Abstract Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has generally been received as an attempt to restore the determinism of classical physics. However, although this interpretation, as Bohm initially proposed it in 1952, does indeed have the feature of being deterministic, for Bohm this was never the main point. In fact, in other publications and in correspondence from this period, he argued that the assumption that nature is deterministic is unjustified and should be abandoned. Whereas it has been argued before that Bohm’s commitment to determinism was connected to his interest in Marxism, I argue for the opposite: Bohm found resources in Marxist philosophy for developing a non-deterministic notion of causality, which is based on the idea of infinite complexity and an infinite number of levels of nature. From ca. 1954 onwards, Bohm’s conception of causality further weakened, as he developed the idea of a dialectical relation between causality and chance.
Abstract Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has generally been received as an attempt to restore the determinism of classical physics. However, although this interpretation, as Bohm initially proposed it in 1952, does indeed have the feature of being deterministic, for Bohm this was never the main point. In fact, in other publications and in correspondence from this period, he argued that the assumption that nature is deterministic is unjustified and should be abandoned. Whereas it has been argued before that Bohm’s commitment to determinism was connected to his interest in Marxism, I argue for the opposite: Bohm found resources in Marxist philosophy for developing a non-deterministic notion of causality, which is based on the idea of infinite complexity and an infinite number of levels of nature. From ca. 1954 onwards, Bohm’s conception of causality further weakened, as he developed the idea of a dialectical relation between causality and chance.
Abstract David Bohm has put forward the first deterministic interpretation of quantum physics, and for this he seems to be regarded as a champion of determinism by physicists (both his contemporaries and the supporters of his interpretation, the so-called “Bohmians”) as well as by historians of physics. The standard narrative is that he underwent a “conversion” from being a supporter of Bohr to being a staunch determinist, due to his interaction with Einstein and his commitment to Marxism. Here we show that Bohm actually upheld with continuity throughout his career some philosophical tenets that included a strong rejection of mechanistic determinism. As such, we conclude that Bohm was never a Bohmian and that his philosophical views have been largely misinterpreted.
M.Born's notions on causality are that Quantum World is governed by causality and chance jointly;that quantum particle has the intrinsic property of uncertainty,and the law of chance is the last law of nature;and that the concepts of probability and chance are more elementary than causality.While D.Bohm's notions of potential causality are that there is no last law of nuture at all,and each level manifests unique rules;that causality is just relative necessity and contingency always appears on the cross point of many different factors or probable tendencies;that the potential causality interpretation is some kind of integration of causal determination and probability statistics,which has clear intuitive model in physics,and has definite ontological base in philosophy.
Abstract The paper investigates David Bohm’s philosophy of science as a form of fallibilist realism that underpins his causal interpretation of quantum mechanics Bohm (Bohm 1952a, 1952b, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990; Bohm and Hiley 1975, 1984, 1993). Bohm’s central aim is to establish the superiority of his interpretation over the standard Copenhagen framework, particularly in contrast to that of Niels Bohr. Whereas Bohr asserts that knowledge of quantum phenomena is restricted to the statistical outcomes of measurement, Bohm’s approach is distinctly realist in orientation. Responding to the challenges posed by Einstein and other physicists, Bohm relies on extra-empirical criteria such as determinism, objectivity and intelligibility. The paper develops what will be termed the methodology of intuitive intelligibility (II), consisting of four stages: (1) reformulation of the standard quantum equations, (2) physical interpretation of the mathematical symbols, (3) drawing analogies with classical laws, and (4) drawing analogies with common experience. It is argued that Bohm applies the (II) methodology consistently, with the notable exception of the ontological status of the wave function and quantum potential. In attempting to explain causal relations from a 3N-dimensional configuration space (where N is the number of particles) to familiar three-dimensional space through an appeal to ‘information’, Bohm arguably commits a category mistake. A proposed resolution—drawing on Bohm’s own holistic analogies—is supported by the recent multi-field interpretation (Romano Multi-field and Bohm’s theory. Synthese, 198(30), 10587–10609, 2021). The term fallibilist realism aptly characterizes Bohm’s stance in the philosophy of science: he repeatedly emphasizes that the causal interpretation is not intended as a final theory. Nevertheless, holism constitutes a substantive ontological commitment that he is unwilling to abandon.
Abstract This is devoted to detailed commentaries on Bohm’s lectures. The primary aim of these commentaries is to demonstrate how dialectical materialism acted as a new perspective on Bohm’s understanding of the meaning of quantum mechanics and as the foundation for a comprehensive interpretation of science and human understanding of nature in general. The commentaries address all the main topics discussed in Bohm’s lectures, emphasizing their roots in the contemporary discussion about the foundations of quantum theory, in Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, and in dialectical materialism, as well as in current scientific debates—for example, about the foundations of mathematics. The comments summarize Bohm’s long and sometimes convoluted discussions to highlight the key points, occasionally connecting them to the broader scientific and philosophical discourse. The comments also provide missing references and identify novel topics and arguments presented in these lectures, in comparison with those found in Causality and Chance in Modern Physics.
Determinism is related to other fundamental concepts such as causality. However, with the growth of quantum physics, determinism became a scientific "dilemma" and has created many challenges in various contemporary sciences. Most of modern physicists chose elimination of determinism. The basic question is: Is determinism completely removable? To answer this question, this paper is to investigate this concept analytically. At first we consider different aspects of the terminology and definition of determinism. Particularly, we pay attention to different kinds of determinism including global/local domain, complete/incomplete form, and the main factor in the formation of events. It is discussed that although determinism took a complete and universal form in classical physics, because of some philosophical ideas, determinism changed into a different concept, even as a problem and an undesirable element, in the standard (Copenhagen interpretation of) quantum mechanics. It is explained that determinism is a complex concept with a number of aspects and characteristics. Prediction, the world accessibility, and connection between the past and the future are the characteristics of the concept of determinism which cannot be set aside from the science. The final result is that, without any pre-assumption or alternative interpretation as what is done in already known realistic and deterministic theories as Bohmian quantum mechanics and/or many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, determinism cannot be completely denied in the standard (Copenhagen interpretation of) quantum mechanics.
Abstract This book tells the story of Bohm’s hitherto unpublished lecture notes on quantum theory and dialectical materialism. It places his lecture notes in a wider historical, scientific, and philosophical context and traces Bohm’s intellectual development from an early attempt to better understand the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to his elaboration of an alternative causal interpretation based on the notion of “hidden variables.” As the lecture notes strikingly illustrate, dialectical materialism played a fundamental role in the further development of his understanding of quantum mechanics. Bohm placed the notions of the infinity of nature and the unity of opposites at the center of his natural philosophy, drawing from the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The book also examines Bohm’s legacy in the history of quantum mechanics and his contribution to preparing the “second quantum revolution.” Bohm’s engagement with dialectical materialism and his role as a dissident from the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics were pivotal in bringing about the novel insights and technologies associated with this second quantum revolution. During the 1960s, Bohm developed a growing interest in the nature of consciousness and engaged with the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. But this new phase in Bohm’s intellectual odyssey was, in spite of a seemingly fundamental break with earlier philosophical positions, not completely unrelated to his fascination with, and deep understanding of, Hegel’s philosophy, which the lecture notes amply document for the first time.