Life is complexity. Looking at it through the eyes of native peoples, the eyes of Albert Einstein, or the eyes of quantum physicists hardly makes a difference. Actually, the difference is one of precision. Most native tribes do not know much about the subatomic world, yet they know about uncertainty and nonlocality. They do not only know about it, but actively use these laws for connecting with the quantum field.
Most native shamans can be at two locations at the same time, they can relocate instantly, and travel back and forth in time. They do this not for fancy or as a pastime, but for healing people, for doing something useful to a community. And the field responds. Quantum physics teaches us that this is exactly how electrons behave, and electrons are in touch with the base layer of the universe, that is, the quantum vacuum, the level of the Planck scale.
In this review I would like to elucidate and review in some detail what scientists are saying in the movie 'What the Bleep Do We Know!?' My idea is that, given the complexity of the subject, it may not suffice to watch the movie once or twice to really understand what is being said in the film. It is for this reason that I found the idea useful to just typescript some of the most interesting interviews. And I made the discovery that, although I have watched the movie, and even the complete Rabbit Hole Quantum Edition, several times, I got a more complete understanding of the various subjects treated in the movie once I wrote interviews down word by word, and phrase by phrase.
To begin with, this famous movie is not just about quantum physics, while quantum physics is as it were the ‘hanger’ for the other subjects that I would like to simply list here, as a starting point.
—Basic principles of quantum physics, such as uncertainty and nonlocality;
—The basic unity and integrated wholeness of all life;
—Time and space are just constructs of the basic unity of life;
—We are all interconnected through the quantum field;
—The nonlinear and co-evolving logic of living systems;
—The energy nature of emotions and sexuality;
—The danger connected with following life-denying ideologies;
—The possibility to create our own reality;
—An ethical code based upon one single principle: don’t harm another;
—A liberal approach to all basic life functions;
—Honest and truthful language in dialogue;
—What is the purpose of life?
—Why are we here?
Einstein marked the important transition between Newtonian physics, and quantum mechanics: it is relativity theory. With relativity, the concept of time changed from an absolute to a relative concept. Einstein namely found that time is relative to velocity, the speed with which a certain amount of mass moves through space. In the Newtonian universe, time was an absolute constant, which is why we can say that relativity theory was nothing short of a revolution in physics.
Newton and Planck can be seen as the poles from which Einstein moved away and toward. He moved as it were away from Newton and toward Planck, because Planck was one of the real innovators in physics and one of the founders of quantum mechanics.
Let us first have a look at the relationship between relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Contrary to what popular science magazines sometimes state, relativity theory was not ‘left behind’, and has not been ‘superseded’ by quantum mechanics. The laws of relativity that Einstein found and mathematically described are still valid for the macrocosm at large; they apply in the relationships between large bodies, and in just any situation where a minimum amount of mass is in play. Grossly speaking, they are valid for matter. They are not valid for the subatomic realm where we deal not with mass, but with dynamic patterns.
Generally speaking, apart from all science, from all religion and from all learning, we need a certain basic openness for acquiring real knowledge, which first and foremost means self-knowledge. Fred Alan Wolf coins it in the formula that ‘how far you want to go [down the Rabbit Hole] really depends upon how much you want to discover about yourself.’
This is the amazing truth about our interconnected universe: knowledge always includes the observer, which means that whatever we learn about our universe, we learn about ourselves as organic elements of this universe.
If we call the base layer of the universe the quantum field, or the unified field or superstring field, the Planck scale, the A-field, the zero-point-field or the quantum vacuum, it doesn’t make a substantial difference. I do not say that the terms I have put here are really synonymous, but to demonstrate the metaphor, I have approximated the truth somehow.
William A. Tiller clearly says in the Bleep that the zero-point-field and the quantum vacuum are strictly speaking not one and the same thing. So I am well conscious of my metaphorical diction here. What I want to convey is that what really is at the basis of all creation, of all life, and new life, is a vibrational field so subtle that it was being overlooked for centuries, while the Taoist sages were absolutely aware of it, calling it the Tao or the ‘subtle energy.’
This interconnectedness has been called entanglement, nonlocality, connectivity, colocation, coherence, morphic resonance or the quantum field effect.
It is important to understand that the unified field is a vibrational pattern that is not filled with mass, but where mass is absent. Stuart Hameroff, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Associate Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona describes the properties of the unified field or vacuum field as ‘largely empty space.’
I am using here Ervin Laszlo’s expression ‘puzzles and fables’ as a metaphor for the many paradoxes quantum physics produces when we look at it with the eyes of ‘conventional’ physics. It was exactly those paradoxes that led to the revolution in physics that we today find is established in some way, but was not just some decades ago. Thus the puzzles and fables really had a creative impact and it’s as it were through their push-and-pull that the new paradigm in natural and social sciences was going to be leveraged. There is gravity in our science establishment, a fact even the reader of popular science magazines is aware of. This gravitational pull basically holds scientists in outdated views because every move into scientific novelty questions the established organizational structure, thereby causing a threat to existing research funding and, worse, the reputation of the researcher himself.
