Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply. To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
T O P I C R E V I E W
Abi
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 9:25:37 PM Here is an interesting overview of several aspects of Bohm's work. This info is excerpted from an article called Lifework of David Bohm - River of Truth by Will Keepin, Ph.D. The whole article can be accessed at http://www.satyana.org/html/bohm.html
Just call me Watchette (quoting dead white guys)
Holomovement and the Implicate Order Thoughts about Thinking A primary tenet of Bohm's thinking is that all of reality is dynamic process. Included in this is the very process of thinking about the nature of reality. If we split thought off from reality, as we are conditioned to do, and then speak of our thought about reality, we have created a fragmentary view in which knowledge and reality are separate. Knowledge is then in danger of becoming static and somehow exempt from the conditions of reality. Bohm emphasizes that "a major source of fragmentation is the presupposition that the process of thought is sufficiently separate from and independent of its content, to allow us generally to carry out clear, orderly, rational thinking, which can properly judge this content as correct or incorrect, rational or irrational, fragmentary or whole, etc." In his writing and talks, he was fond of referring to A. Korzybski's admonition that whatever we say a thing is, it is not that. It is both different from that, and more than that (Korzybski 1950).
The artificial separation of process and content in knowledge becomes especially problematic in systems of thought that seek to encompass the totality of existence (as do grand unified theories in physics, for example). As Bohm notes, it then becomes quite easy to slip into "the trap of tacitly treating such a view as originating independently of thought, thus implying that its content actually is the whole of reality. From this point on, one will see, in the whole field accessible to one, no room for change in the overall order, as given by one's notions of totality, which indeed must now seem to encompass all that is possible or even thinkable. . . To adopt such an attitude will evidently tend to prevent that free movement of the mind needed for clarity of perception, and so will contribute to a pervasive distortion and confusion, extending into every aspect of experience."
Bohm goes on to suggest that the movement of thought is a kind of artistic process that yields ever-changing form and content. He intimates that "there can no more be an ultimate form of such thought that there could be an ultimate poem (that would make all further poems unnecessary)".
In truth, science is essentially a creative art form that paints dynamic portraits of the natural world, using the human intellect as its canvas and the tools of reason as it palette. Bohm was rare among physicists in recognizing this, and he exhibited commensurate humility in the interpretation and extrapolation of his theories.
Wholeness and the Holomovement David Bohm's most significant contribution to science is his interpretation of the nature of physical reality, which is rooted in his theoretical investigations, especially quantum theory and relativity theory. Bohm postulates that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather it is an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. For Bohm, the insights of quantum mechanics and relativity theory point to a universe that is undivided and in which all parts "merge and unite in one totality." This undivided whole is not static but rather in a constant state of flow and change, a kind of invisible ether from which all things arise and into which all things eventually dissolve. Indeed, even mind and matter are united: "In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement".
Similarly, living and nonliving entities are not separate. As Bohm puts it, "The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron." Thus, matter does not exist independently from so-called empty space; matter and space are each part of the wholeness.
Bohm calls this flow the holomovement. The component terms holo and movement refer to two fundamental features of reality. The movement portion refers to the fact that reality is in a constant state of change and flux as mentioned above. The holo portion signifies that reality is structured in a manner that can be likened to holography.
In analogy to holography but on a much grander scale, Bohm believes that each part of physical reality contains information about the whole. Thus in some sense, every part of the universe "contains" the entire universe.
Evidence for this kind of holographic structure in nature has emerged recently in the burgeoning field of chaos theory and its close cousin, fractal geometry. The term chaos theory is somewhat of a misnomer because the new discoveries are more about order than chaos. It has been found that most nonlinear systems embody a multitude of self-similar structures that are nested within one another at different scales. A well-known example is the Mandelbrot set, which is a fractal that appears in computer representations much like a black bug, with an infinity of similar "bugs" embedded at innumerable smaller scales. Each of these "bugs" replicates the whole, in a sense, and contains information about the entire nonlinear process.
Putting the holographic structure of reality together with its perpetual dynamism, we get the holomovement: an exceedingly rich and intricate flow in which, in some sense, every portion of the flow contains the entire flow. As Bohm puts it, the holomovement refers to "the unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders". The physical evidence that forms the basis for postulating the holomovement comes primarily from Bohm's interpretation of physics, especially quantum theory, which I will examine further.
The Implicate Order The holomovement is, admittedly, a rather subtle concept to grasp; indeed, it is generally invisible to us. Bohm proposes that the holomovement consists of two fundamental aspects: the explicate order and the implicate order. He illustrates the concept of the implicate order by analogy to a remarkable physical phenomenon. Consider a cylindrical jar with a smaller concentric cylinder (of the same height) inside it that has a crank attached, so that the inner cylinder can be rotated while the outer cylinder remains stationary. Now fill the annular volume between the two cylinders with a highly viscous fluid, such as glycerine, so that there is negligible diffusion. If a droplet of ink is placed in the fluid, and the inner cylinder is turned slowly, the ink drop will be stretched out into a fine, thread-like form that becomes increasingly thinner and fainter until it finally disappears altogether. At this point it is tempting to conclude that the ink drop has been thoroughly mixed into the glycerine, so that its order has been rendered chaotic and random. However, if the inner cylinder is now rotated slowly in the opposite direction, the thin ink form will reappear, retrace its steps, and eventually reconstruct itself into its orinal form of the drop again. Such devices have been constructed, and the effect is quite dramatic.
