29Jul2005 Status
31Jul2005 Status
4Aug2005 Status

Next progress statement - 28-29Jul2005...

In our research of Bohm's holomovement and how it relates to quantonics, we now move to a third paper chosen by Nichol for his text (The Essential David Bohm, 2003) entitled The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe and Consciousness (1980).

Notice Bohm's use of 'grammatically correct' singular participle in that paper's title. Too, notice a hint that universe is conscious, as Kafatos and Nadeau later described in their text The Conscious Universe, 1990 and 2000 2^nd ed.

We hope Bohm answers a question, "Is holomovement conscious?" and perhaps "Is holomovement consciousness?" in this paper. But what about that 'con' in 'conscious?' Are we on a good track in quantum~remediating it to 'com?'

Aside - 27Mar2007, 24Feb2015: In our ongoing researchings in other areas of quantum reality we have been making huge advances in our grasp of what a photon is and what a photon does and how a photon interrelates issues here in Bohm's own research. Some folk at University of Rochester, a university corporation called photonics.com, announced their own breakthrough re: photons in January, 2007. What their work demonstrates ad oculos is that photons, individually, carry a photon's own animate and omnimensional~h¤l¤graphic 'viewings' of said photon's con(m)text! (photon QELRed issi ph¤t¤n...) Using Bohm's nomenclature, "Photons are ihn real~timings' pr¤cæssings of enfoldings holographic 'information' about their real timings' environmentings." So, when a photon is absorbed (imagine it as an input quantum 'tentative~latch' reading pr¤cæss) its optical con(m)tent AKA wave~energy is quantum~c¤hæræntly macro~volume (heuristic here is Philip R. Wallace's "photons are macroscopic") AKA holographically 'transferred' to its 'target' during 'absorption.' As you may imagine, this is a radically omniffering view of vision than what dialectical optical mechanics offer. An inference we make here is that "photons are macroscopically aware." Why? They omnitor, real time, their con(m)textings. Another inference we make here is that all photons which enter one's eye are a real time omnimensional partial holographing of one's con(m)text. Each photon is a smallest portion enthymeme of that holograph and all of them are quantum~superposed c¤hærænt~h¤listically in our eyes' retinas. We offer this view here since it partially answers our query, "Is holomovement consciousness?" Our comfident yet tentative answer is, "Yes!" For Doug, awareness — however rudimentary — is a precursor of what humans usually mean by con(m)sciousness." Recently, CeodE 2013-2105, Doug has had, from his viewpoint, great progress in answering a question, "What Is Con(m)sciousness?" See that link. Doug - 24Feb2015. End aside - 27Mar2007, 24Feb2015.

Again, we highly recommend you read Nichol's precis to this paper. Nichol could be describing an early pre-Doug, unknown to Doug, pre-mid-1990s evolutionary phase of quantonics...

Bohm's holomovement exemplar essentials are (parentheticals are quantonics' interpretations and inferences):

• unbroken wholeness
• borderless movement (omniverse as open)
• parts enfold whole (how is this possible when explicate order is mechanical?; he implies (induces our inference that) whole enfolds parts)
• abstractions relate wholeness (we assume Bohm's "parts" are what he means by mechanical abstractions; again, explicate order, Bohm says, is "abstractions," so how can mechanical abstractions mechanically 'relate' a nonmechanical implicate wholeness?)
• wholeness permeates all (close to saying whole enfolds parts)
• cosmos and consciousness as unbroken manifestations of holomovement's wholeness (doesn't dialectical analytic mechanics prevent this?)
• implicate order (unexpressed wholeness)
• explicate order (analytical-dialectically expressed partialness; note how quantonics repairs this classical paradox by refuting and disallowing any mechanics)

Our reaction at this point is that this maps quite nicely onto quantonics, but we worry about Bohm's insistence on relative invariance, causality, and actuality as appropriately analytically mechanical. Why did he say in ~1950 that "reality is 'not mechanical'" (actually we infer that from his, "we need a new non mechanics of reality;" see Bohm's The Quantum Theory, Ch. 8. Sec. 26 title, "The Need for a Nonmechanical Description" ) and subsequently retain analytic mechanics for his explicate order?

