User talk:Togo~enwiki/Holomovement

In particular, more detailed information about holomovement itself would be appreciated. Please don't use Wikipedia to advertise your ideas but, rather, strictly as a means of reporting information, being as unbiased about it as possible.

Well there is much written about holomovement! The inspiration of each Scientist wo may count themselves in are so broad and possibly never reported about. What we can tell is among which people supporting which other theories we most likely will find people carrying on the movement.

Article needs to be more informative

I don't have much sympathy for this article, but nevertheless, one would hope that a coherent picture of some part of holomovement is possible, particularly if you are going to write an encyclopedia article about it. I certainly would be interested in knowing what this stuff is, even if I might believe it's nonsense. (This is my opinion and that opinion should have no bearing on the existence of this article, granted) For instance, who believes in it? Is it eastern mysticism? Is it a physical theory? Is it a religion or spiritual movement? The remarks about Plato's cave say nothing about how they relate to this subject.

Also the English needs to be radically improved. Given that I think this is marginal science I refuse to improve the presentation, but that shouldn't prevent somebody else with a more sympathetic attitude to pitch in. CSTAR 18:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed

Togo, what you have here is much closer Gene Ray's Time Cubewebsite than it is to an encyclopedia article. You haven't given a definitive statement as to what the holomovement is all about. The article should be centered around making such statements--not namedropping. Namedropping, to start with, is a weak form of argumentation. But that's beside the fact that you shouldn't be arguing for your views on Wikipedia in the first place. If you want to state a point of view, do so strictly in an informative manner. In reading the article, we shouldn't be able to tell what side you're on.

Why don't you start by making a simple one-to-three sentence statement of what the central viewpoint of the holomovement is and put it in after the first sentence of the article. A good idea would be to guide yourself by imagining what you would say to a person who came up to you casually and said, "So tell me, briefly, what's the basic idea of the holomovement?"

If you aren't able to put it into words, you should probably give up the project. Floorsheim

Thing is if you want to learn about something, you start and 'teach' about it... I have yet to find anything more than vague information about the subject myself, but I read about all of the mentioned theories and I know that Bohm (if the Holomovement is truly attributed first to him?) drew upon the implied theories, at least I read that about him and morphic fields and the eastern philosophies. I haven't even introduced my own interpretation which essentially says that subatomic particles move back and forth trough time stabilizing the moment and checking the possibilities. But you see I have no means to put that into a formula etc. so I start linking together what are known interpretations and while 'Holomovement' seems a good title for it, I don't mind if there was a better title to the article. You are right there are things that appear to be 'selling' like the promise of a release from that cave. At the same time it does belong into the article since it shows us how long people have felt or experienced that there is a deeper levels on which conscious beings can operate! I am hoping for somebody to enrich the article even if it pushed my contribution out of the center! I keep improving it as I receive intuition (visualization) about it! Togo 01:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you could find out what David Bohm actually believed. His book Dialogues may have something relevant. (Don't ask me. I haven't read it)CSTAR 02:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I know the location of a few good books on the subject, I will ask the loaned of course the Article may also be a good location for a links collection, since its all very young science we have to be patient, after all we are talking about a subject where nobody really knows everything except the god consciousness that does not ask and creates in a definite way not abandoning its pure intuition; the question is just how wide and energetic is the reality field of the multidimensional fractal options and connections; are we zen enough? Togo 03:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

reality field = adjunct of Multiple reality theory based smeared out molecular level suspending Matter in the moment. god consciousness ~~ godhead seeing is creating thought creating seeing options and connections harmonically interacting evolving field with moderate depths of energy and stability (reality content). Even if it may sound like I am talking about programming this all happens voluntarily but who knows how many times the particle passes through the same moment, so there can be harmonization with higher intent. All a question of consciousness and if ya, Jesus really returns were in for it! AnyhowTogo 03:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight, Togo. "Holomovement" is a term that YOU have invented to refer to a trend that YOU think you see happening in science. It is not something that there is any established consensus about. Not only that, it's not even something you have a clear picture of in your mind. Yet you've chosen to write an encyclopedia article about it so that you can "learn more."

