"What the Bleep Do We Know?"

[needaname]

Have you seen this movie: "What the Bleep do we know?" It's incredible. Run, don't walk, and get it.<br>It's a fascinating look at quantum physics, and our percieved reality, and how the brain and body work. It's a mixture a documentary, movie, and animation, with fantastic info that I sure needed. I loved it.... It's an independant film that came out about a year ago, so many of you may have seen it. But for anyone who hasn't....check it out! And pass it on. <p></p><i></i>

[anonymouse]

Are you a press release? I think this has been covered before.. "What the Bleep..." was produced by a vaguely "eastern" cult based in the pacific northwest: Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Almost all of the people interviewed in the movie are connected to RSE, except for David Albert, who says that his interview was heavily edited and misrepresents his views. I wonder what was the "fantastic info" that you "sure needed"? <p></p><i></i>

[needaname]

Are you kidding me? Did you see it? I don't think that group (whoever they are) were any kind of funders of the movie... and you know what, I don't give a sh*t if they or YOU made that movie. It is good...period. Relax. I don't remember seeing this covered here before... what are you, some kind of self appointed moderator? If you're just trying to keep freakish kind of cult people from pushing their agenda here....COOL, I thank you. But that's not what I'm doing. And I'm not much of a writer, so I can't go into some kind of long disertation about what seeing that movie 3 days ago, has done for me, but I could give you a quickie version, if you must delve into my personal space. Ok? <p></p><i></i>

[needaname]

Anonymouse said :"What the bleep do you know"... that's awfully rude and hmmm.... arrogant of you, to boot! Thanks for blowing a good vibe. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Instead of being so defensive, you could listen and learn something.<br><br>"What the Bleep?" is tied to the Ramtha organization, and J.Z. Knight is given screen time as some kind of "expert," when in reality she is a manipulative cult leader.<br><br>An excerpt from the excellent Salon article:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/09/16/bleep/index_np.html">www.salon.com/ent/feature...ex_np.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>That has meant little attention has been given to either the film's agenda, or its questionable use of supposed experts. At least one scientist prominently interviewed in the film now says his words were taken out of context. And two other key subjects in the film are not fully identified: a theologian who, the film fails to divulge, is a former priest who left the Catholic Church after allegations of sexual abuse; and a mysterious woman identified only as Judy "JZ" Knight, who is actually a sect leader claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old warrior spirit named Ramtha. The film's three co-directors are among those who follow Ramtha and look to Knight's channeled maxims to decipher the mysteries of life. These Ramtha followers reportedly number in the thousands. But critics call the sect a cult.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[thrulookingglass]

Well, I saw the flick too, and enjoyed it. Interesting concepts no matter who is behind them, and much of quantum physics do support some of the claims/hypotheses. If it was recruiting material for a cult, it wasn't very effective. Anyhow, just thought I'd add if you like "What the bleep do we know?", you should also see "Waking Life" by Linklater (if you already haven't). <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%3F!">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wha...e_Know%3F!</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>See also:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,699379,00.html">www.popsci.com/popsci/sci...79,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Cult Science<br>Dressing up mysticism as quantum physics<br><br>"Beware: A ridiculous new science movie is coming to a theater near you. ... Not until the credits roll, when the “experts” are finally introduced, do we learn that the two people who do most of the talking about neuroscience and physics are not actually scientists. One is a chiropractor. The other is a 35,000-year-old warrior named Ramtha, who is being “channeled” by a blonde woman from Washington. Oh, and the chiropractor is one of her devotees. As are the filmmakers. In short, what we’ve got here are the musings of a cult masquerading as a science documentary. ...<br><br>"... One of the few legitimate academics in the film, David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product. He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice. “I was taken,” Albert admits. “I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson.” Yet the real shame with this film is that it plays on people’s fascination with science while distorting and misrepresenting that science. ..."<br> <p></p><i></i>

[anonymouse]

Didn't mean to delve into your personal space... your enthusiasm for the movie just read too much like a press release to me, and I assumed you were part of "street team" to promote the flick. <p></p><i></i>

[needaname]

Is anyone getting the point? It doesn't matter where the message comes from, right? I didn't know about all the cult stuff until the previous posts. Jeeze. And as far as being defensive and "learning something" (I'll keep that in mind), I think it's called standing up for myself and calling rude comments toward an innocent post, for what they were. But, forget it. I will say though, and I'm not religious at all.... but there was this homeless guy, who was an unemployed carpenter, that cruised around different cities, no PHD or even went to school much, but had some great ideas. Would you listen and take what you could from his message? Ah, never mind.<br>Oh, and if you think I just dropped in from out of the blue for the first time, wrong again. I use to be: wherehavealltheflowersgone. Not new to this site. Thanks alot friends! <p></p><i></i>

