| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 1:21:57 AM | A very insightful little movie. It expresses a lot of the same views that I believe in rather than following mainstream religion. I absolutely loved every minute of it.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4431006927936421876
I would love to hear the opinions of others on the information provided in this video. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:58:35 AM | It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science. It attempts to apply theories which only occur in sub atomic particles to macro scale objects. It uses "quantum" when it really means magic.
It's a mess. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:12:05 AM | It's funny I had a short story similar to something like that.
Our existence was simply the fluctuating attempt at establishing equilibrium between two points that have no ****ing clue what they are yet or what they could be. I had some crazy stuff in the story having to do with omnicausality and the fun of making it more efficient. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:32:07 AM | | Entertaining with a few good points about "creating your own reality" that anyone can relate to. However, needs to be taken with a major grain of salt too. I read a few of those who were interviewed were also members of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. And J.Z. Knight, Ramtha's "channeler" was one of those interviewed. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 8:01:34 AM | --It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science. It attempts to apply theories which only occur in sub atomic particles to macro scale objects. It uses "quantum" when it really means magic.---
Just about sums it up.... | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 8:03:27 AM | I didnt much like what the bleep do we know.
mostly because it was so basic and cheesy.
Made some good points though.. We do create our own reality. Somewhat like how holograms are made except on a much larger scale.
No grains of salt needed, really.
Similar responses to the "pseudo scientific babble.. magic" replies are often regurgitated when similar ideas and theories come up, also things like ESP, spiritual healing, dowsing, accupuncture, among many many others evoke those types of responses from those who have not experienced those types of things for themselves or have spent too much time being mind programmed to have a wide enough view of things, an open enough mind, to accept the ideas as even possibilities. . It's too bad, really. Those folks are missing out on a lot of really exciting stuff.
| |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:51:11 AM |
It attempts to apply theories which only occur in sub atomic particles to macro scale objects
The conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity does appear to be something of interest to both cosmologists and physicists. I understand string theory, while controversial, is one way being presented as an attempt to resolve the conflict. String theory, however, it comes with it’s own set of as yet unanswered questions and new, unproven ideas such as additional, unseen spatial dimensions.
(I found this article on string theory to be more informative than most I’ve read .. likely going to have to copy/paste that url in pieces for it to work):
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vqPSkR0abZMJ:briandick51.googlepages.com/DormantSciencePresentation.doc+conflict+quantum+macro+string&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us
Just because there is not currently an understanding of how these two theories can and do work together doesn’t mean all ideas based on their combination is bunk. I found the movie entertaining to contemplate and some of it downright useful for those who might care to explore further.
A side thought: Religion could be classed in the same un-provable, quasi-intellectual category as 'psuedo-scientific babble'/junk science. Just because something is mainstream doesn’t make it so .. and the reverse is true. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 10:58:56 AM | In case any of you had not noticed the movie was also strongly geared toward explaining chemical and biological concepts which have to do with how we sense and perceive the world around us.
The whole thing makes my water happy. Lol. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 5:30:25 PM |
Similar responses to the "pseudo scientific babble.. magic" replies are often regurgitated when similar ideas and theories come up, also things like ESP, spiritual healing, dowsing, accupuncture, among many many others evoke those types of responses from those who have not experienced those types of things for themselves or have spent too much time being mind programmed to have a wide enough view of things, an open enough mind, to accept the ideas as even possibilities. . It's too bad, really. Those folks are missing out on a lot of really exciting stuff.
Heh, missing out on stuff that only exists in your head. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:06:09 PM | "It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science. It attempts to apply theories which only occur in sub atomic particles to macro scale objects. It uses "quantum" when it really means magic."
Actually, some physicists have the exact same thoughts about String theory. Just a side note. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/16/2008 10:13:02 PM |
It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science. It attempts to apply theories which only occur in sub atomic particles to macro scale objects. It uses "quantum" when it really means magic.
It's a mess
Please explain your comment concerning applying theories of sub atomic particles to macro scale.
Keep in mind the relationship between matter and energy.
As far as the physiological aspect of the movie, neuroendocrine function, it was right on.
Heh, missing out on stuff that only exists in your head.
Argue for your limitations and they are yours.
True scientists never close the doors on possibilities and only the most foolish make assumptions without knowing more of the facts.
| |
|
Deonyx
|
Joined: 1/20/2008
Msg: 12 | |
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/16/2008 11:19:15 PM |
True scientists never close the doors on possibilities and only the most foolish make assumptions without knowing more of the facts.
Thank You! | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:35:43 AM |
Please explain your comment concerning applying theories of sub atomic particles to macro scale.
What he's saying is that he's applying quantum physics (which only explains observations on a microscopic level) to macroscopic objects (for which the theory of relativity is the applicable, dominant theory and for which quantum theory does not explain much). In essence, he's complaining that the views presented are not observational, and they are pseudoscience because they use concepts outside their realm of applicability.
True scientists never close the doors on possibilities and only the most foolish make assumptions without knowing more of the facts.
We have plenty of reason to close the doors on such possibilities, as they are offered with no explanation, no evidence, and no support. Scientists are open to evidence, something lacking in these disciplines. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/17/2008 7:59:11 PM |
We have plenty of reason to close the doors on such possibilities, as they are offered with no explanation, no evidence, and no support. Scientists are open to evidence, something lacking in these disciplines.
"Keep in mind the relationship between matter and energy"
Unfortunetly people with minimal knowledge in the sciences are the first ones to disclaim the validity of potential realities, the reason for this is they lack knowledge and the humility that comes with experience.
In disclaiming potentials they have very little knowledge about they argue only for their own limitations.
Many people who call themselves "scientist" have long held the belief that if a thing is unmeasurable it does not exist, these people are in fact the real peudo-scientists and the "science" they believe in is in fact the only peudo-science.
Scientific methodology maintains an objective view of the world and hopefully does not allow subjectivity to cloud observations.
On this note ~ lack of evidence does not confirm lack of existance.
Often "we" as scientist merely are without the means to measure a thing or belief system and, as has been shown repeatedly over the last 2000+ years, when a new means to measure has been discovered our understanding of the world we live in expands.
It is sad to see how many people fight for their ignorance only because they aren't humble enough to admit that they don't know something. Ignorance can be cured. This is done by experience and adaptability. Arrogance leads to stupidity and extinction. (Evolution proves this out)
This quote always gets me.
"Life is Tough, It's even tougher when you're stupid" ~ John Wayne
Lest we get our collective grundies in a twist - I'm as guilty of this as the next guy.
Science should open doors, not close them. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:12:26 AM | Silivros, you have a poor understanding of scientific methodology if you think scientists are unable to rule out certain possibilities if said possibilities are not supported by evidence.
Any claim put forth without evidence will always be rejected by a scientist. This is why untestable hypotheses are continually rejected by scientists; they cannot be tested in any way, and hence there is no supporting evidence.
This is not the same thing as being close-minded. Scientists simply demand that you provide evidence for claims. Should you present the same claim with evidence, then scientists will be more amenable to it, depending on how well the evidence supports the claim.
On this note ~ lack of evidence does not confirm lack of existance.
This is a trivial point, and not quite correct. It is trivial because the same criticism can be leveled against scientific knowledge in general. The theory of evolution can't, for instance, be proved with absolute certainty (science is based on empirical knowledge, not absolute certainties as in logic or maths), so in a manner of speaking a hypothesis that claims magic gremlins guide biological change is a logical possibility. As you can see, this problem is trivial because a logical possibility that is not supported with actual evidence is pretty much ruled out, especially in the face of a competing theory that has a wide array of evidence supporting it. This point is not correct for the simple reason that a lack of evidence IS confirming of a lack of existence. The only caveat is that it is not perfect, absolutely certain confirmation--but no evidence in science is absolute and perfect confirmation, so this is hardly a criticism.
Many people who call themselves "scientist" have long held the belief that if a thing is unmeasurable it does not exist...