Our whole approach to quantum~ræhlihty finds its n¤nmechanical essence in Bohm's work ref'd. above in his The Quantum Theory. If you choose to mirror our efforts here, you may wish to read very carefully there, too, re: Bohm's language problematics, his notions of problems in classical analytic languages.

We like this paper! Bohm allows us means to concur and demur. He allows us access to inner recesses of his 'holomovement' notions. For example, he says, "Our basic proposal is that what is is the holomovement, and that everything is to be explained in terms of forms derived from this holomovement." Ibid., page 86.

Bohm goes on to say that 'laws' decide how to make mechanical "abstractions" from his holomovement. So we are, in our own self~assessment, appropriately concerned. Bohm's explicate order is a mechanical, dialectical Subject-Object Metaphysics abstracted from an underlying nonmechanical holomovement. This appears to us as his way of saving 'science.'

Our view is that quantum reality shows us that truth is an agent of its own change, so 'science' is dead! Why? Science finds 'laws' which are verifiably, yet tentatively, 'true.' We claim that is, in quantum~generality, impossible. Doug - 28Jul2005.

Yet we believe that Bohm is on to something incredibly important! So we shall persist, with keen awareness that his version of reality as a holomovement will need quantonics' own brand of quantum~remediation.

As we see it, Bohm's great mistake is to fail an understanding that even his explicate order is nonmechanical. To make it mechanical, similar as Einstein did in his theories of relativity by adhering an objective, mechanical, dialectical notion of 'relative invariance,' and as Piaget did with 'relative permanence' of memory.

If we impose upon Bohm our Quantonics' memes and memeos of absolute change everywhere, then his explicate order must be absolutely changing, but that breaks his need for scientific assessment of what is 'true' and science's abilities to create state-ic, immutable 'laws.'

Have you noticed how similar Bohm's model of reality is to Bergson's? Recall that Bergson had similar difficulties in his dialectical demarcation of his 'spatial extensity,' and his élan vital. Notice our M_e classical logics on both Bergson and Bohm, but compare Bergson's durational affectings on his spatial extensity to Bohm's causal and 1-1 correspondent mechanical effects on his explicate order. Another mandatory comparison we should make here is how Bohm views his implicate and explicate orders re: monism, pluralism, both-and, thence BAWAM(monism,pluralism). We have yet to establish enough Bohmian research experience to make that latter assessment.

In our 2000 News we compared philosophers' similarities in this regard. Let's update that comparison table to now include David Bohm's holomovement:

 

Comparison of Nonclassical Philosophers' Belief Systems

¹Our use of BAWAM here shows that actual c¤mplæmænts d¤ n¤t necessarily require all of n¤nahctualihty as their quantum c¤mplæmænts (a hint of quantum partiality and enthymemetics). N¤nahctualihty c¤mplæmænts all of actuality, but actuality does n¤t quantum c¤mplæmænt ahll ¤f n¤nahctualihty. Thæræ issi n¤ 1-t¤-1 mapping ¤f ahctualihty amd n¤nahctualihty. N¤nahctualihty issi vahst c¤mparæd t¤ ahctualihty.

²We assign this excluded-middle 'logic' due Bohm's insistence that his "explicate order" retains dialectical 'scientific' mechanicity and 'laws.' Paradoxically, he claims his explicate parts enfold his implicate wholeness. We say paradoxically since, according our own understandings, dialectic excluded-middle forbids partial enfoldment of wholeness. See SOM's Bases of Judgment.

Non-Classical Philosopher/ Metaphysics/ Science:	Comjugate Reality:
	Nonapparent Reality:	C o q u e c i g r u e s	Legend Mi, Included-Middle (~Quantum both/and) Me, Excluded-Middle (Classical either/or) By Doug Renselle, ©Quantonics, Inc., 2000-2029 Created: 29Aug-4Sep2000 & Revised: 29,31Jul2005, 29Jun2006	C l a s s i c a l L o g i c	Apparent Reality:
Bergson, Henri Louis	Duration
	Flux AKA élan vital.	Mi	Intellectual Sympathy	Me	Analysis AKA spatial extensity (Bergson views this as a classical failure of thought.)
James, William	"...compenetrate and diffuse..." "...interpenetrate and melt together..."
	Flux	Mi	Percept	Mi	Concept
Physics, Quantum	Quantum_Realityquanton(quantum_nonactualityquantum_actuality)
	VES, QVF	Mi	Included-Middle	Mi	PES, PEF
Pirsig, Robert M.	"We are in It and It is in us."
	DQ	Mi	Direct Experience, Face of Change	Mi	SQ
Quantonics, Renselle	quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)
	N¤nactuality (n¤nmechanical)	Mi	Included-Middle Omnimensional Reality L¤¤pings	Mi	Actuality (n¤nmechanical)
Fuzzonics, Renselle
	isoflux as animate, EIMA isoQLOs	Mi	arbitrary both~all actual while~and~many n¤nactual flux omnistributionings1 (Mitch, pay attention. )	Mi	isops as animate, EIMA QLOs
Bohm, David (compare to Bergson, above)	"Interpenetration"
	Implicate Order (nonmechanical)	Mi	unfoldment enfoldment	Me2	Explicate Order (mechanical)
Sidis, William James	Reserve Energy???	?	Reserve Energy???	?	???
Stein, Dr. Irving	???	?	Nonspace	Me	Space

That takes us to page 87 which starts this paper's third topic: see next progress statement.

Doug - 28-29Jul2005.

Top

Next progress statement - 30-31Jul2005...

Topic 3 of this paper is The Implicate Order and the General Structure of Matter.

Let's take a breather here, and attempt to assess where we are so far.

Bohm's explicate order is classical parts made of implicate substrata. Since his parts are 'essentially objective,' they may be treated classically. That puts us right back in SOM's box. Bohm's way of thingking puts us right back in SOM's box. His explicate order permits us to create objective laws, physics, and science regarding its constituents. 'Laws' imply certainty. Is that problematic?

"Yæs!, profoundly yæs!" Why?

Reality is quantum uncertain, ubiquitously, n¤t just at atomic and subatomic 'levels' of reality. Uncertainty reigns. Certainty is dead! Quantum intelligence acquiesces quantum uncertainty!

So we are k~nowings howings Bohm is a SOMite who saw, like Kuhn and a few others, glimmers of a wholly quantum reality, but kept one foot in SOM to feel secure and maintain archaic orthodoxies (i.e., Bohr's correspondence principle). Bottom line, though, Bohm was wr¤ng, and he was and is wr¤ng, in spades. But Doug, simply, why is Bohm wr¤ng?

OK, he designed a dichon(implicate_order, explicate_order). His implicate order in our view is close kin of Pirsig's DQ and Quantonics' n¤nactuality. However, we are unsure...perhaps his implicate order is part of what we call "actuality," similar Dr. Stein's nonspace and Sidises' 'reserve energy.' We sense though that his implicate order is closer to our memes and memeos of n¤nactuality than to our memes and memeos of actuality. Quantonics adepts abet our m¤dal like this: quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality). Bohm gets close to this by saying his mechanical parts of his explicate order are made of essence of his implicate order. Clearly what Bohm has done is to realize that objects made of atoms must be implicate if those atoms are implicate. But somehow, due classical legacy thingking we believe, ensembles of implicity, according to Bohm, 'become' explicit. Essentially that is what Bohm is saying, "Ensembles of implicity are explicate!" To us, that is just bogus BS. "But Doug, Why do you denigratingly call it 'bogus BS?'" Again, we can say to you that Quantonics offers its students powerful means of answering those types of queries. Bohm's implicity declarations resemble familiar classical statements like these:

• 'Ensembles of uncertainty become certain,' and
• 'Ensembles of uncertainty are certain.'

None of us agree with those two statements, do we? However, if we did, we would appropriately be illustrating classical assumptions about common sense, wouldn't we?

We're going to persist, though, given how close Bohm came, and perhaps our QELR will help others see n¤vel quantum lightings. Those of you who have stayed with us this far, realize this effort as superb quantum~pull gravidation quantique.

End breather...

In order to research topic 3 of this paper, we need a long hiatus into this paper's appendix. But it is worthwhile! A wonderful glimmer happens here. Bohm helps us grasp holographic essence of photons which actinates (Latin actin: rays; fuzzons as QLO actin interrelationshipings) Quantonics' fuzzon approach. Here are two paragraphs from his EUUaC paper appendix.

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

Aside - 27Mar2007: At issue here is Bohm's "...no one-to-one correspondence between parts of an 'illuminated object' and parts of an 'image of this object on the plate.' " Doug's own innovative scintillation heuristics explain that issue nicely... (photons and target atoms are macroscopic--- (n¤n classically point-object non 'particulate,' and non 'corpuscular') ---and photon~atom awareness interrelationshipings select — target area locus, classico-apparently, randomly — which photon interrelates n¤n one-to-one correspondently which atom and which atom's electron...), ...but that is almost a library of text to write for full exegesis. To keep it short and a tad more easy, let's just keep following our first aside... We ended our aside just above like this... "We offer this view here since it partially answers our query, 'Is holomovement consciousness?' "Our comfident yet tentative answer is 'Yes! For Doug, awareness — however rudimentary — is a precursor of what humans usually mean by con(m)sciousness.' " So, photonically, how does said rudimentary awareness, as a precursor of con(m)sciousness, arise? Bohm tells us an 'written word' answer which we need, but it is such an oversimplified and tentative answer, we tend to blow-by it and miss its incredible significance: "...the interference pattern in each region R of the plate is relevant to the whole structure..." It is easy to blow-by this, intellectually, since almost none of us is k~now~ings what interference is, let alone what quantum~interference is. It isn't what we mean by interference in sports! (If one uses macro~imagination, one can see similarities, though.) Like all else in quantum reality, quantum~interference is quantum~complementary. Quantonics makes it easy to show this using script: quanton(apparent_absence_of_interference,actual_interference). Classically, we have to statement (verb) a paradox to say it: "photons both do and do not interfere." In this case we use a classical 'not' and insist our readers interpret (quantum~hermeneut) it as Bergson's, "negation is subjective." In quantum reality we can make a bullet list to assist description of what we intend when we say, "interference:" photons interfere with themselves (this is key to holograms working, their viability and essene~ce of what we call "reality;" Thompson's double-slit experiment diffracted single light source photons thus forcing photon self~other~network EIMA interference; one way photons can be forced to (BAWAM self~other) interfere both among themselves and others is via a meme of diffraction; a pinhole in a piece of paper can do this; some physicists have used slits in metal to diffract sodium atoms...) (quantum~diffraction means to break ("...what will you do when you become many?...) a wave~function into its quantum~complements; said complements, when they again encounter one another may recombine ("...what will you do when your many become one?...) eliciting a variety of potential, many of them extremely valuable, phase~encodings; in optics a 'beam splitter' can be used to 'diffract' a photon into at least two quantum~complements of itself...for an example see Wheeler's Delayed Choice gedankenment) photons interfere with other photons with whom they are quantum~entangled (essene~tially entanglement is implicitness of in implicity of is an implicity in lots of ways to say this... emission source unity, e.g., same candle flame, same light bulb, same led, same mother (mammalian, et al., biophotons), etc., emits entangled photons) photons do not interfere with photons from separate and unmixed sources (explains possibility of 'unmixed' multiplexing of almost unlimited, e.g., broadcast radio and TV 'signals') photons interfere with photons from other sources when both have been mixed in some manner (optically, diodically, 'surface' refraction~reflection, edge~reflection, etc.) etc. (unsure this is necessary here, but there are plausibly countless other interference phenomena of which we are currently unaware) Allow Doug a heuristic that photons which interfere are coobsfectively aware of one another. So HotMeme™ ...quantum~awareness arises due quantum~interference. HotMeme™. Too, it is intelligent interference since it always creates (essentially 'creation' is fractal REIMAR quantum~selectionings of) n¤væl patterns many of which have nævær 'existed' prior. Also see Doug's very relevant and more recent, CeodE 2009, QELRs of discrimination, occur, wisdom. 4Apr2009. In our April, 2007 TQS News See first portion of editorial on photons and What is Life? Abridged Doug writes it like this: "Quantum~interference AKA quantum~relativity AKA quantum~phase~encoding issi self~other~awareness! Photons, entangled photons, are self~other~aware, however primitively you wish to perceive it... and, Life is "...quanton(light,dark). That is, quantum light issi ihn quantum absence of light and vice versa. Indeed, a lone photon is light. A lone photon and its phase~inverse~photon quantum~c¤mplæmæntarily superposition~encode to creatio nihilo ex vivo aperio. 'Creation of [only apparent] darkness [as only apparent 'death'] from Light [as life whose c¤mplæmænt is apparent 'death' AKA apparent 'darkness'] laid bare.' " So, you may choose to see, Bohm's holomovement is a quantum version of dialectics' The Matrix. End aside - 27Mar2007; red text markup-rev 4Nov2009; "...what will you do?" parentheticals added - 21Jul2015 - Doug.

