What The Bleep Do We Know?

Hi everyone. I've been invited to see the film What The Bleep Do We Know by a friend, and having checked out the web site, I'm both intrigued and cautious. Has anyone here seen the movie? Is it bad science as entertainment? Or genuinely thought provoking? Did you get anything positive from the experience?

Your perspective would be greatly appreciated.

Post 1

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 5:04am

Some freethinkers who saw it told me it amounted to a hatchet job of reason and science in the service of New Age mysticism. It took advantage of concepts of quantum mechanics like the uncertainty principle and then extrapolated upon that into specious directions. Since it got such bad reviews from people I trust, I opted not to waste time watching it.

Post 2

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 5:54am

Ian,

The movie is made by a bunch of hypie-mystics left-over from the sixties.

I have already made two posts about this film,

http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0666.shtml

http://solohq.com/Forum/SoloScience/0079.shtml

Post 3

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:27am

Luke, Marcus, thank you both. I'd done a quick search on "What The Bleep Do We Know" but didn't get any results. Now that I've read "What The Bleep Is This Shit?" I know why. :)

Thanks to your feedback, I've decided to save my time for something more useful. Maybe I'll organise my sock drawer or count the remaining hairs on my prematurely balding pate.

The web site itself made me cautious - anything that's so enthusiastically endorsed by such a wide range of celebs automatically awakens the "Scientology!" radar in my head - but the Ramtha stuff had escaped my attention, and I admit that I didn't look too closely into the credentials of the "scientists" involved.

And here's me thinking Quantum Physics would enable me to will a glass of plain ol' tap water water into a nice single malt. Dammit!

Thanks guys. It's nice to have a group of rational people to consult on matters like these.

All the best,

Ian

Post 4

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 11:24am

I tried, I really did. But when it got to the little black kid playing basketball, that was it, I was through.

Post 5

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 12:17am

I remember one part I found interesting - the concept of being addicted or dependant on negative emotions, to the point of creating situations in which you could get your "fix" and thereby sabotaging your chances at happiness. Other that that, the whole thing was pointless. The "science" was horrid and the acted scenes were beyond painful.

Post 6

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:39am

I just saw the film on DVD about a month agp, and yes, I did sit through the whole thing.

It basically concerns quantam mechanics and how there is an acute perceptual infrastructure in our minds that controls what we see and who we are.

Now, the film is interesting, and worth seeing, but the flaw I saw in it was that every point of interest presented was, well, interesting, but nothing usefull. After seeing this movie you'll be fascinated by "mystical science", but, as all mysticism foreshadows, you will have not learned anything essential to living, to being, and to thinking. All you'll learn is that quantam physics is the most interesting, but doggone useless science in the world.

But I still suggest you see it. You might enjoy it, but if you're true to objectivist ethics, you probably won't.

note: I don't really think its fair for you to denounce the film as a "hippie" flick, without defining what you mean by that, and what's wrong with that. Such blatant "slurs" are entirely unappropriate, both by the judgement of manners, common sense, and intellectual concerns. Please refrain from doing so.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:15pm

All you'll learn is that quantam physics is the most interesting, but doggone useless science in the world.

If anyone is interested in learning about some of the applications of quantum mechanics, here are some quotes from Modern Physics, a popular undergrad quantum mechanics textbook, by Bernstein, Fishbane, and Gasiorowics.

"From the mid-19th through the early 20th centuries, scientists studied a set of new and puzzling phenomena concerning the nature of matter and, indeed, of energy in all its forms. The program that brought these questions to the point where we are today has provided some of the most remarkable success stories in all of science. This is the history of quantum mechanics, which began in mystery and confusion, yet at the end of the century has come to dominate the economies of modern nations."

"As with many revolutions, the consequences of quantum mechanics could hardly have been foreseen by its creators. It has been variously estimated that 20 to 50 percent of the developed economies of the world are based on quantum mechanical applications. In this part of the text, we shall touch on some of these applications, from chemistry to materials science to electronics and beyond."

"Modern chemistry is based on the deeper understanding of atoms and molecules that quantum mechanics provides."

Chapter 13, "Decays, Radiation from Atoms, and Lasers", says, "We finish [this chapter] with the most important practical application of these ideas: lasers." ("these ideas" refers only to the specific ideas focused on in chapter 13.)

