Update to those who blog. 01/27/07

Hi fellow bloggers. As you know I don't blog very well these days, but I do wish to remind you to visit my webpage http://www.fredalanwolf.com/ where you'll find my latest updates so to speak. Here are some Q&A I found interesting for you to peruse about my appearance in the movie "The Secret."

Question: I want to tell you that you are by far the most thrilling, enigmatic and seemingly informed talking heads that spoke in both Bleep and The Secret - hence my decision to come to you for a sense of 'the truth'. I have a lot of life ahead of me and I want to make the most of it - that is why I so badly want to understand the concept of deliberate creation - I want to use it damn it!

Answer: Thanks for the compliment. As far as your life ahead is concerned, don't damn it. Your words are very important. For more read Mind into Matter and Matter into Feeling.

Question: Do you believe that there is an abundance of everything for everyone in this world? Answer: Yes. Most of our problems have to do with greed, fairness, and keeping agreements. Question: You appeared in the movie The Secret. The research that I have done indicates that you do not believe in the law of attraction (LOA) - is this true?

Answer: Not quite. Let me give you my answer regarding the movie The Secret and the LOA talked about in that movie. Do like things really attract each other? Actually in quantum physics we find that like doesn't attract like, and if you notice I never made that point in the film. Like charges repel each other (+ repels + and - repels -) and unlike charges attract (+ attracts -). The better metaphor might be resonance, that two things that vibrate together have more energy as compared to two things that vibrate out of phase with each other in which case they have no energy. When you are attracted to another person it is likely that you and the other are in some sense vibrating in phase with each other and each of you is energized more than just adding up your separate energies--it's more like 4 times the energy of each individual. With 3 persons it goes as 9 times and so on. Hence large crowds rock at a concert together because those in attendance are each enormously energized by the presence of the others in like mind sets. Hence the rock concert high, or the Sunday at church feeling and so on. The same thing holds for the Marine Corp or for a nation going to war or for any fascist or racist movement. Hence if you use the metaphor without thinking you may find that being a saint (+) you will attract a lot of sinners (-'s).
I think the rolling stones said it well:
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game.
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'cause I'm in need of some restraint.
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste.

Question: Regarding the Law of Attraction (LOA) mentioned in the movie The Secret - if you lift yourself to a frequency that feels happy (through happy thoughts) - does this happy frequency then attract the things that make you happy especially if you envision them while in that frequency?

Answer: You will attract others who are on your wavelength and repel others who are not. So be careful what you put out to the world. If you are playing a false card, you will attract those people who think and feel as you do. Walk your talk. Be honest. Tell the truth as best as you know it.

Question: HIGHER BEING - Do you believe that we have a higher being that lives in a state of nirvana (nirvana being our natural state) who decided to come forth into this time-space reality as a means to experience contrast in an effort to understand our divine nature?

Answer: You are the being. Now answer the question for yourself.

Question: Do you believe that we are entitled to and thus bound to receive everything we want just by believing in it and being on the same frequency of it?

Answer: We are entitled to nothing by others. We are here to learn and share and love each other. Since you created your world, you choose to be entitled to whatever you choose to do.

Question: Do you believe that our emotions are a communication mechanism designed to let our higher self let our physical self know whether or not we are in the process of creating something good or bad for ourselves?

Answer: You have one self only. Higher and lower selves are illusions like thinking you have a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. In you are many personalities--miniature egos--designed by you to speak to you as if they were separate from you.

Question: Do you believe that action was designed as a means to enjoy our physical creations as opposed to actually create and that thought is what delivers what we get (not action)?

Answer: No. No action. No creation. No enjoyment.

Question: Do you agree with the overall message of The Secret - that thought (or feeling) will bring you what you want as long as you vibrate in sync with the thing that you desire and thus attract it into your reality?

Answer: Not quite. Suppose you want a TV set. I wouldn't choose to sync with it any more than I would choose to sync with any other material object. I would sync with the processes I need to use to get that object--my Feelings, Intuitions, Sensations, and Thoughts (FIST). To get the TV set, utilize your FIST and take appropriate action. You can steal it, buy it, rent it, or have a friend give you it as a gift. Most people think that happiness comes from getting what you desire. Think about anything you got after desiring it. In a few days that Oh Wow feeling turned into Ho Hum didn't it? Watch kids at Xmas time and you'll see what I mean. They open their gift box, give a squeal of joy, and in minutes leave it in the middle of the room for mom to put away. Happiness actually comes from moving towards your goal. Getting it is the booby prize.

