The muddle

I think that it's fair to say that after a careful reading of the
Road to Reality a serious reader must admit that physics as
a fundamental science is in a bit of a muddle. If that's not
good enough to convince a thoughtful person, then there is
the Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin. J.
Sarfatti – doesn't get into this so much in
SuperCosmos – because - I think that he feels that
he's gotten past the muddle based on his
interpretation of Bohm's interpretation of QM.

From an institutional point of view of course there is no muddle.
Physics remains a solid fundamental science and there is
not questions or concerns on this front from the seats of
institutional science. Of course if anyone were to accept
that there are issues would involve accepting some kind
of decrease in funding – so even if academia does secretly
admit the problem – they would have to do there best to sweep
it under the carpet.

From my perspective the muddle began with the “conversations”
between Bohr and Einstein – which Bohr resolved in his own
mind – which most physicists of that time went along with
and which Einstein clearly never accepted. I think the
reality is that it had something to do with money. Physics is
after all a fundamental science – and if it's leaders can not
agree on what it's fundamental nature is – obviously that
could involve problems of a fundamentally financial nature.
And I don't think Einstein cared about that.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of that except to say
that on the particular issue – I agree that David Bohm's concept
of quantum potential is a big step forward – but the problem
exists – because no one ever admitted that there was a problem
in the first place.

Now both Smolin and Penrose think that the way out is
through a resolution of quantum gravity. Sarfatti disagrees
because he feels – I think – that quantum gravity is not
the right question – at least from his point of view.

Now I think that there is another problem which nobody
is really looking at. It's the following. No rational
person would disagree with the idea that neuro-science
is in fact a science – but clearly it is not a “fundamental”
science - which means you generally can not study it
at the under-graduate level. To some extent of course -
neuro-science has some basis in physics – but clearly
the whole notion of consciousness is a fundamental
fact of that field.


The problem I see can be clearly stated by the fact
that “institutionally” physics refuses to admit
that consciousness is a fundamental “fact”. Jack
goes on about the ufo issue – but I think that's small
potatoes in relation to the lack of willingness of
“institutional” physics to put this clearly important
fundamental issue in some kind of “plausible”
frame work .....

It is sort of understandable, because as a "fundamental"
science you want to try to remain objective - and
persuing an understanding of the physical nature
of consciousness, seems like it would through you
a bit into a more subjective - less objectifiable
program. For myself, I believe this is a bullet
that physics as a science must bite because only
by trying to get at the nature of this problem
will it be able to solve the logical impasses
which currently confronts it. Really, it would
be even nicer if the math guys would pick it
up and carry the ball for awhile - but that's
never going to happen.

Jack of course has developed and devoted quite
a bit of effort on this subject ---- I'm not sure that
that prevents him per se in being institutionalized
but --- well that's where that's at.