**Implicate order**Although submerged beneath the placid surface of generalization, implicate order can be very tangible...!

For example, a deck of playing cards might be arranged to that it appears to be randomly shuffled until one is shown or notices a pattern to the cards. This hidden order could be called implicate with respect to those who are unaware of the pattern arranged by the dealer, and 'explicate' to those who make use of the pattern.

What if, like quantum theory, you were congenitally unable to make out any patterns (in arrangements of playing cards) except that of a pure unshuffled deck? (...then you would use the word "random" for any configuration of cards which is sufficiently mixed-up looking.)...but typically, of course, biological systems are attuned to implicately threaded information: rather than hearing sounds or noticing smells precisely in order of the physical magnitude of the sense data, organisms react to nuances of the environment which relate to their special interests.

**In the implicate sea of sound, smell, and light, the signature patterns of predator and prey, of family and beloved, are prioritized.****Nonlocality**As conceptualized in modern theory the subtle orders spanning the spectrums of sound, smell, and light have something very important in common: they are local, passing through space one step at a time.

**Changes in a quantum mechanical state affect the entire universe...**...for example, when two spin-1/2 particles are created together in what is called the singlet state then subsequent measurements of their respective spins will be correlated in a nonlocal way (because they are born from a zero angular momentum state).

Bell's 1964 theorem states that with respect to the properties of multi-particle systems there is a well defined upper limit on the degree of correlation which can be derived from what he termed a 'local parameter theory.'

**As is well known, in the case of the two particle singlet state quantum theory correctly predicts greater correlation than this local parameter limit.**After the particles separate one can ask them pairs of questions and receive consistent answers. It turns out that the great variety of possible questions implies a greater degree of over-all correlation than could possibly result from local parameters.Bell's proof shows that it is not consistent to suppose that the choice of which spin attribute is measured does not influence the actual results of measuring certain spin attributes of the *other* particle -

**the proof shows that the two particles are not performing their spin dance according to a prearranged script which they each carry separately around with them.****Nonlocal order**To say, a la Bell, that the world is nonlocal, is to make a strong claim: that what actually happens in the world is different from what would or could happen in a local universe.

**What actually happens is that a nonlocally self-referencing web of interrelationships persists and develops, characterized by a high degree of correllation imposed by symmetry - Imposed correlations like this (which are ubiquitous since all physical systems have momentum-energy relationships with other systems) constitute continuous formative constraints on the evolution of the universe.**As a corollary, the world may be quite generally expected to have corresponding nonlocal patterns running throughout.

Such patterns are orderings which are not explicitly represented within the formalism of science.

**They are what have been called 'implicate' orders...**(From this perspective, Bohm and friends are using the idea of implicate order to get a handle on the nuts and bolts interconnections which are already prominent aspects of the quantum description.**Patterns and information...**I have used the phrase 'nonlocal pattern' - it must be considered what could be meant by this. One often hears that the randomness of quantum mechanics "washes out" the nonlocality in actual practice, but proofs to this effect have been exaggerated! Within normal quantum mechanics proofs against nonlocal signalling are considered complete - however, they are based on a potentially unwarrented assumption, as was pointed out by Josephson and Viras.