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)[reply]

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm#_note-10

For a controversial claim ("work being actively suppressed") this is not a valid citation. I can't find the specific style guide now, but I believe sources must be cited from published works. You just can't say "Private correspondence". I wonder if this whole article is actually "original research". Some of the other references actually seem to be to privately published sources, although I may be wrong about this.

Statement of intent: I am curious about the subject of the article and would like to see a better article. I'm sure there is accepted work out there that could be put into it. I cannot ignore the Wikipedia guides that, if followed, actually lead to much better articles. DJ Barney 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very reminiscent of pseudo-science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.19.173 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the idea that this article should include reference to the fact that this is not widely considered to be a genuine scientific theory. I understand it to have a wide enough following to escape being considered 'original research', but there's definitely good grounds for it being considered pseudoscience. The part of the holographic model dealing with the brain and the genome doesn't make testable, falsifiable claims, and apart from a few instances in psychology journals in the late 1960s, it does not appear in mainstream peer-reviewed journals in either molecular biology or neuroscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.9.167 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is opinion (and not even the opinion of a professional scientist), the sentence "Observationally and perceptually, the universe is a hologram and in each part of itself, since all of it can be detected from/in each internal particle." has been removed from the description of holograms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.22.191 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Holographic principle?

This article might make a good subsection there...thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Note: the entire pile of gobbledegook was created wholesale by an anon ages ago [1] and was probably a copyvio anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]