This entry is my friend Michael’s review of “What the #$*! Do We Know”
Okay, i sat through the WHOLE movie. This is the kind of train wreck that happens when chemists and physicists and stuff try to do philosophy. Yeah, ok, there were a few parts that weren’t half bad. There were some really good quotes. Parts were very entertaining. Ultimately not a bad movie except it offended my sensibilities as a philosopher.
Basically, the thesis of the movie was that we are all ‘gods’ – that the mind is wonderful and mysterious and full of untapped infinite potential – that we alter our surroundings through thought alone – that we create our own reality. If we could only muster enough faith in ourselves, we could quite literally walk on water. The ‘science’ used to justify all this was quantum mechanics and biochemistry. As far as quantum mechanics goes, I just don’t see what that has to do with the layer of reality we experience on a day-to-day basis. So WHAT if subatomic particles are more like fields of probability than anything physical? So WHAT if they seem to go away when we’re not looking at them? (I mean, what doesn’t?) So WHAT if these particles may pop in and out of existence and we don’t know where they go or where they came from? I mean, sure it’s interesting, but we’re talking about subatomic particles, not my cat. If I had one. Which I don’t. So there. The way it’s presented in the movie, quantum physics allows us to transcend time, space, and substance or something.
The stuff dealing with biochemistry was not half bad, I think, although that’s not something I know a lot about. They explained the relationship between the brain and the cells, and about how patterns of behavior actually reinforce themselves through neurochemistry and other stuff. They had some neat little animated ‘cells’ that were quite entertaining – one of them danced and sang ‘Addicted to Love’ by Robert Palmer. There is a fabulously entertaining scene at a wedding reception with dancing and music and little animated hormones running amok. One of my favorites quotes from the movie is from this scene. A guy is complaining to a bridesmaid that she dipped her shrimp in the sauce twice, and she says, “I’m the sister of the bride – I can put my ASS in the dip if I want to!” Well, I guess you’d have to see it, but you probably shouldn’t bother.
In the middle of that was a complete excoriation of organized religion. There is no such thing as good and evil, according to the movie, just choices – so how dare those pesky religions coerce us into living any particular lifestyle by inflicting on us their system of cosmic punishments and rewards? Not so bad – I’m a recovering fundamentalist myself. Fundamentalist religion gets no sympathy from me. But I just can’t help thinking that if I CHOOSE to pick up an axe and start chopping everybody up, that would be really bad. Really. Even worse, what if someone else did it to me? Is that not evil, but simply a choice?
The movie had an uplifting, powerful, positive message. Too bad a lot of it was just plain wrong. I feel sorry for the unsuspecting public!
Oh, but here’s the scary part. At the end they provide citations. All the commentators explain their degrees and qualifications. They’re all highly educated folks and active in their fields. So, David, they were all supposed to know wht they were talking about.
This is my reply currently…
Well i am thoroughly pleased with your synopsis… thanks mike…
I’m going to copy it to a front page journal so everyone can read it…
that was an awesome description.. makes me wish i had watched the whole movie though, but it begins with the quantum mechanics crap and seemed to deteriorate in my eyes when they started talking about the ramifications about a particle being in two places simultaneously. I am pleased they listed their qualifications at the end of the movie, although too little too late in my opinion. You don’t listen to an insane man’s mumbling, and then ask his mom what his qualifications are… you get the qualifications and then listen to the mumbling.
Your summary is very beautifully articulated, this is what happens when phycisists and biochemists get together and attempt philosophy. They might be experts in their field but unfortunatly they commit one of the most fundamental fallacies in logic, the fallacy of composition. They assume that since the subatomic particles perform certain actions at the subatomic level that then the larger things that those particles create must also perform these same properties. This is flawed… just because a golf ball can roll through a mouse hole doens’t mean a bunch of golfballs glued together can roll through.
hillarious…
December 11th, 2004 at 10:12 pm
but if all the subatomic particles disappeared then what would happen to the mass? whether its possible on the macro level it is on the micro which is hard to grasp completely. the question is where do they go. what if the legends arent legends?
December 12th, 2004 at 12:53 am
can that even happen? i mean honestly the amount of particles in existence are near infinite, or as near as i can understand or comprehend… the probability of such an event occuring is astronomical… but i’m even concerned that this couldn’t happen because i’m not even sure quantum mechanics can even allow for such an event to occur because as the movie states, quantum mechanics is about probability and when the subatomic particles vanish it is not for more then a short amount of time…. if it happened we would see the back of one of the curtains… oh well
December 12th, 2004 at 6:00 pm
“So WHAT if they seem to go away when we’re not looking at them? (I mean, what doesn’t?)” Nice one Mike. And I DO have a cat. I would also argue this about men and relationships (for myself– obviously, the rest of you have better luck, and it’s not always with men for the boys here- he he). Their particles always seem to disappear when I’m not looking, but that probably has little to do with philosophy. As for the rest, why not be like the masses (which I take most of my students to represent)? and to quote the Wizard of Oz… “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Now I [i:f70ba5e64e]have[/i:f70ba5e64e] to see this movie, just to get what you’ve been saying about it. We’re all gods? Hmmmm… would you consider this movie’s aim to be clothed in political correctness or something? Just a thought.
December 15th, 2004 at 9:45 pm
[quote:d93e3d08f3]but if all the subatomic particles disappeared then what would happen to the mass? whether its possible on the macro level it is on the micro which is hard to grasp completely.[/quote:d93e3d08f3] I won’t claim to be an expert in quantum physics by any means (if I did I’m sure my claim would be met with a great deal of scepticism). But from what I understand, quantum effects are just not felt on the macro level, i.e. our level of perception. Of course, just a hundred years ago there were no computers or space travel or plastics, etc. It could be the case that, someday, we could find a way to apply knowledge of quantum mechanics in such a way that it does affect our level of reality. On the other hand, it could be the case that once we have a greater understanding of quantum mechanics we will come to realize that we cannot do anything useful or meaningful with it. Maybe these disappearing particles are ‘popping’ back and forth between two points that are infinitessimally close together – I don’t know. The problem with the movie is that it uses the mysteries of quantum mechanics as fertile ground for imaginations to run wild. The movie leaps to conclusions about the supposed relationship between consiousness and ‘quantum’ reality. It ignores hundreds of years of scientific evidence that the universe does not change according to our thoughts and wishes, but operates according to physical laws. The only things mentioned as supporting evidence in the movie are one dubious study regarding crime in Washington and some photographs of water, neither of which are sufficiently explained. We don’t know the details of these experiments in order to evaluate them. The neurochemistry stuff is more believable but has nothing whatever to do with quantum physics.
December 16th, 2004 at 1:38 am
[quote:05731d6e9c]I would also argue this about men and relationships (for myself– obviously, the rest of you have better luck, and it’s not always with men for the boys here- he he). Their particles always seem to disappear when I’m not looking, but that probably has little to do with philosophy[/quote:05731d6e9c] Mmhm. ‘S funny … I don’t feel like my particles disappear when my wife isn’t looking at me … I don’t know how to be sure, though. LOL mealymel. I think the movie is worthwhile to see for anyone interested in science and philosophical issues. What do you teach, mealymel?
December 16th, 2004 at 5:05 pm
I’s be teaching me some Englilish to college freshmans on the second floor of griffin hall. Can’t you tell 😆 ? Mel
December 16th, 2004 at 8:30 pm
She is highly recommended by a fellow philosophy major, James. He has long black hair and often wears a star of david around his neck. He is also fond of vests. He is in your Practical Argumentation class.
December 17th, 2004 at 3:42 pm
Ok, yeah, good description, I know who you’re talking about. Here’s something funny I’ll tell you about myself. I’m fond of vests too, but I don’t have any. I decided about two years ago I should start wearing vests. I think they would be perfect for the weather around here, which can get chilly but never as cold as it does up north. And I hardly ever see anyone else wearing them so I thought it would make a great style statement. 😉 I’ve been to several clothing stores in the area and no one carries casual vests anymore, only the ones that go with suits. I don’t want to wear a vest with a suit – I want a vest that’s just made to go over a shirt. There are some around, but they’re all made of leather so I won’t buy them. I even looked on the internet and found some great ones, but they cost like $60 each. Once I was just surfing and found them discounted, but I didn’t have any money! So, no vests! 😳
December 17th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
[quote:6ae97e74bc=”Arglor”]She is highly recommended by a fellow philosophy major, James. He has long black hair and often wears a star of david around his neck. He is also fond of vests. He is in your Practical Argumentation class.[/quote:6ae97e74bc] That is the most hysterical description I have read in a long time.
December 17th, 2004 at 9:05 pm
More criticism of “What the Bleep” I checked out the web site – http://www.whatthebleep.com/ to see if I could find out some more about the water photos. This is the official web site for the movie. From there I followed a link to http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/ which is a section devoted to the phenomena of the water photos. These photos were taken by one Dr. “Emoto” – quite an auspicious name, everything considered, don’t you think? Emoto found that: [quote:c808e4e866]… water from clear springs and water that has been exposed to loving words shows brilliant, complex, and colorful snowflake patterns. In contrast, polluted water, or water exposed to negative thoughts, forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors.[/quote:c808e4e866] The above statement is unclear, especially the part about polluted water. Does it mean EITHER polluted water OR water exposed to negative thoughts, or is it meant to define polluted water AS water exposed to negative thoughts? I think the statement was phrased just this way in order to take advantage of this ambiguity. Clearly, no one would think it was strange if photos of polluted water were uglier than photos of pure water. The photos are beautifully symmetrical because they are pictures of ice crystals, not liquid water. I wonder how many unsatisfactory photos are discarded for every one that shows a beautiful image?