David Bohm Holographic Universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rajkovic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Holographic Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around David Bohm's holographic theory and the implications of how the brain perceives reality, particularly in relation to energy fields and the observer effect in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the conceptual and theoretical aspects of these ideas, questioning the validity of certain interpretations and their connections to established physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the idea that the brain converts energy fields into a 3D image, labeling it as "completely nonsense."
  • There is a discussion about the nature of visual perception, with one participant suggesting that the image perceived by the retina is essentially 2-D.
  • Another participant points out that while depth perception relies on the separation of the eyes, the implications of this for fundamental physics are unclear.
  • Concerns are raised about the semantic confusion surrounding the term "observer" in quantum mechanics, with a participant asserting it does not relate to consciousness.
  • One participant interprets Bohm's perspective as suggesting that reality is a construct of the human brain, distinct from t'Hooft's Holographic Principle and the measurement problem in quantum physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of Bohm's ideas and the relationship between perception and fundamental physics. There is no consensus on the validity of the claims regarding the brain's role in perceiving reality or the connections to quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on complex concepts such as the observer effect, depth perception, and the nature of reality as described by Bohm, but lacks clarity on definitions and assumptions that underpin these ideas.

Rajkovic
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
"Energy fields are decoded by the brain into a 3D image, to give the illusion of a physical world."
- David Bohm

It's OK to believe in the holographic theory, but to believe that OUR BRAINS do that converting energy into a 3d image is completely nonsense.
He tried to fit the 'observer effect' with this?
What do you guys have to say about it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
David Bohm said:
Energy fields are decoded by the brain into a 3D image, to give the illusion of a physical world.
Rajkovic said:
What do you guys have to say about it?
Actually, you really should provide a citation for Bohm's quote...
[/PLAIN]
There
are also some links at the bottom of the page ... under Similar Threads for:

Some links from Wikipedia for anyone that's interested... They're long and complicated, though.

David Bohm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

Basil Hiley, co-worker of Bohm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley

Some concepts by Bohm ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

The de Broglie–Bohm theory ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rajkovic said:
to believe that OUR BRAINS do that converting energy into a 3d image is completely nonsense.

Actually it's basically a 2-D image isn't it? - the retina being what it is.
 
Rajkovic said:
It's OK to believe in the holographic theory, but to believe that OUR BRAINS do that converting energy into a 3d image is completely nonsense.

Cant follow that at all.

Stephen Tashi said:
Actually it's basically a 2-D image isn't it? - the retina being what it is.

For each eye - sure. But so?

Our eyes are apart and that allows us to get depth information the brain decodes.

Why does the exact way we get depth information have any bearing on fundamental physics?

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Rajkovic said:
He tried to fit the 'observer effect' with this?What do you guys have to say about it?

I think you are caught up in the semantic confusion about what observer means in QM - its got nothing to do with conciousness.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
Our eyes are apart and that allows us to get depth information the brain decodes.

That mechanism of detecting depth information is only effective out to a distance of about 20 ft. Beyond that, our inferences about depth are based on other aspects of the scene.

Why does the exact way we get depth information have any bearing on fundamental physics?

I don't know! However, if the discussion involves how the brain processes images, it should acknowledge what is known about how the brain actually processes them.
 
Rajkovic, I think all Bohm is saying is that what we see as the physical world is not as "solid" as we imagine but rather consists of things like energy fields, and that what we think of as reality is a construct of the human brain. Nothing at all to do with t'Hooft's Holographic Principle, and also nothing to do with "the observer affect" (if what you mean is the measurement problem of quantum physics). As a matter of fact, Bohm's own version of QM is the one that has the least to do with measurement.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 249 ·
9
Replies
249
Views
14K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K