There's a follow-up to this on the Essentia foundation channel called something like "Going Beyond Einstein: Linking Time and Consciousness "; this time with a Bergsonian on the panel (Alex Gomez-Marin). I'd be curious to know what you think of that, Steve.
@johannesbongers
7 ай бұрын
Dear Steve, clear story, also considering the detailed episodes that preceded it. I understand that it's hard to present this story effectively. You asked in the previous episode how engagement could be increased. 1. Consider talking to a visual storyteller. Your style is fun but very sketchy. 2. Don't refer to people by a letter, like S. 3. Try again, even though you've recently done it, to explain Bergson’s holographic principle. You've already addressed psychedelic images, but what about images in dreams? I mean, there's more than just stirring a cup of coffee. Regards, Johannes.
@MichaelPryzdia
6 ай бұрын
Thanks Steve. And I am assuming that Allen's book and our last conversation about the book at least had a bit of an impact on you. :) It does seem like we need to add Smolin (and Allen) to the list of those building atop of tofu. I would like to comment a bit on what you share here. As you know, what I have always found fascinating about Bergson is his construction of a holographic theory without the need of an “implicate order.” Because I have been so influenced by Bohm’s work, I always found it fascinating that Bergson was able to construct his theory simply relying on the notion of “tendencies” and “tension” - tension that would relax or contract. He certainly does seem to have been influenced to the Stoics and Leibniz in this respect - as Allen points out. It might be worth sharing with your viewers though the relationship between Bergson’s “intensive order” and Bohm’s “implicate order.” As I have shared (e.g., in our last few conversations, in our recorded Zoom/KZitem sessions), I think it is very important to stress the need to not separate “order” from movement. Certainly, it is very difficult to talk about the classic metaphysic (with its spatial orientation) or the temporal metaphysic (Bergson) without needing to refer to “order” in general - an order that is also “generative” (Bohm). And the point that I have been trying to make is that there can be an “order in movement.” Order does not need to be static - which I believe is how you characterized Bohm’s notion of order. And note that when one plays with the notion of an order in movement, one can more easily integrate various “mystical” notions - various “non-dual” notions (such as Jiddu Krishnamuti’s notion of a “moving stillness”). I am of the opinion that most readers of Bergson and Bohm believe that there is room for the “mystical” in both Bergson and Bohm - and in my attempt to integrate the thinking of the two men with regard to a holographic paradigm, this notion of an “order in movement” does the trick (for me anyway). Cheers. Pryz
@francescoangeli1087
7 ай бұрын
Just a detail in the context of this video, but it is incorrect to say that Smolin accepts the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. He's a realist and rejects Copenhagen very clearly. Have you read his "Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution"?
@stephene.robbins6273
7 ай бұрын
That would be nice if he does reject it. Haven't read that book. His slide, simply invoking the "quantum collapse" is perhaps then a bit misleading or easily wrongly interpreted as to what he actually means.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
6 ай бұрын
Lee Smolin had his first quantum physics professor that I had - Herbert J. Bernstein at Hampshire College. Bernstein held "Bohmian dialogs" - Smolin also supports a de Broglie-Bohmian view of quantum physics.
@francescoangeli1087
6 ай бұрын
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 he might have at some point, but as far as I know based on my reading of his books and listening to interviews of him, Smolin is not completely convinced by any of the main interpretations - including pilot wave theory - and has his own take (he has his own tentative interpretation, which I'm not going to try to summarize). But in general terms, he defines himself as a realist, so he rejects interpretations that give a special role to the observer and interpret the wave function epistemically, etc.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
6 ай бұрын
@@francescoangeli1087 Time and Quantum Mechanics SOLVED? | Lee Smolin is his latest interview, a month ago on "Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal." Smolin has Parkinson's disease or at least he's on dopamine to treat that condition - tragic. He mentioned how he views time to be asymmetric - this is Roger Penrose's view also. This actually means noncommutativity. So Lee Smolin relies on matrices math which are noncommutative. Professor Basil J. Hiley emphasizes that Bohmian physics is actually noncommutativity. The problem is that most physicists don't deal with our ecological crisis which is from the increased entropy of the wrong commutative geometry math. Lee Smolin doesn't address this either but Basil J. Hiley and Roger Penrose do refer to it in passing. Hiley told me that he doesn't focus on gravitational entropy though but Penrose has.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
6 ай бұрын
@@francescoangeli1087 yeah so in that interview Lee Smolin is arguing for chirality (asymmetry) as the foundation of reality. Then he goes back to the Bohmian quantum Potential. see his latest published paper: "It describes the non-local and non-commutative nature of matrix-type" - so then Smolin says that retrocausality must exist but as a "thick present" - meaning the retrocausality is only for the microsecond or around there.
Пікірлер: 10