Monday, April 24, 2023

Cosmology of a Communist

Here is a new paper:
The Cosmology of David Bohm: Scientific and Theological Significance

We discuss David Bohm's dual contributions as a physicist and thinker. First, de Grijs introduces Bohm's universe, with an emphasis on the physical quest that led Bohm to the elaboration of an original cosmology at the nexus of science and philosophy. Next, Costache takes his cue from de Grijs' explorations by highlighting the affinity between Bohm's scientific cosmology and patristic ideas that are central to the Orthodox worldview. It is our hope that this approach will stir the interest of Bohm scholars in the Orthodox worldview and also lead Orthodox theologians to nurture an appreciation for Bohm's cosmology.

David Bohm has a cult following.

The paper does not mention that he was a Communist, and those philosophical ideas are outgrowth of his Marxist and Communist ideas. He was a student of J.R. Oppenheimer, and refused to testify before Congress. Because of his Communist activities, he fled the USA.

Among physicists, he is mainly known for a nonlocal hidden variable theory. His followers call it "causal", but it is the opposite of causal. Local theories are causal. Bohm's theory had action-at-a-distance, where events cannot be attributed to causal influences. It generates a lot of research papaers, but no one uses it for any practical work.

Bohm is dead, but there is an Irish organization that tries to keep his mystical ideas alive.

I am not trying to cancel a scientist for his terrible political views. His contributions to Physics are wildly exaggerated for reasons that are not political. At least I don't think that they are political. I am not sure why he has a cult following. Maybe it is partly political, I don't know. I am just pointing out the shortcomings of his Physics, and his politics.


  1. Dear Roger,

    > "David Bohm has a cult following. "

    May be.

    Bohm himself was a follower of what may loosely be described as a cult, IMO. Namely, that of the outright funny case of J. D. Krishnamoorthy, and others of his ilk. Real funny folks these. Full of themselves. Reminds me of many in Berkeley, CA, in our times (last 50--60 years or so).

    When I think of Bohm's following of *today's*, ``cult'' isn't the first word that comes to my mind though.

    That word is: ``Moneyed.'' (To be distinguished from ``rich.'')

    The second word is: ``Obsessed.'' (``That way'' indeed is ``too cheap.'')

    These two should be enough. Actually, more than enough.

    I haven't read the arXiv paper. Will browse through it, and come back, if necessary.


    1. Correction:

      J. D. Krishnamoorthy -> Jiddu Krishnamurti.

      I mean, *this* idiot:


    2. He was a Hindoo, an idiot, but not much worse than the riches of the younger than me Women like Vani Kolaa (Coca Cola NLP types) and others of her ilk from Telangana/Andhra (in short GuLuTe).


    3. Correction:

      ``the riches'' --> ``the `money's''

      PS: I remain honest. Despite having spent 3.5+ years in Alabama and the rest of more or less cumulative 7 years in your country, Roger! I remain honest. And, poor.

    4. Another error. [Feels like I'm that m*-fucking MicroSoft ChapGPT or something.]

      1990 Fall through Spring 1993 at University of Alabama at Birmingham.

      The rest, almost 7 years in your country, Roger, in the SF Bay Area, which is in California, which is in the USA, the last time I checked.

      Go figure, Roger, you Berkeley, CA, USA, PhD!

  2. Niels Bohr was also into dualistic mystical mumbo-jumbo with many of his views...and quite pompous about what he felt future physicists could possibly know about quantum mechanics. The only way to sanely handle scientists, physicists, and their historical contributions is to view them in the context of their own times, and as entirely fallible human beings who endeavored to discover things (despite their egos)...and often got it wrong.

    I am entirely against the ass-kissing/hero-worship/idolization/deification PR complex that so many in the sciences feel are so 'inspirational' to the 'great cause' of science. It's just pretentious self congratulatory rubbish that demonstrates a glaring lack of humility and wisdom.