Question: This question comes from Columbia. It is roughly translated into English. Essentially it asks: Is the quantum physics in the movie What the Bleep, really correct?
Several sources including scientists are very skeptical about the ideas described in the movie and don't believe that quantum physics has anything to do with human behavior or consciousness. And another thing, are you to be taken as a serious scientist in the movie?

Answer: I assure you that I am a very serious researcher in the field of quantum physics although I do have a sense of humor.
Now as to the use of quantum physics outside of its usual domain of objective science: If we look at the field of psychology 120 years ago, you will find that many models of human behavior were based on the then current understanding of the physical world. Freud in particular used mechanics as a means to explain motivation and desire. In fact a lot of human behavior was based on the mechanical view so that even today we emphasize the mechanical cause and effect way of thinking about the human body. This has met with a great deal of success, but with the advent of Chinese medical systems and Indian metaphysics something new has been added. This new addition cannot be explained by Newtonian mechanics. It involves the subjective world--a world we each must live in whether or not we like it. This world involves what we call today in quantum physics the observer. According to quantum physics, even though we know that the observer plays a major role in putting together what we observe as reality, we cannot find the observer inside of the body. Hence we find through quantum physics a bridge connecting the subjective universe with the objective universe.
Those of us in the Bleep movie see this connection as something very important and worth talking about and doing research on. Many scientists are satisfied with merely doing research on the objective world even though they know full well that a complementarity principle exists in which the observer can change what is observed.

Question: I have a question, perhaps you know this one. It's not directly about quantum physics but more about the What the Bleep movie, where you appeared.
I've read on several sources on the internet that people were edited and that the whole quantum physics + conciousness, is the wrong approach to the whole science. For example they (WTB makers) edited that teacher from the Columbia University (David Albert) in such a manner that it looked like he supports this "new age" theory. While in another interview somewhere he said that he does not and that he was edited in a wrong manner. Also I read somewhere that the whole WTB is a promotional video for Ramtha. Could you perhaps give some information on this all? Were you edited wrongly in that film and does it misrepresent your opinion/scientific view on the matter?

Answer: Since I have had many inquiries such as yours I have the following answers concerning physicist David Albert, Ramtha and the accuracy of the statements in the film.
Physicist David Albert got a good chance to air his views in the 2nd release version of Bleep called Down the Rabbit Hole which included nearly all of what he had to say that was "outtaked" from the bleep. Rabbit Hole is also available as a DVD and it has a lot more of the interview material including new interviewees. David was a little peeved not because his words were twisted, but because the context for his remarks had been removed in the interest of good film making. David can be a little dry to listen to--especially since he is a stickler to details being as correct as he can make them--and after all this was a movie not a lecture on quantum physics. So a lot of what people said was edited out to make the movie. All movies are edited for good reasons. David and I and the other physicists did appear last year at a number of bleep seminars held around the country. If he were really that upset, I am sure he wouldn't have accepted these speaking engagements.
You were misinformed as to Ramtha's participation. The funding for the film all came from one source, Will Arntz, a successful computer software businessman who made a lot of money running his businesses and decided to put around $5M into a film production. Ramtha's money was not involved. Will was a student of Ramtha as well as the director Mark Vicente and the other producer/director Betsy Chasse. While they fully admit to being students of Ramtha, and I admit that the film did have Ramtha's views well-stated by her, the other viewpoints were not Ramtha's views at all. But Ramtha does like quantum physics. Oh, I am not and never have been a student of Ramtha.
The statements made (at least by me) in the film were based on my understanding of experiments done in quantum physics which show such effects as the observer affecting reality by the choices made by the observer. That much is true and I doubt that any physicist would disagree. The speculative venturing we all did were not science but were based on what we thought were consistent with our understanding of scientific principles. I speak for myself here and speculate about what the others had to say. I don't agree with all of the speakers in the film BTW. I would suggest you read my book Taking the Quantum Leap if you haven't already. In it you will learn about why quantum physics is difficult and why physicists can get upset by it. It won the National Book Award and was reviewed by many including the late Carl Sagan (who was quite skeptical) who found it "charming."