Infinite Potential

[Write4U]

You’ve brought it all on yourself, but you fail to see it, even though it has been explained to you countless times.

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

Science is not a popularity contest or a democracy. Scientists don’t vote on whether or not to accept a scientific idea, but neither is science authoritarian. In science, evidence — not a supreme leader or popular opinion — determines which ideas are accepted. Scientific ideas are judged based on the evidence supporting or contradicting them. Even a hypothesis that is appealing to many scientists will be rejected if it is not supported by evidence.

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

Though scientists don’t vote on the validity of scientific ideas, they are sometimes asked to vote on other issues in science, like terminology. In 2006, for example, astronomers in the International Astronomers Union voted on what sort of heavenly bodies should be considered planets. This vote dealt with how to use a particular scientific term — not with the validity of a scientific idea (e.g., the reason that planets orbit stars, the path of Pluto, or its size). The much-publicized outcome of this lexical debate ended up demoting Pluto from its status as a planet. But the real science here — Pluto itself, its movement, history, and future — remains unchanged by whatever earthbound astronomers choose to call it.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/democracy-and-plutocracy/

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!

 

[Write4U]

What I said was, we have this concept of the mass of atoms because atoms have mass, They have always had mass, it doesn't depend on human minds. That's just crazy talk.

What is "atomic weight" about?

atomic weight (relative atomic mass)

Written by: H. Steffen Peiser, Edward Wichers
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Last Updated: Article History
Key People: Jöns Jacob Berzelius John Dalton Stanislao Cannizzaro Amedeo Avogadro Auguste Laurent
Related Topics: atom physical atomic-weight scale chemical atomic-weight scale Prout’s hypothesis
...(Show more)
See all related content →

atomic weight, also called relative atomic mass, ratio of the average mass of a chemical element’s atoms to some standard.

And in anthropomorphic relational terms,

Since 1961 the standard unit of atomic mass has been one-twelfth the mass of an atom of the isotope carbon-12. An isotope is one of two or more species of atoms of the same chemical element that have different atomic mass numbers (protons + neutrons). The atomic weight of helium is 4.002602, the average that reflects the typical ratio of natural abundances of its isotopes. Atomic weight is measured in atomic mass units (amu), also called daltons. See below for a list of chemical elements and their atomic weights.

The concept of atomic weight is fundamental to chemistry, because most chemical reactions take place in accordance with simple numerical relationships among atoms. Since it is almost always impossible to count the atoms involved directly, chemists measure reactants and products by weighing and reach their conclusions through calculations involving atomic weights. The quest to determine the atomic weights of elements occupied the greatest chemists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Their careful experimental work became the key to chemical science and technology.

https://www.britannica.com/science/atomic-weight

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.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

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 can no longer bear all this drivel about the color of roses and if mass can be bottled. This is not a discussion on floral arrangements.

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.

Enjoy!

Forget the trying to force roses into bottles nonsense.

By your own admission, you're in no position to judge what is or isn't nonsense, since you weren't paying attention.

In fact, one of the forum's moderators was probably the greatest offender and should be disciplined for his transgression.

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.)

This is typical of your hypocrisy. You expect to be able to post anything in my threads without penalty while I am being punished for the slightest reference to my pet subjects in other's threads, even if they are pertinent to the topic in some way. None of those post were designed to hijack anything, but to contribute to the topic from a different perspective.

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.

You don't see me complain, do you?

Heh. Ironic.

I am complaining now about the prejudicial treatment of one poster without the standards applying to all the darlings that grace this thread with their profound off-topic knowledge and insights.

Are you referring to me, or somebody else?

I am one of the most prolific contributors of scientific material to this forum ...

One of the most prolific mindless-cut-and-pasters. Possibly rivalled only by Magical Realist at the present time.

You still don't see the point I was making. This is typical of a plutocratic system...

Grab your dictionary. Look up "plutocratic". I don't think it means what you think it means.

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

By whom? Where?

Therefore, regardless of what earthbound scientists choose to call it, universal potential like energy, remains constant and independent of scientific judgement or expression.

That sentence doesn't make any sense.

Especially if scientific expression consists of tedious bickering about tediously boring conceptual expresssions.

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.

God, you're boring!

If it bores you, don't read it! Don't be a drama queen.

 

[James R]

I can no longer bear all this drivel about the color of roses and if mass can be bottled.

Oh good! We can expect an absence of drivel from you, then, I hope.

The subject is Potential or "That inherent (excellence) which may become reality".

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?

Note that not all potential does become reality. Hence the term "may".
It indicates an abstract mathematical quality that may become expressed as a real-world object.
This is Bohm's "Enfolded Implicate" that may become the "Unfolded Explicate".

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.

Let me make this unambiguously clear with a real-world example.
Inasmuch as a mountain lake has no particular energetic properties, it does possess an "enfolded" variable potential for the production of energy. This ability can become expressed dependent on the difference in elevation between the lake and a lake-fed energy-producing mechanism.
When we attach a pipe to the lake and attach this pipe to a turbine generator 300 feet below the lake, the gravitational force on the "falling" water produces a kinetic force that can drive the turbine and generate a certain considerable amount of electricity.

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.

Now there is a real-world example of Potential as "That (excellence) which may become reality"

Where is the abstract mathematical quantity that becomes expressed as a real-world object, in your example?

Forget the trying to force roses into bottles nonsense.

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.

 

[exchemist]

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

Strangely, I have been accused of presenting too much evidence in support of a new and developing science.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/democracy-and-plutocracy/

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!

