1. 1 Shelf three: The substance behind my wider debate pertinent to my Awareness model of physics The principle features you need to know The Bohm-Hiley (holographic), the Cahill Process Physics and my Awareness models of physics all embrace significant features of the following slide presentation. I argue that all three models are, by nature, parallel to each other and that the only differences between the three are ones of a technical nature.

2. 2 Why I use the process information model to make comparisons between all three physics models I selectively quote the founder of the model Process Information model by Jeroen B. J. van Dijk “…information involves the activity of nature’s self-organizing process-structures1 as they mutually affect (i.e. ‘in-form’) each other by way of their non-equilibrium in-and outflow cycles. Like this, these criticality- seeking open systems actively give form to one another’s structural-functional organization (cf. Jantsch 1980, 10-11 and 51; Bohm and Hiley 1993, 27) thus constituting an all-pervading reciprocal process- informativeness” “In this view, information is ultimately a nature-wide reflexive process (cf. Cahill 2005, 1-2) in which conscious observers are themselves embedded endo-systems within the greater embedding processuality of nature as a whole. As a result, observers do not have to impose any external meaning upon the syntactically expressed results of their information intake. Instead, our process-informative natural world is internally meaningful (Cahill 2005, 16) in the sense that all process-structures make a difference to all other process-structures, and vice versa, in an order of undivided wholeness (cf. Bohm 1980, 154). Moreover, this view agrees very much with Gregory Bateson’s conception of information as ‘a difference which makes a difference’ (Bateson 1972, 459)” “As suggested by Reg Cahill’s Process Physics (2005), nature is to be regarded in an explicitly non-formal sense, as a giant self-organizing process-information system in which embedded dissipative structures are engaged in open-ended evolution” “According to Process Physics, we should interpret our universe as one psycho-physical process containing all kinds of differentiated contents, including conscious organisms like ourselves. In this way, it can also be seen as compatible with Max Velmans’s Reflexive Monism (2009) and David Ray Griffin’s neo- Whiteheadian panexperientialism (1998 and 1999) in which our conscious experience is a concrescent extension of nature’s inherent Psychophysicality”

3. 3 The wholeness of quantum reality Extracts from an interview with physicists, Basil Hiley David Bohm was not considered kindly by his peers and he died prematurely before he could effectively defend his innovative and far reaching physics ideas. Hiley was an associate of Bohm and had belatedly come to the defence of Bohm’s holographic (implicit order) theories. Because I am such a strong advocate of Bohm’s work, I have included sections of an interview in which Hiley recently participated, regarding his high regard for Bohm’s ideas and the associated detailed debate he was capable of bringing forward in order to convey his theories. I see this slide as being an important introduction to the principal themes of this shelf and I have highlighted sections I feel you should take a special note of. Hiley’s effort in resurrecting Bohm’s professional credibility centres around his innovative adaptation of Grassmere algebra. Bohm never seriously attempted to distance himself from Relativistic concepts of physics. You will note where my colleague (MFP) has seen fit to contribute to the debate as well. For these reasons I feel you will find this slide to be particularly interesting and educational. MFP also adds to his own commentary by referring to the Process Physics (Cahill) model which I feel is supportive of my ideas as well. Quoted extracts begin: Quote: “…..what David and I suggested was that the quantum potential is actually an information potential, and we introduced the idea of active information. I was very worried about using the word “information” because everybody would immediately go to Shannon information. Shannon information is not information; it’s just information capacity. There’s no meaning there, and the whole point was to get meaning into this and that this was information for the particle.” “Cahill uses the term "semantic information" to mean information that has meaning for a system. The above quote uses the term "active information" to mean information that has meaning for a particle. Since a particle is a system, active information and semantic information refer to the same kind of information.

4. 4 (Cahill pointed out somewhere that his "semantic information" was referred to as "active information" by Bohm.)” BH: OK. So you say, all right, suppose we start with something like process—no particles, just activity, just energy. Then the first battle was: what the hell do you mean? I started reading. I read Grassmann, for example, and Grassmann was saying that mathematics was not about things in space and time, but it was about thought—it was about the order of thought. And he obtained his Grassmann algebra from that kind of consideration.Grassmann MFP says "....something like process—no particles, just activity, just energy...", means Bohm had a version of Process Physics. Also, I wasn't aware that Grassmann claimed that mathematics was about thought. However I noticed that the lower levels of Cahill's theory are built using Grassmann algebra. I guess if patterns can emerge in a neural network in a similar way to how thoughts emerge in a brain, Grassmann algebra might be a suitable way to model their emergence” And I read Clifford‘s original books, original papers, and it was all about process....Clifford Four years agoFour years ago, I was able to get the Dirac equation in the Bohm theory. It’s all in the Clifford algebra. (my words: this is a critical statement in relationship to the Bohm implicit order debate. It assists to affirm the relevance of his work to the physics community at large).

