I thought I'd die laughing when he pronounced "Quantum Physics" to sound like "Condom Physics" 😂Anyhow, Tibetan practices are a blend of Yoga, Tantra, Bon, and Buddhism. To call it "Tibetan Buddhism" is such a misnomer. The Buddha NEVER EVER discussed or taught about an immortal Soul/Consciousness, and certainly nothing about an Infinite Consciousness. The cardinal teaching of Buddhism is ANATTA, pronounced un-aatha. Aatha is Pali for the Hindu term for the Atman (pronounced Aathmun) which means immortal, undying soul. I am pleased to see the Dalai moving on to Buddhism 2.0 which realizes that our minds do dwell within an Infinite Consciousness. I must add that Tibetan COMPASSION MEDITATION has been proved by EEG brainwave recordings to produce powerful GAMMA WAVES, never seen with that intensity by science ever before.

Excellent interview! Embrace the ontological interpretation! 🔥

Wolfram is stealing these ideas now...

From Jeff

Thank you! Very educational.

Thankyou so much. My favorite

Unless it is 0 then most things are spinning towards one direction, right

"mathematics was not about material things , it is about thought". I realised this while reading the book ' number the language of science' . Only after this my mind really begun to unclutter

Gostaria de adquirir essa soundtrack. Please!

Morning

I have discovered scientific structure of consciousness...

I have discover the ultimate Absolute Truth of Observer is observing everything

David Bohm was way ahead of many scientists and mathematicians and physicists

❤

Beware of documentary filmmakers promising spiritual enlightenment by way of "quantum physics".

I don't think its right this film to don't be free to watch it. In such turbulent times like the ones we live, subjects like these have to be spread to as many people as possible. Besides both Bohm and K. never asked money from anybody and the videos of their conversations are free for us to watch them (fortunately).

Great interview. Love Penrose’s take.

What we don’t understand is wildly beyond anything that we have even dared to question as I believe the questions have not even been glimpsed

Dirac thought that the uncertainty principle would be violated if you went down this road. And in fact Dirac actually got the equations which were almost the Bohm equations but he dismissed them. He got them to first order in h-bar, the Planck's Constant, but dismissed them, because he thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation would be violated. What David Bohm did was to show that it would not be violated: that you would still retain the uncertainty principle. But then the question of what these trajectories mean becomes important. And this is where he then said well, "Let me be bold and say there is this unfolding and enfolding actually going on. Nothing to do with measurement. It is the actual process itself unfolding." And we can make speculations about this unfolding and this is in fact what people were doing in field theory, but they abandoned it because the measurement seemed to be the primary aim of physicists. If were talking about measurements we know what we're talking about, seems to be one goes. Rather then saying, "what we should be talking about, as Einstein suggested, was speculations about the underlying movement, which then produce observable effects." And then we go to the laboratory and see do these effects, are they actually there. Basil J. Hiley interview, Infinite Potential movie "It is the quantum potential that organizes the way the individual trajectories work. So there is a dynamic whole process going on, in which the quantum potential appears....Remember this is coming from the noncommutative underlying process. And now we are beginning to think that underlying process is actually to do with the actual structure of space and time. That itself may not be continuous as we imagine. We don't have continuous geometries but we have a noncommutative geometry." In the noncommutative structure there doesn't appear to be any quantum potential. But when we project it into a phase space, a spacetime manifold, a classical, the quantum potential appears....Remember the gravitational force arises because spacetime has a curvature in it. That spacetime is not Euclidian, it's Riemannian. Therefore what is revealed as a force is actually a feature of the underlying geometry. And what I feel is the quantum potential is a feature of the underlying noncommutative geometry. ...You explain the qualities that gives you the interference, without the need for introducing the wave function. And the wave function has been getting in the way, in my view, because we have this retched measurement problem, in which the wave function is behaving in an evolutionary manner in Schroedringer's equation and then when we look at it it collapses. And we have this collapse problem that's been going now for 50, 60, even 100 years. And it still has no solution and maybe has no solution because it's not relevant. Fortunately we had Roger Penrose with us, at Birbeck at the time, and David Bohm, Roger Penrose, myself and some mathematicians used to meet and talk about this problem. So we were talking about ideas like pre-space: how are we going to put quantum mechanics into this pre-space idea so that we would have quantum spacetimes emerging from this? What is a quantum spacetime? This is what the discussion about. Roger Penrose was talking about his spin networks which has now because quite a big industry in some areas; he was developing his Twistors. And it was his developing his Twistors which led me into the Clifford algebra approach which is a noncommutative algebra, which is why I'm always talking about noncommutative algebras. And that time David Bohm was developing a new idea which was called structure process. That basically we want to start with process, not particles moving in spacetime, but a process from which both particles and spacetime can emerge. Very radical ideas. During that discussions, what we were thinking about that the process, how are we going to describe this process? And then I think I was reading some work by Grassmann and Clifford, way back in the 1850s to 1900s. And they were talking about process essentially, but they were not calling it process....And Grassmann in particular was saying that mathematics was not about material processes but it was about thought. So if we are thinking about the underlying process as a new radical idea we need to develop the mathematics to actually encompass that. What we coming to the fore, all the time, was that we need an algebra. An algebra is essentially something that has both addition and multiplication. And the multiplication became the order of succession, so if you have a process unfolding, the multiplication was the way it unfolded. Addition was the way it coexisted. So this was pinching an idea from Leibniz, who has this idea of what time was. Time was the order of succession, but then was also an order of coexistence. Now can we develop an algebra that encompass that philosophical idea and that's what we were developing and that's what Penrose was developing with his Twistor idea. ...it was only after ten years of me working with David that .. Chris Dewdney and Chris Philippidis came up to me to ask to read 1952.... How can he [Bohm] get trajectories out of this noncommutative structure? That's what Chris was absolutely master at.... Unfortunately people though that...people thought, that we believed this: Now I was puzzled... even when I wrote the book with David Bohm, the Undivided Universe, I was still puzzled, how is it that you can have trajectories in this deeper process? ...We needed more radical ideas....Unfortunately David's time came too soon, so since then I have been trying to develop the continuation of these original process-based ideas. Developing a theory of structure process. So these are states in which there are still activity present. So we never get to the stillness of nothingness. All is in flux....It's this idea of the energy. Energy is a very interesting concept. We always think that energy goes with particles. We fire a particle with kinetic energy and it goes bang, and causes trouble when it hits something, it releases its energy. But does energy have to be concentrated on particles? Quantum Field Theory tells us no! There's a field, this field carries energy in a nonlocal way. The problem is for us, we're trying to describe the universe by getting outside. And then saying, Look! there's the valleys, there's the fields and so on. It's the God-Like view of reality. Unfortunately we're right in it. I'm saying there's no hill that we can climb up. That's the illusion. When we do that, we fragment everything. We are in it right at the beginning. Irreducibly in it! We can't separate ourselves. We depend on it. All our perceptions are coming in. Then we have the arrogance to say, "I'm important, I'm on top of the hill, you're not. So then we get into this conflict that goes on and on." Unfortunately we're all in it together. We've got to encourage radical thought....I don't think being safe is going to solve some of the problems that still remain with this philosophy of process with wholeness....

Since watching this back in 2020, and various videos of interaction between him and Krishnamurti, Bohm is by far the most important physicist in my opinion in understanding what is behined everything which we believe is real. No Western scientist has been as open minded to Eastern teachings and he has provided a bridge which will never be broken, truly. He was on the cusp of something, may his discoveries continue to be expanded on.

I've felt always that from the famous physicists, Penrose is the most boring one to listen to. I start feeling sleepy when listening to him speak.

❤👍👍👍

The wholeness we are looking for is the wholeness looking. Thank you for this interview.