The lesson in this analogy is that a hidden order may be present in what appears to be simply chance or randomness. When the ink form disappears, its order is not destroyed but rather is enfolded in the glycerine. To develop this analogy further, imagine that a whole series of droplets is enfolded, as follows. The first drop is enfolded with nturns. Next, a second drop is placed in the glycerine, and it is enfolded after another nturns (the first drop is now enfolded 2n turns). Then a third drop is placed in the glycerine, which is enfolded after nturns (the first drop is now enfolded 3n turns, and the second drop 2n turns). Continuing in this way, a whole series of droplets is enfolded in the glycerine. When the direction of rotation is reversed, the drops unfold one at a time, and if this is done quickly enough, the effect is that of a stationary ink drop or "particle" subsisting for a time in the moving fluid. One can also imagine that each successive drop is placed at an adjacent position in the glycerine, so that when the inner cylinder is reversed, the appearance is that of a particle moving along a continuos path. In either case, the sequence of enfolded ink droplets in the glycerine constitutes the implicate order, and the visible droplet that is unfolded at any given moment is the explicate order.
Bohm views the nature of physical reality in analogous fashion to this example. An electron is understood to be a set of enfolded ensembles, which are generally not localized in space. At any given moment, one of these ensembles may be unfolded and localized, and the next moment, this one enfolds and is replaced by another that unfolds. If this process continues in a rapid and regular fashion in which each unfoldment is localized adjacent to the previous one, it gives the appearance of continuous motion of a particle, to which we humans have given the name electron. Yet there is no isolated particle, and its apparent continuous motion is an illusion generated by the rapid and regular sequence of unfoldings (much as a spinning airplane propeller gives the appearance of a solid disk). As Bohm puts it, ". . . fundamentally, the particle is only an abstraction that is manifest to our senses. What is is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and inter-penetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space".
Moreover, at any stage of this process, an ensemble may suddenly unfold that is very different from the previous one, which would give the appearance in the explicate order of the electron suddenly jumping discontinuously from one state to another. This offers a new way of understanding what lies behind the well-known quantum mechanical behavior of electrons as they jump discontinuously from one quantum state to another. Indeed, what we call matter is merely an apparent manifestation of the explicate order of the holomovement. This explicate order is the surface appearance of a much greater enfolded or implicate order, most of which is hidden. Contemporary physics and, indeed, most of science deals with explicate orders and structures only, which is why physics has encountered such great difficulty in explaining a variety of phenomena that Bohm would say arise from the implicate order.
The radical implications of Bohm's implicate order take some time to fully grasp, especially for Western minds that have been steeped in the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm of classical physics that still dominates contemporary science. For example, it might be tempting to assume that the implicate order refers to a subtle level of reality that is secondary and subordinate to the primary explicate order, which we see manifest all around us. However, for Bohm, precisely the opposite is the case: the implicate order is the fundamental and primary reality, albeit invisible. Meanwhile, the explicate order--the vast physical universe we experience--is but a set of "ripples" on the surface of the implicate order. The manifest objects that we regard as comprising ordinary reality are only the unfolded projections of the much deeper, higher dimensional implicate order, which is the fundamental reality. The implicate and explicate orders are interpenetrating in all regions of space-time, and each region enfolds all of existence, that is, everything is enfolded into everything. As Bohm explains, "In the implicate order the totality of existence is enfolded within each region of space (and time). So, whatever part, element, or aspect we may abstract in thought, this still enfolds the whole and is therefore intrinsically related to the totality from which it has been abstracted. Thus, wholeness permeates all that is being discussed, from the very outset."
Fullness of Empty Space Bohm's understanding of physical reality turns the commonplace notion of "empty space" completely on its head. For Bohm, space is not some giant vacuum through which matter moves; space is every bit as real as the matter that moves through it. Space and matter are intimately interconnected. Indeed, calculations of the quantity known as the zero-point energy suggest that a single cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than all of the matter in the known universe! From this result, Bohm concludes that "space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty." For Bohm, this enormous energy inherent in "empty" space can be viewed as theoretical evidence for the existence of a vast, yet hidden realm such as the implicate order.
Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory The foregoing concepts of holomovement and the implicate order were originally developed by Bohm as a result of his theoretical investigations in quantum theory. Indeed, Bohm's entire life's work was largely shaped by his contributions to quantum theory, which are briefly reviewed here. When Bohm began work in quantum theory, he accepted the "Copenhagen interpretation" of it developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and others. The still-dominant Copenhagen interpretation says two basic things: (1) reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena (which means reality does not exist in the absence of observation), and (2) quantum mechanics is a complete description of reality; no deeper understanding is possible. In effect, this says that observable phenomena are the whole of reality; and any speculation about a deeper underlying reality is meaningless. Bohr stated it unequivocally: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description". In this understanding, quantum mechanics provides nothing more or less than a set of statistical rules for connecting observable phenomena.