5. 5 MFP says “That was a good achievement”. So instead having just a trajectory, you have an unfolding and enfolding process. The past actively works in the present. It reverberates in the present to produce the future. What looks like a particle tracking across, isn’t a particle tracking across. It’s just an explication. MFP says This idea is similar to idea of the iterative process going on in Cahill's neural network. Suppose the network was in state Bn at time tn and in state Bn+1 at time tn+1. Then the iterative process could be written in abbreviated form as: Bn+1 = Bn + the effects of a process that creates the next state from the previous state. Here, Bn is "the past", Bn+1 is "the future", and the process of creating Bn+1 from Bn occurs in "the present", but lasting for too short a time to be observed. If the process that creates the next state was itself also evolving, then it might be appropriate to regard that process as part of the past and Hiley's words "the past actively works in the present" could be appropriate. In Cahill's model the iterative process that makes everything happen doesn't change with time. It was probably necessary for him to consider an unchanging process, as it would be much more difficult to analyze the effects of a process the did change with time. If the process did change with time, one would have a setup like: Bn+1 = Bn + the effects of a process associated with Bn Bn+2 = Bn+1 + the effects of a process associated with Bn+1 and so on”

6. 6 The problem with the de Broglie Bohm pilot wave interpretation of quantum theory Bohm’s interpretation of quantum theory seems to imply that his hypothesis uses the same equations as quantum theory, so that only this is different in his interpretation of what the equations mean. Struyve shares his views (in a 2004 PhD thesis) that Bohm may have had difficulties with his hypothesis in the first place, and why it may have been rejected by Bohm’s critics over the past two decades. The relevant words from Struyve’s thesis are as follows. Struyve offered no solution to what he saw as the difficulty surrounding Bohm’s original ideas. Quote: “In this thesis we study the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpretation of quantum theory. We consider the domain of non-relativistic quantum theory, relativistic quantum theory and quantum field theory, and in each domain we consider the possibility of formulating a pilot-wave interpretation. For non-relativistic quantum theory a pilot-wave interpretation in terms of particle beables can readily be formulated. But this interpretation can in general not straightforwardly be generalized to relativistic wave equations. The problems which prevent us from devising a pilot-wave interpretation for relativistic wave equations also plague the standard quantum mechanical interpretation, where these problems led to the conception of quantum field theory. Therefore most of our attention is focussed on the construction of a pilot-wave interpretation for quantum field theory. We thereby favour the field beable approach, developed amongst others by Bohm, Hiley, Holland, Kaloyerou and Valentini. Although the field beable approach can be successfully applied to bosonic quantum field theory, it seems not straightforward to do so for fermionic quantum field theory.” Another adjacent slide has been inserted that could mean there is a solution to this scientific dilemma after all. The de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpretation of quantum theory W. Struyve Ph.D. thesis, Ghent University, October 2004 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506243 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506243

7. 7 Vindicating Bohm’s Implicit order (holographic model) hypothesis I believe this is the nature of the debate that has always been needed to address the perceived shortcomings of Bohm’s Implicit order physics hypothesis. Background: 1 For particles are moving much slower than the speed of light, quantum theory works well and Bohm's interpretation of it works well too, however, 2 For particles moving near the speed of light (ie experiencing "relativistic" effects), quantum field theory needs to be applied. In this case quantum theory doesn't work well and Bohm's interpretation of it doesn't work well either. 3 The author (another physics theorist, W. Struyve) was able to develop a Bohmian interpretation for bosonic quantum field theory but could not see a way to do the same for fermionic quantum field theory. I (MFP) get the impression that during his lifetime Bohm didn't apply his interpretation to quantum field theory. This may be because in Bohm's pilot wave interpretation, each quantum wave packet is considered to consist of a particle surrounded by pilot waves which guide the particle. However in quantum field theory, I think each quantum wave packet needs to be thought of as a packet of waves which is spread out in space until such time as the wave packet is detected. The detection process can then be interpreted as causing the wave packet to collapse into a small volume of space so it exhibits properties of being a particle This latter interpretation works for the slow speed quantum theory case too. So I feel there may have been an evolution of ideas as follows: (next page)

8. 8 MFP.JF  25/09/13 Description: A quantum equation (wave function) was discovered that could be used to calculate the probability of detecting particles at different locations in space. So particles were thought of as being basically particles with the wave function nothing more than helpful maths. de Broglie-Bohm decided to interpret the wave function as representing pilot-waves that guide particles. So in this interpretation particles are considered to be particles to which physically real waves are attached. The wave function is interpreted as describing a physically real wave packet but which collapses into a small volume when it is detected that allows it to exhibit particle properties. So this interpretation retains the physically real waves of Bohm's interpretation but eliminates the particle traveling with the waves. Thus Bohm's interpretation could be seen as stepping stone to this interpretation from the earlier one. Interpretations of quantum theory: Early de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave Recent wave packet and collapse theories

9. 9 Extracts from an interview with David Bohm five years before his death in 1992 (source OMNI magazine Jan 1987). I acknowledge it is likely that some of the information presented here is now dated and for this I apologize. However, I do not believe such shortcomings significantly debase the worth of the debate overall. I have included wide-ranging extracts that I feel will be of particular interest. I have emboldened text Bohm has presented that I feel is complementary to my own Awareness model beliefs. Quote: “…Omni: Yet you've said that quantum mechanics doesn't provide a clear picture of nature. What do you mean? Bohm: The main problem is that quantum mechanics gives only the probability of an experimental result. Neither the decay of an atomic nucleus nor the fact that it decays at one moment and not another can be properly pictured within the theory. It can only enable you to predict statistically the results of various experiments. Physics has changed from its earlier form, when it tried to explain things and give some physical picture. Now the essence is regarded as mathematical. It's felt the truth is in the formulas. Now they may find an algorithm by which they hope to explain a wider range of experimental results, but it will still have inconsistencies. They hope that they can eventually explain all the results that could be gotten, but that is only a hope”. “Omni: Your key concept is something you call enfoldment. Could you explain it? Bohm: Everybody has seen an image of enfoldment: You fold up a sheet of paper, turn it into a small packet, make cuts in it, and then unfold it into a pattern. The parts that were close in the cuts unfold to be far away. This is like what happens in a hologram. Enfoldment is really very common in our experience. All the light in this room comes in so that the entire room is in effect folded into each part. If your eye looks, the light will be then unfolded by your eye and brain. As you look through a telescope or a camera, the whole universe of space and time is enfolded into each part, and that is unfolded to the eye. With an old-fashioned television set that's not adjusted properly, the image enfolds into the screen and then can be unfolded by adjustment”. “The most radical change in the notion of order since Isaac Newton came with quantum mechanics. The

