Several renowned scientists, a theologian and a mystic present us with information using aspects of quantum theory as a metaphor to challenge our perception of reality as well as our belief system. In the interest of disclosure, my use of metaphor is less specific than the film's implication that there is a direct causal relationship between quantum theory and societal behavior. Regardless, it's quite an interesting film and I found it fascinating that it's categorized as comedy/drama. There is a dramatic thread and there is at least one funny scene, however most of the information delivered purports to be either documented fact or educated supposition.

The entire message of the film is constructed using disassembled dramatic sequences, interview sound bytes and animation, so it's difficult at any point to know where it's going. Many of these bits taken individually are valid, useful and important. For example, the film proposes an axiom that we create our own reality because we only see what we believe is possible. It's interesting and valuable to realize that our reality is dependent upon what we see and therefore limited, i.e. not complete or fully determinant. Many questions like this are raised, hence the title, What the Bleep Do We Know?

Many questions mean many possibilities and quantum mechanics is referred to in the film as a science of possibilities. So, the interviewed scientists cite the indeterminate physical location of an electron (see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [1] ) since it has both particle and wave characteristics, something that was not perceived or understood by Niels Bohr. It did not fit Bohr's reality.

The film examines the macro-reality that we can observe. Then we are asked to accept the fact that as a sum of its molecular parts, macro-reality has the characteristics of atomic micro-reality. I found that to be a very large leap and one that was not proven only implied. Furthermore, fragmented, scattered 'bits' of information do not necessarily make a concise, coherent and integrated message. Add to this a sound mixing problem, loud background and soft dialogue, and we have some deadly flaws.

The project had three directors who worked as a team on the film, which had two primary threads, the experiences of a photographer, Amanda played by Marlee Matlin, and clips of interviews with the scientists. In slightly less than two hours, we are bombarded with facts, concepts, ideas and hypotheses intended to stimulate us to think and therefore to challenge our predetermined belief systems, which have been formed by the reality we have perceived and assumed valid. This is a very ambitious goal and to the extent that this film might accomplish a paradigm shift for the viewer, it is an art form.

However, stimulation is not always comfortable and a shift in perspective tends to fiddle with the ground we stand on. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that thinking outside the box represents a heightened awareness, a new level of being enlightened, i.e. we become more alive. It's a worthy effort and that aspiration is the hopeful intent of this film.

If we might tend to scoff, the filmmakers have included a parting shot. Interleaved in the movie credits we are shown the awesome credentials of the 13 people interviewed:

1. Professor & Director of Philosophy, Foundation of Physics, Columbia University.

2. Rutgers biochemist, post grad in anatomy, physiology, neurochemistry, neurophysiology and genetics.

4. Harvard PhD, Professor of Physics & Director of the Institute of Science, Technology & Public Policy at Maharishi University - also on Stanford faculty working on Unified Field Theory.

5. Professor of Anesthesiology & Psychology, Director of Center for Consciousness, University of Arizona.

8. M.D. Asst. Professor, Dept. of Radiology and staff physician in Nuclear Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital.

The film is witness to what might be a slow convergence of science, spirituality and theology.

[1] Ref: Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000 - Uncertainty Principle , in quantum mechanics, theory stating that it is impossible to specify simultaneously the position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, with precision. Also called the indeterminacy principle, the theory further states that a more accurate determination of one quantity will result in a less precise measurement of the other, and that the product of both uncertainties is never less than Planck's constant, named after the German physicist Max Planck. Of very small magnitude, the uncertainty results from the fundamental nature of the particles being observed. In quantum mechanics, probability calculations therefore replace the exact calculations of classical mechanics.

Formulated in 1927 by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle was of great significance in the development of quantum mechanics. Its philosophic implications of indeterminacy created a strong trend of mysticism among scientists who interpreted the concept as a violation of the fundamental law of cause and effect. Other scientists, including Albert Einstein, believed that the uncertainty involved in observation in no way contradicted the existence of laws governing the behavior of the particles or the ability of scientists to discover these laws. [1]