Movie:"What the Bleep Do We Know"/Quantum Physics

[sasapurdue]

Just thought I would start a discussion about this movie and this subject. Have you seen the movie and if so what are your thoughts? I went to school for biology so I am not super-knowledgeable about quantum physics but the subject has caught my interest of late and I figured maybe some of you are interested also. To me it seems to be a perfect bridge between the philosophical and the scientific!

[shaytana]

Yes, I saw it. It was pretty good at explaining things but I didn't like the "acting" bits.

I want to joing the Ramtha School of Enlightment now though, I just love the way she talks.

[sasapurdue]

Yeah I think that maybe they included those 'acting' parts to maintain the attention of a larger audience possibly, not just people who are science/philosophy/theory junkies. But yes, I know what you mean, I would have liked it just as much if not more if they would have stuck with the documentary style all the way through.

[Hypnos]

I'm a physicist, I have not seen the movie, but those who have said it sucked in that it had little to do with the philosophy of quantum mechanics. A decent summary here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences).

[meshou]

My boyfriend was a physicist and saw the movie with me. He said they were fringe scientists with unimpressive credentials, and not all the science in the movie was strictly true.

[cwazyonyx]

I'm a physicist, I have not seen the movie, but those who have said it sucked in that it had little to do with the philosophy of quantum mechanics. A decent summary here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_consequences).

and that it was pseudo-everything... except crap.

[Miss Anthropic]

I rather liked it. My very INTP, scientifically-grounded, atheistic boyfriend thought it was utter rubbish. (To get him to go I had to remind him of all the horrible (imo) movies he's dragged me to, and that it wasn't a chick-flick so he owed me!) I am a little on the psychic fringe myself (psych-0 fringe for those non-believers) so I like stuff that connects science to other-worldly views.

[kuranes]

There was another movie very much like this which was a dialogue between two people walking around Mont St. Michele ( if I'm spelling it right? ) It was once a prison and the ground around it fills up with tides during one part of the day. Then, the tide completely recedes later, so that you can enter or exit. I can't remember the name of it. Has anyone seen that one? The movie, I mean?

[joft]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_bleep_do_we_know#Controversial_aspects_of_the_film

[jimore]

I had no desire to see What the (string of symbols use as an euphemism for the word fuck or shit or something like that which pisses me off because it is so dishonest; that is, the author depends on the reader to imagine the term she/he should have spelled out) Do We Know about Anything? But since you asked, and some of the comments intrigued me I ordered a DVD from the net. I watched it this afternoon. I was tempted to turn if off several times because the whole point of the scam (if I were a loaded as that term, I wouldn't be able to type) :) became apparent soon after the picture started.

I am glad I watched it all because the photography is beautiful. The special effects depicting the synaptic processes were amazing. Also, I like the deaf actress whose name I don't remember, having seen her in several TV shows, the names of which I also don't remember.

Here's what I hated about the movie. It is exactly the same thing that pissed me off in Floyd's comments about the source of your irritability. In philosophy classes it is characterized as something like "taking X, and running with it".

[side joke that just occurred to me. ? how come there are not many women philosophers? Ans. They got too many real things to do.]

The whole process started off in an archetypical experiment of firing a photon at a sheet. If the sheet had one hole in it what came out the other side was a particle, if the slit had two holes in it what came out the other side was a wave. (Note: that may be a false recollection of the experiment. I read about it in class many winters ago, and am not going to reread it just so I can cut and paste a pretentious description that will make it appear I understand the math.) The critical element that developed subsequent to the original concept was that the observer (the person conducting the experiment ) seemed to determine the outcome of each trial by what she/he was looking for.

So the JesusWannabe's (a term I made up which carries with it similar connotations to what we mean when we call a lawyer an ambulance chaser. Insult intended.) Said "Aha! Something can be at two places at the same time, so the real world exists only as an infinite array of possibilities, which all answer to the will of the observer."

So from this one tiny oversimplification, they developed the concept of the "ultimate observer", the concept of consciousness, the concept of god, and the concept of universal purpose. That is conceptually comparable to Floyd thinking he has explained something when he(she?) said your irritability come from your limbic system.

What is missing from the process is— what else is going on besides the phenomena quantum physics speaks to? For example there are contradictions between quantum physics and particle physics, which seems to have something to do with gravity. And beyond that string theory purports to resolve those discrepancies by visualizing up to eleven more dimensions, which apparently could never be tested directly in a lab. And then there is my own favorite totem– chaos theory. All of these issues on the scientific level are so far above the cut and paste/paraphrase comments that fall within the capabilities of the members of this forum as to be downright silly. *sounds of deflating egos in the background followed by irate protests*.

