what is the meaning of life?

Yes, I definitely agree; the cycles are being piled on evecycles!

Ever since C.I. provided that talk by Sir Martin Rees, everyone has gone off the deep end, trying to pound ever squarer pegs into ever rounder holes.
Rather than following Rees example, trying to create complication where none is necessary (using questionable "we now find"s at best), and multiplying universes until he finds one (or many) which suit his predisposed theories; perhaps we should look at the basic fact that this universe exists as it is for no more complicated reason than that the content corresponds to the complexity.

Rather than worrying about the "nature" of nature, we should be plotting to get rid of it! This whole "aura" of NATURE that is.

Well -- mea culpa -- I'm the one who advanced Martin Rees. C.I. gave us Paul Davies.

It all boils down to an old philosophical question: do our ideas correspond to the world around them, or are they independent entities?

I would propose that our science has, despite all the scepticism you might come up with, proved that some things of our universe can be known.

The danger is to get too narcissistic and idealistic, and to lend more belief to our philosophies than to the results of science. That's a common mistake in philosophy, and it has again been demonstrated amply throughout this thread.

Now, at this stage I'd like to share the views of one of the pioneering quantum physicists, David Bohm. If anyone has thought through the philosophical implications of modern science, it's him. I hope our quest for the meaning of life stays in the scientific field.

In 1951 Bohm wrote a classic textbook entitled Quantum Theory, in which he presented a clear account of the orthodox, Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. The Copenhagen interpretation was formulated mainly by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s and is still highly influential today. But even before the book was published, Bohm began to have doubts about the assumptions underlying the conventional approach. He had difficulty accepting that subatomic particles had no objective existence and took on definite properties only when physicists tried to observe and measure them. He also had difficulty believing that the quantum world was characterized by absolute indeterminism and chance, and that things just happened for no reason whatsoever. He began to suspect that there might be deeper causes behind the apparently random and crazy nature of the subatomic world.

Bohm sent copies of his textbook to Bohr and Einstein. Bohr did not respond, but Einstein phoned him to say that he wanted to discuss it with him. In the first of what was to turn into a six-month series of spirited conversations, Einstein enthusiastically told Bohm that he had never seen quantum theory presented so clearly, and admitted that he was just as dissatisfied with the orthodox approach as Bohm was. They both admired quantum theory's ability to predict phenomena, but could not accept that it was complete and that it was impossible to arrive at any clearer understanding of what was going on in the quantum realm.

In his view, subatomic particles such as electrons are not simple, structureless particles, but highly complex, dynamic entities. He rejects the view that their motion is fundamentally uncertain or ambiguous; they follow a precise path, but one which is determined not only by conventional physical forces but also by a more subtle force which he calls the quantum potential. The quantum potential guides the motion of particles by providing "active information" about the whole environment. Bohm gives the analogy of a ship being guided by radar signals: the radar carries information from all around and guides the ship by giving form to the movement produced by the much greater but unformed power of its engines.

The quantum potential pervades all space and provides direct connections between quantum systems. In 1959 Bohm and a young research student Yakir Aharonov discovered an important example of quantum interconnectedness. They found that in certain circumstances electrons are able to "feel" the presence of a nearby magnetic field even though they are traveling in regions of space where the field strength is zero. This phenomenon is now known as the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, and when the discovery was first announced many physicists reacted with disbelief. Even today, despite confirmation of the effect in numerous experiments, papers still occasionally appear arguing that it does not exist.

In 1982 a remarkable experiment to test quantum interconnectedness was performed by a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect in Paris. The original idea was contained in a thought experiment (also known as the "EPR paradox") proposed in 1935 by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, but much of the later theoretical groundwork was laid by David Bohm and one of his enthusiastic supporters, John Bell of CERN, the physics research center near Geneva. The results of the experiment clearly showed that subatomic particles that are far apart are able to communicate in ways that cannot be explained by the transfer of physical signals traveling at or slower than the speed of light. Many physicists, including Bohm, regard these "nonlocal" connections as absolutely instantaneous. An alternative view is that they involve subtler, nonphysical energies traveling faster than light, but this view has few adherents since most physicists still believe that nothing-can exceed the speed of light.

In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary "subtotalities" derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:




Bohm believes that life and consciousness are enfolded deep in the generative order and are therefore present in varying degrees of unfoldment in all matter, including supposedly "inanimate" matter such as electrons or plasmas. He suggests that there is a "protointelligence" in matter, so that new evolutionary developments do not emerge in a random fashion but creatively as relatively integrated wholes from implicate levels of reality. The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain

As with all truly great thinkers, David Bohm's philosophical ideas found expression in his character and way of life. His students and colleagues describe him as totally unselfish and non-competitive, always ready to share his latest thoughts with others, always open to fresh ideas, and single-mindedly devoted to a calm but passionate search into the nature of reality. Bohm believed that the general tendency for individuals, nations, races, social groups, etc., to see one another as fundamentally different and separate was a major source of conflict in the world. It was his hope that one day people would come to recognize the essential interrelatedness of all things and would join together to build a more holistic and harmonious world.

