Implicate and explicate order, by [[David Bohm]] quantum theory concepts.
Tied it to the notion of the brain / human mind as a quantum device.
Implicate and explicate order, by [[David Bohm]] quantum theory concepts.
Tied it to the notion of the brain / human mind as a quantum device.
Bohm advanced the view that quantum physics meant that the old Cartesian model of reality—that there are two kinds of substance, the mental and the physical, that somehow interact—was too limited. To complement it, he developed a mathematical and physical theory of "implicate" and "explicate" order.[3]
Implicate and explicate order.
[[David Bohm]] 1917-1992. US, theoretical physicist, influenced neuropsychology / philosophy of mind. Saw the brain as a quantum device it seems.
Have several of his books [[On Dialogue by David Bohm]] [[On Creativity by David Bohm]] and just bought [[Thought as a System by David Bohm]] #2025/11/10
Her point is this: Metaphors are so often visual in nature, that we tend to equate understanding something with the ability to visualise it. Which explain why Einstein–always a visual thinkers–hated quantum mechanics. Because while the standard model helps making perfect mathematical sense of particle physics, it’s simply not possible to visualise what it proves to be true. But here’s the thing: metaphors don’t have to be visual in nature, and in fact going beyond the visual often allows us to naturally accommodate ambiguity. Trompe l’oeil images are just as maddening and hard to let go of as trying to visualise a quark that exists simultaneously in multiple places, but anyone can attest to feelings of ‘being torn‘ or ‘in two minds‘. Time is another metaphor that is notoriously hard to visualise, which hasn’t stopped anyone from experiencing it. Again it’s also a phenomenon that most of us feel behave in a highly irrational manner; slowing to a creep in one moment only to jump into action the next. The point that Julia Ravanis makes, the perspective she helps me see, is that quantum mechanics doesn’st have to ‘not make sense’. That the act of sense-making includes a chosen perspective, and that being mindful that there are more than one possible, even within science, means that the boundaries between it and the humanities are crumbling.
[[Julia Ravanis]] in [[Skönheten i Kaos by Julia Ravanis]] is here said to argue that a way of moving past 'quantum mechanics does not make sense' is by letting go of default (visual) metaphors and using other metaphors that can embrace ambiguity. This sounds somewhat like [[Is het nieuwe uit te leggen in taal van het oude 20031104104340]] or even [[Avoid greedy reductionism 20041114065928]] accusation levelled here at Einstein.
Discussing the rol of phenomenology in quantum physics, and uncertainty/superposition of states/collapsing wave of probability aspects.
Harmonic Cosmic Ecology (HCE) 7.1 is here, introducing refined models and groundbreaking research paths! We're diving deeper into the fascinating realm of the Informational Gravity Hypothesis (IGH), quantum gravity, neutron star resonances, and the harmonic patterns that link cosmic and biological scales.
Highlights include:
Clarified and improved mathematical formalism for IGH, removing earlier speculative ULDM associations to strengthen theoretical rigor.
Enhanced empirical support via quantum simulations with NV centers, bridging quantum physics with gravitational research.
New testable predictions leveraging LIGO gravitational-wave data, particularly focusing on quasinormal modes (QNMs) in black hole mergers.
Join the discussion: We're continually refining this evolving framework, so your insights and feedback are invaluable. Let’s collaborate and explore how quantum information shapes our cosmic tapestry!
Next Steps: Expect further empirical validations, interdisciplinary integration, and detailed simulations to support these exciting hypotheses.
Thank you to everyone who’s been contributing to and supporting the growth of the Harmonic Cosmic Ecology project. Onward to new scientific horizons!
The Schwinger effect has been demonstrated. One can make 'something from nothing', at first glance because nothing is not an absence of everything.