http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?

title=2461

The Implicate Order: A New Order for

Physics
by David Bohm
David Bohm is Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London. The following article appeared
in Process Studies, pp. 73-102, Vol. 8, Number 2, Summer, 1978. Process Studies is published quarterly by the
Center for Process Studies, 1325 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711. Used by permission. This material
was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.

Transcribed and edited by Dean R. Fowler. Transcriber’s note: The following

essay is the transcribed version of an address given by David Bohm at a
conference organized by the Center for Process Studies. As the transcriber, I
have employed my editorial discretion in two primary ways. First, I have tried
to make the written word flow at those points where the spoken word was
somewhat awkward while maintaining the informal nature of Bohm’s
presentation. Second, numerous questions and points of clarification arose
during the course of the address. I have been somewhat selective in regard to
which topics should be preserved. Summaries of some of these comments are
included as notes. Third, I have not included the presentation of the
mathematics, which may be found in D. Bohm, Foundations of Physics 3,
139, 1973.

I am going to talk today about the implicate order, and perhaps I should first say why I
became interested in the questions of order. Order obviously involves everything that is
possible in the whole of life, so my interest in order extends to order in general. You cannot
define order (I will take this for granted): order exists; order is perceived. But we can
develop certain notions of order. One of the reasons behind my study of the notion of order is
that the foundations of physics are not clear at present. There is something which I would
call a "muddle" going on, and it has been going on since quantum mechanics has been
developed. As we go along, I will try to bring out what the confusion is. What you have to
try to do with confusion is to sort it out. It is no use arguing about confusion, because you
will only get more confused. Now the first point is that relativity and quantum theory are not
really compatible. I will go into this in some detail to show that the notions of implicate order
grow naturally out of real physical and philosophical problems or questions in physics. They
are not just imagined or dreamed up in some arbitrary way.

I. Relativity Theory

The first point I will discuss is relativity. If we go back to the nineteenth century, one of the
major theories was the ether theory -- the notion that space is full of a pervasive medium
consisting of material particles with strange properties. It was believed that this would
explain, at the very least, electromagnetism and probably gravitation as a wave in the ether.
People also wanted to explain matter itself as a structure in the ether. For example, there was
the smoke ring vortex model of the electron. The theory was aimed ultimately as a total
explanation of everything.

This is really what was behind Lorentz’s approach to these questions. Lorentz considered the
structure of matter as made of charged particles. Let’s say that we have a crystal with some
regular array of particles that are in equilibrium in a certain configuration and with a certain
structure, so that the forces of attraction and repulsion due to positive and negative charges
balance in this configuration. The Michelson-Morley experiment had shown that it was not
possible to detect the velocity of the earth relative to the ether. Lorentz’s explanation of this
situation was along these lines: he showed, using Maxwell’s equations (assuming that
Maxwell’s equations hold in the frame of the ether), that if the field of force is spherical in
the rest frame of the ether then it contracts along the direction of motion: l = l0 .times the
square root of 1 - v2/c2 Therefore the entire structure must collapse in that ratio, and, of
course, if v = c it would collapse into a flat structure. If you tried to go faster, you would
leave shock waves behind, and the entire system would fall apart. It is implied that matter
cannot actually reach the speed of light or go faster than the speed of light in this notion,
because matter is nothing but a structure in the ether and it cannot do anything which is not
possible for such a structure.

In this way Lorentz explained the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In
addition, because part of the inertia of a particle is due to the electromagnetic field around it,
as you speed up such a particle the electric field produces a magnetic field, the changing
magnetic field produces a back EMF, and this whole reaction of the field produces a
resistance to acceleration. Therefore, there was a contribution to the mass coming from the
electromagnetic field, and this contribution depended on the structure of the electron. You
could have said that the effective mass was equal to the mechanical mass plus some sort of
electromagnetic mass, which had the property of increasing with the velocity in the ratio of 1
divided by the square root of 1 - v2/c2, because as the field gets stronger the whole system
contracts.

If you assume that the mass was all electromagnetic or that it all behaved in the same way as
electromagnetic (which was perhaps suggested by cathode ray experiments which showed
that the ratio of e by m actually went as 1 divided by the square root of 1 - v2/c2, then it
follows that particles get heavier in this ratio. Furthermore, if you went into the way in which
the force fields changed, you would deduce a change in the behavior of clocks, both because
their components got heavier and because the force fields which hold the clocks together
alter. Therefore, you were able to show that if t0 is the period of the clock at rest in the ether,
the clock slows down in the ratio of t=t0 divided by the square root of 1 - v2/c2.

The third point, namely the change of simultaneity, was the most fundamental one. Two
clocks together (call them A and B) would both slow down if running together. But if one
was slowly separated from the other and then brought back to the same velocity, you would
see that the two clocks were out of phase from one another. While separating, the second
clock B is going more slowly than the first clock A. Thus, A and B get out of phase. They no
longer register the same time. If you brought them back together, they would, however, get
back in phase.

As a result we obtain a shift among the clocks as to what is meant by "at the same time." This
was the most fundamental new concept of the relativity of Lorentz. Changes of clocks and
rulers were already well known in physics due to temperature and pressure and so on.
However, now they might also be due to the velocity relative to the ether.

But the change in what was meant by "at the same time" produced more serious problems.
Philosophically, it had previously been thought that there is a unique moment of time over
the whole universe and that there is a series of such moments. It became hard to define what
that view of time meant experimentally because separated clocks ceased to read the same
time.

If you use the three concepts -- change of length, change of time, and rate of change of
simultaneity -- you can deduce the Lorentz transformation, (It can also be deduced in other
ways.) If you apply the Lorentz transformation you will get the result

c2t2 - x2 - y2 - z2 = c2t’2 - x’2 - y’2 - z’2

where x, y, z, t is one system of coordinates and x’, y’, z’, t’ is another. From this, it follows
that there is no way to tell what your speed is relative to the ether. This was really the
problem which arose.

A great deal of confusion came about through this situation. It gave a tremendous impetus to
the positivist philosophy. People said that if the frame of the ether is unobservable we should
drop it. In a way that was right, but in a way it was not. The ether, I think, was dropped for
the wrong reason. That is, people made the right step for the wrong reason. That brings about
confusion, because the situation is neither right nor wrong anymore. If you accept it, it is
wrong, and if you reject it, it is wrong. Confusion is much more difficult to deal with than
just plain error. If you have an error, you may simply say: "That is wrong. Let’s give it up."
But if you give up what is confused, you are just in the same state as if you keep it. What you
have to do with confusion is to be very patient and sort it out.

The confusion was this: People had said that we should really be able to observe the ether,
and if we can never observe it, something is wrong. Of course, that does not prove that there
is no ether. But if we can never get a hold of the thing experimentally at all, it is not clear
what we mean by it, at least as a concept. To infer from this that we should go back to the
phenomena again was correct. This ether was merely an idea. Nobody had ever actually seen
it or proved its existence. You have plenty of evidence of the existence of air, although it is
invisible. You can burn it, you can compress it, you can weigh it. But there was no such
evidence of this ether.

In one sense, what Einstein did was just to go back to the phenomena in order to look at
things afresh. But the problem is that what Einstein and others did, they did for reasons of a
positivist philosophy. The positivists said that entities which are unobservable should never
be considered in physics. From this it followed that we should drop the ether. This was a
correct step, but the principle behind it was wrong. Let me explain. Thousands of years ago
Democritus proposed the notion of atoms. Nobody was able to observe them for 1500 years
or more, but gradually people found out how to observe atoms. Now if you were to say that
you would not even think about atoms until you were able to see them and you could not see
them with your naked eye or with simple instruments, then you would never find them at all.
I must consider the idea of something unobservable if I am ever going to find it. First I must
think about it. I must think how I am going to find it if it is there. Then I look and see if I can
find it. If I say that it is of no significance until it comes before my eyes, I am stuck.

The positivist philosophy became commonly accepted -- at least various versions of it:
empiricism, operationalism, etc. Some of the positivists argued not that you have to look at
something for it to exist, but that it must be a part of some operation in the laboratory or
some other empirical structure. I am going to call all of these ideas together by the name
"positivism." Although the various versions of positivism are all somewhat different, they
have one point in common. They all say that the essential point is the phenomena and that
physics or any law of science consists of nothing but a correlation of these phenomena. If
you have no phenomena, you have nothing to talk about. This is the basic point of view
which became very popular.

Einstein, however, did not hold to positivism. He went back to the phenomena, but later said
that we must go forward to the essence. So he did not stick to the phenomena.l When he was
16 years old, he thought of the question: what would happen if I moved with a light ray and,
for example, tried to look into a mirror? You would never see anything. This is a perception
through the mind. Light is in some way different from sound. You can catch up with and
overtake sound, but not light. Also, Einstein felt that light was inherently dynamic; yet at the
speed of light you would see a static wave. Something was wrong. This perception was the
germ or key of relativity. Perceptions of this nature are generally the origin of new
discoveries -- not the experiments, but the perception of the nature of our thought.2

II. Appearance and Essence

I now want to say a few things about the relation of appearance and essence. This is
necessary because positivism, in the broad sense of the term, has permeated science since the
late nineteenth century. Positivism has gained prestige partly through the misunderstanding
of the question of the ether and partly through its accidental attachment to relativity. People
thus inferred that if positivism is supported by science, it must be right.

We begin with appearances whenever we look. Things appear to us in various ways.

Appearances are limited; they are particular; they are contingent; and they are always
changing. Appearances are not significant in themselves. The Greeks emphasized this point.
They said that the main point was reason. For example, if you walk around the table, its
appearance will change all the time, but you know that the table has a constant form. Piaget
has made experiments, I think, asking small children to draw a table. They always draw it
straight up, showing the way they think it is, and not the way it appears. It is a very subtle
thing to draw with perspective. It is necessary to rediscover how something looks, as distinct
from how it is.

The positivists began to talk as though pointer readings and measurements and various things
like that were the essence of physics. But pointer readings are not very significant unless they
are reading something. Thus, an ammeter is supposed to read electric current. Physicists
would be rather bored with the game of just trying, for example, by direct manipulation of
the needles, to make their meters read certain numbers. Evidently it would not be very
interesting to arrange beforehand in this way to have all the numbers agree with predictions.
The main point is that the readings are supposed to be reading something of essential
significance, which is beyond the readings.

As mentioned above, young children are similarly looking for the essence behind the
appearance -- the relatively constant, universal thing, rather than just the immediate
appearance. Science is merely going on with this approach, and going deeper. The ether
theory and the atomic theory were two of the early theories which attempted to give some
view of the essence.

According to atomic theory everything is made of atoms, which are permanent. They move
through space. Their changing arrangements give the explanation of all the changes in the
appearance of matter, not only the changes as you look at it, but all the changes which occur,
such as burning, decay, generation. These are nothing but a rearrangement of atoms. It was
not treated just as an appearance. This point is very important, and it is what positivism
neglects.

Let’s suppose that we are studying some actual fact A. We have all sorts of immediate
particulars, 1, 2, 3, . . . n, which I shall call P1. These might be pointer readings or
appearances of animals or plants or descriptions of various kinds. These particulars are very
superficial and are merely the result of the fact that some very tiny aspect of reality has been
abstracted and we say that that is what we have seen. When we come to some universal
explanation, the immediate particulars are translated into what we will call the "essential
particulars," Pe. For example, in the atomic theory the essential particulars are the structures
and arrangements of atoms. We are no longer talking about the way that something looks,
but about the way that we think it is. (And not necessarily the way that it is; that is a more
subtle question)3 The key point is that the universal theory does not merely correlate the
phenomena, but it explains the very existence of the phenomena and also correlates them if it
is a good theory.

The positivist approach (or empiricist, or phenomenalist) emphasizes that the phenomena are
given and are correlated by the formulae. While positivism may free you from certain
assumptions, it involves problems. Thus, people take a certain view of the essence, which
becomes too rigid. For example, classical physics or the atomic theory came at a certain
stage to be regarded as the absolute truth -- the essence. The positivist was able, by means of
his philosophy, to free himself from classical physics by saying that such notions were just
metaphysics, so that he could consider other ideas. But in freeing himself in the first step, he
became entrapped in the next step, because the phenomena inevitably depend on previous
ideas to be expressed in thought. You must use some ideas to describe the phenomena, some
way of thinking, and that way of thinking is generally the old way of thinking. The old way
of thinking is whatever is at hand. You don’t even notice that you are using the old ideas
when you describe the phenomena; for example, you put them into time and space or say that
objects are solid. When you describe them, you use thought, and that thought is the old
thought. Therefore, the phenomenalist point of view at first appears to free you from fixed
thought, but in the very next step, it makes you very subtly a prisoner of that thought. It tends
to prevent new ideas, rather than to help to fathom new ideas. Therefore, although positivism
made it possible to make a step in the beginning, it has had a generally negative effect. It
could also have been called "negativism," I suppose.

I will return to Einstein to give further clarification to this point. Einstein went back to the
phenomena, and he developed the theory of relativity, which in the beginning was a theory of
the phenomena. That is, there were certain observations to be taken in time and space that
were connected by the Lorentz transformation. When the theory of relativity came in, the old
view of the essence was gone, and there was at that moment no new view of the essence.
Therefore, it was a theory of phenomena in the first instance, and we should consider it to be
that.

The old idea in science was that there was a permanent, final essence which we are looking
for, although perhaps we have not got it yet. Positivism freed us from that idea to some
extent. But as I have pointed out, positivism held us in a new form of rigidity. We have to be
free from both forms of rigidity: the rigidity of the idea of a permanent essence and the
rigidity of positivism.

Our inquiry at this moment is not into nature itself, but into our way of thinking about nature.
This is what is at stake. We must give quite a bit of our attention to our thinking, which itself
is a part of reality. As a part of reality our thinking requires attention, just as any part of
reality does. The distinction between appearance and essence is always present in our
thinking. It is part of the order of thought. There is a distinction made at any moment
between the content of appearance and of essence. For example, even in immediate
experience, you have the table which is there and the table as you see it. But essence is not
permanent either. Essence is perceived through the mind. Probably that is the case with
appearance too. To say "I have a flash of understanding, and I see" is a form of perception --
a perception of relationship, of necessity, and so on. I call this "insight." Theory is basically a
form of insight. There is no meaning to the idea, I propose, that a particular insight is an
ultimate or absolute truth. There is always room for a new insight, which shows the limits of
a previous insight. Each thing appears to the senses, and its essence shows to the mind; that
is, they are both kinds of appearances.4

Einstein probably implicitly understood this sort of thing because he gave up positivism after
he had obtained a new law of the phenomena in relativity. The right approach is sometimes
to go back to the phenomena. But we don’t stay there forever.

Relativity has led to a very serious problem, because in relativity there is no way to make the
connection between Pi and Pe. This is one of the key problems behind relativity, and it will
be the same problem that underlies quantum mechanics. I am going to suggest that both
relativity and quantum mechanics have not yet gone beyond the phenomena. They are
correlations of phenomena, and people have gotten so used to correlating phenomena that
they implicitly assume that that is all that they can ever do.

It was proposed in the ether theory that reality was made of ultimate material particles
constituting the ether. But as I have suggested, the ether theory was given up for the wrong
reasons. As long as you had the ether theory, you had a view of the essence, namely, the
ether. Matter, then, was taken as an appearance, inside the ether -- for example, as a vortex or
a smoke ring. But any attempt to make a theory of particles relativistically leads to
impossible problems. One view is that a particle is some extended structure. Now if I make a
space-time diagram of a particle at rest whose boundaries are given by two lines and then
suddenly accelerate it to another velocity, I see that if I push on one side of the object it
immediately responds on the other side. However, in Einstein’s views of relativity, this is not
permitted. An impulse or a signal cannot be carried faster than the speed of light.
Consequently, you cannot have a rigid or extended body in relativity.

The original atomic theory had rigid bodies of some sort, but rigid bodies are not possible
after Einstein. Let’s say that a particle is made of smaller bodies -- of subparticles. Each of
the subparticles, if it is extended, will meet the same problem as a rigid body. Therefore, a
particle cannot be made of extended subparticles. Now then, what if it is made of particles
with no extension at all, such as points whose tracks in space-time can be represented by
lines? You will find that the fields around these point particles are infinite, leading to
inconsistencies such as infinite mass and infinite charge and so on (especially in quantum
mechanics). These inconsistencies can be removed to some extent by renormalization. But it
is not logical just to remove infinity by calling it zero. You may get certain right answers by
irrational procedures. For example, if x/y = z, then if I write x = 2x and y = 2y, I will get the
same answer for z even if x and y are not zero. I can thus have a complete contradiction and
get the right answer. Having the right answer is no proof that you are logical. However, when
you try to work out something else, the contradiction is going to muddle things up. Similarly,
people get right answers out of renormalization calculations by using irrational or illogical
procedures. They may be right to do this, because it could be a clue to something, but they
are not really understanding what is happening.5

Therefore, neither the point particle nor the extended particle can be used to make a theory
which would enable us to understand what is happening. Relativity indeed implies that we
have to have a world tube in which something is going on -- a process, a structure. Also, it
implies that there is a field extending beyond that world tube, gradually falling off, and that
there is another world tube which gradually emerges from the field of that world tube. So
there is one inseparable universe. However, in some abstraction (that is, in the appearance)
there is a separation of these particles, because the field in between is weak and may be
neglected. Nevertheless, in essence, there is no separation in this view.

A serious problem exists, because nobody has in fact succeeded in making this kind of a
theory. That is, the theory of relativity does not have a theory of matter.

To bring this out, I first point out that Einstein said that the basic concept is a point event.
The thing that gives the point event content is a field (x,t). There can be no extended
structure for the reasons given above, so that we cannot discuss the permanent identity of a
particle as continuing in time. So there is nothing left but to say that the basic concept is the
point event -- something with no extension in space or time. Everything is built out of that.6

The point event, as considered by how it would appear to some observer, would look like
something which no sooner came into existence than it went out of existence. It would have
no idea whatsoever. It would flash in and out of existence in the very same step. That is, it is
the field at that point. You might think of the field over a period of time as an entity of some
sort having an identity, but this will not work, because you could have taken equally as well
another Lorentz frame in which the identity was the field along another space-time track. In
other words, it is highly arbitrary to associate field points along a certain line and say they
belong to some mathematical entity. In fact nothing but this point event is a basic concept.
Anything you build is a structure of point events -- an interrelated or correlated structure. But
any such structure is a process. Any order of point events can only be understood in this
flowing movement -- as process. The essence is process.7
The serious problem in relativity is that it implies that we are committed to make an
explanation of matter as a structure of events, of field events. We must look for differential
equations to determine the laws of the field (as Einstein said) because only differential
equations describe the infinitesimal, contiguous connections of events. This is a linear model
with no long-range connections. But if the equations are only linear, any structure will
diffuse away and, therefore, must have some nonlinear terms. One would hope that the
stability of matter would be explained as a solution to such nonlinear equations, meaning that
matter is a structure of these primitive, undefined space-time events. Einstein and others have
sought to explain matter in this way. The immediate appearance of matter would be
translated into this essence, that is, a certain structure of events. Matter as it appears to us
immediately is some "thing" which is in itself stable. But according to the theory I am
describing, matter is no longer a "thing"; it is translated into the essential particulars as a
structure of primitive events.8 You can see how Einstein’s thinking was going. He fully
appreciated the importance of not sticking to the appearances.

However, it was not possible to do this in any satisfactory way. As a result, relativity has no
theory of matter in it at all. There are no measuring instruments; no matter; no people. There
is nothing in this theory. There is nothing but appearances. It is not a theory of the essence.
Einstein fully hoped that it would become a theory of the essence, and he saw that it was
necessary to make it one.9

III. Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is in the same situation as relativity, and perhaps even a worse one. As
you know, Planck brought up the idea of discrete quanta of radiation, and Einstein, the
photoelectric effect. Originally, people thought atoms were jelly-like things. Therefore, it
was quite easy to see why atoms would exclude each other and form stable matter. But with
the planetary atom of Rutherford there was no longer any stability in matter. The atom had a
nucleus with electrons orbiting around it. Because of radiation, the electron would quickly
spiral into the nucleus, and the atom would not exist at all. Therefore, matter would not exist.
So you have the same problem in quantum mechanics as in relativity. Behind the problem
was the fundamental question of the existence of matter.

Bohr, by a certain insight, was led to suppose that there is a lowest orbit, for reasons that are
entirely outside of our understanding at present. The electron will never fall below that orbit,
and this would explain the stability of matter. This was a most radical step. It followed that
there might be other orbits which are also discrete, which would explain the discrete spectra,
and so on. But everyone realized that this was an ad hoc theory, somewhat arbitrary. It had
no explanation of the movement of matter at all.

Later on came the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg, the wave theory of Schroedinger, the
Born probability interpretation, the transformation theory of Dirac, and others. These
developments led to a systematic structure which made possible tremendous success in the
computation of all sorts of results. It accounted for the stability of atoms, molecules, large
bodies of macrodimension. And it showed that actual calculations were possible in a wide
range of fields with impressive numerical agreement with observed facts.

Most physicists thought that at last a new essence had been arrived at. They were so
impressed with the success of quantum mechanics, that they felt that this must be the
essence. However, I would suggest that it is not, because quantum mechanics, while very
successful, is just correlating phenomena. There are serious problems as to what quantum
mechanics means, and I will summarize them briefly.

We have the wave function which Schroedinger brought in as a function of x and t. (Notice
that he still used the old ideas of time and space coordinates.) Typical probabilities
determined by the wave function were (x,t)2 , the probability of density of particles in space.
If you "Fourier analyze" the wave function, you get a probability of momentum, and so on.
The wave function was at the heart of a system of computing probabilities.

The most interesting new point was that the many-body wave-function is a function of all the
coordinates of all the particles. This is called the configuration space. You could no longer
picture the wave as being in space at all. It was totally abstract. The idea of calling it a wave
was really wrong. This point is crucial because this multidimensional wave was necessary for
all the essential results of quantum mechanics. Without it, quantum mechanics would
collapse; it would give results of trivial significance. Therefore, there was no picture at all of
what sort of essence the wave function might be referring to. It was just a characteristic
function from which you could compute all sorts of probabilities.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was an important part of the interpretation. Let us
think of an electron microscope giving the situation of a target T with an atom A in the target
with an electron coming in and being scattered by the atom. An electron lens then focuses the
electron onto a plate, leaving a spot P. In classical physics from the spot P we infer the
position of atom A. From the spot P, the track PP1, and from knowledge of how the lens
works, we could also know the momentum of the particle. Thus, you could compute from
this where the atom is which scattered the electron and how much momentum was
transferred to the atom A. Although atom A would be disturbed, you could make the
disturbance negligible, either by using light particles or by making corrections for the
disturbance. Therefore, in classical physics the reference of A to P could be dropped. The
whole experimental arrangement, while necessary to obtain knowledge about atom A, is quite
independent of the essence of the atom in itself. The atom exists in itself in a certain state of
position and momentum. Once you know about the atom, you can forget about the apparatus.

On the other hand, Heisenberg, because of the quantum nature of light or matter, said there is
a minimum disturbance of _p of atom A. Heisenberg considered it to be unknowable,
unpredictable, and uncontrollable, and hence uncertain. Let’s say there is an electron of
momentum p which gets scattered through some angle so that the momentum is p sin . You
cannot know the angle from the spot P, because the electron may have come in through the
aperture of the lens anywhere. Therefore, there is to a certain extent an unknown transference
of momentum to this electron. Also, if this electron which links A and P had wave-like
properties, you would not know exactly where it came from. It would come from an
unknown region of size _x = sin . (Notice that you are using two pictures of the atom at the
same time. You are saying that the link electron is both a wave and a particle. This is
illogical. You are describing it simultaneously using two sets of properties which it couldn’t
really have together.) Thus because of the wave nature of light or matter, there is a minimum
disturbance or uncertainty _x . From this, it follows quite directly that _x _p _ h. This was
Heisenberg’s uncertainty relationship.

With this relationship you could no longer infer what the properties of an object are from the
observed spot P, and from a knowledge of how the apparatus was arranged, and so on. This
point is crucial because whether you used light or matter as the link, you could show that
there was always an uncertainty. There was no way out of this because the laws of quantum
mechanics were used in the link process. Using this argument, physicists criticized the
classical determinism, namely that given all the positions and velocities of all the particles in
the universe, everything would follow. No longer was it possible to know them, because
knowing them now consisted of interacting with them by using particles which obeyed the
very laws into which you were inquiring. And these laws had a minimum disturbance which
could not be reduced because of the quantum nature of matter.

Heisenberg raised the uncertainty relationships to a principle by saying not merely can they
be deduced from the laws of quantum mechanics, but by making the assumption that there is
no way out of this situation no matter how far you went. That is, he turned from a deduced
relationship to a principle, but there is no reason why this should necessarily follow. People
accepted this principle, in spite of the fact that there were no reasons why it should be
accepted or rejected. It was just an idea. And this is how I would criticize the generally
accepted procedure.

A second point to add, which is not usually made clear, is that particular experimental
conditions determine the shape of a cell in phase space, representing the uncertainty in the
classical properties of the electron. The area is h, but the shape is variable. The properties of
the electron thus, become ambiguous within some sort of roughly defined cloud of area h,
but the shape of this cloud may vary considerably. Thus, x may be relatively well defined but
not p or vice-versa, depending on the particular experimental arrangements, such as the
microscope and the particles that are used. Mathematically, the range of uncertainty of
properties is determined roughly by the region in which the wave function of the particle is
appreciable; i.e., the region of position space and momentum space. Instead of using classical
concepts of precisely defined x and p we will now say that the wave function describes the
state of the particle as accurately as possible. According to the experimental arrangement you
get a corresponding wave function, and the appropriate probability distribution in x and p.

Now returning to the experimental arrangement, we see that the results are irreducibly
dependent upon the interaction with the observer. We can compare this to two views of
nature. One view is that nature is totally independent of us, and we just find out what it is.
The other is that nature is an artifact made by us, which afterwards may exist independently
until we do something to it again. From Heisenberg’s point of view you could say that the
electron state is to some extent an artifact. We help to make it.

Heisenberg was not a completely consistent positivist. He said that the electron has in some
sense a position, which is disturbed. Thus he used a highly nonpositivist argument to justify a
positivist conclusion, which is perfect confusion, you see. It is nonpositivist to say that the
electron is disturbed in an unknown way, but he concluded from this that there is an ultimate
limitation on our knowledge of precisely where the electron is, which is very positivistic.
From the unknowable, Heisenberg thus concluded something about the limits of the
knowable.10

Heisenberg’s view is not actually consistent with quantum mechanics. A more coherent form
of the view I have been describing would probably be closer to that of Von Neumann. Von
Neumann says that as a result of this interaction with the electron, the atom is left in a certain
state. It continues in that state, moving in its natural way until something interacts with it
again. The result of this interaction depends statistically upon the wave function. That is, you
can compute the probability that in the next experiment you will get a certain result, if you
know the result of the previous experiment.

Bohr has produced yet another view, which is probably the most consistent one. It is quite
different from Heisenberg’s, although Heisenberg has subscribed to Bohr’s view, thus adding
to the confusion. Bohr said that the experimental arrangement has to be described classically.
It was essential to Bohr’s point of view, and probably to most of the others, that quantum
mechanics introduced no change of concept at all. The concepts of position and momentum
were the same ones in classical physics as in quantum physics. In classical physics they were
unambiguous in principle. In quantum physics they were ambiguous to the extent of the
Uncertainty Principle. But Bohr went further by saying that this ambiguity was
fundamentally related to the experimental conditions. He said that the form of the
experimental conditions and content or the meaning of the experimental results were a single
whole which could not be further analyzed. A way to picture Bohr’s view is to think of the
pattern in a carpet. There may be birds or people or trees in the pattern, but the carpet is not
constituted of birds and people and trees. Rather, they were merely abstractions from the
whole, which have no meaning in themselves. Bohr said indeed that there is no microobject.
So actually nothing is observed. There is nothing but the phenomena, and in this sense he
was parallel to Kant. The phenomena constitute the whole. We may use words like "particle"
and so on, but they are just picturesque language. We would probably be better off without
such language.

The algorithm of quantum mechanics then applies statistically to these phenomena. The
phenomena are described through classical language, but instead of using classical calculus
to predict from one phenomenon to the next, we replace the classical calculus with the
quantum algorithm -- wave functions, matrices, and so on. The essential point that Bohr
demonstrated is that it is consistent to do this. I believe that his demonstration is right. And
he is, as far as I am concerned, the only one who has presented a consistent view of the
whole thing.

But you must accept this view that the phenomena are irreducible if you are to go along with
Bohr. This is what Bohr called "individual." For example, if you look at somebody, you can
say that is what he is. There is no use to analyze the person any further. The second point is
that one might ask why the thing has to be described in classical language. Bohr’s answer is
that no other unambiguous description is possible. Bohr felt that the description must be
unambiguous. (At least the ideal is that.) And also he felt that you really couldn’t change the
terms of common sense language, refined where necessary to classical concepts of position
and momentum. He felt that the common sense notion was built into the human condition.
For example, one might say, "Suppose that you try some other concepts." Bohr would answer
that with language you don’t know which way is up and which is down. Bohr felt that there
was something inherent in the human condition or situation which required his approach.11
And I would not accept Bohr at this point.

Von Neumann did not accept Bohr’s view at all, and Heisenberg was straddling between
Bohr and Von Neumann. Von Neumann said that the quantum state is an objective fact -- it
is a microobject. The microstate is merely a state that happens to be to some extent an artifact
made in the laboratory, but it is still there. According to Von Neumann there is a cut between
the quantum system and the classical world. I will call the quantum state Q. Now the location
of this cut can be put fairly arbitrarily. Somehow the quantum state interacts with the
classical world, leaving an observable result from which you can know the quantum state.
The problem is that the cut, being arbitrary, could be put at various points. Von Neumann
mentioned that eventually this leads to an infinite regress, because there is always a further
classical world. Anything could be called quantum mechanical and could be observed by a
further system that is classical, and so on. This infinite regress would not be satisfactory.

Wigner has suggested that this regress may end in the consciousness of the observer (making
his theory a phenomenalist theory, probably). But Wigner goes further than this by saying
that the consciousness of the observer plays an essential role in making the quantum state
definite. Therefore, Wigner says that the consciousness of the observer is inherently involved
in the world. You may hold this view, but it may be criticized in a number of ways.12

One way is to say that if you introduce the consciousness of the observer as one of the
variables of the world you are still in a regress since it implies that there is an awareness of
the consciousness by a further observer who sees his state of consciousness, and so on. I
think that this is no really clear point of view along these lines. You cannot introduce the
observer into the account explicitly. Whatever is in the account is by the very form of the
situation that which is observed. If the state of consciousness is part of the account, then
consciousness is what is being observed. It is always implied that there is an observer who is
implicit -- that is, not mentioned in the account.

I think this illustrates that the interpretation of quantum mechanics has by no means been
settled. A great many people have developed different variations. For example, Von
Neumann’s view was not satisfactory to those who followed him; indeed, Von Neumann’s
solution is not clear and cannot be made clear. Bohr’s solution is relatively clear, but I would
consider it to be based on an arbitrary assumption about our human situation. Heisenberg is
not clear because he says he follows Bohr, when in fact he does not. Bohr never follows
Heisenberg.13 Thus, you have the same situation in quantum mechanics as in positivism --
people take the right step for the wrong reasons. The right steps lead to successful results, but
because the reasons are wrong, this brings about a muddle further down the line. A deeper
reason for the confusion is that most of the physicists were not sufficiently interested in the
interpretation at all. Because the quantum theory was so successful, they mainly wanted to
get on with working out the results. They thought that it was fine for anyone who wanted to
try to work out an interpretation. In fact in Einstein’s biography it is pointed out that that is
also how Einstein looked at the situation described here. That is, very few people understood
what Bohr had to say, not even Heisenberg and certainly not Von Neumann, but most people
still accepted Bohr’s interpretation. Yet everyone seemed to think that everyone was saying
the same thing. While people felt that it was in principle necessary to clear up the issue of
interpretation, they felt that it was really a side issue. The important thing was to calculate
results.

I would say that we have no quantum essence, because we have not yet given a consistent
description of matter. Bohr’s view takes the classical description of matter, but no one
believes that the classical description is the explanation. Bohr avoids this criticism by saying
that we can go no further, because that is the human condition. Heisenberg implied an
essence by saying there was a particle which was disturbed in an unknown way, but it was
never clear how one could discuss this. Von Neumann implied an essence, but again,
unclearly. Thus, in essence, matter has not been explained in quantum mechanics. To be
consistent we should say that quantum mechanics is a theory of the phenomena. It is
consistent in that it predicts and correlates the phenomena, but it does not translate the
appearances into an essence in a consistent way. Although people do translate the
phenomena to some extent through pictures, these pictures are not consistent. They help the
intuition, but to say that a thing is both a particle and a wave is not a consistent picture. It is
merely an aid to thinking. It would be closer to the fact to say that quantum mechanics is a
theory of the phenomena which is very successful up to a point, but not very successful when
it comes to trying to connect it with relativity, and not successful at all in questions of
interpretation.

I am going to take the point of view that we have no relativistic essence and no quantum
essence. Both are laws of the phenomena. They may be clues to some new essence which is
not relativistic and not quantum. Perhaps relativity and quantum theory will be special or
limiting cases or appearances of some deeper, more fundamental essence. But I will not take
that deeper essence as the final essence either. This is part of the process or movement by
which we are continually learning about the world or nature.

For reasons which I developed above, relativity indicates that the essence should be of the
nature of movement or process or flux. "Process" is based on the word "proceed" -- to move
forward. You might think of process as a structure of movement rather than as a structure of
objects. The word "structure" in the dictionary means having to do with construction -- how
you make things. But structure is the order, arrangement, connection, and organization and
form not necessarily of things but also of movements. For example, we may discuss the
structure of a language or the structure of a thought, as well as the structure of a house or of a
crystal. In physics, the question of the kind of connection is probably one of the basic
features of the structure. Physics has generally looked for immediate contiguous connection
of events. So if things are far apart but connected, we assume that there is a series of
intermediate connections which are local and contiguous. That has been the pattern that
people have wanted to use.14

Newton introduced action at a distance (although he hoped to get rid of it), which allows for
an immediate connection of distant events at the same time. That is not inconsistent with
classical mechanics although people prefer not to have it. The quantum laws allow for
discrete jumps and connections of things not connected by a series of stages of contact. Thus,
in discussing the issue of structure, we are discussing how things are connected, contacted,
and related, and so on.

I think it is necessary to go into the Einstein Podolski Rosen story (EPR) because that is the
basic new feature of quantum mechanics, in my view. All the other developments, while
somewhat new, are not all that different from previous ideas.

The EPR story deals with the fact that the wave function which describes the quantum state
is not a function of space and time, but is a function of as many variables as there are
particles (and possibly as many moments of time as there are particles, if you tried to do it
relativistically). Einstein considered the EPR experiment to be a criticism of quantum
mechanics, showing not that it is wrong, but that it is incomplete conceptually. Something
fundamental is missing from the concepts, although the thing may be right experimentally,
up to the present anyway.

The original experiment is a bit harder to interpret than another one. Think of two particles
forming a molecule, with the total spin equaling zero. (In classical terms you might think of
one particle spinning one direction and the other spinning in exactly the opposite direction).
Now suppose that this molecule is disintegrated by electric forces which do not affect the
spin at all and that these atoms start coming apart. (Let’s say they come apart very slowly.)
For the sake of argument you take them a long way apart -- miles or millions of miles -- and
all the time the total spin would remain constant. Each one would be opposite to the other.
They would be correlated. In a classical situation, if you measured the spin on one particle
after a week of separating, you would immediately know that the other particle had the
opposite spin. There is nothing mysterious about this at all -- it is just correlation. That is
obvious, at least in classical mechanics.

Now, quantum mechanics has an entirely different structure. We let a represent a particle
with spin up, b with spin down. The wave function for the combined systems is = a (1)b (2) -- a
(2)b (l). This combination of wave functions with the minus sign is necessary to have a state
of spin zero (or if there is a plus sign, a spin of + 1). That is to say, the way these wave
functions are combined is essential to properties of the whole system. Let us think of any
individual particle. We say that its spin cannot be exactly defined in all directions. It can be
defined in any direction you please -- let’s say z. Then, according to quantum mechanics, the
other two components of the spin are fluctuating at random so that the spin vector is located
somewhere on a cone whose z direction is always the same. It is not known exactly where it
is in that cone. But if we say that the particle is spinning in some other direction, then the
cone points in the corresponding direction. So there is a cone of uncertainty whose axis is in
that other direction. The quantum state of the particle thus determines the directions in which
the spin is uncertain. That is, the quantum state implies that some things are uncertain and
some are certain. The wave function determines both. The uncertainty is just as much a part
of the quantum state as the certainty.

This really shook Bohr, and for one night he couldn’t sleep. However, Bohr came up with a
very nice answer. He said, "Well, Einstein, that is exactly what I’ve been saying." The
trouble was that Bohr had previously been half accepting Heisenberg’s view of disturbance.
Suddenly he saw that he should just give Heisenberg up altogether. Disturbance is never the
question at all in the uncertainty principle. Nothing is involved but a phenomenon. The fact
that this takes place over some time merely obscures the issue, but the phenomenon in
question is the whole of the phenomenon. This has nothing to do with time and space. The
phenomenon as a whole, however long it takes, is still just one whole phenomenon in this
pattern. There is nothing to explain, because this phenomenon is an indivisible whole. There
is no inconsitency in asserting the phenomenon in this way. The inconsistency is in trying to
explain the phenomenon by our usual way of thinking in physics.

So Bohr gave a very nice answer. As a result, Einstein really knocked the last nail into the
structure when he hoped to knock it down. For afterwards everyone said, "Well, if even
Einstein cannot get away with trying to criticize quantum theory, who am I to try?"15

Now this really is the most crucial feature of quantum mechanics, which I call non-locality of
distant connections. Suppose you made a theory, for example, hidden variables, in which it
was possible to explain this in another way by saying there was a hidden force which
connected these things. It would have implied that this force was transmitted instantaneously.
That would lead you into the problem of relativity. You might have to criticize relativity in
some way.

The other way is to have an entirely different view which is closer to the implicate order,
which would question the whole idea of being interconnected in a certain way, namely, the
ordinary idea of causal connection in past and future and that things are locally connected so
that one thing affects another nearby.

