Anyone seen "What the #$*! Do We Know !? [A Quantum Fable]"?

[SCUBAbe]

some of it I got...some of it confused me and soe of it made me say hmmmmm.....what did you think?

description from netflix:

The neurological processes and "quantum uncertainty" of life are explored in this film. Thrust from her mundane life into an Alice in Wonderland-like world, Amanda (Marlee Matlin) must develop a brand-new perception of the world and the people she interacts with. Interviews with various experts are interspersed throughout the film, which combines narrative, documentary and animation.

[3894]

I've seen it advertised. It smells like a science-is-fun! thing. Science is not my bag, baybee.

[SCUBAbe]

I've seen it advertised. It smells like a science-is-fun! thing. Science is not my bag, baybee.

it was definalty science based....I need to watch it again, because some of it I wasn't following...mostly because my child was acting up and I had to go deal with it...LOL...I really liked the movie. I like science though..:)

[Bill Catherall]

I haven't seen it but it sounds interesting. I just put it in my queue.

[Alex S.]

Just a warning that the group that funded the movie is a religious one not a scientific one. Many of the "experts" highlighted in the movie apparently are unknown in the field of physics and according to several academics I trust (I have not seen the movie myself) it quite a lot of bunk.

It may be entertaining (Mindwalk is a similar type movie that I enjoy a lot but it is a bunch of pop-science/new-agism crap) but everything I hear from sources I trust is that it is not particularly scientific.

[Leap for Joy]

Saw it, loved it.
Still can't get over the fact that these high level quantum physicists came off sounding like pot-smoking new-age mysticists!

I especially loved the water crystals. Very interesting concept! A scientist exposed water crystals to different words/intentions and then looked at changes in their crystal structure. The photos are gorgeous crystals for positive thoughts, and a jumbled mess when exposed to negative thoughts.

For anyone thinking of watching it, don't let the description on the cover throw you off!

Here's the website (http://whatthebleep.com/), complete with study guides for the movie, and links to related web pages.

[Alex S.]

Here is the web site for the philosophy behind the movie: Ramtha's School of Enclightenment (http://www.ramtha.com/).

Also, one of the expert in the movie is apparently JZ Knight, a psychic who channels a 35,000 year old entity from Atlantis. Apparently this isn't divulged in the movie. Knight is the founder of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, provided most of the funding for the movie, the three directors are members, as are many of the scientists presented in the movie.

Here is a background on JZ Knight/Ramtha (http://skepdic.com/channel.html).

Again, I want to emphasize that this does not mean it isn't a movie of value. If it makes you think that is a fine thing, but it is important to know where it is coming from since a lot of people give it credence based on its scientific credentials.

And really, if you liked this, check out Mindwakl.

[Leap for Joy]

Also, one of the expert in the movie is apparently JZ Knight, a psychic who channels a 35,000 year old entity from Atlantis. Apparently this isn't divulged in the movie.

Whenever she is talking, there is a caption that identifies her as Ramtha and in the credits at the end it explains that she's 'channeling'. She was definitely a strange one.

[Alex S.]

But did it explain about her school and that the school was paying for the movie? That would seem to me an important thing to divulge, much as if Dr. Dobson's group financed a movie on evolution.

[Leap for Joy]

But did it explain about her school and that the school was paying for the movie? That would seem to me an important thing to divulge, much as if Dr. Dobson's group financed a movie on evolution.

I'm not sure. The credits at the end were quite lengthy; I didn't watch all of them.

I'm looking for the movie you recommended, Mindwalk, and can't find it on Netflix. Are there any additional words in the title?

[stinkerbell]

We saw it about a year ago. I remember liking it....but wasn't blown away by it. My friends really bought into it and saw it multiple times. It was different, but I wouldn't sit through it again.

[Alex S.]

Mindwakl, so far as I know has now beenr released on DVD, just VHS.

The Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6302670306/qid)

It was written by Fritjof Capra, more widely known for writing the Tao of Physics. One of the times I saw the movie was in 1991 in Portland, Oregon, at a screening he attended and he definitely has all the New Age physics as metaphysics babble down. I don't buy his conclusions but the underlying physics are relatively solid and the discussion is interesting even if, in my opinion, it leads nowhere.

[Alex S.]

For a good rundown on the "experts" and their qualifications, Wikipedia has a good entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%3F!).

[3894]

For a good rundown on the "experts" and their qualifications, Wikipedia has a good entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%3F!).

Thanks, Alex. How sad.

[SCUBAbe]

Just a warning that the group that funded the movie is a religious one not a scientific one. Many of the "experts" highlighted in the movie apparently are unknown in the field of physics and according to several academics I trust (I have not seen the movie myself) it quite a lot of bunk.

It may be entertaining (Mindwalk is a similar type movie that I enjoy a lot but it is a bunch of pop-science/new-agism crap) but everything I hear from sources I trust is that it is not particularly scientific.

a warning before a movie is watched...OMG how dramatic. It is a movie..>LOL..it won't brainwash you and you can still think for yourself after watching it...:) what religious group funded it?.. because if anything they were not very suppotive of organized religion.

[CoasterChickie]

One of my friends raved about it. She loved it so much that she went to see it three times.


My hubby and I finally went to see it and we found it interesting and entertaining for the first hour, then we just got tired of it.

I was looking around the theater watching people's faces and started to think "Oh my gosh, they're actually buying this crap!" I also got this creepy feeling that the soft music and fun story line were "disguises" to try to brainwash people into believing what the "scientists" were saying.

If you know me well, then you know what I think about where people should really seek the answers to the meaning of life. ;)


IMO, this movie was nothing more than new-age psycho babble.

[Alex S.]

a warning before a movie is watched...OMG how dramatic. It is a movie..>LOL..it won't brainwash you and you can still think for yourself after watching it...:) what religious group funded it?.. because if anything they were not very suppotive of organized religion.

Yes, a warning before it is watched.

No, I don't think it will brainwash people.

Yes, I do think it probably misrepresents science in a way that many people will take as accepted truth.

Yes, I am a little protective of science since so few members of the general public have any sense of what it means and how it is persued.

No, I haven't seen it and could be completely wrong, but the response from people I know are at the forefront of theoretical physics have a sufficiently common reaction that I'm comfortable with relying on them.

Yes, I do think that despite all of this it may be a very interesting and worthwhile movie, but listening to a lot of people respond to this movie they come away thinking it has shown something about the nature of our universe rather than showing what a group of fringe thinkers think is the nature of our universe.

And yes, I do think that distinction is important.

[SCUBAbe]

Yes, I do think it probably misrepresents science in a way that many people will take as accepted truth.



why would somebody take anyones opinion as accepted truth? People are just giving opinions, some are interesting, but that doesn't make them correct. Some I agreed with and some I thought were way out there. Their opinions on religion are so opposite of what most of religious society accepts. It seems a bunch af agnostics made a movie to me.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. A lot of people take everything they read and see on TV as truth...*sigh*...however warning or not people will believe what they want...even when there's no proof..

[Bill Catherall]

I started watching it last night and only made it about half-way through before I was so completely bored by it that I just had to turn it off. I mean, it was a total waste of time, and I never feel that way even about many popcorn fluff movies. This is the first time I've ever felt that I want that hour of my life back.

And it's not just because I disagree with the movie. In fact I was hoping and waiting (and waiting and waiting) for them to present a thesis and argument that I could either agree or disagree with. Instead they used a lot of words to say nothing. They used a lot of flashy imagery but showed nothing.

They rattled off a lot of pseudo-science to make themselves look and sound like they know what they're talking about, but it was really just a string of incoherent thought and mumbo-jumbo. They tried to present arguments of quantum theory (for what purpose or to support what thesis...they never really got around to) but had their science all wrong (they were even mixing elements of string theory and M theory and calling it quantum theory).

Then, right there in the middle, they throw in what appears to be their true agenda. There is no God. And they try to back it up with their pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and incomplete and incoherent knowledge of quantum theory. Okay, so they don't believe in God. I'm fine with that. It doesn't bother me at all and it doesn't bother me that this was their agenda. But their wrapping up their "religion" of anti-religion in a pseudo-science wrapper and trying to pass it off as absolute scientific fact. Yeesh. Give me a break!

And that water crystal drivel. Puhlease. That got the biggest eye roll out of me. Anyone who knows anything about water crystalization knows that it crystalizes in a purely random way. You've probably heard that "no two snowflakes are alike." Also, those pictures of the "bad" crystals were not pictures of water crystals. They were pictures of water splashes.

So was this put together by a religious group? I don't know, but it seemed very familiar to me, but in an anti-religious way. In fact, it seemed almost like a counter argument to a short movie put out many years ago by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called What Is Real? where the very same questions were asked, "Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? What is real?" But in the Mormon movie the questions and answers were approached in a very religious way and science is never brought into it. (It was also much more coherent.) This movie seemed to want to answer the same questions but tried it with bad science and dismissed the religious angle, but never seemed to really get around to it. Or maybe that was what was in the last half which I just didn't have the patience to get to.

Anyway, I wanted to like this movie. I was hoping they could have presented something, anything, that I could dig my teeth into and give some thought to. Instead I got nothing but an empty void.