Infinite Potential

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

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

    Messages:
    12,451
    This seems to be just a fancy - and rather obscurantist - term for emergent phenomena. The physical states of water are emergent: they emerge from having a sufficient number of molecules together. Other emergent phenomena are bulk properties such as temperature or density, neither of which has any meaning in the context of a single molecule.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials) is an obscurantist definition?
    On the contrary, it helps in visualizing the initial implication of emergent phenomena before they become expressed and observable. To just say "emergent" does not address the inherent potentials contained in context of temperature and the pattern the molecules are arranged in.
    I would call your interpretation as "generalized" in context.

    Let me remind you that;
    a) the term "potential" is defined as "that which may become reality"
    b) the term "enfolded" was defined by Bohm as:
    Ink droplet analogy[edit]
    "enfolded".

    Also called "laminar flow"
    more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
    I believe that just echoes what I posted, no?
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2023
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    You, mate, suffer from a persistent confusion regarding the word "potential", as many of us have had occasion to point out. There are two main senses of that word in this context: the general one, which you are now employing, and the physics meaning, which is the way the energy associated with a field varies according to location, for example as in the diagrams I provided earlier in this thread. If you could keep these two distinct in your mind, we would all be a lot better off.

    The notion that the state "liquid" is somehow "enfolded", i.e. bound up and hidden away, waiting to be revealed, in a water molecule, is not only useless but counterproductive. The liquid state emerges from the interaction of large numbers of molecules, depending on their aggregate properties. It is impossible to know, from the properties of any one molecule alone, what state the material it is part of will be in.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    That is NOT what I posted. Read the entire post before you jump to conclusions.

    What you call aggregate properties, I identified as temperature and pattern density, IOW aggregate properties.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    On the contrary you wrote this: "All emergent phenomena start as enfolded orders (potentials)". And then you chose the phases of water as your first example.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yes, and how did I describe the emergent properties of large numbers of H2O molecules?
    I merely copied Tegmark's example of emergent states of large numbers of H2O molecules.

    But it seems to me that you only consider the term potential as a property that is immediately available such as electrical potential.
    I am using the term as I generally defined as: "that which may become reality" in context of the OP title
    "Infinite Potential", or the "enfolded universal order" from which all of reality emerges.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Then you did the right thing to copy his example of an emergent property, but took a wrong turn when you stated that all emergent properties are "enfolded". It's the enfolding bit I am taking issue with, as it makes no sense in the context of phases of water, as I have explained.

    Re "potential", no, I said in my previous post that both senses of the word (i.e. the literary and the physics meanings) are recognised. I use the word in both senses, too. But I know which sense I am employing and I make sure I do not mix the two of them up. Potential in the sense of your OP in this thread related to the infinite square wave potential used to confine the particle in a box. That is potential in the physics sense: the energy in a field that is a function of position (along the x-axis in that case). It is infinite because it is represented by two vertical lines extending up to infinity on either side of the box. That is highly artificial but simplifies the scenario (if it only extended to a finite height, then it would be possible for the particle to "tunnel "out of the box - and one does not want to confuse neophyte students with that at the beginning.) The Morse potential I gave you a picture of, that models the restoring force in a chemical bond when vibrations are excited in it, is a more real example, so again, the energy is a function of extension or compression of the bond along the x axis: energy that depends on position. So that too is a potential in the mathematical physics sense.

    That usage is far more narrowly specific - and mathematical - than potential in the literary sense, which just means that-which-has-the-capacity-to-be realised, e.g. "She has the potential to become President of France", or "This is a potential disaster".

    The problem is when a person starts flip-flopping between the two meanings. That invariably leads to nonsense. And that is where you were trying to go, in fact, in post 2, wanting to misinterpret the "infinite potential" of the particle in a box as some kind of mystical capacity in the real world, rather than a mere mathematical device, used in an artificial scenario for teaching purposes.
     
    James R likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    But you go from one extreme to another.

    I am merely quoting Websters

    po·ten·tial, adjective
    1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
      "a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers"

      Similar: possible, likely, prospective, future, probable, budding, in the making, latent, embryonic,
      inherent, unrealized, undeveloped.

    2. developing, dormant, noun
    1. 1. latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.

      Similar: possibilities, potentiality, prospects, promise, capability, capacity, ability, power, aptitude,
      talent, flair, what it takes
    And of course: Potential.
    1. PHYSICS
      the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
      "a change in gravitational potential"
    With greatest respect for the application of the term in physics, my use of the generalized definition is perfectly appropriate in the abstract context of "that which may become reality" or "Infinite Potential" as David Bohm used it in Bohmian Mechanics.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2023
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I am not disputing that.

    As I have explained, the issue is when you flip-flop between the physics usage and this general literary usage, as you started to do in post 2, by following the particle in a box potential with a video about "infinite potential" in the literary sense.

    That, as I say, leads to nonsense. There is zero connection between the two.

    But this is a loop we have been round before. I doubt you will understand the point this time either.

    So it's now "Over and out" from me.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yes , but that was not to demonstrate the behavior of photons , but to ask the question if a photon has infinite potential to stay in motion.

    In any case, thanks for your considered responses. I do learn from these productive exchanges.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2023
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I completely agree with exchemist's comments, but just for emphasis...
    That is the ordinary, everyday meaning of "potential", which nobody disputes.
    That's a layman definition that roughly captures two usages of the word "potential" in Physics. It is not completely accurate, but it points in vaguely the right direction. Of course, it's hard to be completely accurate without including some equations and the like; we're talking about physics, after all. The language of physics is math, at least to some extent. Things often don't translate clearly if you just stick to English.
    Was Bohm talking in vague generalities about the common usage of the word "potential", then? I thought his Bohmian mechanics was an actual attempt at a physical theory. If so, then I'm sure he would have used "potential" in the physics sense, not in the vague New Age sense in which you want to use it. It is possible, of course, that at some point Bohm himself lost touch with science and drifted to the sort of vague wishy-washy pseudoscience you seem to most enjoy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2023
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Translating...

    Perhaps you're asking in layman terms:

    "Does a photon have or show an infinite capacity to stay in motion into the future?"

    The answer to that would appear to be "yes", although the word "infinite" in there is a complete mystery that really needs explanation before a definite answer can be given.

    Alternatively, you're attempting to ask a physics question:

    "Does a photon have infinite energy when it stays in motion?"

    The answer to that is a clear "No, it doesn't."

    Since the answer in the first case is a qualified "yes", while the answer in the second case is a definite "no", you might start to see why it's important to be clear about your usage of a word like "potential". You also might start to think about what you actually mean when you use a word like "infinite" as a qualified to a word like "potential". If you don't mean anything in particular, but you're just vaguely trying to convey a sense of wonder at the big wide universe, or something New Agey like that, then you're probably not talking about science at all.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I can't trace any evidence that Bohm used the term infinite potential (apart from in its mathematical physics sense). I suspect it may be something other people have imputed to him.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    This is what I found.

    Infinite Energy Potential

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, "quantized" wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea." - David Bohm

    https://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential.html

    I cannot see any distinction in "meaning" of any use and application of the term "potential".

    In any context, the term potential has a common denominator of "a latent excellence that may become reality".
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2023
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    OK so you have not found an instance of Bohm using the expression "infinite potential" either.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    You're right, so far no luck.
    But getting close.
    https://besharamagazine.org/metaphysics-spirituality/david-bohm-infinite-potential-paul-howard/

    But where Bohm did use the term "potential" I have no doubt that he knew what he was talking about and used the term in the proper context. There is even an equation named "Bohm potential"

    Quantum potential
    Quantum potential

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Ah yes. cosmometry.net. That well-known archive of Bohm's writings and a trusted authority on physics in general.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why you would cite this an example of Bohm using the term "infinite potential" is a mystery. But then again, you are accustomed to responding to specific questions and challenges with completely irrelevant things.
    This is what happens when you make no effort to learn the difference between science pseudoscience.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Frankly, I could not care less about the term "infinite potential". I didn't invent it and to me it is meaningless, other than Bohm's "Quantum Potential" that apparently is so large that it might as well be infinite as far as human science is concerned.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why you should select my informal citation of someone else's term for a very large number as an item for debate is a mystery to me. Are you saying that regardless of my perspective, Bohm's "quantum potential " is not science?
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Well, you brought it into this conversation.

    So I guess we won't be hearing any more about "infinite potential" from you in future, then?
    That's one clue that ought to be a red flag to warn you that cosmometry.net is bunk.

    A number like \(10^{94}\), or whatever, is nowhere near infinite. Human science has some understanding of what infinite actually means; I'm not so sure about cosmometry.net.
    You made it an item for debate, in your conversation with exchemist and (later) myself.

    As you so often do, you wanted to mash together a New Age meaning of the term "potential" with a technical meaning from science, to pretend that there is no meaningful distinction to make between the two. And here you are, trying to pretend that there's no meaningful distinction to make between the actually infinite and the reasonably-large-but-finite.
    Certainly, Bohm's quantum potential either is or is not science, regardless of your perspective.

    Unless you give me a suitable context, I'm not in a position to adjudicate on whether Bohm used the term "quantum potential" in a scientific or pseudoscientific sense. He might have even done both, in different contexts. You'd have to give me some specifics.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    No, I accepted that a photon does stay in motion

    Of course if capacity to stay in motion into the future is not forever, then that begs the question how long it can stay in motion. If it does stay in motion forever, then that would imply an infinite potential to do so, no?

    In relation to the term "infinite potential", this was the actual question I posed to the forum:
    What is so obscure and difficult to understand about that?

    So far the answer is; "it would appear so" which to me sounds very tentative and not much more informative than my question .

    Why do you always have to complicate a simple question? You either know the answer or you don't.
    There is no need to unpack the question and look for hidden variables (Bohm)....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2023
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page