10. 10 quantum-mechanical idea of order contradicts coordinate order because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle made a detailed ordering of space and time impossible. When you apply quantum theory to general relativity, at very short distances like ten to the minus thirty-three centimeters, the notion of the order of space and time breaks down. Omni: Can you replace that with some other sense of order? Bohm: First you have to ask what we mean by order. Everybody has some tacit notion of it, but order itself is impossible to define. Yet it can be illustrated. In a photograph any part of an object is imaged into a point. This point-to-point correspondence emphasizes the notion of point as fundamental in sense of order. Cameras now photograph things too big or too small, too fast or too slow to be seen by the naked eye. This has reinforced our belief that everything can ultimately be seen that way. Omni: Aren't the contradictions you have been talking about embedded in the very name quantum mechanics? Bohm: Yes. Physics is more like quantum organism than quantum mechanics. I think physicists have a tremendous reluctance to admit this. There is a long history of belief in quantum mechanics, and people have faith in it. And they don't like having this faith challenged”. “Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground. About the time I was looking into these questions, a BBC science program showed a device that illustrates these things very well. It consists of two concentric glass cylinders. Between them is a viscous fluid, such as glycerin. If a drop of insoluble ink is placed in the glycerin and the outer cylinder is turned slowly, the drop of dye will be drawn out into a thread. Eventually the thread gets so diffused it cannot be seen. At that moment there seems to be no order present at all. Yet if you slowly turn the cylinder backward, the glycerin draws back into its original form, and suddenly the ink drop is visible again. The ink had been enfolded into the glycerin,

11. 11 and it was unfolded again by the reverse turning. Omni: Suppose you put a drop of dye in the cylinder and turn it a few times, then put another drop in the same place and turn it. When you turn the cylinder back, wouldn't you get a kind of oscillation? Bohm: Yes, you would get a movement in and out. We could put in one drop of dye and turn it and then put in another drop of dye at a slightly different place, and so on. The first and second droplets are folded a different number of times. If we keep this up and then turn the cylinder backward, the drops continually appear and disappear. So it would look as if a particle were crossing the space, but in fact it's always the whole system that's involved. We can discuss the movement of all matter in terms of this folding and unfolding, which I call the holomovement. Omni: What do you think is the order of the holomovement? Bohm: It may lie outside of time as we ordinarily know it. If the universe began with the Big Bang and there are black holes, then we must eventually reach places where the notion of time and space breaks down. Anything could happen. As various cosmologists have put it, if a black hole came out with a sign flashing COCA COLA, it shouldn't be surprising. Within the singularity none of the laws as we know them apply. There are no particles; they are all disintegrated. There is no space and no time. Whatever is, is beyond any concept we have at present. The present physics implies that the total conceptual basis of physics must be regarded as completely inadequate. The grand unification [of the four forces of the universe] could be nothing but an abstraction in the face of some further unknown. (I say this is the Awareness model notion of primordial time which I also refer to as being primordial reality). I propose something like this: Imagine an infinite sea of energy filling empty space, with waves moving around in there, occasionally coming together and producing an intense pulse. Let's say one particular pulse comes together and expands, creating our universe of space-time and matter. But there could well be other such pulses. To us, that pulse looks like a big bang; In a greater context, it's a little ripple. Everything emerges by unfoldment from the holomovement, then enfolds back into the implicate order. I call the enfolding process "implicating," and the unfolding "explicating." The implicate and explicate together are a flowing,

12. 12 undivided wholeness. Every part of the universe is related to every other part but in different degrees. (This is my point!!! My idea is that there are blobs with their own inherent properties to facilitate such a process (experience). There are two experiences: One is movement in relation to other things; the other is the sense of flow. The movement of meaning is the sense of flow. But even in moving through space, there is a movement of meaning. In a moving picture, with twenty-four frames per second, one frame follows another, moving from the eye through the optic nerve, into the brain. The experience of several frames together gives you the sense of flow. This is a direct experience of the implicate order. In classical mechanics, movement or velocity is defined as the relation between the position now and the position a short time ago. What was a short time ago is gone, so you relate what is to what is not. This isn't a logical concept. In the implicate order you are relating different frames that are copresent in consciousness. You're relating what is to what is. A moment contains flow or movement. The moment may be long or short, as measured in time. In consciousness a moment is around a tenth of a second. Electronic moments are much shorter, but a moment of history might be a century. Omni: So a moment enfolds all the past? Bohm: Yes, but the recent past is enfolded more strongly. At any given moment we feel the presence of all the past and also the anticipated future. It's all present and active. I could use the example of the cylinder again. Let's say we enfold one droplet h times. Then we put another droplet in and enfold it N times. The relationship between the droplets remains the same no matter how thoroughly they are enfolded. So as you unfold, you will get back the original relationship. Imagine if we take four or five droplets--all highly enfolded--the relationship between them is still there in a very subtle way, even though it is not in space and not in time. But, of course, it can be transformed into space and time by turning the cylinder. The best metaphor might involve memory. We remember a great many events, which are all present together. Their succession is in that momentary memory: We don't have to run through them all to reproduce that time succession. We already have the succession. Omni: And a sense of movement--so you have replaced time with movement?

