Talk:Reality shift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] The significance of reality shifts

The idea of reality shifts has been mentioned in several places, and is one of the areas in metaphysics that is receiving increasing attention by researchers in the field. The term 'reality shifts' has been used for years, and it's time that all information pertaining to the subject is shared in such a way that people can better understand it. There are many web sites dedicated to describing individual experiences of reality shifts, although not yet as many books on the subject. Undoubtedly, we'll be seeing more of both in the future, and this page on reality shifts will be one that grows in both breadth and depth.

[edit] This...

Is all POV nonsense, that no one has pointed out in the article is unproven and unscientific. Doesn't even adhere to the possibility that coincidences are just that!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that almost the entire article has been created by someone who cites their own research from a magazine leads me to NPOV issue as well. I also agree with that top sentence, the whole article seems to be set-up to lead the readers to go to that one specific website. 88.104.207.77 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Klimov 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts, the version of the article from this date did look like it was overly-promoting a single source specifically. The Kinslayer 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

'...the version of the article from this date did look like it was overly-promoting a single source...' OK, that may be so, but I'd say that the info contained was new for me and I'd describe it as significant and useful. Maybe we should edit the article to make it more balanced? --Klimov 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been since that comment was made, and work continues on it on almost a daily basis. I think it's improved quite well recently and I understand a couple of people are looking for as many varied sources as they can find in order to help make the article more balanced. The Kinslayer 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Though it has increased in length, it is still horribly slanted. It doesn't matter so much that more sources are thrown in when they still only support one point of view. Take the most recent edit to the opening sentence (as of this post): "Reality shift is the name given to sudden changes in time and space, which is attributed by some to a holographic, computational, or multiverse nature of reality, and which others say results entirely from synchronicity or coincidence." That's sooo slanted. First, it suggests that there is an actual change in time in space, which is totally debatable. It should read, at worst, to say that it is "perceived" changes. Then it goes on to say that they are attributed by some to be holographic, computational, etc. with no mention whatsoever of the prevailing ideas that these are simply delusions or an altered perception of reality. Many people experience vertigo when they get drunk. No one seriously suggests that the room is physically spinning. It's one thing to say that somebody out there thinks that the world is a hologram, but it should at least be stated with more prominence that this is a marginalized theory. Most people think the world is NOT a hologram. I'm not going to bother making changes because much of the article is flawed. However, I strongly encourage the NPOV tag to remain.--70.88.231.237 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Having personally experienced 'shifts', I must agree that the label "perceived" is very important. One aspect of shifts that is neglected in the main article is that very often the shift is observed by only one or two people, while the remainder of people will argue that the 'new reality' is the one that was in place all along. Obviously this makes the experience *personal* and unless you have multiple witnesses, indistinguishable from a bad case of faulty memory. Only a few rare incidents with multiple witnesses have managed to convince me that a genuine phenomenon is occurring. So without prejudice against the concept, this subject has too many possible explanations to not retain the NPOV disputed tag.199.212.94.129 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Charles

In an effort to neutralize the article, I added a scope. Using the scope, it should be possible to present a neutral point of view of the theory alone. That is, describe the theory and then supply arguments for and against it. If written correctly it could be both informative and unbiased as to whether or not reality shifts exist. --Nealparr 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The science and history of reality shifts

The study of reality shifts, while relatively new, has been undertaken by physicists, sociologists, and computer scientists over the past decade. While there are currently relatively few books and articles on this subject, it is worthy of recognition and continued research. Articles and books which contribute key ideas are being cited and will be added to this article as it is developed, reviewed by researchers in the field, and expanded. Cynthia Sue Larson 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Intro

This article needs an opening sentence that briefly defines what reality shifts are, that also briefly states the leading theories, rather than mostly stating possible alternative explanations outside of the reality shift phenomena. Since there are various points of view on how best to attain that NPOV, this discussion page seems the best place to work something out amongst all editors, rather than switching the sentence around from one POV to another. If there is a better way to word the opening sentence to briefly define and describe reality shifts along with alternate explanations that this, I'd love to see it:

Reality shift is the name given to sudden changes in time and space, which is attributed by some to a holographic, computational, or multiverse nature of reality, and which others say results entirely from synchronicity or coincidence.

