Oh according to Bohmian mechanics, there is definitely
subject-object dependence in so far that in spite of 
determinism at the ontological level, our knowledge
can be based only on the QM laws of probability. But
I'm not sure that the passage you quoted goes in that
direction... The connectedness it speaks of, seems to
me to be going more in the direction of the physical
interdependency of physical systems/objects rather
than the subject-object dependency. Of course, it
could be argued that subject is *only* a physical
system, but then we are in the area of deep
Thanks for bringing the quote anyway! It was
interesting to read it.



--- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Dear Dunja: 

In Bohm's vision of quantum interconnectedness, all
the separate entities and events in the explicate
world around us derive from a deeper, implicate order
of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a
flowing stream: 

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern
of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which
evidently have no independent existence as such.
Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement,
arising and vanishing in the total process of the
flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed
by these abstracted forms implies only a relative
independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than
absolutely independent existence as ultimate

(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, 1980, p. 48.) 
In Bohm's view everything is part of "Undivided
Wholeness in Flowing Movement." (Ibid., p. 11.) 

Would this not suggest that subject and object are
undivided in the implicate order?


From:  Dunja Seselja [log in to unmask]
--- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The very phenomenon of wave includes the observer, as
does the phenomenon of particle, since which
phenomenon is perceived is dependent on the
observation itself. The old Cartesian model does not
obtain. The other cannot be separated from the self in
this scenario.



This all again depends on the interpretation of QM we
take as the relevant one. Take, for example, the
Bohmian interpretation: according to it, there are
ALWAYS (at the bottom of ontology, in other words)
particles as well as the wave function, which "guides"
the particles on their trajectories. The whole
discussion is, once again, completely theory (i.e.
interpretation) dependent.



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around