The Holographic Book

Ahnimus

This in regards to a book Angelica quoted on the "Man-made Logic" thread [The Holographic Universe]. The book is written by Science-Ficiton author Michael Talbot and claims to be non-fiction. However, I've found difficulty in locating any criticism of this book especially from the scientific community. It's referenced on websites of mysticism, but doesn't appear on websites regarding actual science.

If anyone is aware of such criticism I'd be happy to read it before even considering reading this book. So far, all I've found in terms of criticism is the following statement.

amazon.com wrote:

Although I admit to taking a dim view of books I consider pseudoscientific, I agreed to read "The Holographic Universe" on the urging of friends. As one example of deplorable scholarship, I quote from this book: "And in his "Philosophical Essays" the Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote, 'There surely never was so great a number of miracles ascribed to one person as those which were lately said to have been wrought in France upon the tomb of Abbe Paris. Many of the miracles were immediately proved upon the spot, before judges of unquestioned credit and distinction, in a learned age, and on the most eminent theatre that is now in the world.'" (page 131)
I had the good fortune of having read this passage immediately after being reminded (in "NTC's Dictionary of Changes in Meanings") that the earlier meaning of "to prove" (certainly the meaning in this passage by David Hume, written in the 18th century) was "to try" or "to test." I suppose Talbot could be excused for not knowing that Hume was reporting that these so-called "miracles" were on trial, not that they were "shown to be true," our present-day meaning of the word.

However it would be difficult to excuse the author's totally misleading and apparently intentional mis-quotation of David Hume, eminent philosopher and skeptic.

Hume's actual statement reads thus: "There surely never was a greater number of miracles ascribed to one person, than those, which were lately said to have been wrought in France upon the tomb of Abbe Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sactiity the people were so long deluded."

To deliberately delete a portion of quoted text and thereby twist its meaning so thoroughly is scholarship at its absolute worst.

The book just continues with more poor scholarship and unproven, pseudoscientific ramblings.

If you are looking for a thoroughly engaging and fascinating report on the latest probings into the mysteries of our world I highly recommend Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe, Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory." String Theory, though still theoretical, is nevertheless "real science."

One star for "The Holographic Universe" is too many. Unfortunately zero stars was not an option.

Warner and Christine, I still value our friendship even though I didn't like the book!

"the Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, now that does interest me. I saw the video "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene on Google Video. Good stuff.

Ahnimus

Wow, well apparently his book is being used as a reference for the wikipedia article on parapsychology. Using "The Holographic Universe" as a resource for quotes, when the above post demonstrates how the real quotes had been manipulated.

Parapsychologists feel that isolation from other branches of science does not occur because parapsychology has nothing to offer other fields, but because of bias.[26] Parapsychologists feel that they can contribute in many ways. One area where parapsychological research into the possible effects of human consciousness on matter might benefit physicists is in the area of quantum theory. Robert G Jahn, professor of aerospace sciences and dean emeritus of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton University, while writing about the effects of human consciousness on the quantum world, said

"I think we have long since passed the place in high energy physics where we're examining the structure of a passive universe. I think we're into the domain where the interplay of consciousness in the environment is taking place on such a primary scale that we are indeed creating reality by any reasonable definition of the term.[27]"

27. ^ Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe HarperPerennial, 1991 p.139

angelica

Glad to know you're thinking of me, Ahnimus! Give the book a read! You might like the part where they talk about the bias of scientists, you know, given that they are human and as prone to unconscious bias as anyone!

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Glad to know you're thinking of me, Ahnimus! Give the book a read! You might like the part where they talk about the bias of scientists, you know, given that they are human and as prone to unconscious bias as anyone!

Or like the author of this book, who hails from a background in Sci-Fi.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Glad to know you're thinking of me, Ahnimus! Give the book a read! You might like the part where they talk about the bias of scientists, you know, given that they are human and as prone to unconscious bias as anyone!

By the way there is a video on google called "The Holographic Universe" which states the same things, but then near the end says it proves Allah's existence. See these people just take facts and twist them anyway they want.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Or like the author of this book, who hails from a background in Sci-Fi.

Just so you know, I'm onto the ploy of trying to undermine the credibility of the author when you are unable to undermine the credibility of the many statements in the book. The many statements in the book still stand. Anyone else??

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

By the way there is a video on google called "The Holographic Universe" which states the same things, but then near the end says it proves Allah's existence. See these people just take facts and twist them anyway they want.

