David Bohm, physicist, as stated at the end of my previous post, offers another view of Reality from that of current scientific thinking.
“Reality, Bohm’s work suggests, has a more subtle nature than that which can be defined by linear human thinking … Within the fabric of reality, Bohm found not just the wave/particle duality phenomenon … but also an inter-connectedness, a Non-Space or Non-Local reality where only the appearance of waves also being particles exists. He saw, perhaps intuitively, that it is ultimately meaningless to see the universe as composed of parts, or disconnected, as everything is joined, space and time being composed of the same essence as matter.”
Semantically, at this high level of abstraction – so it seems to me – I admit to being adrift. A ‘Non-Space’ or a ‘Non-Local’ reality? As David Lewis says in this article from which I am quoting, ‘The physicist as mystic’ (in ‘Forbidden history’ edited by Douglas Kenyon), “Reality, then, is not material … it is something far more ineffable … Mystics call it ‘oneness.’”
More from Lewis: “Bohm evolved a yet more profound understanding, that of an interconnected whole with a conscious essence, where all matter and events interact with one another, because time, space, and distance are an illusion relative to perspective. He developed, in fact, a holographic model of the universe, in which the whole can be found in the most minute part – in a blade of grass or an atom – and where matter, circumstance, and dimension result from holographic projections of subtle but powerful conscious energy.”
I think that I need 2 things. First, someone to translate the above in operational terms; then an explanation as to how I, and everything else of substance like me, exist in space. Having once seen a holographic image of a tiny human performing on the stage in space (that is, he was there and yet not there), I can only remain in conceptual wonderment. I also remember reading that my elbow contains more space than substance; yet ‘tennis elbow’ was most painful for months. That is, I (assuming I am a projection) did hurt.
Perhaps I should just follow Hinduism’s Upanishads and seek to apprehend Reality through deep meditation (even if I cannot talk about that experience). But, by what path would a follower of Bohm perceive Reality?
This is a serious question.
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 