> I have always belonged to the camp of Niels Bohr, perhaps because of the

How is Bohm "ontotheological"? What does that mean? I do not see how

>neat way his 'metaphysics' seems to fit a certain philosophical genealogy

>beginning with Nietzsche, culminating in George Bataille and Derrida and

>opposed to any totalizing Hegelian synthesis. Im talking about the

>relationship between Bohr's complementarity and correspondence principles to

>so called 'anti-epistemological general economies'. ( Read Plotnitsky's

>"Complementarity, Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida") I dont like

>realistic or ontotheological theories so I'm not taken by Bohm.

>

Nietzzsche, Bataille and Derrida's ancient thoughts are relevant to

modern quantum physics in any way that is really relevant to a working

physicist on the edge of new discoveries?

>There are

I don't believe that.

>some good papers (Berger) that show that Bohm does not solve the measurement

>problem.

>

> There are also problems with relativistic theories and so on.

The problems with relativistic theories are just as bad in Bohr's

>

interpretation. In fact there is no problem with Bohm's causal theory

with special relativity on the statistical level, which according to the

positivists like Asher Peres is all that matters. So, in terms of

orthodox quantum theory this is a Red Herring. Bohm's theory covers all

of orthodox statistical relativistic QM .

>

The problem is solved in "The Undivided Universe" 6.8 pp 127-130. It's a

> Since we do talk about the great smoky dragon I wonder how the delayed

>choice experiment looks like in Bohmian mechanics, is it realistic or

>anti-realistic?

>

pseudo-problem from Bohr's defective interpretation of reality that the

qubit wave alone is the complete description of quantum reality. When

you add the hidden variable Puff, The Smokey Dragon dissolves before

your eyes as the illusion it really is.

> The real mysteries of QM lie in the statistics of bosons and

You clearly have not read Bohm deeply. These are not conceptual problems

>fermions.

>

in Bohm's theory. Your remarks show how Bohr's "doublethink", a

precursor to New Age psychobabble, has been an ideological blind fold on

very smart people like yourself. Indeed, I was also brainwashed by the

Copenhagen Fairy Tale Party Line via Oppenheimer's influence on Phil

Morrison from whom I was first introduced to quantum theory at Cornell

in the 50's. Indeed, I did not awaken from the respectable mainstream

Grand Illusion until ~ 1994 when I first picked Bohm and Hiley's "The

Undivided Universe" and saw p. 30 in "A Clean Well Lighted Place For

Books" at San Francisco's Opera Plaza after chicken matzoh ball soup at

Max's.

>

What do you mean precisely? Show how Bohr's theory answers all these

> One of the reasons Bohm cannot be taken too seriously is the way in

>which his theory says nothing about the relationship of Hilbert space and

>ordinary spacetime geometry. Neither does it tell us anything about the true

>role of that

>mysterious i = sqrt(-1). That which transforms a diffusion equation into QM.

>Also Bohm's work does not seem to figure into the geometrization of QM.

>

same points.

Why is "geometrization of QM" important as physics? What observational

mysteries would such a mathematics explain?

The "i" is pointing to thoughtlike coherent superposition, i.e.

nonmechanical (no pre-assigned interactions), nonlocal, context

dependence (form-dependent|intensity-independent) as distinguished from

the rocklike mechanical, local, context-independent

(form-independent|intensity-dependent) not so "hidden variable" side of

physical duality.

>

Your remark is simply false. What you call a "flaw" is not a flaw at all

>

> The flaw that Jack has in his theory (which Penrose recognizes) is that

>he does not realize that his theory is still some kind of proto-pan psychism

>or micro-dualism.

>

and it is common to all the theories, so it is an irrelevant distinction

here.

I realize the pan-psychism very clearly!

Pan-psychism must be part of any quantum based explanation of mind and

consciousness and it's relation to matter.

This is so both for Bohr and for Bohm.

