Editing Implicate and explicate order (section)

=== Quantum theory and relativity theory ===
A key motivation for Bohm in proposing a new notion of order was the [[List of unsolved problems in physics#Quantum gravity|well-known incompatibility]] of [[Quantum mechanics|quantum theory]] with [[relativity theory]].  {{harvnb|Bohm|1980|p=xv}}  summarised the state of affairs he perceived to exist:

<blockquote>...in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined.  Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by [[Wiktionary:signal|signals]], and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state).  One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness.</blockquote>

Bohm maintained that relativity and quantum theories are in basic [[contradiction]] in these essential respects, and that a new concept of order should begin with that toward which both theories point: undivided wholeness.  This should not be taken to mean that he advocated such powerful theories be discarded.  He argued that each was relevant in a certain context—i.e., a set of interrelated conditions within the explicate order—rather than having unlimited scope, and that apparent contradictions stem from attempts to overgeneralize by superposing the theories on one another, implying greater generality or broader relevance than is ultimately warranted.  Thus, {{harvnb|Bohm|1980|pp=156–167}}  argued: "... in sufficiently broad contexts such analytic descriptions cease to be adequate ... 'the law of the whole' will generally include the possibility of describing the 'loosening' of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts ... however, any form of relative [[Wikt:autonomy|autonomy]] (and [[Wikt:heteronomy|heteronomy]]) is ultimately limited by [[holonomy]], so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction."