What the Bleep do we know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Off Topic

if the 'grumbly-but's (lovely word) do that, wouldn't they just be fitting right into the satisfied & self-important slot described in your comment? Would anyone be silly enough to line themselve4s up like that? :lol:

---

Quote:

---

Would anyone be silly enough to line themselve4s up like that?

---

I don't know, JM, would you like to? :lol: :lol: Feel free to be a grumbly-but, I have no problem with that. Come on, I know you really want to. :P

*grins* nah, I'm never satified & couldn't really describe myself as important - I'll leave that for others... Besides, I pretty much agree with your post so it would be hypocritical of me to pick on it :lol:

The movie was very inspirational, moving, original and fun. You didn't go see it looking for scientific fact, did you? The message was: you can access a part of you a part of you that is much greater than your everyday physical existence. I would think most members of this forum believe this with or without proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leary Herring

The movie was very inspirational, moving, original and fun. You didn't go see it looking for scientific fact, did you? The message was: you can access a part of you a part of you that is much greater than your everyday physical existence. I would think most members of this forum believe this with or without proof.

---

It provided plenty of scientific fact to back up it's claims :)

I hear there is a sequel out called "What the Bleep 2:Down the Rabbit Hole."

You might also want to check out Create Your Day. It's all Ramtha. It's sort of what The Godfather III was to parts I and II. Part I was great, II was better, could have done without III maybe. But I still just had to see it. Whatever.
With Ramtha it's like with Osho, take what suits you, diregard what you don't agree with. We constantly do that anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFTraveler

Plumes wrote:

Quote:

---

yet there was only one scientist who had an expertise in quantum mechanics which he later claimed that his interview was badly edited and misrepresented his views. He allowed for his 4 hour interview to be used in the film, all of which did not relate to consciousness or spirituality.

---

Actually this in not true. Fred Alan Wolfe is a Quantum Physicist, and he extrapolates what he knows into the metaphysics field.
I have seen a lot of people opine that the scientists that had a metaphysics bent were somehow not considered scientists. This is the sort of thing that make criticisms like that not valuable to me.
The fact that only the physicists that 'count' are the ones complaining because their findings were used to support metaphysical concepts make this a very suspect criticism.
Did the Ramtha people mess up by presenting their beliefs as scientific fact? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the scientists that came to the same beliefs or conclusions as the Ramtha people were wrong about their conclusions.

---

Ah, I wasn't aware of this. I hadn't done all too much researching on this so I apologise for anything I said that can be misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Mage

What do people have against the movie?

I always read people complaining that the movie abuses quantum physics. Does it really?

Are the studies the movie sites valid? (Ice formation experiment, lowering crime in D.C. experiment)

---

What do people have against the movie? Nothing, haven't seen it.

Does the movie abuse Quantum Physics? Probably... Quantum Physics abuse Quantum Physics, so why not hop on board?

I've got something what might be interesting for people who have seen the movie already. There was an significant conference between the scientists from this movie and kabbalist, rav Laitman. That was unusual meeting, believe me. I strongly recommend to watch this video :

Removed link because poster doesn't have enough posts to have links included (Please see posting rules). Due to it's value, I moved it to the next post (below).-CF

There is a completed video-relation from that meeting also (about 5 hours). If somebody is interested to download it, let me know.

Short Movie - 60MG

Here is the video I removed from Sephir's post.

I'm sorry, I hadn't read the rules of this forum when I wrote my post. I've just corrected my mistake, sorry again.

Thanks for the video link... it was more than interesting to see established scientists talking with Michael Laitmann about his more ethereal Kabbalistic worldview.

I think my favorite part was when Fred Wolf angrily yells; "You don't know what my experience has been.. you don't know who I've hung out with!"

I think the scientists were very moved by the idea that to to live with god we have to live in a way where we seek
growth and potential for everything around us including ourselves.. the same way that a mother lives in joy and happiness from her seeing nothing but growth and possibilities for the baby.. pure love!

So the scientists were very impressed at the end.. but they were still dismayed that Michael Laitmann would not think on their level. Does anyone have a link to a longer version of the conference? I'd really like to see more! I got the feeling that at the end the scientists remaining dissatisfactions were edited out.

I think this energetic "New Age" way of seeing the world has vast potential, but we have to


KEEP IT REAL!!!!

To talk about any of these energetic laws and principles we have to be willing to apply them to any physical level of reality and never fall back on our own preconceptions. I think the movie has some definite holes as far as proving the legitmacy of its claims and needs much further investigation before people praise it.

Quote:

---

Yuk!! I like to think of myself as defender of the materialists. Someone has to go completely opposite to bring us all back to the middle.

---

I couldn't agree more Tempest!

Due to the lack of usernames in the fields, I edited your post to put the name in, Talking Head. If it doesn't seem to make sense, Painterhypnogirl deleted her account and came back as Tempestinateapot, hence the confusing give-and-take.
Thanks, CF.
ps. If anyone revives any more old threads populated by "guest" please pm me and I'll put the names back in if possible.l
p.p.s. The move to the new style made all the names "guest" again, you'll have to figure it out by context. This style does not support reposting of names like before.