13. 13 Bohm: Yes, in the sense of movement of the symphony, rather than the movement of the orchestra on a bus, say, through physical space. Omni: What do you think that says about consciousness? Bohm: Much of our experience suggests that the implicate order is natural for understanding consciousness: When you are talking to somebody, your whole intention to speak enfolds a large number of words. You don't choose them one by one. There are any number of examples of the implicate order in our experience of consciousness. Any one word has behind it a whole range of meaning enfolded in thought” Consciousness is enfolded in each individual. “Formulas are means of talking utter nonsense until you understand what they mean. Every page of formulas usually contains six or seven arbitrary assumptions that take weeks of hard study to penetrate. Younger physicists usually appreciate the implicate order because it makes quantum mechanics easier to grasp. By the time they're through graduate school, they've become dubious about it because they've heard that hidden variables are of no use because they've been refuted. Of course, nobody has really refuted them” Here is the link to the Bohm interview http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm

14. 14 The similarity of the cosmological views of Cahill and Bohm I incorporate this information into my slide presentation because it seems that both scientists believed that observable reality emerges from a very deep cosmic process, a flowing movement of the whole itself. This argument is consistent with the views I express in my Awareness model, that there is an inter-reality (primordial and reflective) activity ever present in a concurrent state in 3D cosmic space foam. I quote two sources that seem to support my wider hypothesis in this area. We all subscribe to the phenomenon of a prespace cosmic environment. Quotes: 1] Brian Rothery "....Throughout the later decades of his life, Bohm sought a new order in physics. He proposed that the reality we see about us (the explicate order) is no more than the surface appearance of something far deeper (the implicate order). According to Bohm, the ground of the cosmos is not elementary particles but pure process, a flowing movement of the whole. Within this implicate order, Bohm believed, one could resolve the Cartesian split between mind and matter, or between brain and consciousness...“ http://www.whatisgoingon.org/bohm.html

15. 15 2] Prof. R. Cahill "...involves a stochastic iteration model containing no notion of space or matter, but that these phenomena will be seen to be emergent: it has the form that is very analogous to stochastic neural networks. Such networks were inspired by the supposed workings of the neural networks of brains. In such networks information is stored in the form of patterns of the neural connections, and not by symbols, and so we call this mathematical model of reality a Stochastic Neural Network (SNN) model. Of course in brains we normally only decompose the system to the level of neurons, whereas in the SNN model there is no such underlying support, it is all patterns. Then even the nodes and linkage values are themselves to be understood as deeper informational patterns, i.e. it must have a fractal structure. The key property of SNN is that (i) new information may be generated from the noise, (ii) information patterns interact, (iii) some information is permanently stored (memory), (iv) all process are actual, i.e. involve processing in the system by evolving the connectivity patterns, (v) the system has all the experiential properties of time, namely a present moment effect, partial records of past states, and some limited predictability of future behaviour. If such a SNN model of reality proves as successful as is now being claimed then we could, with some licence, adopt the ontology that reality is mind-like. In particular it seems that the fundamental self-referential aspects are modelling a deep form of primitive self-awareness, and as such with intrinsic limitations to that by means of the SRN. As we shall review next, from this arises within the SNN the phenomenon of quantum space and matter, so that an intrinsic form of consciousness is the explanation of these higher level phenomena, but now being described with a fully inclusive model of experiential time. This all suggests that reality is experiential at all levels, as suggested by Whitehead, and that higher levels of consciousness, as in humans and other life forms, may be exploiting this intrinsic self-awareness. We have called this particular form of deep information sematic information, because it has meaning within the system itself, unlike conventional physics where the system is modelled by syntactical information, and which has no meaning within the system. This notion of semantic information has been called active information by David Bohm…” Process Physics: Self-Referential Information and Experiential Reality Reginald T. Cahill, School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia

16. 16 An extended discussion, comparing Bohm’s implicit order (holographic) physics model, and Cahill’s Process Physics model. I had difficulty in understanding certain key features of both the cited models and so I turned to MFP for guidance. The following text is an extract from my note to MFP dated March 2014 Quote: “... I think I have understood what you have sent fairly well, but I am confused in the area of Cahill wave aether in relationship to Bohm’s background implicate energy hypothesis. As a layperson, I feel they are of the same nature and this is where I need your guidance. The extract is a section of a much wider secondary argument, and I have highlighted in red the respective areas I have difficulty bringing together” Quoted text from MFP in response. ”… Thanks for your questions. I have tried to clarify as follows. Referring to quantum theory, Bohm's basic assumption is that "elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated internal structure...., I believe that assumption is true, and if Cahill is correct his theory also implies that it is true.....acting essentially as amplifiers of *information* contained in a quantum wave." I am not sure what "amplifiers" means. However, in Cahill's theory, particles consist of quantum wave packets that contain information. As a conseqence, he (Bohm) has evolved a new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality that Bohm calls the "Implicate Order.“

17. 17 I think Cahill's neural network model that we have talked about shares some features with Bohm's "Implicate Order" as mentioned below. The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else.... In Cahill's neural network model everything is also connected to everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal "detailed information about every other element in the universe. This is not true of Cahill's model. This is because although in Cahill's model each element is connected to every other element, the information in his model lies in the relationships between the elements and not in the elements themselves. For example, if you had an array of dots, you could create a picture by drawing lines of various types between the dots. If you represented non-existence by joining dots with invisible ink, and physical structures by using visible ink, then every dot could be connected to every other dot, so as to represent an undivided universe, but individual dots would not reveal information about other dots. "The central underlying theme of Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders.“ That is true of Cahill's model too...... Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a "total content--in principle extending over the whole of space and time…is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region." The hologram illustrates how "information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film." It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is "completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns." Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object. That is true of holograms, but not of neural networks.