In 1931, John von Neumann published The Foundations of Quantum Theory, which remains to this day the mathematical bible on that topic. In this book, von Neumann offered a mathematical proof that an ordinary classical reality could not underlie quantum theory. For over twenty years, "von Neumann's proof" stood as a mathematical corroboration of the Copenhagen interpretation. However, in 1952, David Bohm did the impossible and uprooted this "proof" by constructing a model of the electron with classical attributes whose behavior matched the predictions of the quantum theory. In this model, the electron is viewed as an ordinary particle, with one key difference: the electron has access to information about its environment. To derive this model, Bohm began with the Schroedinger equation, which is the central mathematical formula of quantum physics. Using elegant mathematics, Bohm effectively partitioned this equation into two parts, or terms: a classical term that essentially reproduces Newtonian physics, and a nonclassical term that he calls the quantum potential. The classical term treats the electron as an ordinary particle, as in classical physics. The nonclassical quantum potential is a wave-like term that provides information to the electron, linking it to the rest of the universe. The quantum potential is responsible for the well-known wave-particle duality and all the other bizarre phenomena for which quantum theory has become famous. Indeed, the nonlocal character of quantum reality--as implied by Bell's theorem and empirically observed in the renowned experiments of Alain Aspect(2)--may be viewed as plausible evidence for the actual existence of an entity symbolized by the quantum potential.
Bohm was convinced that there is much more going on in quantum mechanics than meets either the eye, the brain, or the laboratory instruments of the physicist. He challenged the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation with his causal interpretation, arguing that as-yet-unknown factors (or "hidden variables") were causing the seemingly inexplicable phenomena observed in quantum experiments. But how and where might these causal factors operate? Bohm pointed out that the smallest detectable distance in physical experiments is about 10(-17) centimeters, (cm), whereas the smallest distance beyond which space no longer has any meaning is an extremely tiny 10(-33) cm. This leaves an unknown realm that spans sixteen orders of magnitude in relative size, which is comparable to the size difference between our ordinary macroscopic world and the smallest detectable physical distance [10(-17) cm]. Having no empirical knowledge of this realm, we cannot dismiss the possibility that causal factors could be operative in this realm.
The key feature of the causal interpretation is the quantum potential, which is a wave-like information field that provides a kind of guidance to the electron. Bohm invokes the analogy of an airliner that changes its course in response to navigational radio signals. The radio waves do not and cannot provide the energy required to change course; rather they provide active information to which the airliner responds by changing course under its own power. The electron responds in an analogous manner to the quantum potential. This could explain the notorious mystery of the "collapse" of the wave function, which occurs as a seemingly random event in the laboratory and is taken by the Copenhagen interpretation to mean that reality does not exist until observed. The Schroedinger wave function describes an infinity of possible outcomes, and the information provided by the quantum potential could cause the electron to "choose" one outcome over all the others. Hence, information alone could cause the "collapse" of an infinity of possibilities into a single manifestation. This is reminiscent of Gregory Bateson's description of fertilization, in which the unfertilized frog's egg contains an infinity of unmanifest potentialities, and the fertilizing sperm provides information that "collapses" the egg's vast potentiality into a single manifest embryo.
Bohm rigorously demonstrated that the causal interpretation predicts physical results identical to those predicted by the Copenhagen interpretation, but with a very different understanding of the underlying deep structure. For example, he shows mathematically that the well-known Heisenberg uncertainty principle may be a crude description of the average statistical behavior of causal variables, and that Planck's "constant" may not be constant over very small intervals of time or space. Hence, the uncertainty principle may not be an absolute limit on the precision of measurement, as generally believed, but could rather be an expression of the incomplete degree of self-determination that characterizes all quantum mechanical entities. In other words, the uncertainty principle may be a limit that is imposed by our ignorance of causal variables.
The notion of a "potential" is commonplace in physics; for example, the gravitational potential of the Earth tells about the potential energy available at each point in the gravitational field. However, the quantum potential differs in that it has no known physical source, which is one reason that physicists object to it. Even more unacceptable, the action of the quantum potential depends only on its form and not on its intensity, which means that its effect does not diminish with increasing separation in space or time. The form of the quantum potential gives information that is communicated instantaneously, which appears to violate Einstein's Limit of the speed of light for travel of signals. Thus, the quantum potential could be seen as providing information from a meta-physical realm, in the sense that it is beyond ordinary space and time altogether. Though Bohm did not emphasize this aspect in his early work during the 1950s, it became evident later in his concept of the implicate order. Indeed, the theoretical impetus for the implicate order was the quantum potential, which is a mathematical version of the implicate order in the Schroedinger equation.
Order and Randomness An inquiry into the nature of order was a central theme that persisted throughout David Bohm's work. To understand why Bohm undertook a study of order, it is important to step back a moment and survey the evolution of his thinking.
Evolution of Bohm's Thinking Bohm began with the troubling concern that the two pillars of modern physics--quantum mechanics and relativity theory--actually contradict each other. Moreover, this contradiction is not just in minor details but is very fundamental, because quantum mechanics requires reality to be discontinuous, noncausal, and nonlocal, whereas relativity theory requires reality to be continuous, causal, and local. This discrepancy can be patched up in a few cases using mathematical "renormalization" techniques, but this approach introduces an infinite number of arbitrary features into the theory that, Bohm points out, are reminiscent of the epicycles used to patch up the crumbling theory of Ptolmaic astronomy. Hence, contrary to widespread understanding even among scientists, the "new physics" is self-contradictory at its foundation and is far from being a finished new model of reality. Bohm was further troubled by the fact that many leading physicists did not pay sufficient attention to this discrepancy.