Bohm got a lot from Jiddu Krishnamurti.

interesting ,now this is really interesting

InTransFormation 🙏

I watched the full documentary last night and LOVED it; however, I really needed subtitles!! (And so did the friends I watched it with - some of them are second-language English speakers.) I looked into whether the DVD has subtitles, and it does not. I know it would be a huge undertaking to add them, but gosh... it would be SO helpful, and SO appreciated, and I would watch it again (and again!) and host viewing parties for sure! 🙏🙏🙏

Who is 'unconditioned Brian'? ;-)

Oh, man! what are you saying? This man did not understand Bohm's view. Bohm was on the side of objective reality and this man said that Bohm was on the side of subjective reality and you are going to include this interview in the documentary about David Bohm!

Distinct lack of women

Waren Sie im britischen Generalkonsulat in Hamburg beschäftigt?

😍 Ｐ𝐫Ｏ𝕞Ｏ𝓢ｍ

Bohm and Krishnamurti had entirely different backgrounds, one (B) educated through traditional mainstream principles and the other (K) who was an original exponent of self-knowing via negation, but not forming conclusions which sounds rather weird. Nevertheless, what surfaces via negation is the ground or essence of relationships at every level of the living psychological perspective of human beings. Bohm was instrumental in bringing forth the intelligence of Krishnamurti’s ‘teachings’ in logical and reasoning terms that ordinary people could understand. It is unclear whether Bohm was responsible for altering the essential aspects of what Krishnamurti was alluding to, but he certainly assisted in the clarity of the explanation which was sometimes a bit vague at first sight. However, the ‘real’ was always latent and just needed to be teased out and Bohm performed that function admirably.

Putting things together, knowing they will fall apart -- everything is in a state of emergence. So beautiful! Thank you for this -- being places of transformation and being participatory in the emerging "reality" -- this is my goal, always.

Remember reading his 'Einstein's Moon'. But the cover says F. David Peat?

Sabine Hossenfelder recently put a video attacking people who dare to propose any link between QM and Consciousness. She thinks that after ridiculing popular in scientific culture strew man : Telepathy and Deepak Chopra People will automatically start to treat her Superderminism as the only reasonable alternative. Seven years ago it would certainly work: but now after Quantum Entanglement spooky Action Nobel Prize and recent Stuart Hameroffs August 2022 papers she's in position little better than Flat Earthers with her Superderminism! But I also hope Realism will be saved in some way nevertheless. David Bohm was so incredible!

I have a terrific book by this wonderful writer! Never seen him before. Very happy for this video. Great stuff.

This is how I view nature 7:12. Universe has to be a fractal. Each level is a classical theory, possesing its own "speed of light". The smaller the details - the faster the speed. Level is obtained by coarse-graining another one. It can be most easily seen from hydrodynamic quantum analogs.

My 2 favorite physicists

Yes - you spelled "Twistor" wrong - twice. Once in the actual film. Didn't anyone who knows some relevant science actually watch the film before you released the cut? Your credibility, like some kind of quantum wave, has collapsed to an infinitely small point.

I bought this film and they do not respond when you want to log back in

The one and only who has traveled to the both sides of the mind.'Thought is infinite' Einstein and "Observer is Observed 'J. Krishnamurti.

You spelt “Twistor Theory” wrong.

JESUSAVESIDDHARTHAUDREY

Was David Bohm a communist?

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

Another student at Birkbeck whose supervisor was Basil was Henri Bortoft who then ran with than ball. He published two books on Science and Wholeness and developed the ideas lecturing at Schumacher College in Devon in the Holistic Science course started by Brian Goodwin. Taking Appearance (v) Seriously uses dynamic thinking from hermeneutics and phenomenology, it was published shortly before his death. Some of the lectures are available on You Tube b

Very encouraging to hear about the "non commutative geometry"....I wonder why he isn't mentioning "Projective Geometry" which is a subject taught in Waldorf High Schools. The transformation of point into plane and plane into point. A process. Everything really a snapshot of process. I'm not best person to try to explain Projective Geometry I just don't know why it is excluded here?