18. 18 So although Cahill's neural network model is completely interconnected, a small piece of it will not reveal the whole. In fact a small piece of it would not even function, because the whole has to be involved for anything to function. Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order--the Implicate Order where "everything is enfolded into everything." This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. This is a poetic idea because it implies that if you hold a piece of the universe in your own hands, then the rest of the universe is "enfolded" into it, so you are holding the whole universe in your own hands. However, with Cahill's model, if you are holding a piece of the universe in your hands, the rest of the universe is not enfolded. Nevertheless since everything is interconnected, if you are holding a piece of the universe, then you are also holding the rest, but with that rest lying outside rather than in your hands. Bohm believes that *the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality;* in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. The layers of the Implicate Order can go deeper and deeper to the ultimately unknown. It is this "unknown and undescribable totality" that Bohm calls the holomovement. The holomovement is the "fundamental ground of all matter.“ This is similar to Cahill's model if you accept that the iterations of his neural network correspond to the holomovement.....Bohm suggests that instead of thinking of particles as the fundamental reality, the focus should be on discrete particle-like quanta in a continuous field. I think Cahill's model suggests this too. More complex and subtle, this second category applies to a "superfield" or *information* that guides and organizes the original quantum field. Something similar may be true of Cahill's model too, because the quantum fields emerge from the patterns of information produced by his neural network. Bohm considers it to be similar to a computer which supplies the information that arranges the various forms-- in the first category.

19. 19 This seems similar to Cahill's model but Cahill models the information as coming from a neural network rather than a computer. Bohm's theory of the Implicate Order stresses that the cosmos is in a state of process. Cahill's theory of Process Physics with its neural network model stresses this too. Bohm's cosmos is a "feedback" universe that continuously recycles forward into a greater mode of being and consciousness. Cahill's neural network model includes feedback and continuously iterates forward. This would seem similar to recycling forward. At the very depths of the ground of all existence Bohm believes that there exists a special energy. For Bohm it is the plenum; it is an "immense background of energy." The energy of this ground is likened to one whole and unbroken movement by Bohm. He calls this the "holomovement." It is the holomovement that carries the Implicate Order. In Cahill's theory, the iterations of the neural network can be considered equivalent to the holomovement. As the neural network continuously produces patterns of information that correspond to the generation of expanding space and matter, it could be considered as source of unlimited background energy. A "movement in which new wholes are emerging." I think this corresponds to Cahill's claim that the iterations of the neural network unceasingly produce new patterns of information, which correspond to new structures of space and matter.

20. 20 Bohm also declares that the "implicate order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality." He proceeds: "In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its fields and particles. Thus we have to say that the holomovement enfolds and unfolds in a multidimensional order, the dimensionality of which is effectively infinite. Thus the principle of relative autonomy of sub- totalities--is now seen to extend to the multi-dimensional order of reality.“ The dimensionality of Cahill's neural network is effectively infinite. However the patterns of information that it produces tend to be mainly three dimensional, which provides an explanation of why we perceive ourselves as living in a three dimensional universe. Hope this helps. (MFP)

21. 21 Comparisons between the key themes of Bohm’s Implicit order model and the Awareness model (s) of physics The following text is quoted from an article by Beatrix Murrell. It has been selectively copied and pasted. I have responded to Murrell’s statements in defence of my Awareness model of physics. The Awareness model’s position( with information it brings forward) is that text below which has been italicised. Murrell’s presentation is derived from a primary source, that source being the noted physicist, David Bohm himself. Quotes: 1] “Referring to quantum theory, Bohm's basic assumption is that "elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information* contained in a quantum wave." As a consequence, he has evolved a new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality that Bohm calls the "Implicate Order." The Awareness model suggests all information and knowledge exists in a concurrent structure of primordial reality, reflective reality, and the process of a 4D dimension. This 4D dimension is the facilitator of infinite evolutionary processes (the metaphorical, all inclusive events and functions of reality). The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultra-holistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal "detailed information about every other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders.“ The awareness model of unbroken wholeness is cited above. The Awareness model also incorporates the phenomenon of individual and collective consciousness and attributes of individual thought construction and subsequent behaviour (these latter phenomena are not brought forward for discussion in this series of slide shows)

22. 22 2] During the early 1980s Bohm developed his theory of the Implicate Order in order to explain the bizarre behaviour of subatomic particles-behaviour that quantum physicists have not been able to explain. Basically, two subatomic particles that have once interacted can instantaneously "respond to each other's motions thousands of years later when they are light-years apart." This sort of particle interconnectedness requires superluminal signalling, which is faster than the speed of light. This odd phenomenon is called the EPR effect, named after the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment. The Awareness model sets out to demonstrate that the EPR paradox is not a paradox at all. 3] Bohm believes that the bizarre behaviour of the subatomic particles might be caused by unobserved sub-quantum forces and particles. Indeed, the apparent weirdness might be produced by hidden means that pose no conflict with ordinary ideas of causality and reality. The Awareness model suggests that unobserved sub-quantum forces exist through a turbulent interconnection between primordial reality (timelessness) and reflective 3D relative time reality. The Awareness model further suggests both these phenomena act concurrently within a 3D (complete foam space) environment. Bohm believes that this "hiddeness" may be reflective of a deeper dimension of reality. He maintains that space and time might actually be derived from an even deeper level of objective reality. This reality he calls the Implicate Order. Within the Implicate Order everything is connected; and, in theory, any individual element could reveal information about every other element in the universe. The Awareness model postulates that the deeper dimension Bohm talks about is the same concept as the all of reality (whole) hypothesis, it is modeled around. The Awareness model comparison of Bohm’s implicate order is Pavlov-NOW.

23. 23 4] "Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense *information* storage." Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a "total content--in principle extending over the whole of space and time--is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region." The hologram illustrates how "information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film." It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is "completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns." Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object. The Awareness model is not holographic but it does also include all informational processes of infinity (reality) in a folded field of primordial reality timelessness. In turn this information is (symbolically) manifested in a timeless fourth dimension wherein imaginary (virtual) processes take place. 5] Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order--the Implicate Order where "everything is enfolded into everything." This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus: "The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name *holomovement.*" The Awareness model caters for all such phenomena as well, and it also includes sub-quantum phenomena such as nature, consciousness and instinct. The Awareness model describes such sub-quantum activity as being fine quantum entangled.

24. 24 6] Bohm believes that *the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality;* in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. The layers of the Implicate Order can go deeper and deeper to the ultimately unknown. It is this "unknown and indescribable totality" that Bohm calls the holomovement. The holomovement is the "fundamental ground of all matter." The Awareness model is capable of probing into and (informationly) describe the deepest level of the unknown (reality). It postulates that the deepest unknown in this reality is a symbolic NOW (Pavlov – NOW) which is effectively a single thought. In absolute terms, the Awareness model postulates that reality emanated from nothing. 7] Finally, the manifest world is part of what Bohm refers to as the "explicate order." It is secondary, derivative; it "flows out of the law of the Implicate Order." Within the Implicate Order, there is a "totality of forms that have an approximate kind of recurrence (changing), stability, and separability." It is these forms, according to Bohm, that make up our manifest world. The Awareness model postulates our 3D world (universe) emanated from an implicit type of order as well. It postulates such an order as being primordial (timeless) reality via the medium of an all-embracing (concurrent) fourth dimension. 8] Summarizing, Bohm uses analogies most ingeniously as he attempts to simplify his theory. Bohm suggests that instead of thinking of particles as the fundamental reality, the focus should be on discrete particle-like quanta in a continuous field. On the basis of this quantum field, Bohm breaks down the Implicate Order into three categories:

25. 25 The Awareness model demonstrates a concurrent relationship between primordial time (reality) and reflective 3D (relativity) reality in the same space foam environment. This could be described as a hidden (virtual) particle – like quanta in a continuous field. 9] The first category is the original, "continuous field" itself along with its movement. Bohm likens this continuous field to a television screen displaying an infinite variety of explicate forms. The second category is obtained by considering super quantum wave function acting upon the field. ("This is related to the whole field as the original quantum wave is related to the particle.") More complex and subtle, this second category applies to a "super-field" or *information* that guides and organizes the original quantum field. Bohm considers it to be similar to a computer which supplies the information that arranges the various forms--in the first category. The Awareness model suggests that there is a super-wave type conjunction between the primordial features of a timeless fourth dimension (virtual activities) and,my conjcept of a fourth dimension. This conjunction could be seen as such, the fourth dimension could be seen as an infinite super field of information and knowledge that has been progressively facilitated since the origins of its concept of NOW (Pavlov-NOW). This process is analogues to cosmic information embodied within (akashic like) cosmic records. And last, Bohm believes that there is an underlying cosmic intelligence that supplies the information--the *Player* of this game who is the third category. Following this analogy, Bohm sees the whole process as a closed loop; it goes from the screen to the computer to the Player and back to the screen. The Awareness model supports the notion that the system of reality is an identifiable and describable closed loop of accumulated cosmic knowledge and intelligence. It argues that the whole of reality is projected forward via the infinite processes of primordial reality (primordial, timeless awareness) and NOW (Pavlov-NOW).

26. 26 10] Bohm's theory of the Implicate Order stresses that the cosmos is in a state of process. Bohm's cosmos is a "feedback" universe that continuously recycles forward into a greater mode of being and consciousness. Bohm believes in a special cosmic interiority. It *is* the Implicate Order, and it implies enfoldment into everything. Everything that is and will be in this cosmos is enfolded within the Implicate Order. There is a special cosmic movement that carries forth the process of enfoldment and unfoldment (into the explicate order). This process of cosmic movement, in endless feedback cycles, creates an infinite variety of manifest forms and mentality. Bohm is of the opinion that a fundamental Cosmic Intelligence is the *Player* in this process; it is engaged in endless experimentation and creativity. This Player, the Cosmic Mind, is moving cyclically onward and onward accruing an infinity of experienced being! The awareness model embraces the phenomenon of an IT, IS, IF which can be shown to causally unfold every aspect of reality (cosmic experience) whatsoever. The structural outline of Bohm's cosmic model is as follows: the Ground of All Existence, Matter, Consciousness, and the Cosmic Apex. 11] The grounds of all existence At the very depths of the ground of all existence Bohm believes that there exists a special energy. For Bohm it is the plenum; it is an "immense background of energy." The energy of this ground is likened to one whole and unbroken movement by Bohm. He calls this the "holomovement." It is the holomovement that carries the Implicate Order. The Awareness model suggests that there is inherent primordial energy in the whole of reality system which is

