Transcript — David Bohm Interview | Amsterdam, 1990 — Second Part

Jump to the previous part — David Bohm Interview | Amsterdam, 1990 — First Part

William M. Angelos: I’d like to pause on that thought and revisit it later because you often discuss the idea of a "Coherent Culture," which seems to be missing today. However, let’s finish our original question regarding your views on consciousness and its connection to your work in Physics. After your book on Relativity, you published "Wholeness and the Implicate Order."

David Bohm: Yes, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" was indeed a continuation of my thoughts. To comprehend that fully, we should circle back to your initial question about my interest in consciousness.

In the late 1940s, I began exploring philosophy, becoming intrigued by concepts such as causality and broader inquiries. Some individuals in Berkeley were delving into Dialectical Materialism, which resonated with me due to its perspective of constant change and interrelation, rather than a static view.

William M. Angelos: That was an effort to merge Science and Religion, wasn't it?

David Bohm: Exactly. They aimed to integrate Science with other fields. During my time in Brazil, I met Mario Schönberg, who also had an interest in Marxism. He encouraged me to read Hegel, a significant influence on Marx's ideas. When I arrived in Israel, I explored Hegel’s logic and found profound insights. He emphasized observing thought as a process, aligning closely with my interests.

William M. Angelos: So, you were suggesting that we shouldn't focus solely on the content of thought?

David Bohm: Yes. Even while crossing a stream, I was contemplating the process itself—not just the body's movement but also the implicit process of thought, which had previously constrained me. It was due to my particular way of thinking that I struggled with crossing the stream. Once I experienced a sudden shift in my thinking, crossing became effortless.

William M. Angelos: That was an act of perception, then.

David Bohm: Yes, it was a perception at the level of thought. There were instances when you couldn’t outline everything; you had to be fluid, moving moment by moment. I articulated that later. So, where were we?

William M. Angelos: Talking about Hegel.

David Bohm: Right. Hegel posited that thought is a process. He urged people to pay attention to thought, just as they would to anything else. Most people overlook this; they assume thought operates independently. It seems beyond attention, merely occurring by chance. However, one must focus on the order of the process.

William M. Angelos: The order of the process.

David Bohm: Yes, Hegel examined how concepts develop through a dialectical process—what he termed "thesis," "antithesis," and "synthesis." These concepts interact and give rise to new ideas while still containing elements of the original concepts.

William M. Angelos: Was this a limited approach, focusing exclusively on concepts?

David Bohm: Indeed, he was confined to a narrow aspect of thought. Yet, he recognized thought as a process, which distinguishes him from most philosophers. Whether Marx perceived thought as a process is debatable; he applied it to society, but many who followed him likely missed this insight.

However, Hegel’s clarity, despite his complex language, was invaluable. Fast forward to the late 1950s and early 1960s, I began feeling uneasy about the direction of Science.

William M. Angelos: What was your concern?

David Bohm: I sensed that Physics was increasingly focused on mere calculations and deriving equations, dismissing any deeper understanding. This notion stemmed from Bohr's views.

Serie: David Bohm Interview


Imagine an "interference experiment" with two slits. A beam of electrons is directed toward a screen. The result is an interference pattern—a statistical distribution of electron detections. When one slit is open, a specific pattern emerges; when both are open, a different one appears.

The intriguing aspect is that at certain locations, when both slits are open, the pattern shows zero intensity—some points cancel while others amplify, creating "fringes." If these were waves, we could explain this by suggesting that the waves from one slit negate the others. However, electrons are always detected as particles, leading to the question: how do they transform into waves?

Bohr asserted that this transformation was beyond description or conceptualization; it simply happened. One could only statistically calculate the probable outcomes using what he termed the "Quantum algorithm."

William M. Angelos: And this became a standard method?

David Bohm: Yes, but many did not grasp Bohr’s nuance. The prevailing view evolved to suggest that Physics was solely about equations and experimental results.

William M. Angelos: This aligns with a post-war mentality where results were prioritized.

David Bohm: Correct. Society had been building up to this perspective, leading to a dismissive attitude toward understanding. The prevailing sentiment was: "What more do you want?"

William M. Angelos: So, there was little effort to comprehend the underlying processes?

David Bohm: Exactly. The belief was that this was all we could do and that there was nothing more to seek. (DB smiles)

William M. Angelos: And we’re achieving results.

David Bohm: Yes, but I found this approach unsatisfactory and sought alternative perspectives within Physics. I aimed to develop a general Cosmology that made sense to me, but many physicists seemed puzzled by my efforts.