Oh, are you one of those who believe in multiple creative forces that support the universe? There is but one Source, whatever qualities we choose to ascribe to it.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Just so you know, I'm onto the ploy of trying to undermine the credibility of the author when you are unable to undermine the credibility of the many statements in the book. The many statements in the book still stand. Anyone else??

I haven't read the book, I have no idea what the statements are in it, except that it has something to do with your holons and wholeness theory.

That is easily debunked by the fact that people who are "aware" of these holons still cannot manipulate them. So if this theory claims to lead to "faster than light" travel, why couldn't we just will ourselves into another part of the universe and for that matter, why can't we just will the universe away?

Speaking of "will" why can't we will what we want? Instead we have desires which are beyond our control. If we can't even will what our desires be, how are we going to have any control over the universe?

See it's torn down that easy.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I haven't read the book, I have no idea what the statements are in it, except that it has something to do with your holons and wholeness theory.

That is easily debunked by the fact that people who are "aware" of these holons still cannot manipulate them. So if this theory claims to lead to "faster than light" travel, why couldn't we just will ourselves into another part of the universe and for that matter, why can't we just will the universe away?

Speaking of "will" why can't we will what we want? Instead we have desires which are beyond our control. If we can't even will what our desires be, how are we going to have any control over the universe?

See it's torn down that easy.

Actually it has nothing to do with holons or holon theory--that's Ken Wilber and the giants whose shoulders he stands on.

It has to do with a the concept of the holograph and how each part of the holograph contains knowledge of the whole. Which is akin to my favourite analogy of the drop of water also being the ocean, and therefore also containing all knowledge of the ocean within it.

Pretty interesting how you think it's at all valid to debunk a theory when you don't even know what it is. David Bohm was a reputable physicist who hung out with Einstein, sharing numerous chats with the man. He is far from non-reputable.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Actually it has nothing to do with holons or holon theory--that's Ken Wilber and the giants whose shoulders he stands on.

It has to do with a the concept of the holograph and how each part of the holograph contains knowledge of the whole. Which is akin to my favourite analogy of the drop of water also being the ocean, and therefore also containing all knowledge of the ocean within it.

Pretty interesting how you think it's at all valid to debunk a theory when you don't even know what it is. David Bohm was a reputable physicist who hung out with Einstein, sharing numerous chats with the man. He is far from non-reputable.

Yet, he didn't convince Einstein of his theories? I think you have Bohm's idea of the universe confused with your own.

"Ken Wilber and the giants whose shoulders he stands on." Well fuck me, if you don't idolize these people. I've never even heard of this punk or the dipshits he walks on.

It still doesn't change the fact that we are forced to live within this holograph without having any control over it, yet it effects us. Therefor the universe may be holographic in that sense, but even so, we are part of that holograph and have no ability to will it to do anything. That theory doesn't change anything.

PaperPlates

Ahnimus wrote:

Yet, he didn't convince Einstein of his theories? I think you have Bohm's idea of the universe confused with your own.

"Ken Wilber and the giants whose shoulders he stands on." Well fuck me, if you don't idolize these people. I've never even heard of this punk or the dipshits he walks on.

It still doesn't change the fact that we are forced to live within this holograph without having any control over it, yet it effects us. Therefor the universe may be holographic in that sense, but even so, we are part of that holograph and have no ability to will it to do anything. That theory doesn't change anything.

you must be one fun guy to hang out with. Read it if you like. Don't if you don't. For a guy with quite a few crack-pot theories of you own, you sure do seem to enjoy shitting on others beliefs.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Yet, he didn't convince Einstein of his theories? I think you have Bohm's idea of the universe confused with your own.

"Ken Wilber and the giants whose shoulders he stands on." Well fuck me, if you don't idolize these people. I've never even heard of this punk or the dipshits he walks on.

It still doesn't change the fact that we are forced to live within this holograph without having any control over it, yet it effects us. Therefor the universe may be holographic in that sense, but even so, we are part of that holograph and have no ability to will it to do anything. That theory doesn't change anything.

There is clearly no debate when one of the parties is completely unaware of the subject matter. Particularly when he lashes out at others because HE is unaware of the subject matter.

Ahnimus

PaperPlates wrote:

you must be one fun guy to hang out with. Read it if you like. Don't if you don't. For a guy with quite a few crack-pot theories of you own, you sure do seem to enjoy shitting on others beliefs.