You can question the ordinary idea of connection by suggesting instead that there is an inner
design in the whole structure. (In some ways this is close to what Bohr is saying, but also
different because this inner design can be studied.) The idea that all things happen
independently when they are distant is thus what I am calling into question. Experiments
have been done which in essence verify the view I am proposing up to several meters of
separation of the apparatus. One was recently done at Birkbeck College, University of
London, at 21/2 meters. There is no place where the quantum theory has been disproved up to
this separation. So it is not merely a theoretical prediction. Thus it seems that we should take
this issue of non-locality seriously.16

I think there is some new principle here which is non-local connection. Perhaps the speed of
light in this new domain is an irrelevant limitation. But Einstein may be right that the
possibility of sending a signal depends on the speed of light but not connection in general.
Sending a signal requires maintaining the order of the connection in a complex process,
because a signal depends on a whole series of steps having meaning. It might not be possible
to use non-local connection to send a signal, but still it might be a genuine connection. We
might criticize Einstein’s view of signal as a basic concept for physics. To say that physics is
defined by the possibility of a signal may not be as relevant as Einstein wanted to suggest.
Rather, there are connections which are more fundamental. If there is no signal you will not
get into inconsistency with speeds faster than that of light. Therefore, the situation in physics
is pointing to some new essence.

IV. The Implicate Order

Every period of science seems to have its particular notion of order. There was the Greek
order of perfection going out to its circles of heavens. And this was given up in the
Newtonian order, which was mechanical movement. The Newtonian order was expressed
through Cartesian coordinates. The very word "coordinate" contains the word "order." The
Cartesian order is highly suited to the idea of contiguous connection in classical physics.
Cartesian order has been maintained even in relativity, in its mathematics. While relativity
uses curvilinear coordinates instead of rectangular coordinates, they are still minor
extensions of the Cartesian order. We could say that even in quantum mechanics people still
use the Cartesian order to specify the wave function, even though it is describing things that
do not fit into the Cartesian order. The content is no longer Cartesian, because things jump
from one orbit to another without passing in between. Therefore, the Cartesian form has been
maintained even though the content is no longer Cartesian.

Thus, there is a contradiction arising. Indeed, if we look at quantum mechanics and relativity
together, we see that they are very different in one sense, for relativity ultimately implies
complete, perfect describability in all the details of the universe, while quantum mechanics
implies through the uncertainty principle that complete, perfect describability cannot be
achieved. So the attempt to define the structure of the world tube precisely in relativity would
violate quantum mechanics. That is the basic reason why quantum mechanics and relativity
do not fit together. On the other hand, they have in common this notion of unbroken
wholeness. That is, if relativity were able to explain matter, it would say that it would be all
one form -- a field -- all merging into one whole. Quantum mechanics would say the same
thing for a different reason, because the indivisible quantum links of everything with
everything imply that nothing can be separated. Therefore, this notion of unbroken
wholeness seems to be the one common feature which might unite relativity and quantum
mechanics, whereas they fall apart on the attempt to describe in detail how things happen. Of
course, people have generally concentrated upon the attempt to describe things in detail, but
that is just the point at which it doesn’t work very well -- when you try to understand the
quantum mechanics and relativity together.

The implicate order is the proposal of another order which will be suitable for this unbroken
wholeness, not the Cartesian order. In other words, when we have the implicate order, we
will not use the Cartesian order for the description of phenomena, except in some superficial
way. We will say that the immediate particulars are going to be the Cartesian order, but the
essential particulars will now be the new universal, or the implicate order.

The lens has been the basic instrument to give content to the Cartesian order, and the point is
the basic entity. If you have a lens, it forms very nearly an image so that to each object point
there is an image point. Since what corresponds are the points, our attention is brought to the
notion of point as the major notion. By means of the lens, we are able to see things through
point correspondences which are too small or too big or too fast to be seen by the eye. The
idea arose that eventually we would be able to see everything this way. And the universe
could be understood and observed as a structure of points.

The hologram, invented some time ago by Gabor, approached this very differently. It was
made possible by the laser, which produced highly coherent light. A half-silvered mirror
reflects some of the light to an object, and some of the light goes on. The two beams interfere
in a complicated pattern which is rather minute in its detail and doesn’t look like anything at
all. You can make a photograph of this pattern and then send a similar laser light through it.
This will produce similar diffraction patterns, and you will see the whole object in three
dimensions. People have emphasized the three dimensionality of the object, but that is not
what I will emphasize here. The main point is that from each part of the interference pattern,
or hologram, you will still see the content of the whole object, but with less detail or less
points of view. That is to say, in each part of the hologram information concerning the whole
object has been registered. (You can see this from the way in which the light waves from the
whole object come into each part of the hologram.) This is the key notion indicating another
order.

I should point out that the photograph is really a secondary issue, in that it helps to render the
thing visible in this way. The major point is not the photographic plate, but that there is a
movement taking place all the time. I call this the "holomovement." ("Holo" is the Greek
word meaning "whole." "Hologram" merely means to write the whole.) In this case, the
hologram takes on the form of light waves. But holograms can be made with sound waves or
with deBroglie waves, in principle, or with electron waves. And according to the theory of
quantum mechanics, all matter is wave-like, so the hologram could be of all forms of matter
know-n and unknown.

This general category I will call "holomovement." The holomovement has the property that
each part of it contains the whole in some sense. The whole is folded into each part, and that
is why I use the word "implicate" for this order. The Latin word implicare means to be
folded inward. To explicate is to fold outward. To multiplicate is to multifold, and so on.

In this order, the points are not the fundamental notion anymore. Rather, what is fundamental
is some region which contains, in some sense, the order of the whole. In ordinary physics,
this situation is described by saying that the Cartesian order is the essential order and all this
(movement, change) is merely a secondary or inessential appearance going on inside the
Cartesian order. That is the usual way of looking at it. But I am turning it around and saying
that this (the implicate order) is the essential order and Cartesian order is the inessential order
-- an appearance going on in the holomovement.

In this view, the Cartesian order is a particular case of the universal holomovement, of the
implicate order. We will develop this as we go along. One can illustrate this implicate order
in another way which is not quite as accurate, but is easier to picture.

There is a device which has been made at the Royal Institution in London, consisting of two
cylinders of glass -- one of them static and the other one turning around, with a viscous fluid,
such as glycerin, in between. You turn it very slowly so that no diffusion takes place.
Therefore, the effect is reversible when the cylinder is turned back. You put a drop of soluble
ink in the fluid, and as you turn the cylinder, the ink gets spread out in a band, and finally it
becomes invisible. It is spread all over the place. It gets drawn out. Then if you turn it
backward, it tends to draw the ink back together, and suddenly the droplet emerges more or
less as before. (It is not exactly perfect since some of the ink is diffused, but it shows the
point.)

We can say that the droplet of ink is folded up in the glycerin, like an egg folded up into a
cake. You cannot unfold the egg out of the cake because of diffusion, but you can unfold the
ink back into a droplet. You can say that there is an order here which does not show. It would
have been called "randomness" in the ordinary way of looking at it. But it is not randomness;
it is an order. If you took another droplet and enfolded it, it would look the same, but it is
different. That difference is a difference of order. Now what you could do, for example, is to
enfold a whole grid of droplets and have it look like a muddle inside. But actually there is an
implicit Cartesian order in the fluid -- an implicate Cartesian order which has been folded up
into this system. It merely shows that there is an order there which is not visible, in the sense
that the parts are enfolded into this whole. It is very similar to what happened to the light in
the hologram, where all the parts are enfolded into each part.

This is an expression of the new order, which I call the implicate order. A similar order is
involved in quantum mechanics because the waves, the deBroglie waves from each particle,
are enfolded the same way as light is.

There is a parameter here which I will call the "implication parameter." For the sake of
description, suppose you turn the cylinder n times. You must distinguish between a drop
which has been turned n times and one that is turned 2n times, and so on. They are different.
They may look the same, but they are different, because one of them can be enfolded in ii
turns and the other in 2n turns. So we are making a distinction according to the implication
parameter. This distinction is not very important in the Cartesian order. In fact, you would
generally not consider it all. Suppose now that I take a droplet and I enfold it n times, and
then I take a different droplet and at a slightly different position enfold it n times, carrying
the first droplet two enfoldments. And I take a third droplet, which I enfold n times, which
carries the second droplet 2n times and the first droplet 3n times. So I have enfolded a
structure of droplets.

Now if I start unfolding, one droplet after another will emerge, each in a slightly different
position. If I do it rapidly, it will appear as if a droplet is crossing this fluid. That is a
metaphor of what I mean by a particle in the enfolded order. In other words, it involves the
whole, exactly as Bohr says. In that sense we agree, but we disagree in how we describe the
whole. Every particle is actually a manifestation of this whole. Therefore, we no longer
reduce the world to particles, but we regard it as a state of the whole. We turn the classical
physics upside down.

We are saying that nothing can be understood except within the context of the whole. We
may now ask this question: "If everything is to be understood only within the context of the
whole, how are we to comprehend what happens in physics where people have so nicely and
successfully analyzed the world into parts?" We cannot ignore that experience. What we will
have to do is to assimilate and comprehend our experience in a new way. We are going to
say the old view is all appearance -- a certain appearance within this new essence.

The holomovement, which we cannot define, is going to be considered to be the new

essence. That is my primitive concept. Its meaning will unfold as we go along. The word
"holomovement" is merely a metaphor to point our mind in a certain direction. It is not to be
taken as defined in any literal sense to begin with. The laws of holomovement will be the
laws of the whole, which we can call "holonomy." Any law of the whole is a regular order
within the holomovement. If we say that the regular order is such to produce particles, that
will be a particular law of the whole. So the existence of particles is now described through
an order in the holomovement. It does not exist in itself at all. Particles are an appearance. In
fact, it is not this little thing that you see, because you are only able to see ink droplets when
they are of a certain density. We don’t see the whole thing.

Now what we have is called "relative autonomy": autonomy means self-rule, and relative
autonomy is the order in which the whole unfolds. There are various orders which can be
abstracted from the whole, and these orders have relative autonomy. If you carry it far
enough, you will find that these orders are not totally autonomous. They all depend on each
other. The EPR experiment is a case in point. For each particle of physics, say an electron,
you would expect a relatively autonomous order. Each particle would move along in its own
order, somewhat modified by the order of another particle which comes near it, because the
two orders penetrate together. But you would ordinarily expect that distant things should be
generally relatively autonomous. In our new view, however, things that are called distant
merely appear to be distant, and they are really only relatively autonomous. They all involve
the whole. Distance is thus actually an appearance by which we can describe relative
autonomy. There is no distance in this essence. Distance is not a fundamental quality of the
implicate order.

Relative autonomy is limited, as we have seen in the EPR experiment. Two things that we
thought to be quite autonomous are not. They may be miles apart, yet are not autonomous.
Now in the holomovement, there is no reason why things miles apart should always be
autonomous. Everything comes from the whole. It may come from here; it may come from
there; but there is no reason why the order in which they come should be totally independent.
They may or they may not be independent. We would have to find out the actual fact in each
situation. Relative autonomy is always limited. It is not the essential category. The essential
category is wholeness -- unbroken wholeness.17

I can also explain the subsistence of matter in a similar way, by saying that the
holomovement provides for the subsistence of matter. Matter continues to exist up to a point,
but it may not be perfectly subsistent. We know that matter need not be entirely self-
subsistent. Thus, there is the annihilation of particles as well as the creation. So subsistence is
not absolute.

A particle is not a substance. A substance would be self-generated and self-maintained. But

subsistence merely means that it depends on something else to be maintained. Democritus’s
original idea was that the atoms were substances -- self-maintaining and eternal. But now we
are saying that particles are subsistants and not substances. This fits the facts of modern
physics, because as I have just said, all particles can be created and destroyed and
transformed, and so on. Therefore, there is no sign that they are independent substances. We
will say that particles are orders in the holomovement, which have the character of
subsistence, a certain repetitiveness, stability, and so on. And that ties up with the autonomy,
for the order in which they are subsistants is also only relatively autonomous. This allows for
an explanation of the appearance of various things in the world which can be analyzed and
treated in themselves up to a point.

In this view, the holomovement is the essence. The order of the holomovement and not
merely the movement is the essence. Without the order, the laws of physics would be merely
empty forms, because there would be no content to physics at all.

We now have to say that the laws of physics are applying to a different order. We have to
develop this order of the holomovement. We have very little to say about it to begin with, but
we should expect that it would explain the previous orders as abstractions of various kinds,
as suggested above. It will be necessary, of course, also to develop a mathematical
description of the order along with a physical description of the’ order. I would just
anticipate by saying that algebra seems to provide a good mathematical description of the
implicate order and that quantum mechanics is basically an algebra. Therefore, the implicate
order will fit very nicely into the sort of thing that is happening in physics. As the calculus
was the description of the Cartesian order, the algebra is the description of the implicate
order. So the algebra must replace the calculus. Thus there are no differential equations. We
don’t start with the differential equations. We do not start with the continuous space, but
instead we will say that space has no absolute order that can be described. Every order is as
good as every other order. This is a sort of extension of the principle of relativity. Einstein
showed that the order of one observer’s frame is as good as the order of the others. The laws
of physics take the same form in every order. But it has to be a continuous order, he said.
Now what we will suggest is that it needn’t be a continuous order. For example, suppose I
say that the electron is described in terms of our own perceptual order, which is taken as
explicate. The electron has then to be regarded as enfolded in the way that I have suggested.
But there might be a principle of relativity which says that the electron order could be taken
as given or explicate and we are enfolded in the order of the electron in the same way that the
electron is enfolded in our own order. The content of the laws of physics must come out the
same whichever order we call "explicate" and whichever order we call "implicate." There is
no absoluteness to being folded or unfolded. It is the relationship of folding and unfolding
that counts. We will not say that one order is the unfolded order and the other the folded one;
rather, one is folded in relation to the other.18

A. Time. If an object is thought of as being at a certain point, you have lost your mental grasp
of its movement. If you think of it in movement, it is not clear where it is. In movement, it
must be essentially considered over some range of time. Another way of looking at that is to
consider the usual representation of time by means of a line with past, present, and future.
You may consider this point to be moving, but that, of course, brings in time at another level.
But if we just take the present moment p, the past is gone. It is never present. The future is
not yet; it is also never present. So. if p divides past from future, it divides what does not
exist from what does not exist. Therefore, it could hardly be said that the present exists
either. In other words, there is a complete paradox if we attempt to look at the ordinary
physicist’s view of time as anything more than an abstraction. It is useful for calculation, but
is not an actual description of the state of affairs.

How are we to look at time? I would put it this way. There is no future. There is nothing but
the present and the past at any moment, because that is all that can be described. But the past
is present, in the form of memory. The past is recorded: what has been photographed and
written, the traces in the rock. It is all present. It may be unfolded in your mind as an image
that appears to be actually happening, but it is not actually happening. The past is gone.
Whatever is present of the past is an abstraction. It is not the past as it actually was. So we
will say that the past is a part of the present. Now we have an intrinsic order here, because
we can say that there is a series of moments; the later present and the present present. The
later present contains the present of this moment as a part of its past enfolded. I say that this
moment is not only present as a trace, but it is generally enfolded in the implicate order. So
the past is present, generally speaking, in an enfolded way.

This might be relevant to brain structure and memory. We may say that memory is some
enfoldment of the past in the brain. That could be a reasonable approach, in my view. That
would be a holographic enfoldment of some sort. But there is a hierarchy of order here,
because each moment has its past enfolded in it, which in turn has its past enfolded in it, etc.
Each one contains in itself what came before, which is, in turn, reenfolded. So we could look
at time as enfoldment. And we are saying that the next moment will contain all of this in a
similar way.

I would say that we don’t make predictions, because in this view the present does not
determine the future, fundamentally. The future is entirely open, if I may use that word. Or to
make it more striking I could say that there is no future. It doesn’t actually exist ever. So
there is an intrinsic order of enfoldment. If you try to make a prediction, you are never sure
that something new may not come in. There is always a contingency. Therefore, literally
speaking, perfect predictions are not actually possible. Although very reliable predictions are
sometimes possible, there might still be a contingency. So I would rather say that we
anticipate the future. "Anticipate" is a good word because it comes from the same root word
as "perception." Perception means to grasp it thoroughly; anticipation means to grasp it
beforehand.

Actually, we don’t anticipate the future as such. Rather, we anticipate the past of the future.
All we know of the present is actually the past. Anything known is gone already. What is
actually happening cannot have yet entered knowledge. It is being perceived. It has not yet
entered the recording, the registering process. Therefore, anything that we really know is
already gone. In the future, something will have happened, and we may predict what will
have happened. So we anticipate what will have happened. That is, when tomorrow comes,
certain things will have happened, either a second ago or a minute ago, and so on. And we
will anticipate that state of affairs. Therefore, our theory (the implicate order) will consist of
relationships which, informally speaking, are always in the past of some moment which is
called the present. All language, all knowledge, I should say, must basically refer to that.

We will be discussing the unknown presently. (We really shouldn’t even be discussing it.)
Given the present, the next step is completely open in principle. There may be some
situations where there is tendency for one current situation to be followed by another. In this
way we can regard the form of matter and of thought as very similar (or of feeling, as
Whitehead might have put it).

Let’s look at thought. The next thought is not determined by the previous thought in any
usual causal sense. But within a thought, there will be some tendency for one thought to be
followed by another again and again. Given that a certain structure has been registered, it has
in it a tendency to react to a situation to produce a certain further structure of a similar form.
But it is not absolutely determined. Any number of contingencies come in to change it:
information, influences, and so on.

So perhaps we could say that matter has a kind of memory of what supposed to be in the
implicate order. And therefore, matter has a tendency to go on with a certain general form,
although it could change at any moment. In other words, there is always room for a creative
step outside the whole structure that we are talking about. Of course, by the time we get to
the domain of classical physics there is such an overwhelming structure of memory that it is
very well determined, but even then perhaps not absolutely. That is the way I would like to
look at the indeterminism that people have brought into the quantum mechanics.

We are going to have to abstract the order of time from the implicate order. This will come
out through the mathematics. In other words, time is not given as something there
beforehand. That is, we should not say things happen in time. Rather, there are many kinds of
time. This is the spirit of relativity. A system moving at one speed has one kind of time; one
moving at another has another kind of time. There may be an implicate time which involves
many moments of what we call ordinary time. In fact, I should say that is the kind of
experience we have of an implicate time in memory. In one moment of what we call time,
there is a vast sweep of implicate time. Usually, we take our ordinary time as the basic reality
or the essence, but it might be in the fundamental view that the various kinds of time are all
put on the same footing of interrelationship.

The point is that in the implicate order we are merely forming an order of development for
the description of process. Process is some regular proceeding order. I could here usefully
introduce the notion of a moment. The word "moment" is based on the word "movement." It
could be thought of in a very broad sense like a moment in history, a century, a second.
There is no particular amount of time involved in the concept of moment. I think you could
use the idea of "actual occasion" as not being merely a split second. It could be very variable.
Thus, if you think of a symphony, it has a movement which becomes another movement and
another movement. I would say that a moment is characterized by a movement -- a certain
form of movement. When we put our attention on a particular movement, we call that a
moment. You see, a moment is a feature of our attention. And in the description of process
we have moments of variable size and shape and duration. These moments come about in a
series of order, which I call the implicate order -- the unfolding from one moment to the next.
That is the sort of picture I am trying to paint.

