Hi mrCopper. You know, David Bohm as many other modern thinkers has been deeply influensed by Alfred Korzybski and his book science and sanity He is famus for saying "The map is not the territory" to really understand David Bohms view on theories, It's best to look up Korzybski and who he was on wikimedia or something? Good luck!
I think the point Bohm is trying to make is that the whole is composed of parts. The parts receive their essential character from their relation to the whole. If we try to comprehend the parts in isolation, we perceive them as fragments.
I think Cropper's explanation confuses this point somewhat. There are not parts on the one hand and fragments on the other. The fragments are a part of the whole but are not comprehended as such and therefore are misunderstood.
8.00 - The Insane man - Cropper - you disagree with bohm - however - what you fail to realise is that the 'evidence' which leads to the insane man's formulation of his hypothesis is sound in his subjective perception. That is, what constitutes evidence to the insane man, and what constitutes evidence to the sane man, will be wholly different. This isbohm's very point.
What the BLEEP do we know? is such a bad movie that is obviously false. Seriously search around the internet for some criticisms of the flick. It is basically a (not so)clever mind play on peoples misunderstanding of the science and philosophy presented. I am surprised an educated person like yourself would not seriously have to question the first like 20 minutes.
Brian Greene didn't make What the Bleep do We know, that movie was made by some NewAgean students, and David Albert a friend of Brian Greene and philosopher of science, who appears in the movie later says that he was edited to look like he was supporting the thesis of the movie, which he ultimately disagrees with.
I don't think thought can effect our senses. Thought can effect our conceptualization though. In fact, it takes thought to conceptualize in the first place. So if that is what he means, then, "well duh!" But if he means that it can effect our senses, well then, he is a Kantian.
Kant said that our senses are flawed because it has to go through a human faculty (our mind). Unfortunately Kant didn't take his own advice and kept spouting off supposed truths through his own faulty faculty.
Doesn'T the atomistic view rely on the existence of ''nothing'' (the smallest things being separate somehow) and covertly giving it an attribute ''existence''?
"Theory can only be formed through induction based on fact."
As you said earlier in agreement with Bohm, thought often shapes our understanding of fact. So insanity may lead one to perceive a particular fact that someone more sane does not think is relevant. The insane person's theory would not be coherent, however, because it would contradict the facts as experienced by his more psychologically grounded peers.
I am trying to point out that what counts as a "fact" is not independent of thought. Leaving aside the example of insanity, we could look at this in terms of paradigm shifts within the sciences. The fact of the "force" of gravity to Newton is no longer a fact to Einstein, because he reconceptualized the very meaning of gravity such that it refers to the curvature of space-time and not a force. What counts as a fact depends in large part on the conceptual framework we view the world through.
I disagree. Facts are facts. They are instances of reality apart from human percept/concept
Now what we consider to the "truth" can change based on new facts. Even if what I'm looking at is an illusion, and I make a wrong conceptualization (what I consider to be "true"), it doesn't change the fact that I saw the illusion.. that something in reality effected my brain in that way.
It might change my interpretation of a fact (some conceptualization I make) the fact doesn't change. It IS reality.
Bohm does have a tendency to cancel the ultimate division much modern philosophy has hewn between thought and being, between subject and object. He wouldn't say thought therefore creates reality, but that whatever reality is, it is intimately related to thought, and that it is mistaken to view thought as somehow a representation of reality. A representationalist view assumes thought is separated from reality, that it stands outside reality and describes it. Bohm prefers an underlying wholeness.
Ah, you got into this at the end. A representationalist view of thought's relationship to reality would say that our theories 'reflect' reality, while Bohm prefers to say our theories can be correlated with reality in a coherent way. The abstractions are not reality, but a way of symbolizing certain salient relations (between distance and time, say) holding in reality.
This is not funny ! You say that QM is saying the parts are not real, that's so not correct !!! Parts are just like everything else, they exist, but the properties of the parts will depend on the way you measure them.
String theory has evidence by the way, it predicts all the standard model in a coherent way as opposed to QFT. It's not strong evidence but still. Plus SUSY could be discover at the LHC pretty soon.
I'm just trying to stop the propaganda, crackpots will never really understand QM because they think it's something that should be easily understood using oral arguments, but at this stage of complexity you can't avoid the math, and crackpot are just too lazy or too stupid to understand the math.
Complex math that fails to describe anything is just as useful as the bible in making predictions.