Seeking a resolution of this dilemma, Bohm inquired into what the two contradictory theories of modern physics have in common. What he found was undivided wholeness. Bohm was therefore led to take wholeness very seriously, and, indeed, wholeness became the foundation of his major contributions to physics, as well as his distinctive epistemological style of scientific inquiry. In this respect, Bohm's developmental process was similar to Einstein's in creating relativity theory: Einstein took seriously the experimental observation that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. This--when coupled with the premise that the laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames--required that space and time could no longer be absolute; hence came the theory of relativity. No one before Einstein had been willing to contemplate something so radical.
Bohm's postulate of undivided wholeness is equally radical, but for a different reason: it questions the prevailing assumptions about order and fragmentation. Just as Einstein was the first physicist to seriously question our understanding of space and time, Bohm is the first physicist to seriously question our understanding of order. The implications are far reaching, because the very essence of science is a quest for natural laws of general applicability, and the sine qua non for such laws is the existence of natural order. Hence, to inquire into the nature of order is to inquire into the foundations of science itself.
In his characteristic way, Bohm went well beyond the bounds of physics in this quest. During the 1960s, he made a systematic inquiry into the nature and function of order in art, and he maintained a seven-year correspondence with American artist Charles Biederman. His correspondence with Biederman focused in particular on order in the paintings of Monet and Cezanne, and this was the seed for the insights described in the next paragraph. Bohm concluded at the time that the order in a painting is equivalent to the order in quantum theory, to which he gave the name the implicate order.
Topology of Order Bohm's contributions on order are complex and sophisticated, and they are worthy of thorough study that goes quite beyond what can be included here. Nevertheless, even a cursory glimpse of his thinking is very worthwhile. Bohm proposed that through our perceptions of similarities and differences, we create categories that are the precursors to order. For example, because some creatures transport themselves through air while others do so through water, the categories of birds and fish are created. Each of these categories is refined further, based on perception of finer differences. So we create the categories of sparrows, crows, hawks, eagles, and so on, as well as the categories of minnows, trout, salmon, and sharks. Now observe that the difference between a minnow and a trout is similar to the difference between a sparrow and an eagle (being in this case the difference of relative size). This introduces a notion that Bohm calls similar differences, which can be used to define an order that cuts across various categories of experience. A striking example would be Helen Keller's legendary flash of insight, when she suddenly recognized the essential similarity of different experiences of water.
A different kind of order could be defined by considering, for example, the similarity between a young bird and a young fish, which is different from the similarity between an aging bird and an aging fish. This observation defines an order in terms of different similarities. These are simple examples of concepts that Bohm used to develop a sophisticated topology of order in physics. For example, Bohm showed that Newtonian mechanics is encompassed within the definition of order through similar differences, and .Newton's legendary tale about the apple and the moon was essentially a perception that the order of similar differences in the motion of the falling apple is the same as the order of similar differences in the orbit of the moon. Hence, Newton's central insight was one of perceiving a unity of order underlying the outward manifestation of two seemingly unrelated dynamical systems.
In addition the above concepts, Bohm developed a way to measure the complexity of order. To illustrate this with the simplest of examples, consider the infinite sequence of digits 2525252525. . . This sequence is said to have order of second degree, because two items of information (the digits 2 and 5) are required to fully specify the sequence. By the same token, the sequence 264926492649. . . has order of fourth degree, because four digits are required to specify it (namely, 2, 6, 4, 9). Now consider the sequence 601324897. . . What is its order? This is difficult to say. At first glance, it appears to be an arbitrary sequence of digits because there is no discernible order. However, as the sequence continues, we might discover that it is really the following sequence: 601324897601324897601324897. . . in which case it has ninth degree, because the first nine digits are repeated forever. Or, we might find out that it is a sequence of hundredth degree, or millionth degree. Or, the sequence might never exhibit any discernible order whatever, in which case we say it is a sequence of infinite degree. Such a degree we usually think of as a random sequence. In any case, notice that we must know the context to determine the order of the sequence.
Randomness Dependent on Context The foregoing example hints at a much deeper insight that Bohm developed in a very general context: randomness is not an intrinsic property of the order of a system, but rather randomness depends on context.(3) This is a subtle but very important point, which is likely to have powerful consequences in science for decades to come. An example will illustrate the idea. Consider a "random number generator," which is a type of computer program that generates a sequence of digits that appears to be random. If such a program is left running day and night, it will generate a sequence that has an order of extremely high degree (or practically "infinite"). Such computer programs work in different ways, but they all share an important characteristic: the process used to generate the sequence is a simple deterministic process.(4) If the program is run again with the same starting number, it will produce exactly the same sequence. Hence, the program that generates this sequence has an order of very low degree. Now comes the essential point. In the context of the computer program, the succession of numbers is determined by a simple order of low degree and, therefore, the order in the resulting numbers is also of the same low degree--which is far from random. However, in a narrower context that includes only the numbers themselves but not the computer program--that is, not the "meta" level--the numbers cannot be distinguished from a purely random sequence, and so the order of the numbers is essentially random.
