From: tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Keywords: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:26:24 GMT

In response to your request below, again also posted to 
sci.philosophy.metaphysics:


You farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) wrote:

This is not standard physics. Perhaps I ought to read the book for
myself. If you could give a flavor for where this comes from (in terms
of discussion), I would appreciate it.


You Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) 
    wrote in response to Stephen Grossman:

I think that the 'implicate order' is quite a complex idea which has
been the focus of many important books in modern philosophy.  Perhaps
someone could post something from one of these books detailing precisely
what is meant in this excerpt?



I (William Tucker) respond to this request:


I include an excerpt from David Bohm's "Wholeness and Implicate Order"
that explains and gives an example of what it means. It requires some
effort to understand. ;-)

"Chapter 6
 Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics
 Part B: Implicate and explicate order in physical law.

 1 Introduction

 [ Beautiful discussion of perception, accomodation 
   and assimilation deleted for brevity ]


 2 UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS - THE LENS AND THE HOLOGRAM

 The undivided wholeness of modes of observation, instrumentation
 and theoretical understanding indicated above implies the need to 
 construct a new order of fact, i.e., the fact about the way in 
 which modes of theoretical understanding and of observation and 
 instruments are related to each other. Until now, we have more or

 less just taken such a relationship for granted, without giving 
 serious attention to the manner in which it arises, vrey probably
 because of the belief that such a discussion belongs to 'the history
 of science' rather than to 'science proper'. However, it is now
 being suggested that the consideration of this relationship is
 essential for an adequate understanding of science itself, because
 the content of the observed fact cannot be coherently be regarded as 
 separate from modes of observation and instrumentation and modes of 
 theoretical understanding.

 An example of the very close relationship between instrumentaion and 
 theory can be seen by considering the lens, which was indeed one of 
 the key features behind the development of modern scientific thought.
 The essential feature of the lens is that it forms an image in which 
 a given point P in the object (upright tip of an arrow in picture) 
 corresponds (in a high degree of approximation) with point Q 
 (inverted tip of arrow in picture) in the image. By thus bringing  
 the correspondence of specified features of object and image into
 sharp relief, the lens greatly strengthened man's awareness of the 
 various parts of the object and of the relationship between these
 parts. In this way, it furthered the tendency to think in terms of 
 analysis and synthesis. Moreover, it made possible an enormous ex-
 tension of the classical order of analysis and synthesis to objects
 that were too far away, too big, too small, or too rapidly moving
 to be thus ordered by unaided vision. As a result scientist were 
 encouraged to extrapolate their ideas and to think that such an 
 approach would be relevant and valid no matter how far they went, 
 in all possible conditions, contexts, and degrees of approximation.

 However, as has been seen in chapter 5 relativity and quantum theory
 imply undivided wholeness, in which analysis into distinct and well
 defined parts is no longer relevant. Is there an insturment that can
 help give a certain immediate perceptual insight into what can be 
 meant by individed wholeness, as the lens did for what can be meant
 by analysis of a system into parts? It is suggested that one can 
 obtain such insight by considering hologram.

 As shown in figure 6.2 coherent light from a laser is passed throught 
 a half silvered mirror. Part of the beam goes on directly to a photo-
 graphic plate, while another part is reflected so that it illuminates a 
 certain whole structure. The light reflected from this whole structure
 also reaches the plate, where it interferes with that light arriving
 there by direct path. The resulting interference pattern which is re-
 corded onto the plate is not only very complex but is also usually so
 fine that it is not even visible to the naked eye. Yet, it is somehow
 relevant to the whole illuminated structure, though only in a highly
 implicit way. 

 The relevance of the interference pattern to the whole illuminated 
 structure is revealed when the photographic plate is illuminated with
 the laser light. A wavefront is then created which is very similar in 
 form to the original illuminated structure. By placing the eye in this
 way, one in effect sees the whole of the original structure, in three
 dimensions, and from a range of possible points of view (as if one 
 were looking in through a window). If we then illuminate a small 
 region of the plate, we can still see the whole structure, but in 
 somewhat less sharply defined detail and from a decreased range of 
 possible possible points of view (as if we were looking through a 
 smaller window).

 It is clear then, that there is no one-to-one correspondence between 
 parts of an an 'illuminated object' and 'parts of an image on the 
 plate'. Rather, the interference pattern in each region of the plate  
 is relevant to the whole structure, and each region of the structure
 is relevant to the the whole of the interference pattern on the 
 plate. 

 Because of the wave properties of light, even a lens cannot produce an         
 exact one-to-one correspondence. A lens can therefore be regarded as a
 limiting case of a hologram.

 [ discussion of difficulties of observing atomic particles
   except as statistics deleted ]

 3 IMPLICATE AND EXPLICATE ORDER

 What is being suggested here is that the consideration of the difference 
 between the lens and hologram can play a significant difference part in 
 the perception of a new order that is relevant for physical law. As Galileo
 noted the difference between  a viscous medium and a vacuum and saw that 
 the physical law should refer primarily to the order of motion of an object
 in a vacuum, so we might now note the distinction between a lens and a
 hologram and consider possibility that physical law should refer primarily 
 to an order of undivided wholeness of the content of a description similar to
 that indicated by the hologram  rather than to an order of analysis of such
 content into separate parts indicated by a lens.

 [ discussion of stuff deleted]

 The differences indicated above are, however, not only in the holographic  
 plate. Indeed the latter is of secondary significance, in the sense that its'
 main function is to make a relatively 'permanent record' of the interference 
 pattern of the light that is present in each region of space. More generally, 
 however, in each such region, the movement of the light implicitly contains a 
 vast range of distinctions of order and measure, appropriate to a whole 
 illuminated structure. Indeed, in principle, this structure extends over the 
 whole universe and over the whole past, with implications for the whole future. 
 Consider, for example the night sky, we are able to discern structures covering 
 immense stretches of space and time, which are in some sense contained in the 
 movements of light in the tiny space encompassed by the eye...

 There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be 
 understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g., in
 rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). RATHER, 
 A TOTAL ORDER IS CONTAINED, IN SOME IMPLICIT SENSE, IN EACH REGION
 OF SPACE AND TIME.

 Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means
 to 'fold inward' (as multiplication means 'folding many times'). So we
 may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains
 a total structure 'enfolded' within it."

 [ one boatload of further examples deleted ]


 WHEW!!!!!!!!!!!! that's about all I can put in tonight. Pretty heady 
 stuff eh!? Well I must say I like it, and I understand it, and on some
 level it's right and obvious. The intro to this chapter is a must read for
 you philosophers. Merry Christmas and congratulations for those of you
 who made it this far.


 Wm T.

.standard disclaimer