Talk:Holomovement

Untitled
I hope someone can edit and "wickify" this.

Here are some citations from F.David Peat in his excellent critical biography, Infinite Potential, The Life and Times of David Bohm. London: Routledge, 1997.

"The implicate order lies beneath the explicate and gives rise to it. Yet in another sense all levels are apects of a universal movement that Bohm called the holomovement" (p.258).

"Bohm sought a holistic physics. Indeed, the ultimate ground of the implicate and explicate orders, the holomovement, is the movement of the whole" (Ibid.). Sfwild (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio
The entire thing appears to be a copyvio of Michael Talbot's "The Holographic Universe". So I've chopped it down William M. Connolley (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As the originator of this article, I can assure previous editors that the concept of the holomovement, as presented in Bohm's work, has nothing to do with Talbot's metaphysical concept of the "Holographic Universe." To identify such an important concept in Bohm's thinking with Talbot's New Age popularization does a disservace to anyone trying to understand what Bohm was about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfwild (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But you aren't the originator of this article. You may well be the person who copied non-free content into this article, but that is quite another matter. But if you want to redirect it elsewhere, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or are you claiming that page is a copy of this one? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am the originator of this article, and your accusations are completely unfounded, and gratuitously insulting. What the atricle does need is more references to secondary literature on Bohm's philosophy, but unfortunately there is very little out there of any value. I have included three citations from F. David Peat's critical study in the discussion above which should probably be incorporated into the text as references (not quite sure how to do that), but please spare me any association with Talbot or any other "New Age" source you mistakenly believe this is derived from.

Sfwild (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, lets try to understand this. Do you accept that substantial amounts of this articles content is reproduced at ? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat myself? As I said, I have little patience for Talbot and his ilk. Sfwild (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, don't repeat yourself, but do explain. The identical text here exists elsewhere - yes? Is your claim that you wrote the text, and added it here, and that it was subsequently copied there? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That does indeed seem to be the case. I would suggest in the future that you check your sources for their credibility before doing any more editing vigilantism based on false assumptions and baseless accusations of plagerism.

Sfwild (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This reads like Bohm wrote it, very complimentary of the concept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.243.13 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup effort in progress
This thing needs some work. I'll be trying to get some of it done this week. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So much of this is copy and paste from other places. Frustrating stuff and a pain to correct.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm taking this to a sandbox to rewrite the entire thing. As it stand, other than the little work I've done earlier this is full ripoff of a review of a Bohm book. There is way too much to do to have this live edited. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Blank and redirect proposal
Changed my mind, this is kind of a useless promotional article and is material that is well covered elsewhere in physics and on Bohm's page. I propose a blank and redirect to De Broglie–Bohm theory. Seven days sounds like a reasonable amount of time to wait for consensus. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone paying attention to this? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the idea that this is a 'useless promotional article' — I wanted to clarify my thinking on the subject so came here, and found the article quite helpful. But it would be still more useful if more detail were included. And even if the material is available elsewhere, it is useful to have it all in one place. And it is ironic that you say it is on Bohm's page, as that page has little to say about holomovement, and indeed refers back to this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)