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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

If you believe there's something wrong in something I wrote, explain where the error lies. Don't just hurl insults.

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.

Water potential is the potential energy of water per unit volume relative to pure water in reference conditions. Water potential quantifies the tendency of water to move from one area to another due to osmosis,
gravity, mechanical pressure and matrix effects such as capillary action (which is caused by surface tension). The concept of water potential has proved useful in understanding and computing water movement within plants,
animals, and soil. Water potential is typically expressed in potential energy per unit volume and very often is represented by the Greek letter ψ.

Water potential integrates a variety of different potential drivers of water movement, which may operate in the same or different directions. Within complex biological systems, many potential factors may be operating simultaneously. For example, the addition of solutes lowers the potential (negative vector), while an increase in pressure increases the potential (positive vector). If the flow is not restricted, water will move from an area of higher water potential to an area that is lower potential. A common example is water with dissolved salts, such as seawater or the fluid in a living cell. These solutions have negative water potential, relative to the pure water reference. With no restriction on flow, water will move from the locus of greater potential (pure water) to the locus of lesser (the solution); flow proceeds until the difference in potential is equalized or balanced by another water potential factor, such as pressure or elevation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_potential

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.

continued.....

 

[Write4U]

.....continued

If you believe there's something wrong in something I wrote, explain where the error lies. Don't just hurl insults.

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 :

Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.

The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]

That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge. Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]

In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained.

Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential. In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, and standard electrode potential.
In thermodynamics, the term potential often refers to thermodynamic potential.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement

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.

“Space is not empty. It’s full. It is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves” – David Bohm

David Bohm, Implicate Order and Holomovement

The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultra-holistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal “detailed information about every other element in the universe.” The central underlying theme of Bohm’s theory is the “unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders.”

During the early 1980s Bohm developed his theory of the Implicate Order in order to explain the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Behavior that quantum physicists have not been able to explain. Basically, two subatomic particles that have once interacted can instantaneously

“respond to each other’s motions thousands of years later when they are light-years apart.”

This sort of particle interconnectedness requires superluminal signaling, which is faster than the speed of light. This odd phenomenon is called the EPR effect, named after the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment.

Bohm believes that the bizarre behavior of the subatomic particles might be caused by unobserved subquantum forces and particles. Indeed, the apparent weirdness might be produced by hidden means that pose no conflict with ordinary ideas of causality and reality.

Bohm believes that this “hiddeness” may be reflective of a deeper dimension of reality. He maintains that space and time might actually be derived from an even deeper level of objective reality. This reality he calls the Implicate Order. Within the Implicate Order everything is connected; and, in theory, any individual element could reveal information about every other element in the universe.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfolding

 

[exchemist]

.....continued
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 :
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement

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
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfolding

What equation? And concerning what potential?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

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

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.

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!

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.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

If not, then clearly, you have no other interpretation of potential than in context of physics as exchemist seems to be restricted to.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Evolution is an expression of Potential.

Meaningless word salad.

 

[James R]

Look at this, from earlier in this thread.

In using the term "infinite potential", are you referring to the physics meaning of "potential", or the lay meaning of "potential"?

I am referring to the qualities both uses have in common regardless of application.

What qualities would they be? Well let's see where you go from here.

Potential = "That which may become reality"

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:

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?)

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.

 

[Write4U]

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".

Yes, if you bothered to follow the thrust of the argument, you would have no problem following my choice of words.

What does "infinite potential" even mean?

W4U said:
"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?)"

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

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.

What does "infinite potential" even mean

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?

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.

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"


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.

Bohm’s incredible insights into the underlying nature of reality and the profound interconnectedness of the Universe and our place within it are ground-breaking and transformational.

But his revolutionary ideas were way ahead of their time and posed a threat to the scientific orthodoxy, which dismissed him and forced him into exile

https://www.infinitepotential.com/

Why don't you spend 2:30 minutes to get a glimpse of what this is all about.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

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.

Yes, if you bothered to follow the thrust of the argument, you would have no problem following my choice of words.

See post #71 for some of the problems I have identified with your choice of words.

Here we go again. You don't know what "infinite potential" implies?

I don't know what you mean by it.

Are you able to define that term succinctly, or not?

You don't find it curious that an entire movie dedicated to David Bohm is titled "Infinite Potential".

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.

You don't think that the use of that title had some careful consideration, or do believe it is all pseudo-science, not worth a second thought?

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.

Yes, I got that. You advised me that infinite is really big, as if you were talking to a 4 year old.

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.

Well here is the abstract.

The promotional blurb, you mean.

Why don't you spend 2:30 minutes to get a glimpse of what this is all about.

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.

 

[Write4U]

What qualities would they be? Well let's see where you go from here.

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?

 

[Write4U]

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.

Perhaps the limitation is yours?
Most of those terms were used by Bohm himself. Maybe that's what got him banned ?

 

[James R]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Indulge me, what is your interpretation of the term "potential"?

 

[James R]

You cannot see that all uses of the term have a common denominator?

I can. I already covered that point.

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?

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.

Perhaps the limitation is yours?

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.

Most of those terms were used by Bohm himself. Maybe that's what got him banned ?

Banned from what? Banned by whom?

What are you talking about?

 

[Write4U]

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.

Clearly, you missed the depth of Bohm's intellect. Einstein and Oppenheimer seemed to appreciate it!

 

[James R]

Indulge me, what is your interpretation of the term "potential"?

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?