-- Cynthia Sue Larson 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you could get a less POV intro than the existing intro. Your suggestion posits that reality shifts actually exist, which is decidedly POV. Moriori 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the current existing intro states: Reality shift is the name attributed by some to the appearance or disappearance of objects, which others say results entirely from synchronicity or coincidence. Cynthia Sue Larson 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. What it doesn't infer/state is that losing your car keys results from a phenomenon that may not even exist. Your favoured version clearly claims that "sudden changes in time and space" actually exist. tMoriori 03:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and I certainly understand that reality shifts could seem implausible to those who haven't experienced them. I'd love to keep the essence of the concept of reality shifts intact in the intro, so readers new to the idea can understand what reality shifts are at least as much as reading about what reality shifts may not be. This is the NPOV balanced perspective this article needs for the introduction and throughout the entire piece, and I am counting on assistance with this, since I acknowledge that I do have point of view bias. Cynthia Sue Larson 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the 'Reality Shift' Wikipedia entry as written by Cynthia Larsen, and in my opinion it should be entirely removed. My reasons are the following:

I have been interested in both quantum physics and anomalous paranormal events for many years. In pursuit of these interests I have followed the various research and theoretical opinions in which the category of Reality Shifts resides. Because of my scholarly interests, I believe I can provide Wikipedia with reliable information, coupled with my educated POV, about Cynthia Larsen's Reality Shift entry.

I believe it is imperative that Wikipedia separate Cynthia Larsen from the topic of Reality Shifts, as far as her being the representative voice of Reality Shifts on Wikipedia. In other words, you can have an objective article written about the topic of Reality Shifts, but not a Reality Shift entry by or about Cynthia Larsen and her Reality Shift opinions. Her entry comes across as exactly what it is, which is a self promoting piece in which she is using Wikipedia as a personal marketing platform. Not only does her entry do a disservice to the actual topic of Reality Shifts, and the actual researchers and scholars in the field. It does a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia who expect accurate and objective information, regardless of whether the topic is mainstream, cutting edge, theoretical, or speculation.

There are some very serious problems with Cynthia Larsen's entry, besides it being a blatant advertisement for her business. The greatest problem can be found in her Wikipedia entry itself, because this is where Cynthia Larsen demonstrates that she isn't really an expert on Reality Shifts at all, despite the hype she puts out there. This isn't only my opinion. This is fact and I'm going to prove these facts by using her own words as further grounds to have her entry removed.

The topic of Reality Shifts is a valid and historical quantum mystery involving the apparent shifting of realities. The problem is with Cynthia Larsen presenting the topic of Reality Shifts in a Wikipedia venue. It isn't even a matter of the entry being a slanted self promotion of Cynthia Larsen as a self proclaimed expert on Reality Shifts, which of course it is, and in that is objectionable and grounds for removal. The greater problem is that, based on the substance of her entry, she shows a remarkable lack of understanding of what Reality Shifts are, including Reality Shift criteria and the mechanism by which they function and are perceived.

Point in fact can be found in Cynthia Larsen's very first line, which purports to be a definition of Reality Shifts. She writes:

"Reality shift is the name attributed by some to the appearance or disappearance of objects, which others say results entirely from synchronicity or coincidence. Believers in reality shift say it also encompasses transformation or transportation of objects [snip]"

Students of anomalous and-or paranormal events know that this activity is not defined as being a Reality Shift. The appearance or disappearance of objects is an anomalous phenomenon known as aports. Aports can be found in the study of psi activity, and have classically been attributed to some form of paranormal activity such as poltergeists, or even a human mind capable of spontaneous telekinesis. The cause of aports has never been considered, by paranormal experts, to be Reality Shift based. One of the more well known examples of an aport are keys that go missing, and then show up elsewhere in a way that defies physical logic. If Cynthia Larsen's definition of Reality Shifts is to be believed, the keys changed position or teleported because there was a shift in reality. Yet on a scale of one to ten, on a list of the top ten theorized causes of aports, Reality Shifts wouldn't even rank. There is a fractional theoretical possibility that the keys moved because reality shifted. However, this isn't even close to being able to say that aports are defined by a Reality Shift, or that Reality Shifts are defined by aports.

