Infinite Potential

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Write4U, Mar 22, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You still don't see the point I was making. This is typical of a plutocratic system, which unfortunately has emerged from an established group of elites clinging to their power structure. Admittedly, the potential for such human emotional investments exists, regardless of scientific truths.

    Democracy and plutocracy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Strangely, I have been accused of presenting too much evidence in support of a new and developing science.

    Therefore, regardless of what earthbound scientists choose to call it, universal potential like energy, remains constant and independent of scientific judgement or expression. Especially if scientific expression consists of tedious bickering about tediously boring conceptual expresssions. God, you're boring!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What is "atomic weight" about?

    atomic weight (relative atomic mass)

    And in anthropomorphic relational terms,

    And as we have established previously, all physical objects have enfolded potentials that may or may not become expressed in reality individually, in sets, or in toto.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2023
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    My my. What a drama queen.

    Your complaint that your beautiful thread on infinite potential and Bohm's implicate orders has been unfairly sullied by off-topic posts on a topic that doesn't interest you is quite fair.

    I have moved the off-topic posts to a separate thread.

    Instead of throwing a hissy fit, next time please consider just asking that the off-topic posts be moved. There's really no call for all that drama.
    I have to wonder whether you followed enough of that discussion to understand what it was about. But never mind. You have this thread, now cleared of all the junk. You're almost the only participant, but that has never stopped you blathering on about your pet topics before.

    By your own admission, you're in no position to judge what is or isn't nonsense, since you weren't paying attention.
    I apologise for the off-topic posts. They have now been moved to their own thread.

    (See how I self-regulated, there? You might like to try that, some time.)
    What happened in this thread was that I responded on-topic to you, and - in passing - suggested that you needed to let go of the notion of energy as being like a substance. That was a response to you, on topic, in direct response to something you wrote. But then arfa brane jumped in and wanted to revive a done-and-dusted argument that I had had with him previously about energy. Thereafter, the conversational strands diverged. And - let's face it - by that time most readers had already lost interest in your topic anyway.

    Having said that, it remains true that my discussions with arfa were off topic, and it is perfectly reasonable for you to want them moved out of the thread you started. So, I've done that.

    In contrast, you have a long history of trying to inject your two or three pet topics into just about any thread, taking little effort to make only the most tenuous of links to the actual thread topic. I am aware that you're making a big issue of this because you feel that if I'm in the wrong, then you must somehow be in the right. That is not the case. My off-topic posts don't excuse your off-topic posts. Those are separate matters.
    Heh. Ironic.
    Are you referring to me, or somebody else?
    One of the most prolific mindless-cut-and-pasters. Possibly rivalled only by Magical Realist at the present time.
    Grab your dictionary. Look up "plutocratic". I don't think it means what you think it means.
    By whom? Where?
    That sentence doesn't make any sense.
    Actually, as has been pointed out to you many times previously, scientists tend to use language in ways that are broadly conventional and agreed.

    You appear to be the outlier in this, not the scientists.
    If it bores you, don't read it! Don't be a drama queen.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Oh good! We can expect an absence of drivel from you, then, I hope.
    I thought it was about what a great guy Bohm was and how there is infinite potential, or something.

    Are you sure you're posting on topic?
    We've already covered your problematic usages of the word "potential". Please review the thread; there are only a few pages, now that the off-topic posts are gone.

    Scientists do not use the word "potential" to mean "an abstract mathematical quantity that may become expressed as a real-world object". That's in no science books.
    Real physicists would describe the energy transfers in that system as involving a conversation of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy and then to useful work.

    All that guff about "enfolded variable potential" is word salad.
    Where is the abstract mathematical quantity that becomes expressed as a real-world object, in your example?
    Don't be rude.

    If you believe there's something wrong in something I wrote, explain where the error lies. Don't just hurl insults. That's what arfa does, and it just makes him look like a dick. Don't join him. Try to do better.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Plutocracy? Have you got access to members’ net worth, suddenly? If not, why are blithering about plutocracy?

    Or is this just another sign that you are losing your grip on what words mean?

    The subject of plutocracy vs. democracy is off-topic for this thread, by the way, introduced by you.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What? I hurl insults? That is truly ballsy of you.
    What? I hurl insults. That is truly ballsy of you.

    You do not ask me to move an off topic post. You just banish me from the royal court. That is your style. Princely!
    I don't throw hissy fits, you do!

    Anyway, it is clear that you have no idea what I am talking about and are unwilling to seek clarification before you issue a verdict of being guilty of scientific ignorance, which you have expressed numerous times in all my posts, just because I don't necessarily use scientific jargon, or complicated and impressive equations that prove my deep understanding of physics.

    Even in my example of the mountain-lake you fail to understand that the lake does not need to do anything at all to possess the potential for energy production. This latent ability is inherent (enfolded) in the spacetime coordinates (field) of that lake's water relative to anything that is located closer to the center of earth's gravity.

    If you did know this already, why not admit that I am right instead of accusing me that I don't know what being right even means. You do not discuss issues. You reject them outright as being non-scientific as if you are qualified to make such grandiose declarations.

  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is not what I do! That is what you and a few others do. The little club that acts in the manner of a plutocracy where a small elite clique rules the fiefdom.
    Don't you see the prejudicial adversarial attitude in your "subjective" considerations of what I am saying?

    If not, then clearly, you have no other interpretation of potential than in context of physics as exchemist seems to be restricted to. The term is so much grander in scope :

    And then there is universal potential at a deeper enfolded level which seems to have infinite ability to express itself.

    While not all potential becomes reality, all reality was, is, and will be preceded by potential.

    Bohm's vision included the concept of determinism itself as reliant on a prior potential enfolded order prior to becoming expressed from the most subtle to gross expression in physical reality.
    David Bohm, Implicate Order and Holomovement

    @ exchemist,
    if you believe the universe is infinite, then it has infinite potential, regardless who states that equation. That's just trivia.

    Evolution is an expression of Potential.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    What equation? And concerning what potential?
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Your claiming that the discussion of entities vs attributes I was having with arfa was "nonsense" was just an insult. I know you intended it that way, because you made no attempt to explain how or why you consider it nonsense. The fact is: you haven't thought about it. Maybe you haven't even read over that discussion. You just wanted to insult me by making the silly claim that I post nonsense.

    This is straight out of arfa's playbook: saying that because you don't understand something, or because it doesn't make sense to you, it must be nonsense - without making any effort to understand what it's even about.

    It reflects as poorly on you as it does on him.
    Despite your pretence at ignorance, there is a history to this, and you know it.

    Back in the mists of time, when you first started trying to pollute every thread with your ideas, I politely asked you to stop doing that. You didn't stop. I then created a few threads specifically dedicated to your pet topics, and politely requested that you post in those threads rather than spamming lots of unrelated threads with your obsessions. Your behaviour did not change; you continued to post off-topic in many threads, almost invariably about the three pet topics that seem to be the only things you want to discuss on sciforums: microtubules, Max Tegmark worship and Bohm worship, roughly categorised.

    As a moderator, I cannot allow you to dominate discussions by steering them always to your pet topics. It distracts from the topics introduced by opening posters, if nothing else. It is also a breach of our long-standing posting guidelines.

    With your insistence on doing the wrong thing, time and again, it became necessary to get out the big stick and issue you with some official warnings. The point of such warnings is to get you to reflect on inappropriate behaviour and to make appropriate changes to post within our guidelines. You did not do that. You continue to try injecting your pet topics into threads where they are off topic.

    The current situation is that you're a repeat offender in posting off-topic irrelevancies. Our moderators' response to problematic posters such as yourself is to esclate the warnings slightly, because you have made yourself a drain on moderator time and effort, requiring constant policing and demanding constant attention from the moderators, who act on behalf of the general membership.

    Any bans you have incurred are due to your own actions. Instead of complaining about being "banished", you should alter your behaviour to comply with the posting guidelines you agreed to when you signed up as member here. If you cannot do that, then you have some choices: you can continue going along as you are, and wear the inevitable bans - possibly getting yourself permanently banned at some stage - or you can leave and go preach your stuff somewhere more amenable to your behaviours.

    This should all be obvious. You shouldn't need me to explain this to you. Besides, I have done it all before with you.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I believe I have some idea of what you're talking about. The issues I have pointed out are clear in your posts.

