What the (Bleep) Were They Thinking?

I decided to see “What The (Bleep) Do We Know!?” (sic!). I had avoided this film, as it looked like what Murray Gell-Mann calls quantum flapdoodle - distortions of quantum physics to support a mystical viewpoint. But the “what the bleep” meme is growing, so I decided I should see it for myself. Now I’ve seen it I can confirm that it does distort quantum physics to support a mystical viewpoint. But it is much more than that. Much worse. Hilariously so, in fact.

This post is rather long, but please read it to the end – there is a surprise there that will astonish you, I promise. But I should start with the science. Or, I should say:

The “science”

The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts.

Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say this. The film makers are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too).

To falsify this interpretation you would have to see what would happen without a conscious observer monitoring the experiment. But that’s Catch-22: you need a conscious observer monitoring the experiment to see what happens. You can’t look at the experiment without looking at it so no one can ever know if this interpretation is true. Even if it were true, extrapolating to “we literally create reality by out thoughts” is applying reductionism to an absurd level.

Don’t believe me? You don’t have to because David Albert, the professor from the Columbia University physics department who was featured in the film, is quoted in Salon.com saying:

I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.

(My bold.)

The ironic thing is that the film makers tell us quantum mechanics is oh-so-mysterious and can’t be explained - and then they explain it. I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s famous quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". These film makers think they understand quantum mechanics. They don’t, but that doesn’t stop them from making a film explaining it. But it’s just a consciousness-of-the-gaps explanation: we can’t explain it so it must be consciousness.

Any one of the many interpretations could be correct. Or none of them might be correct, and the correct explanation is something not yet thought of. Quantum mechanics is not telling us this is the way the universe necessarily is.

Baaaad examples

So they have the theory wrong, but they must have some good examples, right? Wrong. They have three bad examples. Appallingly bad, actually.

The first was the claim that when Columbus arrived in the West Indies, the natives were literally unable to see his ships. Why? Because they had never seen ships before, so ships did not exist in their reality.

I had to rewind the film to make sure I hadn’t missed the part where they said this was just a fable. But they were stating it as fact. This idea is just too dumb to be considered seriously. Even if true, how could anyone verify it? I have searched the web for the source of this story to no avail, and conclude the film makers just made it up.

The second example was of the supposed “Maharishi Effect.” John Hagelin of the Maharishi University, described how in 1993, violent crime in Washington D.C. was reduced over a two month period, by 4000 people practicing transcendental meditation (TM).

There were many problems with this experiment. One was that the murder rate rose during the period in question. Another was that Hagelin’s report stated violent crime had been reduced by 18% (in the film he says 25%), but reduced compared with what? How did he know what the crime rate would have been without the TM? It was discovered later that all the members of the “independent scientific review board” that scrutinized the project were followers of the Maharishi. The study was pseudoscience: no double blinding, the reviewers were not independent, and the experiment has never been independently replicated. Hagelin deservedly won an Ig Nobel Prize in 1994 for this outstanding piece of work.

The third example was the work of Masura Emoto, who tapes words to bottles of water. The water is chilled and forms into crystals descriptive of the words used. For example, if the word “love” is taped to a bottle, beautiful crystals form; if the words “you make me sick” are used, ugly images appear.

What the film makers didn’t say is that Emoto knows the word used, and looks for a crystal that matches that word (biased data selection). To demonstrate a real effect, Emoto would need to be blind to the word used. James Randi has said that if Emoto could perform this experiment double-blinded, it would qualify for the million dollar prize. (He has never applied.) Such a protocol would show there is no correlation between the words taped to a bottle and the crystals formed within. These experiments have not been performed to a scientific protocol and have never been independently replicated.

Pert scam

The next segment was about neuro-peptides, how they are created in the brain, and regulate other cells in the body. This was presented as another example of how the human brain (consciousness), creates reality. None of this would be new to anyone who has read Candace Pert’s “Molecules of Emotion”. Pert is a talented scientist who went woo woo many years ago for reasons I don’t have time to go into here. (Edited to add: see my May 2005 review of Molecules of Emotion.)  Suffice to say she has made many dubious claims, including this in the film:

Each cell has a consciousness, particularly if we define consciousness as the point of view of an observer.