These scientists would only maintain that the lacking evidence should lead us to believe the thing in question does not exist. This attitude can be revised should evidence of the thing's existence be provided. That's how science works. You draw conclusions based upon the existing evidence, and revise the conclusions with any new evidence that is accumulated. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/18/2008 1:18:46 PM | | the best insight and deeper message of the movie is that the way we perceive reality modifies reality itself, meaning that the observer has the power to modify the essence of the subject of observation. It means that we, as humans, have, in a way, supernatural powers. No need for God or for the Divine to help us cope with reality: self development and belief in our own potential for growth will take us to heaven: you reap what you sowed. Even Einstein believed in this: this is why he never expressed his metaphysical beliefs: for fear of being misunderstood. But he said that buddhism, as a philosophy-religion of humanity and for humanity will eventually appeal to the deep searcher. Humanism will win: the " religion" of humanity will find itself compatible with science. The secret is: the laws of nature are applicable to the human spirit too...consciousness can grow....It is neither born, nor is dies....it passes on from one candle to the next, like a flame that eventually dies out. It's like energy: it is neither created nor destroyed....it keeps moving: this is why we exist, because energy=consciousness is in us....It is this consciousness that modifies the reality around us. It is not reality (=matter) that shapes us: it is the other way around. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:15:28 PM | String theory has its own set of unanswered questions and unproven ideas such as unseen spatial dimensions.
I believe string cheese theory was the basis for the Philadelphia Experiment.
It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science.
Much like the scripts written for Star Trek: Voyager. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/19/2008 1:34:28 PM | Garbage film that misquotes and misrepresents science and scientists. This alone is enough to put me off it; truth once distorted is no longer truth.
There are certainly those who say that scientists won't discount a possibility, but I think they're forgetting that scientists also use Occam's Razor, and try to achieve the simplest, most logical theorem possible based on existing evidence.
To apply quantum behaviour on a macro scale is like the following train of thought: "There are clouds on Venus. What are clouds? Well, suspended water molecules. Maybe Venus is a swamp world, then, hot, muggy and wet, complete with ferns and dinosaurs!" Observation: Venus is cloudy. Conclusion: Dinosaurs. There's a jump in logic that just doesn't quite work.
In fact, for all those saying that just because we're closed minded for dismissing some of the nonsense in this film, I've a theory for you: there's a race of gnomes living inside the moon, controlling its motion with gigantic, intricate clockwork machinery. An actual scientist would laugh at this. It's not a matter of disproving the moongnomes; rather you have to provide proof -for- them.
I suppose I can look forward to being called a close minded conservative or some such nonsense, but my message isn't to discount everything that sounds odd; it's to discount things which do not really have any sort of compelling evidence presented, and that if a field of study is mostly unknown to you, then to genuinely study it before taking the film as gospel. Magic with a pretense of scientific support is appealing, but it's also dishonest, and a disservice to yourself.
After all, if the film was genuinely truthful, why was Professor David Albert misquoted and misrepesented? Just look at what he has to say.
"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."
Source: http://salon.com/ent/feature/2004/09/16/bleep/index1.html
Anyone still believing the film should read this: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/19/2008 5:31:58 PM | | I think it was a terrific marketing gimmick, and it made some people very rich. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/21/2008 10:06:12 AM | wow. everybody's soooo smart.
Yes, the movie was hoky.... then again, try describing an increadibly complex subject in 2 hours AND get non-scientists to watch it. Geezz.
Has no basis in science.... really? quantum mechanics is bogus? Way to take a subject matter I find increadibly interesting and dismiss it completely....
And the subject (and the movie) focus on PERCEPTION, so why not apply it to a macro scale. Same can be said for any School of Thought.
It's not magic. It's just a new field. So yeah, theories. And it's increadibly difficult and many times impossible to observe... but not worth our thought?
Would you have preffered Stephen Hawkings version (he had a movie too, and it wasn't hokey, but it wasn't flashy either.
I thought it was a good intro to QM | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/21/2008 1:41:13 PM | I think I've said this before in another thread but there is actually serious work being done to investigate quantum-level influences on consciousness and whether what we understand as consciousness actually has some processes that occur on a quantum level.
