• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Quantum Physics Very Enlighting!!

Migrated topic.
There are some accurate things in it and there are some things that are so far off it isn't funny. They extrapolate things in that movie that just are not fact. They play off the fact that many people just don't understand quantum physics that well. read the academic reaction on Wikipedia for a more through explanation.
en.wikipedia.org

What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Here's a good break down of the insanity of the movie:

I fell for it back in the day when I knew nothing about quantum physics. It inspired me to research the subject in more depth so I owe it that much as it has always since been a passion of mine. Every time I mention quantum physics anywhere inevitably a handful of people pop up and ask about the wonders of this movie and I am forced to be the ass that has to ruin it for them.
 
Thanks vovin! the skeptico.blogs... website for what the bleep is awesome! I've been trying to argue how awfully misunderstood scientific experiments are and that people totally misconstrue the facts to fit their absurd world-views, and this just gave me some food for my arguments! it's really sad when people mistake interpretations for science and then go and try to *prove* something outrageous but even then don't really apply logic that could possibly prove anything...

<--RANT-->
 
The bad part is quantum physics is such a mind blowing subject in itself and such things like this do tend to turn people off from it and they end up not believing the real stuff as well. When someone doesn't understand something too well and he finds a piece of it to be fallacy they tend to discredit the entire subject in their minds as they do not feel confident separating the fact from the fiction.
 
Yes it is too bad 'what the bleep' is often over- and then underestimated.

Unfortunately the discussion usually ends in a boring stalemate of metaphysics versus empirism,
instead of metaphysics catalysing empirism...

Divinedreamer if you like to ponder quntum physics, be sure to check out the dr quantum video's at you tube.
 
Here is a great little section from this book "Quantum Self" by Dana Zohar where she delves into the problem with people like Fritof Capra (same type of thing in 'What the Bleep') explaining the huge jumps of reductionism they often make. I think it was the best concise little explanation I have read of where people take assumptions of the Interpretation's a little to far. Of course I am just someone who is interested in this stuff and not a physicist.

Nothing in quantum theory itself suggests that observation or the observer "creates" reality (the properties of subatomic particles). At the moment of observation, some dialogue between the quantum wave function and the observer (be this man or machine) evokes, and thus gives concrete form to, one of the many possible realities inherent within that wave function. But there is already the potential for some very definite sort of reality there--the wave function of a table can't collapse into a cat or a kangaroo. It can become only a table.

Furthermore, once the wave function has collapsed, its reality is as objective as anything else science studies. Any two (or more) people looking at Schrodinger's cat will agree that he is objectively dead--he won't look dead to one and alive to another. His mortality is not a matter of anyone's "point of view," and certainly not of someone's "value judgment". He is just simply and finally dead
Click to expand...

Edit: That isn't to say I didn't get any enjoyment at all out of the film.
 
Yeah some of it was weird but the main thing was how we create reality,
like how we can change our perception, Like having a different feeling towards something.

was what i was most opened up by.
 
if I dont play any role in the co-creation of reality on some level..and reality just exists and I interprete..then why did reality create me within its existance?

This kind of stuff weirds me out to be honest..becasue no matter how it is rationalized it still leaves me with a mindfuck full of other questions and open ended scenarios..

What the bleep didnt impress me though lol..reminds me of the secret...:roll:
 
it is a fantastic movie but could have been so much better if it didnt take such liberties and misinterpret physics. quantum mechanics is truly a fascinating and strange world but its not all hocus-pocus, its science and its just as suggestive and incredible delivered in an accurate manor.

keep in mind that movie was made with the Ramtha School Of Enlightenment. the directors and producers as well as a good third of the "scientists" featured in the film were all students Of ramtha up here in the pacific northwest.

im quite familiar with the schools teachings and beliefs from J.z. Knights books and in person discussions with former and current member's including the producer of "what the bleep" Betsy Chasse. even in the New Age movement these folks are a bit out there. they spend hours trying to move things with their mind and create matter from thought all the while following the teachings of their 30,000 year old Atlantien spirtual leader Ramtha "channeled" by the schools founder J.Z Knight a now incredibly wealthy women.

at the time i spoke with Betsy she and her husband were no longer a member of the Ramtha school.

Im not trying to bash this flik because i do like it. its done a whole lot of good. i just know after i saw it years ago i drank a bit too much of their kool-aid by believing their interpretations to be truth.
the more i read and learned about physics and quantum mechanics the more i realized they're a bit full of shit and its too bad because they didn't need to be.

quantum physics is just as miraculous and mysterious just the way it is. no need to paint it fancy colors and sell it as a pinata.

its great this movie has inspired and touched you, that's more important than any opinions you will find here. follow your heart as to what feels right to you and brings joy in your life.
 
burnt said:
^^Rubbish you don't create reality. Reality exists you interpret it.

Victor Stenger has written some good books and article debunking what the bleep do you know and related nonsense.
Click to expand...












thats what i meant, its how we can "change" the way we interpret things.
 
its great this movie has inspired and touched you, that's more important than any opinions you will find here. follow your heart as to what feels right to you and brings joy in your life.







Much Love my friend.
 
burnt said:
^^Rubbish you don't create reality. Reality exists you interpret it.
Click to expand...

I am re-reading this book at the minute:
Quantum Enigma OP, I recommend it. It can be hard going, but very educational and thought provoking stuff.

It says that observing, or measuring a system, alters that system, so suggesting that our perceptions in some way create the reality we experience. Do you mean when we change an aspect of a system by measuring it we are "interpreting" it Burnt?

If the above is incorrect can you point me to a laymans paper that says why?
 
endlessness said:
it doesnt have to be a live observer, a machine can be an observer (like a camera). So it doesnt imply anything about a subjective observer creating reality.
Click to expand...

Agreed - Observing, or measuring, changes things. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says if you increase the precision in measuring one variable, you lose precision in measuring another. So if we try and measure (observe?) something, we disturb it in some way and can never get a grasp on the exact properties of that thing. This, to me at least, implies that there is some kind of subjective creation (interpretation?) going on that defines our reality. You cannot define what that reality is, outside of our perception of it.

Is this wrong?
 
1664 said:
burnt said:
^^Rubbish you don't create reality. Reality exists you interpret it.
Click to expand...

I am re-reading this book at the minute:
Quantum Enigma OP, I recommend it. It can be hard going, but very educational and thought provoking stuff.

It says that observing, or measuring a system, alters that system, so suggesting that our perceptions in some way create the reality we experience. Do you mean when we change an aspect of a system by measuring it we are "interpreting" it Burnt?

If the above is incorrect can you point me to a laymans paper that says why?
Click to expand...

We change a system by observing it but interpretation isn't part of it. The wave particle duality of a photon is the easiest way to see this. Below is an article which, to some extent, demonstrates what a part of what you are saying.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/02/16-04.html?etoc&eaf

This one is equally interesting, has to deal with interpretation and more philosophical.
Is Death The End? Experiments Suggest You Create Time

1664 said:
Agreed - Observing, or measuring, changes things. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says if you increase the precision in measuring one variable, you lose precision in measuring another. So if we try and measure (observe?) something, we disturb it in some way and can never get a grasp on the exact properties of that thing. This, to me at least, implies that there is some kind of subjective creation (interpretation?) going on that defines our reality. You cannot define what that reality is, outside of our perception of it.

Is this wrong?
Click to expand...

The heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to momentum and position. If you know the momentum of an object you have no idea of its position and vice versa. The greater a grasp of one value you have the lesser grasp of the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom