Que sait-on vraiment de la réalité!?

OK, first I'm going to tear down the "Columbus's ships" thing. I'm fairly certain the Caribbeans had some sort of seaworthy craft, such as rafts or canoes. From these, any normal human intelligence can extrapolate their concept of "boat" to include these ships. Also, where did the writer get this story? Source? Since it's not common knowledge, you need a source.

Next is the direction of time question. In Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," he talks about the 4 arrows of time accepted by the scientific community at large. While it is true that some fundamental (classical/Newtonian) physical laws don't care which direction time is going, many do. The arrow that I remember (it's been a while since I last read the book) is the thermodynamic arrow of time, which causes us to experience events in such a way that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe increases. For example, a cup falls off a table and breaks, not the other way around.

Ah, then the probability discussion. Yes, for subatomic particles like electrons and quarks, the probability wave is spread out enough that the particle can be in >1 place at a time. However, when you look at anything larger than these specks, the waves get exponentially more concentrated, so that a large (visible w/naked eye) object really has an infinitesimal probability of being in more than one state. So small is this probability that you would have to watch a "large" object say, a tennis ball, for more than the present age of the universe (15,000,000,000 years) for it to have an appreciable chance of doing anything strange.

Closely linked to my last paragraph is the talk about particles popping in and out of existence. The answer to "where do they go" is "they turn back into energy." This is what E=mc^2 means. In the "vacuum" of space, particle/antiparticle pairs of subatomic particles are constantly being created from random energy fluctuations, but these particles are existing on borrowed energy, which they very soon have to repay by annihilating with their mate.

Next is the water conversation. First of all, those pictures were of FROZEN water, which the narrator conveniently forgot to mention, only saying the jars were "left out overnight". Next, the claim that our bodies are 90% water is completely bogus. If that were true, there'd be no way we could so much as stand up. Instead: newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55% (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/958588306.An.r.html).

This sheds doubt upon the rest of this "experiment."

The claim that if you only believe enough, you could walk on water is another seriously questionable one. If it's true, why didn't they show us? Tape someone walking on water. Even though you could fairly easily fake it with some video editing software, it'd still be a little more convincing than them simply telling us it's so. Using this "positive thinking" idea to then say that you create your own reality is equally flawed. Sure, I can very well believe that I live in a world inhabited by one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people-eaters, but that's irrelevant if the beings you interact with don't see the world this way.

And then the movie goes on to preach to us about God! How can a "scientific" movie propose to do this? Actually, I have a problem with that one guy proscribing what God is and what He isn't. Shouldn't that be up to the individual, thank you very much? Also in this part, one of the women commentators mentions that we have "antigravity." No, we don't. It's that simple.

Biology's not my thing, but there's a point where you just have to bring out a contradiction. One lady says that if you keep bombarding a cell with a certain chemical, the receptors on that cell will decrease. But soon after, a guy comes on and says that this same daily bombardment will cause the cell to produce a new cell when it divides that has MORE of the receptors. Contradiction. Oops.

I also have to comment on the guy who earlier on this board said this movie would appeal to anyone who's read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. I strongly disagree; I own and have read that book, and nowhere are its ideas remotely connected to this movie's ideas.

Lastly, I will agree with whoever said the movie is rather drawn out. Especially at the end. They just won't stop talking. They keep on going. Repeating the same stuff over and over. Which is what I'm doing for effect, if you couldn't figure that out.

I wanted to like this film and was prepared for a treat. The visuals and the unusual way of presenting the material was initially stimulating and creative. What made it even easier for me to get involved was that the social ideology advanced closely matches my own. But the expressed connection between particle physics and social prescription was, in my view, either wishful thinking or intellectually dishonest. You can't use the harsh rigors of science to establish credibility and then let your logic go all warm and fuzzy coming to the conclusion you wanted all along -- especially if the conclusion is quite defensible on other bases. As a scientist, I was irritated. As a social liberal, I was embarrassed.