27. 27 manifested via the medium of a primordial fourth dimension, a dimension that is sub-seated below the relativistic quantum level. Bohm also refers to a law in the holomovement. He theorizes that the 'order in every immediately perceptible aspect of the world is to be regarded as coming out of a more comprehensive Implicate Order, in which all aspects ultimately merge in the undefinable and immeasurable holomovement. Holonomy, through a wide range of aspects, can be considered a "movement in which new wholes are emerging." The Awareness model describes how movement within all of reality is through the symbolic existence of blobs of information and knowledge which in turn is concurrent with the essential nature of primordial reality (primordial awareness and Pavlov – NOW). What is it that emerges from this ultimate ground, this "unknown totality of the universal flux?" It is the extension of the Implicate Order into a multidimensional reality. It is the interplay between the implicate and the explicate orders. It is the flow of matter, manifested and interdependent, towards consciousness. This concept has been discussed earlier on. The Awareness model also supports this hypothesis. 12] Matter: Inanimate and animate Right off Bohm refers to the particle, the most essential building- block of matter. He considers the particle, fundamentally, to be only an "abstraction that is manifest to our senses." Basically, for Bohm, the whole cosmos is matter; in his own words: "What *is* is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and interpenetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space." The Awareness model embraces this same concept and describes it via the concurrent causal relationships between IT, IF and IS.

28. 28 13] Bohm's explicate order, however, is secondary--derivative. It flows out of the law of the Implicate Order, a law that stresses the relationships between the enfolded structures that interweave each other throughout cosmic space rather than between the "abstracted and separate forms that manifest to the senses." The Awareness model describes this interwoven effect in great detail through the medium of fine quantum entanglement at every conceivable level of reality. Bohm's explanation of "manifest" is basically that in certain sub-orders, within the "whole set" of Implicate Order, there is a "totality of forms that have an approximate kind of recurrence, stability and separability." These forms are capable of appearing tangible, solid, and thus make up our manifest world. The Awareness model also embraces these ideas as already shown above. 14] Bohm also declares that the "implicate order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality." He proceeds: "In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its fields and particles. Thus we have to say that the holomovement enfolds and unfolds in a multidimensional order, the dimensionality of which is effectively infinite. Thus the principle of relative autonomy of sub-totalities--is now seen to extend to the multi- dimensional order of reality." The Awareness model embraces this notion as well, for the reasons discussed above.

29. 29 15] Bohm illustrates this higher-dimensional reality by showing the relationship of two televised images of a fish tank, where the fish are seen through two walls at right angles to one another. What is seen is that there is a certain "relationship between the images appearing on the two screens." We know, Bohm notes, that the two fish tank images are interacting actualities, but they are not two independently existent realities. "Rather, they refer to a single actuality, which is the common ground of both." For Bohm this single actuality is of higher dimensionality, because the television images are two-dimensional projections of a three-dimensional reality, which "holds these two-dimensional projections within it." These projections are only abstractions, but the "three-dimensional reality *is* neither of these--rather it is something else, something of a nature beyond both." The Awareness model embraces this same idea because it describes 3D relative reality as acting concurrently with primordial (timeless) reality, which, in effect, means that 3D reality has embraced within it both relative (clock) time as well as timeless primordial time in exactly the same 3D universe (cosmic) environment. 16] If there is apparent evolution in the universe, it is *because the different scales or dimensions of reality are already implicit in its structure.* Bohm uses the analogy of the seed being "informed" to produce a living plant. The same can be said of all living matter. "Life is enfolded in the totality and--even when it is not manifest, it is somehow implicit." The holomovement is the ground for both life and matter. There is no dichotomy. The Awareness model supports this statement for reasons already given above.

30. 30 Comparison of Two Models of Reality Awareness ModelProcess Physics Model 1At its deepest level, reality consists of awareness and everything that we can perceive and observe consists of patterns of information in that awareness. Process Physics models physical space and quantum phenomena as patterns of information within a stochastic neural network. If this model corresponds to reality, then everything that we can perceive and observe would consist of patterns of information in such a network, which though infinite in size, is conceptually simple. 2In the beginning, the awareness may have contained no patterns of information, but if so, we can suppose it had a capacity to create random patterns. In the beginning, the network may have contained no patterns of information, but as a stochastic network, it would have a capacity to continuously create random patterns. 3As random patterns were created, a proportion would have had structures that would allow them to be linked into more complex patterns. We can suppose that the awareness allowed this to occur and that complex patterns could better persist than the simpler ones. As random patterns were created, a proportion would have had structures that would allow them to be linked into more complex patterns. Feedback in such a network allows this to occur and allows complex patterns that link to others to better persist than simpler ones. 4Then over time patterns could emerge and evolve of increasing complexity. Then over time patterns can emerge and evolve of increasing complexity. Computer simulation of a particular network was found to predominately generate 3 dimensional patterns that could be identified as an expanding 3 dimensional space and with other more highly linked patterns corresponding to quantum matter. 5We suppose this eventually led to a set of patterns with the right features to produce the universe in which we find ourselves. Eg. replication of patterns responsible for creating 3 dimensional space could produce the phenomenon of a universe expanding from a big bang. Evolution of patterns could then eventually lead to patterns with the right features to produce the universe in which we find ourselves. Eg. replication of patterns responsible for creating 3 dimensional space could produce the phenomenon of a universe expanding from a big bang. 6We cannot perceive or observe anything outside our universe, however if physical objects consist of patterns of information within a deeper level of awareness, then that awareness might constitute a kind of fourth dimension. We cannot perceive or observe anything outside our universe, however if physical objects consist of patterns of information within a deeper network then that network might constitute a kind of fourth dimension. 7After dying the patterns of information corresponding to our physical body must fade away. But how about the patterns of information corresponding to our mental activity? Could they continue to persist within the deeper level awareness even after our physical body no longer exists? After dying the patterns of information corresponding to our physical body must fade away. But how about the patterns of information corresponding to our mental activity? Could they continue to persist within the deeper network even after our physical body no longer exists? 8Is our personal awareness linked to or produced by the deeper awareness? Is our personal awareness produced by the deeper network and if so is the deeper network also in some sense aware?