"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 [~2D] limiting case of a [omnimensional] hologram." Ibid., p. 127, Bohm's EUUaC Appendix. Our brackets.

We penciled into that page's margin, "Allows us to view photons as quantons: fuzzonic attractor ensembles of EIMA, animate, holographic interrelationshipings."

Students of Quantonics adeptly fathom omnifferencings twixt classical point and quantonic fuzzon here. N¤ classical point can do what we just described, can it? Photons, then, are n¤t classical point objects as most physicists believe. So we may n¤t classically model photons as point objects, right? Indeed, we may n¤t model them classically!

So what do photons act like given Bohm's prescient description? They act like animate EIMA energy wells in a living, optical, self~organizing network (SON) which we usually refer as "reality."

Guess what? Bohm calls this optical SON a hologram. But what does that link say to us? Bohm is way ahead of us here: our quantum stages are holographic! Quantum Leap: reality is holographic!

Did you just experience cold chills as did we? Did you feel that tingle on your neck and spine? Reserve energy affirmation! Doug - 1Aug2005.

Ponder that for a couple of days. Next segment will be ready ~4Aug2005.

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 30-31Jul2005.

Top

Next progress statement - 3-4Aug2005...

We decided to go ahead and digest Bohm's appendix to this paper The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe and Consciousness. Bohm offers beau coup quantum~holomovement language here, and it will be futile — for you and for us — to proceed without describing it hereings and nowings.

