David Bohm

[Guest guest]

Reluctant as I am to start yet another topic that I might be obliged to

respond to :-) , I recently came across a reference to David Bohm that

impinges upon my thoughts about Causality and Free Will.

 

Readers of some of my posts over the past year or so will know that I have

claimed an acceptance that there is no such thing as free will, even in the

vyaavahhaarika realm; that all of the so-called discriminations made by

buddhi are the result of deterministic influences of nature and nurture. I

have happily rejected notions of karma, sanskaara, reincarnation etc. on the

basis of these considerations. At the same time, I have acknowledged that

the concepts of cause and effect are only mechanisms, similar to those of

time and space, by which we try to make sense of the world-appearance.

 

I had never previously heard of David Bohm and no one (on the lists I have

read) has ever mentioned him in connection with Advaita or, more

specifically, on this topic. He was a theoretical physicist who also had a

long relationship with Krishnamurti. It seems that, amongst other things, he

devised a theory of life the universe and everything (as far as I can gather

without reading very much!), in which he refers to an 'implicate order' of

things as being a unified reality of the apparently diverse 'explicate'

order. I mention this in passing because the specific experiment that I read

about was as follows.

 

He placed two cameras at different positions in front of a tank containing a

single fish. In another room, a child (I think, i.e. a naïve observer) sat

in front of two televisions, one connected to each camera. The observer,

unaware that the screens showed the same fish, could see that, when one fish

moved or turned so did the other. He concluded that there was a cause and

effect relation between the two. Because the movements were simultaneous,

however, he was unable to say which was cause and which effect. The

apparent, observed multiple phenomena are the 'explicate order' and the

single reality of one fish is the 'implicate order'. Once the implicate

order is known, the need to try to make sense of it using the concepts of

cause and effect disappears.

 

Of course, this reflects upon the comments made above. Once the reality is

known, the need for causality to make sense of vyaavahhaara disappears. But,

if the notion really is just 'a way of looking at the world and trying to

make sense of it'; if there really isn't such a thing, then it makes no

sense to talk of our actions (including 'decisions') as being merely effects

following upon previous actions and conditionings etc. They are all just

another 'view' upon the unified reality, which is only Brahman. Does this

then mean that 'free will' becomes possible again? Does anyone know more

about this experiment/theory and its implications in terms of Advaita?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

For those who would like to read more about Bohm:

 

 

http://www.shavano.org/html/bohm.html

 

 

Lifework of David Bohm - River of Truth

 

Will Keepin, Ph.D.

 

 

Contents:

 

Bohm's Quest for Knowledge

Holomovement and the Implicate Order

Order and Randomness

Dialogues with Krishnamurti

Superimplicate Order and Beyond Thought and Meaning

Impact and Implications of Bohm's Work

Cool Reception in Physics

Matter and Consciousness

Science and Spirit

Bohm's Legacy

Acknowledgments, Notes, References, About the Author

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

I recently came across a reference to David Bohm that

> impinges upon my thoughts about Causality and Free Will.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis-ji,

 

I haven't researched Bohm's connection with Advaita, but have seen his

conversations with Krishnamurti. There is also another very powerful set

of arguments against causality in the "vyaavahhaarika" realm. Have you

read any David Hume? In his _Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_

(1748), he argued that on empirical grounds there is no rational evidence

for any necessary connection between causes and effects, nor for the

reality of the personal self or of the external world. Hume's arguments

about cause & effect were very much like the double-fish-image you give.

Many philosophers vehemently disagreed with him, but had an extremely

difficult time meeting his arguments.

 

And if causality isn't a matter of necessary connections or cosmic glue

between things, then of course neither is free will!

 

Regards,

 

-Greg

 

 

At 06:11 PM 4/15/01 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

>>>>

Reluctant as I am to start yet another topic that I might be obliged to

respond to :-) , I recently came across a reference to David Bohm that

impinges upon my thoughts about Causality and Free Will.

 

Readers of some of my posts over the past year or so will know that I have

claimed an acceptance that there is no such thing as free will, even in the

vyaavahhaarika realm; that all of the so-called discriminations made by

buddhi are the result of deterministic influences of nature and nurture. I

have happily rejected notions of karma, sanskaara, reincarnation etc. on the

basis of these considerations. At the same time, I have acknowledged that

the concepts of cause and effect are only mechanisms, similar to those of

time and space, by which we try to make sense of the world-appearance.

 

I had never previously heard of David Bohm and no one (on the lists I have

read) has ever mentioned him in connection with Advaita or, more

specifically, on this topic. He was a theoretical physicist who also had a

long relationship with Krishnamurti. It seems that, amongst other things, he

devised a theory of life the universe and everything (as far as I can gather

without reading very much!), in which he refers to an 'implicate order' of

things as being a unified reality of the apparently diverse 'explicate'

order. I mention this in passing because the specific experiment that I read

about was as follows.

 

He placed two cameras at different positions in front of a tank containing a

single fish. In another room, a child (I think, i.e. a naïve observer) sat

in front of two televisions, one connected to each camera. The observer,

unaware that the screens showed the same fish, could see that, when one fish

moved or turned so did the other. He concluded that there was a cause and

effect relation between the two. Because the movements were simultaneous,

however, he was unable to say which was cause and which effect. The

apparent, observed multiple phenomena are the 'explicate order' and the

single reality of one fish is the 'implicate order'. Once the implicate

order is known, the need to try to make sense of it using the concepts of

cause and effect disappears.

 

Of course, this reflects upon the comments made above. Once the reality is

known, the need for causality to make sense of vyaavahhaara disappears. But,

if the notion really is just 'a way of looking at the world and trying to

make sense of it'; if there really isn't such a thing, then it makes no

sense to talk of our actions (including 'decisions') as being merely effects

following upon previous actions and conditionings etc. They are all just

another 'view' upon the unified reality, which is only Brahman. Does this

then mean that 'free will' becomes possible again? Does anyone know more

about this experiment/theory and its implications in terms of Advaita?

 

Dennis

 

 

Greg Goode (e-mail: goode)

Computer Support

Phone: 4-5723