Fred Alan Wolf is a physicist who calls himself Dr. Quantum. He is known for giving lectures on the concept of Quantum Mysticism. He has written many books; one is “Taking the Quantum Leap”, which taught me the basics of physics. His other books include: “The Spiritual Universe”, “Mind into Matter”, “The Yoga of Time Travel”, these books go DEEP into woo land. He also appeared in the movie “What the bleep do we know. I have never found much against him online, and it seems like more scientists should have been outspoken about his B.S. over the years. Is anyone familiar with him?
Fred Alan Wolf is a physicist who calls himself Dr. Quantum. He is known for giving lectures on the concept of Quantum Mysticism. He has written many books; one is “Taking the Quantum Leap”, which taught me the basics of physics. His other books include: “The Spiritual Universe”, “Mind into Matter”, “The Yoga of Time Travel”, these books go DEEP into woo land. He also appeared in the movie “What the bleep do we know. I have never found much against him online, and it seems like more scientists should have been outspoken about his B.S. over the years. Is anyone familiar with him?
My wife and I watched What the Bleep do We Know this past weekend. There were a couple of woo types in the documentary. Wolf was sort of in the middle on the woo-ness scale. Look, since we are just beginning to explore the quantum world it is reasonable to advance some hypotheses that are ‘out there.’ Science welcomes all hypotheses and eventually it prunes out the weak ones. We have a gut feeling about which ones will fail but science looks at them all. That’s a good thing.
One of the ‘out there’ hypotheses is that since our brains have a quantum nature (as shown in the documentary) it is possible that there is a very distant entanglement that replicates our mind and therefore we may persist in some sense beyond our physical bodies here on Earth. Yep, it’s pretty kooky at first blush to most people but who knows - most people can be wrong.
One of the ‘out there’ hypotheses is that since our brains have a quantum nature (as shown in the documentary) it is possible that there is a very distant entanglement that replicates our mind and therefore we may persist in some sense beyond our physical bodies here on Earth. Yep, it’s pretty kooky at first blush to most people but who knows - most people can be wrong.
One of the ‘out there’ hypotheses is that since our brains have a quantum nature (as shown in the documentary) it is possible that there is a very distant entanglement that replicates our mind and therefore we may persist in some sense beyond our physical bodies here on Earth. Yep, it’s pretty kooky at first blush to most people but who knows - most people can be wrong.
I dunno, but I probably wouldn’t refer to phantasmagoria ideas from “What the Bleep do We Know” as a hypothesis.
Well, I thought the ‘out there’ qualifier was sufficient. Anally speaking, you are correct. An hypothesis is generally required to be more concrete and less theoretical in order to satisfy statistical rigor of the hypothetical-deductive model. So if ‘out there’ doesn’t work, let’s just change it to “kooky idea.”
Yes, I know you called it out there and pretty kooky, but then you go on to say that, “Who knows – most people can be wrong.” That’s why I responded the way I did.
Yes, I know you called it out there and pretty kooky, but then you go on to say that, “Who knows – most people can be wrong.” That’s why I responded the way I did.
But it’s true! Most people believe in a benevolent God and an afterlife. Most people thought the Earth was flat. Most people thought that ulcers were NOT caused by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). The beauty behind science is that it does not judge. It just marches after the truth. I can use phrases like ‘out there’ and ‘pretty kooky’ to appease you and me, but science ignores those words.
“What the Bleep do We Know” had nothing to do with science. To be fair, although I thought the documentary had woo-woo written all over it (I saw it a long time ago—and I think I never finished watching the whole thing), the animation explaining the double-slit experiment was pretty cool. But that’s about it. The rest was just pure BS.
“What the Bleep do We Know” had nothing to do with science. To be fair, although I thought the documentary had woo-woo written all over it (I saw it a long time ago—and I think I never finished watching the whole thing), the animation explaining the double-slit experiment was pretty cool. But that’s about it. The rest was just pure BS.
HERE is a review of What The Bleep Do We Know!? which I thought sums up pretty well all the nonsense in the documentary.
A few excerpts:
The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts.
Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say this. The film makers are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
“I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.”
—David Albert, physics professor of the Columbia University (featured in the film)
The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts.
Christ on a cracker! Humanity’s even more f-ed up than I thought.
HERE is a review of What The Bleep Do We Know!? which I thought sums up pretty well all the nonsense in the documentary.
A few excerpts:
The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts.
Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say this. The film makers are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
“I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.”
—David Albert, physics professor of the Columbia University (featured in the film)
That’s a great review. I agree with it. I am not even surprised that they misrepresented Albert. Look, I don’t believe the BS - I’m simply recognizing that what I or anyone else believes is not important (fortunately) to science.
I’ve never seen the movie “What the bleep do we know”, Wolf’s books are really new age-like. I must admit that “Taking the quantum leap” was pretty good as an intro to basic physics, but his other books go into the Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Akashic fields and so on. Where the hell are Dawkins and Myers when you need ‘em.