I gave talks, and they expressed confusion: "What are you doing? Is this mathematics?" They weren’t hostile; they just didn’t understand. (They laugh)

Thus, I often wondered if I should continue in Physics.

William M. Angelos: By that time, you had collaborated with Einstein. Was he supportive?

David Bohm: I had many discussions and correspondences with him. He endorsed the pursuit of some underlying Reality rather than just calculations.

William M. Angelos: So, it was just the two of you. (They laugh) In reality, there was a significant divide; most ignored that perspective.

David Bohm: Indeed. Some physicists, including Von Neumann, argued that seeking a deeper understanding was impossible. In 1951, I formulated an interpretation suggesting that electrons could be both waves and particles. When passing through slits, the wave traversed both openings, while the electron went through one.

Serie: David Bohm Interview

 3.2: Young’s Double-Slit Interference — Physics LibreTexts

The wave would subsequently influence the particle’s arrival location. This was a classic example, yet the Physics community largely dismissed it. They insisted they wouldn’t consider anything unless it yielded new results.

At the time, I was unaware that this idea had been proposed by De Broglie in 1927. I learned about it later. He presented it at the 1927 Solvay Congress, attended by leading physicists like Einstein and Bohr, who were critical of it.

Einstein deemed it overly simplistic and incompatible with Relativity, while others dismissed it due to their own theories. De Broglie became disheartened and abandoned the idea.

However, I later wrote a paper addressing the criticisms and advancing the concept. Despite this, my proposal landed with a thud in the Physics community.

William M. Angelos: It seems to have regained traction recently.

David Bohm: Yes, I’m currently collaborating with my colleague Basil Hiley to further develop these ideas. We’re garnering interest from philosophers of science and some physicists, which might grow.

William M. Angelos: Returning to the 1960s, we were discussing "Wholeness and the Implicate Order."

David Bohm: Indeed. At that time, I encountered Krishnamurti. I found a book in the library containing the phrase "The observer and the observed." I felt he shared my perspective.

William M. Angelos: That's a significant leap for many. As I understand it, "the observer and the observed" was introduced by Werner Heisenberg.

David Bohm: Bohr first articulated it, then Heisenberg elaborated on it. Both recognized the inseparable connection between the observer and the observed, which stemmed from the indivisible quantum link.

William M. Angelos: Interesting.

David Bohm: This connection partly underpinned my analogy between Thought and the Quantum process. Do you follow?

William M. Angelos: Yes. So, one afternoon in the library...

David Bohm: Actually, it was my wife who discovered the book and its intriguing phrase. She often protests when I mention this. Nevertheless, I read it eagerly and decided I needed to meet him. I contacted the publisher, and while Krishnamurti had been ill, he was scheduled to speak in England soon.

William M. Angelos: What year was this?

David Bohm: In 1961.

William M. Angelos: 1961.

David Bohm: I met him in London. Although he was unfamiliar with physics, he listened to my discussions with keen interest. (Both laughing)

William M. Angelos: There was an immediate rapport.

David Bohm: Absolutely. People might question my interest in someone like Krishnamurti, perceived as a mystic. However, I was exploring broader philosophical concepts. I believed my Cosmology suggested a connection between mind and matter—two facets of a single entity.

Thus, I thought Krishnamurti, with his profound insights, might have recognized that interconnectedness.

William M. Angelos: And those insights manifested in daily life as he sought to explain.

David Bohm: He seemed to directly perceive a sense of Wholeness—an intrinsic unity within the Universe, the observer, and the observed. While I wasn’t entirely certain what it meant, I sensed its significance. I always aspired to transcend limitations, not confining myself to the definitions of Physics as understood by the community.

William M. Angelos: You even considered leaving Physics.

David Bohm: Yes, as early as the late 1940s, shortly after the war, I contemplated it. However, I ultimately chose to remain in the field. Nevertheless, I pursued my discussions with Krishnamurti, meeting him annually in London and later attending his talks in Switzerland. Eventually, he established a school near London, where I participated.

Through our discussions, I believe I began to crystallize the concept of the Implicate Order. Krishnamurti significantly encouraged my exploration in that direction, though I may have had the germ of the idea prior.

William M. Angelos: Let’s pause again. The term "implicate" seems related to "imply."

David Bohm: Indeed. "Implicate" derives from the same root as "imply," meaning "to enfold" in Latin, while "explicate" means "to unfold." When one thought implies another, it signifies that the thought is enfolded within the other.

William M. Angelos: So, if I discuss a topic, it may imply something else.

David Bohm: Exactly, something already enfolded in your mind.

