[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

There is no such thing as independent levels of existence

Bohm meant interdependence not independence.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

that behind all "objective reality" lies mind?

In his later life, Bohm was studying the connection of mind to objective reality as the interconnection of subjective reality and his concepts of explicate order and implicate order. The implicate order is equivalent to holism while explicate order is the same as determinism. His experiment was the ink drop experiment which shows their dynamic interrelationship.

[dleviwing]

David Bohm's ideas in quantum physics were more philosophical than scientific. The interdependent systems referred to in QM is what we call "Worlds" and is a collection of independent objects and not levels of existence. An atom is a World system that consists of other world systems in the form of neutrons and protons.

[subversion]

the experiment you tell us about Michael demonstrates the unity of everything. This shows us that fundamentally everything can be considered as one thing, and hence the hypocracy of considering one thing bad and another thing good. For fairness, everything must be either considered a completely good thing or a completley bad thing, and I think your experiment you mentioned demonstrates this nicely.

[harmonygirl]

Once again Sub, you are oversimplifying. Just because everything is one, doesn't mean that parts of the whole are "good" or "bad" or that the whole was once "good" but now is "bad" or that it is ever completely one thing or the other. If you define something as a characteristic, you NECESSARILY define its absence. Interconnectedness does not mean unity of existence or experience.

[subversion]

Once again harmony, you don't realize that my oversimplification is right, and that the THeory of Everything is the absolute oversimplification of everything. So really oversimplified is an improper word to use. More like, perfectly simplified.

Allow me to explain again. The universe was never bad. The universe cannot change from bad to good. The universe has the same intrinsic value as it did when it was first born, and this is unchanging. It is just a merit we give it.

So I think you misunderstand me. I never said that parts of the whole are good or bad, that's just the opposite of what I said. And I never said that the universe was once bad but now is good, that is the opposite of what I said. Do you read me? The merit that we give the universe should be unchanging and the same no matter where we look. Otherwise we are not being scientific. ANd yes, the universe is always completely one thing, itself.

I understand the part about opposites. Since everything exists, nothing exists (or rather, does not exist). Since I am defining everything as being a good thing overall, then nothing is a bad thing overall (or rather, does not exist). You can have everything be a good thing and nothing be a bad thing and the definition and integrity of both values is still entirely upheld. Do you see what I mean?

One more question, how is it that interconnectedness does not imply unity? What definition are you using?

[harmonygirl]

Sub, if you are truly talking about everything, the terms good and bad have no meaning. This doesn't mean however, that parts of it have to be completely good or completely bad. My exact words were "interconnectedness does not mean unity of existence or experience.", not that it doesn't mean unity. If we are one, does this mean that we are all having the same experience? Of course not. If we are one, does it mean we all exist in the same way? Of course not. This is the complexity that I think you are overlooking.

[hanzoganz]

In science we have to differentiate what a scientist believes and what he can prove. This are totally different things. The duality of the particles and the communication between each other is proved. The dialogues with Krishnamurti are beliefs, intuitions, very fascinating, indeed.
The universe as a hologram is an interesting theory. From the point of view of Dynamical Systems, it makes sense, `cause a system is more than the sum of their parts and taking a look at one of the parts that form the whole, one can aprehend some truths from the whole thing.

[SinJin]

I'm not sure if someone mentioned this, or if it has anything to do with the original post, but I remember reading somewhere that the total entropy of a black hole relies only on the surface area of the blackhole, and not the volume. I don't know if this is correct (I read it a while ago) or even makes sense. BUT... I remember reading in relation to this that if surface area is the only thing that counts, then the volume (or perhaps area) of something could be an illusion, thus pointing to a holographic universe.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by SinJin

I'm not sure if someone mentioned this, or if it has anything to do with the original post, but I remember reading somewhere that the total entropy of a black hole relies only on the surface area of the blackhole, and not the volume. I don't know if this is correct (I read it a while ago) or even makes sense. BUT... I remember reading in relation to this that if surface area is the only thing that counts, then the volume (or perhaps area) of something could be an illusion, thus pointing to a holographic universe.

Sinjin,That is a very interesting observation,maybe it could provide a
pointer in the right direction.

regards michael.