I think what she saying is that when one cell interacts with another, it fulfills the role of the “observer” in quantum mechanics. Well OK, but by that definition my toaster is conscious. It’s such a general definition of consciousness as to be meaningless: consciousness has to include some degree of self-awareness.  There is no evidence I’ve heard of that individual cells are conscious.

This was followed by someone claiming he literally creates his day with his thoughts, plus some feel-good drivel about god and self that almost put me to sleep. At the end, the main character in the film throws away her prescription meds because, since she creates her own reality, she doesn’t need them. (Don’t try this at home.) And that was it.

Channel No. 5

One thing that puzzled me was who were all the talking heads? I recognized a couple, but who was the bizarre guy who claimed he creates his day just by thinking about it, and who was the heavy-set blonde woman in the boxy red suit making the weird pronouncements in a funny accent? Normally in a documentary, the experts are introduced when they first appear. But here they introduced them after the end of the film. I was amused to see the guy who creates his own day, was a chiropractor. But when I found out the identity of the blonde woman, my eyes nearly popped out. I figured you wouldn’t believe me if I just told you, so I took a screenshot of it:

In case you can’t read the text, it says:

Ramtha

Master Teacher – Ramtha School of Enlightenment

Channeled by JZ Knight

They are stating as a fact, that one of the people you have been listening to for the previous 90 minutes, a main authority for the information being presented, is a 35,000 year old warrior spirit from Atlantis, being channeled by this Tacoma housewife turned cult leader. The woman pictured is JZ Knight, but you are not listening to JZ Knight. You are literally listening to Ramtha. There were people who saw this film and didn’t say, “That’s just a woman putting on a funny accent”. Scary, huh?

At this point the film lost any remaining pretence of being based on any kind of science or facts.

I did a little digging on Ramtha:

Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight’s kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977.  Knight claims that she is Ramtha’s channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood’s version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice.  She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze.

Upon further investigation I find the films’ producers, writers, directors, and a number of the featured “experts” are members of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The film is a propaganda piece for a cult.

What the (Bleep) Were They Thinking?

I can answer that now. They were thinking that if they made a film using the word “quantum” a lot, plus plenty of feel-good drivel they would (a) make a ton of money (not that they are short of the stuff), and (b) gain more recruits to their loony-tunes cult. This is probably one of the few things they got right.

References

Some further reading if you’re interested.  First a good expose of the film as infomercial for Ramtha, by Salon.com.

A site with masses of information about Ramtha.

A blog with information about some of the talking heads.

A blog with some comments about Hagelin. Read the comments section.

An amusing review of the movie by Orkut Media.

CSICOP’s review of the film.

Skeptic Magazine’s review of the film.

A really good explanation of the real science involved, as opposed to the fanciful "what The Bleep" version of it.

And for the other side of the story, read the film makers’ reply to their critics. If you have any remaining doubt about the criticisms of this movie, read this. It is an (unintentionally) hilarious martyr piece where they blame the media for “publicly crucify(ing) people with new ideas”, and where they say the US government and way of life, not Ramtha, is a cult. All the usual fallacies are in evidence: scientists were wrong before so they are wrong now, we only use 10% of our brain, the film’s critics feel discomfort in their mindset (ie it is not the film makers’ fault the film makes no sense, it is our fault).  Plenty of fallacies and playing victim. Nothing to refute the criticisms.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Tez for reviewing and making suggestions about the quantum mechanics section.

Comments

[Ray Girvan]

Ugh. This reminds me of "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart (see here). In fact there's probably a deal of overlap: trying to explain the paranormal (clairvoyance, spiritual healing homeopathy, and probably the Loch Ness Monster) in terms of obscure physics, in McTaggart's case zero point energy.

[Rockstar]

Awesome post! I almost fell over laughing at that one. Woo-woo indeed!

[Jesse]

I really enjoyed this piece. I must admit that the film pretty much had me sold when I first watched it, but some discussion and waving off the post-movie daze helped me to really start to question these things. Your expose on the entire thing really shed some light on the glaring questions that the film brings up and kills it for the most part. Thanks!

[Jay]

Calling it woo woo is MUCH too kind.

LOL

[Thursday]

I actually like movies of this ilk. It makes it so much easier to argue with "True Believers" when they think they can finally make a scientific arguement. Whether they understand what that arguement is or not is another matter...

"What The (Bleep) Do We Know?" Obviously more than the imbeciles who wrote this stupid movie. Will people ever learn to stop professing deep understanding of a subject they clearly know nothing about?

[Dominus]

The icing on this critical cake is the filmmakers' rebuttal, wherein they reverse course and zealously testify about their loving belief and commitment to JZ Knight's religion (I refuse to refer to Ramtha as an actual entity).

[Ecks Ridgehead]

Great article - I found it from a link on James Randi's weekly roundup. Looks like a very interesting blog you've got here. I'll add a link to you on my own blog - yes, you will be one of the lucky few to be Ecks Rated - if you don't mind.

[Skeptico]

Ecks: glad you liked it - please link all you want.

[Curtis Mack]

I must agree that this is a great article. I also linked from Randi's site. I have one minor correction. J Z Knight is actually based out of a small town named Yelm which is about 30 miles south of Tacoma. I should know, it is my home town and this whole Ramtha woo woo is a little close to home for me. I have had this movie recomended to me by many well meening friends in the area. It is good to have skepical information about it.

[ICE9]

the film is a true example of living gnostics in the new era. Trully... look at what they say and compare it with texts from the ancient gnostic texts. Then again... "if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you could move this mountain"...

[Rune from Oslo]

Read the first line of their answer. They used the 'hit a nerve' fallacy. IE if someone protest to what you're saying you've hit a nerve. Combine this with the 'hush-up' fallacy and any reaction proves any statement made by anyone true:
If someone agrees they confirm by agreeing, if no one answers their trying to hush you up, and if you disagree you've hit a nerve.
I guess that's what quantum physicists call a win/win/win situation.

[Welshman]

Regarding the tale of natives not seeing the ships of Christopher Columbus, there is some truth in this. However,I believe the truth has been twisted in
traditional "post modern theory" fashion.
When the British were building their Empire, (cue marching band music) the locals sometimes ignored them. Aboriginals in Australia were known for this, they could see the ships (I think they just called them big canoes) but because they had no concept or context of how to comprehend what they were seeing they carried on about their daily life. I suppose it's similar to the reaction some people have when witnessing a UFO, they can't explain it, so they just shrug their shoulders and sink another beer. To the author of this article; just because you can't find something about this subject on the internet doesn't mean it ain't real...you aborigine!

[Neo]

The response reminded me of a story of how L Ron Hubbard, at a meeting of scifi writers in the late 50's, said that all the money was in religion and how, less than a year later, he had his own. These folks have their own as well.

[chaka]

I thought the natives not being able to see the boats was at the heart of the problem with this movie.

There is evidence to show that africans and native ameircans where trading goods before and during the birth of christ. This fact is supported by evidence that egyptian mummies were tested with mass spetrometers and reveled cocaine, tobacco and cannabis residue traces. The cocoa plant only grows in the americans.

Also natives had seen large ships before, the large dugouts rowed by carib or grarifuna. These dugout held upto 20 paddlers at a time. So big boats fit into their world view.

Sadly there is a historical perspective this society has on things that has nothing to do with reality. It's sad that a movie with some valuble info, falls into the standared BS by not looking at the past for the truth but builds on lies.