Now, this is really an old hat, but there is something unique in the current paradigm shift, or transition from the mechanistic to the quantum mechanical paradigm. It’s the fact that the push-and-pull from quantum physics was so strong that that scientific gravity was virtually annihilated our outweighed by a leveraging factor of potentiality which was unknown in all of our pre-quantum science history.
Thus, the emergence of the new physics was nothing short of a novelty event in human evolutionary history! What is so dramatic about this novelty event? It’s that it brings us back at what Laszlo calls the ‘reenchantment of the cosmos’, thereby linking us back to the oldest of scientific traditions that were not yet fragmented by the mind-body split, the consciousness split so typical for modern times. Hence, science then assumes a quality of religio in its purest sense, a link-back to our foundations, and thereby becomes enchanted itself, and full of religious meaning.
The most striking characteristics of the unified field are coherence, connectivity, entanglement and nonlocality, while one may argue that all these expressions are saying basically the same, namely that we are all connected, and that isolation and fragmentation, if we experience them, are of our own making, the making namely of our thought interface.
John Hagelin explains that somehow we are not using the brain in the way it was designed to be used. He asserts that the brain is ‘actually specifically designed and carefully engineered to experience the unified field, to experience the unity of life.’
There is a unison agreement now among quantum physicists that this field exists, while there is still little agreement about the main characteristics of quantum physics, that are uncertainty and nonlocality. The ground in the quantum world, as it were, is not solid ground, it’s floating, constantly moving, and this situation creates insecurity, and fear.
Fred Alan Wolf is one of the quantum physicists who is next to Ervin Laszlo perhaps the most outspoken, and non-hesitant, to claim a total renewal of organized spiritual ritual to reflect the consciousness boost quantum physics triggered both on the individual and the collective scale. He voices his concern in the Bleep in clear terms:
—Quote—
We need a new spiritual milieu, we need a new spiritual way of understanding the nature of what it is to be a human being because the old ways, the old mythologies, the old monarchy-king-god versus the old lawful-scientist’s-way-of-doing-everything are dead. They need to be buried. We need a new realm, a new vision and I think that quantum physics, if anything, can help us get a step up in the right direction.
—End of Quote—
Besides the insight that there is one unified field of vibration, energy and information that interconnects all, creates all and recreates all, for understanding our universe we need to learn about the impact consciousness has upon this unified field. Candace Pert, author of the book Molecules of Emotion (2003), humbly states:
—I think the key aspect of the new paradigm, at least in medicine, which is my little piece, is that consciousness is real and has an impact.
While Joe Dispenza claims our need to ‘go beyond our senses to create a new paradigm’, Fred Alan Wolf is more explicit in that he points to the danger to focus upon the external world when we expect the world to change. I would term it in the words that all change is an inside-out process and starts at the level of human intention, and thus on the nonmaterial level of reality.
Joe Dispenza gives an important point of information when he compares the total information our human brain receives per second, compared with the information we are actually processing. And the question obviously is why human consciousness evolution has left out or has degraded what I call ‘direct perception’?
We know the answer in the meantime, it’s because the brain mainly serves survival purposes before it serves cognitive completeness and accurate perception.
This brings me to point to the important difference between our self-reflective consciousness and perception; perception is the more practical tool for consciousness to operate in informing itself. Ideally, perception should be accurate, but isn’t, the way our brain has evolved till now, which is an insight that was voiced already back in the 1960s by Edward de Bono, in his book The Mechanism of Mind (1969).
Now, in the Bleep Quantum Edition, Andrew Newberg, M.D., Director of the Center for Spirituality and Neurosciences, Assistant Professor in Radiology and Psychiatry, and Adjunct Professor at the Department of Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania, points out that perception is the pure receptory process of information gathering, while consciousness is what gives meaning to every single bit of information we receive through our perception interface.
How do consciousness, perception and memory work together? This point was well explicated in the Bleep with the example of a woman who is disgusted at all men because she hates her former husband. Amanda, when she was young, grew up in a rather traditional environment where she was not having the opportunity of various love affairs until she married. For her, the marriage and the way her husband was treating her became for her the pattern for her love, or in one word, her love pattern. The problem was that her husband was having affairs with other women, even before Amanda married him.
The tragedy in Amanda’s life was her strong attachment to the past, and to her husband, for paradoxically we cannot let go of people if we hate them. Forgiving him was obviously out of question for her. In addition, she was egocentric enough to believe that her own story was a blueprint ‘for the world’, generalizing her experience and projecting her husband upon all the males she met in her subsequent life.
The claims that William Tiller is making are not minor ones. I would go as far as saying that they are the most controversial and disputable arguments brought forward in the Bleep. They go beyond the general criticism of the film by David Albert who found that the ‘impact of consciousness’ on matter and generally, the universe, has never been ‘proven’ by quantum mechanics.
William Tiller doesn’t speak generally about the matter: he simply went about construing devices that do the job because they were ‘conditioned’ by human intention, a beam of strongly focused conscious awareness.
With these devices, it was found possible to raise or lower the pH of water at 1.4 units, which is considerable, so considerable that if that was done to the water in our bodies, we would die upon the alteration!
One could possibly doubt these findings if they were standing alone in a desert landscape of innovative science, but they don’t. They are not isolated research events and actually fit rather well in a series of similar experiments conducted by other researchers over the last two decades or so.
Let me first come back to Dean Radin, whose scientific corroboration of psychic phenomena has grown largely beyond the ‘Uri Geller’ audience in that they can be said to represent conclusive scientific evidence as to the existence of psychic powers and the various phenomena correlated to exercising those powers, consciously or unconsciously. Today, any skeptic who rants about mental derangement when psychic phenomena are concerned really should engage a reality check with Radin’s research, or he risks to lose his credulous negativist audience. Nobody can ever be so negative to discard out scientific research that has been time-tested and peer-reviewed, or he risks to lose his own credibility as a ‘skeptic.’
Dean Radin reports random-number generator experiments that are really uncanny and seem to stand in line with Tiller’s experiments in that they show that human intention does matter and influences research results on a probability scale considerably higher than random, and thus largely beyond pure chance.
But please do not lure yourself with the great promises done in the Bleep. I do not say they are wrong, I do not say they are exaggerated. I do say they apply for people who do not suffer from major hangups! If you are as ‘incurable’ as Amanda do not blame the Bleep if reality creation doesn’t work for you but get to see the whole of the picture! If you have a hangup with your past, you can’t just simply apply the teachings of the movie, but first have to clear your memory surface from the negative imprint.
On the other hand, people are often overwhelmed with beliefs and ideologies that they take for granted, which means they take religious, social or political concepts for ‘reality’ and behave according to the demands imposed by those group fantasies.
Joe Dispenza gives useful comments on how we actually can impact upon our neuronet by focusing on certain wanted outcomes, stopping to focus on unwanted ones. But even prior to using such techniques that he boils down to the slogan ‘creating my day’, he explains that all knowledge gathering leads to changes in the neuronet, which actually means that the old maxim that ‘books make you wiser’ is true, not just in the literal sense that you gain more knowledge, but in the sense that the very fact of gathering knowledge regularly through reading books renders your neuronet more complex, with the result that your IQ will go up because of more ‘preferred pathways’ in your grey matter. I think this is important to know as a starting point.
While Dr. Daniel Monti puts the stress on the therapeutic nature of this knowledge, speaking of a basic ‘ability to change’ that is part of the nervous system and makes out its ‘plasticity’, for Stuart Hameroff and Fred Alan Wolf, it’s also the fact that science and spirituality will begin to function as complementary ingredients in that kind of metascience to be created in the future. Fred Alan Wolf affirms that while quantum physics was mainly an achievement of the 20th century, the ‘new reaching of science and spirituality’ will be one of the tenets of the 21st.
In my view, the main problem part of that new science will be its lacking coherence, or the rather enormous task to work out this coherence, while for the moment, the picture quantum physics offers is, to repeat it, one of ‘fables and puzzles’. There is not much help in Tiller’s statements that we are co-creators and somehow responsible for all we find ‘out there’ in the world, not only because Krishnamurti said this before him. There is also not much help in the insight that when you come back out of the rabbit hole, you have gained what Terence McKenna called ‘the greater picture’ and you come to a point of ‘sudden realization’ of your true nature. There is practically speaking no controversy about these assumptions; the problem is how to integrate them with quantum physics without, as Professor Albert would put it, ‘grabbing at those concepts’ in an attempt to justify your desired outcome with quantum physics as the ultimate backup provider for ‘all kinds of agendas’.
When we look at Albert’s argument closely enough, we see that he doesn’t want to say the filmmakers are as fundamentalist as the Vatican was toward Galileo, but he sees a parallel in a postulate to ‘bring a good message to the masses’ that can indeed be detected behind both forms of behavior. Now let us put this question squarely in our lap: ‘Is science supposed to give comforting messages to the masses’? Is science to be salvational?
The answer here, not only Albert’s, but generally, is a clear no. Science is not supposed to give us any specific vintage of truth, it is only supposed to give us truth. What we do with that truth is not science’s affair.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery
| Additional DVD options | Edition | Discs |
Price
|
New from | Used from |
| DVD September 24, 2013 "Please retry"
|
Special Edition
|
1
|
$14.95 | $13.53 |
Watch Instantly with  |
Rent | Buy |
Frequently bought together
$10.93
Get it as soon as Thursday, May 2
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may ship from close to you
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Top reviews from other countries
Scorpion
Every one with half a brain should read this book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 16, 2022
Melissa Roberts
Great Condition! Amazing DVD×!
Reviewed in Canada on February 13, 2022
