Both Bateson and Prigogine point out that, in going from non-mind to mind, three transitions occur: 1. from description in terms of particles to description in terms of ensembles; 2. from connections by the rules of static logic to explanation in terms of dynamic (i.e. Time-based) causes and forces [and I would add intentions and purposes]; and 3. from rare and occasional encounters to dense and frequent interactions. These three transitions mark the boundary between the Pleroma and the Creatura according to Jung [and perhaps between the Res Extensa and Res Cogitans of Descartes.] The frequency and density of interactions makes possible both conflict and cooperation, but ultimately reciprocal cooperation [tit-for-tat], since other “games” are not survivable in evolution.

I infer from Bateson’s book (“Mind and Nature”) that he considers mind to dwell in all forms of life, so that life and mind are synonymous. Even the physical side of life (metabolism and physiology) imply the presence of “mind” i.e. Connections and communication). [Jantsch also speaks of metabolic. Genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, and neural mind, to which I have added the immune-system mind.) On the other hand, for Bateson, mountains, stones, and electrons do not operate according to rules of “mind”. This is especially true of electrons, which are indivisible – the essential “particles”.

This would invalidate Bohm’s image of an electron particle using its wave aspect (both of them objectively “real”) to navigate by, functioning as antennas to inform the particle of the presence of the second slit in the twoslit experiment. However, Bohm postulates that the electron is not an indivisible particle, but a whole complex system. This would restore validation to his theory. But is that plausible?

Perhaps Bohm would say that the electron unfolds from an underlying implicate reality. Then our whole unfolded (observable) universe may be alive and permeated by mind, emerging as a thought from the eternal God. There may be several layers of implicate reality, perhaps an infinite number of layers, each unfolding from the one immediately below and enfolding back into it. And if electrons are composite systems, perhaps their parts are composites too, even ad infinitum. There are no ultimate indivisible “atoms” of matter, just as space and time are indefinitely divisible. The whole of nature is a Living Whole, created in the image of God. There may be differ~nt rules and laws in each layer, as different from each other as quantum physics is from classical physics, but fitting harmoniously together.

Then Bateson’s view of mind and nature has to be extended to be “infinite in all directions”, using the phrase of Freeman Dyson. There are no boundaries at all in a seamless Universe.