Face it. Math is just a language. It must be used in conjuncture with empiricism if its to describe anything useful.
You have to use some sort of well tested base line before you can go wandering around in speculations about vibrating strings tucked inside of donut shaped membrane dimensions.
Please give some evidence for what your talking about. Don't just ad-hominem at me, its not convincing.
I don't have to convince you, this is not part of my job description. Go look and learn for yourself, you have to convince yourself, this is part you your job description.
I've tried. I;ve read "The Elegant Universe" which wasn't very insightful on the issue. If all the metaphors and assertions are correct then its all gravy, but I can't tell if they are or not because their was NO EVIDENCE for the claims.
Frankly. I side with the plasma cosmologists. They pick apart the big bang pretty well. I can get my head around a Z-Pinch effect. I can't get my head around dark matter. If you can point me to any good information I would be happy to learn.
This is exactly what I meant, the Elegant universe is a good book don't get me wrong, but it's aim is just to get you excited about physics not to give you a deep understanding of physics. This is the aim of every pop science book.
Don't even get me started on plasma cosmologist.
If you want a good starting reference for QM I would recommend something like "Cohen Tanoudji" but I'm not sure if there is an english version.
Everything is explained by the math. The math provides a solid framework based on simple postulates. The math framework gives tools that tell us how to analyse physical situation, and therefore it leads to prediction of empirical data. The math also gives some insight into what is going on in the quantum world, and it will help you build an intuition and understand that the weirdness of QM is not very weird.
"Although I love and revere mathematics, I firmly believe if you cannot explain a principle of physics in common language and terms, then you probably do not fully grasp the principle in the first place."
Hi mrCopper. You know, David Bohm as many other modern thinkers has been deeply influensed by Alfred Korzybski and his book science and sanity He is famus for saying "The map is not the territory" to really understand David Bohms view on theories, It's best to look up Korzybski and who he was on wikimedia or something? Good luck!
sahaja66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
were are your playlists?
MrEido08 1 year ago
where are your playlists?
MrEido08 1 year ago
I think the point Bohm is trying to make is that the whole is composed of parts. The parts receive their essential character from their relation to the whole. If we try to comprehend the parts in isolation, we perceive them as fragments.
I think Cropper's explanation confuses this point somewhat. There are not parts on the one hand and fragments on the other. The fragments are a part of the whole but are not comprehended as such and therefore are misunderstood.
boneyard1125 2 years ago
cool
Sam26100 2 years ago
8.00 - The Insane man - Cropper - you disagree with bohm - however - what you fail to realise is that the 'evidence' which leads to the insane man's formulation of his hypothesis is sound in his subjective perception. That is, what constitutes evidence to the insane man, and what constitutes evidence to the sane man, will be wholly different. This isbohm's very point.
introversio 2 years ago
What the BLEEP do we know? is such a bad movie that is obviously false. Seriously search around the internet for some criticisms of the flick. It is basically a (not so)clever mind play on peoples misunderstanding of the science and philosophy presented. I am surprised an educated person like yourself would not seriously have to question the first like 20 minutes.
loktkey 3 years ago
Good explanation.
qtronman 3 years ago
Brian Greene didn't make What the Bleep do We know, that movie was made by some NewAgean students, and David Albert a friend of Brian Greene and philosopher of science, who appears in the movie later says that he was edited to look like he was supporting the thesis of the movie, which he ultimately disagrees with.
Schopenhauer14 3 years ago
I don't think thought can effect our senses. Thought can effect our conceptualization though. In fact, it takes thought to conceptualize in the first place. So if that is what he means, then, "well duh!" But if he means that it can effect our senses, well then, he is a Kantian.
Kant said that our senses are flawed because it has to go through a human faculty (our mind). Unfortunately Kant didn't take his own advice and kept spouting off supposed truths through his own faulty faculty.
horvay 3 years ago
Doesn'T the atomistic view rely on the existence of ''nothing'' (the smallest things being separate somehow) and covertly giving it an attribute ''existence''?
fortunatus 3 years ago
From Parmenides with love
Spalg 3 years ago
"Theory can only be formed through induction based on fact."
As you said earlier in agreement with Bohm, thought often shapes our understanding of fact. So insanity may lead one to perceive a particular fact that someone more sane does not think is relevant. The insane person's theory would not be coherent, however, because it would contradict the facts as experienced by his more psychologically grounded peers.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I think you are making a point here, but I'm not quite getting it.
How does the quote on induction and theory relate to an insane person's coherency to others?
horvay 3 years ago
I am trying to point out that what counts as a "fact" is not independent of thought. Leaving aside the example of insanity, we could look at this in terms of paradigm shifts within the sciences. The fact of the "force" of gravity to Newton is no longer a fact to Einstein, because he reconceptualized the very meaning of gravity such that it refers to the curvature of space-time and not a force. What counts as a fact depends in large part on the conceptual framework we view the world through.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I disagree. Facts are facts. They are instances of reality apart from human percept/concept
Now what we consider to the "truth" can change based on new facts. Even if what I'm looking at is an illusion, and I make a wrong conceptualization (what I consider to be "true"), it doesn't change the fact that I saw the illusion.. that something in reality effected my brain in that way.
It might change my interpretation of a fact (some conceptualization I make) the fact doesn't change. It IS reality.
horvay 3 years ago
Bohm does have a tendency to cancel the ultimate division much modern philosophy has hewn between thought and being, between subject and object. He wouldn't say thought therefore creates reality, but that whatever reality is, it is intimately related to thought, and that it is mistaken to view thought as somehow a representation of reality. A representationalist view assumes thought is separated from reality, that it stands outside reality and describes it. Bohm prefers an underlying wholeness.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Ah, you got into this at the end. A representationalist view of thought's relationship to reality would say that our theories 'reflect' reality, while Bohm prefers to say our theories can be correlated with reality in a coherent way. The abstractions are not reality, but a way of symbolizing certain salient relations (between distance and time, say) holding in reality.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
STOP TALKING ABOUT STUFF YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND !!!
This is not funny ! You say that QM is saying the parts are not real, that's so not correct !!! Parts are just like everything else, they exist, but the properties of the parts will depend on the way you measure them.
String theory has evidence by the way, it predicts all the standard model in a coherent way as opposed to QFT. It's not strong evidence but still. Plus SUSY could be discover at the LHC pretty soon.
sicjd 3 years ago
sounds like panic.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
I'm just trying to stop the propaganda, crackpots will never really understand QM because they think it's something that should be easily understood using oral arguments, but at this stage of complexity you can't avoid the math, and crackpot are just too lazy or too stupid to understand the math.
sicjd 3 years ago
This is very true..I do get a laugh when laymen speak without knowing. It almost sounds like a politician.
MrHappy702 3 years ago 2
Complex math that fails to describe anything is just as useful as the bible in making predictions.
Face it. Math is just a language. It must be used in conjuncture with empiricism if its to describe anything useful.
You have to use some sort of well tested base line before you can go wandering around in speculations about vibrating strings tucked inside of donut shaped membrane dimensions.
Please give some evidence for what your talking about. Don't just ad-hominem at me, its not convincing.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
I don't have to convince you, this is not part of my job description. Go look and learn for yourself, you have to convince yourself, this is part you your job description.
sicjd 3 years ago
I've tried. I;ve read "The Elegant Universe" which wasn't very insightful on the issue. If all the metaphors and assertions are correct then its all gravy, but I can't tell if they are or not because their was NO EVIDENCE for the claims.
Frankly. I side with the plasma cosmologists. They pick apart the big bang pretty well. I can get my head around a Z-Pinch effect. I can't get my head around dark matter. If you can point me to any good information I would be happy to learn.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
This is exactly what I meant, the Elegant universe is a good book don't get me wrong, but it's aim is just to get you excited about physics not to give you a deep understanding of physics. This is the aim of every pop science book.
Don't even get me started on plasma cosmologist.
If you want a good starting reference for QM I would recommend something like "Cohen Tanoudji" but I'm not sure if there is an english version.
sicjd 3 years ago
Otherwise the Griffit, or the Sakurai book are usually very good references. But all that depend on you math background ?
What do you know about Hilbert spaces ? How good are you with integrals and matrix algebra ?
sicjd 3 years ago
Not very. Well math is fine, but what about empirical data. What is being explained by the math?
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
Everything is explained by the math. The math provides a solid framework based on simple postulates. The math framework gives tools that tell us how to analyse physical situation, and therefore it leads to prediction of empirical data. The math also gives some insight into what is going on in the quantum world, and it will help you build an intuition and understand that the weirdness of QM is not very weird.
sicjd 3 years ago
"Although I love and revere mathematics, I firmly believe if you cannot explain a principle of physics in common language and terms, then you probably do not fully grasp the principle in the first place."
-Stephen Speicher
horvay 3 years ago