Please refer to "They came before Columbus", revised edition by Ivan Van Sertima for more info on this imporatant and hidden past

[Peer from Norway]

About seeing ships. The aborigines not only saw the ships, they painted images of them on solid rock. It's there for everyone to see. They did not just carry on as if they hadn't seen anything.
Following the theory that we can't see what we haven't seen before, as it doesn't exist in our reality..hmmmm

[occult investigator]

excellent work! i've been following this ramtha stuff ever since i found out who knight was on coast to coast am with george noory. she seemed normal enough at first when she was talking about like your typical new age hokum, but then started talking about all this 35,000 atlantis blah blah blah... the part that mystifies me though is how everybody went so damn nuts over this movie, when all the ideas are at least like 30 years old. figures, i guess

[crasspastor]

The part about the indigenous people not seeing the ships could also be taken to be deeply, subconsciously racist.

[welshman]

I DID NOT SAY that they couldn't SEE the ships, I said they chose to ignore them, they may well have painted pictures, but they didn't like the intrusion and did their best to refrain from contact. Of course they recognised them as ships.
For the last time, they saw the ships, to say they acted as if they didn't see the ships is a euphemism, a more subtle way of explaining their reaction.

[Lyford Rome]

"At the end, the main character in the film throws away her prescription meds because, since she creates her own reality, she doesn’t need them. (Don’t try this at home.) And that was it."

Uh - isn't creating your own reality a reason to be on medication in the first place?

Great succinct review - I linked here from the Skeptics Circle. I also had to rent this hilarious film to see what all the hubbub was about - though I really felt bad by giving the filmakers any of my money, even the little Bullockbuster trickles through to them...

Though the initial pop-psychology message of the power of positive thinking seems harmless enough, the attempts to "prove" it with distorting science is beyond maddening. Sure a positive attitude will help you through your day, but that message can be fully expressed on a bumper sticker, or better still, a happy hour bar-napkin. No need dragging poor Heisenberg into this...

Film craft wise, I was expecting some pretty lame stuff, but I was not prepared for the whole Polish wedding scene - it is truly an exercise in horror. I shudder to think about it now.

And if I may chime in on the Columbus boat issue, I can see (no pun intended) this as another example of new agers sloppily taking allegorical and metaphorical ideas as statements of fact. As just shown in the last sentence, "see" can mean many things, such as "comprehend the implications of" and "neurons firing on the visual cortex". Unless Douglas Adam's concept of the Somebody Else's Problem field is accurate.....

And in one final comment, I do find it ironic that the medium of film does allow someone to create their own reality, at least for 100 plus minutes (or whatever this one ran...it felt much longer!).

[girlknight]

do you not realise that by being so extreme in your sceptism you are equally woo woo? You are totally closed which would lead to no scientific investigation.There must be a deep seated reason for you to spend all your energy 'exposing' sceptics. We all believe different things, so what! Why is it so essential for you to feel superior? At the end of the day it is all down to personal choice what one beleives in.It would be a grim and boring world if we did not have diversity. Including you extreme and equally out of balance pontificating.Which indeed it is as knowledge is constantly growing. Where did you get your sceptical memes from? The whole theory that spiritual or religious memes are a stronger or worse virus than anyother is totally illogical!

[Rockstar]

girlknight-

If you were to provide some type of hard evidence that this woo can actually channel an ancient warrior, we would be more than happy to consider it. Are YOU so closed minded you can't examine evidence showing channeling Atlanteans is bullshit? Let's reconsider the "closed mindedness" of skeptics: we review available evidence and call it woo-woo when there is none. If we simply dismissed claims without debunking them, that would be closed minded. We did review JZ Knight's claim. It's bullshit.

[Skeptico]

girlknight:

Read what Rockstar wrote – he said it pretty well.

Some additional points from me:

do you not realise that by being so extreme in your sceptism you are equally woo woo?

Please define “extreme”. Please define where the line is where my skepticism has to stop. And please show your work.

You are totally closed which would lead to no scientific investigation.

Au contraire. Science is a skeptical endeavor. Scientists try very hard to prove their theories wrong, on the basis that what is left standing has a good chance of being true. If you believe anything could be true then you will never discover anything new.

