[abhishekjha]

> any attempt to examine your thought changes it--just as the measurement of an electron alters its course.

Wait a minute. Isn’t this factually wrong? I mean the uncertainty in measurement is not brought by the experiment perturbing the system but something inherent to the system. We know how much we are perturbing the system. We can always subtract that from the calculation and the system still ends up having uncertainty.

Not a physicist, can somebody correct me if there’s something wrong?

[inciampati]

Bohm is completely correct. It is impossible to think about something without changing your own thought of it. Or more specifically, memory, is changed by remembering. This has been demonstrated in a very literal way, in that amyloid secondary structures that are key to memory are transformed by neuronal activation. See https://scitechdaily.com/surprisingly-historically-misunders... for a summary. These systems are absolutely quantum scale.

[PeterWhittaker]

Measurement perturbs the system, always. Most of the time (radar speed check on a car, e.g.), the perturbation is so small as to be insignificant.

When one bounces a photon off an electron to measure its position, though, one moves it.

Likewise, when one uses a magnetic field to detect an electron, one deflects it.

Add to that that position is poorly defined for such quantized objects in the first place, and things only get fuzzier.

[disconcision]

bohm here is talking about the observer effect, which is distinct from, though has historically been conflated with, the uncertainty principle. the former refers to how measurement unavoidably affects a system, whereas the latter is an inherent limit to accuracy effecting all wave-like systems