Part 7: Comments and Conclusion on Bohm's Holistic Physics and Psi Dreaming

Comments
Ed Kellogg: My interest lies more in research that people have done, experiments in which scientists, particularly physicists, have tested predictions that follow from Bohm's theories. If you know of any such work, I would appreciate it if you could pass on these references here, and if convenient, links to where I might find that information online.
Schroll: Excellent question, Ed, but I cannot provide a definitive answer. Someone that might be able to provide recent experimental evidence of physicists that have tested the predictions from Bohm's theories is Sheldon Goldstein, Department of Mathematics at Rutgers University. Ten years ago Goldstein pointed out that: "orthodox quantum theory physicists are thinking in Bohmian terms despite the fact that they would claim they are doing precisely the opposite" (Goldstein: 163, 1996). A general answer to your question is this: "Bohmian mechanics accounts for all of the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines and quantum interference experiments to scattering theory and superconductivity" (Goldstein: 149, 1996). This brings me to a restatement of why I wrote this essay. This essay was written to provide an introductory conceptual map to Bohm's ontology and to discuss some of its common misconceptions. This essay should also be considered adjunctive to Charles T. Tart's essay, "Some Assumptions of Orthodox, Western Psychology" (Tart, 1975), that lists and discusses 82 common beliefs held by psychologists. Tart argues, "We are almost completely controlled by every assumption that has become implicit and so [is] beyond the power of questioning" (Tart: 65, 1975). Assumption number three and its discussion is particularly supportive toward helping me explain my interest in Bohm"s ontology. Assumption: "Physics is the ultimate science, because physics is the study of the real world. Psychology, of course, then becomes a very derivative science, studying secondary or tertiary or quaternary or even more derivative phenomena. Since the universe is nothing but physical matters and energies operating in a space-time framework, human experience is then in some sense ephemeral and not real. The man who speaks of an experience about love is dealing with dreams or unimportant, derivative phenomena, while the man who builds an atomic bomb is dealing with what is real. Human experience thus becomes subjective a term which, for psychologists, is very pejorative, meaning unreal and unscientific. Good explanations/theories are those which reduce to statements about matter, energy, space, and time. To be a real science, then, psychology must ultimately reduce all its psychological and behavioral ideas to physiological data and then to the physical data underlying physiology (Tart: 67, 1975). B. F. Skinner's vision of psychology in Walden II is constructed on this assumption, based on the idea that through genetic engineering and operant conditioning of our social psychological environment scientists can create utopian societies (Skinner, 1948). Again since psychology's paradigm is constructed on the assumption of physics, and because most physicists have failed to embrace Bohm's ontology, is why I have written this essay.
Finally regarding experimental work to test Bohm's theories, an experiment to test differences between people that dream at sacred sites and at home (Krippner, Devereux and Fish, nd) is tangentially related to your question, Ed. This experiment needs to be replicated whose purpose is not only to investigate sacred sites but the hypothesis that these sites influence consciousness because of non-local fields. Rupert Sheldrake refers to these non-local fields as morphogenetic fields whose significance to psi research is discussed in (Krippner and Schroll, 2006). Kellogg: You wrote: "If you are already jumping to conclusions that Bohm is seeking to promote an updated version of Plato's theory of forms you are mistaken. I agree that Bohm did not seek to promote his model as an updated version of Plato's forms but as something original. However, I also believe that Bohm's insight has gained popularity in large part precisely because of its resonance with an archetypal model found in both religion and philosophy back into antiquity. This archetypal model, stripped to its essence, includes an ultimate reality beyond time and space from which somehow a derived, even illusionary reality manifests. This ultimate reality has gone by a multiplicity of names, for example Dharmakaya in Buddhism, Ain Sof, or even Ain (nothingness) in Kabbalistic Judaism, and so on. Similarly the derived reality has gone by a multiplicity of names, ranging from Maya to Malkuth to the Matrix.” For the most part I've seen Bohm's implicate/explicate order theory promoted because it presents superficially at least an updated version of a very old model. A very old, very profound idea dressed up in snazzy new clothes. Religious terminology although impressively obscure, sounds old hat, while also carrying the accumulated ontological baggage of centuries. Bohm's terms, although just as impressively obscure, sound refreshingly modern, and have the advantage of having the far more credible scientific cachet, given the often promoted association of Bohm's theories with cutting edge physics. But do Bohm's theories belong to the science of physics, or to philosophy? You wrote: "Bohm's ink drop model is purely theoretical and has not been framed as a hypothesis needing to be tested." [Therefore getting back to my original question about experimental work,] to what extent has research validated Bohm's theories? Failing that, to what extent can physicists test his theories?