As I wrote here, the skeptical approach has served us well, preventing many wrong ideas from gaining foothold (for very long, anyway) and providing all the amazing discoveries that surround us. The people who did make new scientific discoveries were all applying this method, not people like you who think you have an “open mind”. An earlier version of you would have said, “Your skepticism is too extreme – you are closed to the idea that humors exist” to justify bloodletting. By focusing uncritically on bloodletting you would never have discovered germ theory any more than JZ Knight or “The Ramtha School of Enlightenment” will discover anything useful. Germ theory was discovered by a scientist who followed the skeptical method.

Most believers like yourself are closed minded to the possibility that your beliefs might be false. If you can’t say what it would take to convince you your beliefs are false, you are the closed minded one.

There must be a deep seated reason for you to spend all your energy 'exposing' sceptics.

I don’t expose skeptics. And psychobabble won't make your case any more valid.

We all believe different things, so what!

Some beliefs are wrong, that’s what. Do you believe anything anyone tells you? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. If you don’t, how do you determine what to believe in and what not to believe in? Please describe your method for evaluating claims.

The whole theory that spiritual or religious memes are a stronger or worse virus than anyother is totally illogical!

Why?

[Some Guy]

Scientists and pseudo scientist/religious factions all to often head off and dig in on the point of "close mindedness". The end result of these conversations is typically about 10-45 minutes of hot air, ending where it started... both sides say to the either "Your mind is closed." This seems awfully self contradictory, where the "close minded" people insist that the other party is "close minded". I would like to offer a definition of an open mind, so that maybe the meaning of a close mind can be more clearly discerned. An open mind has:

The ability to receive ideas. Do not confuse "receiving" with "accepting" or "agreeing". To hear someone out, to listen to their point of view is open minded. If, after listening and considering, they say "what a bunch of bunk", then that's their deal.

Within the arena of the open mind, one should be able to reason, compare, contrast, analyze, and consider. In short, one should THINK about the tumult of ideas that barrage them from the outside world. To think about something, you need evidence. This all leads to this important point: To have a strong opinion, or to readily reject ideas that do not hold in the face of contradicting evidence, to think that one is "right" or "correct" in their thoughts, and to stand for that strongly, is not close minded. But, to hold fast to any opinion or idea, even in the face of greater conflicting evidence... to INSIST that one is right even when all the signs and evidence point to "No, sorry, you are incorrect sir! Play again next time!" That is close minded. To stand firm in an idea is a reasonable thing to do... after all, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. But, when evidence points to the contrary, the ability to stand on a chair and shout to the world "Hey, look! I was wrong, and this is why!" That is a trait of an open mind. An open mind asks "why?". It questions, doesn't answer. Answers are just a pleasant side effect of enough questioning.
I hope that helps. Feel free to crucify me if your surfing the net with idle hands.

[Skeptico]

Some Guy - brilliantly put.

[Zone]

I agree that this movie presents radical ideas and is probably a money grab, but regarding the subject of the nature of conciousness its very hard to be 'right'. All information presented on this subject can easily be made to seem wrong. You either agree with the ideas or you dont. To make fun of these people would suggest you know the 'right' answer. You obviously have never experienced psychic phenomenon personally or you would notice nuggets of truth in what they say. I do agree that this movie has failed to describe what reality is because it tries to describe a subject that is indescribable with words. You are either aware, or you are blinded

[Skeptico]

Zone:

I agree that this movie presents radical ideas and is probably a money grab, but regarding the subject of the nature of conciousness its very hard to be 'right'. All information presented on this subject can easily be made to seem wrong. You either agree with the ideas or you dont. To make fun of these people would suggest you know the 'right' answer.

You appear to be suggesting that if I can’t prove them wrong their ideas have equal validity with any others. This idea is absurd. An idea only has validity if there is a reason to suppose it is true. In the case of this movie, it is obvious that their ideas are just wrong. We do not create reality with our thoughts. Period. The science does not say that. Their examples are bogus.

You obviously have never experienced psychic phenomenon personally or you would notice nuggets of truth in what they say. I do agree that this movie has failed to describe what reality is because it tries to describe a subject that is indescribable with words. You are either aware, or you are blinded

You mean like this blind person? BZTTT, answered that one already.

