Next progress statement - 26-27Jul2005...
First paragraph of his 1967 paper Physics and Perception, Bohm gratuitously summarizes Einstein's massive failures of dialectical thought (i.e., Einstein's "infantile" naïve-realism and -localism) thus:
"Einstein's contribution [actually a detribution] was to extend these relativistic notions to encompass the laws, not only of mechanics, but also those of electrodynamics and optics, in the special theory, and of gravitation in the general theory. In doing this he was led to make the revolutionary step to which we have referred, i.e., of ceasing to regard the properties of space, time, mass, etc., as absolutes, instead treating these as invariant features of the relationships of observed sets of objects and events to frames of reference. In different frames of reference the space coordinates, time, mass, energy, etc., to be associated to specified objects and events will be different." Ibid., page 41. Our brackets and bold color.
If you want to see a list of what is wr¤ng, classically, with what that paragraph says, see our QELR of think.
Those of you mathematicians will recognize that Einstein merely applied dialectical topology to unnatural classical assumptions about reality. Some refer this as "genius." Heraclitus would call it, "playing in SOM's toy box." Here a tinker, there a tinker, ...
But topology is wr¤ng on its face for its most basic assumption: that aspects and features of reality are and can be invariant. Quantum reality proffers n¤ classical invariance! There is n¤thing in quantum reality which is classically invariant. For example, Einstein's SR and GR depend upon classically 'zero-momentum frames of reference' for their viability. They simply do n¤t 'exist' in quantum reality!
CTMs require state as absolute. Relative invariance. Emergent change is irrelevant.
QTMs require change as absolute. Relative flux. State is irrelevant.
Bohm doesn't tell us that space, time, and mass are all CTM-undefined, -undefinable, measurables. They are n¤t absolutely invariant, even relatively invariant, n¤r may they be, in any natural physial way, expressed thusly. On and off, yes and no, true and false in nature are not ideal dialectical negations, contradictions, and denials. In nature 'no' does n¤t efface 'yes.' In nature 'false' does n¤t efface 'true.' In nature 'denial' does n¤t efface affirmation. An excellent, recent bion¤nlogical example is RNAi.
Bohm n¤r Einstein grasped quantum flux as absolute coquecigrues. Quantum flux issi intrinsically quantum~relatihve. Nature's quantum flux requires little and n¤ne of any monistic CTM analytic dichotomized constructs conjoined on hæ~r quantum~ræhlihty. Quantum~relatihvihty manifests as quantonic coobsfection of quantons with varying perceptual bandwidths and quantum~relatihve bandwidth 'center' frequencies: QLOs of QLOs. See our Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities page.
On 'classical' infant intellect...
Bohm describes how Piaget's study of childrens' behaviors from ages 'zero' to 10+ appears to agree with relativity, especially classical notions of 'causality' and 'relative permanence.'
This is simply fascinating! If classical minds are studying evolution of childhood aging phenomena, should we expect their descriptions to be classical? Can said minds perceive behavior that is n¤nclassical?
Are Piaget and Bohm putting classical interpretations and effecting classical outcomes?
We have seen two really interesting phrases used in this regard: 'relative invariance,' and 'relative permanence.' Does a child naturally evolve these heuristics, or do our observers and culture put them upon our children? It is said that children who do not mature to adolescence in company of humans appear 'retarded.' Does that mean 'retarded,' or does it mean 'nonclassical?' Don't classicists see animal species as 'relative retards?' Classical expectations beget classical 'results,' do they n¤t?
Doug has spent years 'unlearning' classical bilge so that his quantum stage could open enough to see novel quantum lightings. Given that experience, Doug would tell you that he is extremely confident that Bohm and Piaget imposed classicism on their subjects and upon their 'scientific observations.' Another tragedy of commons sense!
This is why we say classical Earth society and its dialectical cultures are tragedies of commons sense! Recall Pirsig's words re: insanity.
At this point of our Bohmian holographic research we would prematurely suggest that classicists switch from 'relative,' to 'c¤mplementary.' Relativity is 'objective.' C¤mplementarity issi quantonic. Doug - 26Jul2005.
Another feature of this Piaget-Bohm liaison is a classical notion of classical mind's memory as 'relative permanence.' From our perspectives our own quantum stagings' memeoryings are recapitulatively sorso quantum~c¤mplementarily~tentative.
Classical 'memory' can be logically 'permanent.'
Quantum~memeory issi bion¤nlogically "tentatively persistent."
As we have said before, classicists recapitulate rote-tote know-ledges. Bohm refers this as "circular reflex," but it is really infantile classical recapitulation. Einstein is massively culpable in this respect. Feynman and Dyson, we believe correctly however unintentionally, placed blame on classical mathematics for this apparent Einsteinian culpability!
|
See: James Gleick's Genius, "Feynman said to Dyson, and Dyson agreed, that Einstein's great work had sprung from physical intuition and that when Einstein stopped creating it was because '...he stopped thinking in con[m]crete physi[c]al images and became a manipulator of [mathematically elegant; yet classically mechanical] equations...'" Page 244 out of 531 total pages, in a first Vintage paperbacks edition, October, 1993. Our brackets and italics. Doug - 17Sep2005. |
Bohm classically axiomatizes that recognition requires 'relative permanence' of classical memory, but it doesn't. See Doug's more recent, What is Con(m)sciousness? Quantum~recognition depends upon animate quantum similarity based upon our quantum~stages' SON EIMA quantum~variable~persistence. Classical SOM box edges of no impose Platonic-ideal immutability, -ideal invariance, -ideal permanence while denying quantum~abs¤lutæ pærpætual~moti¤n of all ræhlihty.
Bohmian classical bilge emerges in his entirely classical conclusion, re: childrens' learning development: "This is an important step in the growth of intelligence, for in it is already implicit the notion that will finally develop - of a single object that is responsible for all of our different kinds of experience with it." Ibid., page 43. This is naïve-realism and naïve-localism at their finest. This exhibits precisely Bohm's kind of CTM 'intelligence' which disabled Einstein in his EPR and in his 'theories' of 'classical relativity.'
Bohm and Piaget say that an infant appears to see reality, initially, as whole. We would say quantum coherent. But due that infantile perception, which Bohm and Piaget see as 'flawed,' causality seems to said infant as "sympathetic magic." In other words, said infant initially views causality as invalid. Amazing!
Classical culture self-inculpates its own ignorant and great guiltless 'moral and ethical' obligation to correct, to fix, our infants' natural quantum perceptual skills. Devastating!
Our question here is what if a child isn't raised in a classical culture? What if we raise a child in a quantum~culture? Which is better? OK, then, why are we still raising children classically?
For another 33 pages Bohm persists in justifying his and Piaget's and Einstein's position that reality is best viewed as a system of 'relative invariances,' and too that modern 'science' depends axiomatically on that assumption. Ugh! It is still and yet objective, substantial, material and ideal Platonic and Aristotelian bilge. Doug's opinion.
Doug - 26-27Jul2005.