Comments on: The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot: a book review http://dreaminglife.org/2007/03/14/the-holographic-universe-by-michael-talbot-a-book-review/ a blog exploring lucid dreaming, entheogens, metaphysics, & the conscious experience Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:16:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Rory http://dreaminglife.org/2007/03/14/the-holographic-universe-by-michael-talbot-a-book-review/#comment-42 Rory Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:17:20 +0000 http://dreaminglife.org/2007/03/14/the-holographic-universe-by-michael-talbot-a-book-review/#comment-42 I was going to mention that this is based on the physics of David Bohm. (Obviously that is already discussed) Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on "global realism" which is in opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation, which posits "that there is no deep reality" and that statistics truly rules the subatomic world. Global realism is an idea that attempts to contextualize the apparent weirdness of quantum mechanics as being symptomatic of our local, incomplete perceptual powers. Importantly, Bohm thinks pursuing a "theory of everything" is a chase down a rabbit hole. And with him on that I agree. The notion of describing completely the entire universe has logical obstacles. Bohm's arguments hinge on the Bell Inequality, which was a test of the Einstein Podolski Rosen Paradox (EPR) thought experiment. The Bell Inequality checks the phenomena known as quantum entanglement. There have been a number of experimental violations of the Bell inequalities to date. These violations are themselves subject to differing interpretations. All in all, there is a lot of debate on the subtleties of interpretation. It is definitely critical to understand the dispute in coming to a rational conclusion on the feasibility of Bohm's controversial ideas. I for one, intend to look into it, because I am very intrigued by Bohm's powerful synthesis of consciousness, physics, metaphysics, and philosophy. I haven't read Talbot's book, but I would suggest first reading Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order. ~Rory I was going to mention that this is based on the physics of David Bohm. (Obviously that is already discussed) Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on “global realism” which is in opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation, which posits “that there is no deep reality” and that statistics truly rules the subatomic world. Global realism is an idea that attempts to contextualize the apparent weirdness of quantum mechanics as being symptomatic of our local, incomplete perceptual powers. Importantly, Bohm thinks pursuing a “theory of everything” is a chase down a rabbit hole. And with him on that I agree. The notion of describing completely the entire universe has logical obstacles.

Bohm’s arguments hinge on the Bell Inequality, which was a test of the Einstein Podolski Rosen Paradox (EPR) thought experiment. The Bell Inequality checks the phenomena known as quantum entanglement. There have been a number of experimental violations of the Bell inequalities to date. These violations are themselves subject to differing interpretations.

All in all, there is a lot of debate on the subtleties of interpretation. It is definitely critical to understand the dispute in coming to a rational conclusion on the feasibility of Bohm’s controversial ideas. I for one, intend to look into it, because I am very intrigued by Bohm’s powerful synthesis of consciousness, physics, metaphysics, and philosophy.

I haven’t read Talbot’s book, but I would suggest first reading Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

~Rory

]]>