three perspectves on “what the bleep do we know!?” v ia vision in action volume two, number...

Download Three Perspectves on “What the BLEEP Do We Know!?”  V IA VISION IN ACTION VOLUME TWO, NUMBER THREE AND FOUR, 2004 Three Perspectves on “What the BLEEP Do We Know!?” Marlee

Post on 19-Apr-2018




2 download

Embed Size (px)



    Three Perspectves on What the BLEEP Do We Know!?

    Marlee Matlin plays Amanda, the protagonist of the story.

    THE FILM What the #$*! (BLEEP) Do We Know!?has gained national attention and sparked aquestioning of thorny assumptions such as: What isthe nature of reality? Have science and consciousnessat last become affable bedfellows? Will the scientificworldview more fully embrace the non-materialworld of mind?

    Why in the bleep are we at the VIA Journalintrigued by the quantum impact of this film on themovie-going world? Precisely because it is ourmission to engage our readers in provocative inquirythat leads to new insights.VIA is committed to a full-capacity, inside-out exploration of models thatinfluence the fundamental quality of life for allbeings on the planet.

    So we were inspired by the film to invite threescientists recognized for being on the vanguard oftheir fields to share with our readers their points ofview based on how they personally experiencedWhat the #$*! (Bleep) Do We Know!? We hope youenjoy these different perspectives and that theyinspire you to your own original thinking on the deepquestions the film raises.

    Anita Rehker, Senior Editor

  • S C I E N T I F I C V I S I O N W I L L I A M A . T I L L E R


    What the BLEEP Do We Know!?:

    A PersonalPerspectiveBy William A. Tiller

    LET US BE VERY CLEAR, the movie phenomenonWhat the BLEEP Do We Know!? is today touching thesouls of the general U.S. public just as it did a decade ortwo ago when that same public reached out to buywith their own out-of pocket fundsalternative andcomplementary medical services to the tune of billionsof dollars a year. Why? Because the conventionalmedical community was not adequately serving theirneeds. Once again, the public is expressing a deepinternal knowing and need by its response to thismovie, and it behooves our nations professional andlay establishment to properly interpret such actions.

    The movie highlights: (1) a specific human life storywhere the protagonist is entrained in a personalworldviewsupported by almost all mediacommunicationsthat she is almost powerless tochange the perceived quality of her life; (2) a series oftalking heads with considerable professionalqualifications who espouse another viewpoint that canempower her; and, (3) a wonderful, artistic crafting ofthe blend between these two seemingly dichotomousviewpoints. In this brief article, I wish to provide myown personal experience and perspective on variousaspects of this movie phenomenon.

    HOW THIS TALKING HEAD BECAME INVOLVEDAbout two to three years ago, I received acommunication from some people in Washington statewho wanted to make a documentary with a verystrange title: What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and would Iconsent to participate by answering a series ofquestions of a scientific/metaphysical/spiritual nature

    based on my own longtime experience with suchtopics. Since I have been seriously studying these threetopics for over 50 years and am deeply interested inhelping the general public to personally explore suchpaths, I took this as another potential opportunity to plant some seeds in the consciousness of thegeneral public.

    So I said yes and we set a date for the filming. Amonth or so later about ten people showed up at mydoor in Payson, Arizona. I didnt know any of theseyoung people, but I liked the feel of them. I invitedthem into our home and we proceeded to embark onabout a six or seven hour video adventure. Most of thatfilm footage is still in the can, but a small portionended up in the movie.

    I didnt know there would be a movie and, sincemost of such projects do not really materialize for avariety of reasons, I basically wished them well withtheir documentary efforts and emotionally detachedfrom it, turning my attention to the next item on my to-do list. Imagine my surprise when, about two yearslater, this potential documentary had become a moviewith professional actors (several of whom I was awareof and respected), and was actually about to be shown

    Stanford University Professor Emeritus William Tiller is featured in the docudrama.


    in real movie theaters. When I had a chance to see themovie I thought that everyone had done a good job andthat it was a worthwhile contribution to our humansociety. I felt there were some important details thatwere in error, but overall I was very pleased andimpressed with the creative expression, the acting, theediting and the production of the movie. Some seedshad truly sprouted and showed promise of bearinguseful fruit.

