Bohm "On Creativity" critiqued and compared to Heisenberg, et al.
The connection between the pilot wave and the implicate order
Bohm "On Creativity" page 107:...
What Bohm actually said, starting on page 106, is the following:
Q. Does a creator God also exist in your implicate order?
BOHM. The issue is not raised. I have an idea of an implicate order and beyond that a super implicate order, and so on, to orders that are more and more subtle. I say there are many more subtle levels. The word "subtle" has a root *subtext* meaning "finely woven". You may think of nets of consciousness that are finer and finer, or we may think of capturing finer and finer aspects of the implicate order. This could go on indefinitely. Then it's up to the individual. I think there is an intelligence that is implicit there. A kind of intelligence unfolds. The source of intelligence is not necessarily in the brain. The ultimate source of intelligence is much more enfolded into the whole.
PETER. Now this source of intelligence that is not limited to the brain is what is called Mind, in the Zen sense of the experience of all-embracing and non-dualistic wholeness. There is a question, however, as to the character of this wholeness. Is it prior to subject-object dualism altogether, or just prior to the separation of the object from the subject and the subsequent objectification of the separated object by the subject? I say the latter. I say that the subject-object dualism is woven throughout all quantum orders, and I say with Whitehead that the subject must be primary for logical coherence. For these reasons, we must conclude that the wholeness has a profoundly subjective character. It is a Mind in the true sense of the word, and the true Mind of the classical Observer. And yet, as the true Mind, or Zen Mind, it is a universal Mind that is indeed the Mind of God. It is embodied by Maitreya, the Head of the hierarchy of implicate orders on this planet.
Now these "nets of consciousness that are finer and finer" are a bit suspect. It is true that the abstract "ego" as the classical observer emerges beyond its unconscious limitation into the consciousness of the quantum implicate order, and this means that the Essence of Mind is contained within the Mind, but whether another Essence of Mind is contained within the Essence of Mind's Mind is what we must consider.
The Essence of Mind has to do with Consciousness, both of Something and of Itself. The latter is introspection and involves three elements: pure subjectivity (which is the Mind), the basis for Consciousness (which involves the energetic propensities of the Soul), and the object that Consciousness can make of itself (which involves the Material element as the *ideal* of objectivity, so treasured in science). All of this definitely exists in the quantum order only and of course it is initially the quantum implicate order as it emerges from the classical order.
But from Essence of Mind contained with the Mind, it seems that the only natural development is unfoldment and explication of the Essence of Mind, leading to the Stream of Consciousness and the ontological perspective of James, Whitehead, and Copenhagen. Now it is not at all wrong to think of a hierarchy of ever more subtle nets of consciousness, as does Bohm, but the trick is to see that the penetration of ever more subtle levels leads to the transcendental realization of the "one" (the *EN* or *Epsilon Nu* of Plato), and this transcendence is synchronistic with the unfoldment and explication of consciousness. This synchronistic moment must initially be in the phenomenological dimension of the quantum implicate order, not the ontological dimension. Only afterwards do the individuation and objectification of the observed and the beingness of the observer emerge as the ontological perspective.
Bohm's idea of the implicate order was most certainly shared by the founders of quantum theory, such as Bohr and Heisenberg. Part of what they may have resented in Bohm is his sense that he had discovered these ideas, which were well known to the founders as their very own ideas. I personally think Bohm did a splendid job of clarifying some of these ideas, but it is undoubtedly true that almost all the "Bohmians", if not Bohm himself, were and are a royal pain in the neck. Concerning Bohm's concept of a hierarchy of implicate orders with increasing subtlety, consider the following from "Niels Bohr's Times", by Abraham Pais, p. 440:
To be spectator is as necessary for executing and evaluating the role of actor as to perform the act itself. These two modes of engagement are both necessary elements in the person's mental content, yet they exclude each other - they are complementary. This is a new look at issues that one finds in ancient dramas, like the dialog between Arjuna and Krishna in the *Gita*, and also, to give a more recent example, in the story of 'Adventures of a Danish student' by Poul Martin Moller, which made a strong impression on Bohr and from which he often quoted these lines:
My endless inquiries made it impossible for me to achieve anything. Moreover, I get to think about my own thoughts of the situation in which I find myself. I even think that I think of it, and divide myself into an infinite retrogressive sequence of 'I's who consider each other. I do not know at which 'I' to stop as the actual, and as soon as I stop, there is indeed again an 'I' which stops at it. I become confused and feel giddy as if I were looking down into a bottomless abyss, and my ponderings result finally in a terrible headache.
Also, consider the following from "Physics and Beyond", by Werner Heisenberg, p. 214:
The problem of values is nothing but the problem of our acts, goals and morals. It concerns the compass by which we must steer our ship if we are to set a true course through life. The compass itself has been given different names by various religions and philosophies: happiness, the will of God, the meaning of life - to mention just a few. The differences in the names reflect profound differences in the awareness of different human groups. I have no wish to belittle these differences, but I have the clear impression that all such formulations try to express man's relatedness to a CENTRAL ORDER. Of course, we all know that our own reality depends on the structure of consciousness; we can objectify no more than a small part of our world. But even when we try to probe into the subjective realm, we cannot ignore the CENTRAL ORDER or look upon the forms peopling this realm as mere phantoms or accidents. Admittedly, the subjective realm of an individual, no less than a nation, may sometimes be in a state of confusion. Demons can be let loose and do a great deal of mischief, or to put it more scientifically, partial orders that have split away from the CENTRAL ORDER, or do not fit into it, may have taken over. But in the final analysis, the CENTRAL ORDER, or the 'one' as it used to be called and with which we commune in the language of religion, must win out. And when people search for values, they are probably searching for the kind of actions that are in harmony with the CENTRAL ORDER, and as such are free from the confusions springing from divided, partial orders... In science the CENTRAL ORDER can be recognized by the fact that we can use such metaphors as 'Nature has been made according to this plan.' It is in this context that my idea of truth impinges on the reality of religious experience. I feel that this link has become much more obvious since we have understood quantum theory. For quantum theory helps us to formulate orderly processes in a wide field by means of an abstract, mathematical language. And if we try to express these orderly processes in everyday terms, we have to fall back on parables, on complementary viewpoints involving paradoxes and apparent contradictions.
Now, as far as the question whether you want to call that "God", this depends on what you mean by the word, because taking it as a personal God might restrict it in some way. The suggestion is that there is something like life and mind enfolded in everything. If you carry that to the ultimate, then that might be what some of the religious people meant by the word "God". But the word "God" means many different things to different people, and it becomes hard to know exactly what is implied. The implicate order does not rule out God, nor does it say there is a God. But it would suggest that there is a creative intelligence underlying the whole, which might have as one of the essentials that which was meant by the word "God".
So far, so good. It is clear from the previous passage and from this one that the implicate order can well be designated as the Mind of God. That it is the true Mind of the classical Observer would still be a bit controversial, but from other contexts, such as "Quantum Theory" (1951), that can be consistently argued. Nor is there any other consistent way to contextualize the 'Mind of God', as Bohm here describes it.
In this sense it says that any picture which we make through thought is limited, and even the idea of the implicate order is limited, although we hope it goes beyond previous limits. Only the ultimate is unlimited. However, as you say more about the unlimited you begin to limit it. If you say "The unlimited is God, and by God I mean this and this and this," then you begin to limit it. I think it is essential not to limit God, if you believe in God.
This was originally so in the Hebrew religion when they said the name of God is only "I am," and nothing more should be said. But they did not carry that out in a coherent way. I think it's essential to be coherent about it, otherwise it will tangle up. And to tangle up at this level is very destructive.
So, here we have Bohm's analysis of the problem of cosmic evil, but it is somewhat misleading. Let us start by agreeing that I AM is also a good designation of the implicate order, but let us realize that as the implicate order unfolds, this I AM will outpicture. I have this dispensation now from Maitreya and from the Order of the Magi, that I AM outpictures through two sets of Hebrew names found in Genesis:
1. I AM = Issachar Ararat Manahath
2. I AM = Isui Ajah Moriah
Now, the first of these is objective and has to do with what Bohm describes on pp. 6-7 of "On Creativity":
I suggest that there is a perception of *new basic order* that is potentially significant in a broad and rich field. This new order leads eventually to the creation of new structures having the qualities of harmony and totality, and therefore the feeling of beauty.
...Now it is commonly believed that terms like "order" and "disorder" refer only to subjective judgements, which are completely dependent on the particular tastes, prejudices and opinions of different people. I wish to suggest here that order is not a purely subjective quality and that, on the contrary, judgements concerning it can have just as objective a basis as those concerning, for example, distance, time, mass, or anything else of this nature. For, as I shall try to explain presently in detail, such judgements are based on the perceptual discrimination of *similar differences* and *different similarities*, which can be defined and communicated just as well as can be done with other qualities that are commonly recognized to be capable of objective description.
