[Anyone is welcome to reproduce and use the above image.]
The film What the Bleep Do We Know is an affront to any person's intelligence. Its sophomoric and naive questions make one wince in disbelief, especially at new-age gems like "the rabbithole of mysteriousness" and "is everyone an enigma?" Simply put, What the Bleep is half a brain short and half a decade too late, having neither style, nor subtlety, compared to such recent popular-culture philosophical masterpieces as Waking Life and The Matrix.
What the Bleep gives one no new information and instead introduces the viewer to false ideas and pseudo-science, such as native Americans not being able to see Columbus's clippers because they didn't know what they were, subatomic particles actually being thoughts (or "particles of experience"), time-travel into the past being possible, information being matter, water being shaped by a blessing of a Zen monk, being able to walk on water with the power of positive thinking, "anti-gravity magnets," emotions being "holographically imprinted chemicals," addiction to heroin being the same as addiction to emotions, thoughts being able to influence the physical world, outragous claims regarding quantum physics and other such incredible idiocy, all in the service of disproving materialism by whatever means possible (including flashy and badly-made SFX).
One of the most typical examples of such inanity is the supposed case of a meditating group that lowered the crime rate in D.C.; whoever wrote this schlock obviously never took a basic science course that would have taught them that correlation does not equal causation. What's worse, the true half-baked credentials of the "talking heads" are never shown and the acting is atrociously bad (the mute woman's roomate just cracked me up and the Polish wedding/"She's Too Fat for Me" bit creeped me the hell out). In addition, things like "four-layered bio-body suit" seem just a little too similar to the entire Scientological "body thetan" concept.
Ultimately, the film is a propaganda tool for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, made by its disciples; Ramtha is a Scientology-like deceptive, profit-centered cult based in Washington state; plenty of people already voiced their discontent with this hogwash. Here is an excerpt from the Annual Pigasus Awards:
Category #3, to the media outlet that reported as factual the most outrageous supernatural, paranormal or occult claims: The prize goes to the film "What the #$*! Do We Know?," a fantasy docudrama cult hit supposedly about the "nature of reality." More than a dozen scientists, theologians and mystics appear. However, the product placement reveals that among the physicists, neurologists and academics who expound the film's thesis is "new age" icon J.Z. Knight, who claims to be channeling a 35,000-year-old god/warrior from Atlantis named Ramtha. The films' producers, writers, directors, and some of the stars are members of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Washington State. Several of the scientists are affiliated with Knight's school, and the film was largely financed by one of Knight's students. It's a blatant effort by religious, mystical, and New Age gurus such as Deepak Chopra to disguise their views as real science. Thrown in are the fantasies of Masura Emoto, who claims to have proven that thoughts can change the structure of water; his "experiments" consist of taping written words to glasses of water. (See www.randi.org/jr/052303.html) The "Maharishi Effect" – an equally vacuous notion, is also offered. A rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults, it is still filling theatres all over the world.
'Nuff said. Don't don't buy this crap, don't rent it, don't download it, and do not watch it, unless you want to spend two hours being intellectually offended and having unscientific, cultist crap peddled to you.
P.S. Oh, my god (pun not intended), I just went to the film's official website and god a firsthand taste of its makers' cherrypicking practices: they had a seemingly-favourable quotation from Roger Ebert himself up on the website; puzzled, I went to Ebert's own website and found out that the quote was taken completely out of context (Ebert was explaining how he was at first taken in by Ramtha's babbling); he gave the film two and a half stars after all. Fascinating.
Thank goodness there's another one out there who isn't buying this nonsense!
Yeah, I'm disgusted by the deviousness of this film's creators; it's quite impossible to argue with the film's followers because they take it on faith - that's the scary part.
O.K., O.K., so I saw the movie and thought J.Z. Knight was a complete freak. But what I have discovered in my own life is that when I change the way I interpret a situation, a lot of times, the situation, itself, improves. I also spent some time with a teacher who kept challenging my beliefs about my life. I changed so rapidly my friends started hanging out with the teacher. I don't believe in gurus, auras, channeling, aliens, etc. I would never put the person who helped me on a pedastal because he's just a human being and completely flawed like the rest of us. But I find that while seven months ago I was crippled from having survived an illness that kills 95% + of the people who are diagnosed, today most of my pain is gone, as well as the fear I had been living with. I have a boyfriend and my friendships and relationships with my family have improved significantly.
What changed? My thoughts about mysefl and my life. Through affirmations, and a lot of other cool techniques.
So when i watched the movie I thought, yes, this makes sense from my experience level. I agree, the water thing sounds far fetched, and the Columbus thing i rolled my eyes at. But I think there is a layer of truth underlying a good portion of what is being presented.
Just my humble opionion.
ANON
Yes, but this has nothing to do with any sort of enlightement or quantum physics or anything like that. It's all psychology, physiology, social connections, body activation. Did you actually know that it's smiling that makes you happy, the muscle motion, and not the other way around? A variety in thought is most definitely a way to change things on the apparent level of everyday interactions, but this does not go beyond the physical, chemical and biological structures and rules of the universe.
Yes, this film has grains of truth in it and that is precisely why it is so extremely dangeous: it is difficult to refute because one is often compelled to refute it wholesale. In the end, though, we really don't need one more film telling us how to live our lives. Presenting possibilities is one thing, presenting pseudo-science is another thing, as is telling one that a certain state of being is better than another. But, in the end, this is just how it all goes; someone always wants to tell you how to live.
This movie is fascinating for it's psychological aspects. That hazy-eyed J.Z.Knight is an absolute despoiler of reason, it took me the best part of twenty seconds to figure her out..
Most of the talking heads, with the exception (at first glance) of that lady who studied neuropeptides, look like frauds or people who abandonned on reason. The non-physicists are just parrots, the physicists are plain intellectually dishonest, and I say that not because of the word they say but because of the exact context in which they say them.
I do not refuse the possibility of strange quirks of nature, but the movie's presentation of QT was a fraud. QT is not a new theory, it's an old 70 years old theory which was built on some very psycho-epistemologicaly questionable basis. Dirac and Heisenberg were the main creators of those quirks.
Conventional mechanics had three variable with three equations. Why did those wonder boys felt keen on discarding one equation instead of finding one that worked? That created the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. IMHO, there was something radically wrong wtih that.
All talking heads of the movie were guilty of pulling the trick of "the stolen concept", i.e. of using reason to alledgedly "prove" that reason does not exist. They should be sentenced six months at psycho-epistemological boot camp.
There are maybe five worthwhile minutes of human wisdom in that movie, the rest being all crap. To the general public ignorant of physical concepts, I consider that movie to be accutely toxic waste sweetened by a few minute of human wisdom.
For the record, I graduated B.Sc. of Physics in 1990.
My nickname is but a joke on QT.
Bravo! Another voice of wisdom in the wilderness. I already got tired debating with the fanboys and girls on IMDb. Well said.
I, personally, know very little about physics, and, as fascinating science can be, loathe it because it is beyond me. Heh, from my years of suffering by its hand, something about F=MA comes to mind, oh, and the gravity constant was always "10" for me, not 9 point something, so this should say it all, heh.
Then again, the very name of this website actually pertains to the concept of entropy and that rule of thermodynamics mentioned in Tom Stoppad's Arcadia, and thus, by extension, to fractals, mutability, life an death.
Recently, my more scientifically-advanced friend, Paul, informed me that, theoretically, quantum mechanics stipulate that there can be events in the universe that can be truly random (or at least that's how I remember that part of his conclusion).
This is to say, I imagine it would be opposite of the case of the electron cloud where, yes, we cannot be certain of one of the variables, but we can be certain that we are certain about not being certain, heh. At any rate, all this put a big damper on my hard determinism, heh; I wonder if you've got anything to say about that.
To the point, I am quite interested in what you said about "conventional mechanics" and "three variable[s] with three equations" and the Uncertainty Principle. Are you saying all that electron cloud stuff is bunk? I'd love to hear more on this, as well as on the "stolen concept" trick you mentioned.
Ubik, eh? I'm slowly reading my way to it. So far, Radio Free Albemouth and A Scanner Darkly are my absolute favourites. ;)
At any rate, good stuff.
well, Mr. Ubik Heisenberg, you do yourself no credit by offering the "real scientist" POV and then discrediting Heisenberg. In truth, there is a good bit more of scientific truth in this movie than in your post.
