Formalisms for “implicate-explicate”: comparing notes between psychophysiology and QM
In order to understand dynamics at the micro level (such as QM) it is sometimes useful to look to the macro level, such as psychological, biological and social processes. Bohm and others observed similarities between such processes and QM: stochasticity, distributed actions of multi-party systems, energy transfer and transformations, multiplicity of and changes in degrees of freedom, boundary conditions, etc. Neurophysiological processes have properties that, perhaps, QM and loop gravity models can benefit from, as summarized in the Functional Constructivism (FC) paradigm and in evolutionary theories. FC considers natural processes as being generated every time anew, based on capacities of contributing parties and environmental demands. Formal FC descriptors overlap with QM principles but include several unique features: 1) Zone of Proximate Development (serving as boundary conditions); 2) (peer) systems with multiple siblings and ensembles (differing from those in statistical mechanics); 3) systems with internalized integration of behavioral elements (“cruise controls”); 4) systems capable of handling low-probability, future events; 5) functional differentiation within systems. The recursive dynamics among these descriptors which act on (traditional) downward, upward and horizontal directions of evolution is conceptualized as diagonal evolution, or dievolution. Several analogies between these FC descriptors, Bohmian “implicate-explicate orders” and emergent QM constructs are given. FC interactions consider implicit processes as non-local, real and epistemically inaccessible, with strong retro-causal effects – in line with evolutionary theories and psychophysiological observations. Observer/agents are considered as mostly blind (but not necessarily wrong). Consciousness serves as only a small part of self-regulatory and reflexive processes.