There's more. Many of the items that Cynthia Larsen listed, as being examples of Reality Shifts, are not examples of Reality Shifts at all. Among her misrepresentations are "spoon bending", "lights being flipped on or off without switches being touched", and "time loops". In actuality: spoon bending is, and always has been, considered to be psi activity and is not related to shifting realities. Light switches flipping on an off, if not an electrical malfunction, is also considered to be psi activity not related to shifting realities. And time loops is a phenomena that belongs in a whole other category known as anomalous repeating time events, which is theorized to be caused by something larger and more global than a personally perceived and localized Reality Shift. The fact that Cynthia Larsen doesn't understand that her examples are not examples of Reality Shifts, are yet more reasons to completely remove her 'Reality Shift' entry.

According to indepth research that I have read, from those with a better and more accurate understanding of Reality Shifts than Cynthia Larsen, the basic definition of a Reality Shift is any perceived alteration or shifting in one's localized reality. Most reported Reality Shifts are personal anecdotal and localized events which are completely POV perceptions. Some Reality Shifts have been documented but these are rare. While this basic definition may seem overly broad, experts define a Reality Shift by very specific criteria. Based on her entry, Cynthia Larsen does not use or understand this criteria when defining Reality Shifts.

Cynthia Larsen's misrepresentation of the definition of a Reality Shift, plus her examples misrepresentations, should be enough to tell you that Cynthia Larsen should not be the spokesperson for Reality Shifts on Wikipedia. She has her own web site where she hypes her self proclaimed knowledge of Reality Shifts. This is a business for her and where her Reality Shift opinions should remain. I believe it is inapporpriate for Wikipedia to be an extension and advertisement for her business. If Wikipedia allows Cynthia Larsen's article to remain in any form that bares her information or name, that would be tantamount to Wikipedia endorsing her and thereby raising her status to a level that she dosn't deserve.

Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose goal is to present objective research information, and is used and quoted by people all over the globe, to allow Cynthia Larsen to be promoted as the authority on Reality Shifts is highly illogical, misleading, and disappointing under the circumstances. Thank you kindly, Quantum Reality 12:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the other stuff, but I wanted to chime in on apports. Apports are definitely considered to be a paranormal materialization. However, they have a limited definition. Apports refer to paranormal materizations occuring in the vicinity of a medium, mostly during a seance or some other activity in connection to a spirit world. The idea is that the apport materialized from the spirit world. A set of keys mysteriously appearing from thin air with no apparent reason would be considered an apport. But a set of lost keys appearing in a place that you just checked and found none, a place where you knew you had put them to begin with, would be considered a reality shift because it suggests that reality has changed to a version where the keys are actually in that location. In the previous version of reality, no such keys were there although they should have been. While apports imply some sort of spirit, ghost, or medium intervention, reality shifts imply that reality forgot to include the keys at the location and then fixed itself. Now, of course, I'm speaking of all these things in terms of hypotheticals like they actually exist. In the article, I wouldn't make such a claim. My point is that if worded differently, some of the examples could be considered reality shifts. The problem is that reality shifts are yet to be properly defined in the article and that goes to why I think a scope is important. The other stuff, as far as who's qualified to speak on it, I'm not getting into : ) --Nealparr 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern about the reality shifts page being predominantly edited by any particular individual, myself included. I have written about the subject of reality shifts in an ebook which has been endorsed by the founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Edgar Mitchell (the sixth man to walk on the moon), as well as by physicist Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, and by Dr. Larry Dossey... all who are eminently qualified to assess my writing about reality shifts, and all who have none of the concerns mentioned above regarding the appropriateness of my use of the term reality shifts. I suggest that those who are concerned about the term reality shifts being too broad read the works of others in the field, whose books are included in the references section of this article. In the meantime, I'm very pleased to see how others are so beautifully adding to and improving this reality shifts article! Cynthia Sue Larson 00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This article was recently moving in the direction of a neutral, fact based article. Now it's moving back towards a fluff piece. It seems hopeless. Everytime an edit comes in that makes it more neutral, someone re-edits it with fluff POV adjectives like "fantastical". And remove all links to external web sites, even if they have something to do with the subject, because they're just promotional links. This is a very lame article.

I made quite a few changes which, I feel, help to make the article read neutrally. I personally feel that the NPOV tag can be removed now if it remains neutral.--Nealparr 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I added a POV tag. It is POV to claim as the intro does that this refers to sudden and enigmatic changes in one's physical, spatial, or temporal environment. There are lots of influences on enigmatic changes to one's physical, spatial, or temporal environment, and they are hardly all caused by a theoretical reality shift.Moriori 08:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no cause suggested in the first line. There's a simple statement that there is a change. That change can be mental, physical, or any number of things. The change itself isn't POV because either there is or there isn't a change. If there's no change, then it's not a reality shift. Except for the adjective "enigmatic" suggesting that it is mysterious, it is actually absent of any POV. In fact, it needs a causal statement. I'm going to go add one. --Nealparr 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. It is obvious POV that a something called Reality shift refers to sudden and enigmatic changes in one's physical, spatial, or temporal environment. Cause aside, that statement infers that the term refers only to the changes mentioned (and similar), and that it is the exclusive reason for those changes. There is the equally valid POV that Reality shift refers to the irrational interpretation made by people who say the loss of car keys (example) is due to a nebulous paranormal event. Without such counterbalance, the intro is demonstrably POV so I am restoring the POV tag. Moriori 07:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, we're trying to keep the article out of the POV stack. POV tags are useful when the whole body of an article or at least significant sections are disputed. A POV tag for one line is nitpicking. I spent a lot of time going through the article making it more neutral (check the history, it needed work). Nitpicking is irritating. If you really feel that strongly that the one line requires the POV, eventhough the rest of the article clearly demonstrates multiple points of view, then please take a second and change that one line so that you're happy with it. I certainly can't guess what would make you happy, and the burden of fixing the one line you dispute is on you.--Nealparr 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the intro line. It now reads:

Reality shift is a term used by proponents of anomalous phenomena to describe what they feel are sudden and enigmatic changes in one's physical, spatial, or temporal environment. Causes of these proposed anomalies are frequently disputed by both proponents and detractors.

I feel that's about as neutral as it gets. The rest of the points of view of whether or not it actually exists and what it might be if it does is covered in the rest of the article. We can get really technical and say that the line is still a point of view, and it is, but it is a neutral point of view. The only dispute that I can think of that would make it unneutral is if it's suggested that the term is used by people other than proponents of anomalous phenomena. Please document it if that's the case. I don't think that the people who feel that it is an "irrational interpretation" use the term "reality shifts". To my knowledge, they use terms such as "logical fallacies", "hallucinations", or even "irrational interpretations of mundane events", etc., but not "reality shifts". If they do use reality shifts, it is in the context of arguing against reality shifts as being real, but accept the definition above. Of course, if that's in dispute, please take the time to reword it to be correct. We're really trying to get a stable version of this document.

Terms that detractors use are strewn throughout the rest of the article and can of course be expanded upon. There's a whole section I put in previously about criticisms of the idea. --Nealparr 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReality_shift_f36a.html"

Categories: Requests for paranormal peer review | Start-Class paranormal articles | WikiProject Paranormal articles