Spanish version         A few words about Entering Rabbit Holes . . . The questions that have drawn you into this adventure are as deep as questions get.   Philosophers, scientists, and mystics have been asking these questions for thousands of years, and after all this time, what is known is still dwarfed by the vastness of what is not known. What we have gained from all our studies is the capacity to ask more precise questions and a greater appreciation for the depth of the mystery.   We offer this study guide with the intent not to satisfy your curiosity about existence but to enrich your capacity to explore and participate in those mysteries with an open mind and spacious heart. At the core of this film are provocative questions about the way we participate, consciously or not, in an unfolding, dynamic reality.   What the Bleep Do We Know!? proposes that there is no solid, static universe “out there,” waiting to be comprehended by our probing minds, but that reality is so mutable, it is affected by our very perception of it. At the same time, it does not argue that reality is entirely relative or simply constructed out of thin air. No matter what your theory of reality, real Mack trucks can and do run over real people. There are consistent dynamics at play in the universe, some things that are “truer” than other things. This is why when it comes to navigating rabbit holes, it is important to know the difference among what can be known through sensory empiricism (the contribution of science), what is known intuitively, what comes to us as mystical vision, and what remains unknowable. This is not to favor one form of knowing over another but to discern when we have crossed the line of science into imagination, instinct, or intuition.   Many claims made and research cited in What the Bleep!? are considered marginal by the mainstream scientific community.   In many instances this means the claims have not been demonstrated to everyone’s satisfaction or they challenge prevailing scientific theories. Still we may decide to believe them because they feel right to us. In this guide we hope to shed some light on when these claims are more useful as subjective opinions and metaphors that spark the imagination rather than as facts on which to base solid theories.   The journey to explore the nature of things is served equally by the rigors of science and the protean powers of the imagination, and as much by mystical vision as by embodied wisdom.   It is our intention that this exploration down the rabbit hole will lead you into your own deepest ways of knowing and that it will invite your imagination into a larger realm of possibilities that you can explore for yourself. In that realm a channeled warrior speaks in concert with physicists, mind and matter wake up in each other’s arms, and a 10-year-old basketball sage shoots hoops into the future.   Welcome to the rabbit hole! “As the bonfires of knowledge grow brighter, the more the darkness is revealed to our startled eyes.” —Terrence McKenna Institute of Noetic Sciences Captured Light Industries “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when one contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.” —Albert Einstein   ***     Last week the Science Media Centre asked a group of scientists for their comments on the film, which you can read below. There were an interesting range of views. Raj Persaud, Gresham Professor for Public Understanding of Psychiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital, said: “I thought that the film made a lot of statements about quantum physics, but also on neurobiology, the brain and the mind. Most of these statements are gross distortions of recent scientific findings. For example, there was a claim that the latest brain scanning research suggests the brain could not distinguish between reality, memory or imagination and this is simply not true. “There is also a scene at the end where the heroine of the film throws away her medication as a solution to medical problems. This seems a dangerous suggestion by the filmmakers given that the only alternatives they offered appeared to be the idea if you want something badly enough you can make it happen.” Dr Simon Singh, Science Author, Journalist and Broadcaster, said: "It is the third highest grossing documentary ever and it claims to be about quantum physics, but in fact it makes gross distortions that would make any self-respecting scientist squirm. For example, the film states that experiments imply that labeling a bottle of water with words like 'love' or 'hate' can change its molecular structure.   Indeed, the film suggests that quantum physics can explain why this is the case. Apparently quantum physics can also be exploited to bring about world peace through meditation. Having spent the last fifteen years making documentaries and writing about science, I care hugely about the accurate and honest portrayal of science." Dr Paul Stephenson, Department of Physics, University of Surrey, said: The film is quite a lot of fun, but it is a mix of believable and unbelievable science and it would be easy for someone to pick up the wrong ideas. One of the central ideas of the film is that consciousness can control matter, but if this were true then we could all make our lottery numbers come up. “Quantum physics is the weirdest part of physics, if not the whole of science. In fact there is enough weirdness in quantum physics to make a whole film. However, it is a minor victory that quantum science has been portrayed in a film at all.” Dr Tim Evans, Theoretical Physics, Imperial College, said: “I think this film is dangerous because it exploits people’s genuine desire to understand the big questions – like why we are here – then gives the answers the veneer of science. My worry is that my friends – who are all very intelligent people but not scientifically trained – will not know where the good science ends and the speculation begins – that’s the insidious side.” Dr Jim Al-Khalili, Department of Physics, University of Surrey, said: “Some of the science is good but some is new-age clap trap. But I welcome it and I don’t think that getting the science wrong on quantum physics has the same kind of societal implications that films on climate change or GM may have. In fact, I think any film which opens up debates about quantum physics and encourages people to ask more questions is good news.” Reverend Professor Tony Bell, Department of Plasma Physics, Imperial College, said: “I’m not worried about it discrediting science but was worried about it undermining religion – it smacked of the Creationist debate. It takes a credible nugget and turns it into something incredible.”       The Film from YouTube Website           Return to Quantum