Thus, in its totality, the holomovement is not limited in any specifiable way at all. It is not required to conform to any particular order, or to be bounded by any particular measure. Thus, the holomovement is undefinable and immeasurable.
To give primary significant to the undefinable and immeasurable holomovement implies that it has no meaning to talk of a fundamental theory, on which all of physics could find a permanent basis, or to which all the phenomena of physics could ultimately be reduced. Rather, each theory will abstract a certain aspect that is relevant only in some limited context, which is indicated by some appropriate measure. ~Bohm http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf
Such words (of the author of the blog) might be difficult for the trained reader to see as a thought concept, but by ring generator and axioms we mean to describe a certain machine that might be understood in relation to understanding a more Bohmian style of observing language. The machine has no physical bounds and is somewhat theoretical by this nature. The inputs are axioms (example to follow later) which create rings. A ring is an axiom or collection of axioms that interact in order to form a law, where as a collection of laws define universes. The machine starts empty, in the K-state, and so has no theoretical or physical bounds at its root, and thus as with Bohm’s explanation of implicate order can create universes outside its own bounds (if it had any), and mufti-verses etc. The limits are intrinsically undefined from its very fundamental state (axiom-less). We call this the Bukka box.
There is not necessarily a creator or a master of the axioms beyond the Bukka box.
In Bohmian to create a universe from a set or laws created by sets of rings, we might say “the rings are this”, rather than “lets make the rings this” (or rather than “something” or “someone” makes the rings this).
Here is one example in relation to two perspectives on the brain.
We might then begin to list all sorts of different types of axioms and perspectives in order to alleviate our assumptions on what axioms might create which paradigms.
Some examples are:
Separation and anonymity of mind and thoughts from others.
Time as we commonly know it.
In discussing how attention is to be called to such aspects, it is useful to recall that the word ‘relevant’ is a form obtained from the verb ‘to relevate’ which has dropped out of common usage, and which means ‘to lift up’ (as in ‘elevate’). We can thus say in a particular context that may be under consideration, the general modes of description that belong to a given theory serve to relevate a certain content, i.e., to lift it into attention so that it stands out ‘in relief’. If this content is pertinent in the content under discussion, it is said to be relevant, and otherwise, irrelevant.~Bohm
Later will will go in-depth in the different distinctions of these axioms and their ramifications.