Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

© 2020 by James A. Heffernan

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.

ISBN (Print): 978-1-09832-400-1

ISBN (eBook): 978-1-09832-401-8

By James A. Heffernan

The Reality of Hunter-Gatherers

Nonlocal Nature: The Eight Circuits of Consciousness

Many Worlds: A Collection of Poems

Online

The Divided Quantum

Dedicated to the memory of David Joseph Bohm

e infinitus unum

Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the contexture of the web. –Marcus Aurelius, IV Meditations

Quantum mechanics, that mysterious, confusing discipline, which none of us really understands but which we know how to use … is not a theory, but rather a framework within which we believe any correct theory must fit. –Murray Gell-Mann

Table of Contents

Introduction

1: Wholeness

2: Orders in Physics

3: Quantum Theory

4: The Copenhagen Orthodoxy

5: Nonlocality

6: The Quantum Potential

7: The Implicate and Explicate Orders Part I

8: The Implicate and Explicate Orders Part II

9: Concepts of Causality

10: Evolution

11: The Cosmic Hologram

12: Traditional Views on Reality

13: Theories of Everything

14: Active Information and Consciousness

Appendix: Potentials for Revolutions in Consciousness

Books of Interest

Introduction

What is particularly counterintuitive when it comes to the implicate order hypothesis is how the implicate order can exist when everything we see runs so counter to it. Indeed, the particular manifestation of the implicate order that is directly posited as the explicate order, in which separable units or entities interact in an apparently independent and Newtonian fashion, seems to be the only reality we experience or ever can experience. Why should we suppose there is a universal implicate order underlying all phenomena in a fundamental way if we cannot even see its activity? These seem to be good intuitive questions. But we do come into very close contact with the implicate order in science, particularly in physics, particularly in the study of quantum mechanics. At this level, there has never been full agreement or a final resolution as to what on Earth is really going on. However, it is apparent, considering the entire picture, that the implicate order hypothesis describes, not only quantum phenomena, but the entire movement of consciousness and thus reality in a very deep and general sense.

Discontinuous movement, wave-particle duality and nonlocality are all quite well handled by this scheme, and moreover, it provides, if considered in the proper light, both a scientific and philosophical framework for describing phenomena to a degree and with a comprehensiveness that no other existing hypothesis does. So we see that, as far as the familiar explicate order is concerned, it is a derivative projection from a deeper implicate order, which can also be seen as a higher dimension of reality (beyond spacetime). These higher dimensions pose no problem, as they come up in quantum mechanics, string theory, M theory, various mathematical systems – really all over science and math. So we may not, right off the bat, declare that this is fancy. In any case, this working hypothesis has, as already mentioned, already accounted for many of the phenomena in a quantum domain which has been particularly vexing, and has not yet gotten a satisfactory treatment, as I am sure many would agree. In the end, the implicate order hypothesis provides, until we develop a better one, a very valuable stepping stone to a better understanding of nature and our place in it.

So we may suppose, at least for now, that the explicate order may not be all there is to reality. As we know, classical mechanics failed and had to be replaced by quantum mechanics, because it could not account for the phenomena that were being discovered (primarily in the atomic domain) around the turn of the twentieth century. This makes it abundantly clear that if the theory applicable to the explicate order is incomplete, then the explicate order must not be all there is in the human experience, or in nature in general. And so we have ample reason not to fall back on our intuition, but to follow the trail down the rabbit hole as far as we can go.

The implicate order hypothesis comprises a very rich framework into which several diverse strands are woven. It addresses things like quantum discontinuity of motion, wave-particle duality and nonlocality; fleshes out relativity theory and quantum theory; can be used as a general architecture of matter, at both the atomic and cosmological levels; overthrows the obsolete and basically false mechanistic order; explains biological phenomena; gives us new ways of thinking about space, time, matter, energy, causality and movement; and last, but certainly not least, gives us a context for and a reason why consciousness must be a fundamental and general principle in all natural phenomena, making the implicate order hypothesis a far reaching framework and architecture of reality. It is for these reasons and others that the exploration undertaken in this book is a useful, fruitful and necessary one.

What Bohm called the quantum potential, properly formulated, addresses all the weird and counterintuitive behavior that is famously associated with quantum mechanics. In positing the quantum potential, as Bohm did in his new interpretation or reformulation of quantum theory, spooky metaphysical and philosophically abstruse concepts and arguments are no longer necessary, such as Heisenbergian legerdemain, collapsing wave functions, and the corresponding probabilistic explanations that sacrifice any knowledge of a proper physical picture of what is going on. As Bohm showed, quantum nature could now be explained in a reasonable way. Particles could be shown to move along real, well-defined pathways, according to the dynamics of the quantum potential, which has holistic properties which act to guide electrons. Moreover, the probabilities involved follow directly from the nature of the complexities of the quantum potential, which acts to apparently randomize an electron’s motion.

