend the notion of good and evil.

Anyway, enough of a dialectical primer. If this sends you spiralling out to do some reading on your own, good. When I have time, I will turn to how we may look at the UNIVERSAL WANK theory in light of this.

Anyway, I have work to tend to right now, and must leave.

There are other IWF folks out there who know a bit about this. I would expect being a communist, Barry yon Sproutling is up to snuff on this philosophy, perhaps more than I. So, anyone who wants to chime in on the dialectic as a theory to help flesh it out, please feel free. But for now, I must away!

[ 11-06-2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: I believe he is referring to self-discovery. If you hold a discussion with yourself, you will always arrive at the same result because you lack a differing perspective to explore. The interaction between people leads to varying experiences that result in learning. As we grow, we adjust out viewpoints according to the experiences we have in life. So when you take the Pantheistic view of everything being of one, you bring yourself to a point where further understanding of one could never occur. In essence, all your life experiences would be nothing more than experiencing yourself, and as such, you would be incapable of learning anything beyond the scope of what you already know. As a disclaimer, I don’t hold an opinion here as of yet. I was just elaborating on what I believe Timber meant.

Very well said. I support that point of view totally. Again, very well said. Many thankyous Maelakin.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, anyone who wants to chime in on the dialectic as a theory to help flesh it out, please feel free. But for now, I must away!

Thanks Timber...

So it goes to follow, I believe bad is needed to truly understand good.

But... and I was rereading C.S.Lewis just last night, good and bad are not perfectly balanced as in ying/yang theory. Bad is simply spoiled good. In C.S.Lewis opinion (from an exploration of dualism:

from C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity - The Invasion" "You can be good for the sake of mere goodness, you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness. You can do a kind act because it is right, but no-one does a cruel act because it is wrong, only because cruelty is pleasant or useful to him. In other words badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is spoiled goodness. And there must be something good before it can be spoiled. We called sadism a sexual perversion; but you must have the idea of normal sexuality before you can talk of it being perverted; an dyou can see which is the perverted because you can explain the perverted from the normal, and cannot explain the normal from the perverted. It follows that this bad power who is supposed to be on equal footing with the good power, and to love badness in the same way as the good power loves goodness is a mere bogy. In order to be bad he must have good things to want and then pursue them in the wrong way; he must have impulses which were originally good in order to be able to pervert them. He must be getting both from the good power. And if so he is not independent. He is part of te good power's world. He was made either by the good power or by some power above them both. Put it more simply still. To be bad he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence and intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the good power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And now do you begin to understand why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel?"

I love C.S.Lewis. He was a committed atheist until later in his life, when he "was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of heaven".

On his atheism (that continues your line of dialectic thought Timber):

from C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity - The Rival Conceptions of God" "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a straight line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was sensless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really uinjust, not that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justic - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

[Maelakin]

The biggest problem about C.S. Lewis is how he repeatedly objectifies his subjectivity in order to present an argument against a person’s perception.

For example, when he speaks about a person acting bad for the sake of badness, his whole argument rests upon existence and intelligence being “good”. That is his perception. One could justifiably argue that those are in fact “bad”.

Another example is when he speaks on Atheism. Atheism could in fact be the least simple of all. After all, one could argue that it takes a bigger leap of “faith” to just believe the universe “is”. God gives people a reason why the universe exists.

I also have a problem with him equating Atheism as a belief in which the universe has no meaning. God is not the only “meaning” in the universe and the last time I checked, atheism is the rejection of belief in god, not in other worldly beliefs.

To be honest, every time someone tries to explain religion or personal beliefs in this manner, I can’t help but chuckle. I suppose my beliefs are too simple also, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong. Could they be, yes.

I accept the probability of the impossible. There is my faith in one little sentence.

[Chewbacca]

I have little time right now, may not be around again later either....

Perhaps infinite expressing itself in finite is dialectical ( if I am using the word correctly, I'm still grokking it...)

Infinite becoming finite in order to think itself in way that is other than inifinte...individualization of perception leads to a finite being that can percieve itself as part of a greater infinite...


Infinite- thesis

finite- anthesis

finite as part of a greater infinite- sythesis


?Have I totally butchered the idea or have I correctly applied it? Neither?

Laters

[Faceman]

The need for dialectics is indeed one of the most important bases for religion or the human's need for religion.
It seems that humans need a way to "converse with the universe" and this is accomplished by creating a representative (i.e. god) for it.
The most simple example is:
---
If you're on a streak of bad luck you're probably going to ask yourself: "WHY?"
Even atheists quickly move on then to sentences like: "The world hates me"
This obviously comes out of a need for a reason or a counterpart that is the cause of your pain (in this case) or your joy.
---
However I am not convinced that this is not possible within Pantheism. You can in fact converse with something you are part of. The best example here is society. What also strikes me in favor of Pantheism (which I have not adopted and probably won't) is that you can only change something which you are a part of (or something which you are above but that is trivial). So Pantheism actually allows you to change the universe which IS god (in lack of a better term) and therefore allows you to change god giving YOU the ultimate power, while monotheistic or polytheistic religions do allow you to change the universe but you can always be overruled by a higher power.