I was reading a very interesting book earlier that critiques some of the New Age interpretations of physics that have sprung up in popular press. This holds especially for subjects like quantum mechanics, whose theoretical implications have been used to justify an array of quasi-mystical beliefs. The author takes great pains to argue the purely materialistic foundation of quantum mechanics, and to explain that some of the most "provocative" theories to spring up from the field are exactly that- theories.
David Bohm, one of the great quantum physicists of the 20th century, came on to argue that there is an "implicate order" to the universe, held together through an unknown force called the quantum potential. It is one way to interpret results that have experimental verification, that a local quantum reality does not exist, and that particles appear to influence one another at great distances faster than the speed of light. Bohm's interpretation holds that there is an unknown, subquantum force that influences the behavior of particles, and that this force is essentially based upon characteristics of all other particles in the universe.
Meaning, then, that every particle is fundamentally connected to every other particle. The author I was reading is very critical of this interpretation, pointing out that it is a very "creative" way to interpret the data that itself lacks experimental verification or support.
Bohm himself used this theory as a sort of cornerstone of a personal mysticism of sorts, based in the radical interconnectedness of all things. I've also read that approximately a third of practicing quantum physicists subscribe to the Bohm interpretation, because at present it is the only broad hypothesis that voices the strange aspects of quantum mechanics in fairly classical terms. Meaning, Bohm says there is something real causing these strange effects, they have meaning beyond the numbers, and we can in theory study it. At present we can either assume a hidden, nonlocal force binding together all particles in the universe, or presume that the numerical interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only reality, or look to equally peculiar theories like the many-worlds hypothesis. Or we can simply remain conservative, as the author recommends, and refuse to adhere to concepts prior to their basic in experimental evidence.
I've rambling. What I actually found the most interesting in this was the basic desire being dealt with, the desire to use science to justify a mystical presentation of the world. As long as people desire a deeper holism than they encounter in their daily lives, there will be a market for this sort of sloppy appropriation.
What draws us to seek out mystical conditions, like ESP or action-at-a-distance, or some version of the Ether to connect all people and things? The leftist in me would argue that alienation and disempowerment in our daily lives propels this desire. But there's something more to it, something slightly deeper. The desire for genuine connection to the world can't just be chalked up to social alienation based on property regimes. That's part of it- the collapse of community in the face of commerce and work discipline does impel us to express desire for connection and continuity in the abstract and the mythic.
It seems though that this also serves a dual function that is more existential. On the one hand, in a world such as ours in which the boundaries limiting communities of interaction are so constantly diminishing, believing in some unifying substrate to the world, some larger Force, has a very reassuring function. Instead of having to make the genuine connections of community that are harder and harder to maintain, we can gain comfort in a belief that the connection is already there beneath our efforts. It makes the pain and chaos we encounter in life much more bearable to believe it is ontologically ephemeral, that at the end of the day we're all connected, we're all as significant as everyone else.
I have mixed feelings about this orientation. I understand it, and I even adopt it for moral support in rough times. And I think there are ways in which it is true. In a global market, our economic activities do matter as parts within the whole system. In communities, however simple, our actions can carry over in unexpected ways. In the global communication system we have built, our words and ideas can in theory transport across continents and sometimes do- as a net effect expansive communication, dialog and analysis have been democratized in ways never conceivable.
So holism in our lives is not necessarily a foundational condition. It's something to be created, to be experimented with and worked towards. And we must take care that the security of connection is not simply an excuse for refusing responsibility for our actions, or refraining from actively constructing the community we desire.