It's got a few serious scientists including, I believe, Roger Penrose involved.
Check it out. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/21/2008 4:06:32 PM | "Has no basis in science.... really? quantum mechanics is bogus? Way to take a subject matter I find increadibly interesting and dismiss it completely....
And the subject (and the movie) focus on PERCEPTION, so why not apply it to a macro scale. Same can be said for any School of Thought.
It's not magic. It's just a new field. So yeah, theories. And it's incredibly difficult and many times impossible to observe... but not worth our thought?"
Yes - really. This movie isn't quantum mechanics. It's a way for all the people appearing it in to sell their books. Its interesting how the movie gives the title of all their books too.
I'd go as far to say it's a down right insult to science. How is changing water molecules with your mind science? It's simply "The Secret" disguised by fake science - a cheesy self-help movie of "be positive - live positive". The experiments weren't even double blinded - the guys knew where to be looking for the crystals - if the experiments in the movie were done according to the scientific method and done double blinded they'd all come up as bunk. Not to mention the majority of the producers/behind the sceners were simply members of of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment - so not only was it a money grab, but also an attempt to recruit people to their ridiculous cults.
learn the different between bad science and science that is actually worth our time. fo shiz.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/21/2008 10:33:01 PM | This movie has been discussed on other forums extensively, and it always brings out the same crowds (sometimes different faces) on either side of the discussion.
So try a different approach
Pay close attention! From the "Physiological perspective" the movie was very accurate. Almost never get an argument there because there is, in fact, not much to disput. The movie is right on, and should be given kudo's for compiling such complex physiology into an aprox. 90 min movie.
The quantum mechanics part being connected to consciousness is a newer concept here in western philosophy, where the mind and body/matter aren't connected.
Eastern philosophy (hindu, buddhism) has belived in consciousness effecting reality for thousands of years. It is only in the west where christian rewrites of the bible have altertered the philosophical belief structure and subsequently the cultural/societal/science thought processes. This is manifest into a dis-connectedness of the body mind consciousness, (not to disregard the physical science achievments in the west, which have been nothing short of incredible), that causes much of this misunderstanding.
I recently asked a poster to explain comments concerning applying theories of sub atomic particles to macro scale and while doing so to ---
"Keep in mind the relationship between matter and energy."
This was the reply:
Silivros, you have a poor understanding of scientific methodology if you think scientists are unable to rule out certain possibilities if said possibilities are not supported by evidence." --- "Any claim put forth without evidence will always be rejected by a scientist. This is why untestable hypotheses are continually rejected by scientists; they cannot be tested in any way, and hence there is no supporting evidence."
Keep in mind the relationship between matter and energy!
Matter is energy. Pay attention! Our western science in all its benevolence can not explain how energy is formed into matter. It's ok, blame it on the rewrites (save it for another discussion)
Any idea that "Science" has as to how this happens would also be a "Theory" and therefore subject to the same scrutiny as any other theory.
The "Theory" presented from "What the Bleep" is that consciousness is what forms energy into matter.
So in reply to the zealous scientific fanatics, If you have a better idea than speak.
The critics that knock the quantum theories of "What the Bleep" are coming from a western philiosphical belief system that doesn't lend itself to the body/mind connection and therefore has a difficult time accepting concepts outside of their realms of belief. Expand your horizons and find answers, don't shut the doors simple because you haven't the experience to understand the concept.
Ignorance can be cured by experience
Argue for your limitations and they are yours.
The greatest of things can be achieved within a light heart. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/22/2008 6:29:26 AM | science has failed our world.
why can't science explain consciousness? because consciousness is what created science.
Closing off possibilities to yourself is sad, but in the end it's just you who you are limiting.
I prefer to think freely. | |
|
| What the bleep do we know!?
Posted: 5/22/2008 7:07:26 AM |
It's a bunch of pseudo scientific babble that has no real basis in science.
You beat me to it. I've yet to find any decent research that backs any of it up. It gets you thinking about the significance of perspective, but any decent Psych 101 class should. Other than that I smell a weed marathon that ended in a movie being produced. | |
|
Home
login 
