METAPARADIGM IN NURSING BASED ON HOLISM AND NON SEPARABILITY

IN PHYSICS

INTRODUCTION

Holism in epistemology and the philosophy of mind is widespread among analytic

philosophers subsequent to the work of the later Wittgenstein and to Quine's "Two Dogmas of

Empiricism". Roughly speaking, the claim is that (a) for a person to have beliefs, a social,

linguistic community is required and that (b) single beliefs have a meaning only within a whole

system of beliefs. Furthermore, holism is discussed in science, in particular in the interpretation

of quantum physics. In fact, the term "holism" goes back to Smuts (1926), who introduces this

term in a biological context. I Holism in any of these areas has considerable consequences for

our philosophical view of the world and ourselves. Holism in quantum physics is said to refute

atomism, which has been predominant in modem philosophy of nature. Holism in epistemology

and the philosophy of mind is seen as an alternative to what is known as the Cartesian tradition,

which dominated modem thought down to logical empiricism. Smuts (1926).

Methodological holism stands opposed to methodological reductionism, in physics as

well as in other sciences. But it is a certain variety of metaphysical holism that is more closely

related to nonseparability. But the state of a system in quantum theory resists such analysis.

The quantum state of a system specifies its chances of exhibiting various properties on

measurement. In ordinary quantum mechanics, the most complete such specification is given

by what is called a pure state. Even when a compound system has a pure state, some of its

subsystems may not have their own pure states. Emphasizing this characteristic of quantum

mechanics, Schrödinger described such component states as “entangled”. Superficially, such

entanglement of states already demonstrates nonseparability.

 The Aharonov-Bohm effect also appears to exhibit action at a distance, as the behavior

of electrons is modified by a magnetic field they never experience. But this effect may be

understood instead as a result of the local action of nonseparable electromagnetism. String is

an ambitious research program in the framework of quantum field theory. According to string

theory, all fundamental particles can be considered to be excitations of underlying non-

pointlike entities in a multi-dimensional space. The particles’ intrinsic charge, mass and spin

may then arise as nonseparable features of the world at the deepest level. (Bohm, D., 1980)

Therefore, holism has a correlation in physics that is more closely related to

nonseparability.

DESCRIPTION OF EACH PHILOSOPHY

Methodological Holism

1. Methodological Holism

An understanding of a certain kind of complex system is best sought at the level

of principles governing the behavior of the whole system, and not at the level of the

structure and behavior of its component parts. An understanding of a certain kind of

complex system is best sought at the level of principles governing the behavior of the

whole system, and not at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Methodological holists think this approach is misguided: As one condensed matter

physicist put it “the most important advances in this area come about by the emergence

of qualitatively new concepts at the intermediate or macroscopic levels—concepts

which, one hopes, will be compatible with one’s information about the microscopic

constituents, but which are in no sense logically dependent on it.” (Leggett 1987, p.113)

2. Methodological Reductionism
 An understanding of a complex system is best sought at the level of the structure

and behavior of its component parts. Methodological reductionists favor an approach

to condensed matter physics which seeks to understand the behavior of a solid or liquid

by applying quantum mechanics to its component molecules, atoms, ions or electrons.

The elementary particle physicist Steven Weinberg, for example, is an avowed

reductionist. He believes that by asking any sequence of deeper and deeper why-

questions one will arrive ultimately at the same fundamental laws of physics. But this

explanatory reductionism is metaphysical in so far as he takes explanation to be an ontic

rather than a pragmatic category. On this view, it is not physicists but the fundamental

laws themselves that explain why “higher level” scientific principles are the way they

are. Weinberg (1992) explicitly distinguishes his view from methodological

reductionism by saying that there is no reason to suppose that the convergence of

scientific explanations must lead to a convergence of scientific methods. Weinberg

(1992)

Metaphysical Holism
There are three varieties of metaphysical holism: ontological, property and

nomological holism.

1. Ontological Holism

Some objects are not wholly composed of basic physical parts.

2. Property Holism

Some objects have properties that are not determined by physical properties of

their basic physical parts.

3. Nomological Holism

Some objects obey laws that are not determined by fundamental physical laws

governing the structure and behavior of their basic physical parts.

 Therefore, these three varieties require an adequate clarification of the notion of

a basic physical part. One way to do this would be to consider objects as basic, relative

to a given class of objects subjected only to a certain kind of process, just in case every

object in that class continues to be wholly composed of a fixed set of these (basic)

objects. Weinberg’s (1992) .

Property/Relational Holism
Teller (1989) has introduced the related idea of what he calls relational holism.
1. Relational Holism

There are non-supervening relations—that is, relations that do not supervene on

the nonrelational properties of the relata. (p. 214)

2. Physical Relational Holism

There are physical relations between some physical objects that do not

supervene on their qualitative intrinsic physical properties.

However, teller discussed physical property holism entails physical relational holism,

but not vice versa. For suppose that FF is some qualitative intrinsic physical property

or relation of one or more elements of DD that fails to supervene on qualitative intrinsic

physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts.

We may define a (non-intrinsic) physical relation RFRF to hold of the basic physical

parts of elements of DD if and only if FF holds of these elements. Clearly RFRF does

not supervene on the qualitative intrinsic physical properties of these parts. So physical

property holism entails physical relational holism. But the converse entailment fails.

For let RGRG be a physical relation that holds between the basic parts of some elements

in DD when and only when those elements are in the relation SGSG. RGRG may fail

to supervene on the qualitative intrinsic physical properties of these basic parts, even
 though all qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations of elements

of DD (including SGSG) supervene on the qualitative intrinsic physical properties and

relations of their basic parts.

Physical relational holism seems at first sight too weak to capture any distinctive

feature of quantum phenomena: even in classical physics the spatiotemporal relations

between physical objects seem not to supervene on their qualitative intrinsic physical

properties. But when he introduced relational holism Teller (1987) maintained a view

of space time as a quantity: On this view spatiotemporal relations do in fact supervene

on qualitative intrinsic physical properties of ordinary physical objects, since these

include their spatiotemporal properties. Teller (1987)

State Nonseparability
1. Real State Separability Principle

The real state of the pair ABAB consists precisely of the real state of AA and

the real state of BB, which states have nothing to do with one another.

2. State Separability:

The state assigned to a compound physical system at any time is supervenient

on the states then assigned to its component subsystems.

This principle could fail in one of two ways: the subsystems may simply not be

assigned any states of their own, or else the states they are assigned may fail to

determine the state of the system they compose. Interestingly, state assignments in

quantum mechanics have been taken to violate state separability in both ways. Einstein

(1935). Howard (1985, p.180)

Spatial and Spatiotemporal Nonseparability
The idea is familiar (particularly to Lego enthusiasts!) that if one constructs a

physical object by assembling its physical parts, then the physical properties of that object

are wholly determined by the properties of the parts and the way it is put together from

them. A principle of spatial separability tries to capture that idea.

1. Spatial Separability

The qualitative intrinsic physical properties of a compound system are

supervenient on those of its spatially separated component systems together with the

spatial relations among these component systems.

If we identify the real state of a system with its qualitative intrinsic physical

properties, then spatial separability is related to a separability principle stated by Howard

(1985, p. 173) to the effect that any two spatially separated systems possess their own

separate real states. It is even more closely related to Einstein’s (1935) real state

separability principle.

2. Spatiotemporal Separability

Any physical process occupying spacetime region RR supervenes upon an

assignment of qualitative intrinsic physical properties at spacetime points in RR.

Spatiotemporal separability is a natural restriction to physics of David Lewis’s

(1986, p. x) principle of Humean supervenience. It is also closely related to another

principle formulated by Einstein (1948, pp. 233–234 of Howard’s (1989) translation) in the

following words: “An essential aspect of arrangement of things in physics is that they lay

claim, at a certain time, to an existence independent of one another, provided these objects

‘are situated in different parts of space’” (the context of the quote suggests that Einstein
 intended his principle to apply to objects provided they then occupy spacelike separated

regions of spacetime).

Healey (1991, p. 411) shows, spatiotemporal separability entails spatial separability,

and so spatial nonseparability entails spatiotemporal nonseparability. Because it is both

more general and more consonant with a geometric spacetime viewpoint, it seems

reasonable to consider spatiotemporal separability to be the primary notion. Accordingly,

separability without further qualification will mean spatiotemporal separability in what

follows, and nonseparability will be understood as its denial.

3. Nonseparability

Some physical process occupying a region RR of spacetime is not supervenient upon

an assignment of qualitative intrinsic physical properties at spacetime points in RR.

Holism and Nonseparability in Classical Physics

In Newtonian spacetime, the kinematical behavior of a system of point particles under

the action of finite forces is supervenient upon ascriptions of particular values of position and

momentum to the particles along their trajectories. This supervenience on local magnitudes

extends also to dynamics if the forces on the particles arise from fields defined at each

spacetime point. In Newtonian spacetime, the kinematical behavior of a system of point

particles under the action of finite forces is supervenient upon ascriptions of particular values

of position and momentum to the particles along their trajectories. This supervenience on local

magnitudes extends also to dynamics if the forces on the particles arise from fields defined at

each spacetime point.

1. Weak Separability
 Any physical process occupying spacetime region RR supervenes upon an assignment of

qualitative intrinsic physical properties at points of RR and/or in arbitrarily small

neighborhoods of those points.

1. Strong Nonseparability

Some physical process occupying a region RR of spacetime is not supervenient

upon an assignment of qualitative intrinsic physical properties at points of RR and/or

in arbitrarily small neighborhoods of those points.

The definition of nonseparability becomes problematic in general relativity, since its

application requires that one identify the same region RR in possible spacetimes with different

geometries. While strictly outside the domain of classical physics, quantum phenomena such

as the Aharonov-Bohm effect may be considered manifestations of nonseparability and holism

even in classical electromagnetism. Nonseparability would be a trivial notion if no qualitative

intrinsic physical properties were ever assigned at spacetime points or in their neighborhoods.

But this would require a thorough-going relationism that took not just geometric but all local

features to be irreducibly relational (cf. Esfeld (2004)).

The Quantum Physics of Entangled Systems

The Quantum entanglement is in the first instance a relation between not physical but

mathematical objects representing the states of quantum systems. Different forms of quantum

theory represent quantum states of various systems by different kinds of mathematical object.

So the concept of quantum entanglement has been expressed by a family of definitions, each

appropriate to a specific form and application of quantum theory (see Earman (2015)). The first

definition (Schrödinger (1935)) was developed in the context of applications of ordinary non-

relativistic quantum mechanics to pairs of distinguishable particles that have interacted, such

as an electron and proton.

 Esfeld (2001) takes holism, in the quantum domain and elsewhere, to involve more than

just a failure of supervenience. He maintains that a compound system is holistic in that its

subsystems themselves count as quantum systems only by virtue of their relations to other

subsystems together with which they compose the whole.

Ontological Holism in Quantum Mechanics

The ontological holism is the thesis that there are physical objects that are not wholly

composed of basic physical parts. Views of Bohr, Bohm and others may be interpreted as

endorsing some version of this thesis.

It was Bohr’s (1934) view that one can meaningfully ascribe properties such as position

or momentum to a quantum system only in the context of some well-defined experimental

arrangement suitable for measuring the corresponding property. He used the expression

‘quantum phenomenon’ to describe what happens in such an arrangement. In his view, then,

although a quantum phenomenon is purely physical, it is not composed of distinct happenings

involving independently characterizable physical objects—the quantum system on the one

hand, and the classical apparatus on the other. And even if the quantum system may be taken

to exist outside the context of a quantum phenomenon, little or nothing can then be

meaningfully said about its properties.

Bohm’s (1980, 1993) reflections on quantum mechanics led him to adopt a more

general holism. He believed that not just quantum object and apparatus, but any collection of

quantum objects by themselves, constitute an indivisible whole.

The Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Field Holonomies

Aharonov and Bohm (1959) drew attention to the quantum mechanical prediction that

an interference pattern due to a beam of charged particles could be produced or altered by the

presence of a constant magnetic field in a region from which the particles were excluded. This
effect has since been experimentally demonstrated. At first sight, the Aharonov-Bohm effect

seems to involve action at a distance. It seems clear that the (electro-)magnetic field acts on the

particles since it affects the interference pattern they produce; and this must be action at a

distance since the particles pass through a region from which that field is absent. But alternative

accounts of the phenomenon are possible which portray it rather as a manifestation of

(strong) nonseparability (Healey 1997).

Wu and Yang’s (1975) analysis of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it has become common

to consider electromagnetism to be completely and nonredundantly described neither by the

electromagnetic field, nor by its vector potential, but rather by the so-called Dirac phase factor

Alternative Approaches

Seevinck (2004) proposes an epistemological criterion of holism and illustrates its

application to physical theories. A physical theory counts as holistic by this criterion if and

only if it is impossible in principle to infer the global properties, as assigned in the theory, by

local resources available to an agent, where these include (at least) all local operations and

classical communication. To apply this criterion it is necessary to specify how a theory assigns

properties, a matter on which different interpretations of the theory may disagree.

Placek (2004) understands quantum state holism as involving a thesis about probabilities: that

the probability of a joint result of a combined measurement on a pair of entangled quantum

systems is not determined by the probabilities of the two results.

Esfeld (2004) argues for a metaphysics of relations based on a characterization of quantum

entanglement in terms of non-separability, thereby regarding entanglement as a sort of holism.