[m]

The Ramtha woman? Anybody else notice how she was spouting about beauty being from within and how the the physical world isn't important? But have you ever seen more plastic surgery on one person in your life?

[céline]

Just wanted to say a big thank you for an illuminating post and links - this film is coming to the UK and I was wondering whether it was worth seeing. I shan't be wasting my time and money.

[ich]

As if I believe in anything at all, I'd suggest to JZ Knight to throw back Ramtha and get a spirit to channel that doesn't make her sound and look like a hermaphrodite...

[Ray]

The minds boogle, Guardian reviews from four scientists: Richard Dawkins, Clive Greated, Simon Singh and Joao Migueijo.

[watchaknow]

Prove there are no Unicorns. As I think I understand quantum theory, it simply expresses the probabilities of various possible outcomes of a (generally) sub-atomic interaction, so of course we cannot KNOW what happened until someone observes the outcome. If the outcome depended on the observer, extraordinary results would be observed more frequently by some observers compared to the majority of observers. So far as I know there is no evidence of this. Quantum mechanics extends into the macro-world, in that a pot of water placed over a gas stove burner COULD freeze solid, although to my knowledge no such result has ever been observed, presumably because the probability of such is so small it would take billions upon billions of carefully controlled experiments before such would occur. However, as Arthur Eddington pointed out,any event is slightly different for each different observer, no one can ever perceive something the exact way someone else does. What I call RED, your vision might perceive as what I would call GREEn; but you would have learned to call it RED, so we would never realize the difference in acual perception.So if I claim to have seen "ghosts", you may consider me lyimg or hallucinating; but because you have more people on your side than I do on mine doesn't PROVE ghosts don't exist

[AJ]

I think that this was a great movie if nothing else just for the fact that it challenges people to break out of the everyday norm. It presents ideas and concepts that are on the forefront of our technology and understanding of the universe and presents one interpretation of reality. They are not trying to recruit people into some crazy cult(well, that atlantis thing might be)but as a whole, i think the movie was made with good intentions. hell the guy even said at the end not to take their words for things and to get out and research it yourself. nobody knows the true nature of the universe and how it all came together or our realationships with one another, but this film was a nice start to get people thinking in the right direction. no i dont agree with some channeled spirit from atlantis , but for the most part the science and reasoning from the film were sound. quantum physics is a radical new science and requires some changes in how you think about the world. rather than making fun of a film that tries to help people better themselves perhaps you should read between the lines and take something useful from it and then apply it to your own life.

[Skeptico]

AJ

Re: for the most part the science and reasoning from the film were sound. quantum physics is a radical new science and requires some changes in how you think about the world.

Sorry, but the science was not sound. There is no reason to suppose that the macro world we live in behaves anything like the quantum world in any meaningful way. Since the science was wrong it does not lead to the conclusions they drew.

Re: rather than making fun of a film that tries to help people better themselves perhaps you should read between the lines and take something useful from it and then apply it to your own life.

Such as?

[AJ]

well lets look at the science for a minute. quantum physics has only a couple of major theories about the nature of particles. first we have the many worlds theory, which states that for every possible quantum event an entire new universe is created so that each possibility becomes a whole new reality. imagine duplicating the whole universe about 20 times for a single electron and its possible states. thats insane, that would mean that i have single handedly created millions of seperate universes just while typing this post. the only other explaination that fits is that a particle must be observed in order to lock it into a single state or position. so then the we come back to the idea that some form of observation is required in order for reality to actually become "real" so then we have to think, if everything in the universe is made up of these particles and for these particles to actually exist then some conciousness must observe them then its only natural that we say conciousness is conected in a fundamental way with everything. now, i suppose you can dismiss all of this as some crazy theory but most all of the physicist in the world are working with this in one way or another and nobody has the answer yet but its a start. now as far as the positive aspects of the film... whats wrong with challenging people to take control of their lives and not live day after day being lead around like a puppet by their emotions and events of the day. people have the ability to litterally create their own day. not in a sense of physical properties but by their attitude and how they want to take things that they are given. if you get up in the morning and take a minute to think about how you would like your day to go and how you would like to feel today then most people will have a much happier and productive day. its more a matter of psychology than physics but its all connected. overall i think the movie had a very positive message even if it did have some questionable "experts"

[Skeptico]

AJ

Re: well lets look at the science for a minute. quantum physics has only a couple of major theories about the nature of particles.