[needaname]

thanks, no problem.... so much for my enthusiasm. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Ramtha! I haven't heard about him/her in years! Last I heard was in the eighties when Ramtha was giving the no doubt sound spiritual advice to invest in his/her racehorses. (come to think of it, the cultish Gene Scott also invested in horses...must be something to it.)<br><br>Anyway, I have no interest in the film, from what I've read, and it is sad that people so badly mangle quantum physics in these things. But quantum physics does have some interesting philosophical features and so I don't agree with the maligned physicist in this quote:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Nothing to do with consciousness? Well, the jury is definitely still out. Some not too shabby thinkers such as Roger Penrose think that quantum physics has everything to do with physics. And QP also has the odd feature, yet to really be explained away in traditional, "common sense" terms, that the result of a measurement depends on the "intent" of the measurer (shall I measure a wave or a particle today?). It's a bit of a leap to say that this automatically means that we "create our own reality" per se but quantum weirdness does open some strange and unexpected doors.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Some not too shabby thinkers such as Roger Penrose think that quantum physics has everything to do with physics.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Shocking!<br><br>Yes, I know you meant 'consciousness', not 'physics', but I also know David Albert and Roger Penrose, and in the sense of 'consciousness' Albert intended, Penrose would undoubtedly agree with him.<br><br>More importantly in the present context, the filmmakers <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>willfully</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> skewed Albert's claims, which was libelous, deceitful, and dishonorable on their part. That tells me all I need to know about them.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

And BTW, do you honestly suspect Albert isn't aware of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the observer-dependence of position and momentum measurements? And what do you mean by "measure a wave or a particle"? If you're not up on the topic, why attempt to discuss it?<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

with someone named Pauli!<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And BTW, do you honestly suspect Albert isn't aware of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the observer-dependence of position and momentum measurements?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>LOL...yeah, he's probably heard of it. No, I was simply stating that the philosophical interpretation of these things is not settled. Some physicists see some quantum phenonena as showing that somehow conscious thought "influences" the outcome, but other physicists don't see a need to resort to that explanation. In other words, is the cat really dead or does it "wait" until the lab tech opens the box to "decide"?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And what do you mean by "measure a wave or a particle"?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, my argumentative friend, I simply meant that, let's say a photon, exhibits wave like behavior if you are attempting to measure it as you might a wave and particle like behavior if you attempt to measure it from that perspective. The two slit experiment kind of thing. Particle like behavior with one slit open....wave like with two. And yet, it is really hard for some of us to actually "picture" how something can be both a particle and a wave. It challenges our "common sense" view of the world. Or things such as the EPR paradox. Spooky action a distance...woooooo. Some physicists just shrug it off and others find the philosophical implications kind of intriguing. Your namesake, if I recall, delved into ideas like synchronicity and the interaction of mind and matter while other physicists might not want to delve into that aspect of things.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> If you're not up on the topic, why attempt to discuss it?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Hey, if you want to provide your <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>bona fides</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to Jeff and I will too, then...<br><br>Heh, just kidding.<br><br>I'm sure my meager knowledge pales next to yours, given your namesake (or do you channel him?). However, I discuss it because I'm interested in it. Verbal exchange does serve purposes other than intellectual combat for some of us. It also serves to educate, stimulate thinking and entertain. <br><br>So, Mr. Pauli, how about some of your own comments on the relationship between mind and matter. Do you think quantum weirdness might offer some insight into this age old mystery? Or is it all a bunch of pop physics folderol to entertain us rubes on cold winter nights? <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Asta]

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy this movie. I've never heard of Nantha? Namtha? Nappa? before now. So I will follow the links and get my butt updated.<br><br>But any movie that makes one wonder and think, well, it's gotta have some redeeming values! Particularly in light of the mind-numbing garbage that's being pumped out of Hollywood these days.<br><br>This discussion reminds me of the movie "Pi". While I think a lot of the storyline was bull, I learned some things and thought about a lot of things I would not have run across in my normal day-to-day drudge. "The DaVinci Code" also falls into this category. As does "National Treasure".<br><br>It would have been more polite to approach NeedAName with a flower of friendship and the hand of guidance instead of hitting him over the head with the sledgehammer of judgment. <br><br>But if you want a recommendation for a really good summer book/movie, pick up "1984." I am on chapter two. I haven't read it in over 30 years, and my mind is being blown yet again. Oh.My.God. <p></p><i></i>