In the Victorian era, the "new science" was the extraordinary new theory of electromagnetism. Maxwell's equations were every bit as revolutionary as relativity or quantum mechanics would be later. The new age religion of the era was spiritualism, the belief in the afterlife and the ability to cross into it.

As surely as snow falls, religion will appropriate the prevailing cosmology for its own ends. A century ago that was science and so it is today. Then, the appropriation of Maxwell's insights on electromagnetism was an amazing confabulation of "animal magnetism" and vibrational resonance. We don't use the term "Mesmerism" any more, but in any new age bookshop, you'll still see references to vibrations. The notion of "auras" is from this era.

Every time science produces new tools, it gets swallowed by folks hungry for some "explanation" of what they would believe in any case. So when there was a new notion of relative time, you had a slew of religious notions woven around it. You can trace the main ones to Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. In that case, psychism and reincarnation found scientific explanations.

Quantum mechanics affords much greater flexibility for the next generation of appropriators, the era we are now in. That's because it has intrinsic mystical features even for the staid physicists who use it.

This movie has three parts. The first merges quantum physics with ordinary life. The second introduces a theory of consciousness that enfranchises individual cells (here shown in animation) with intent and agency. And the third part merges the two in a way that suggests you can control at least your own body and perhaps the physics of the space around you. Its all linked to QM.

The problem is that these folks start with the convincing notion that we live in a world of inadequate models. That's a good insight. Then they introduce QM as if it really was the way the world works. It isn't, folks. Its just another model, and a very, very problematic one at that. In physics, it doesn't even work in the most common force in physics, gravity.

It has absolutely no utility or meaning in the fields of chemistry, biology, and all the social and cognitive sciences that are the lions share of where we actually live. And even where it applies, it applies at scales that are so tiny the notion of "observer" becomes laden with artificial baggage.

There are very serous scientists who are dedicated to eliminating it as a theoretical tool because it reduces the world to numbers, the most ridiculously blunt abstraction. Just because you find a physicist with a PhD, doesn't mean you've found someone who understands the limits of the method.

The real sadness about this is that there really is a mystical vision to be had here. Its one that works with the notion of notation always being ephemeral. These smoothtalking purveyors of happiness are our worst enemy because they simply substitute one mythology for another. You owe it to yourself to study the issues here well enough to discard them.

Otherwise, you might as well just give up and do what the man wants.

I usually like watching movies made by religious zealots. They are often about fighting the devil, and the makers really believe the movie itself fights the devil. Its a cool fold. But this is just dangerous nonsense.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

My wife and I had heard enthusiastic recommendations and came to the film expecting something along the lines of "A Brief History of Time." Do not bother seeing this movie if that is what you're expecting! I am a professor of philosophy (with my area of specialty being philosophy of science) and my wife is a professor of biology. We found about one third of the claims (in our respected fields) to be flat out false; another third were blatant hyperbole or, at best, "poetic truth"; the final third were, indeed, true. However, the entire film was presented as if 100% of the content was uncontested scientific Truth (with a capital "T")! Many of the claims were downright embarrassing and more in line with the claims of urban legends and/or those asinine emails about weird phenomena that are forwarded to you by burned-out new-agers. Instead I highly recommend Errol Moritz's aforementioned documentary on Hawking, or perhaps his excellent "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control." In fact, I even recommend "Showgirls" over this travesty committed, sadly, in the name of science.

The movie got a lot of the quantum theory and neurology right, but then it proceeds to make a lot of wild tangential claims that are loosely based on the theory and pass it off as the absolute truth. Anybody with a advanced physics background (my job requires an advanced math and physics background) will be deeply turned off (despite the fact that a number of physicists and neurologists are interviewed for the film). The scientists back up the scientific theory, but then some new age woman and others (some scientists, but mainly that woman) kept on saying things that were loosely based off of the theory. The movie basically passed that off as scientificly valid as quantum theory, but provides no serious argument as to why. I was really bothered by the fact that the movie was already drawing conclusions for me instead of posing questions as to different possibilities.

The movie may be interesting to some, and I don't discurage anybody from watching it, but please watch it with a grain of salt.