It is a matter of art to find the right kind of moment for correctly revealing the unfolding of a
certain order. If it were in music, you would have to consider using the right structure and
time to unfold a theme. If you used too short a moment, it wouldn’t work; if you used too
long a moment, it wouldn’t work. You cannot provide an absolute description of how to go
about it. The right use of the time becomes a sort of art. I think in music you see that most
vividly exemplified. In music, the meaning of the thing is intimately involved in the order of
unfolding.

B. Vacuum. Next, I want to discuss the question of the vacuum. This is crucial, I think, to the
whole context within which we are operating. We have called attention to the intrinsically
unknown, namely, the future. In physics, we also have what is called the vacuum state. In
quantum mechanics, any vibration does not go down to zero energy, but in its lowest state
there is its certain zero point energy. This has been verified in material oscillators of all
kinds. Also, this theory has been applied to the oscillator of empty space: oscillators of
electromagnetic field radiation.

It is basic to quantum electrodynamics to assume that each of these oscillators has a zero
point energy. Although you cannot prove this directly, you can confirm it indirectly. The
renormalization calculation equations of charge do in fact confirm that all the effects that
zero point energy ought to have are there, very precisely and quantitatively.

Now suppose that we say that this zero point energy of space is a reasonable concept. Then
one question to ask is "how much energy is there in space?" Of course, there is an infinite
amount of energy in space, because, according to present calculations, there is an infinity of
these vibrations. Eventually, that is where we run into trouble trying to get a logical or
consistent theory of the electron. Suppose we say instead that somehow the energy is finite.
We have to find some reason to cut off the theory at some new maximum frequency or
shortest wave length. There is no reasonable cutoff until we come to gravitational theory.
According to Einstein, the gravitational tensor gv, determines a length as gvdxdxv. Einstein’s
field equations allow you to calculate this length in classical physics. In quantum physics,
however, gv, becomes uncertain, so that such lengths will fluctuate and become indefinable.
You cannot know exactly what is meant by length or time. Therefore, all the concepts of
geometry must break down at a certain state where the frequency is so high the fluctuations
of gv are of the same order as gv itself. At this point the length is totally uncertain. Thus the
meaning of space and time become totally undefined. This can be calculated to be a length of
about 10-33 centimeters, which corresponds to a frequency of about 1043 cycles per second.
Thus 10-43 seconds tends to be the shortest time that has meaning in the ordinary geometry
(which is really very short compared to anything we ever work with in physics thus far).
Suppose we take this as the first reasonable place where the theory might break down. If we
do that, we can compute the amount of energy in a cubic centimeter of space, which comes
out about 1040 times the energy which would result from the disintegration of all the matter in
the known universe. In other words, the energy in empty space is immensely greater than the
energy of matter as we know it. Therefore, matter in itself is a kind of ripple in empty space.

Matter is a relatively stable and autonomous ripple in the emptiness. Those of you who have
studied the theory of solid states may not find this notion of emptiness entirely unfamiliar.
For example, in a crystal of very dense material at absolute zero, if the crystal is of perfect
order, electrons go right through it as if nothing were there.

The suggestion is then that emptiness is really the essence. It contains implicitly all the forms
of matter The implicate order really refers to something immensely beyond matter as we
know it -- beyond space and time. However, somehow the order of time and space are built
in this vacuum. That is what is suggested.

There is at present no law that determines the vacuum state. Depending on what you assume
the vacuum state to be, you will get various physical properties. And that would be very
crucial to determining what the implicate order is. In other words, I am proposing that what
is now called the vacuum state must ultimately contain the actual order of space, time, and
matter enfolded in it.20

Notes

The following are comments made during the course of Bohm’s presentation.
1
Francis J. Zucker (Max-Plank-Institute) mentioned that Heisenberg once confronted
Einstein by saying that Einstein had given Heisenberg positivist arguments. Einstein replied
that Heisenberg was a fool to believe all that nonsense.
2
Zucker: This point may be sharpened. Einstein says that he never knew of the Michelson-
Morley experiment.
3
Fred A. Wolf (San Diego State University): Are the immediate particulars readings on meter
dials and the essential particulars what we think those readings mean? Bohm: That is right in
terms of an universal explanation. However, I would not just use the word "think." We can
think anything. We can dream up anything. The essential particulars are considered as an
explanation which is universal and necessary. John Blackmore (Harvey Mudd College): Is
the universal essence primarily designed to understand the particulars P1, P2, etc., or is it
designed to understand the external world apart from the appearances? Bohm: No, it is
designed to explain what is actually there. The meter only helps indicate what is actually
there. The meter only helps indicate what is actually there. Blackmore: Then it is only
secondary that the universal essence helps us describe the relationships between appearances,
hut primary in that it helps us to understand the real world? Bohm: Primarily it explains the
essence, but the appearances are necessary to get a hold on the essence. Roger Sperry
(California institute of Technology): Is the universal explanation something we are all trying
for? Is it considered to be the goal? Bohm: I’ll come to that, but it will take some time to
explain, It is not quite so simple. Sperry: I would question that the universal explanation is
the goal (of science) that we are all looking for. It is hard company to keep. Bohm: I am not
going to accept that idea exactly as it is. We will come to that a little further on. C. A. Muses
(Santa Barbara, California): But the pointer readings are also a part of reality. Bohm:
Obviously, but a very superficial part. They don’t have an independent being. They are
dependent on something else, which we call the essence.
4
Blackmore: Clarification: are you saying that both the essence and the understanding of the
essence change, or just one or the other? Bohm: Obviously, our penetration into reality
increases, but reality may be inexhaustible, so we may not get to the end. Also, because of
what we do, things change, essentially. For example, man changes nature through
technology. Blackmore; Is essence independent or contingent on our understanding? Bohm:
It is both in some way. What I am saying is that essence and appearance are both modes of
thought. The question is whether our perception is correct up to a point. Any view of the
essence has only a limited applicability. Karl Pribram (Stanford University): Can we be
Kantian here? Bohm: No. Kant has too great a separation between appearance and essence.
There are different types of thought which come very fast, immediately, and unconsciously,
as well as a more reflective type of thought that comes more slowly, and then there is the
flash of perception which comes when you see something new. Essence and appearance are
both categories of thought. We are discussing them now. They are both relative and limited.
But one covers things more permanently and more broadly than the other. At any moment we
have that distinction in thought between essence and appearance. But the content of what is
called "essence" may change as our experience changes. What I am saying is that essence
and appearance are both modes of thought and that the correlation of essence and appearance
is the test of the correctness of our thought. Pribram: I think we are confused about the usage
of words. In psychology "perception" has a special, defined meaning.

[Editor’s note: At this point in the discussion there was a long debate over the meaning of
words, especially the meaning of "perception." At the conclusion Bohm summarized his
position as follows (not a direct quotation): The problem is that many people think of essence
as something which is unchanging. Bohm’s point is that we are part of reality. Thought is a
part of reality. So as we change, we are contributing to what reality is. Therefore, even if
only for this reason, reality is changing, and so the essence is changing. As Bohm put it: "We
are actually contributing to the world, and if the world is infinite in its depth, then the
essence is not knowable. Any essence that we know must be of this relative nature. That is
what I am going to mean by the word ‘essence.’ I will later propose that the essence is the
implicate order. What I am saying is that we are constantly dividing reality up into essence
and appearance which are really one. The proper view’ of essence is that essence and
appearance are correlated."] Sperry: What is the relation of this notion to the notion of whole
and part? Bohm: They are somewhat similar. Zucker: What do you mean by "correlate"?
Bohm: There is an important clarification to make, regarding the levels at which we are
operating. For example, at one stage atoms are regarded as the essence, but at another stage
atoms may be an appearance as explained by elementary particles. At each stage there is a
clear difference between essence and appearance, but it is not permanent. It changes. Its
content changes. But all these changing forms are correlated in their content, rather than
independent.
5
Pribram: Don’t these problems always arise when we deal with mathematical infinities?
Bohm: They arise because we have assumed that the particle is a point. I am saying that we
are not able to have a rational view of this if we assume that the particle is a point.
6
[Editor’s note: In his hand-written notes, Bohm mentioned at this place that the point event
is the limit of Whitehead’s actual occasion.]
7
Pribram: What do you mean by "process"? Bohm: Process means that movement is
fundamental. What is, is nothing but movement itself, as Heraclitus pointed out. Zucker:
There appears evidence (and you, Dr. Pribram, are an expert in this field) that there is
perception of movement before that of space and time. It is thinkable that space and time are
a later evolutionary development. Fritjof Capra (University of California -- Berkeley): The
term "movement" is a bad choice since it has so many connotations in classical physics. Why
not use the word "change"? Bohm: Change, movement process -- use whatever you like.
Process really means to proceed, to step forward. Wolf: One way out of the question is to put
your head at the speed of light where there is no space and time, but there is movement.
Bohm: I will deal with that later in the implicate order. We will discuss movement which is
prior to space and time. Space and time are an order which is abstracted from what we call
"movement." We have a problem. Our linguistic convention says that if there is a change,
there is something which undergoes change. I suggest that we alter that convention. Change
is first, and what changes is abstracted from the change. I am proposing that change is
basically an undefined concept. We will gradually unfold the meaning of it.
8
[Editor’s note: In his hand-written notes Bohm has written: This demands a total revolution.
Essence is not permanent material substance but a process in a field (x,t). There is no identity
whatsoever in field elements. Matter is to be explained as a relatively stable order,
arrangement, connection, or organization of relationships in field variables. In other words,
P1, is "matter," Pe is field relationships. Matter is no longer the essence, but a particular form
in a universal process. Energy (work from within) is more fundamental than matter. . . .]
9
[Editor’s note: At the conclusion of the section on relativity theory a lengthy discussion
ensued. Capra pointed out that in physics relativity provides the framework phenomena
which the physicist studies. Bohm agreed and mentioned that his point is that there is no
consistent theory of the particles in relativity theory. There is no way of getting beyond the
phenomena. Everyone uses the relativity framework, but somehow that framework is
inadequate because it has no theory of the essence. At the conclusion of the discussion Bohm
summarized his position] Bohm: There are two points being made. One is the point of the
description of the phenomena. The original point in relativity theory is that there are two
different descriptions of the phenomena, which will have the same content with different
form. The second point (which has not been achieved in relativity) is to get beyond the
phenomena and to understand the essence. If the second point were achieved, we should see
that process is primary and space and time are abstracted from it. But it is necessary in
relativity to explain the essence of matter, and this has never been done. This situation has
led to confusion, because people sometimes act as if matter has been explained and
sometimes as if it hasn’t, and nobody knows exactly what the situation is. Finally, the main
point I am making is that ordinarily people think of the essence as something permanent and
unchanging, fixed or reified. We are saying that movement or flux or flow is fundamental.
10
[Editors note; Bohm’s notes clarify this point as he writes: He accounted for the
uncertainty of classical properties of the atom by means of a disturbance In general
Heisenberg was influenced by positivism. . . . But here there is a strange mixture. He
assumed that the precise value of x at p existed, but was unobservable, and also there was an
unobservable disturbance. By such an extremely anti-positivist procedure at this point he
justified his positivist approach to the detail of particle orbits.]
11
[Editors note: In Bohm’s notes he has written: Bohr made "a kind of metaphysical
assumption about language and concepts which means (as always with positivist,
operationalist, or phenomenalist approaches) that we fix our concepts to those that have been
developed before."]
12
[Editor’s note: In his notes Bohm clarifies his criticism: If we had two kinds of matter, Q
and C, this would be coherent. But we say all C is actually Q, and this leads us into C’
C’’, . . . an infinite regress.]
13
Capra; Explain how Heisenberg does not follow Bohr. Bohm: Heisenberg says that there is
a microobject which is disturbed, but Bohr never used this idea because it would be
inconsistent with his point of view.
14
Capra: I feel that I will have to interrupt. I do not feel that you do justice to Heisenberg in
his later years. Bohm: I forgot. I should have said that Heisenberg has given up his
positivistic position in his later years. Unfortunately, people generally take Heisenberg in his
earlier years. Heisenberg in his later years would be close to my viewpoint, at least in its
general view, if not in the details.
15
Capra: Would you please elaborate on Bohr’s answer to Einstein. Bohm: The answer
would get rather complicated. In short, Bohr’s answer was that time is irrelevant. The actual
fact as it happens implies no paradox at all. It is merely the attempt to explain it which makes
the paradox.
16
Zucker: This point is already upheld before quantum mechanics in the classical Feynman
radiation experiments concerning the speed of light Bohm: Experiments indicate that the
speed of light is irrelevant. There is no evidence that the speed of light is involved in this
correlation. For example, in the Birkbeck experiment, the results do not depend on the
separation.
17
[Editor’s note: In his notes Bohm writes: The holomovement is what sustains all. The order
of all is implicit in holomovement. The implicit order is the essence of all.]
18
Muses: There could be no evolution in this view, could there? Bohm: Evolution would
have to be explained as an unfolding.
19
Muses: Explain your view of indeterminism again. Bohm: I believe in indeterminism
because the future does not exist. The present view of determinism holds that the future
already exists. It is determined by the past. When you think of determinism, you must first
think of a back stretch of time which is infinite. First there is time, then there are differential
equations. But I am saying that we should not be in with time at all. We are beginning with
the implicate order. We cannot predict the future, because there is no future. The future is
being generated from the implicate order, not from the past, but from the unknown. What is
implicit from the implicate order is not the past, but the unknown. What is implicit behind
the implicate order is the unknown, which cannot be specified. Zucker: How can you say
"the implicate order structures." To me the word order means structure. Bohm: The implicate
order is the order of the past and any order which can be described is restricted to the past.
William Scott (University of Nevada -- Reno): But the creative act is not included in the
implicate order. Bohm: It is implicit in the implicate order. Scott: But what the creative act
could be is not determined by the implicate order? Zucker It is a little confusing to use the
word "order" for the matrix out of which comes creativity Bohm: No, it is not the matrix. The
order is the mode of description of what emerges from creativity. Zucker: We should be
aware that in talking this way we are working at the limits of logic. The time which is now is
the time of logic. We must be aware that in the new order, we must offer a whole new logic
for the next order which is beyond the Boolean logic. Quantum logic is a first step in that
direction. You don’t have the logic to embed it in. Bohm: It is said that Aristotle said that the
law of the excluded middle does not apply to the unknown future. I am aware that we are
going to have to change our notions of logic and identity, but we have to do it in some sort of
order.
20
[Editor’s note: At the conclusion of Bohm’s presentation there was a lengthy discussion,
which follows.] Blackmore; Are you defining a vacuum as the absence of matter, rather than
as the absence of everything? Bohm: Yes. The vacuum is where everything moves freely. It
is the absence of every thing, you see, because "things" are made of matter. But beyond this
vacuum there must be something even more. We are abstracting from an immense unknown
of energy beyond our imagination. Some people talk about the creation of the universe as a
big bang, while it is really a little ripple. To us it appears as a big bang, because we are a part
of it. The disturbance involved in creating the universe out of the vacuum would be much
less than the disturbance in this room from my talking. The laws that relate matter to the
vacuum might be of an entirely different character than the common laws of matter itself,
relating one part of matter to another. Matter is somehow enfolded in the vacuum. This is
what I am suggesting. We could make a comparison to consciousness in the brain. The brain
has a tremendous function beyond thought, such as attention, awareness, and so on. Thought
itself is merely a function of memory acting to produce some imitation of something that was
perceived. You could say that thought introduces a certain kind of order of time into the
brain. Thought is to the whole function of the brain as matter is to the vacuum. In fact,
thought might have some relative autonomy, but ultimately not so. Similarly, matter might
have some relative autonomy, but ultimately not so. Therefore, something unknown enters.
Part of it is knowable, but ultimately it will go off beyond anything we can know.

Scott: Can you think of connectivity in the vacuum? Bohm: There is connection in the
implicate order, because the vacuum is the whole, because all connection is through the
implicate order. Space and time are implicit in the vacuum. Scott: Are you saying that in the
EPR experiment, for example, there is connectivity in the vacuum? Bohm: Yes. Blackmore:
You use the term "vacuum." But don’t you imply absence when you want to imply
plenitude? Bohm: Both. I would like to coin a word that has vacuum on one side and
plenitude on the other. The way we experience it is as vacuum, but the way we think of it is
as plenitude. Zucker: Perhaps "vacutude." Dean Fowler (Marquette University): Perhaps it is
a vacuum epistemologically but a plenitude ontologically. That is, we don recognize
"things," but it is a fullness ontologically. Bohm; Yes, but I don’t think we should make this
sharp distinction between knowledge and being. Knowledge is. Knowledge is a certain
movement in thought, and the being we are talking about is some other movement.

Zucker: The wave function which seems so mysterious represents the amplitude of
information (potential information), but when we look, the wave function collapses because
we have the information. It is no longer potential or probable. This is the meaning of the
collapse of the wave function. If we accept this demystification of the wave function, it
suggests that the EPR experiment is really talking about a whole. Is this a possible
interpretation? Bohm; Do you mean the change from potentiality to actuality? Wolf That way
of speaking is confusing. The point of the EPR paradox is that the two events are space-like
separated. There is no first observer, who knows the collapse of the wave function. That is
the causality game. Bohm: We have to deal with the question of "self reference" in order to
understand the issue of the wave function. The present theory involves the idea of reference
to something else, such as a piece of apparatus, and that to something else, etc., and finally to
the consciousness of some observer. This makes it a phenomenalist theory. My view would
develop the idea of a thing existing in self reference. Then the observer no longer lays a
fundamental part. I will propose that the density matrix, rather than the wave function, is
more fundamental. Some algebraic property is more fundamental and allows for self
reference, because then the observer is a part of the whole thing. His thought is a part of the
whole structure. This leads to the problem of an infinite regress. There is a further observer
of the observer’s thought, etc. There is no collapse of the wave function. Recall my view of
time. Each moment enfolds its past. The new wave function is more than the past. It includes
the actuality of the new present. The old past becomes irrelevant. The wave function does not
collapse. Rather it enriches, and this may be connected to entropy. The enrichment of the
wave function will describe the change of entropy. There is an inherent relation between time
and entropy. Instead of saying first there is time and then we discover that entropy should
increase with time, we will say that entropy is inherent in time, that we would not have time
without entropy, because there would be nothing irreversible. This irreversibility is the
appearance, it is an abstraction, It is irreversible because whatever symbol you use to
represent the p resent time, it needs the earlier time as a part of it. It is, and it contains more
than merely those symbols. However, there may be a statistical tendency, so that a certain
structure will imply a certain structure later. We must find some way of defining our symbol
so that it will take the implicate of time into account. What we call time must involve some
sort of averaging.

Fowler: Is it better perhaps to think of time as antientropic? With time we are measuring the
increase of order or at least the change of order. Zucker; That is a common mistake. The
entropy increase does not mean an increase in disorder. What it means is that no further
changes tend to take place. It is a misinterpretation to think of disorganization as the end. The
increase in entropy is the condition for the possibility of the creation of forms in the universe.
You cannot have the formation of crystals, you cannot have the formation of living
organisms, unless you are in a universe in which the entropy is increasing. Bohm: But the
point is that energy is limitless. So even if the increase of entropy means that the energy
becomes inaccessible, there is still the possibility of new forms. Only if you believe that
there is a limited amount of energy and a limited amount of freedom will you face these
problems. But each new moment is a new degree of freedom.

Viewed 6543 times.