"The behavior of materials depends critically on quantum mechanical effects. In the years since the 1920's, the range of applications of quantum mechanics to this area--solid-state physics--has become so large that even a brief survey of all the applications would by itself fill a book. Limited as we must be here, we concentrate mainly on one subject: the conduction of charge in materials--metals and semiconductors. We also describe superconductivity, an interesting phenomenon whose possible technological consequences are enormous."

(Edited by Daniel O'Connor on 6/28, 5:17pm)

Post 8

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:18pm

Daniel,

Perhaps I spoke too strongly. Quantam physic is still an emerging science, but I think it is a long way off from being compared to the practicality of chemistry and physics.

At least in the film, the range of quantam disucussions was almost whimsical.

Post 9

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 6:28am

A.B.A.H. said:

note: I don't really think its fair for you to denounce the film as a "hippie" flick, without defining what you mean by that, and what's wrong with that. Such blatant "slurs" are entirely unappropriate, both by the judgement of manners, common sense, and intellectual concerns. Please refrain from doing so.

If you watched the DVD, as I did, you probably watched the additional material, as I did. If not, I highly recommend it as a glimpse into the producers' psyches. It includes segments from press conferences and meetings with them.

The term "hippie" is quite appropriate here, if somewhat dated. I think "warm and fuzzy, new age crystal gazers" would be more accurate. The woman "channelling" "Ramtha", a dead warrior from Atlantis, was precious.

It is not bad manners to call this a "hippie" flick, just slightly inaccurate. And "common sense" flew out the window after the first five minutes of the movie. And "intellectual concerns"? Please. The fact that this movie was made at all is just more evidence that embarrassment is no longer a factor in some people's lives.

Finally, you said:

But I still suggest you see it. You might enjoy it, but if you're true to objectivist ethics, you probably won't.

So, you're suggesting that some of us might not be true to objectivist ethics?

Post 10

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 7:31am

All you'll learn is that quantam physics is the most interesting, but doggone useless science in the world.

Umm, have you been smoking whatever the crystal-gazers have?

Post 11

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 5:36am

Haven't seen the picture, but couldn't help being puzzled by what seems to be a wish to understand ever bigger mechanisms by use of ever smaller levels of abstraction.

If superstrings should be a TOE would seem interesting if one would want a TOE, and it would give a greater precision in calculating things where we have planck level data to feed the calculation, but it wouldn't - to my logic - give us a greater understanding of higher level structures, quite on the contrary.

Knowing the atomic structure of a glass would not make me better suited to predict if the glass would break when i dropped it on a stone floor - if i would want to know exactly how it would break, where each piece would land and how it would break up, sure then i could spend a couple of weeks calculating the thing and it would help me. But if to give me an intuitive understanding, making me capable of predicting if the glass would break - it would only help to confuse me... Newton was fine and usable, then came Einstein and proved him wrong making predictions that were more accurate if compared to real life... with ever more precise models will come greater detail - and greater knowledge in manipulating these low level mechanisms, but not, as i see it, much else - looking at a water molecule would not help you in the prediction of a thunderstorm.

The most precise map is the land itself, everything else will be a level of abstraction. Measuring the costline around your country, if you measure it by walking around the country the resolution will be in footsteps and you'll get one level of precision, if you measured around each little grain of sand you would come to quite a different result - more precise - but less useful, or ?

Post 12

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 7:32pm

The portion of the film I thought most entertaining was the part about water forming crystals differently depending on what word was written on its plastic container. Writing the word "stupid" or "pollution" on the side of the water bottle garnered mishapen, unhealthy crystals. Writing words like "peace" or "love" produced beautiful symetrical snowflake looking crystals. Thus the conclusion that our thoughts can manipulate our physical surroundings. The movie went on to cite the lack of certainty in quantum physics as proving this claim. People believe this to be true! Btw, the movie was so horribly offensive that I got a good laugh (followed by the nightmare of dealing with the people who really DID enjoy it!)

Dave

Post 13

Friday, October 13, 2006 - 9:38am

Well, I tried, but could not watch the whole thing. APA is going to get a lecture from me!

Science has truly gone off the rails due to its lack of a rational epistemology.

Post 14

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 4:09pm