William M. Angelos: Understood.

Serie: David Bohm Interview

 Wholeness and the Implicate Order

David Bohm: This concept can be visualized by thinking of a piece of paper folded multiple times with small cuts made; when unfolded, a complete pattern emerges. Numerous examples could illustrate this, but time is limited.

William M. Angelos: Essentially, you suggest that the enfolded elements represent—

David Bohm: You gather everything together, and then it unfolds. However, there’s also a process of enfolding again.

William M. Angelos: Enfolding once more.

David Bohm: I posited that Quantum Mechanics could be understood in terms of this process. Rather than viewing an electron as merely a particle in motion, one might conceive it as a wave that is enfolding or unfolding, inherently connected to the universe, then folding back.

When a wave arrives at a specific point, another wave may come in at a slightly different location. This creates a series of closely spaced points that we perceive as a particle. The wave-particle duality becomes apparent in this context. Do you see?

William M. Angelos: Because we typically observe movement on a "macro" scale, we assume that’s how electrons behave.

David Bohm: Exactly; we extrapolate from macro-level behavior. When confronted with Quantum Mechanics, many found it nonsensical and concluded that the only option was to calculate probabilities.

William M. Angelos: The term "quantum" itself is rooted in—

David Bohm: The term "quantum" reflects the discrete nature of energy transfer, occurring in jumps or "quanta" rather than continuously.

William M. Angelos: I see.

David Bohm: One aspect of quantum phenomena is that electrons can transition from one state to another without occupying the space in between, which seems mysterious.

However, if you consider that a wave can arrive at a point and then disperse to another, this doesn’t appear as mysterious.

William M. Angelos: Can we conclude that this parallels the thinking process?

David Bohm: Yes, we could assert that the thinking process unfolds in a similar manner. Thoughts are enfolded in consciousness, unfolding into specific ideas before folding back, leading to the emergence of a series of closely related thoughts.

William M. Angelos: Does this relate to the popular term "quantum leap"?

David Bohm: Yes, those jumps refer to transitions that skip intermediate steps.

William M. Angelos: One cannot determine how it transitions from point A to point B at a macro level.

David Bohm: Correct. Such jumps are inherently creative. In essence, referring to a "quantum jump" or "quantum leap" denotes a creative process.

William M. Angelos: In the Implicate Order, it manifests in a different realm rather than traveling from point A to point B.

David Bohm: Exactly.

William M. Angelos: That encapsulates the fundamental reasoning in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order."

David Bohm: Yes, it establishes a connection between Consciousness and Matter, reflecting parallel processes.

William M. Angelos: So, at that foundational implicate level, all—

David Bohm: All existence… all being…

William M. Angelos: All being was—

Serie: David Bohm Interview

 Wholeness and the Implicate Order: Physicist David Bohm on Bridging Consciousness and Reality — The Marginalian

David Bohm: Contained within one order—the Implicate Order—where the enfolded order is paramount, rather than the linear movement.

William M. Angelos: Thus, the greater action occurs within the implicate…

David Bohm: Yes, and manifests in the explicate.

William M. Angelos: And it manifests in the explicate.

David Bohm: Indeed, this aligns with the scientific tradition suggesting that what we once regarded as essence is, in fact, appearance.

William M. Angelos: Please repeat that.

David Bohm: What we once perceived as essence is now understood as merely another appearance. The particle often viewed as the essence of Reality is also an appearance.

William M. Angelos: It is [an] appearance.

David Bohm: Everything embodies both essence and appearance in that context.

William M. Angelos: Ah, I see.

David Bohm: All appearances are essentially significant.

William M. Angelos: (Laughing) Otherwise, we wouldn’t recognize them.

David Bohm: Yet, the essence as true being remains unknown.

William M. Angelos: Ah!

David Bohm: Even the Implicate Order is merely a concept. Thus, even it may ultimately be an appearance. By introducing deeper, more profound appearances, we enhance our understanding, but we will never grasp the entirety.

William M. Angelos: This has profound implications for our perception of the world.

David Bohm: Indeed. This perspective contradicts the belief held by many physicists that we will attain a "Theory of Everything."

In the 19th century, following Newton’s successes, Lord Kelvin claimed it was futile for youth to pursue Physics as it was nearly complete; only refinements remained. (laughing) He identified two minor clouds on the horizon.

The negative findings of the Michelson/Morley Experiment and issues surrounding Black Body Radiation. These turned out to be significant clouds, leading to revolutions—one resulted in Relativity, the other in Quantum Mechanics.

