Implicate and explicate order: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:46, 14 May 2018

Latest revision as of 21:07, 3 May 2025

(45 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{short description|Ontological concepts for quantum theory}}

'''Implicate order''' and '''explicate order''' are [[Ontology|ontological]] concepts for [[Quantum mechanics|quantum theory]] coined by [[Theoretical physics|theoretical physicist]] [[David Bohm]] during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behaviorbehaviors of [[subatomic particle]]s –which behavior[[quantum difficultphysics]] describes and predicts with elegant precision but struggles to explain.<ref>{{cite bybook quantum|last1=Bohm physics.|first1=David |title=On Dialogue |date=2004 |publisher=Routledge |___location=New York |isbn=978-0-415-33641-3 |pages=114}}</ref>

In his bookBohm's ''[[Wholeness and the Implicate Order]]'', Bohmhe usesused these notions to describe how the sameappearance phenomenonof such phenomena might lookappear differentdifferently, or might be characterized by, differentvarying principal factors, independing differenton contexts such as at different scales.<ref name="wholeness">David Bohm: ''Wholeness and the Implicate Order'', Routledge, 1980 ({{ISBN|0-203-99515-5}}).</ref> The implicate order, (also referred to as the "enfolded") order, is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order includeincludes the abstractions that humans normally perceive. As he writeswrote:

:In the enfolded [or implicate] order, [[space]] and [[time]] are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders ({{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=xv}}).

== Overview ==

The notion of implicate and explicate orders emphasizes the primacy of structure and process over individual objects. The latter are seen as mere approximations of an underlying process. In this approach, quantum particles and other objects are understood to have only a limited degree of stability and autonomy.<ref>P. Pylkkänen, B. J. Hiley, I. Pättiniemi: ''Bohm's approach and Individuality'', [https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4772v3 arXiv:1405.4772v3], version 3 of 28 November 2014</ref>

Bohm believesbelieved that the weirdness of the behavior of quantum particles is caused by unobserved forces, maintaining that space and time might actually be derived from an even deeper level of objective reality. In the words of [[F. David Peat]], Bohm considersconsidered that what we take for reality are "surface phenomena, explicate forms that have temporarily unfolded out of an underlying implicate order"." That is, the implicate order is the ground from which reality [[emergence|emerges]].<ref name="Carvallo2013">F. David Peat, ''Non-locality in nature and cognition'', pp.&nbsp;297–311. In: {{cite book|author=M.E. Carvallo|title=Nature, Cognition and System II: Current Systems-Scientific Research on Natural and Cognitive Systems Volume 2: On Complementarity and Beyond|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PgPoCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA304|date=7 March 2013|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-94-011-2779-0|pages=304}}</ref>

=== The implicate order as an algebra ===

David Bohm, his co-workercolleague [[Basil Hiley]], and other physicists of [[Birkbeck College]] worked toward a model of quantum physics in which the implicate order is represented in the form of an appropriate [[algebra]] or other [[Pregeometry (physics)|pregeometry]]. They considered [[spacetime]] itself as part of an explicate order that is connected to an implicate order that they called ''pre-space.'' The [[spacetime manifold]] and the properties of [[Principle of locality|locality]] and [[Nonlocal Aharonov–Bohm effect|nonlocality]] all arise from an order in such pre-space. A. M. Frescura and Hiley suggested that an implicate order could be carried by an algebra, with the explicate order being contained in the various [[Algebra representation|representations]] of this algebra.<ref>F. A. M. Frescura, B. J. Hiley: [http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/P12FrescandHiley3.pdf Algebras, quantum theory and pre-space], pp.&nbsp;3–4 (published in Revista Brasileira de Fisica, Volume Especial, Julho 1984, Os 70 anos de Mario Schonberg, pp. 49–86)</ref> (''<ref>See also:'' [[Basil Hiley#Implicate orders, pre-space and algebraic structures|Work by Bohm and Hiley on implicate orders, pre-space and algebraic structures]].)</ref>

In analogy to [[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s notion of '"actual occasion',"<ref>A. N. Whitehead, <i>''Process and Reality</i>'', Corrected Edition, ed. D. Griffin and D. Sherburne (New York: Macmillan, 1978), pp. 18 ff.</ref>,'' Bohm considered the notion of ''moment''–a – a moment being a not entirely localizable event, with events being allowed to overlap&nbsp;<ref>David Bohm: ''Time, the implicate order, and pre-space,'' In: David R. Griffin: ''Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time'', State University of New York Press, 1986, {{ISBN|0-88706-113-3}}, pp.&nbsp;177–208, [https://books.google.com/books?id=hXWKzPFgv_wC&pg=PA183 p. 183]</ref> and being connected in an over-alloverall implicate order:<ref>David Bohm: ''Time, the implicate order, and pre-space'', In: David R. Griffin: ''Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time'', State University of New York Press, 1986, {{ISBN|0-88706-113-3}}, pp.&nbsp;177–208, [https://books.google.com/books?id=hXWKzPFgv_wC&pg=PA189 p. 189]</ref>

{{"Blockquote| I propose that each moment of time is a projection from the total implicate order. The term ''projection'' is a particularly happy choice here, not only because its common meaning is suitable for what is needed, but also because its mathematical meaning as a projection operation, ''P'', is just what is required for working out these notions in terms of the quantum theory. }}

Bohm emphasized the primary role of the implicate order's structure:<ref>David Bohm: ''Time, the implicate order, and pre-space'', In: David R. Griffin: ''Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time'', State University of New York Press, 1986, {{ISBN|0-88706-113-3}}, pp.&nbsp;177–208, [https://books.google.com/books?id=hXWKzPFgv_wC&pg=PA192 pp. 192–193]</ref>

{{"Blockquote| My attitude is that the mathematics of the quantum theory deals ''primarily'' with the structure of the implicate pre-space and with how an explicate order of space and time emerges from it, rather than with movements of physical entities, such as particles and fields. (This is a kind of extension of what is done in general relativity, which deals primarily with geometry and only secondarily with the entities that are described within this geometry.) }}

=== The explicate order and quantum entanglement ===

Central to Bohm's schema are correlations between [[observable]]s of entities which seem separated by great distances in the explicate order (such as a particular electron here on earthEarth and an [[alpha particle]] in one of the stars in the [[Abell 1835 IR1916|Abell 1835 galaxy]], thethen a possible candidate for farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans), manifestations of the implicate order. Within quantum theory, there is [[quantum entanglement|entanglement]] of such objects.

This view of order necessarily departs from any notion which entails signalling, and therefore causality. The correlation of [[observables]] does not imply a causal influence, and in Bohm's schema, the latter represents 'relatively' independent events in space-timespacetime; and therefore explicate order.

=== A common grounding for consciousness and matter ===

[[Image:Hersenen.png|thumb|150px|rightupright=0.6|[[Karl H. Pribram]]'s research suggests that memories may not be localized in specific regions of brains]]

The implicate order represents the proposal of a general [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] concept in terms of which it is claimed that [[matter]] and [[consciousness]] might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of [[matter]], entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-timespacetime. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by [[Karl H. Pribram|Karl Pribram]] that [[memories]] may be enfolded within every region of the [[brain]] rather than being localized (for example, in particular regions of the [[brain]], cells, or atoms).

Bohm went on to say: <blockquote>As in our discussion of matter in general, it is now necessary to go into the question of how in consciousness the explicate order is what is manifest ... the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form. Of course, to make possible such constancy it is also necessary that this content be organized, not only through relatively fixed association but also with the aid of the rules of logic, and of our basic categories of space, time, causality, universality, etc. ... there will be a strong background of recurrent, stable, and separable features, against which the transitory and changing aspects of the unbroken flow of experience will be seen as fleeting impressions that tend to be arranged and ordered mainly in terms of the vast totality of the relatively static and fragmented content of [memories].<ref>{{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=205}}</ref></blockquote>

Bohm also claimed that "as with consciousness, each moment has a certain explicate order, and in addition it enfolds all the others, though in its own way. So the relationship of each moment in the whole to all the others is implied by its total content: the way in which it 'holds' all the others enfolded within it"." Bohm characterises consciousness as a process in which at each moment, content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate.

<blockquote>One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general.<ref>{{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=208}}</ref></blockquote>

Line 40 ⟶ 41:

=== Ink droplet analogy ===

Bohm also used the term ''unfoldment'' to characterise processes in which the explicate order becomes relevant (or "relevated"). Bohm likens unfoldment also to the decoding of a television [[signal processing|signal]] to produce a sensible [[image]] on a [[Television|screen]]. The signal, screen, and television electronics in this analogy represent the implicate order, while the image produced represents the explicate order. He also uses an example in which an ink droplet can be introduced into a highly [[viscous]] [[Chemical substance|substance]] (such as [[glycerine]]), and the substance rotated very slowly, such that there is negligible [[diffusion]] of the substance. In this example, the droplet becomes a thread, which, in turn, eventually becomes invisible. However, by rotating the substance in the reverse direction, the droplet can essentially reform. When it is invisible, according to Bohm, the order of the ink droplet as a pattern can be said to be ''implicate'' within the substance.