From this, it follows that randomness depends on context, a result that Bohm demonstrated consistently in many examples throughout science. Randomness has played an essentially ontological role in science, being deemed intrinsic to certain natural processes. However, Bohm's findings imply that randomness may vanish whenever the context is deepened or broadened, meaning that randomness can no longer be viewed as fundamental. Bohm's insights into randomness and order in science are summarized in the following statements. "Randomness is... assumed to be a fundamental but inexplicable and unanalyzable feature of nature, and indeed ultimately of all existence. . . [However,] what is randomness in one context may reveal itself as simple orders of necessity in another broader context. It should therefore be clear how important it is to be open to fundamentally new notions of general order, if science is not to be blind to the very important but complex and subtle orders that escape the coarse mesh of the "net" on current ways of thinking.
Order in Science The implications of this are potentially very far reaching for all of science. The new field of chaos theory has rigorously demonstrated that in virtually all nonlinear deterministic systems (which characterize most scientific models of physical processes), there is a domain in which the system behaves as if it were random, even though it is actually deterministic. The epistemological implications of this are sweeping: in any discipline of science, when scientists describe the behavior of a natural system as random, this label may not describe the natural system at all, but rather their degree of understanding of that system--which could be complete ignorance. Random empirical data provide no guarantee that the underlying natural process being investigated is itself random. Thus, while "randomness" may usefully characterize the empirical observations of the natural process, this reveals little about the actual nature of the process. Hidden orders or subtle variables may be operating at a level that is beyond the ability of current instruments or concepts to detect. The far-reaching implications of this are evident when one considers, for example, the possibility that the "random mutation" that underpins Darwin's theory of natural selection may soon be regarded as just one arbitrary hypothesis among many. The observed randomness of biological mutations gives no assurance that unknown subtle processes are not operative--hidden beyond the veil of today's empirical science. Such unknown forces could include such "taboo" possibilities as teleological factors, divine design, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, and so on.
Bohm's conclusion about order in science is unequivocal and sweeping: the prevailing mechanistic order in science must be dropped. Mainstream physics--from Newton's laws to the most advanced contemporary quantum relativistic field theory--all utilize the same mechanistic order, symbolized by the Cartesian coordinate system. This reflects a particular mechanistic order that has characterized physics for literally centuries, and it is this order that Bohm challenges directly. Science must open itself to far more sophisticated and subtle forms of order, including what Bohm calls generative orders, which are orders that generate structure. The implicate order is perhaps the most important example of a generative order.
Superimplicate Order and Beyond The hologram analogy gives only a limited view of the implicate order because it is a metaphor derived from a classical treatment of the transformations within a light wave. To delve more deeply into the implicate order, Bohm developed a causal interpretation of the quantum field theory.
Superquantum Potential Quantum field theory is the most general and sophisticated form of quantum physics. The primary physical reality is assumed to be a continuous field, and the discrete, particle-like quanta are viewed as mere epiphenomena. Hence, rather than taking the particle as the starting point, the field is taken as the fundamental reality. In parallel, rather than postulating a quantum potential that acts on the particle, Bohm postulates a superquantum potential that acts on the field. This superquantum potential is far more subtle and complex than the quantum potential, yet its basic principles are similar, and its net effect is to modify the field equations so as to make them nonlinear and nonlocal. Hence, the superquantum potential is responsible for the perception of discrete quanta because" it can "sweep" energy from the entire field into a tiny region of space, thereby creating the appearance of a "particle," or of a quantum jump in a particle's energy state. In this way, a continuous field can behave as if it were made up of discrete elementary particles. This differs from the particle model described earlier, in which wave-particle duality was explained as the effect of the quantum potential on the particle. Here, wave-particle duality is understood to be an effect of the superquantum potential on the continuous field.
Superimplicate Order This leads to the most general formulation of Bohm's theory, presented in his 1987 book Science, Order, and Creativity (co-authored by David Peat). Bohm proposed that above and beyond the implicate order, there is also a superimplicate order. In the example of quantum field theory just described, the implicate order is just the field itself, and the superimplicate order is the superquantum potential, which is a much more subtle and complex implicate order than the field. Once again, the explicate order is merely the set of "ripples" and discontinuities in the field that our instruments can observe, which are created by the effect of the superimplicate order on the implicate order. In this understanding, the particle is no longer a basic concept, since the primary reality is the implicate and superimplicate orders.
With the superimplicate order, Bohm reached his final and deepest interpretation of the solution of the Schroedinger equation for a particle. He had begun in his youth with the Copenhagen interpretation, in which the particle does not exist, which he had always found unsatisfactory. Then in his initial formulation of the implicate order, he supposed that the particle does exist more or less as an ordinary particle, but that it behaves in a strange manner because it receives information through the quantum potential, which is a wave-like information field independent of space and time. As Bohm put it, "The electron, in so far as it responds to a meaning in its environment, is observing the environment. It is doing exactly what human beings are doing".
Then finally, in the superimplicate order, the particle does not exist except as an abstraction in our minds or an epiphenomenon perceived by our instruments. What exists is the holomovement, which in this case consists of the continuously changing quantum field (or implicate order), and the superquantum potential (or superimplicate order). The "particle" (explicate order) is merely a discontinuous ripple effect created by the effect of the superquantum potential on the field.
Naturally, given a second implicate order, it is easy to imagine third, fourth, and higher implicate orders. Indeed, Bohm suggested that a whole hierarchy of superimplicate orders might be envisioned, although their effects would be increasingly subtle and therefore difficult to observe or analyze. These higher implicate orders would feed back to the original explicate order, which could produce complex dynamics over time, allowing creativity and novelty to unfold.
To clarify these concepts with an analogy, consider a video game. The first implicate order corresponds to the screen, which is capable of producing an infinite variety of explicate forms or images. The images on the screen, which constitute the explicate order, can be regarded as manifestations of' the first implicate order. The second implicate order corresponds to the computer, which provides the information that organizes the various forms in the screen, or first implicate order. Finally, the player of the game represents a third implicate order, whose actions and inputs organize the second implicate order. This creates a closed loop, and creative possibilities can emerge over time.
Eternal Order In sum, Bohm's model of reality consists of a dynamic holomovement that has three basic realms or levels of manifestation: the explicate order, the implicate order, and the superimplicate order--with the latter two realms constituting the bulk of reality. The possible forms for the superimplicate order (or orders) may be highly complex, subtle, and difficult to conceive in terms of ordinary concepts. For example, Bohm speaks of an eternal order, which is a superimplicate order that lies beyond the domain of time. As such, the eternal order is neither static nor everlasting but is outside of time altogether, and it is ever creative. As this creativity filters down to lower implicate orders, it tends to become manifest in time; that is, it enters a temporal order. In Bohm's words, "the eternal order is not properly to be regarded as static, but rather as eternally fresh and new. As attention goes to the consideration of succession, however, it begins to get directed toward the temporal or secular order".
The quantum potential, the superquantum potential, the implicate order, and superimplicate orders are all names given to realms that are invisible to ordinary perception, yet for Bohm, they constitute the true structure of reality. For Bohm, the holomovement is the nature of reality, and the implicate order and superimplicate order are its primary structural features, with the explicate order being the surface appearance. Superimplicate orders may be involved in innumerable physical and natural processes. In evolution, for example, superimplicate orders could guide the emergence of a bird, which must not only develop wings but aerodynamically adapted feathers, appropriate musculature, shifted center of gravity, lighter bones and appropriate changes in metabolism--all at the same time. Otherwise, any one of these changes by itself would likely decrease chances of survival. Observe that the superimplicate order appears to be analogous to archetypes or to Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields. All of these terms arjust labels for subtle orders or forces that remain hidden to empirical science, and hence they are resisted by mainstream scientists, sometimes vehemently. However, just because they have not been directly observed does not mean that they do not exist. In his postulate of the implicate order, Bohm clearly demonstrates how such realms could exist and be very fundamental, while being missed altogether by mainstream science in its focus on the explicate order only.
Thought and Meaning Bohm inquired deeply on many levels and subjects that went quite beyond his field of science. He developed a poignant critique of thought, which was influenced by his association with Krishnamurti, and he also came to believe that meaning is a fundamental element of existence. These ideas are briefly explored below, mostly in his own words.
Critique of Thought Bohm was unusual among scientists in questioning the primary epistemological engine for all scientific inquiry: human thought itself. He stressed that thought creates structures and then pretends they are objective realities independent of thought. Thus our "objective reality" is largely a construct of thought, and not recognizing this leads us to endless circles of self-deception--in science as well as in life in general. Indeed, Bohm felt that much personal and collective suffering has its roots in human thought. In his words, "[T]hought is really a very tiny little thing. But thought forms a world of its own in which it is everything. . . It reifies itself and imagines there's nothing else but what it can think about itself and what it thinks about. Therefore thought will now take the words, "the nonmanifest" and form the idea of the nonmanifest; and therefore, thought thinks the manifest plus the nonmanifest together make up the whole, and that this whole thought is now a step beyond thought, you see. But in fact, it isn't. This nonmanifest (that thought imagines) is still the manifest, by definition, because to imagine is also a form of thought." For this reason, Bohm felt that it is vital to go beyond thought, for which meditation is one possible path. "[M]editation would even bring us out of all [the difficulties] we've been talking about. . . [S]omewhere we've got to leave thought behind, and come to this emptiness of manifest thought altogether. . . In other words, meditation actually transforms the mind. It transforms consciousness."
Ontology of Meaning As Bohm's work matured, he placed increasing emphasis on the importance of meaning, and he came to regard matter, energy, and meaning as three major constituents of our existence. "From the point of view of the implicate order, energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of significance which gives form to their over-all activity and to the matter which arises in that activity. The energy of mind and of the material substance of the brain are also imbued with a kind of significance which gives form to their over-all activity. So quite generally, energy enfolds matter and meaning, while matter enfolds energy and meaning. . . But also meaning enfolds both matter and energy. . . So each of these basic notions enfolds the other two. . . ."This implies, in contrast to the usual view, that meaning is an inherent and essential part of our overall reality, and is not merely a purely abstract and ethereal quality having its existence only in the mind. Or to put it differently, in human life, quite generally, meaning is being.".
Matter and Consciousness When Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order was published in 1980, the "holographic model" quickly became a lively topic of discussion and debate among new paradigm thinkers. One of the most enduring issues was the implications of Bohm's theories for the relationship between matter and consciousness. Do mind and body correspond to the implicate and explicate orders? Can consciousness tap directly into the implicate order?
Bohm's own reflection on these questions seems to have evolved over time. Early on, in response to Wigner and others who proposed that consciousness should be included in quantum theory, Bohm said that his aim was to describe the quantum potential without bringing in the conscious observer in any fundamental role. Later, Bohm came to believe that material and informational processes are inextricably intertwined together in all things, and he used the term soma-significance to refer to this intrinsic interpenetration. As he explains "Consciousness is much more of the implicate order than is matter. . . Yet at a deeper level [matter and consciousness] are actually inseparable and interwoven, just as in the computer game the player and the screen are united by participation in common loops. In this view, mind and matter are two aspects of one whole and no more separable than are form and content. "Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it."
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Abi
Posted - 12 Aug 2004 : 7:05:36 PM <bump for Utmost>
Abi
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 8:15:56 PM I'm just glad they didn't name them bunky balls - Bunky is Delmar's nickname...I mean, you just have to keep your balls straight, eh?
millena
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 6:12:07 PM lol...well, you took care of that now; didn't you, john?!
you just couldn't help yourself.....
Millena 3/wing4 sexual/social/self pres ENFP
john
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 08:27:56 AM how long could this bucky balls conversation go without some kind of inuendo?
john 5/4/social/sexual/intp
Abi
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 06:57:28 AM Hi, Marie.
I saw it. It was great to see Rick Smalley interviewed and find out what he's up to. I have the NOVA video Race To Catch a Buckeyball where he, Harry Kroto and their colleagues worked on BB reasearch...I watch it often.
marie
Posted - 20 Oct 2003 : 10:16:26 PM Abi There was a discussion of bucky balls on PBS tonight. Naturally, I thought of you.
Abi
Posted - 20 Oct 2003 : 8:37:53 PM"have to comment some time"
Me, too. Will try later.
Duncan
Posted - 20 Oct 2003 : 7:51:24 PM missed this. have to comment some time.
CosmicDust
Posted - 19 Oct 2003 : 12:03:39 AM More good stuff. Thanks Abi.
I agree with a lot of the Bohm stuff. If a single algorithm can generate a sequence of such tremendous complexity that it seems completely random, but when we discover the algorithm that started the process or watch it continue cranking away until it "folds back in on itself," we know it's not really "random." It's quite possible that the "objects" of space-time are like the little position dots on the plot of the results of a pseudo-random number generator. After all, if space and time aren't separate, why should "particles" be separate from it? That's what string theory and quantum gravity are all about: looking for a mathematical expression of some "guiding order" sort of like the quantum wave function represented by an imaginary number.
I don't know about that archetype and bird evolution idea, though. Sure, the mutations, being part of the Universe, would be a part of the overall "chaotic" pattern of the whole medium. But the qualities of the bird did not all need to evolve at the same time. From what I've read, the feathers could develop and prove useful as thermal regulators and the wings, perhaps, could prove useful as solar panels...and then these mutant features could be co-opted for gliding, and any further mutations that make full-blown flight easier would add an extra advantage in terms of escaping predators.
Also, most mutations are misses, but if one trait just happens to be a hit, then the genes expressing it will propagate faster and eventually take over the population. So these birds were not necessarily preset patterns in some overall plan...but the ability to perceive the visual and auditory "features" that make up a bird (or other object we would encounter as foragers) could be part of the preset patterns of our brains resulting from an accumulation of genetic "hits," according to the evolutionary psychologists.
And I agree with P.D. (having read a book on the subject) that "free will" is not so free, but is also part of the folding-and-unfolding pattern. Most of what affects our behavior is indeed outside of the function of conscious awareness - including the factors of our growth, development, and interaction with the world around us that have created and colored the contents of our conscious awareness.
I don't believe that thought itself is deadly. It is essential for survival, but just like anything else that's essential for survival - including emotions, vitamins, minerals, exercise, and food - it can do more harm than good if used excessively and/or without "balancing out" with other factors. For instance, too much positive emotion for an extended period of time, unbalanced by negative emotion during that time, is called mania, and it can get you into trouble. So while thinking in itself isn't necessarily deadly, overusing it - which often goes hand in hand with underusing the various types of "feeling" (emotion, instinct, sensation) - can do more harm than good, like exercising too much and resting too little. So letting other processes of the nervous system do their thing without thought attempting to rule them like a domineering 8 (we 5's are basically introverted 8's after all as some descriptions point out and others more or less imply in some way, e.g., 8 being our "integration point") can be a good idea to help keep us in good shape.
I'd better get some sleep. I have homework to do. I did a little tonight, but I moved my books into my office so I could work on it mostly there, with the computer applications I need and without the distractions of my roommate or neighbors. (It was my roommate's idea.) But this has been a blast.
CosmicDust, INTP, 4.7 +/- 0.5 (5w4, chaotic pendulum sometimes swinging toward 4w5 or 5w6 if perturbed)
Abi
Posted - 18 Oct 2003 : 8:33:58 PM Hi, Incendium.
I'm so glad you finally got it. I've been wondering if you had. If you like that one, also try The Essential David Bohm because it will give you an overview of almost all his work.
incendium
Posted - 18 Oct 2003 : 8:19:21 PM I have to bump this up.
Abi: I ordered Thought as a System back in July, and yesterday, I finally picked it up. I haven't been able to go very long without reading it since. I'm in the middle of 'Saturday afternoon'.
quote:This can be a scary book for a 5...but I think you're gonna love it! It's scary because it basically says what we think is true is not (although I think most 5s are already aware that their perceptions are only their perceptions, nothing more...we can handle that) and that thinking is extremely hazardous...frightening for a 5.
I do love it! If only I could articulate as well as Bohm could. It very much put things into words that I've been aware of, but unable to convey in a comprehensive manner.
I have more to add later.. for now, I must finish the book.
female.5w4.INTP.sx/sp.
Abi
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 10:55:57 PM I know how you feel. I just ordered Bohm's Causality and Chance in Modern Physics and yet I still have yet to read his Wholeness and the Implicate Order and his Unfolding Meaning that I already have.
So many books...so little time...
incendium
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 10:31:28 PM Oops, sorry! You're correct about the title.... my mistake.
My great-grandmother who didn't speak a word of English, loved anything Star Trek. It was cute and I became familiar with the series at visits. I don't watch much tv, otherwise.
It's been over a couple of weeks since I've ordered the thing, and now I'd like to read it all the more.
female.5w4.INTP.sx/sp.
Abi
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 10:25:24 PM Send the helicopter...I've got a small lawn.
Duncan
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 10:07:12 PM Yes, you could help! I'm missing intellect! I'll send the lear jet up. . . give it 45", and be packed!
Abi
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 10:03:48 PM OK, now I get it. See, this is where a good 2-drink-drunk, knee-slapping social 5 like myself could really help you out. Wish I could be there.
Duncan
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 9:58:24 PM fine, so you've got a good grip. I've already been in once. it's beautiful.
i mean, basically, they're not into having fun enough yet. i was just being playful about it.
Abi
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 9:55:47 PM 1)"I can't stop you from withdrawing, abi, but I'll throw you in the canal..."
2)"...because no one else has come close enough to acquiescing in a way where they wouldn't want to take my and my accomplice's head off afterwards."
I understand #1 and would be happy to let you throw me in the canal (I've got a pretty good grip, so you'd be coming in there with me, buster)but I'm lost on #2...and judging by the I'm almost afraid to ask for clarification.
Duncan
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 9:45:43 PM I can't stop you from withdrawing, abi, but I'll throw you in the canal because no one else has come close enough to acquiescing in a way where they wouldn't want to take my and my accomplice's head off afterwards.
Abi
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 8:38:32 PM Thought as a System (it may be called different in Canada) is my favorite of the Bohm books so far.
This can be a scary book for a 5...but I think you're gonna love it! It's scary because it basically says what we think is true is not (although I think most 5s are already aware that their perceptions are only their perceptions, nothing more...we can handle that) and that thinking is extremely hazardous...frightening for a 5.
If you are familiar with the Star Trek Next Generation series...I call it THOUGHT IS BORG ... we have been assimilated...resistance is futile.
I found very liberating, however, because it gave me a totally new way to think about thought. Nirvana! I now spend my time doing my favorite thing (thinking) about my favorite thing (thinking) and I get to withdraw one step further away. Somebody, stop me!
incendium
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 8:13:46 PM Abi, I ordered Thought as a Process. I'm not sure who it was that mentioned the book, but I'm thinking it was marielle. Anyway, the store hasn't called about it being in yet, and I'm getting a bit impatient after reading this thread.
female.5w4.INTP.sx/sp.
Ocean
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 6:42:10 PM good idea, pd. make it choice and will or something. i'll join in heavily (. . . .duncan)
pocketdragon
Posted - 08 Aug 2003 : 8:08:18 PM Abi. <snickers>
Abi
Posted - 08 Aug 2003 : 7:13:56 PM Tira & Duncan are on the train. I'm hanging here at home. In any case, take your time - hahahaha - get it?
pocketdragon
Posted - 08 Aug 2003 : 3:51:05 PM
quote:This should be a thread in itself. I'll give you first dips at posting it as a new topic.
by Abi.
I will start a thread on choice and such. Give me a chance read that other thread and finish up a couple of projects.
I'll get to replying to you as well Duncan at some point here. BUT you should be on the train by now so I'll not make that a priority. LOL
The Enneagram Institute is a Service Mark of Enneagram Personality Types, Inc.
All Images, Content and Layout Copyright The Enneagram Institute 1998-2010.
as some descriptions point out and others more or less imply in some way, e.g., 8 being our "integration point") can be a good idea to help keep us in good shape.
I'll send the lear jet up. . . give it 45", and be packed! 
i was just being playful about it.
...frightening for a 5. 
