I did a Google serch for Rawn Joseph and received not one hit. He must be a very popular author or neuropsychologist. He apparently has no known professional connection. There isn't a website Google could find that even mentions him either as a "neuropsychologist" or as an author. Where did you get the information that he's a neuropsychologist? Does he claim to have have a degree from any known university! Where did you find the quote attributed to him? Where was it published?No idea what your problem is. See attachment. And you could use the link I provided. There was a spelling error in his name, though Google usually handles spelling errors. In any case, if that single citation came up, I must have overlooked it. I did follow the links on Rational Wiki and he apparently has a respectable scholarly background and has published widely, so I wonder why there are so few Google hits. Even his own website does not come up on a google search. And no one else seems to mention him, either to support or criticize his views. IMO, his ideas are truly bizarre.
IMO, his ideas are truly bizarre.Yup, that's why kkwan likes these ideas. It seems to me that Joseph is just as anti-creationist as possible. That means it cannot be true that there was a big bang (ahhh!! Creation!!!), and life cannot have started on earth (ahhhh!!! Life on earth might be special!!!). And of course I have also no idea why a neuropsychologist should be a specialist in cosmology and evolution.
IMO, his ideas are truly bizarre.Yup, that's why kkwan likes these ideas. It seems to me that Joseph is just as anti-creationist as possible. That means it cannot be true that there was a big bang (ahhh!! Creation!!!), and life cannot have started on earth (ahhhh!!! Life on earth might be special!!!). And of course I have also no idea why a neuropsychologist should be a specialist in cosmology and evolution. He isn't, of course. He is trying to use his credentials in a completely different discipline to support his cosmological and evolutiinary imaginings. He is as unlikely to be an expert in those disciplines as any layman--but he pretends he is. Lois
I’m fascinated by the apparent repetition: neuropsychologist. I’ve never heard of a gastropsychologist or an osteopsychologist. :lol:
Occam
How is life out there on the lunatic fringe?Can you assume life out there (whatever it means) is on the lunatic fringe? Seems like prejudice. :cheese:
And of course I have also no idea why a neuropsychologist should be a specialist in cosmology and evolution.Who is? :lol:
I'm fascinated by the apparent repetition: neuropsychologist. I've never heard of a gastropsychologist or an osteopsychologist. :lol:From the wiki here]
Neuropsychology studies the structure and function of the brain as they relate to specific psychological processes and behaviors. It is seen as a clinical and experimental field of psychology that aims to study, assess, understand and treat behaviors directly related to brain functioning.It is scientific in its approach:
It is scientific in its approach, making use of neuroscience, and shares an information processing view of the mind with cognitive psychology and cognitive science.In practice:
In practice neuropsychologists tend to work in research settings (universities, laboratories or research institutions), clinical settings (involved in assessing or treating patients with neuropsychological problems), forensic settings or industry (often as consultants where neuropsychological knowledge is applied to product design or in the management of pharmaceutical clinical-trials research for drugs that might have a potential impact on CNS functioning).
Assumption: David Bohm’s Holomovement is how the universe functions.
Could the cited brightness observations be applicable in such a condition? IMO, this might provide a new model of the behavior of the universe. A “wholeness” consisting of wave functions from Planck scale to near infinity, in constant flux, rather than an orderly steady expansion or contraction.
The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness". There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/holomovement Could such a model result in similar effects as were observed? Consider that we are observing "brightness" and "red shifts" in a universe filled with other wavelengths (wave interference?)
