The holomovement metaphysics of David Bohm emphasizes connections and continuous change. Two general movements through space‐time extend Bohm's ideas. One is that the universe was nonlocal when it started but increases in locality. (With nonlocality, two simultaneous but distant events affect each other.) The other is the opposite movement or evolution toward increasingly complex systems exhibiting internal connections and a type of nonlocality. This metaphysics produces a theology when the holomovement is a model for God. Several topics follow, including global (...) nonlocality, God as creator, God's transcendence and immanence, and God as personal. This theology shows promise but needs further development. (shrink)

H.P. Stapp has proposed a number of demonstrations of a Bell-type theorem which dispensed with an assumption of hidden variables, but relied only upon locality together with an assumption that experimenters can choose freely which of several incompatible observables to measure. In recent papers his strategy has centered upon counterfactual conditionals. Stapp’s paper in American Journal of Physics, 2004, replies to objections raised against earlier expositions of this strategy and proposes a simplified demonstration. The new demonstration is criticized, several subtleties (...) in the logic of counterfactuals are pointed out, and the proofs of J.S. Bell and his followers are advocated. (shrink)

David Bohm's thinking has become widely publicized since the 1982 performance of a form of the Einstein‐Podolsky‐ Rosen (EPR) experiment. Bohm's holomovement theory, in particular, tries to explain the nonlocality that the experiment supports. Moreover, his theories are close to his metaphysical and religious thinking. Fritjof Capra's writings try something similar: supporting a theory (the bootstrap theory) because it is close to his religious beliefs. Both Bohm and Capra appear to use their religious ideas in their physics. Religion, their source (...) for physical hypotheses, provides the motivation to develop and uphold them. (shrink)

This paper is a sequel to various papers by the author devoted to the EPR correlation. The leading idea remains that the EPR correlation (either in its well-known form of nonseparability of future measurements, or in its less well-known time-reversed form of nonseparability of past preparations) displays the intrinsic time symmetry existing in almost all physical theories at the elementary level. But, as explicit Lorentz invariance has been an essential requirement in both the formalization and the conceptualization of my papers, (...) the noninvariant concept ofT symmetry has to yield in favor of the invariant concept ofPT symmetry, or even (asC symmetry is not universally valid) to that ofCPT invariance. A distinction is then drawn between “macro” special relativity, defined by invariance under the orthochronous Lorentz group and submission to the retarded causality concept, and “micro” special relativity, defined by invariance under the full Lorentz group and includingCPT symmetry. TheCPT theorem clearly implies that “micro special relativity”is relativity theory at the quantal level. It is thus of fundamental significance not only in the search of interaction Lagrangians, etc., but also in the basic interpretation of quantum mechanics, including the understanding of the EPR correlation. While the experimental existence of the EPR correlations is manifestly incompatible with macro relativity, it is fully consistent with micro relativity. Going from a retarded concept of causality to one that isCPT invariant has very radical consequences, which are briefly discussed. (shrink)