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" [1]. 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 [2]? 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)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Sorry, but one editors opinion does not justify removal of a notability tag by a WP:NPP reviewer. Restoring the tag since I agree with it; concensus is needed.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

And the tag has been disproved by the addition of sources that have in-depth coverage, since the tag was placed. No consensus is needed for removal once it has been shown there is significant in-depth coverage. Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Interdisciplinary sourcing

This article draws on sources from quantum physics, philosophy of mind, religious studies, and process metaphysics. Secondary academic sources include peer-reviewed journals such as Zygon, Asian Philosophy, and Communicative & Integrative Biology, as well as works by Pylkkänen, Peat, and others analyzing Bohm’s contributions. Editors are encouraged to preserve interdisciplinary coverage and avoid framing this as solely a scientific hypothesis. Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is metaphysics, not a scientific hypothesis. Placing Bohm's QM papers here when they make no mention whatsoever of the article topic is synthesis, not "interdisciplinary sourcing". If Pylkkänen makes claims about the connection you can say that with citations to Pylkkänen, but that is on Pylkkänen, not Bohm's physics articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't even dignify it by the title 'metaphysics', which is a proper term in philosophy, though it is often used as a polite synonym for 'vague untestable speculation'. Underlying the article is vague denial of causality. Though such is common enough, we shouldn't forget that causality is the foundation of empirical science.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. wound theology◈ 14:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Implicate and explicate order

This should probably be merged with Implicate and explicate order. I won't do it, the topics don't interest me. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - meets WP:GNG and is conceptually distinct, even if related. Skyerise (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur - this should be merged.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Weak concur. My only role here was after the page appearing as a new Physics page. I reinstate the notability tag of another patroller that was removed without explanation, and posted to Talk Physics for feedback as I had reservations. I agree with the edit of Johnjbarton that this is not physics, but beyond that I am ignorant; I do not know enough to do a merge. To editors Simonm223 and Chjoaygame:, it appears that you know the topic well enough to be capable of merging. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't undertake to do that.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur I will note my first instinct is to merge Holomovement back to David Bohm directly but this page also seems an appropriate target. I will note that Implicate and explicate order probably needs review as it is an example of a notable academic stepping out of their lane - and that is always a risk of WP:FRINGE slipping in. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes,Chjoaygame (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur with proposal or other merge proposals – The article, and the accessible reference, leaves one with a strong sense of New Age-like cloud of statements constructed to resist any clear interpretation. Until a clear statement of what it is can be made without referring to Bohm and his writings, it should not qualify as an article. —Quondum 15:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, notwithstanding its connection with David Bohm, it's New Age pseudo-science or mumbo-jumbo, not ordinary science.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as there is more than enough significant coverage to cover this. The arguments above boil down to whether or not the concept is under the purview of physics or is itself pseudoscience. The Reception and criticism section is enough to warrant a separate page, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Johnjbarton (talk · contribs) above seems to think that even referencing Bohm's physics papers is inappropriate, in particular the description of De Broglie–Bohm theory, but Bohm does it himself making the synthesis claim fall flat. Simonm223 (talk · contribs) seems concerned about WP:FRINGE which is not an argument for merging (Astrology has dozens of pages for subtopics, as an illustrative example.) Quondum (talk · contribs) references New Age-like cloud[s] of statements in the secondary sources but there are secondary references from relatively-sound academic journals (Asian Philosophy, Zygon, Communicative & Integrative Biology) and in publications by uncontroversially rigourous academic publishing houses (New York University Press, Brill, Routledge, and Taylor & Francis). Finally, Chjoaygame (talk · contribs) seems to have mistaken WP:GOODBIAS as policy, given that they seem to only comment about the actual concept itself and not the page (WP:NOTFORUM). wound theology◈ 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wound theology Referencing Bohm's physics papers is inappropriate because those papers never discuss 'holomovement'. If Bohm writes in another place that 'holomovement' inspired his physics work, then that other place can be used as a reference. The religious, spiritual, or political outlook of scientists often influence their approach to a topic but these views are not expressed in scientific works. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Referencing indirectly related sources to give background on a topic which is verifiably related, assuming the actual statements are well-sourced, is totally appropriate and common practice on Wikipedia; especially (again) as Bohm does it himself. Actually, it seems your removal here is totally inappropriate. Pylkkänen describes this, and the Bohm paper provides further sourcing. The rationale that it creates the impression of a connection between the metaphysics topic and physics of quantum mechanics when there is verifiably a connection between them -- i.e., Bohm constructed the idea based on his own physics research -- is thus totally null and, again, smacks of WP:GOODBIAS. wound theology◈ 15:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well we are getting pretty far off the topic of merge, but this claim which I deleted,