David Bohm

Let's give this thread a fresh start.

Nothing could be more reckless than to base one's moral philosophy on the latest pronouncements of science. I could be wrong.

truth
No, you're not wrong, Dys. It is a very reckless long-term policy for isms (religlious or philosophical) to posit permanent and absolute dictims about the nature of the physical world (its age for example) on the basis of "facts" intended by science to be tentative and to eventually progress to different facts. Science is "progressive" while such isms are absolutist, claiming final truths that science will not touch.
Now I'm juming back to read Wolf's long post.

truth
Wolf, a thousand thanks for your great effort in bringing us this concise overview of the contribution of Bohm--you do us a considerable service. I only know of him because of his famous published conversations with the mystic, Krishnamurti, one of my spiritual heros. The notion of the Implicate Order, a level (of deep structure and process) at which all the Cosmos is clearly united is vague and provocative but, from the perspective of most physicists, so I've heard, of little immediate scientific help. The notion is as much religious as it is scientific. But that may be its strength in the long run. I've always found the discovery of how subatomic particles can be connected and mutually influential at great distances from one another profoundly amazing, and a wonderful evidential contribution to the notion that all is one, as symbolized by the Hindu's Net of Indra (a metaphor for the interconnectness of all things). Another point of amazement is how the implicate and explicit orders seem to parallel Kant's notion of the noumena and phenomena. Kant argued that the noumena CANNOT, at least in principle, be seen, since it would then be phenomena. Bohm's argument indicates that the noumena (a philosophical more than empirical object) CAN be "seen" at least indirectly. It's manifestations, as in subatomic physical traces, render it no longer mere a priori foundation for that which is seen, i.e., the reality behind appearance. All very fascinating: I'm delighted that we have at least one physicist who is open to "mystical" implications of scientific findings. Thanks again.

An interesting reply on your behalf, too. It seems clear indeed that rational Western science, has, by a long sidepath, reached the same philosophic conclusions as ancient Eastern spirituality. Everything is connected, and everything influences everything. As in a pond.

It can not be trivial that this unification of Western and Eastern views should happen. Hence I think it may possibly lift up the lid from some of the mysteries of our presence here, or at least give it an enlightening value that was absent throughout much of our Western history.

Wolf, I'm having great difficulty with such idealism; "It was his hope that one day people would come to recognize the essential interrelatedness of all things and would join together to build a more holistic and harmonious world." History, if anything, has provided us with forces apposed to this ideal, and it seems beyond impossible to seek it in our species. c.i.

I'm not preaching any idealism. It's a matter of fact that everything is interrelated. It's visible, testable, concrete. Indifference towards this is unjustifiable.

I'm not challenging the idea that everything is interconnected. Only that just because every is interconnected, the recognition of it will not produce a "more holistic and harmonious world."

Unless you want it to.

All of this is highly useful information for dumping into the "knowledge crucible";
Two things occur to me underlying these ideas:
That those who have a difficulty believing that absolute randomness is the basis of all "effect", usually have a decidedly "religious" outlook, based upon training, or belief, or both.
And that anyone who does not expect, and allow for an "interconnectedness" within the workings of the physics "plasma", is seriously lacking in intuition.
However, these two concepts are not exclusive of each other; while in my view, chaos is merely a description of all unstarted interactions, prior to the impact of the "effects" of forces that will come into play as "reactions" progress (notice that both affects, and reactions are "interactive" words), it is the interactivity of the whole that will ultimately decide the direction of the result.

Perhaps this can also be applied to our joint existence on this planet, the social, religious/political, chaos is subject to being manipulated, or, perhaps, "pointed" by the effect of our overall sense of preferred direction; our "hopes" for humanity, guided by our active attitude toward one another.

Maybe this is already happening, and, therefore, maybe it can be changed by the impact of a "new majority"!

Oh, great, BGW, now the Moderators will switch this entire topic to Politics, which, actually, wouldn't be a bad thing ... :wink:

True, it just reminds us that we live in one big endless fishbowl & we are just thinking fishes :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

We shall all have to re-examine our attitudes toward "worms"!

Maybe the meaning of life is recognizing the difference between the life that is forced upon us or sold to us, and the life we choose for ourselves.

Yes, the only thing pulling us out of social and physical determinism is free will. Amid the sea of overlapping interconnections, individual free will gives you a personal potential to grow and act according to your intellect.

An intellect aware of the physical interactions in our universe tells us that our own happiness depends on the happiness of others, and on the harmonious balance between ourselves and everything else.

wolf, I think you're on to something about happiness; it would be difficult to enjoy happiness by being the only one in that state of conscienceness. c.i.

Here, here!

Free will allows us to manage a ballanced approach to life, seeking out enjoyment, even in areas that might be frowned upon by certain societal groups, while remaining aware of one's responsiblity to the heirarchy of needs of others sharing this planet from immediate family, to the most distant, unknown hungry child.

If we recapitulate all this, I think we're pretty close to life's meaning. Now on to the meaning of the universe.