    I have not asked you for equations.

    It puzzles me as to why you don't seem to care about how words are used in science, while you simultaneously say you have a deep interest in science. If you were really interested in what science has to say about things, I would have thought that you'd want to learn the technical meanings of some of the scientific terms you keep using. I find it quite strange that, apparently, you don't want to learn those things. Instead, you seem content to just make up your own meanings, or just write word-salad posts with borrowed terms that you probably think make your ideas sound more "sciency".

    I know what response to expect from you on this. You will trot out some online dictionary definitions and claim that, because you're able to cut and paste such things, therefore you have a deep understanding of what you're talking about. Or, you'll cut and paste random pieces from some scientific articles you don't understand and claim that they speak for you, in effect. You'll complain "but I post heaps of scientific articles! That makes me just like a scientist! Your problem is that you're jealous that you don't understand these articles the way I do!"

    And, you will continue to fail to acknowledge that such apologetics don't change the fact that you don't understand the technical words you use, half the time.

    If you really wanted to learn, you wouldn't be wasting your time pretending to have this deep understanding of your pet topics. You'd ask some questions. You'd want to talk to people who know some of the science you're interested in, and get them to explain some of it to you.
    I understand what gravitational potential energy is. I understand, for example, that it's not a property of the mountain lake, alone, but is actually a property of the larger system that includes, in the end, the entire mass of the Earth. I understand that the potential energy (of any kind) is actually configuration energy. In the case of your mountain lake, the relevant part of the configuration of the lake-earth system is the height of the lake above sea level.

    I think that all that stuff about latent ability and enfolding is pseudoscience talk. It's just a bunch of fancy words that don't really mean anything much, apart from being fancy language for some pretty low-level, common-experience notions about the world. I think they do nothing to help us understand the physical system of water flowing from a mountain lake into a hydroelectric generator.

    Be real, Write4U. Comparing your level of understanding t0 mine on this is no contest.

    Go right ahead. Complain about my oversized ego and my arrogance and my overconfidence if you like. You probably want to. You won't be the first to throw a fit when he discovers that somebody else is more educated in something than you are.

    Lacking knowledge is not a problem. Nobody is an expert on everything. But overestimating your own knowledge or ability is a well-documented problem. Experts are experts for a reason. It isn't just because they have a piece of paper.
    I have all the qualifications I need to make reasonable judgments on such things. I might not always get it right. I'm not infallible. That's why I'm always happy to learn from any mistakes I make. And I'm always happy to hear other points of view. How about you?
    I thought you wanted to have a discussion about science. I thought that it was your opinion that Bohm's implicate potentials were a scientific theory, or something.

    I am quite conversant with the everyday meaning of the word "potential", I assure you. I don't need 10 random online dictionary definitions thrown my way to understand that meaning.
    This is where you go all Deepak Chopra on us, and start trotting out the Tao of Physics and Bohm's more mystical ideas about the universe. None of that stuff is science.

    Univeral potential? What does that even mean? It's just fancy words.
    Enfolded levels? Give me a break.
    Infinite ability to express itself? I wish you had infinite ability to express yourself, instead of just the ability to discuss the same 3 pseudoscientific pet topics ad nauseam.

    That's what's called a "deepity" - a term coined by philosopher Daniel Dennett. Look it up.

    I think Bohm was off with the fairies on that part of his "vision". The term "vision" ought to give you some sort of hint, on its own. At some point, it looks like he parted ways with science.

    That's word salad.

    What does "infinite potential" even mean?

    But wait! I tried discussing this with you back on page 1 of this thread, and got nothing of any substance from you. I don't think even you know what it's supposed to mean.

    Meaningless word salad.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Look at this, from earlier in this thread.
    What qualities would they be? Well let's see where you go from here.
    This is not a definition from physics. It is just a vaguely-defined common usage of the word "potential".

    This means that your answer to my original question should have been "I'm referring to a lay meaning of the word", with the caveat that if, perchance, the technical physics meaning (whatever that might be) happens to share any nuance of meaning with the lay definition, then you're referring to that shared meaning. But essentially, this just comes down to you just using your lay person understanding of the term.

