Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
521 of 647 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
What the (Bleep) Were they Thinking?!?, October 27, 2005
This movie is a perfect example of what Nobel Prize Winner Murray Gell-Mann calls "Quantum Flapdoodle", i.e. an attempt to use Quantum Theory to support a metaphysical, even mystical, view of the world. This is often the result of confusing Quantum Theory with the interpretation of Quantum Theory. The premise of the movie seems to be to prove that we create our own reality through the observation of it. What follows is a lengthy pseudo-scientific explanation of specific elements of Quantum Theory placed in a light that supports a distorted mystical view.
One of the first and most glaringly aggravating points about this movie is the editing. Many of the physicists in this movie were filmed for hours explaining Quantum Theory and the mechanics behind it, but only select pieces of the footage were used out of context to make it seem as if these experts were supporting a mystical world view, when in fact they almost universally scoff at it. Coupled with that is the fact that many of these "experts" actually have no physics credentials, Quantum or otherwise.
But what about the science, you ask. Unfortunately, the science in this movie is abysmal. First, as mentioned before, they confuse the theory with the interpretation. This is simply because they advocate the "observation is reality" idea, which isn't part of the theory. For a theory to be considered science it must be disprovable. Observation creating reality cannot be disproven simply because it would require an observer to validate, which would then invalidate the "theory". So from the beginning we have a faulty basis for science.
Following that, the movie then cites its "proof", which is also scientifically invalid. The first was the popular fable that when Columbus arrived in North America that the natives could see "the ripples in the water" but couldn't see the ships. Nowhere in the movie does it state that this is a fable... its actually presented as literal fact (though I should note it isn't implicitly stated in the film that this is a fact, it is certainly implied). This example fails to hold up to scientific standards for various reasons. First, its hearsay. There aren't any written records or verifiable evidence supporting the story. Its a legend, pure and simple, and as such proves nothing. Second, it fails entertain the more logical reasons, such as the ripples appearing in the water before the ships had actually arrived, a distinctly logical conclusion.
The second example illustrated the "Maharisi Effect". For those unfamiliar with the experiment, in 1993 four-thousand people practiced trancsendental meditation in an attempt to lower the crime rate in Washington DC. After the "experiment", the data was analyzed, tweaked and otherwise manipulated to reveal, amazingly, that violent crime was down 18% (though the film claims 25). This was viewed as proof of the power of group meditation and positive thinking. Sadly, this example also fails to satisfy the rigorous criteria of science. First, there was no control group, and as such no way of knowing what the crime rate would have been without the meditation. This implies that the lowered crime rate could be the result of several, unrelated factors. Also, the crime rate was only 18% lower than what was predicted by analysis of previous criminal trends in the area. Violent crime increased from the previous year, just not as much as was expected by experts. Second, the murder rate during this time actually increased, so while violent crime as a whole increased less than was predicted, more murders were being commited during this time than were predicted. Thirdly, the panel who reviewed the data created by this experiment were followers of the Maharisi and could not be counted as impartial, non-biased observers.
The third piece of "proof" supplied is Dr. Emoto's famous Water Tests in which he tapes words to containers of water and freezes them into crystals that, supposedly, create beautiful images when nice words like "love" and "thank you" are taped to them and horrible, ugly images when mean words like "I hate you" and "I want to kill you" are used. These words were tried in several languages and sometimes images are used as well. Unfortunately, Dr. Emoto's amazing work has never been independently recreated in a scientific setting. In fact, the James Randi Educational Foundation has offered a $1,000,000 prize to Dr. Emoto if his data can pass a double blind test, a prize which he has refused to even attempt to claim.
After this there is a long discussion about cellular peptides and how these are responsible for all observation, emotion and, in essence, reality. This was the only part of the movie that had some sound basis in reality and could be backed up with science. It is 100% true that the chemical processes in our brains can vastly effect how we view reality, which is the basis of psychiatric pharmocology. The movie then moves on to use this as proof of the power of positive thinking, i.e. "Our brains control how we view reality so we don't need mind-altering medications to be happy!" Yay! Except when there's something wrong with our brain and those chemicals are out of balance. I'd like to see somebody tell Charles Manson that all his insanity could be cured by the power of positive thinking!
The final straw that breaks this movie's proverbial back is the inclusion of Ramtha, the 35,000 year old Atlantian warrior spirit brought to us courtesy of a Tacoma housewife named JZ Knight (his "channel" in New Age circles). In a thick, Hollywood-esque Eastern European accent, Ramtha tells us about the wonders of Quantum Physics and how it is the first science to even come close to explaining magic and miracles. Okay... I don't even know where to begin with this. First of all, if this is a movie about science, why are they including the claims of a New Age cult leader who can't be verified one way or another. Also, what are this person's credentials. If its just JZ Knight pretending to be some ancient Atlantian, does she have a Quantum Physics background? Second, if she IS some ancient Atlantian warrior, what are HIS Quantum Physics credentials (which could be easily verified with a series of Doctorate level tests)?
Of course, her/his authority is never questioned, and there's a reason. It took a little digging to find, but the vast majority of the people involved in making this film are followers of Ramtha. When this came to light, I was flabbergasted. The fact that most of the movies views fall right in line with her group's New Age philosophy puts an entirely new spin on the movie. Suddenly this looks like nothing but one, big recruitment piece for Ramtha.
I gave this movie one star because it does one good thing: It gets people thinking about Quantum Physics and reality. Some people who see this movie might be interested to dig deeper into the actual science and check out John Gribbin's excellent series of books about Quantum Physics for the layman. I recommend "In Search of Schrondinger's Cat" most highly.
As Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics", and that sums up the major problem with this movie. It provides a view of quantum mechanics that is absurdly simple and abysmally unscientific. The beauty of particle physics is magical in and of itself, it doesn't need to be married to philosophy and New Age metaphysics to be amazing.
|
|
|
36 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An Appeal to Those with Truly Open Minds, February 18, 2006
I humbly submit that truly open-minded persons ought to make much use of that laudable trait in educating themselves about this movie: the topics it purports to deal with, the manner in which it attempts to portray them, & the possible motives & intentions of its makers. Also consider with an open mind the idea that until one has attained an understanding of the topics involved, the honest thing to do is to reserve one's judgement, especially effusive unearned praise. And finally, try on for size the precept that it's splendid to start out with an open mind but not quite so desireable to end up with one.
Below, for the open-minded, are some suggestions for further reading, grouped by topic. (If the filmmakers had really been very concerned about educating people about these issues, wouldn't they have leapt to provide this information themselves?)
Overview of the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_bleep
Analysis of the movie:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-10-01.html
http://salon.com/ent/feature/2004/09/16/bleep/index_np.html
http://nthposition.com/whatthebleepdowe.php
Introduction to the study of quantum mechanics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Introduction to the variety of interpretations of the formalisms of quantum mechanics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Followed by 'Quantum Quackery' (deals with Amit Goswami):
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html
Introduction to issues in the philosophy of science (attempting to understand what science is really all about):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
With respect to the filmmakers' disingenuous & unethical use of David Albert:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/02/05-11.php#a004212
Information about Masaru Emoto & his dubious claims about water crystals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto
More about this Ramtha cult:
http://www.rickross.com/groups/ramtha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha
If you're really interested in exploring an at least more honest attempt to explain consciousness as having something to do fundamentally with quantum mechnics, look into Stuart Hameroff's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
Film aesthetics, or why this film, aside from its misapprehensions & dishonesties, is an eyesore & annoyance:
See any film by Luis Buñuel or Andrei Tarkovsky or Jan Svankmajer, just for instance. Or if you particularly like not-too-deep but pleasantly intriguing philosophical meandering in film, *Waking Life* & I Heart Huckabees* at least display genuine artistry.
|
|
|
32 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Cult recruitment propaganda with pseudo science, May 10, 2005
This isn't a very good film, I'm sorry to disagree with many people here, but they are obviously taking the movie at face value and not bothering to find out how much of it is hog-wash.
There isn't enough science - and the small amount that is there is stretched into ideas that have already been disproven. (I've studied quantum & thermal physics - only a semester, but it's a lot more than you get out of this film).
The few credible scientists had their interviews edited to fit into the ideas of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, the 'cult' behind this film. Considering the lack of ethics in the making of this film, I'd be surprised if my post get's through untouched also.
I tried to post the above comment on their message boards of their .com.au website. It was also censored out. SURPRISE!
I would recommend 'The Elegant Universe' documentary series, which looks at string theory - linking quantum mechanics with general relativity. It's pretty full on, but is also fun and entertaining. Most importantly, it's real science and is not trying to push new-age religion on you.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Betsy Chasse
DVD ~ Masaru Emoto
DVD ~ Fred Alan Wolf
DVD ~ Matthew Settle