Movie synopsis. This was a beautifully filmed work of art that serves the secondary purpose of reminding us that we can change both ourselves and our environment.

[sasapurdue]

Jimore,
A very interesting opinion. You seem to know a lot more about physics than I do. I definitely see where you are coming from -- taking a little bit of information and making grand assumptions about what that information shows.

[jimore]

Jimore,
-- taking a little bit of information and making grand assumptions about what that information shows.


Precisely! And much better said than I put it. That little simian of yours is getting damn good with the typewriter you got her.

[sasapurdue]

Precisely! And much better said than I put it. That little simian of yours is getting damn good with the typewriter you got her.

lol. yeah I always thought of it as a him but maybe it is a her! I think he/she needs a name.

[Red Sky]

How about Ramtha?

[jetboots]

This movie, like so many others, failed to really explain to anywhere close the depth I would have liked it to go. However it was pretty good. I think that its easy to see that their model is quite complicated and not "beautiful", Im sure that in the next 20 years (probably much less actually) some of this will looked upon as pretty ghetto method of looking at it.... My intuitve understanding-pure "opinion".

[Wingman]

Has anyone else seen the film "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" ? I love the film, though I'm sure its most likely outdated by now.

I've been trying to understand the scene where the little boy was talking about time (or whatever the hell it was about) on the basketball court. I just don't get what he was trying to say. It sounded like he was saying that we can go back in time by shear will. I doubt thats what he was saying though.

I'm also curious about this belief that our thoughts and/or emotions affect water. Sounds bizarre, but why not.

I also find the idea of the 'observer' very interesting, makes me think things like, 'We are all god' or 'We are all one.'. Not that this has anything to do with the collective consciousness... I think.

[Ill eagle]

Has anyone else seen the film "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" ? I love the film, though I'm sure its most likely outdated by now.

I've been trying to understand the scene where the little boy was talking about time (or whatever the hell it was about) on the basketball court. I just don't get what he was trying to say. It sounded like he was saying that we can go back in time by shear will. I doubt thats what he was saying though.

I'm also curious about this belief that our thoughts and/or emotions affect water. Sounds bizarre, but why not.

I also find the idea of the 'observer' very interesting, makes me think things like, 'We are all god' or 'We are all one.'. Not that this has anything to do with the collective consciousness... I think.
I watched this movie a loong time ago.
I believe the kid's talking about the deaf womens ability to think back in time, (it shows a flashback) and figure out how to make the basket, by sheer will, but it's just a guess. It also talked about how 'things' behave normally when observed, and when not observed, behave strangely and different, and that the table behind me may be floating and what not. It talks about how our minds can potentially hone these capacities, if we reset our mind, and "develope a new paradigm"

[joft]

it's bullshit not worth thinking about

[stuck]

Marlee Matlin is a dreamboat.

[Qfwfq]

This movie is a fast-track to getting locked up in a room with a straight-jacket.

[Zephyrus055]

It misrepresented quantum physics.

[ryan_m_parr]

It misrepresented quantum physics.

Most of it was indeed bs. The kinds of people that follow WtBdwK are the same kind that follow, "The Secret" and other such money grubbing pseudo-intellectualism. Many are hypocrites that extol their own mythical intellect while decrying anyone else that disagrees with them, and would prefer to twist the truth of the world around them to fit their limited grasp of reality. It was interesting from a P perspective, however once you bring the J into the picture, it becomes totally irreconcilable with "good," that it's mere "hogwash."

[Wingman]

It misrepresented quantum physics.

I've done some studying and see what you mean. Still, at least it got me interested in quantum physics. Maybe I'll take a class.

*Waits for someone to say, 'good luck with that.'*

[durentu]

I saw it recently, interesting concepts and is views a lot like 'the secret'. Lots of logical fallacies but good entertainment.

Science has yet to tackle what consciousness is, and this quantum brain dynamics is one on the table. Its interesting that the wiki site mentioned that it's not proven or disproven and it's in the exploratory stage.

I just don't know enough to say yes or no to the idea, but it's definitely interesting.

[notjeffgoldblum]

The Secret meets PBS?

[earwax]

Is this one of those "consciousness causes collapse" pieces of bovine excrement?

[Oso Mocoso]

The Secret meets PBS?

I'm not real familiar with "The Secret" but "What the Bleep Do We Know?" was pretty firmly in the woo woo category rather than resembling real science. But if it inspired people to learn about fact-based science I guess it at least did something good.

[Phreon]

You're likely to find more sound scientific theories in or at least be more entertained by the Wizard of Oz.

Skip it, pseudoscientific crap. Several of the scientists featured in it have publicly spoken out that their comments were taken out of context and the the purpose of the interview was misrepresented.

Here is a treatise expounding upon the massive crap (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html) contained within said film.

Phreon