Talk:Holographic paradigm

Seriously?
This article reads like an episode of Star Trek. Why do people think it is cool to just pepper everything with the word "quantum" ? "the genome's associative holographic memory in conjunction with its quantum nonlocality" ? In what way does DNA express "associative holographic memory" and "quantum nonlocality"? The entire sentence is nonsense. The one reference for the "quantum nonlocality" of the genome is from www.ajna.com, a web site that advertises itself as "The Quest for Spirituality". This isn't science, this is simple hogwash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.61.178 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Holographic principle?
This article might make a good subsection there...thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than an unfortunate coincidence in names, these two items have nothing in common.

Thomas Bearden?
Why is there a quote from this guy in the article? From what I can gather he is as renowned in scientific circles as Erich Von Daniken (Chariots of Fire). Certainly Bohm and Pribram (not to mention David Peat or Stanislav Grof) are more respected than that. Sure it's an ok quote for holograms but surely it's not the only (or best available). Please. Using Bearden just brings the whole concept down to the level of quackery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NevarMaor (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you mean Chariots of the Gods, chariots of fire was a movie about olympic athletes Drunkenduncan (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quackery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.61.178 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirected
I tried cleaning this up and realised that I had nothing left. So I redirected it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: the entire pile of gobbledegook was created wholesale by an anon ages ago and was probably a copyvio anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)