Being able to dispense with Bohr’s confused and mystifying Copenhagen interpretation – the philosophical stance that became entrenched orthodoxy mainly for artificial reasons – was a revelation for Bohm and others, who replaced it with a clear and rational explanation for the behavior of matter that suggested a cosmos whose nature is reasonable, and essentially nonmechanistic.

John Bell, a contemporary of Bohm’s who went on to extend Bohm’s insights dramatically, had put aside questions in the foundations of quantum mechanics because of their controversial and potentially extraneous nature, but resumed his inquiry in 1963, when, after conferring with Jauch, he decided he needed to do something. He wanted to see whether de Broglie’s efforts in 1927, which he described as trampled on but not refuted, and Bohm’s of 1952, which were merely ignored, could show that there was indeed a realistic yet consistent way of constructing the quantum formalism that would account for all quantum phenomena. It is here and elsewhere implied that standard (or orthodox) quantum theory is subjective and unrealistic. Bell considered the theories of these two to be equivalent to quantum mechanics experimentally while offering a realistic and unambiguous picture of what is going on at the quantum level. This naturally includes nonlocality, or action-at-a-distance, whereby a perturbation at one place explicitly influences the whole of space in a way apparently not restricted to the speed of light barrier. It goes without saying that these preliminary thoughts of Bell’s led to historic insights. The primary insight involved – that of the phenomenon of nonlocality – had its origin in Bell’s first considerations of Bohm’s 1952 paper, so this was certainly an important turning point in the history of science for both men, and, well, everyone.

A principle of wholeness was firmly established by Bohm and Bell, giving priority in any situation to the whole over the parts. And since it has proven impossible to identify a basic, fundamental particle to explain the various phenomena of modern physics, it is perhaps logical to turn to the assumption that the whole notion of an independent particle is an abstraction, the basis of which is a ground that is unconditioned and gives rise to the particles in such a way as is consistent with quantum theory. Perhaps in this deeper movement, new particles will be discovered, which are based upon particles to be discovered later, and that our capacity for abstraction in a non-fundamental order of human knowledge will continue indefinitely. Perhaps indeed we are not near to a final explanation, and deeper orders will provide fruitful material for physics in an unceasing stream of further development. The independent particle we posit may prove to be a non sequitur. Perhaps the whole focus on an independent substance will dissolve on the basis of new orders of knowledge which are as yet undiscovered.

According to relativity, the whole notion of elementary, indivisible subatomic particles seems further trivialized when we consider what is happening in some of our particle colliders. When two particles smash, the resulting pieces can actually be bigger than the original ones! Colliding particles can transmute into larger particles, particles can decay and release tremendous energy, and energy can be converted into mass and vice-versa. The whole notion of an individual, independent particle is then seen to be rather quaint! Democritus’ dream of atomism and mechanism, and all of classical physics, must be made obsolete. We do not have marbles and billiard balls, but rather a web of relationships, with a rich contexture that involves entire situations – or the entire universe. Particle behavior can only be understood in relation to the whole environment, including the experimenter and her equipment.

As Bohr originally pointed out, before one can make any serious determinations resulting from an experiment investigating the subatomic realm, one must first specify the characteristics of the entire experimental situation with which one is dealing. This involves specifying what variable you are going to measure, how the apparatus is constructed, etc. However, Bohr and his contemporaries made a grave mistake when they considered the quantum realm and the classical or macro-realm to be separate. This led to doing physics in a way that made a distinction between a microscopic world that is ineffable and impossible to conceptualize, and a macroscopic world that is fundamentally disconnected from it.

It has become clear that, while Bohr et al. got the holistic approach right, they could not have been more mistaken in drawing this sharp boundary. (Where would one draw it?!) This of course implies that there is no sharp division in nature between the classical and quantum realms – a notion that it took scientists a long time to realize. If the apparatus, which is certainly a classical object, must interact with, for example, an electron being studied – since the apparatus is constituted in part by electrons which must by definition influence any electron under consideration – then there is implied a certain oneness, both in the experimental setup, and indeed, one could extend it to the outside world as well. It is not for nothing that many physicists, such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer, Bohm, et al. were deeply interested in the philosophical and spiritual traditions of the East. Indeed, in such traditions it is a basic tenet that the part has no meaning except in relation to the whole, and the microscopic and macroscopic realms are inextricably and fundamentally tied – even, essentially, mirrors of one another.

In addition to this new holistic character of physics, Bohr and Heisenberg both held that there is a fundamental and irreducible fuzziness inherent in the quantum realm, and there is, in principle, a limit on the knowledge we can have about any given set of variables to be measured according to the quantum theory. This was explicitly laid out by Heisenberg in his indeterminacy principle, in which position and momentum are conjugates of one another, or rather, if we wish to know one with arbitrary precision, we cannot know the other with arbitrary precision. For example, if we have an electron microscope and we wish to know the position of a given electron, in the very act of measuring we will disturb its movement, making its momentum simultaneously immeasurable. If we wish to know its momentum, we can measure it, but given that electrons travel in part as waves, it will not have any meaningfully definable position. So we see that there is an inherent uncertainty when we try to measure conjugate variables simultaneously, which we are free to do in classical theory.