Schroll: What I meant by referring to Bohm's ink drop model, is that this analogy is only the simplest means of framing a discussion about reality. You gave us several good examples of “reality” framing discussions from religion and philosophy, Ed. My point in saying Bohm's ink drop model is only a hypothesis not needing to be tested is because it fails to accurately represent the conceptual, linguistic and physical difficulty involved in expressing the ontology of quantum reality, especially nonlocality.[6] Localized physical objects that are propelled with lines of force (which we call motion) is not an accurate way of describing quantum reality, because objects with well-defined boundaries such as ink drop do not exist in quantum reality.[7] In response to your question, do Bohm's theories belong to the science of physics, or to philosophy? I consider Bohm to be among such giants in philosophy of science as Sir James Jeans, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Wolfgang Pauli. Likewise Bohm can be considered as a major contributor to transpersonal theory (Bohm & Welwood. 1980) and process theology (Sharpe, 1993). Nevertheless, Bohm's theories are vitally important to the future of physics. Goldstein reminds us that: " . . . when classical physics was first propounded by Newton, this theory, invoking as it did action at a distance, did not provide an explanation in familiar terms. Even less intuitive was Maxwell's electrodynamics, insofar as it depended upon the reality of the electromagnetic field. We should recall in this regard the lengths to which physicists, including Maxwell, were willing to go in trying to provide an intuitive explanation for this field as some sort of disturbance in a material substratum to be provided by the Ether" (Goldstein: 160-161, 1996). The ethers failure to be measured by the Michelson-Morely experiment did not result in refuting Maxwell's electrodynamics, but led Einstein to declare the ether does not exist which he replaced with his theory of relativity. Here too in reply to Ed/s question about experimental evidence, it is worth remembering that Einstein never conducted an actual experiment to test his theories. Instead, support for the special theory of relativity came from the 1919 solar eclipse (Pagels, 1982); while support for his general theory of relativity came from the 1929-1931 astronomical observations of Edwin Hubble (Clark, 1993; Gribbin, 1986). Likewise experimental physicists are not the only ones capable of verifying Bohm's theories, but are open to verification by dream researchers that are capable of replicating and improving on the work of (Krippner, Devereux and Fish, nd).

NOTES 1. Length limitations prevented replies to several other significant comments this essay received during the 5th PsiberDreaming Conference; these replies are forthcoming. 2. Most of Bohm's contemporaries agree that Bohm was indeed one of the world's foremost theoretical physicists. Where their opinions differ is when Bohm is referred to as one of the most influential theorists of the emerging paradigm. Some of Bohm's contemporaries refer to him as a maverick and a scientist gone astray (Briggs & Peat, 1984). Sharpe (1993) provides a detailed examination of the literature criticizing Bohm's implicate order theory in chapters 1-3. 3. We shall take up the discussion of the differences between Bohm and Kant's theory of knowledge in a forthcoming essay Challenging Kant's Views on the Limits of Human Knowledge. 4. Additional insight for this model was derived from examining Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis of formative causation (Sheldrake: 122-123, 1981; Sheldrake & Bohm, 1982; Sheldrake & Weber, 1982). 5. The issue of time as it relates to Bohm's interpretation of quantum theory and his views concerning the implicate order have been discussed in considerable detail in Griffin (1986). 6. A discussion of nonlocality, field theories of consciousness, and their relationship to the physics of psi dreaming is in (Krippner and Schroll, 2006). 7. Further clarification of this point about motion in quantum reality, and its relationship to other reality framing discussions from religion and philosophy is forthcoming in future essays.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum theory. New York: Prentice-Hall. Bohm, D. (1980a). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bohm, D. (1980b). The enfolded order and consciousness. In G. Epstein (Ed.), Studies in non-deterministic psychology. New York: Human Sciences Press, pp. 70-92. Bohm, D. (1984a, September 29). The implicate order: The holodynamic model of the universe. Presented at Science and Mysticism: Exploring the New Realities” September 29-30 sponsored by Interface, Harvard Science Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Published as The Implicate Order: A New Approach to Reality” (Bohm: 1-25, 1985). Bohm, D. (1984b). Imagination and the implicate order. In M. Cazenave (Ed.), Science and Consciousness: Two views of the universe. Translated by A. Hall and E. Callandar. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., pp. 375-380. Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. London: Ark Paperbacks. Bohm, D. (1986). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 80 (2), April, 113-135. Bohm, D. (1987). Hidden variables and the implicate order. In B. J. Hiley and F. David Peat (Eds.), Quantum implications: Essays in honor of David Bohm. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 33-45. Bohm, D. (1988). Postmodern science and a postmodern world. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, pp. 57-68. Bohm, D. (1993). Science, spirituality, and the present world crisis. ReVision, 15 (4), Spring, 147-152. Bohm, D. & Peat, F. D. (1987). Science, order, and creativity. New York: Bantam Books. Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1982a). Nature as creativity. ReVision, 5 (2), 35-40. Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1982b). The physicist and the mystic: Is a dialogue between them possible? In K. Wilber (Ed.), The holographic paradigm and other paradoxes. Boulder, CO.: Shambhala, 187-214. Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1986a). The implicate order and the super-implicate order. In R. Weber (Ed.), Dialogues with scientists and sages: The search for unity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 23-49. Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1986b). Mathematics: The scientist’s mystic crystal. In R. Weber (Ed.), Dialogues with scientists and sages: The search for unity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 139-153. Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1987). Meaning as being in the implicate order philosophy of David Bohm: A conversation. In B. J. Hiley & F. David Peat (Eds.), Quantum implications: Essays in honor of David Bohm. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 436-450. Bohm, D. & Welwood, J. (1980). Issues in physics, psychology and metaphysics: A conversation. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 12 (1), 25-36. Briggs, J. & Peat, F. D. (1984). Looking glass universe: The emerging science of wholeness. New York: Simon & Schuster. Briggs, J. & Peat, F. D. (1989). The turbulent mirror. New York: Harper & Row. Clark, R. D. (1993, April 2). The face on the sweatshirt: Whatever happened to Max Planck and Albert Schweitzer? Presentation in the lecture series "Critical Transitions: Facing the Challenge of the 21st Century" at United Campus Ministry, University of Nebraska-Kearney, Kearney, Nebraska. Gribbin, J. (1986). In search of the big bang: Quantum physics and cosmology. New York: Bantam Books. Globus, G. G. (1986). Physics and mysticism: Current controversies. ReVision, 8 (2), 49-54. Goldstein, S. (1996). Review essay: Bohmian mechanics and the quantum revolution. Synthese, 107, 145-165. Griffin, D. R. (Ed.). (1986). Physics and the ultimate significance of time. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Keepin, W. (1993). Lifework of David Bohm. ReVision, 16 (1), 32-46. Krippner, S. Schroll, M. A. (2006, Sept. 26). Introduction to the physics of psi dreaming: An interview with Stanley Krippner by Mark A. Schroll. Featured paper 5th IASD PsiberDreaming Conference. http://asdreams.com (In publication review). Krippner, S., Devereux, P. & Fish, A. (2002, April 13). A preliminary study on English and Welsh and sacred sites and home dream reports. Presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness, Tucson, Arizona. Minelli, M. J. & Schroll, M. A. (2003). The art of living: Discovering the transcendent and the transpersonal in our lives. Stipes Publishing: Champaign, IL. Pagels, H. R. (1983). The cosmic code: Quantum physics as the language of nature. New York: Bantam Books. Pagels, H. R. (1984a, July 21). A physicist's perspective on the origin of the universe. Lecture presented at the 12th Annual Association for Transpersonal Psychology Conference, Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California. Pagels, H. R. (1984b, July 21). Two-hour dinner conversation following this lecture. Peat, F. D. (1991). The philosophes stone: Chaos, synchronicity, and the hidden order of the world. New York: Bantam Books. Schroll, M. A. (1997). The philosophical legacy of David Bohm, its relationship to transpersonal psychology and the emergence of ecopsychology: Searching for a coherent, co-evolutionary, sustainable culture. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Union Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio. Schroll, M. A. (2005a, June 27). Transpersonal Lessons in Philosophy of Science from an 11-Year Recurring Dream. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, Berkeley, CA. Available on CD (800) 647-1110 http://www.conferencerecording.com. Schroll, M. A. (forthcoming, a). A yet untitled essay on the philosophy of methodology. Schroll, M. A. (forthcoming, b). The optimal self: Discovering the transcendent and transpersonality in our lives. Chapter 6 of this book has an extended discussion of this philosophical problem associated with methodology. Sharpe, K. J. (1993). David Bohm’s world: New physics and new religion. Lewisburg, PA.: Bucknell University Press/Associated University Presses. Sheldrake, R. (1981). A new science of life: The hypothesis of formative causation. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, Inc. Sheldrake, R. & Bohm, D. (1982). Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order. ReVision, 5 (2), 41-48. Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden II. New York: Macmillian Company. Tart, C. T. (Ed.). (1975). Some assumptions of orthodox, Western psychology. In Transpersonal psychologies. New York: Harper & Row, Pub, pp. 61-111. Ullman, M. (2006). The dream: In search of a new abode. DreamTime, 23 (2), 4-7, 37-38. Weber, R. (Ed.). (1986). Dialogues with scientists and sages: The search for unity. Wheaton, IL: Quest.