Bohm On Set Theory
Also if you or Stapp go on claim that Bohm could use Set theory or has (not that you have yet) then you should read "On Creativity" in which he rejects Set theory for the same reason GR does because of it's fixed points!
This is interesting, but of course GR would reject SET theory, because Einstein thought the spacetime geometry like fine marble and the Stress-Energy-Tensor like rough wood. What I am suggesting is that this is backwards - the Stress-Energy-Tensor is in fact fundamental. I will gladly look at what Bohm said about this, if I can find it.
[Page 84 1998 Routledge Edited By Lee Nichol]. In your take on GR I can see what you're saying; however I think that the Process of GR is telling us something of the structure of Spacetime that we have not totally digested yet.
However I am glad that you have at least taken GR on board and given us a different Picture of what it mite be :)
Here is what Bohm says:
This overall notion of what is to be meant by universal ratio or reason evidently fits the world view discussed earlier in which the primary role is given to undivided wholeness in movement. It implies, of course, that a new kind of mathematics has to be developed to fit in with this new world view. Thus, current mathematics is based largely on set theory, which is in turn an articulation of the traditional world view in which the whole of existence is regarded as constituted out of collections of separately existent things. What is now needed is a mathematics in which the primary function of symbols is to call attention directly to aspects of a whole movement, and to call attention to particular things, or sets of things as relatively invariant features of the movement. (Some preliminary work along these lines of a mathematical and scientific nature has been done by the author, which will be published later.)^1
1 See Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J. (1993) *The Undivided Universe*. London: Routledge.
Please compare this to the following from Whitehead, *Adventures of Ideas*, Chapter 11, Section 17:
[Alfred North Whitehead]
The notion of physical energy, which is at the base of physics, must then be conceived as an abstraction from the complex energy, emotional and purposeful, inherent in the subjective form of the final synthesis in which each occasion completes itself.
And also consider my summary of Dirac's last words:
In Dirac's last paper at the Loyola University symposium, 1984, he upheld one central equation, Heisenberg's equation of motion:
ih du/dt = uH - Hu.
However, he surmised that all the terms needed to be redefined. The operators should not be simple matrices as they are in QM, and they should not be dependent on simple coordinates. Moreover, the Hamiltonian should NOT be modeled after classical physics.
I have the means to pursue this program. Feynman based his path integral approach on a paper of Dirac's on the Lagrangian in QM. This last paper, however, should be regarded as the Vedanta (end, or conclusion, of the Vedas) of Dirac's work.
So, indeed the Zero-Point Energy upon which rests the Stress-Energy-Tensor is an abstraction and secondary form of energy from the real Energy eigenstates of Dirac's new Hamiltonian. Those real Energy eigenstates are the "complex energy, emotional and purposeful, inherent in the subjective form of the final synthesis in which each occasion completes itself". Moreover, it may be possible indeed to find mathematical forms for the Zero-Point Energy which each Stress-Energy-Tensor expresses.
Both Deutsch and Bohm are similar there both start with the Whole:
No, I do not think Deutsch starts with the whole in an important respect. He assumes the form Psi_ik = a_ik u_i v_k for composite subsystems U and V. Stapp has informed me that even Zurek recognizes this as problematical, as documented in Stapp's latest paper, "The Basis Problem in Many-Worlds Theories". The assumption of this basic "Entanglement Hypothesis", also adopted uncritically by Abner Shimony in his treatment of Whiteheadian Physics in "The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind", is tantamount to assuming that the whole is *just* made up of the parts, i.e., it is anti-holistic.
Multiverse (Holomovement) of which from the Whole you would see a Flow of Information which doesn't look like a Universe(S), however from anything inside like us we see parts both in Time and Space (hence no World lines).
Although Deutsch wouldn't totally agree but if he took the time to read Bohm he may find that he is moving closer to him.
I agree with what has been said about the Puzzle of not seeing these World lines and Other Universes but just disagree how most have handled it, I think it is Wrong headed.