Index	Bohm's Holomovement Word	Description both quoted and paraphrased from Lee Nichol's 2003 Text TEDB	Quantonics' Quantum Analogue	Description
By Doug Renselle, ©Quantonics, Inc., 2005-2029
Add links - 8Nov2009 PDR.	accommodation	Adaptation to evolving 'facts.' Infixes com and mod imply respectively "coming together of measurement." "'As A is to B in our structure of thinking, so it is in fact.' This ratio or reason constitutes a kind of 'common measure' or 'accommodation' between theory and fact." Ibid., p. 123. Note Bohm's socially positive univocalness of ratio and reason. In this appendix he says that, "...ratio or reason...is all that is needed for law." Ibid., p. 134. To us, in Quantonics, this is a genuinely naïve justification for 'science.' See our QELRs of law, and science. Just as Pirsig, et al., have said, "The map is not the territory!" Similarly, "Scientific 'law' is n¤t reality!" Doug - 18Sep2006. 'Common measure' appears strong classical kin of 'common sense.' Example: uniform, univocal adaptive fitting to a pattern. Classically it sounds a lot like classical 'quality' process control, doesn't it? It becomes more quantum when we evolve it towards statistical~stochastic process con(m)trol.	Classical: accommodation Quantum: acc¤mm¤dati¤n	Classical: Contextual dialectical adaptation via socially positive (i.e., certain) measurement. Accommodation, according to Bohm is 'common measure.' Close kin of 'common sense.' Quantum: Quantum (w)h¤listic adaptation via quantum~monitoring. Quantonics assumes that all of reality and all interpretations of reality change. They change due quantum flux' absolute impetus. Change as flux, however rapidly, however slowly implies waves! Waves imply ensemble multiplicity. Ensemble multiplicity implies quantum likelihood omnistributionings. Let's QELR that paragraph for comparison sake: Quantonics assumæs that ahll ¤f ræhlihty amd ahll ihnterpretati¤ns ¤f ræhlihty changæ. They changæ due quantum flux' abs¤lutæ ihmpætus. Changæ as flux, h¤wævær rapihdly, h¤wævær sl¤wly ihmplies wavæs! Wavæs ihmply ænsehmble multiplihcihty. Ænsehmble multiplihcihty ihmplies quantum lihkælih¤¤d ¤mnistrihbuti¤nings. Wæ have t¤ m¤dæl acc¤mm¤dati¤n, then, as quantum wavæ fumcti¤nings.
	analysis	From Greek: "Loosening from above."	Classical: analysis. Quantum: anahlysis.	Classical: SOM's knife. Ideal mechanical reduction. Classical analytic reality is lisrable. Quantum: quanton(quantum_gl¤bal_c¤herænce,ihslandihc_l¤cal_aut¤nomy).
	artistic perception	"Such perception begins by observing the whole fact in its full individuality, and then by degree articulates the order that is proper to the assimilation of this fact." Ibid., p. 122.	Classical: percept Quantum: pærcæpt	Classical: percept Quantum: pærcæpt See complementarospective.
	assimilation	Understanding via digestion of 'facts.'	Classical: assimilation Quantum: assimilati¤n	Classical: Accumulation of 'facts' on a know-ledge. Understanding as automatic recollection of rote-tote 'facts.' Quantum: Quantum reality is an assimulative, animate, EIMA SON.
	fact	Facts are made and manufactured via theoretical inquiry. Example: Aristotle's syllogisms are classical 'facts.'	Classical: fact Quantum: fahct	Classical: A classically manufactured 'idea' which holds immutably still. Tautology. Quantum: A mæmæ which æv¤lves adaptihvæly wihthin ihts quantum comtext. A quantum fahct which issi an agænt ¤f ihts ¤wn changæ. See Hume's Law.
	heteronomy	Bohm uses this word to reinstall SOM in his quantum reality thus permitting classical law to work in his explicate order. Heteronomy permits lisr multiplicity in Bohm's explicate order.		Lisr multiplicity is what Bergson meant by "spatial extensity." Heteronomy violates Bergson's meme of inseparability. Astutes may notice that it innately violates Bohm's own implicate order.
	holomovement	"To generalize so as to emphasize undivided wholeness, we shall say that what "carries" an implicate order is the holomovement, which is an unbroken and undivided totality. In certain cases, we can abstract particular aspects of the holomovement (e.g., light, electrons, sound, etc.), but more generally, all forms of the holomovement merge and are inseparable." Ibid., p. 131. Bohm describes his holomovement as "undefinable and immeasurable."		In Quantonics we call Bohm's undivided wholeness "reality," quantum reality. His implicate order corresponds our n¤nactuality, and his explicate order corresponds our actuality. Bohm's holomovement corresponds Quantonics' quanton(isoflux,flux). Instead of Bohm's mechanical, formal 'particular abstraction' quantonics uses nonmechanical animate EIMA flux~essential quantons and fuzzons to describe quantum reality. All emerqants in Quantonics' version of quantum reality quantum cohere.
	holonomy	Bohm uses this word to reinstall SOM in his quantum reality thus permitting classical law to work in his explicate order. Holonomy permits infinite divisibility of a monolithic spatial extensity.		Holonomy requires explicate order's homogeneity and an ancient classical delusion that reality is an infinitely divisible spatial extensity. We believe that if Bohm had studied Bergson carefully, he would not have gotten into such deep trouble with terms like heteronomy and holonomy.
	new order	Bohm tells us in his appendix to this EUUaC paper that his new scientific order is as omnifferent from classical and post modern science as a hologram is from a lens' projected 2D image.		Quantonics: "new way of thinking." A n¤vel philosophy of animate EIMA interrelationshipings.