Consider, for example, a geometric curve... ...we can regard the curve approximately as a set of lines of equal length. The lines are thus *similar* in their lengths, but generally *different* in their orientations. But the existence of a regular curve (rather than an arbitrary set of points) evidently depends on the *similarity of the differences*. These are, of course, immediately noted by the eye, even though our common language is generally too crude and impoverished to allow us to communicate exactly what it is that the eye has seen.
...However, the *similarities* defining the circle are *different* from those defining the straight line.
So, the point is that these kind of ideal orders, based on geometrical forms, is precisely the paradigm chosen by Heisenberg to represent the nature of elementary particles. Plato had previously chosen the forms themselves to represent his elements. Heisenberg avers that quantum theory demands a more sophisticated but similar application of the same principle.
However, our second form for the I AM, namely Isui Ajah Moriah, has to do with something other than the particles. As the great genius and benefactor, Jack Sarfatti, a.k.a John the Baptist, has elucidated, there is not just the particle, or Bohm Point, but also the mind-like guiding wave.
Whereas Issachar Ararat Manahath descends all the way down to the noumenal physical reality, and is hence fully objective, Isui Ajah Moriah descends only to the higher etheric; hence it descends only half way to the physical. The second I AM, however, does descend further through the archangelic name of the Christ: I AM MAGDIEL. This name MAGDIEL is in a sense the Fohat of Theosophy. Moreover the Isui represents the implicate order itself, so that within the I of each I AM there is another I AM. These constitute the nestled hierarchy of implicate orders. By comparison, Issachar represents the classical order as the source of the notion of objects. Issachar is the Observer, and Isui is the Mind of the Observer.
So, it is the mind-like (and here we mean the body mind, not the true Mind, which is the implicate order itself) guiding wave that must be reiterated, so that there is a wave within the wave within the wave, assuring ever more subtle guidance of the outer wave that guides the particle. Sarfatti, of course, has no clue of this structure. He is only John the Baptist and not Jesus the Christ or Jeshua Ha Moshiach.
Moreover, when we discuss the field, or the unified field, we must not think of it as just a field of particles but a field of both particles *and* waves. Consider the following discussion on p. 241 of "Physics and Beyond", by Heisenberg:
And though accident does play an important part in the subsequent emergence and development of a profusion of structures, it may well be that accident, too, is somehow related to the CENTRAL ORDER.
[Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker]
I am not at all happy with your use of the word 'somehow.' Perhaps you might care to elaborate. Do you think that this sort of accident is completely pointless? Does it, so to speak, merely put into practice what quantum laws express statistically? Your remarks suggest that, over and above that, you are thinking of a wider connection, a kind of superstructure that lends meaning to the individual event. Am I right in saying that?
Any deviation from the frequency of events established by quantum mechanics would make nonsense of our explanations why phenomena should otherwise be governed by quantum laws. Experience suggests that such deviations are quite impossible. But you probably had something quite different in mind; no doubt, you were thinking of events or decisions that are essentially unique, i.e., to which statistical considerations do not apply. Still, the use of the word 'meaning' in your question gives it a somehow unscientific twist.
One might say that absolute truth is that anomaly in the universe that is so unlikely as to have zero probability of existing by the laws of quantum mechanics and yet must necessarily exist according to those same laws. But I think that Carl Friedrich *and* Werner had more in mind than the kind of anomaly that absolute truth must inevitably be. The idea is that the field must be the field of the self-reflective wave as well as the particle. The algebra must be quite different than the Fourier expansions involving only creations and destructions of particles. The self-reflective waves are indeed an interpenetrating superstructure to the particles that gives meaning to the merely objective aspect of existence. Because of their self-reflexivity, they are capable of greater and greater complexity that can embrace even chaos or randomness, as Bohm himself hints that the nestled hierarchy of implicate orders should be able to do. Of course, to embrace randomness, one probably has to go to the limit of an infinitely subtle implicate order, which is God.
It was only because the field equations looked like the old wave equations that people falsely assumed the field to take the place of the wave. But in a radically unified field theory, the equations do not look like the old wave equations, and Bohm's real particle and real wave should give us the clue that the unified field should be a field of both objective particles and self-reflective waves.
Peter Joseph Mutnick 1949 - 2000