In a discussion between myself an @otherbrother, he made this comment:
What you said is consistent with Bohr’s (father of Quantum Physics) inviolable wall, which I think was wrong too.
So not knowing what 'Bohr's inviolable wall' is, I put that phrase into a search engine, and that led to cosmic-core.org.
Specifically a page mentioning the aforesaid 'wall', and my eye alighted upon this text:
Bohm and his ‘Quantum Potential’ Field
Dr. Bohm assumed particles do exist in the absence of observers.
He assumed a reality beneath Bohr’s inviolable wall.
He called his field the ‘quantum potential’. It pervaded all space like gravity; but did not diminish with distance. In essence, it was the Aether.
The behavior of the parts were actually organized by the whole.
He suggested wholeness was in some ways the more primary reality.
In Dr. Bohm’s interpretation of quantum physics, location ceased to exist. “All points in space became equal to all other points in space.”
Nonlocality became a central part of his work.
This sparked off many correspondences, as fruitful ground for a theology/quantum cosmology debate ... it was quite exciting, and there seemed to be a vast range of reference across the fields of Quantum research.
So after a brief dip into science, I looked to see if the site had anything to say about religion, and found a religion and cosmology section, and dived into that.
And here, it all went wrong ... what I read was a standard variation of a New Age melange of ideas intermixed with a views of religion that are frankly naive and fundamentalist to the point of offensive.
Whereas the science writings refer to scientists and scientific development without resort to pejorative language, the religious narrative is shallow, ignorant and ill-informed, and littered with pejorative opinion from the get-go – and this despite soundbites from people whom I hold is high regard – Keith Crichelow, Rupert Sheldrake. The fact is the commentary on religion is just a crock.
And notably, not one reference to a viable theology or theologian ...
Shame. It's hard enough to argue religion and science need not be at loggerheads, but a religious website as dismissive of science, as this site is dismissive of religion, would raise hackles ...
If anyone knows of sites where religion and science are presented as complementary, without prejudice, I'm interested.
What you said is consistent with Bohr’s (father of Quantum Physics) inviolable wall, which I think was wrong too.
So not knowing what 'Bohr's inviolable wall' is, I put that phrase into a search engine, and that led to cosmic-core.org.
Specifically a page mentioning the aforesaid 'wall', and my eye alighted upon this text:
Bohm and his ‘Quantum Potential’ Field
Dr. Bohm assumed particles do exist in the absence of observers.
He assumed a reality beneath Bohr’s inviolable wall.
He called his field the ‘quantum potential’. It pervaded all space like gravity; but did not diminish with distance. In essence, it was the Aether.
The behavior of the parts were actually organized by the whole.
He suggested wholeness was in some ways the more primary reality.
In Dr. Bohm’s interpretation of quantum physics, location ceased to exist. “All points in space became equal to all other points in space.”
Nonlocality became a central part of his work.
This sparked off many correspondences, as fruitful ground for a theology/quantum cosmology debate ... it was quite exciting, and there seemed to be a vast range of reference across the fields of Quantum research.
So after a brief dip into science, I looked to see if the site had anything to say about religion, and found a religion and cosmology section, and dived into that.
And here, it all went wrong ... what I read was a standard variation of a New Age melange of ideas intermixed with a views of religion that are frankly naive and fundamentalist to the point of offensive.
Whereas the science writings refer to scientists and scientific development without resort to pejorative language, the religious narrative is shallow, ignorant and ill-informed, and littered with pejorative opinion from the get-go – and this despite soundbites from people whom I hold is high regard – Keith Crichelow, Rupert Sheldrake. The fact is the commentary on religion is just a crock.
And notably, not one reference to a viable theology or theologian ...
Shame. It's hard enough to argue religion and science need not be at loggerheads, but a religious website as dismissive of science, as this site is dismissive of religion, would raise hackles ...
If anyone knows of sites where religion and science are presented as complementary, without prejudice, I'm interested.
