Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena?

I believe the multifaceted nature of reality makes this impossible

I consider that reality physics is a model that can address the fundamental elements of reality in three parts. These elements are information, process and change. These parts are conditions that have both local (physical) and non-local (non-physical) properties.

I think that we should consider these combined elements and properties as being representative of a matrix of all that “IS’. These words mean that the local and non-local mechanics of reality are an informational stochastic process. This is as if it were events relating to its own reference frame as well as objects emanating from itself. This process relating to the matrix is without time, and under certain circumstances (relating to conditions, influences and effects relating thereto) might then be aware of itself as being in a ‘state of something’. It is this state of awareness of itself that we call space. Some physicists refer to this space as being space foam. We measure movement and change in space with clocks and this is why Einstein called space, space-time.

From a physical science perspective therefore, when we consider that this matrix of informational conditions ‘surrounds’ us in every conceivable set of circumstances that such circumstances are both macroscopic and microscopic in nature. Furthermore it is possible to understand that macroscopic and microscopic somehow influence each other. This includes all that is physical and all that is not. Thus it can be said that it is from these space-time conditions that elementary particles such as electrons, neutrino’s, gluons, preons and quarks might emerge. It is these five types of informational ‘things’ that are necessary to give these things some sort of local and non-local status that we can identify with and make sense of. This includes under what circumstances, and how and why we ‘fit’ into this informational matrix as well.

Thus I feel that quantum mechanics is neither a precise theory nor does it ‘dig’ deep enough into the matrix of informational reality that I am discussing at this time. When I say deep enough I mean into the sub quantum domain where hidden geometric forms, entangled fractal patterns and other similar type hidden variables from which sub-quantum ‘things’ can be mathematically identified and predicted. This includes what the ‘natural energy of the universe might be, where mass and charge come from and where from do particles obtain the properties that they do.

My purpose today is to bring forward a series of quotations from a document entitled ‘The Quantum Interventions’. These quotations come from the eminent physicists Antony Valentini at a time when he was being interviewed by journalist Maximiliasan Schlosshauer with respect to the quantum mechanics debate. This includes Valentini’s criticism of it. This document is in a lengthy question and answer format. Here are questions Valentini discusses in question seven. You will find that Valentini discusses certain items that are also relational to my introductory words above.

This is the difficulty of separating physics things that are informationally non-local and local. When I address the question of separating macroscopic and microscopic things with regard to question seven. I will not always attempt to formally address the particular difficulties Valentini seems to have identified with quantum mechanics. What I will do at different times is to relate Valentini’s words and ideas to some of the ideas I have presented to you in the opening section of this blog, as well as express my ideas with respect to any given point that I feel are appropriate to further discuss.

I have cut and pasted eight different parts of text from question seven as described and have made eight different sets of comments and I have addressed each one separately.

Quotation 1.


What Valentini appears to be saying is that the world we experience and observe around us is incomplete at its deepest physical level. I believe it when he says that there are no precisely defined boundaries between the microscopic and macroscopic level is because in my opinion there is none. The reason for this is that reality physics is both informational, and local and non-local at the same time. I say that informational non-local physics at its deepest level ‘dominates’ local physics. Local physics is somehow beholden to non-local physics as is demonstrated by quantum entanglement theory and new physics discoveries relating to the influences and effects of hidden variables. Hidden variables are associated with and described in this associated and important non-locality blog that I recently posted. I believe that there is no such thing as objective reality. There is a describable reality like I am discussing with you today in the local reference frame of space time reality. However, this does not include the influence and effects of non-local fields (including entanglement) upon the local reality field that we refer to as we commonly state as being objective reality.

Quotation 2.


What Valentini seems to be discussing here is that whereas an apparatus positioned in a lab may point in a particular direction with respect to particles, it generally has indefinite positions relating to them. he says that because of the inseparable relationship between macroscopic and microscopic systems there can never be a definite relationship between both scales of either. You will see why I agree with Valentini, that such a separation is impossible. This is because of the properties of both non-locality and entanglement that are unpredictable with regard to the local macroscopic field of objects and events relating to these objects in any reference frame.

Question 3.


Valentini raises the question as to what is real and not real. What he is questioning is the common use of language with respect to different reference frames as well as that of an observer. Vaalentini is questioning why ‘something’ is only real in physics once it has been observed. He distinguishes what is real and not real with respect to reality science by dismissing the notion of ‘realness’ with any object or event. Valentini seems to be saying that realness should be related to being a state of tangible objectiveness with respect to something such as if a cat is dead or alive or not. I say that because of the concurrent relational properties of entanglement of local and non-local physics no specific human reasoning can be applied to such a relationship. This is because we are applying local reasoning to discuss such physics and not always intuitive elements as well. The best that can be done is to attempt to predict something.

Question 4.


Valentini continues to discuss the elements of item three. What he seems to be suggesting is that it is not correct for physics to say that the ever changing measurement in a lab physics problem has something to do with a higher being (a God’s eye view’) of all that ‘IS’. This is either inside or outside the lab. He is saying that the dial and pointer associated with any given apparatus relates to the apparatus only. The facts relating to the apparatus are in respect of how ‘something’ is influencing the apparatus to provide measurable information in the manner that it does. So such a fact is a local fact. The fact that a local fact is a response to a separate non-local fact (whether it might be in the mind of the observer or wider non measureable space foam influence) means that any true fact is one that incorporates both local and non-local information with respect to their concurrent relationship with each other.

Question 5.


Valentini talks about what the word logic really means. He relates logic as being related to clear thinking and description. He distinguishes between creative mathematical descriptions and predictions with clear thinking. He says it is a mistake to dismiss something (like an inconclusive lab experiment) when such a a failure is related to classical (rigid) logic. In other words he is saying that a clear problem deserves a clear answer devoid of classical rules or expectations to the meaning of the word logic.

Question 6.


Valentini says it is wrong to to dismiss objective reality as being reality on a macroscopic scale. I have addressed the notion of reality and what it is in various question responses above.

Question 7.


Valentini says that in order to make quantum mechanics a precise theory there must be ‘something’ that extends into into the macroscopic domain. This microscopic domain is the matrix of non-local information that not only means something unto itself but also its concurrent local (physical) domain as well. The Awareness model demonstrates this relationship, as do others.

Question 8.


Valentini says it is wrong for physics to talk only about definite states of objective reality relating to macroscopic reality and this is why there is so much controversy in the realm of of physics. He points out that there is obvious ambiguity when one tries to separate things that are macroscopic and macroscopic. I have addressed the inappropriateness of this where I have described reality ass being an informational one of process and change in relation to itself. This means with reference to the matrix of information that I have described.

If you have found merit in some of Valentini’s ideas I urge you to further review the whole of the interview with Valentini relating to the subject ‘The Quantum Interventions’.

You will find that the contents of my blog entitled “The inescapable duality of all “things”” are complementary to this presentation.

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.

How David Bohm focused his (Gnostic) insight into the quantum world.

It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.

Bohm attempted to explain reality by describing an ontological (metaphysical) basis for quantum theory

As most of my readers would probably know I believe reality is metaphysical and also that every facet of reality is somehow connected to each other. I also believe this connection has remained this way since the outset from the formation of reality from nothing and furthermore this connection can be demonstrated via secular means. This is what my Awareness model of physics attempts to demonstrate. If you have never read my work before I strongly urge you to peruse my blog “The relationship between reality meta-language and our personal belief systems“. By doing so this will help you to better context my words above but also why I have decided to share with you the contents of this blog in the first place.

The attached article has been chosen to be featured in this blog because I feel it serves the purpose of what I am attempting to achieve. The article does not replace the contents of my blog “Why I think David Bohm is a hero of science” it seeks to compliment it by adding some of the more deep beliefs that Bohm had about more profound aspects of existence, and existence that some readers may identify with as being spiritual. Keep in mind I write solely from a secular perspective.

There are ten pages (including bibliography) in the article and I have underlined certain sections of text that I feel are most relevant to the purpose of the message I am attempting to convey to you. I will now proceed to summarize each nine pages of principle text. This may help you if you are interested in one aspect of a debate rather than that of another.

Page one:

Bohm’s primary interests in his later life were focused upon the wellbeing of humanity. He was one of the most important physicists of the 20th century and he tried to meld his wider knowledge of history and philosophy into his ideas as a physicist. He promoted these properties as to being the basis of quantum theory. Bohm believed elementary particles in the cosmos were amplifiers of information with which enriched his theory of a model of reality that he nominated as being the implicate order. Bohm also believed that all phenomena are somehow connected to each other and also that there are no borders with this connectedness.

Page two:

Bohm believed his implicate order could explain the weird behavior of subatomic particles and that this bizarre behavior might be caused by unexplained sub-quantum forces ad particles and that this undecided phenomena might be derivative of an even deeper level of reality and it is this belief that lead him to believe that his physics model was holographic and that this holographic-implicate order contained dense information, information that could also be seen to be like folding it into a film. He also felt his model could be extended into a multidimensional reality.

Page three:

Bohm also believed that his implicate order also had explicit characteristics (something clearly definable). Implicit characteristics could include thought, consciousness, instinct and if one believes in a deity; a “God” figure as well. In science explicit characteristics are everyday things that scientists experiment with (like particle physics) as well as ourselves. A chair is an explicit item and so is the big toenail on your left foot (my descriptive words). Bohm believed that all such phenomena could be contained in a single field of physics information but at the same time there exists a much more complex and important field that influences the phenomena in the ordinary field and be referred to this additional field as a super field of information that guides and influences the ordinary field. (This is very similar to my concept of a fourth dimension that can also be seen as being like Bohm’s super field). Bohm also believed that there is an inherent cosmic intelligence entwined in this wide ranging process. (Which is very much akin to my Awareness model hypothesis).

Page four:

Bohm believed there is a huge background energy to his model that he called the holo-movement and it is this more complex holo-movement reality as we know it emerged that is an unknown totality of the interplay between implicate and explicit phenomena. He also believed that it is via this melding of cosmic phenomena and cosmic consciousness (self consciousness) that the universe emerged (which is akin to my cosmic awareness). Bohm saw this implicit and explicit interaction as being framed in some sort of order and sub-orders which could in time create multiple dimensional realities. Bohm used a fish tank analogy to demonstrate his point.