Lyre (2004) and Healey (2004) see electromagnetism and other gauge theories as manifesting

nonseparability for reasons different from those arising from quantum entanglement (cf. The

Aharonov-Bohm Effect). Lyre takes this to be a variant of spatiotemporal holism, and connects
it to structural realism. Healey argues that general relativity does not manifest this kind of

nonseparability even though it may be formulated as a gauge theory. He distinguishes two

part/whole relations among the bearers of electromagnetic properties (space-time loops), and

argues that electromagnetism manifests holism according to one of these but not the other. A

more complete account is given in Healey (2007).

Quantum Field Theory

Algebraic quantum field theory (AQFT) represents the state in a region of spacetime

by means of a function from an algebra of associated “field” or “observable” operators: the

value of this function for a self-adjoint operator represents the expected result of a measurement

of the corresponding observable on that region. A state is said to be decomposable (some say

separable) across algebras RA,RBRA,RB associated with regions A,BA,B if its

restriction ωω to the algebra RABRAB generated by RA,RBRA,RB is a product state—i.e.

satisfies ω(XY)=ω(X)ω(Y)ω(XY)=ω(X)ω(Y), for all X∈RA,Y∈RBX∈RA,Y∈RB; or if ωω is

a limit of convex combinations of product states: otherwise, it is said to be entangled

across RABRAB (see e.g. Valente 2010, pp. 1031–2)

Metaphysical holism presupposes a division of a whole into parts. To apply the

part/whole distinction here one must address the ontology of quantum field theory. Taking

spacetime regions to be the relevant physical objects, one could understand the

system/subsystem and part/whole relations in terms of spatiotemporal inclusion. To

assess physical property holism or nonseparability we need to determine the qualitative

intrinsic properties and relations pertaining to spacetime regions in quantum field theory.

Arageorgis (2013) gives an example of quantum field states entangled across two

regions which nevertheless, he argues, fail to exhibit the same kind of state nonseparability as

singlet and triplet spin states of a pair of quantum particles

 Wayne (2002) has suggested that quantum field theory is best interpreted as postulating

extensive holism or nonseparability. On this interpretation, the fundamental quantities in

quantum field theory are vacuum expectation values of products of field operators defined at

various spacetime points. The field can be reconstructed out of all of these. Nonseparability

supposedly arises because the vacuum expectation value of a product of field operators defined

at an nn-tuple of distinct spacetime points does not supervene on qualitative intrinsic physical

properties defined at those nn points, together with the spatiotemporal relations among the

points. Improved assessment of the extent to which quantum field theory

illustrates holism or nonseparability must await further progress in the interpretation of

quantum field theory. (Kuhlman, Lyre and Wayne (2002) represents a relevant first step: but

see also Fraser (2008), Baker (2009).)

String Theory
String theory (or its descendant, MM-theory) has emerged as a speculative candidate

for unifying much of fundamental physics, including quantum mechanics and general

relativity. Existing string theories proceed by quantizing classical theories of basic entities that

are extended in one or more dimensions of a space that has 6 or 7 tiny compact dimensions in

addition to the three spatial dimensions of ordinary geometry.

METAPARADIGM IN NURSING BASED ON HOLISM AND NON SEPARABILITY

IN PHYSICS
Metaparadigm in nursing comprises the central issue in nursing discipline, namely

person, health, environment, and nursing (Nikfarid, Hekmat, Vedad & Rajabi, 2018).

Nurse/Nursing:

Nurse to holism refers to the role of nurses it self, to accept and view the patient as a whole.

Moreover, Nurse to nonseparability in physics

Person:

Person to Holism in any of these areas has considerable consequences for our philosophical

view of the world and ourselves. A person is a being whose wholeness is valuable and deserves

respect, assistance and care. Moreover, holism in quantum physics is said to refute atomism,

which has been predominant in modem philosophy of nature.

Environment:

Environmental refers to the surrounding of a person/individual in any situation that lead to

consequences.

Health:

Health according to holism

REFERENCES

Bohm, D., 1980, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Retrieved from http://gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-
WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

Einstein, A., 1935, Letter to E. Schroedinger of June 19th. (Passages from this appear,
with translations, in Howard 1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9

Howard, D., 1985, “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 16: 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9

Leggett, A. J., 1987, The Problems of Physics, New York: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00731879

Lyre, H., 2004, “Holism and Structuralism in U(1) Gauge Theories”, Studies in History
and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 643–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2004.07.004

Teller, P., 1986, “Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics,” British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 37: 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axr049
Smuts, Jonathan., 1927 Holism and Evolution in 1926. Retrieved from
http://guyduplessis.com/books/the-holism-of-jan-smuts/

Weinberg, Steven., 1992, Dreams of a Final Theory, New York: Vintage Books.
https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/product/dreams-of-a-final-theory-search-for-the-
ultimate-laws-of-nature-steven-weinberg-first-edition-signed-1992/