In another analogy, Bohm asks us to consider a pattern produced by making small cuts in a folded piece of paper and then, literally, unfolding it. Widely separated elements of the pattern are, in actuality, produced by the same original cut in the folded piece of paper. Here, the cuts in the folded paper represent the implicate order, and the unfolded pattern represents the explicate order.

=== Holograms and implicate order ===

{{see also|Holographic principle|Holographic paradigm}}

[[Image:Holography-reconstruct.png|thumb|250px|rightupright=1.2|In a holographic reconstruction, each region of a photographic plate contains the whole image]]

Bohm employed the [[hologram]] as a means of characterising implicate order, noting that each [[region]] of a [[photographic]] plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohm’sBohm's words:

<blockquote> There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g., in a series). Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".<ref>{{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=149}}</ref> </blockquote>

Bohm noted that, although the hologram conveys undivided wholeness, it is nevertheless static.

In this view of order, laws represent invariant relationships between explicate entities and structures, and thus Bohm maintained that, in physics, the explicate order generally reveals itself within well-constructed experimental contexts as, for example, in the sensibly observable results of instruments. With respect to implicate order, however, Bohm asked us to consider the possibility instead "that physical law should refer primarily to an order of undivided wholeness of the content of description similar to that indicated by the hologram rather than to an order of analysis of such content into separate parts ...".<ref>{{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=147}}</ref>

=== Implicate order in art ===

In the work ''[[Science, Order, and Creativity]]'' (Bohm and Peat, 1987), examples of implicate orders in science are laid out, as well as implicate orders which relate to painting, poetry, and music.

Bohm and Peat emphasize the role of orders of varying complexity, which influence the perception of a work of art as a whole. They note that implicate orders are accessible to human [[experience]]. They refer, for instance, to earlier notes which reverberate when listening to music, or various resonances of words and images which are perceived when reading or hearing poetry.

[[Christopher Alexander]] discussed his work in person with Bohm, and pointed out connections among his work and Bohm's notion of an implicate order in ''[[The Nature of Order]]''.<ref>Christopher Alexander: ''[[The Nature of Order]], Book 4 – The Luminous Ground: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe'', Center for Environmental Structure, {{ISBN|978-0-9726529-4-0}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=6CIHB3_1tLMC&pg=PA336 Footnotes 19 and 20 on p. 336], cited on [https://books.google.com/books?id=6CIHB3_1tLMC&pg=PA323 p. 323]</ref>

Bohm features as a fictional character in the novel ''The Wave'' by British author [[Lochlan Bloom]]. The novel includes multiple narratives and explores many of the concepts of Bohm’sBohm's work on implicate and explicate orders.<ref name="Shortlist">{{CiteCitation|url= http://www.theshortstory.co.uk/the-short-story-interview-lochlan-bloom/|title=The Short Story Interview: Lochlan Bloom|date=12 September 2016 }}</ref>

== Challenges to some generally prevailing views ==

In proposing this new notion of order, [[David Bohm|Bohm]] explicitly challenged a number of tenets that he believed are fundamental to much scientific work:

# that phenomena are reducible to [[fundamental particles]] and [[Law (principle)|laws]] describing the [[behaviour]] of particles, or more generally to any static (i.e., unchanging) [[entities]], whether separate events in [[space-timespacetime]], [[quantum states]], or static entities of some other nature;

# related to (1), that human knowledge is ''most fundamentally'' concerned with [[mathematical]] prediction of [[statistical]] aggregates of particles;

# that an analysis or description of any aspect of [[reality]] (e.g., quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its [[Field of study|___domain]] of relevance;

Line 75 ⟶ 76:

# that it is, in [[principle]], possible to formulate a final notion concerning the nature of reality, i.e., a [[Theory of Everything]].

[[Image:Hydrogen.svg|thumb|220px|rightupright=1.1|A hydrogen atom and its constituent particles: an example of an over-simplified way of looking at a small collection of posited building blocks of the universe]]

Bohm’sBohm's proposals have at times been dismissed largely on the basis of such tenets.

His [[paradigm]] is generally opposed to [[reductionism]], and some view it as a form of [[ontological]] [[holism]]. On this, Bohm noted of prevailing views among physicists that "the world is assumed to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible, and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the fundamental 'building blocks' of the entire universe ... there seems to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such particles, or some other kind yet to be discovered, will eventually make possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything" ({{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=173}}).

In Bohm’sBohm's conception of order, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua. For Bohm, theThis whole encompasses all things, [[structures]], abstractions, and processes, including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures as well as those that involve a metamorphosis of structures or things. In this view, parts may be [[entities]] normally regarded as [[physics|physical]], such as [[atoms]] or [[subatomic particle]]s, but they may also be [[abstraction|abstract]] entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively separate and independent "sub-totalities." The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is ''fundamentally'' separate or independent.

{{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=11}}, said: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is in some sense prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow." According to Bohm, a vivid [[image]] of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by [[vortex]] structures in a flowing [[stream]]. Such vortices can be relatively stable [[patterns]] within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohm’s view, the whole is in continuous [[flux]], and hence is referred to as the [[holomovement]] (movement of the whole).

=== Quantum theory and relativity theory ===

Line 93 ⟶ 94:

=== Hidden variable theory ===

Before developing his ''implicit order'' approach, Bohm had proposed a [[hidden variable theory|hidden variable]] theory of quantum physics (see [[Bohm interpretation]]). According to Bohm, a key motivation for doing so had been purely to show the [[Subjunctive possibility|possibility]] of such theories. On this, {{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=81}} said, "... it should be kept in mind that before this proposal was made there had existed the widespread impression that no conception of any hidden variable at all, not even if it were abstract and hypothetical, could possibly be consistent with the quantum theory." {{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=110}} also claimed that "the demonstration of the possibility of theories of hidden variables may serve in a more general philosophical sense to remind us of the unreliability of conclusions based on the assumption of the complete universality of certain features of a given theory, however general their ___domain of validity seems to be." Another aspect of Bohm's motivation had been to point out a confusion he perceived to exist in quantum theory. On the dominant approaches in quantum theory, he said: "...we wish merely to point out that this whole line of approach re-establishes at the abstract level of statistical potentialities the same kind of analysis into separate and autonomous components in interaction that is denied at the more concrete level of individual objects" ({{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=174}}).

== See also ==

Line 105 ⟶ 103:

* [[Holographic principle]]

* [[Implicature]]

* [[Indra's net]]

* [[Interpretations of quantum mechanics]]

* [[Mereology]]

* [[Monadology]]

* [[Neutral monism]]

* [[Noumenon]]

Line 117:

* [[Transcendental idealism]]

{{div col end}}

* [[Monadology]]

== References ==

Line 133 ⟶ 132:

*[[Michael Talbot (author)|Michael Talbot]]. ''[[The Holographic Universe]],'' [[Harpercollins]] (1991)

*[[Paavo Pylkkänen]]. [https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/37374/Futura_2_2012_Pylkkanen.pdf?sequence=2 ''Cognition, the implicate order and rainforest realism''], Futura, vol. 31, no. 2/2012, pp.&nbsp;74–83.

*Joye, S.R. (2017). ''The Little Book of Consciousness: Pribram's Holonomic Brain Theory and Bohm's Implicate Order,'' The Viola Institute, {{ISBN|978-0-9988785-4-6}}

=== External links ===

Line 138:

*[https://web.archive.org/web/20010303172350/http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm Interview with David Bohm] &ndash; An interview with Bohm concerning this particular subject matter conducted by [[F. David Peat]].

*[https://web.archive.org/web/20041207182354/http://www.soultravel.nu/2004/040907-swedenborg/index.shtml Excerpt from ''The Holographic Universe''] &ndash; Parallels some of the experiences of 18th century Swedish mystic, [[Emanuel Swedenborg]], with [[David Bohm]]'s ideas.

*{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20110812064507/http://tkpi.org/tags/implicate-order Thought Knowledge Perception Institute Implicate Order Page]}}

[[Category:Quantum mechanics]]

[[Category:Consciousness studies]]

[[Category:Meditation]]

[[Category:Dichotomies]]

[[Category:Philosophical conceptsOntology]]

[[Category:Holism]]

[[Category:Philosophy of physics]]