    Where do you go from here? You get out the bowl and extract a whole paragraph of word salad:
    The term "probabilistic implicate" is now used to qualify (clarify?) the term "potential", for some reason. I have no idea what "probabilistic implicate" might mean, or how it might relate to "that which might become reality".

    You talk about potential becoming expressed in reality. Is that the same as potential becoming real, or does it mean something different?

    That's followed by what appear to be unrelated claims about something Bohm supposedly wrote/said about something else that is undefined by you.

    What is a "relational quantum mechanical interaction"? What other kinds of quantum mechanical interactions are there? What would a non-relational quantum mechanical interaction look like? Can you give a simple example of either of these categories?

    What's an "enfolded potential"? What does "enfold" mean, in this context? How can we tell when something is "enfolded", in the relevant sense? Is there a test of some kind that we can use?

    The statement "all expressed reality will be ... proceded by potential" is tautological, given that "potential" was previously defined to be anything that might eventually become real. It seems unnecessary to restate this.

    What is "gross physical reality"? How many other kinds of reality are there? Can you list any non-gross ones?

    What does "alternately unfolding and enfolding..." mean? Tell me how a potential can fold and unfold. What does that even mean? Previously, you defined "potential" as "that which may become reality", so I guess if you want to get unnecessarily flowery with your language you could say that the potential "unfolds" into a reality. But how can it then re-fold or "enfold" itself, after it has unfolded? And how can this folding/enfolding and unfolding happen "alternately"? What does the word "alternately" even mean, in that sentence? Is it describing some kind of repetitive process? What?

    What does "at the surface of a deeper plenum" mean? What's this "plenum" thing you've suddenly introduced into the paragraph? What is it deeper than? What's does a shallow plenum look like?

    This plenum has a surface and ... a volume, perhaps? What are they? Where can we see this plenum and its surface? Does this actually mean anything?

    "... of infinite pure potential" can only mean "of infinite pure that which may become reality", given your previous definition. How do you judge the purity of a "that which may become reality"? What's an example of an impure potential?

    What does it mean for "pure potential" to be "infinite"? In what sense is potential infinite? Are impure potentials finite? What are you talking about?

    "... from which discrete patterns emerge (quantum foam?)". Are some patterns indiscrete? What are you saying about patterns? Can you give me some examples of discrete and non-discrete patterns?

    How can a "discrete pattern" "unfold" from a "pure potential"? What's the mechanism, the process? How can we tell that's what's happening? And what happens when that potential "enfolds" again, in the next cycle or whatever?

    What is quantum foam? Is it connected in some way to "discrete patterns" that emerge from "pure potential"? How so? Does the question mark you added after "quantum foam?" indicate that you lost track of what you were trying to say, there, or that you're uncertain, or what?

    Let's count the number of jargon words in that paragraph alone:

    "This means that while not all potential (probabilistic implicate) becomes expressed in reality, all expressed reality past present and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential. This is what Bohm identified as the relational quantum mechanical interactions of the most subtle enfolded potentials becoming unfolded in gross physical reality, alternately unfolding and enfolding at the surface of a deeper plenum of infinite pure potential from which discrete patterns emerge (quantum foam?)"

    Wow. 27 bits of jargon in one short paragraph, and that's not even counting all the repeats.

    I particular like the chutzpah that was necessary for you to start that paragraph with "This means..." Because, after we break it all down, it turns out that there's not a lot of meaning to be found in that paragraph. It's just words - term after term of ill-defined or undefined jargon. A mish-mash of stuff that sounds vaguely sciency, but says nothing.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, if you bothered to follow the thrust of the argument, you would have no problem following my choice of words.
    Well that was some of the jargon used by David Bohm, who was a lot more knowledgeable physicist than you are. Perhaps you lack sufficient knowledge of the jargon used by the greatest physicists.
    Here we go again. You don't know what the term"infinite potential" implies?
    Have you even tried?
    You don't find it curious that an entire movie dedicated to David Bohm is titled "Infinite Potential".
    You don't think that the use of that title had some careful consideration, or do you believe it is all pseudo-science, not worth a second thought?
    Yes, I got that. You advised me that infinite is really big, as if you were talking to a 4 year old.