I think you mean interpretations. And there are many more than two.

Re: first we have the many worlds theory, which states that for every possible quantum event an entire new universe is created so that each possibility becomes a whole new reality. imagine duplicating the whole universe about 20 times for a single electron and its possible states. thats insane, that would mean that i have single handedly created millions of seperate universes just while typing this post. the only other explaination that fits is that a particle must be observed in order to lock it into a single state or position.

There are others. Look Here for a discussion of his transactional interpretation compared with some others.

In addition, this month’s edition of Discover Magazine describes a new idea from Roger Penrose. Briefly he thinks that gravity pulls very small particles between the different “suppositions”, but is not strong enough to do this for larger items. And he thinks he has a way to test it.

Re: so then the we come back to the idea that some form of observation is required in order for reality to actually become "real" so then we have to think, if everything in the universe is made up of these particles and for these particles to actually exist then some conciousness must observe them

Wrong again. “Observe” can just mean to measure – the micro item connects with a macro item (the measuring instrument).

And even if consciousness is involved at the micro level, it is taking reductionism to absurd levels to suggest consciousness can change reality the way these film makers suggest.

Re: then its only natural that we say conciousness is conected in a fundamental way with everything. now, i suppose you can dismiss all of this as some crazy theory but most all of the physicist in the world are working with this in one way or another and nobody has the answer yet but its a start.

You’re right there – nobody has the answer yet. So why do these film makers tell us what the answer is?

Re: now as far as the positive aspects of the film... whats wrong with challenging people to take control of their lives and not live day after day being lead around like a puppet by their emotions and events of the day.

First of all, I don’t need to be challenged to take control of my life – I already have I can assure you. (You did say to me, “you should read between the lines and take something useful from it and then apply it to your own life”.)

Secondly, it’s good to get people to take control of their lives, but only if you tell them to do so in a way that is real. This film gave them a totally false way to do this. People leave the movie perhaps feeling empowered etc, but in a day of so when they realize they can’t really alter their reality the way the woman does in the film, they can regress to a worse position than the one they were in before.

I’m sorry but if the premise of the film is false, the conclusions don’t follow from the premises. It’s just meaningless feel good drivel. If that’s what floats your boat, go for it. I prefer something based closer to reality.

[Physics]

I am a physicist, and frankly I am amazed at how easily people will eat what they are fed, even if it looks and smells like shit. Physics is NOT all theory and speculation, as some people wrongfully believe and tell others. Math is a slave to physics, especially in the 17th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Physics does not need math to be correct or to be law. Any law of physics can be expressed in words just as easily as it can using equations.

This movie encourages a distrust for facts, that is very dangerous thinking. Before any of you attempt to define physics, as I've seen so many do so incorrectly, please do a little research. Read some books by Stephen Hawking or Kip Thorne, Penrose's Road to Reality would be nice. Learn from people who know what they are talking about, and who are respected by their peers for that.

And those people who do take this movie seriously, well, I hope they join that stupid cult and then commit mass suicide so that the average IQ of the planet can increase.

[john smith]

your review and thoughts of the movie are of a mind that is closed.

[Skeptico]

Ooh, I’m “closed minded”. Wow, what a devastating response to my detailed review – john smith you have totally debunked by review with your detailed and insightful comments. I realize now that “What the Bleep” was a brilliant movie, and I am going to cancel my blog and join the Ramtha School of Enlightenment today. Thank you john smith for opening my eyes.

Please share some more of your brilliant comments with us, o-wise one.

And btw, this is what ‘closed minded” really means.