That being said, I got here because after watching a few minutes of this movie, I smelled a rat. I watched the rest to determine what species, and I got here by searching for the movie title alongside "scientology". the pitching of antidepressants at the end of the movie being the scaly tail.
never mind that some non-tom-cruise-approved cult may be behind the movie - though i'm old enough to recognize hagelin, remember his presidential candidacy, and realize that a franchise may still be part of the organization...
it's too bad because the film got some attention and press and yet generally no notice to its obvious cultish connections. hey, if it's a religion - even yours - fine. just be proud enough to wear the uniform and decline to take the unconverted by stealth. ya know?
i bet 13 donuts that some refugee from the aforesaid can guarantee that every word i say is true...
oh damn, i'll never work in LA again. eff-y'all.
anyway, it's all too bad, because there are many points raised, scientifically valid, that do indeed provoke genuine spiritual inquiry. too bad they are covertly directed to specific secretive cults, when indeed these points can deepen spiritual inquiry from the perspective of any faith.
(damn, i wish i knew the culty epithet that would be applied to this rant, and i'd love to google it if i could, but it's time for my antidepressants).
anyway, i'll close with some lyrics from a scandinavian black metal band that are really a translation of a gnostic portuguese poet of the early 20th century:
A god is born and others die. What is
Has neither come nor gone, but error moves.
Today we have exchanged eternities
And what is past no novelty improves.
Blind knowledge is working at useless ground
And crazy faith is living the dream of its liturgy
A new god is a word - or the mere sound
Don't seek and don't trust, for all is mystery.
--
i can't emphasize that last line enough...
"Don't seek and don't trust," eh? I don't know, the two seem somewhat mutually contradictory to me.
Regardless, aside from your rather nice rat-metpahor, I must disagree with you with regard to the raising of "valid scientific questions" in WTBDWK. I believe that in cases of fanaticism of this scale and quality (because, you've got to admit it, they're really good at what they do), I'd rather discredit the filmmakers completely rather than let them hang on by a feeble connection to "real science." Isn't this, in fact, their main rhetorical tactic? "If some of this is true, why not the rest of it?" This film just feels dangerous to me.
I am always amused at how much vituperation a simple film can actually spark, and of course at the heat that comes of the scientific community still steeped in rationalisma and 2+2 = 4 (2+2=5 up there is sort of silly) and nothing more. I guess that is why there are "great physicists" in this world, and pedagogues of physics, who can hardly wait to retire from the high school circuit.
There is a lot to criticise in the film, indeed. My own criticism was simply: It is about 45 minutes too long and all those special effects are really tedious. They are obviously there to wow an audience too used to being wowed. Give me straight interviews. Even long and boring ones.
As for the speakers, well, I let them say their stuff. Sure there is a lot of mysticism in there, but have any of those people steaming away at this film given thought to our reality, to the world we live in, to matters of religion and spirituality? Have those 2+2 scientists ranting at this film considered how much incredible trial and error there is in "normal"science? The constant questioning, doubting, checking up again, experimenting? These people are simply on one end of a large and colorful gang of researchers. And they do not demand faith. They are saying" try it out, get out of your box and think differently". Not faith.
I have been doing so for a long time. Without drugs, btw. There are points made in there that are remarkable. Quirks say the scientific pedagigues, the pedagogues. Well, there are those who are not afraid to imagine reality as well.
For me, the bottom line of Bleep is: You are very responsible for the world you are creating and your approach to that world. It's that simple and that is an essential truth that has been quashed by 1000s of years of totalitarian religious rule.
There is food for thought in that film, whether you like it or not. And that is the point it makes. It's a heck of a lot better than 95% of the same-ol-same-old boring rubbish coming out of Hollywood.
a) "2+2=5" has nothing to do with physics or mathematics. Ever read a little book called Nineteen Eighty-Four?
b) There are great scientists in the world, however, whose primary character trait is, above all things, humility. 'Nuff said.
c) You want interviews from cultists? Good luck, buddy.
d) No friggin' way I'm letting these wackos pollute the young and unformed minds of senseless schoolchildren and hippie wannabes.
e) Trial and error has nothing to do with the Quantum Theory, which clearly states certain things in the universe, even if random, occur for very much ironclad reasons, and other, very few, select things are, despite this, still utterly random. There is no magic and no miracles, just coincidences.
f) If they are not demanding faith, they are demanding irrationality at the very least. This makes their theories dangerous.
g) That so-called bottom line is dogmatic, even if it is presented with a guise of child-like innocence. I, personally, am a compatibilist, short of being a hard determinist. How does the dogma of the film accommodate my world views?
h) There are true and interesting scientific facts in that film, mixed with outright New-Age lies; as a result, this film is dangerous and self-righteous. Finally, that mute bitch, who is a really, really bad actress, really pisses me off.