Assumption: David Bohm's Holomovement is how the universe functions. Could the cited brightness observations be applicable in such a condition? IMO, this might provide a new model of the behavior of the universe. A "wholeness" consisting of wave functions from Planck scale to near infinity, in constant flux, rather than an orderly steady expansion or contraction.Holomovement is a neologism of a concept, not an assumption. From the wiki on holomovement here]
The holomovement is a key concept in David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics and for his overall worldview. It brings together the holistic principle of "undivided wholeness" with the idea that everything is in a state of process or becoming (or what he calls the "universal flux"). For Bohm, wholeness is not a static oneness, but a dynamic wholeness-in-motion in which everything moves together in an interconnected process. The concept is presented most fully in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1980.Undivided wholeness:
The term holomovement is one of many neologisms which Bohm coined in his search to overcome the limitations of the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This approach involved not just a critique of the assumptions of the standard model, but a set of new concepts in physics which move beyond the conventional language of quantum mechanics. Wholeness and the Implicate Order is the culmination of these reflections, an attempt to show how the new insights provided by a post-Copenhagen model can be extended beyond physics into other domains, such as life, consciousness, and cosmology.All is flux:
The general concept is further refined in the third chapter, "Reality and Knowledge considered as Process", this time under the aspect of movement, or process. "Not only is everything changing, but all is flux. That is to say, what is the process of becoming itself, while all objects, events, entities, conditions, structures, etc., are forms that can be abstracted from this process" (48). His notion of the whole is not a static Parmenidean oneness outside of space and time. Rather, the wholeness to which he refers here is more akin to the Heraclitian flux, or to the process philosophy of Whitehead.Extension to life, consciousness and cosmology:
In the final chapter of the book, "The enfolding-unfolding universe and consciousness", Bohm elaborated further on the need for new notions of order of physics, and set forth a general view in which totalities are continually forming and dissolving out of the universal flux, or what he designates as the holomovement. He recapitulates: "Our basic proposal was that what is the holomovement, and that everything is to be explained in terms of forms derived from this holomovement. (178)." And again: "The implicate order has its ground in the holomovement which is, as we have seen, vast, rich, and in a state of unending flux of enfoldment and unfoldment, with laws most of which are only vaguely known (185). As such, the holomovement includes not just physical reality, but life, consciousness and cosmology. As Bohm sums it up at the end of the book: "Our overall approach has thus brought together questions of the nature of the cosmos, of matter in general, of life, and of consciousness. All of these have been considered to be projections of a common ground. This we may call the ground of all that is" (212).What is process philosophy? From the wiki here]
Process philosophy (or ontology of becoming) identifies metaphysical reality with change and development. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent substances, while processes are denied or subordinated to timeless substances. If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is essential. Therefore, classic ontology denies any full reality to change, which is conceived as only accidental and not essential. This classical ontology is what made knowledge and a theory of knowledge possible, as it was thought that a science of something in becoming was an impossible feat to achieve.[1] In opposition to the classical model of change as accidental (as by Aristotle) or illusory, process philosophy regards change as the cornerstone of reality — the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming. Modern philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include Nietzsche, Heidegger, Charles Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead, Alan Watts, Robert M. Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare and Nicholas Rescher. In physics Ilya Prigogine[2] distinguishes between the "physics of being" and the "physics of becoming". Process philosophy covers not just scientific intuitions and experiences, but can be used as a conceptual bridge to facilitate discussions among religion, philosophy, and science.[3]No mind-matter duality:
There is no mind-matter duality in this ontology, because "mind" is simply seen as an abstraction from an occasion of experience which has also a material aspect, which is of course simply another abstraction from it; thus the mental aspect and the material aspect are abstractions from one and the same concrete occasion of experience. The brain is part of the body, both being abstractions of a kind known as persistent physical objects, neither being actual entities. Though not recognized by Aristotle, there is biological evidence, written about by Galen,[9] that the human brain is an essential seat of human experience in the mode of presentational immediacy. We may say that the brain has a material and a mental aspect, all three being abstractions from their indefinitely many constitutive occasions of experience, which are actual entities.What is the process in process philosophy?
Inherent in each actual entity is its respective dimension of time. Potentially, each Whiteheadean occasion of experience is causally consequential on every other occasion of experience that precedes it in time, and has as its causal consequences every other occasion of experience that follows it in time; thus it has been said that Whitehead's occasions of experience are 'all window', in contrast to Leibniz's 'windowless' monads. In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience. An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them. This is the process in process philosophy. Such process is never deterministic. Consequently, free will is essential and inherent to the universe.Causal outcomes:
The causal outcomes obey the usual well-respected rule that the causes precede the effects in time. Some pairs of processes cannot be connected by cause-and-effect relations, and they are said to be spatially separated. This is in perfect agreement with the viewpoint of the Einstein theory of special relativity and with the Minkowski geometry of spacetime.[10]Nexus:
Nexus is a term coined by Whitehead to show the network actual entity from universe. In the universe of actual entities spread[7] actual entity. Actual entities are clashing with each other and form other actual entities.[8] The birth of an actual entity based on an actual entity, actual entities around him referred to as nexus.[7] An example of a nexus of temporally overlapping occasions of experience is what Whitehead calls an enduring physical object, which corresponds closely with an Aristotelian substance.Eternal objects:
Eternal objects is a term coined by Whitehead to show the possibilities of pure (pure potentials) which will be the principle of forming or giver particular form of actual entity.[7] Each form of the actual entity presupposes the existence of a principle that gives a certain shape to it.[8] The principle that gives a particular form of this is the eternal objects.[8] Whitehead admitted indefinitely many eternal objects. An example of an eternal object is a number, such as the number 'two'. Whitehead held that eternal objects are abstractions of a very high degree of abstraction. Many abstractions, including eternal objects, are potential ingredients of processes.Thus, the universe and all in it are all changing processes. It is infinite and eternal with no beginning or end. As such, there is no "expanding universe" per se.
Thus, the universe and all in it are all changing processes. It is infinite and eternal with no beginning or end. As such, there is no “expanding universe" per se.Thank you for expanding on my speculative proposition. I used the word "assumption" not as an indictment of Bohm's work, but in that it is not mainstream science. I didn't know how else to put it. But I am happy that my layman's intuition of Bohm's vision is scientifically defensible.
Thank you for expanding on my speculative proposition. I used the word "assumption" not as an indictment of Bohm's work, but in that it is not mainstream science. I didn't know how else to put it. But I am happy that my layman's intuition of Bohm's vision is scientifically defensible.His ideas were innovative and unorthodox. From the wiki on David Bohm here]
David Joseph Bohm FRS[1] (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American theoretical physicist who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, philosophy of mind, and neuropsychology. He is considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century.[2]Limited Cartesian model of reality:
Bohm advanced the view that the old Cartesian model of reality (that there were two interacting kinds of substance - mental and physical) was limited, in the light of developments in quantum physics. He developed in detail a mathematical and physical theory of implicate and explicate order to complement it.[3] He also believed that the working of the brain, at the cellular level, obeyed the mathematics of some quantum effects, and postulated that thought was distributed and non-localised in the way that quantum entities do not readily fit into our conventional model of space and time.[4][not in citation given]Quantum theory and Bohm-diffusion:
During his early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to physics, particularly to quantum mechanics and relativity theory. As a post-graduate at Berkeley, he developed a theory of plasmas, discovering the electron phenomenon known now as Bohm-diffusion.[9] His first book, Quantum Theory published in 1951, was well received by Einstein, among others.Dissatisfaction with the WKB "deterministic" theory of QM:
Starting from the realization that the WKB approximation of quantum mechanics leads to deterministic equations and convinced that a mere approximation could not turn a probabilistic theory into a deterministic theory, he doubted the inevitability of the conventional approach to quantum mechanics.[10] Bohm's aim was not to set out a deterministic, mechanical viewpoint, but rather to show that it was possible to attribute properties to an underlying reality, in contrast to the conventional approach.[11] He began to develop his own interpretation (De Broglie–Bohm theory), the predictions of which agree perfectly with the nondeterministic quantum theory. He initially referred to his approach as a hidden variable theory, but later referred to it as ontological theory, reflecting his view that a stochastic process that would underlie the phenomena described by his theory may be found. Bohm and his colleague Basil Hiley later stated that they found their own choice of terms of an "interpretation in terms of hidden variables" to be too restrictive, in particular as their variables, position and momentum, "are not actually hidden".[12] Bohm's work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Bell's inequality, which rules out local hidden variable theories; the full consequences of Bell's work are still being investigated.Bold added by me. Implicate and explicate order:
At Birkbeck College, much of the work of Bohm and Basil Hiley expanded on the notion of implicate, explicate and generative orders proposed by Bohm.[3][18][19] In the view of Bohm and Hiley, "things, such as particles, objects, and indeed subjects" exist as "semi-autonomous quasi-local features" of an underlying activity. These features can be considered to be independent only up to a certain level of approximation in which certain criteria are fulfilled. In this picture, the classical limit for quantum phenomena, in terms of a condition that the action function is not much greater than Planck's constant, indicates one such criterion. They used the word holomovement for the activity in such orders.[20]