• "The foundations of the holomovement trace back to Louis de Broglie's 1927 proposal..."

is clearly false because Bohm was 10 years old in 1927. You can cite Bohm saying Bohm was inspired by de Broglie, but that is not what the content I delete said. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is really easy to cut out the majority of the excised paragraph and claim the whole thing was false:

The foundations of the holomovement trace back to Louis de Broglie's 1927 proposal of a pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics, which posited a deterministic alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation. Although initially sidelined, this approach was later revived by Bohm in 1952, leading to the development of the de Broglie–Bohm theory.

At most, the wording should have been edited to reflect that Pylkkänen and/or Bohm trace the foundation of the idea to de Broglie, not completely deleted; but even the paragraph as it stands is quite clear to me. In any case, this new rationale -- that the actual claim is false, even though the actual paragraph clearly states that Bohm was inspired by de Broglie rather than claiming de Broglie was the originator of holomovement -- is much different than your original edit summary. Removing a paragraph because it creates the impression of a connection between the metaphysics topic and physics when such a connection is well-sourced and quite obvious is inappropriate. wound theology◈ 15:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in that paragraph is related to 'holomovement'. There is no evidence that de Broglie used 'holomovement'. "this approach" is not 'holomovement'. "initially sidelined" implies an action on someone's part that is not supported by sources or historical fact.

It is the responsibility of the editor who adds material to provide adequate references to support it. In my opinion this paragraph is completely wrong and unsalvageable. The concept of holomovement was Bohm's and it should be introduced that way. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph does not say that de Broglie used holomovement. It says that Bohm revived revived the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics. If you believe the sentence unduly implies that de Broglie used the word holomovement (which is more than debatable) then it could have easily been revised to something like Bohm traced the foundations of the holomovement... rather than excising the entire paragraph (with a different rationale, I might add; see WP:SUMMARYNO). This is how Theckedath summarizes the development in his review, which closely mirrors (mirrored) the paragraph. In short, that [t]he foundations of the holomovement is in de Broglie, which was initially sidelined, but revived and developed by Bohm:

However, de Broglie's theory met with strong criticism. The most important criticism, which was levelled by Pauli, was that in a two-body scattering process, the model could not be applied coherently. As a result of this strong attack de Broglie abandoned his suggestion [...] The ontological interpretation presented in this book is this theory as it has been developed further by [Bohm.]

In other words, it looks to me that this statement, supported by primary (Bohm and Hiley) and secondary (Pylkkänen) sources, was removed because it create[d an] impression you disagreed with. wound theology◈ 23:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The Theckedath quote is about de Broglie's pilot wave theory, not about holomovement. (The pilot wave model is claimed to be an "ontological interpretation" but holomovement is obvious not).

The pilot wave 'theory' of de Broglie was an undeveloped concept, a creative idea that he did not expand into a predictive model. It was a cool idea, but as Pauli pointed out, it had serious fundamental limitations. Most importantly for this article, de Broglie's model was "local" and contained none of the action at distance characteristic of Bohm's "wholeness" ideas. Bohm developed the concept into a complete interpretation of QM in his 1952 paper. The key aspect Bohm added was the quantum potential. The source

• Bohm, D. J., & Hiley, B. J. (1975). On the intuitive understanding of nonlocality as implied by quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 5(1), 93-109.

explicitly connects Bohm's 1952 introduction of the "quantum potential" to the radically new notion of unbroken wholeness of the entire universe.