	relevate (see pp. 131-2)	Bohm says this is an archaic, now unused term, which handles simply a description of relations twixt implicate and explicate order. Explicity relevates (makes relevant) implicity. He uses an analogy of how a TV relevates (explicates) implicate order of an RF carrier's modulated video signal. It's a good analogy, but it is classically mechanical as is his die and treacle analogy. Turning crank spreads (implicates) die in treacle. Reversing crank restores die's original explication. In latter analogy, Bohm views 'crank turning' as close kin of what we call quantum flux. He further, and we believe correctly, says that turning rate is what is significant in quantum reality not independent variable temporal, i.e., 'scientific' demarcation of crank turning. Saying this, Bohm essentially says, "...classical science is irrelevant, due its massive incapability to relevate explicity from implicity using flux rate." Latter is, though we are as yet not entirely aware of how, what quantum approaches to describing reality do. Of course we are aware that flux is crux and relativity of quantum flux is cruxier, as in Balmer's energy ladder, and QCD's transformations of flux into quarks and quarks into nucleons. But then Bohm says we can use classical methods to describe reality based upon its formal explicity. This is yet frustrating us... Compare Bohm's relevate (classical buoyant push) to Quantonics' gravidate (quantum attractor pull).		We see no need to waste time on radically classical notions like this.
	undefinable and immeasurable	Bohm's holomovement (implicate order) is "undefinable and immeasurable." But similar Pirsig's DQ and Quantonics' nonactuality, Bohm's holomovement is describable, indeed that is what explicate order partially accomplishes. We and Pirsig, almost radically, align with Bohm here, assuming his reality complements align ours philosophically as we suggested and portrayed in that table in our previous research study segment.		In quantonics we say "reality measures itself!" Actuality is quantum reality's ongoing measurementings processings outcomings. Everything in actuality, and to some extent in n¤nactuality exhibits quantum reality's self-measuring, animate EIMA phase~encoding processings. Given that, we say that quantum reality is always in self~directing processings of "describing itself." Further, we say that quantum reality is undefinable, since definition requires what is 'defined' to classically, formally, analytically, dialectically 'hold still.' But quantum reality is absolute flux, absolute change, absolute process evolution, unstoppable and intelligent evolution! Our conclusions from all this are that we are capable of monitoring quantum reality. Assuming we always use processings (e.g., real n¤ndialectical quantum computers with real quantum qubits) to do our monitorings we can say that our assessmentings are viable descriptionings of an animate quantum reality. Doug - 5Aug2005.
	undivided wholeness	"However, relativity and quantum theory imply undivided wholeness, in which analysis into distinct and well-defined parts is no longer relevant. Is there an instrument that can help give a certain immediate perceptual insight into what can be meant by undivided wholeness, as the lens did for what can be meant by analysis of a system into parts? It is suggested here that one can obtain such insight by considering the hologram." Ibid., p. 125. We would agree with Bohm's statements here if relativity were quantum. However, Einstein insisted upon objectivity of his theories of relativity through his notion of 'relative invariance' of geometrical interval.	Classical: undivided Quantum: umdihvihdæd Classical: wholeness Quantum: wh¤læness	In Quantonics, we describe quantum reality's 'undivided wholeness' according to Mae-wan Ho's assessment borne of her studies of Henri Louis Bergson's memes of indivisible heterogeneity. Here, indivisibility corresponds quantum coherence, while heterogeneity corresponds multitudinous quantum islandicity. If we search Bergson for indivisible heterogeneity we won't get many hits, if any. However if we search Bergson for qualitative multiplicity we will find many hits. So we can show: quanton(indivisibility,heterogeneity) is a quantum~metaphor of quanton(qualitative,multiplicity). Here is a list of Quantonics web site specific hits using our whis3 Bergson qualitat multiplic Googlesque search alias: Bergsons_Creative_Evolution_Topic_37.html Bergsons_Creative_Evolution_Topic_40.html Bergsons_Creative_Evolution_Topic_44.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Conclusion.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Index_I.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Index_Q.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Prereview_Comments.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_16.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_17.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_20.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_26.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_27.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_28.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_31.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_34.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Topic_35.html Bergsons_Time_and_Free_Will_Translators_Preface.html As with nearly all quantum physicists, Bohm makes no mention nor reference, in (4) texts we have researched thus far, of Bergson. Nor does Albert, nor Pribram in his language of the brain. Even more interesting is how Bergson uses unfold and unfolding often in his Creative Evolution topics 1 and 42. Less so in his Time and Free Will topic 34. Regardless... Any species is a multitudinous quantum islandicity. Too, any species is ihn Iht and Iht is ihn any species, thus we have quantum c¤~here~nce. You can replace 'species' with any plural participle noun, and our statement still holds quantum~generically.
By Doug Renselle, ©Quantonics, Inc., 2005-2029

Doug - 3-4,5Aug2005.

Top