[Ryan]

Hee-hee
/spits out burrito laughing

[Carrie]

As usual I'm late to this. Just wanted to say that movie was the worst piece of crap I think I've ever seen. Thankfully, I only rented it for $2 and after fast forwarding off and on through the first hour I gave up. In fact, it might have been when that Ramtha woman appeared that clinched it.

The woman at the movie rental store wanted to know what I thought because "oh everyone wants to see that..everyone is talking about it". So I said, "well tell everyone it's crap, boring, and fake, save their money".

I still can't believe ANYONE sat through this thing, skeptic or not. Crikey!

[Skeptico]

I sat through it for the greater good. And so that no one could accuse me of being closed-minded. ;-)

Fortunately I'm with Netflix so at least it didn't cost me any extra money.

[Fredsie]

You know, it seems to me that some people have some sort of (psychological?) need to believe stuff of a mystical nature, and will hook onto pretty much anything that comes along. It has little to do with evidence or reality. If you really want or need to believe in "something out there", then you will, and neither Skeptico nor anyone else will be able to do anything about it. You may even feel better for it. But don't waste your time trying to persuade others of your particular fantasy; most of them will actually want evidence, so you'll be on a loser. Don't waste your breath on them - create your own reality and live in it. Leave the real world for the rest of us.

[tara]

As a musician, writer who generally lives in a pretty mystical world already, I'd just like to say that after having seen "What the Bleep" I really have to say
Ya "What the Bleep WAS that?"

[aditya maheshwari]

who wrote this article...the movie gave me a high ...u bloody spat in my soup!

[Rob]

It isn't real? I have been wasting all my energy on something that was a bunch of garbage? For the past three weeks I have been practicing so I can walk on water like it said I could do in the movie. All I can do so far is walk on the depth that a glass poured on the floor covers but I was sure I could make it to at least two glasses in the next few weeks and now you say none of this is true.

This is so devistating.

[jcterminal]

Wow. I've been hearing a lot about the media and their talk about how blogging is going to be a bright and shiny new beacon of journalism for years now.

Finally, journalism.

This is excellent work. Well thought out, you back up your facts, you offer evidence and proof for the statements you make. And you wrap it up in a personable and friendly voice.

Good fucking work.

[Don]

Wonderful article! Several friends of mine raved about this movie and dragged me along to see it. I was stunned by the overwhelming amount of BS in this film that was passed off as "science" -- not to mention the lousy production values. It made me angry, because a lot of people watching the film (including my friends) are in no position to critically evaluate the "information" that is presented(intentionally, no doubt) in an overwhelming, confusing and disjointed avalanche of imagery, fact, and fantasy.

To read something really disturbing, go to the Bleep's Web page and read the posts from fans of the movie. Yipes! The typical response is "what a wonderful film", "thank you!", "it re-affirmed what I've secretly believed all of my life" ... which was -- exactly what now? That we can all walk on water? That Indians couldn't see Columbus' ships? That meditation will create world peace? That happy thinking will purify water?

The film makes very little sense. People clearly project onto it whatever they want to see and want to believe. Which is OK, I guess. But it ain't science.

And, to be totally honest, JZ Knight just creeped me out.

[hoboken]

I'm happy to find this discussion. I watched it with a friend who was of the 'it affirmed what I already believed'. Even my attempts at debunking of the so called science (I'm a molecular biologist) had no effect. I think there is something to the idea that people have a psychological need to believe in mystical things. It doesn't mean that these things don't exist, but it certainly doesn't mean they do.

Also these are all old ideas-read Illusions by Bach. He claims the power of positive thinking will enable people to walk on water.

I was young and gullible at the time and almost jumped out of my dorm window to prove I could fly via the power of positive thinking. (That was also due to the power of yukon jack).

So these ideas can be dangerous-I vaguely remember a couple of teenagers driving into a brick wal based on these ideas. This would have been late 70's early 80's.

[Charles Barnes]

You're all dumb faggots with no lives, sitting on your fat asses typing all day. Blogs are retarded, go outside, smell the air, roll in the grass.