What Bleep
Home Pseudoscience Lessons Theory Practice

 

There's a problem with premise of everything not existing until the observer observes it - what is the observer? Usually this argument assumes the observer must be human, but if, as they said in What the Bleep Do We Know?, everything is the same in the end (also something I've come to), what about the observation of everything else? The basketball in the movie isn't in all places, because the basketball observes itself and knows where it is. Schrödinger's cat wasn't both alive and dead at the same time - because the cat knew which he was, and so did the box.

This is a lot more subtle than that.

I'm not sure I agree that there's different rules at the different levels of size as said in the movie (i.e., quantum level rules are different than molecular level rules, are different than microscale rules, so on). I rather think the rules are all the same, we just don't know what they are. We just have our observations of the macroscale and think they're rules, but they're just effects of the complexities imposed by all those quanta - for lack of a better word - interacting. Why do I think this? Occam's razor - don't multiply entities needlessly. That doesn't mean we don't have to break it down that way to understand it right now, I just have a hunch that, like a protein, we're going to find it's one rule that folds in on itself and seems to make different shapes depending on how it folds.

The trick is getting the quanta to work together.

-Jaelle 10/13/2004

Six Dimensions What Bleep