    SOME PROS AND CONS OF THE MOVIEEveryone loves the beautiful pictures of the ice crystalsprovided by Dr. Masaru Emoto as serious proof thatspecific human intentions can affect the crystallizationprocess for water in highly correlated and specificways. These striking morphological changes seem tomake it obvious that anyone following hisexperimental procedure can reproduce such results.This is incorrect for at least two reasons. Dont get mewrong, there is obviously a correlation, but what arethe reasons for the correlation?

    As a world-class expert in the science ofcrystallizationone of my conventional science areasof expertiseI know that it is possible for one toproduce this entire array of crystal morphologies byexperimentally adjusting (1) the concentration andspecific nature of the solute species (contaminants)present in the water; (2) the cooling rate of the waterbelow its freezing point; and, (3) the actualsupercooling of the water at which some hetero-geneous catalytic particle present in the water actuallynucleates the water to ice phase transition.

    In Dr. Emotos experiments, item (3) was neithercontrolled nor measured, a necessary requirement to befulfilled if one wanted to prove that it was the newfactor of specific human intention that was causative.

    After stating the above, I feel quite confident in alsostating that Dr. Emoto probably unintentionallyconditioned his experimental space to a higherelectromagnetic (EM) gauge symmetry state than anormal space through his general intentions so that theconditioned experimental space became especiallysensitive to specific intentions. (I provided abundantexperimental evidence to show that this is possible in an article that appeared in (VIA, Vol. 1 No. 4 2003, pp. 30-43). We can now experimentally measure thedegree of elevation of a space above the normalelectromagnetic gauge symmetry level so that, in thefuture, someone trying to reproduce Dr. Emotosresults to prove that human intention was the causativefactor involved could do so in a completely scientificand satisfactory manner.

    My second main correctness-type of concern aboutthe movie was an unintentional misrepresentation byseveral of the talking heads concerning quantummechanics (QM) and, in its present form, what it iscapable of telling us about any effects of human

    consciousness upon the properties and processesoperating at the physical level of reality.

    As presently formulated, QM is a very precisemathematical theory whose domain of operation isfour-dimensional spacetime, within the classicalparticle velocity limit of being less than or equal to thevelocity of EM light (vc), and involving any of thefour accepted fundamental forces: EM, gravity, theweak force and the strong force. This theory has beenremarkably successful and accurate for particlephysics, small atoms and photons. However, ascurrently formulated, it has absolutely no capability ofpredicting the behavior of any psychoenergetic processin nature. Anything involving human consciousnesseffects on physical realityas metaphorized in themovierequires an expansion of present day QM. Theworld has spent billions of dollars trying to usequantum electrodynamics (QED) in the military tryingto mimic the remote viewing capabilities of somehumans to see things far away. It has completely failedto do so. Explaining something like remote viewing orany other psychoenergetic phenomenon is completelybeyond the capabilities of present day QM.

    THE WONDERFUL WEIRDNESS OF QMMany of the talking heads extol the wonderfulweirdness of QM as if that is what makes it a greattheory. However, most professionals know thatwhatever theoretical model or reference frame (RF) oneuses to predict the behavior of natures manyexpressions, there exist built-in constraints,assumptions and other limitations (associated with themodels detailed mathematical formalism) for eachsuch model or RF. A different RF choice always yields adifferent perspective for viewing nature, and the goalof a theorist is to find an RF wherein the experimentaldata is straightforward, understandable and relativelysimple. Extolling QM weirdness may be great fun, butit really tells us that the present mathematicalformulation of QM is badly in need of expansion.

    SO WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT ESTABLISHMENT SCIENCE?I have been avocationally investigating human innerself-management for almost 50 years and haveperformed serious experiments in the psychoenergeticsarea for about 35 years. My two books in this genre dealstrongly with the importance of directed humanintention, and the second specifically sets out to proveor disprove the unstated assumption establishmentscience firmly held for the past two centuries that nohuman quality of consciousness, intention, emotion,mind or spirit can significantly influence a well-designed target experiment in physical reality. Wehave robustly disproven this assumption; it is clearlyfalse and is badly in need of correction. But how doesone effectively do this?

  • When in 1970 I first began these psychoenergeticsexperimentations in my spare t