So it was supposed, and still is today by the majority, that quantum mechanics is the final theory of physics, because there is a maximum amount of knowledge we can have about the subatomic world, and we have reached it. It will be hypothesized in other places in this book that perhaps there is a way to understand quantum mechanics in a way that does away with such uncertainty and inherent randomness, which heretofore could only be described statistically. Indeed, one could analogize this to other statistical approaches, such as those employed by insurance companies, weathermen or casinos. In all of these areas, we must use statistics to describe and predict what will happen. But also, in each there are concrete, real reasons for the actions being modeled; we only use statistics because of our necessary ignorance of the details. Perhaps in time we can redress the situation in quantum theory analogously – by showing that the current formalism is a method of addressing phenomena that will resolve themselves with a novel approach.

Now, the dominant approach in the sciences, and especially in biology, is to treat all systems – which includes all biological systems – as if they were mechanistic, stipulating that this set of mechanisms is all that we will ever have to treat because it is the entire story. This approach of course has ramifications well beyond the scope of the present work, but it is important to note that it has created considerable momentum in a direction opposite to that of the present subject. Indeed, the materialist-Cartesian-mechanist-atomist paradigm has grown so predominant, and so apparently successful, that it comprises in essence the primary contents of the cultural system which dominates the West, and now, basically, the developed world in general. So, in positing concepts like the implicate order or morphic fields, which only attempt to complete the decidedly incomplete picture mechanistic science proffers, we unfortunately run into a slew of dogmas that prevent any honest consideration of alternative ideas. Clearly, in the physical sciences, no one wants to hear of enhancements to quantum theory, since the majority feel that all of the major problems have already been solved – just as physicists did at the end of the nineteenth century. Most in the biological sciences are even more reluctant to entertain ideas that go against or beyond the religion of mechanism, because they are even more convinced than physicists of the completeness of their science, and see no need to go beyond the basic paradigms of chemistry and the philosophies of evolutionary theory. It is an irony that some biologists are being forced to incorporate aspects of quantum theory into areas like heredity, photosynthesis, enzymatic activity, mutation, etc., but this does not really change the insistence upon a mechanistic picture – it only modifies that picture. It must be admitted that, since biology is so wedded to what is essentially the paradigm of classical physics (which was thrown out a hundred years ago), and since molecular biology has attained such preeminence, this situation is not likely to change much anytime soon, if it even really changes at all going forward. Only some sort of major advancement in physics would make such a foundational change possible, it seems. Naturally, the reason for this is that in chemistry and biology, there is no investigation into foundations. And right now in physics, there is not all that much investigation into foundations, either. By considering concepts like the implicate order hypothesis, perhaps some light can penetrate into minds that have been eclipsed by established dogmas.

One rule of thumb when you are dealing with something as subtle as the implicate order: Evolution does not happen randomly, nor does it happen by design.

1:

Wholeness

The quantum formalism, no matter what interpretation one uses, shows us that unbroken wholeness is the primary reality, in which analyzing the world into separate pieces which interact independently, as if they were the elementary building blocks on which physical processes are based, cannot be considered as a consistent or fundamental picture of nature. This is what is done in the classical formalism. Rather, this picture in which particles determine all behavior can only be seen realistically as a conceptually emergent one. If quantum theory is to be taken unambiguously, it cannot be true in any explicit way that nature is merely a very complex arrangement of these abstracted features, which, it appears, would be a circular proposition, anyway. In other words, the whole notion of a particle is merely a mental picture made necessary by the attempt at an interpretation of a reality whose true nature has heretofore been elusive.

Ultimately, reality cannot be arbitrarily divided into separate, independent pieces or parts, just as it cannot be finally specified in its totality, for it is infinite, whole and indivisible by its very nature. The ideas of mechanism, atomism or theories of everything, are only limited, expedient abstractions.

I think in time we will find that reductionism doesn’t make any sense. The particles we reduce to are themselves abstracted from the unified background. To say that these abstracted entities called atoms are themselves the fundamental causal agents of reality is circular, you see. And this is precisely the circle we find ourselves in when we try to say, as almost everyone does, that atoms are the fundamental causal agents of all of infinity. After thousands of years of scientific development, and the quantum revolution in the twentieth century, we have been able to infer, and then much later photograph, individual atoms. But then, if atoms are the reason everything happens, where do the fundamental forces come from? These forces are responsible for how the atoms behave, but they are not in the atoms, are they? And without these forces, the whole notion of an atom would be entirely meaningless. So we have these mysterious forces which we just have to throw up our hands and say are a given. We also know that atoms are constantly shifting from matter to energy and back again. And then there are nonlocal phenomena, which seem to transcend space and time completely – the dimension in which our atoms exist. So we can see that to suppose atoms are the whole story rather falls apart when we consider how complex the situation is. And this is to say nothing of the fact that it goes much deeper than just the atom. We have subatomic particles, of which there are several hundred! And of course when we posit phenomena like the quantum potential and the implicate order, atoms are rather put in