|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
|
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. David Bohm discuss morphic fields and the implicate order
|
|
return to "Evolution" main-page
from an article on the "quantum mechanics" page and also Dr. Sheldrake's website: https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Science_of_Life_Appx_B.pdf
|
Sheldrake and Bohm
During their 1982 talk, Sheldrake and Bohm discussed common ground between their theories of morphic fields and the implicate order.
However, Dr. Sheldrake made comments germane to our study of evolution. He referenced conversations with his professional friends in biology:
“The interesting thing about the big bang theory is that the minute you have to address the question of the origins of the laws of nature, you’re forced to recognize the philosophical assumptions underlying any sort of science.
“People who think of themselves as hard-nosed mechanists… practical scientists getting on with the job. But you can force them to realize that their view of the laws of nature as being timeless, is in fact a metaphysical view.
“I talk with biological friends, and they say, Oh, what you’re doing is metaphysics.
“So I say, Wait a minute, let’s look at what you’re doing.”
|
Bohm: There is also the belief, commonly accepted, that at the core of
black holes the laws as we know them would also vanish. As you say,
scientists haven’t faced up to it because they are still thinking in the old
way, in terms of timeless laws. But some physicists realize that. One cos-
mologist was giving a talk and he said, “Well, you know, I used to think
everything was a law of nature, and it’s all fixed, but as far as a black
hole is concerned, anything can happen. You see, if it suddenly flashed
a Coca-Cola sign, this would still be a possibility.” [Laughter.] So, the
notion of timeless laws doesn’t seem to hold, because time itself is part
of the necessity that developed. The black hole doesn’t involve time and
space as we know it; they all vanish. It’s not just matter that vanishes,
but any regular order that we know of vanishes, and therefore you could
say anything goes, or nothing goes.
Sheldrake: The interesting thing about the big bang theory is that the
minute you have to address the question of the origins of the laws of
nature, you’re forced to recognize the philosophical assumptions under-
lying any sort of science. People who think of themselves as hard-nosed
mechanists or pragmatists regard metaphysics as a waste of time, a use-
less speculative activity, whereas supposedly they are practical scientists
getting on with the job.
But you can force them to realize that their
view of the laws of nature as being timeless, which is implicit in every-
thing they say or think or do, is in fact a metaphysical view. And it’s
one possible metaphysical view, it’s not the only possible one.
I talk with
biological friends, and they say, “Oh, what you’re doing is metaphysics.”
So I say, “Wait a minute, let’s look at what you’re doing.” And then you
confront them with the question of where were the laws of nature before
the big bang. And most of them say, “Well, they must have always been
there.” And you say, “Where? There’s no matter in any sense that we
know of before the big bang. Where were these laws of nature, sort of
free-floating?” And they say, “Well, they must have been there some-
how.” And then you say, “Don’t you think this is a rather metaphysical
concept, in any literal sense of metaphysics, because it’s quite beyond
existing physics?” They have to admit it sooner or later.
As soon as you
get into that sort of area, the certainty that so many scientists think
their view of the world is founded on simply disappears. It becomes
clear that current science presupposes uncritically one possible kind of
metaphysics. When one faces this, one can at least begin to think about
it rather than accepting one way of thinking about it as self-evident,
taken for granted. And if one begins to think about it, one might be
able to deepen one’s understanding of it.
|