Page five:

Bohm believed there are two interacting realities and these are not separate to each other because they are linked to a concept of a higher dimensionality. He sees 3D reality as not being a part of this process. He sees this combination of realities as being like the seed for 3D reality and it is the seed itself that is informed to produce a living plant. It is the cosmic information contained within the seed that allows 3D life to unfold, and it is from this process that it can be seen that Bohm’s concept of holo-movement is ground for both life and matter and there is no dichotomy. In other words all life and matter emanate from Bohm’s description of a super field of energy as I earlier talked about (my words).

Bohm links consciousness and awareness (I do not, I say both are in a concurrent relationship with each other). And that human beings participate in the wholeness his ideas about reality to give it meaning. Bohm believed human beings are in total context within the implicate order of his model and that they are not only individual parts of the wholeness but also rendered the ability to focus on something larger then mankind.

Page six:

Bohm believes there is an underlying cosmic consciousness of the whole of mankind (I say awareness) and that it is indivisible. Furthermore it is the responsibility of mankind to continue to build upon this common consciousness in a manner that is beneficial to the common consciousness of mankind as a whole. Bohm believes that mankind should eventually be able to elevate common consciousness to something akin to a common spirit that is a more active player in the implicate order and it is from this more active interaction that a subtle, non-active, common intelligence will evidence that is beyond the energies of a single defined thought (I say thought is replaced by instantaneous, common, cosmic intent). Bohm links the ability of individuals within the cosmic order to influence the wider order is via the medium of meditation. Bohm died when he was middle aged. It is belatedly believed by scientists that Bohm was saying we all have the ability to contact what he called the infinite potential which he scientifically referred to being multidimensional. Perhaps this is a deity like entity because Bohm believes such phenomena may be separate to ourselves.

Page seven:

Bohm believed that before consciousness there is information, information that evolved into consciousness with insight. Bohm believed thought is basically mechanical and that which makes thought processes relevant is intelligence. He believes intelligence is an unconditional act of perception and that intelligence has to be beyond any knowable law, a law that is undetermined. Bohm continued to argue that it is for wrong for human beings to see themselves is an independent actuality that interact with other human beings and with nature. He says we are merely projections of a single reality (I refer to these sorts of projections as being experiences). Bohm considers that consciousness is an exchange between the explicit and implicit order. (I say both awareness and consciousness are at play.

Page eight:

Page eight is very abstract and some sections of it I do not fully understand myself. Bohm talks about cosmic “knowers” who are the players of the cosmic process, which is pure energy. He says that these knowers are intelligent, it is consciousness, it is a person and it is creative. Bohm seems to be saying this creativity is not much unlike Mandelbrot’s derived fractals. He described fractals involving an overall order of similar differences but at the same time fullest with information. (It is also possible that Bohm may be talking about a single deity but I do not think he is. I think he is talking about the inner potential for each and every one of us to be deity like, which may be another way of saying spiritual). Bohm sees holiness as being beyond what can be grasped in thought and that holiness has existed since the formation of the cosmos. (I see this holiness as being my concept of primordial awareness i.e. like being in a very deep state of mediation). He also says holiness unfolds information into many levels of consciousness, into all of life. (I say our inherent sense of individual awareness is the same thing). Bohm suggests, mainly through ignorance, is causing the wide spread distress of non-human universality. I think Bohm is saying the wider environment as a whole.

Page nine:

Bohm is dispassionate about life and death. He says “…the leaves are continually forming (ourselves) and some are dropping off at the same time, so it looks as though it is a constant tree.” Bohm says human beings are ignorant and this ignorance is as a result of closed mindedness, closed mindedness derivative from ego. He suggests that it is because ego we are taking ourselves out from supreme intelligence (I say primordial awareness). Bohm believes that every aspect of human experience, whether physical or mental, emotional or intellectual can be profoundly affected by creative intelligence – whenever it is able to act because things now alive have new meaning. The article seems to be suggesting that Bohm may have had in mind that mankind could one day rise to an enlightened ascension (I think he means to a higher degree of spirituality) to a new type of being. As readers are already probably aware then I argue that primordial awareness and thought are the inherent characteristics of every aspect of reality. I also believe the only manner in which physics – science will be able to more fully understand the essential characteristics of reality is to get to the heart of quantum mechanics. See pdf file below:

The Cosmic Plenum Bohms Gnosis and the Implicate Order

Maxwell’s Demon converts information into energy

A laboratory conducted experiment in has established that a 150 year old scientific belief is valid

The background to this Japanese experiment is that, using real time feed back control, it is possible to to make particles climb a spiral stair-case like potential exerted by an electric field and gain free energy larger than the amount of work done on it. You will find the original experiment is presented in Nature Physics 6, 988-922 (2010)

It is my opinion that this experiment has enormous relevance to all divisions of science. I include in these words science relating to sub-quantum phenomena such as I that am promoting with my sub quantum Awareness model of physics.

Maxwell’s Demon Converts Information into Energy