    Well here is the abstract of the movie titled "Infinite Potential"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Join us on an incredible journey into the nature of life and Reality with David Bohm, the man Einstein called his “spiritual son” and the Dalai Lama his “science guru”. A brilliant physicist, Bohm got the attention of the greatest minds in science, including Robert Oppenheimer, who became his thesis advisor.

    Why don't you spend 2:30 minutes to get a glimpse of what this is all about.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    While you were writing you post above, I posted post #71. I just want to draw that to your attention, so you don't miss it.
    See post #71 for some of the problems I have identified with your choice of words.
    I don't know what you mean by it.

    Are you able to define that term succinctly, or not?
    No, it doesn't surprise me. I think that Bohm has/had a fan base that has attracted some of the same people who think Deepak Chopra is a profound genius. They think that because he uses sciency words like "quantum" a lot, but also refers to mystical big-picture stuff about the universe, which acts like a sort of bridge to people who want their religion to seem sciency.
    Well, I'm giving it some second thoughts.

    I read some stuff by Bohm many years ago. He did quite a bit of respectable science, for sure, but my impression is that - probably in his later years - he may have drifted off onto the fringe between science and pseudoscience. A bit like Tegmark, although Tegmark is still publishing mainstream science along with his pseudoscience stuff, as far as I can tell.
    It wasn't clear that you were aware that infinite doesn't just mean "really big". I'm still not sure you're aware of that.
    The promotional blurb, you mean.
    I might take a look, later. I don't expect it will help in our discussion.

    I'm not completely unaware of who Bohm was or what his work was about, you know.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You cannot see that all uses of the term have a common denominator? There you go. I do.
    It is not complicated. The common denominator in all uses of the term potential is "an unexpressed excellence that may become reality". Now that wasn't so difficult was it?
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps the limitation is yours?
    Most of those terms were used by Bohm himself. Maybe that's what got him banned ?
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Okay, Write4U. I watched your ad for the Bohm movie.

    It starts off badly, referring to an "invisible field" that supposedly pervades the universe. Later, this is referred to, vaguely, as Bohm's "quantum potential". There's a lot of guff about how it supposedly implies a deep mystical interconnectedness among all things in the universe.

    There are lots of expressions of admiration for Bohm from non-scientists, like the Dalai Lama and some artist guy or other.

    The thing that really sets the pseudoscience alarm bells ringing, though, is all the stuff about how the evil scientific "establishment" supposedly conspired to suppress Bohm's revolutionary views, because - as usual - they threatened the scientific orthodoxy too much and were just too dangerous for the establish to allow people to find out about them. But then again, there's this whole documentary being advertised which is all about Bohm and his views. If there was a grand conspiracy, it seems like it didn't work as planned.

    The simple truth is that Bohm's work was published in the usual way, through the usual channels, and was never suppressed, censored or anything like that. His books are readily available in university libraries and the like. His journal articles are available for anybody to download and peruse. The scientific community never "cancelled" him.

    Of course, the blurb describes Bohm as a "maverick" with "revolutionary" ideas, which is supposed to endear us all to him. He was fighting the good fight against The Man. Bohm for the little guy! Bohm's our man! Oh yeah, and somebody said "quantum". That's deep.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Indulge me, what is your interpretation of the term "potential"?
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I can. I already covered that point.
    With the term "unexpressed excellence", you're merely substituting one thing you haven't adequate defined for another thing you also haven't adequately defined.
    Nah, I don't think so.

    If you understood the meaning of that word salad you posted, you'd be able to explain it. Instead, you just assert that it has some actual meaning, without demonstrating any.
    Banned from what? Banned by whom?

    What are you talking about?
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Clearly, you missed the depth of Bohm's intellect. Einstein and Oppenheimer seemed to appreciate it!
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Lay definition: potential means having qualities or abilities that may lead to future success or usefulness.

    Physics definition: "potential" typically refers to potential energy per unit charge or potential energy per unit mass, or similar. Potential energy is configuration energy, which means that the energy is determined in some way by the relative positions of elements in a physical system.

    Of course, other usages and definitions are possible and valid.

    Anything else I can help you with?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page