This is a book review. Dude.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

There is clearly no debate when one of the parties is completely unaware of the subject matter. Particularly when he lashes out at others because HE is unaware of the subject matter.

Well, I know he is a Sci-Fi writer, with preconceptions about how he thinks the universe should work, and ontop of that, he's clearly been caught misquoting.

I guess, by your logic, you can't talk about anything you've never read a book about. Seeing as your only knowledge of the subject of Mind/Body is works of Fiction. I don't see how you have a valid opinion on the subject.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, I know he is a Sci-Fi writer, with preconceptions about how he thinks the universe should work, and ontop of that, he's clearly been caught misquoting.

And when you can effectively dispute the specific concepts throughout the book, I'll gladly hear you out. Until then they stand.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

This is a book review. Dude.

What exactly of the book are you personally reviewing when you've not read it?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What exactly of the book are you personally reviewing when you've not read it?

It's credibility.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's credibility.

Let me get this straight, then. You are looking to undermine a book and it's concepts before you are familiar with what the concepts actually are. And you are doing it under the pretense that the author--not you of course--but the author, has preconceptions. He was caught misquoting, afterall. We all know that misquoting is much worse than what you are doing--going on no comprehension of the subject matter at all. And on top of everything else, we're calling this little witch hunt a "book review". Interesting stuff.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Let me get this straight, then. You are looking to undermine a book and it's concepts before you are familiar with what the concepts actually are. And you are doing it under the pretense that the author--not you of course--but the author, has preconceptions. He was caught misquoting, afterall. We all know that misquoting is much worse than what you are doing--going on no comprehension of the subject matter at all. And on top of everything else, we're calling this little witch hunt a "book review". Interesting stuff.

I'm not going to read this book, just as I'm not going to read Ann Coulter's book. Why would I spend the money on - and thus support - the pseudoscientific scribblings of a fiction author?

I don't need to read this book to discover that it has no credibility in the scientific community. So, yes this is a "book review" of the books credibility. Not an attack on other's beliefs.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not going to read this book, just as I'm not going to read Ann Coulter's book. Why would I spend the money on - and thus support - the pseudoscientific scribblings of a fiction author?

I don't need to read this book to discover that it has no credibility in the scientific community. So, yes this is a "book review" of the books credibility. Not an attack on other's beliefs.

I definitely agree you would not find much of value in the book. It's not your type of book. I agree--read what you are personally drawn towards.

That's about other stuff not being of the "book review" type.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I definitely agree you would not find much of value in the book. It's not your type of book. I agree--read what you are personally drawn towards.

That's about other stuff not being of the "book review" type.

Well, I'm certainly not going to go buy Stephen Hawkins "Evolution" because he's a cosmologist. Why would I want to buy a book about the universe written by a science-fiction author?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, I'm certainly not going to go buy Stephen Hawkins "Evolution" because he's a cosmologist. Why would I want to buy a book about the universe written by a science-fiction author?

I'm with PaperPlates: "Read it if you like. Don't if you don't"

The point is, you can't pass preconceptions and a witch hunt off as a book review.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm with PaperPlates: "Read it if you like. Don't if you don't"

The point is, you can't pass preconceptions and a witch hunt off as a book review.

Ok, so I can't say that "Iraq didn't have WMDs" because I wasn't in Iraq?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, so I can't say that "Iraq didn't have WMDs" because I wasn't in Iraq?

You can't say you are giving a review of something when you don't know the assertions or arguments at all.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You can't say you are giving a review of something when you don't know the assertions or arguments at all.

A review of the books credibility. Sure I can.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

A review of the books credibility. Sure I can.

This wasn't a review of the book. It was "look-I-found-this-guy-on-amazon-saying-something-bad-of-it-on-terms-of-a-particular-misquote"

You dont like the direction you think the book is going in, and you dont like the people who like it, or their views. That's ok. But no objective review that holds any more argumentative power than a "Your Mother!" statement.

(edit) I'm getting interested in the book now. Think I'll check it out.

Peace
Dan

decides2dream

i find it most interesting that you use wikipedia as a foremost reference, and a respected one obviously in your opinion. i am not agreeing/disagreeing...simply pointing ou the fact that wikipedia is NOT the end-all, be-all for respected references...and evenso, especially in the scientific community, for every study well supported, there are STILL many others who disagree with findings, just how it all works.


out of breath...as ever....well said.