Unless you have an explicit source to the contrary, the creation of the holomovement idea should be credited solely and completely to Bohm. If Bohm says there is a relationship to de Broglie's idea we can say that. If Pylkkänen says Bohm said there is a relationship we can say that. We cannot say there is a relationship without a source saying there is. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The Theckedath quote explicitly related de Broglie's pilot wave theory to holomovement. The title of the fucking book review is David Bohm and the Holomovement. It is explicit, it is right there; the last section of the book review discusses exactly this. You keep stating that the paragraph does not credit the creation of the holomovement idea...solely and completely to Bohm which is, one, completely false -- it does not say anything to the contrary, only that Bohm's development of the idea is connected to his work on de Broglie (hence the Theckedath quote). Please point out exactly in this paragraph which you removed where it states that de Broglie should be credit for the creation of the holomovement:

The foundations of the holomovement trace back to Louis de Broglie's 1927 proposal of a pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics, which posited a deterministic alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation. Although initially sidelined, this approach was later revived by Bohm in 1952, leading to the development of the de Broglie–Bohm theory.

Bohm was inspired by the pilot-wave theory to develop holomovement, thus [t]he foundations of the holomovement can be explicitly states to trace back to it. Theckedath makes this clear enough but the final two sections of Bohm do as well. If you want to couch this statement with whatever qualifiers are in the source, then do that; but I again must emphasize that your stated edit summary gave a different rationale. What you are arguing now is completely irrelevant to that, per your own words you removed it because it creates an impression of a connection between the metaphysics topic and physics which is explicitly there in the sources. wound theology◈ 04:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Theckedath's review clearly and explicitly separates discussion of Bohm's ontological model from discussion of "holomovement". The review never mentions the word "holomovement" until it gets to the last chapter. In that part of the review Theckedath says:

• We preface our criticism of the positions taken in the last chapter with the statement that this does not take away from the full support we give to ontological interpretation of quantum theory developed in the first fourteen chapters.

This part of the review also says:

• The authors explain the difference between this idea and the original idea of a pilot wave introduced by de Broglie. "... the key difference of our idea from that of de Broglie is that we do not attempt to explain the guidance relation in a simple mechanical way as an effect of non-linear propagation fields. Instead we are appealing to the notion that a particle has a rich a complex inner structure which can respond to information and direct its self-motion accordingly".

This supports my claim that holomovement is Bohm's invention alone.

I don't understand why you want to connect de Broglie to holomovement. I think it is much more correct to focus on Bohm and much better for the reader to focus on trying to express the idea of 'holomovement'. In this regard Theckedath's discussion of enfolding/unfolding seems very useful. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Once again you have failed to actually point out where in the paragraph excised that it actually claims that holomovement is de Broglie's rather than Bohm's invention alone. The paragraph does not say de Broglie introduced the holomovement in his proposal of a pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics, it says quite clearly that de Broglie posited a deterministic alternative and that this approach was later revived by Bohm in 1952, from which Bohm developed his metaphysical notion. Even the second paragraph you cite here mentions a relationship, in which there is a difference between this idea and the original idea introduced by de Broglie: Bohm is responding to and building upon de Broglie. There is nothing factually incorrect in stating that the notion of the holomovement is rooted in a sidelined interpretation of de Broglie that Bohm revisits and develops. Trying to remove any reference to de Broglie when there is a clear historical relationship and trajectory is inappropriate. Again, the appropriate course of action would have been to give more context or to have applied a maintenance tag like {{Clarify}} or {{Vague}}. Each of these statements is factually correct and supported by the sources:

• de Broglie introduced a deterministic alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation;
• this deterministic alternative was sidelined;
• Bohm revisited and redeveloped this alternative as the de Broglie-Bohm theory;
• Bohm rooted his metaphysical speculation in this alternative.

If you believe that any one of these statements is inaccurate, please point it out. wound theology◈ 01:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I encourage you to develop content based on that last item before attempting extrapolate backwards. Bohm's ideas in physics are much deeper than de Broglie's. In Bohm's "Wholeness and the implicate order" he barely mentions de Broglie.

All of these claims are partly accurate and partly misleading. (At the time de Broglie proposed the pilot wave, the "Copenhagen interpretation" had not been defined; no referee told de Broglie to get out of the game, that was his decision; Bohm theory is much more than a revisitation). But these issue are not relevant because only the last item is notable for this article.

I stand by my delete and it's clear to me that we won't come to agreement. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You claim these issue are not relevant because only the last item is notable for this article but this is demonstrably false as all of the previous claims are discussed at length in the sources, regardless of minor details. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and discussing the Origins and background of an idea is totally appropriate. You are free to stop discussing this because it's clear that I won't agree with a deletion that is not supported by policy. wound theology◈ 02:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge. This is a collection of mystical, religious writings which attempts to gain legitimacy and credibility by throwing around specific, concrete ideas in physics and mathematics. Linking to holonomy is a particularly egregious example: Bohm did not "coin the term", and it has a rigorous and precise definition in mathematics that has nothing at all to do with quantum or physics: it is a way of computing changes of coordinate systems as one moves around in a loop, or more generally, captures the global structure of geometric objects. It's got nothing at all to do with feelings of wholeness with the universe. Also: a personal remark, and a practical remark. Personally, as a practicing mathematician, I hold, uhh "mystical" views that are far more extreme than what shows up here. I personally align with what Micheal Levin writes about, when he talks about "ingressing". I'm more extreme than Levin, mostly because I know more math than he does. So I understand extremist mystical viewpoints. I'm sympathetic to some of them. It's OK to write them up and discuss them. However: are they worthy of a Wikipedia article? In this case, I don't see enough evidence to conclude that this topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article. A side-show curiosity? Yes. A mainstream position held by hundreds of practicing mathematicians and physicists? No. Can a non-physics/math person subscribe to this theory? Not in any meaningful way. Being an expert in bath salts is not enough. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Your "wholonomy" edit was vandalism. Please stop. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. It was the most minimal edit I could think of that removed some obvious nonsense while keeping the spirit intact. Perhaps this was poor judgement on my part. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, I don't like it either; but it has secondary sources and more than enough content now to warrant a separate page. Not a single argument you've made here is based on policy. wound theology◈ 06:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I explicitly stated that I do like it. So please do not distort what I say into the exact opposite. The question asked is whether or not to merge. I replied. According to my understanding of WP policy, it should be merged. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep I suggested a merge, but it's also ok as an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The last version available before the edit-warring appears to be far superior to the current version. Perhaps this lies at the root cause of the contention: an OK-ish article was re-written into blabber which then raises hackles as to notatbility and general cruftiness. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining how it is non-notable and what you mean by "general cruftiness"? wound theology◈ 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Compare the two versions; it should be obvious. The earlier version actually says important and useful things, that are interesting and even notable. The present version is mostly vacuous hot air. My impression is much of this debate would not have happened, if the earlier version stood. It's not particularly good, but its a lot better than the current version. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. wound theology◈ 08:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Fringey metaphysics and cruft

I'll be honest that this is what often drives me crazy when physicists decide they're metaphysicians and start talking about brain structures: they create these grand all-encompassing theories that have no focus nor scope. This, in turn, leads to cruft like a reception section that spends a paragraph on the applications of this supposedly philosophical / physical concept to kabbalistic religious practice. The reception section needs greater depth and less breadth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I found nothing in the article to suggest that Bohm (physicist) talks about "brain structures". The reception section cites works that discuss holomovement, some of which run to full books. If you think it needs more depth, please contribute. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it either and think that physicists should generally stay out of philosophy (incl. metaphysics) but Kevin J. Sharpe for example is a real and notable theologian and the sources given are generally reliable for the views of their authors (i.e. Zygon (journal) and a Festschriften published by SUNY Press). wound theology◈ 06:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)