What does 'holodynamic system' mean?

[This section was originally part of "The Modern Superstitions of Science and Religion", but given its importance and that it is central to much of what I write and present in courses, is now a separate post]

The term holo-dynamic system is (in my opinion) a more descriptive understanding of "holomovement" — a term coined by the late physicist, David Bohm. Bohm used the term holomovement to more accurately describe the inherent holographic nature of reality.


What Jesus said about capitalism (Gittins - SMH)

"The name sabbath (the seventh day) is a reference to the biblical injunction - mainly honoured in the breach - that the Jews practice ''jubilee''. Every 50th year (the year following the passing of seven times seven years), slaves were to be freed, people were to be released from their debts and land returned to its original owners.

So sabbath economics involves an ''ethic of regular and systematic wealth and power redistribution''. You can see why this is an uncomfortable topic (for me as much as anyone else).


An elegant life

I recently chimed into a forum discussing the subject of quantum physics, and the implications thereof.

Out of which came some ways of explaining my views in a more 'elegant' manner.

Following are my edited excerpts of my final few posts to this forum:


Years ago, when in a self-development course, the teacher said "you're 100% responsible for your reality" ... me, in response "nah, that can't be true" (in class), He, "it's 100%". Me, "Nah, it can't be because ... yadda yadda". Class now cranky with me, an upstart who won't sit quietly and obediently listen.

Long story short. It is a literal 100%. I've done a lot of work over the years to nail the mechanics of how that can occur.

But here's the thing. If not 100%, then what figure is it? 100% has a certain 'purity' to it that I found compelling.

Science can't get near that 100%, blaming chance, or randomness or god knows what else. That's inelegant.

100% is elegant.


Systems thinking - an oxymoron?

A contributor on LinkedIn had wisdom to write: "A system is. Anything that follows that is either redundant or restrictive."

My response: 

To some extent I agree, but perhaps not for obvious reasons.

I dropped out of system thinking dialogue for the lack of in-depth consideration of natural systems that ... well, are natural and work.

In particular, the role of quantum coherence in organising systems.

As this article explains:

"Molecular biologists "are trained to look at the molecule," Engel said. "We don't usually design systems. We design molecules. The question becomes: Which aspects of this do we strive to recreate? We are very interested in the design principles. How could you design one of these?"

I believe that unless you're talking quantum principles, as applied to systems, you're wasting time (pun not originally intended, but in hindsight, a good one ... in that with quantum coherence there is an immediate "at-once" connectedness to life, that obviously wastes no time whatsoever. Can't get more efficient than that, or more effective and immediate :).


The modern superstitions of science and religion


Modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous.

This continuity of movement implies continuity of operation (of the world we experience) which naturally induced the perception that our universe (and our bodies) operated like a clockwork machine. This machine-world view was the impetus for the Industrial Revolution which resulted in many beneficial technologies (aircraft, automobiles, etc).

Around 200 years after Newton developed the calculus (which is based on the assumption of perfect continuity), the continuous-machine model was not able to explain a growing number of puzzling experimental results1 especially those concerning the presumed wave-like behaviour of light.

In 1905 Albert Einstein resolved the mismatch of clockwork theory with actual experiment with his photo-electric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics. Light came in 'lumps' or particles of energy, and these particles, what we call 'photons', were not continuous.

This 'quantum' view of light gave rise to a burst of discoveries2, leading to what is now accepted as being, by far, "the most successful physical theory in history"3 : quantum theory.

Physicists quipped that quantum physics was all about 'lumps and jumps' - lumps of light that 'jump' from location to location without travelling the intervening space.

As one leading physicist explained, "according to the quantum theory, movement is not4 fundamentally continuous".

However, our sciences are still working on the assumption of clockwork continuity, which works well enough for rockets, rifles and railways.

Medical science, for example, still seeks to find the static machine-parts (genes) responsible for our personal behaviours, despite the evidence for nonlocal, interconnecting fields of quantum potentials that would, if researched, open whole new avenues for healing and wellbeing.

In the minutia of physical movement, movement is not continuous, nor clockwork in nature, nor predictable, nor certain.

Yet our sciences carry on, as if it were. The bulk of modern science is reliant on 17th century assumptions that are incompatible with world's most successful physical theory. The scientific method calls for theories to be discarded or modified when faced with evidence that is unable to be accommodated within the scope of a particular theory. This is how science advances. The geocentric model (Earth as centre of the universe) was ultimately replaced by the heliocentric model (Earth orbiting the Sun) because of the weight of evidence for the heliocentric model.

The intransigence to upgrade science's mechanical-universe model with one that is compatible with the quantum evidence is, like the behaviour of priests in Galileo's time, the hallmark of dogma, superstition and greed. That failure (to accommodate the facts within a congruent world-view) is a travesty of modern science.

In brief:

Standard5 modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous (comprising an infinite-series6 of ever-so-small "infinitesimal" movements).

There are no bodily processes (chemical, electrical or otherwise) that can move anything infinitely ("infinite" literally means without end). Accordingly, physical movement is theoretically impossible when based on standard science's Newtonian (17th century) "assumptions". Given that physical movement is a routine aspect of everyday life, the root assumptions of standard science are clearly and unambiguously wrong.

Instead of applying 17th century thinking to our 21st century world, a new holodynamic world-view that matches the (quantum) evidence is, arguably, well overdue.


Superstition - "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation."

While sharing various ideas on a forum recently, it became evident there are many people (including and especially atheists, scientists and the religious) who still very deeply rely on superstitious beliefs.

And by "superstitious" beliefs, none are more evident than when the topic of Zeno's Paradoxes is considered.

To put things in context:

Imagine we have a number of belief-systems, let's call them BS1 and BS2. Let's now see how well they match a particular set of evidence (facts and observations, as can be readily experienced on planet Earth).


Does God Exist?

In response to the question "Does God exist?" on a forum in LinkedIn, I drafted the following, which seems to be sufficiently well-formed to be posted here, prior to posting there as well:


There is no "God" in a purely objective, independent sense for that would require weird, nonsensical disconnects (within any holodynamic systems, or indeed any reasonable rational context).

The idea of an independent creator was an idea developed during the childhood of humanity:

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1


More great stuff

Continuing on from 'Consider some stuff', we can inquire further about the nature of stuff.

Since it's infinitely inclusive, my choices (and everyone elses) necessarily are 'made of' this one-stuff, whatever it is.

As well as the brain matter that facilitates (filters and frames the range of) choices.

Once again, one-stuff can't be excluded from all that occurs, otherwise it wouldn't be one-stuff that is the ground of all.

btw, one-stuff is perhaps a poor description. It might better be described as one-process, or one principle.

Which ultimately validates the Theory of One and All, with both sides being interdependent, and inter-penetrating, like individual and community; hand and body, wave and particle, finite and infinite.


Don’t compete, CREATE!

As a small business owner, you've probably heard about the growing need for creativity and innovation. Let's put things in perspective. Firstly, we know that franchised businesses are generally more profitable and successful. We've heard the rule-of-thumb regarding the 80/20 rule. 80% of small businesses go out of business in the first 5 years, while the reverse is true of franchises - 80% of franchises are not only still in business, but thrivingE-myth.

So what do franchises get right? Good systems, and strong marketing. Do you need to be a franchise in order to have good systems? No, there's good-value help available from companies such as "Brain in a box" who focus on providing robust, effective systems for small businesses.

At the very least, reading and applying Michael Gerber's E-Myth material (on systemising the business) is invaluable to your future business success. But having good systems is only half the story - creativity, innovation or being imaginative is highly important to small businesses, and increasingly so. Research confirms that Einstein was right all along.

Imagination really is more important and profitable than knowledge. Experience, and what you know about your market, together with good systems is helpful, but new data reveals that entrepreneurial startups are the real engine of economies: