stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

APPENDIX 533
physicist [Peat, 1997], deferring to the latter’s expositions in their
talks together.) So too did Geoffrey Chew, Henry Stapp, Roger
Penrose, Ilya Prigogine and David Finkelstein. That (1987) “book
of good repute” was, of course, published well within “the last decade
and a half” of Wilber’s (1998) initial quote, above.
SUPPORT
In terms of Wilber’s suggestion that Bohm’s ontological formulation,
with its implicate and explicate orders, has “no support whatsoever
from recent physics,” we can be even more categorical. For,
there it is very clear that he is referring to hard science, not to
transpersonal/integral psychology’s (mis)appropriation of Bohm’s
ideas.
To begin, we note that the ontological formulation of quantum
theory, by the very manner of its derivation, will always be compatible
with the orthodox theory. That is, any experimental results
which are in harmony with the orthodox theory will also accord
with Bohm’s reformulation. As such, there is no experiment for
which the orthodox theory could be “right,” and Bohm’s explanations
“wrong” (Bohm and Hiley, 1993).
Conversely, any experiment which supports orthodox quantum
theory—as every existing one has—will perforce also support
Bohm’s causal/ontological formulation. Therefore, Bohm’s view has
just as much “support from recent physics” in that regard as does
the orthodox quantum theory.
Alternatively, if the alleged “absence of support from recent
physics” derives from that idea that attempts to unify quantum
theory and general relativity via superstring or M-theory have
thus far not included the implicate/explicate order concepts, that
position need hardly be taken seriously. For, if the theorists working
on M-theory are only hoping to integrate the orthodox quantum
theory, not Bohm’s more-detailed formulation, into that “Theory of
Everything,” then of course the implicate/explicate order structure
will not be openly brought over into it, and thus not mentioned in
relevant scholarly or popularized literature! Integrating Bohm’s
ontological formulation into superstring theory would automatically
integrate the orthodox theory—since the ontological formulation
mathematically simplifies to the orthodox view—but not vice
versa.
In any case, with or without that integration,