Content deleted Content added
m this fashion > interpretation or making sense; explication/implication > unfolded/folded |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
[[David Bohm]] proposed a radically new conception of order, which he characterised as follows:
'''[[David Bohm]]''' believed that true [[reality]] is different from appearance, or the reality we [[perception|perceive]]. In his writings on the subject, Bohm distinguishes between actual and apparent reality with the terms '''Implicate''' and '''Explicate Order''', respectively. The proposed Implicate Order is to be a [[metaphysical]] entity responsible for matter and energy as well as consciousness (which belong to different categories under his scheme). It is to be the fundamental underlying substructure of everything.▼
: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 (Bohm, 1980, p. xv).
Particularly crucial to his scheme is the notion that objects which seem separated by great distances in the Explicate Order (such as a particular electron here on earth and an [[alpha particle]] in one of the stars in the [[Abell 1835 IR1916|Abell 1835 galaxy]], the farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans) may actually be manifestations of a single object within the Implicate Order. It seems his motivation for this perspective is the room within quantum mechanics for the [[quantum entanglement|entanglement]] of such objects.▼
==Radical challenges to prevailing views==
Bohm proposed genuinely radical challenges to prevalent deep-rooted presuppositions, including:
# The presupposition that phenomena are reducible to [[fundamental]] particles and [[laws]] describing the [[behaviour]] of particles, or more generally to any [[static]] [[entities]], whether separate events in [[space-time]], [[quantum states]], or static entities of some other nature
# Related to (1), the presupposition that [[mathematical]] prediction of [[statistical]] aggregates is what human knowledge is most fundamentally concerned with
# Also related to (1) and (2), the presupposition that an [[analysis]] or description of any aspect of reality (e.g. quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its ___domain of relevance
# Related to (1) through (3), the presupposition that the [[Cartesian coordinate system]], or its extension to a curvilinear system, is the deepest conception of underlying order as a basis for analysis and description of the world
# The presupposition that there is ultimately a sustainable ''distinction'' between [[reality]] and [[thought]], and the corresponding presupposition of a fundamental distinction between [[observer]] and observed in an [[experiment]] or any other situation (other than a distinction between relatively separate entities valid in the sense of explicate order)
# The presupposition that it is, in [[principle]], possible to formulate a final notion concerning the nature of reality; e.g. a [[Theory of Everything]]
Somewhat ironically, Bohm’s proposals have often been dismissed either largely or entirely on the basis of such presuppositions, apparently without due consideration for, and scrutiny of, his contestations.
Bohm’s conception of order is inherently antithetical to the essence of [[reductionism]], in most forms, and accordingly can be regarded as a form of ontological [[holism]]. Related to this, Bohm noted of prevailing views among physicists: "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" (Bohm, 1980, p. 173).
In Bohm’s conception of order, then, '''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. The whole encompasses all [[things]], [[structures]], abstractions and [[processes]], including processes that result in (relatively) stable structures and those that involve metamorphosis. Importantly, parts may be [[entities]] normally regarded as [[physical]], such as [[atoms]] or sub-atomic [[particles]], but they may also be [[abstract]] entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and character, they can only be considered ''in terms of'' the whole, and in such terms, they constitute ''relatively'' autonomous and independent "sub-totalities". The '''implication''' is that nothing is ''entirely'' separate or autonomous.
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 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, 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===
A key motivation for proposing a new notion of order was the incompatibility of quantum theory with relativity theory at a certain level of analysis. Bohm (1980, p. xv) said:
:…in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory it committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relatively to that of separate events connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness.
==The hologram as metaphor for the implicate order==
Bohm employs the hologram as a means of characterizing 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’s words: "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 (eg., 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". (Bohm, 1980, p. 149). 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. Bohm (1980, p. 147) asks us to "consider the possibility 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 …". He noted that in physics, the explicate order generally reveals itself within well-constructed experimental contexts as, for example, in the sensibly observable results of instruments.
▲
▲Particularly crucial to his scheme is the notion that objects which seem separated by great distances in the Explicate Order (such as a particular electron here on earth and an [[alpha particle]] in one of the stars in the [[Abell 1835 IR1916|Abell 1835 galaxy]], the farthest galaxy from Earth known to humans) may actually be manifestations of a single object within the Implicate Order. It seems his motivation for this perspective is the
He also uses the term '''unfoldment''' to characterise processes in which the explicate order becomes relevant (or "relevated"). Bohm likens unfoldment to the decoding of a television [[signal processing|signal]] to produce a sensible image on a screen. The signal, screen, and television electronics in this analogy represent the Implicate Order whilst the image produced represents the Explicate Order. He also uses a striking example in which an ink droplet can be introduced into a highly [[viscous]] [[substance]], 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 is the reverse direction, the droplet can essentially reform. When it is invisible, the droplet is implicate.
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.
Many, along with Bohm himself, have seen strong connections between his ideas and ideas from the East. Some proponents of [[new age| alternative religions]] (such as [[shamanism]]) claim a connection with their belief systems as well.
==Connections to other works==
Bohm may have known that his idea is a striking analogy to "intensional and extensional aboutness" to which [[R. A. Fairthorne]] (1969) insightfully referred information scientists but few paid attention as evidenced by googling. [[John Searle]] treated ''aboutness'' and ''network'' in his [[Intentionality]] (1983), contemporarily with Bohm's ''Wholeness'' (1983)! ''Aboutness'' is as odd as ''wholeness'' in sharp contrast. As the former is to the ''content'', so the latter is to the ''context'' to the last as the ultimate determiner of meaning. The holistic view of ''context'', hence another striking analogy of ''wholeness'', was first put forward in [[The Meaning of Meaning]] by [[C. K. Ogden]] & [[I. A. Richards]] (1923), including the ''literary, psychological,'' and ''external''. These are respectively analogous to [[Karl Popper]]'s ''world 3, 2,'' and ''1'' appearing in his ''Objective Knowledge'' (1972 and later ed.). Bohm's worldview of "undivided wholeness" is contrasted with Popper's three divided worlds. The direct causality among these and other authorships may be ''actually'' evident in the implicate order, though ''apparently'' not in the explicate order in spite of a great deal of reasonable doubt in terms of locality, ethnicity, ideology, academic tendency, and so on. Bohm and Popper favored Einstein above all.
Line 16 ⟶ 55:
which looks almost non-sensical as a whole. Then, what will happen to us listeners? We have a dictionary, but we cannot simply sum up the meanings of individual words. That "a whole is more than the sum of the parts" is too plain a saying. There seems to be no grammar to which the speaker might have conformed. He merely suggests rather than tells the story, which in other words is implied or implicit in the word string. From this awkward symbology we can guess the story with varying accuracies, if we are ready to take risks. In this case, the meaning of such symbology may be said to be connotative, implicit, implicate or intensional, in contrast to denotative, explicit, explicate or extensional. Consult a [http://www.m-w.com/ dictionary] for these words. And, note that the more context unfolded, the less uncertainty folded. Most importantly, note that interpretation or making sense of Explicate in Implicate Order, that is, ''aboutness in wholeness'' or ''in context'' is an outstanding analogy as well as the very principle of subject indexing as a prerequisite of [[information retrieval]] that has become everybody's everyday concern now! This principle's ''actual implication'' for and impact on a number of other disciplines should be ''unfolded'' if any. Why not ''unfold'' who on earth played an inspiring or leading role in shaping [[contextualism]] in the spotlight.
Bohm's views also connect with those of [[Immanuel Kant]] in important respects. For example, Kant held that the parts of an organism simultaneously exist in order to sustain the whole, and depend upon the whole for their own existence and functioning. Also, as noted by Bohm, Kant recognized that the process of thought plays an active role in ''organizing'' [[factual]] [[knowledge]]. Hence, theoretical insights are instrumental to the process of acquiring factual knowledge. This perspective is congruent also with an analyis of the function of measurement in physical science by [[Thomas Kuhn]] in 1961.
There are connections also to views held by people such as [[Stuart Kauffman]], who noted Kant's perspective on organisms in his book ''At Home in the Universe''. Indeed, Kant's perspective is noted by Kauffman in a section given the evocative title ''An Unrepentant Holism''. Kauffman's concept of an [[autocatalytic set]], as it was originally conceived in terms of molecules, clarifies Kant's perspective in a precise fashion. In his later book ''Investigations'', Kauffman attempts to define, or at least characterize, the notion of an autonomous agent. If viewed as "relatively autonomous", this concept is also potentially congruous with Bohm's view. Bohm's views are also echoed in Kauffman's (2000, p. 137) statement: "... our incapacity to prestate the configuration space of the biosphere is not a failure to prestate the consequences of the primitives, it appears to be a failure to prestate the primitives themselves". Kauffman suggests that such a failure may stem from deeper roots within physics. Consistent with Bohm, this potentially calls into question whether we should presuppose that it is possible (even in principle) to formulate a final, and complete, theory of everything.
==See also==
| |||