William M. Angelos: Those clouds were misjudged by Kelvin.

David Bohm: He miscalculated the implications of those clouds.

William M. Angelos: In fact, the revolutions were birthed from them.

David Bohm: Today, we face much larger clouds on the horizon.

William M. Angelos: As a result of…

David Bohm: Physics has advanced in numerous directions, with many concepts remaining unclear today—more so than back then. Yet, people cling to the idea of a "Theory of Everything," still holding onto hope.

William M. Angelos: Does this "Theory of Everything" connect to Einstein’s Unified Theory?

David Bohm: It aims to realize Einstein's vision, yes. There's no harm in pursuing a Unified Theory, but one mustn't claim it encompasses everything, as it too will remain an appearance.

William M. Angelos: Essentially, you suggest that all theories are simply perspectives rather than Absolute Truths.

David Bohm: Yes, they serve as appearances reflecting, in principle, the entirety—the Whole. We possess various mirrors through which we can view different aspects, including ourselves in relation to this Whole.

William M. Angelos: Can I take a "quantum leap" and assert that if this is the case, then treating our thought processes as absolute is misguided?

David Bohm: Yes.

William M. Angelos: And the outcomes of those thought processes as well?

David Bohm: Yes. From a scientific standpoint, it’s erroneous. However, if you examine the process directly, the severity of that mistake becomes evident.

William M. Angelos: Currently, you find that your work on Consciousness parallels your other endeavors, possibly taking precedence. The book you are publishing with Mr. Hiley…

David Bohm: That’s focused on Quantum Theory. It represents an effort to reintroduce concepts I proposed thirty to forty years ago.

William M. Angelos: But it diverges from Bohr’s approach.

David Bohm: Correct.

William M. Angelos: Can you clarify the distinction between the two approaches?

David Bohm: Bohr’s stance was that nothing could be articulated beyond calculations. My approach seeks to provide a conceptual framework—an alternative appearance.

William M. Angelos: An alternative appearance, but it’s significantly oriented towards meaning, as I comprehend it.

David Bohm: Yes. By establishing the Implicate Order and associating it with Consciousness, we introduce a creative order imbued with meaning. In a purely mechanical order, deriving meaning becomes challenging, as Stephen Weinberg noted: the more we explore the Cosmos, the less meaning we perceive. This is inevitable if one’s focus is solely on calculations.

William M. Angelos: Do you believe this perception is permeating our society?

David Bohm: Absolutely. Society is profoundly influenced by Science, just as it was once guided by Religion, which no longer dominates our worldview. Science now shapes our understanding of existence that Religion previously provided.

The perspective of Totality holds immense significance, as it embodies the highest value. If the Universe, representing that ultimate value, is devoid of meaning, then what can possess value?

William M. Angelos: In essence, your inquiry aims to reintroduce meaning into Life.

David Bohm: Indeed, there’s no rationale for the current scientific narrative. The Universe is not what it’s presented to be. There exists ample space for limitless meaning. If we posit that even Matter is creative, then surely, the Mind is even more so.

William M. Angelos: Are there elements of Consciousness in your upcoming book? Will they be—

David Bohm: The concluding chapter will address Consciousness.

William M. Angelos: This brings us up to date regarding your continuous exploration from the beginning. My subsequent question pertains to a comparison you’ve drawn between your understanding of Reality and Plato’s "Allegory of the Cave." Could we delve into that aspect?

David Bohm: In Plato’s "Allegory of the Cave," individuals were shackled, observing shadows on the cave wall and attempting to discern patterns among them. They might engage in calculations, estimating probabilities of shadow transformations.

Plato suggested that if they turned to face the light, they would initially be blinded, but eventually realize that the shadows were mere illusions. Similarly, I propose that our perceptions represent shadows—they are appearances. Recognizing that these shadows are not the ultimate reality, yet may still hold relevance to it, is crucial.

William M. Angelos: And we can become ensnared in those shadows.

David Bohm: Indeed. If we mistake shadows for reality, we lose sight of the essential point: shadows do not represent the reality, yet they can still illuminate aspects of it. Understanding them as mere shadows, rather than the ultimate truth, is vital.

Jump to the next part — Interview: David Bohm | Amsterdam, 1990 — Third Part


Enjoyed the read? If you found this article helpful or interesting, don’t forget to clap, share, or leave a comment—it really helps others find my work!


Love unique designs? Check out my Redbubble Shop for some cool items! As an artist, I earn a small commission for each design sold, and every bit helps.

Feeling generous? You can support my journey by donating a coffee or a book here.

Thank you for your support!