Blackballed By The Blacklisted For The Sin Of Finding Determinacy

Quantum physics, like all of modern physics, is written in mathematical language that is way beyond what I can understand so, like just about everyone else, I am left dependent on the descriptions of it and its consequences as doled out by those who do know that language.  And it is almost inevitable that anyone who does that has a personal self-interest involved in it. 

I listened to this dialogue between the great biologist Rupert Sheldrake and one of his many lucky partners in dialogue, Mark Vernon with some understanding though I certainly have never read David Bohm's theory or much of what it flew in the face of in more conventionally acceptable interpretations of quantum mechanics but there are several issues that are relevant to things I've said here, mostly in regard to the atheist-materialist-scientistic god of random-chance and the insistence on indeterminacy and, if their atheist god were ever to be expressed in a trinitarian theory, the stupidity of nature.  

I have read a very, very little about how his former mentor the atheist-secular saint of the play-left,  Robert Oppenheimer got freaked out over the work of his student when some of his equations more than arrived at an implication of determinacy behind the workings of nature, so much so that he said,   "If we cannot disprove Bohm, we must agree to ignore him."  And he was hardly alone among eminent physicists, men of science, those who presented themselves as fearless followers of the truth no matter where the evidence brought them.   

I wish I knew enough to be able to look into another famous statement about Bohm's theory and the setting of post-war physics in which it lay like a piece of sand in an oyster (perhaps) that of the iconoclastic critic as well as friend of science, Paul Feyerabend, in a quote that can be found in truncated form all over the internet. 

The fact . . . that Bohm’s model was pushed aside while all sorts of weird ideas flourished is very interesting, and I hope that one fine day a historian or sociologist of science takes a close look at the matter. 

Paul Feyerabend, 1993; letter to David Peat

I would assume that among the weird ideas that so flourished were the many varieties of multi-verse scenarios which I think are one of the most certain products of the decadence that science came to because of the materialist-atheist-scientistic ideological commitments of its main figures.   The motive behind much of it has been, in fact, to prop up that ideological framing which made anything that implied determinacy poison to it.   I have often quoted the biologist, one of the few dedicated materailist-atheists though not a devotee of scientism, Richard Lewontin saying that they chose to not let anything in that could be like the camel getting its nose under the tent to protect their ideological commitments.  

I especially appreciate that Sheldrake, who seems to have known David Bohm personally and rather well, is critical of his determined avoidance of philosophy, as, in fact, Paul Feyerabend said had become common among eminent scientists of the post-war period.  Even a figure who you want to praise will have his flaws.  I wonder if the requirements of modern physics have become so stiff, if the learning curve has not become so steep that it is almost a guarantee of not having the time to learn much about such things, though a number of those who express such a disdain for philosophy have no problem with mastering some massively unserious and unimportant features of commercial pop-culture and celebrity.   I think it's possible that the hatred of philosophy has similar motives to their hatred of religion, that it might challenge their ideological commitments which are, in turn, a reflection of their own personal preferences and hatreds.   Not to mention what is de rigueur in their chosen milieu of academic and cultural life.   I wonder if he were around, if Bohm would get on the talk and late-night shows.   But I don't wonder hard.

And, considering what Sheldrake and Vernon discuss of Bohm's involvement with him,  I will say there was a brief period when I read a bit of J. Krishnamurti's stuff and quickly stopped bothering with it because it just went in circles, not committing itself to anything except the unremarkable idea that you had to think for yourself.  I don't know how that was something that escaped anyone's notice though it seems to be considered a remarkable idea, especially to many devotees of "eastern wisdom".  I can't understand why anyone would remain committed to Krishnamurti unless they had a deep seated fear of making a commitment, ironically, enough.  I was young and I will admit that the guy who tried to interest me in it was good looking.  The relationship didn't go anywhere.  I have no idea what he's up to now if he's still around.