Hypography Science Forums: freeztar - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

I saw What the Bleep Do We Know!? 20 March 2005, about a year after its theatrical release. All I remember (without consulting my “watched” journal) is it had Marlee Matlin, the oscar-winning star of 1986’s Children of a Lesser God, in it, those photos of Ice that raised such a furor ca 2000, and a long, fun scene involving a superposition of a party and animated “dancing peptides”, though I can no longer remember precisely what point it was making.

I read a good bit about the movie before seeing it, so my impression was colored by lots of harsh criticism, with which I pretty much agreed after seeing it. WTBDWK's support of its claims – which, in short, amount to the old quantum-mystical one that people can exert a sort of magical control over random events by selecting what we want to have happen from a quantum superposition of everything that can happen – is marred by consisting mostly of distortions and outward falsehoods.

For me, this ruined it as a cautionary tale about the possible deleterious effects of people having overly materialistic worldviews, a class of tales which I believe do, when done well, have merit. It’s not necessary to boldly lie about the results of objectively verifiable experiments (boldly, because such lies are readily caught by any non-biased attempt to reproduce the results) to make the case that, while objectively accurate, a too-materialistic worldview can be unhealthy for many people, and moderate amount of delusion healthy.

WTBDWK also struck me as having an disquietingly commercial slickness to it, as if it was in large part a sort of add for commercial ventures that prey on the credulous, a class of entrepreneurs known of old as charlatans, and I community I know fairly well, and no longer much like.

I wouldn’t recommend WTBDWK other than as an excecise in skepticism. A movie with a similar subject I would recommend is 2009’s The Quantum Activist, essentially a documentary about Amit Goswami, a well-educated physicist, charismatic and warm speaker, who, though I disagree with his ultimate conclusions about the nature of reality and quantum mechanics, leave me with a warm, loving feeling, rather than one of having been insulted and the objected of attempted trickery.

In short, WTBDWK felt to me like mostly bunk, with a bit of whimsical wonder. Amit Goswami felt to me like a lot of reverence and wonder, fraught with guesses, and I think, error, but nothing deserving to be called “bunk”.


I’ve no doubt that more disciplined though and physical action of many kinds, including many that can be superficially termed “mystical” and “spiritual”, can better realize each of our potentials. I’m also confident we don’t have to discard science and an objective world view to do so, even if doing so can seem, at the onset, to be the easiest approach.

We humans are wonderfully, awesomely complicated, and how we think barely starting to be scientifically understood. I feel fairly fulfilled just experiencing the wonder of this – though I am more of a lover of journeys than of destinations.


I didn’t try systematically cataloging WTBDWK’s scientific discrepancies, because they were extensive, and had, even 7 years ago, been extensively documented by folk better at it than me. The Academic reaction Wikipedia section on it has a decent synopsis of and links to these.

Whether you accept or are skeptical of movies like this, and the people who make them, there is quite a rabbit hole to be explored here, if nothing more than the personalities, motivation, and society of these folk. I come from the fringes of this community myself, having for years believed the traditions of “magic society” to have great potential value to people, a believe I never discarded, just tired of enduring the attendant credulous crap of this crowd. I still know and love many of the people, but no longer have much patience with their orthodoxy.

My another prediction which directly related to the space. This prediction says that “every motion (of an existence) is mainly dependent on displacement of another existence”.

Before saying specific prediction, I will answer to these fallowing normally asked questions.

Q. Which is an existence?

A. The size or volume, which contain same average density, that is an existence.
(The size may contain "same nil average density" also.)

Q. How we differentiate two different existences?

A. Difference in average density in a considered volume, is an indication of two different existences.


Prediction:

An existence (E1) speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence (E2 or its content), which has existed in between E1 existence and the direction of force (or net force).


Suppose assume force motivating E1 to move towards its “east” direction.

. . . North

<---- East E1 West

. . . South

Then E1 displaces another existence, which has existed in its east direction.

Normally in every movement, low level denser existence (or nil density existence) has displaced by denser existence.

(For ex: Suppose if any one observing that a particles of liquid is moving in a direction, then it is displacing another low level density existence, which has existed in between particle and force.

That low level denser existence may be space.
Because it has some space but it’s density compared to particle is very less i.e nil density. And it is familiar that in water, movement of particle is high. when same water condensed, it will form solid. Then movement of particle in that solid will be less. Because space in between particle is very less.)


This is common universal rule for all type motion of this universe. It may be inertial motion or non inertial motion.

In inertial motion, if E1 density greater than E2 density (E1 D > E2 D), then E1 capable to displace E2.

Hence E1 speed may be,

E1 speed = The length of E2 existence (towards direction of force), which has displaced, in a specified time by the force related to E1 density.


In non inertial motion, the net force, which changes the velocity of E1, will capable to displace E2 existence.

Hence E1 speed may be,

E1 speed = The length of E2 existence (towards direction of force), which has displaced, in a specified time; when the net force, applied on E1 existence.


If we will do the experiments, then E1 (denser) existence will takes least time to displace nil density existence as compared to any other denser existence.

Because resistance for any entities movement is mainly depending on, another existence density. (This is the first prediction and any may test this.)

But space or emptiness has not any density and it will not show any resistance for other denser existence movement.

Hence denser existence takes least time to displace the empty existence as compared to any other denser existence.

(If anything takes, relatively least time for that’s motion, then it shows emptiness was existed in that region.)


It indicates,

1) Space or emptiness has existed in this universe.
2) Space existed separately than denser existence.
3) It existed separately; therefore other denser existence will not require space for its survival, in this universe.

Hence space is different than the matter.

(Emptiness is different than same denser existence.)

Matter not occupies space, other than it

Denser existence is independent of space.

Hence denser existence not require space for it's existence.

Urain, your question is deep. Please forgive me, for looking at it, only very simply. I'm thinking - suppose there are two things, call them A and B. They are in contact with each other - like AB.

Then they move apart. So they are now like A B. Separated by a distance.

Suppose we give this distance a name - we call it "Space". That makes us think that "Space" is also a thing. And then we ask, what properties does this thing "Space" have? What's its structure -can it be occupied by matter? Does matter affect it, eg, by distorting it?

But there isn't really any thing "Space". There's just distance - which means, how far things are from each other. Can "from" have a structure? Can "from" be occupied?

We actually have no hard evidence for Hawking Radiation as this is an idea he came up with but he has previously discarded other ideas which originally seemed possible, like singularities, which most still continue to cling to. And of course the loss of information in a black hole.

I think Hawking would prefer that we think for ourselves rather than slavishly cling to his musings.