I have to say I am disgusted that someone would be so arrogant and inconsiderate as to take advantage Wikipedia in the way that you have chosen to. This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not your personal sketchbook. By putting this here, you give people the false impression that the holomovement is something a lot of people know about and have thought about as such—not your invention. In the process, you damage Wikipedia's credibility, and that makes me angry. If you want a place to broadcast your ideas, you should either get your own website or write a book. This is not the place for it. Floorsheim

You are clearly exaggerating! And you are giving me too much credit - I have not invented the term nor its set of associations, they are obvious, but probably incomplete! I doubt that people anywhere in the world believe the word of a single page in a constantly evolving Internet! Anyhow you should use your emotion to inspire your own research and improve on the level of visualization that the article has created for me and may create for others! As you know that is what wikipedia is for learning from each other, how do you get into a conversation with somebody who really has the trajectory to know more about the subject ? The way I see it most specialized Professors wont just go and start teaching to any old student without seeing that the mental ground is well prepared! I think its an illusion to expect that the ultimate authority will just walk up to an empty page and put it there to never more be changed. The wiki concept is tool to find the answers in each others heads! Togo 03:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Just ran an internet search and apparently this point of view does have a substantial following. I'm sorry for suggesting that it was your invention, Togo. Nevertheless, as I'm sure you're aware, not everyone in the world shares this point of view with you. That being the case, no matter how convinced you are that it is the truth, it against Wikipedia's policy for you to represent it as the truth here. Read the NPOV. Floorsheim

It’s more difficult for one Person to be unbiased than for 2 or more! And yes the article is definitely open to neutrality! Improve it! Togo 17:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Need to be Rewritten...

This article needs to be rewritten. However, I'm not qualified to do it, seeing as I know nothing of the holomovement. I don't even know if it's proper to say "holomovement" or "the holomovement." I put the page on "Pages needing attention" hoping someone will come to the rescue. If they don't, it will be up to you, Togo, to rewrite this, getting rid of the non-NPOV stuff along with the tangentially-related stuff and putting in a concise, thorough statement of what the holomovement is--not visualization aids. If you do that, I'll come behind you and work on the readability. If you can't manage, though, I'll be placing it on the Vfd.

Some specific examples of NPOV problems:

"Like the fractal dweller may try, scientists are attempting to deduce a mathematical understanding of the underlying structure, seeing the repetitive patterns of reality."

There is no consensus among philosophers of science or scientists that this is what science is all about. Nor is it clear from what we know that there is anything resembling fractals that pervades the science we have discovered so far. There may be specific examples of it. But it is at the very least not clear that it is some sort of global property of reality.

"Like the fractal dweller would try, scientists may be attempting to deduce a mathematical understanding of the underlying structure, seeing the repetitive patterns of reality."

This softens it a bit if you think of no examples of 'repetitive patterns of reality' think about electromagnetic waves and frequency at least!

"the Holomovement [anticipates] that we will one day discover the interconnectedness of our universe."

First off, there's a clarity issue here, because it's unclear what "interconnectedness" quite means. But more importantly, the phrasing suggests that it is the case that the universe 'is' interconnected and we just haven't discovered it yet. That isn't NPOV. Whatever interconnected means, if it hasn't been discovered, then there will assuredly be people who don't believe in it.

"the Holomovement [anticipates] that we will one day discover new levels of interconnectedness of our universe."

Given that there are allready conventional levels of 'interconnectedness' (energy exchange by photons), (chemical bonds)...

"we consider that each individual consciousness creates on its path through dimensional reality many possible worlds..."

The many worlds interpretation is not accepted by all thinkers nor even all physicists. The phrasing here suggests that it is a fact. That is not NPOV.

Just look at the MWT page its a mayority ! How about:

"Suppose each individual consciousness creates on its path through dimensional reality many possible worlds..."

"Meditating monks achieve great power over reality..."

I'm sure there are plenty who are skeptical of the various monks' purported abilities

Yes and there are also bunches of charlatan monks, On has to be very fortunate!

"Meditating monks may achieve great power over reality..."

Some tangential subject matter that should be removed:

"the legendary cave of Plato"

Most readers (I for one) don't know what the legendary cave of Plato is. Rather than go into an explanation, it should be removed as an obscure reference.

Plato's allegory of the cave

the fractal stuff

While it's interesting, I really don't think this belongs in the article. It doesn't make it any clearer what is claimed by people involved in the holomovement.

Do not agree! You probably don't know as most people never investigated how the iterations of the Mandelbrot calc jump around... Would be nice to find software that offers that type of trace feature! I had once written my own program to do that...

the many-worlds interpretation

I don't see how this discussion helps, either.

you don't have to; somebody will!

the Leibniz stuff

I'm unconvinced that there's a connection between this and the many-worlds interpretation, even less a connection to this article.

Same; its important to know and offer it to the consideration of the reader !

the "Links to Eastern and Alternative Religion" section

As presented, this section doesn't seem to be on topic. It may be the case that there is some overlap between the beliefs of those involved in the holomovement and those who hold Eastern or Alternative religious beliefs. But this section does not effectively display them.

You would have to know about the levels of Order the Bohm discribes and mind matter interactions etc.

Accuracy issues

I don't think you have quite given an accurate picture the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. For one thing, the quantum potential, under his interpretation, is a real thing not a mathematical construct.

I think your presentation of Leibniz's philosophy is a bit garbled as well. –Floorsheim 00:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the very least I would like to know if holomovement isn't really a theory of dynamics, rather than as Togo seems to suggest, a philosophical movement. I really suspect it's the former not the latter. Frankly this article, as currently written is too much in the realm of fantasy.

Many worlds and possible worlds, as I've tried to point out to Togo, are almost completely unrelated.

Disagree have you read Monad it indicates this isn't even Leibniz invention, and about the math of interference patterns...

If this article survives in anything resembling its current form, then RIP wikipedia.

Long live Wikipedia and Liberal Expression!

CSTAR 01:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Concerning Redirect to Implicate and Explicate Order

I think most people would agree that Implicate and Explicate Order provides a more encyclopedic discussion of the subject matter than this article does in its current state. I'm redirecting there. I have given prior notice of my plans to do this to all parties who have contributed to this discussion. –Floorsheim 10:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From user talk:CSTAR: Yes, this new article is an enormous improvement. The previous holomovement article was worthless (IMHO).CSTAR 15:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From user talk:togo: No I have no problem with your article. As long as you dont't redirect Holomovement! Holomovement brings in even more information and it will be even further improved. There is no reason to belive that Holomovement will not eventually evolve into a great Article! Congratulations on your decision to study the issue! Thats very progrssive and you know I'll take part of the credit for all great discoveries you may make ;^) Togo 18:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't see Togo's objection on his talk page. I'm reverting for now. Will place on RfC and await others' comments before taking further action. Togo, please leave the neutrality and accuracy dispute tags in the article while we are resolving this issue. –Floorsheim 04:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:Implicate and Explicate Order: Lets face it Implicate and Explicate Order is not equal to Holomovement nor do you really explain it nor have nearly the completenes of the Holomovement article! Of course I dont mind if you contribute to Holomovement as long as I don't get any of those 'deleted because I don't understand'. If you were to try to formualte anything that you don't understand in a simpler way I'd help you! Togo 05:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Implicate_and_Explicate_Order"

