The two principles that shape scientific research.

This paper argues that all scientific research is framed by one of two organizing principles that underpin and shape almost every aspect of scientific research as well as nonscientific inquiry. The most commonly employed principle within mainstream science is content determines content. This is a closed, circular principle that is usually unstated within hypotheses but plays a major role in developing methodologies and arriving at conclusions. The second more open principle is context determines content. This principle represents the implied background embedded within hypotheses. The difference between these two principles revolves around the issue of context, with the first principle closing off contexts by ignoring, erasing, or devaluing them, while the second more holistic principle explicitly takes them into account. Each of these research principles has a focus on the explicit detailed nature of 'content' while differing in relation to the source and cause of such content. We argue that the more open and holistic principle of context determines that content is superior in producing reliable evidence, results and conclusions.

Omni-local consciousness.

We present a general discussion concerning the wholeness of what has been called infinite awareness, but here is called Omni-local consciousness. This model of consciousness has an interconnecting structure that has both local and nonlocal features, that is, the model contains local conscious human minds and locates them within an infinite (Omni) background context of consciousness. This holistic model of Omni-local consciousness is exemplified through an examination of its internal structures of meaning, evident in the exchange relations between its two polarities: local minds and nonlocal, Omni consciousness. Following David Bohm's assertion that, 'The activity of consciousness is determined by meaning' [10, p. 102], we propose that the content of consciousness in every circumstance is always defined by the metaphysical conditions of meaning.

Lifting the veil on Bohm's holomovement.

In this paper, we argue that Bohm's unbroken and undivided totality he called the holomovement, the title he gave to the concept of the self-organizing universe, is more coherently understood when viewed as universal consciousness. Bohm's understanding of consciousness oscillates around being a quality of local minds and the interconnected totality of the holomovement. We suggest such equivocations impose limitations on Bohm's general holistic framework because they import into his model the limiting restrictions of Cartesian separation and are, therefore, incongruous for use within his holistic model of the holomovement. We also argue that the term 'meaning' has a structural and functional agency appropriate to Bohm's model of the holomovement, while also reflecting the living characteristics of this organic totality that is full of meaning.

The nonlocal universe.

We propose that the universe is nonlocal and that the appropriate worldview or paradigm for this understanding is nonlocal realism. Currently the worldview of local realism guides and frames the understanding and interpretations of science. Local realism was the worldview employed by Einstein in his relativity theories, but the principles of this paradigm have operated as the guiding framework for the rest of classic science for more than a century. This paper points to incoherencies in local realism and to the violation of its principles by recent experiments; it suggests that these negative effects have undermined the credibility and legitimacy of this worldview. We offer a more inclusive worldview for the future of science called nonlocal realism. Unlike local realism, the worldview of nonlocal realism encompasses meaning, mind and universal consciousness.