Whether you say consciousness is either an effect or cause of a

Bohr-based Heisenber-von Neumann "collapse" or "projection" starting

from Wigner to Stapp and taken up by Fred Alan Wolf's "pop" et-al, or

whether you say, as I say, consciousness is the result of direct

self-reaction of the not-so-hidden variable "matter" back on its

piloting (volition AKA free will) qubit intrinsically mental field

(macroquantum in sense of a decoherence tough Bose-Einstein condensate),

both assume an irreducible mental physical property to reality as

symbolized by both i and h.

Note, however, that the Bohr "collapse" approach stays within orthodox

theory with signal locality (passion at a distance).

My approach explicitly violates orthodox quantum theory with signal

nonlocality as essential for all life and all consciousness.

Roughly one can show an equivalence between my post-quantum "back

action" with signal nonlocality and Valentini's "sub-quantum

nonequilibrium" also with signal nonlocality.

Penrose's position deviates from Stapp's in that Penrose's OR is a new

form of "collapse" with signal nonlocality as seen in his remarks about

the Libet presponse where he brings in final causes and teleology.

>

These are complete Red Herrings. You clearly misunderstand my ideas

> All Jack has to do is answer two questions. Would his system work as

>well without consciousness? If reality is not mental why should the wave

>function be mental?

>

completely as you misunderstand what Bohm has really said as well.

Would what system work?

Of course reality is both mental and material fundamentally.

Dualism has gotten a bad rap!

Suddenly it became fashionable and chic for all the Laputan

"Philosofawzers" (Feynman's term) to descry "dualism". This is because

in their sloppy thinking, they confound Descartes supernatural dualism

with the modern wave-particle dualities of quantum theory.

Now, as a matter of fact, only I have recently shown in my "How come

spacetime?" http://stardrive.org/Jack/stargate.pdf how mind is in a way

more fundamental than matter. That is, how matter gels out of mind. But

this new theory of mine, symbolized in Botticelli's "Venus Arising From

The Sea" is simply PW Anderson's principle that "More is different."

How? I have shown how Einstein's rocklike classical local

geometrodynamic field guv(x), the warp, woof, weft and twists of

spacetime comes from modulating the coherent phase of the local

macroquantum order psi(x) of virtual electron-positron pairs inside the

zero-point fluctuation quieted physical "superfluid" vacuum. The

quintessent local /\(x) field, that is zero in "ordinary classical

vacuum" is that approximation that is 100% nonrandom smooth coherent

virtual superfluid. This is, indeed, the true origin of rocklike

classical inertia and gravity from thoughtlike macro qubits. We don't

need no damn Smokey Dragon Fairy Tales here. Leave child's play to Hans

Christian Anderson not to Niels Bohr. ;-)

If the virtual vacuum superfluid is too dilute, we have anti-gravitating

blue shifting exotic vacuum, i.e. the stuff of stargate time machines

and propellantless free float warp drives.

If the virtual vacuum superfluid is too dense, we have gravitating

red-shifting "dark energy", i.e. the missing mass of the universe.

Do any of the Pundits have a better story to tell the people?

>In Penrose the wave function is real

In Bohm, and in my theory, the wave function is real. We mean, of course

>

physically real, not mathematically real. Mathematically it is complex,

the i as in i^2 = -1 and some say even quaternions. So this is a bogus

objection.

> and non-locality

This last remark is I think wrong, indeed perhaps not even wrong. What

>arises out of the properties of spacetime.

>

is its precise meaning? Show the math. Show how quantum nonlocality

arises out of spacetime? Define your basic terms as clearly as you can.

Is "spacetime" the "guv(x) field? What? Do you mean "spin networks" or

"pregeometry"? If the latter do not use "spacetime" and also that so far

is a wish not a reality.

>If I have a closed theoretical

>system with some variables, it works fine. You have X interacting with Y.

>Once you identify the variable or entity with which you correlate

>consciousness, ask yourself whether you have transcended a mere

>correlational relationship.

> The second question one should ask is- in what way does a given

>explanation transcend proto-pan-experientialism. Both Chalmers and Penrose

>understand this.

> Uzi

>

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@...>

>Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.math

>To: "Uziel Awret" <awret@...>

>

>Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:30 PM

>Subject: Slaying Puff The Smokey Dragon

>

>

>>Uziel Awret wrote:

>>

>>> Sounds interesting but if you could incorporate Hilbert space

>>>

>geometry

>

>>>with ordinary spacetime geometry into a more fundamental geometry you

>>>

>should

>

>>>be able to explain and describe the collapse of the wave function, this

>>>sharp transition between the spaces. I doubt it can be done

>>> Uzi

>>>

>>Sounds like you really have not read Bohm. You are asking the wrong

>>questions. "Collapse" has as much reality as do the Fairy Tales of Hans

>>Christian Anderson that other story teller from Copenhagen. Jack Slays

>>Puff The Smokey Dragon! (Cartoon for NQ).

>>http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html (preview of coming

>>

>attractions)

>

>>"If quantum theory appears as a "smokey dragon",

>>

>> the dragon itself may now be recognized as a universal wave function,

>>

>>veiled to us local beings by the "smoke" of its inherent entanglement."

>>

>>H Zeh

>>

>>That's blowing a lot of smoke alright!

>>

>>It's time to clear the air.

>>

>>>The book A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar says, at pages 215-221:

>>>

>>>"... Nash would blame ... his attempt to resolve contradictions

>>>in quantum theory, on which he embarked in the summer of 1957 ...

>>>for triggering his mental illness ...

>>>

>>>... The Institute for Advanced Study ... on Princeton's fringes ...

>>>By 1956, Einstein was dead, Goedel was no longer active, and

>>>von Neumann lay dying in Bethesda. Oppenheimer was still director ...

>>>... The Institute was about the dullest place you could find ...

>>>

>>>... Nash was soon spending at least as much time ...[at]... the Courant

>>>Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University ...

>>>as at the Institute for Advanced Study ...

>>>

>>>Nash left the Institute for Advanced Study on a fractious note.

>>>In early July he apparently had a serious argument with Oppenheimer

>>>about quantum theory ...

>>>

>>>Nash's letter ... to Oppenheimer provides the only record of

>>>what he was thinking at the time. Nash ... wrote ...

>>>"I want to find a different and more satisfying under-picture

>>>of a non-observable reality ...

>>>... most physicists (also some mathematicians who have studied

>>>Quantum Theory) ...[are]... quite too dogmatic in their attitudes

>>>...[and tend to treat]... anyone with any sort of questioning

>>>attitude or a belief in "HIDDEN PARAMETERS" ... as stupid or

>>>at best a quite ignorant person.". ...".

>>>

>>>[the capitalization of "HIDDEN PARAMETERS" is mine, but the

>>>emphasizing quotation marks are Nash's]

>>>

>>>

>>>Just so that you realize the context of having Oppenheimer as a boss

>>>while you are trying to work on quantum theory, here is a quote

>>>

>>>from Oppenheimer as of 1951-52:

>>

>>>"if we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him."

>>>

>>>[the Oppenheimer quote is from The Bohm biography Infinite Potential,

>>>by F. David Peat (Addison-Wesley 1997),page 133]

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>It is also possible that Nash's work on the Riemann Zeta function

>>>might have been related to some ideas about quantum theory,

>>>along lines suggested by Hilbert and Polya, which lines were

>>>not very fashionable in the 1950s but have now become very

>>>respectable.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>Tony 29 April 2002

>>>

>>>PS - Thanks for the reference to the PBS American Experience show

>>>on John Nash.

>>>

>>>PPS - You say that I should "See the movie. Read the book."

>>>I have done both, more than once.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>-

>"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman

> http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg

>

> http://stardrive.org/Jack/open.pdf

>

> http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

>

> http://stardrive.org/title.shtml

>

>

>

>