Improving Holomovement and Implicate and Explicate Order Articles

It looks like this has been an ongoing issue. Hopefully I can add a fresh opinion to the mix. Although I think that both pages could use an expert explanation of the subject, I agree that Togo's page is especially troubling. No offense Togo, but I don't think you've really tried to be terribly neutral. You seem to be forcing your presumptions about the accuracy of shamanism and other things onto an impartial audience. You also introduce a ton of ideas without clearly connecting them or explaining them. I agree with the redirect until these problems with your article are worked out. Good luck with your work. Canthony 07:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok thanks, however the accuracy of neither shamanism nor the other philosophies stands to debate! However you could suggest a way to indicate (word it) that there is a Experience based connection (that you could investigate if you like for example under erowid.org) between that which the holomovement is and the rare state of mind based visualization that people can gain. A redirect is out of the question because in any way each of the concepts deserves its own article! Togo 07:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Holomovement article misleading and contradictory

Although David Bohm's work was controversial and some of it dismissed by many, he was a serious physicist whose work deserves careful discussion. The current Holomovement article confuses many different subjects, including drug use, shamanism and classical philosophical metaphors with Bohm's theories. The article is badly written - - the stuff on fractals is just silly. I am upset at the way meaningless phrases are tossed around. CSTAR 13:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should explain silly: Scale homogeneity of a space has nothing to do with the fractal nature of that space. The manifold Rⁿ has also scale homogeneity. For some reason, the author of this article feels that bringing in Mandelbroit sets will add interest to this article. It doesn't; in fact, this is why I called it silly. Why not bring in other irrelevant things -- (need I suggest any -- a perennial favorite is Godel's incompleteness theorem, and while you're at it throw in Schrodinger's cat or maybe even supply-side economics and the domino theory etc.).CSTAR 14:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation and it misses the point! Are you sure you can say reality does not have the same holomorphic (see complex number theory) behaviours as the Mandelbrot set ? You probably haven't investigated Mandelbrot-set like I have. If you are poorly informed don't use that as an excuse to not contribute the little you know too! Togo 02:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Togo, may I request that you not use this ad-hominem argument? As a matter of fact I do know a fair amount about Fractal sets, (and have published on this) but that's beside the point, because I have no intention of using this kind of personal argument here. In your previous sentences, you are mixing two different things: (a) The local iterative structure of fractal sets and (b) The global iterative "limit" structure. This is beyond the totally dreadful confusion you are causing in your edits to this article by trying to claim there is some significance in the nature of space-time of purely mathematical facts about fractals. This is at best philosophical idealism, and is more like pop-science. CSTAR 02:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wrong again! It is exactly that that the holomovement implies! Not that nature is a Fractal (even though it is) but that every perceivable moment of conventional reality is connected in holographic depth through still existing space time flow (and not just one possibility) to all other Realities of the same moment (and really to all of the past and much of the Future). Of course I am not saying I could deliver the formula but I am seeking it in our Heads! Togo 03:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) P.S. Did you miss to notice that there is no local iteration at least not in the Mandelbrot set ? Did you fail to notice that your accusation of 'my' ad hominem fallacy is your fallacy too ?

Links

Thes will help to complete the article in no time !

Removed stuff

Had to remove stuff since it made no sense in the article:

Especially the aspect of the invisible underlying levels of order or the parallel universes suggest a connection between the holomovement and the Morphogenetic fields of Rupert Sheldrake and the Gaia Hypothesis of Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock.

Sentence is incomplete, and I coudn't reconcile it with earlier sentences. Also contains unqualified comparisons that need explanation (this is an encyclopedia, not a cocktail party). —siro χ o 16:43, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Be bold

Ok. I've done some more looking into things and apparently, according to Wikipedia's "Be Bold" policy, it seems we're supposed to actually have the imminent revert war over this redirect. Also, according to the three revert rule, it's against Wikipedia's policy for any of us to revert more than three times per 24-hour period. Guess I'll go ahead and start things off. –Floorsheim 05:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)