31. 31 Evidence that non-locality (fine quantum entanglement) exists NATURE, VOL 398, 18 MARCH 1999, www.nature.comwww.nature.com http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf The experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities confirms that a pair of entangled photons separated by hundreds of metres must be considered a single non-separable object — it is impossible to assign local physical reality to each photon. That seems a clear claim that non-locality (fine quantum entanglement) exists

32. 32 An extension of slide 31 Evidence that reality itself, is non-local “However, what John Bell showed, in his profound and simple proof, is that NO CONCEIVABLE LOCAL REALITY CAN UNDERLIE THE LOCAL QUANTUM FACTS. Bell proved, in short, that REALITY IS NON-LOCAL.” These words mean reality is not relativistic which in turn means it is metaphysical, just as is nature itself.

33. 33 What all these slides mean in terms of my Awareness model of physics Common sense seems to suggest that local quantum facts that are observed in everyday experiments (and daily life experience) ought to be able to be modelled by an equally local underlying local quantum reality (the unknown)

34. 34 For readers who are more scientifically inclined than others, I invite you to peruse the following articles. In one way or other, I have incorporated selected information from each one of them. In other words I am giving you the opportunity to better context information I have brought forward in each slide. Alternative cosmologies article Cahill: http://www.independent.com/news/2013/feb/17/alternative-cosmologies-part-i/ Cahill slide show: http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Cahill%20powerpoint.ppt Long article Hiley talks about Bohm: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6057v1 Bohm semi biographic article: http://www.whatisgoingon.org/bohm.html Article by Van Dijk: http://www.academia.edu/1424626/An_Introduction_to_Process-Information_- _From_Information_Theory_to_Experiential_Reality

35. 35 Why should anything exist at all? Is the text that follows the defining argument on ideas postulated in Shelf Three? (MFP composed these words on behalf of the Awareness model of physics) Quote: “Some people ask the most awkward questions! But here is a possible answer. Suppose there was no such thing as perfection. Then there could be no perfect nothingness. Then something would have to exist, and if it was nearly nothing, it would be an insignificant node (blob/s). But if one such node could exist, why not two? And if two could exist why not three, etc? This logic would force the existence of an infinite number. And then of course they could not be perfectly separated, so they would all be very weakly linked. So from lack perfection, logic gives us an infinite number of weakly connected nodes. Then owing to lack of perfection, there could be no such thing as a perfectly unchanging situation.

36. 36 So change of some kind would have to occur and the kind of change could not be perfectly unchanging either. So after sufficient time, lack of perfection might lead to a kind of change that corresponds to the algorithm mentioned above. Upon first consideration that might seem unlikely, but it could be the case that other kinds of change don't have any significant effect, so that the only kind of change that does, is the kind of change that corresponds to the algorithm mentioned above. Then neural network like (Pavlov-NOW) operation would be inevitable. Anyway, we are here! (MFP-JF)

37. 37 This slide concludes my Shelf Three slide presentation pertaining to my Awareness model of physics. I hope you have found it to be an interesting and entertaining journey. I am treating this Shelf Three series of slides as being the concluding chapter and summary of my 2011 thesis entitled ‘The Layperson’s guide to Nothing’. This particular work was never originally intended to be concluded this way but as my ability to continue to think, explore and write as I have over the last five years is now in doubt, I feel the time has come to do so in such a manner. Furthermore I believe it is a sensible and fitting end to the project anyway. However, whilst it is still feasible for me, it is my intention to keep my mind active and continue to write with the ultimate objective of completing Shelf Four. It will be the most difficult shelf of them all, as it is intended to be more materially descriptive. I have many new ideas I would like to bring forward in this shelf if the opportunity presents itself. However, as I have learned along the way, continued outside assistance will be needed for me to continue to do so. Furthermore, at a much more dedicated and intensive level, I have been most fortunate to have external assistance over recent years, and I will be forever grateful for this.. As I have indicated in my earlier writings I would very much like to attempt (with outside help) to better understand phenomena that may be sitting behind the mystery of wave particle collapse and the essential nature of gravitational forces (from an informational perspective). Such information may also be applicable to my Awareness model and other models of a parallel nature to it. Whilst it is possible that I will never complete Shelf Four, I also intend to write short articles relating to philosophical subjects (like death, emotions, dreams and out-of-body experiences) that also may have some sort of relevance to my Awareness model of physics. Such speculative research stimulates my thinking, and I feel that readers such as yourselves may be similarly interested (website clicks demonstrate this). As I am a great believer in Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Field theory, I see this as being a reasonable objective to pursue for the remainder of my active life. Thank you all and try not forget the word “noetic” This single word is what my wider story has always been all about. Life is surely just one big mystery?