You said: “BTW, all the claims in the movie are falsifiable.”

Making the claim without backing it up is nonsensical: if *all* the claims made in “The Living Matrix” were falsifiable, it should be trivial to list two or three of them.

As an aside: this is a very useful way for people to critically view the movie: as experts (or the narrator) makes claims, pause the movie and see if the claim being made is falsifiable. If you find any falsifiable claims other than the “Giant Bird Brain” one, please post a comment here or contact me! And please think what it means for a science documentary to have a paucity of falsifiable claims.

Mike: if you think Tiller has published papers demonstrating a link between a quantum-physics “field” and our health and healing, please provide references. Any reputable scientist should have a listing of their published papers clearly listed on their website. I cannot find one on the tiller.org website, and I cannot fathom a reason why any reputable scientist wouldn’t have that list.

I hope you realize the irony: my complaint about “The Living Matrix” is that it makes claims without backing them up. In your attempts to defend the film, your arguments have the same exact weakness. One can understand why you give the film an A-: you have no concerns that the movie failed to deliver a “viable scientific theory” on “the new science of healing”. For you, making a claim is tantamount to actually delivering the science.

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. If you’re interested in addressing the questions listed, I would welcome more messages.

If a movie claims to be presenting science, then references to the science is mandatory! It is an insult to scientists and the public at large to claim there is science and fail to deliver.

“Authors and their work are easy to find on the web. So I find lots of science to back up the movie. If you are to lazy to look then don’t complain.”

You haven’t been listening. There is no science. The executive producer has acknowledged there was no science.

“Look up Tillers work. Yes to all your questions.”

If you think there is science, the onus is on you to provide a reference to published science from the Tiller.

If you think there are falsifiable claims, the onus is on you to provide a reference to them.

“You complain about the movie using quantum fields as a medium of exchange.”

No. I note there is no science to back up the claims that fields are being used to store information. I note that Dr. Cimbal’s claims about some “giant bird brain” in the field controlling the flock are fiction.

“Well if it’s a physical medium of information exchange and wants to stay within current understanding then it has to be quantum fields.”

But what if it’s actually the tooth fairy that’s exchanging the information? We have just as much objective evidence for the tooth fairy as we do for some claimed field.

“Again, quantum fields are the fundamentals field in physics, all else is emergent phenomena from them.”

There is no scientific evidence that information is stored in quantum fields. If you think there is scientific evidence, all you need to do is provide a reference.

“BTW, all the claims in the movie are falsifiable.”

I have listened through the entire film over 20 times. Other than the “giant bird brain” claim, I can find none. If you think there are falsifiable claims, please say what exact claims you are talking about.

“All sorts of information is being stored in a quantum field just in the exchange we are having on the web.”

No. These are electromagnetic exchanges. If there are quantum exchanges/storage distinct from EM fields, those need to be demonstrated.

The movie “The Living Matrix” claims that such quantum information storage exists. Unfortunately, there is no science to back up that claim, and the executive producer has admitted it.

“Extraordinary claims by who’s standards?”

That’s a red herring. All physical science needs to be backed up by rigorous and repeatable experiments that have been rigorously reported.

Mike: decorum is lacking in your messages, and you’re not answering my questions. You need to actually address the questions I ask or we will end our conversation. Here’s a summary of the questions I’ve asked you haven’t addressed:

1. If Tiller has actually published science, please provide a reference to the papers. If Tiller has not, please acknowledge that he has not published science.

2. If there are falsifiable claims on the Tiller website, please provide an EXACT URL to those falsifiable claims.

3. I only see one falsifiable claim in “The Living Matrix”. If you think there are other ones, please provide an exact reference. A good way to do this would be to provide a timestamp in the movie and quote a couple of sentences from the film.

4. Since “The Living Matrix” fails to ever deliver on its claimed science, how do you explain giving the movie a passing grade?

5. In your comment in the “Giant Bird Brains” thread, you bet that the science I presented was full of holes. Did you read the Cavagna science paper? Did you find any holes in it?

6. If you think there is actually rigorous and direct evidence to the existence of information sources in field, please cite your references. Otherwise, please acknowledge that you have no reference demonstrating the existence of information storage.

Thanks in advance, Mike, for the rigor in your response.

Look up Tillers work. Yes to all your questions.
Did you read his books? You only need the first one. The equations are the theory the model is also the theory but it’s the representation of the reality. Do you understand the ontology of physical theories? I’ll give you a clue. It’s up to you and typically they involve contradictions. Didn’t you ever wonder what a field in physics is? It’s just equations about forces on a geometrical manifold. Where is the theory? Is just functional relations in distance/time.

You complain about the movie using quantum fields as a medium of exchange. Well if it’s a physical medium of information exchange and wants to stay within current understanding then it has to be quantum fields. What do you want to use instead non-physical entities. I don’t mind but pragmatically it’s outside current understanding. Again, quantum fields are the fundamentals field in physics, all else is emergent phenomena from them.

BTW, all the claims in the movie are falsifiable. You sound like you just discovered a new word. You are not a scientist are you?

All sorts of information is being stored in a quantum field just in the exchange we are having on the web. Quantum fields are what make us and everything “physical” up.

The movie talks about EM field which are a type of quantum field but it also speculates on the vacuum energies as well. Nothing wrong with that for a science movie.

In fact there was more speculation in another science series hosted by Morgan Freeman call “through the wormhole.”

However, for speculation that actually is unfalsifiable then look at any neuroscience show that claims mind is generated only by brain or brain/body. That’s a philosophical question made to look like science. In other words, it’s pseudo-science. The multiverse idea, which is splashed all over the pages of science journals for the public like Scientific American is another irrational and unfalsifiable theory.

Extraordinary claims by who’s standards? There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence is just standard evidence. This is a con-job pulled by so-called skeptics to protect their belief system which they intentionally make unfalsifiable. Apparently, you are new to this game.

The movie’s subtitle is “A Film on the New Science of Healing.” The movie does talk about information fields throughout, but it never ever delivers the science. No reference is provided in the movie, and none on the website. How could any objective evaluator possibly give it a passing grade?

“It didn’t mention fields that William Tiller has written many books on and done associated experiments. Here a contrast could have been made the Russian work on ‘torsional fields’ in this area.”

A true contrast to the movie would be providing some science. What is Tiller’s theory? Where is it written down? What does it predict? Is it falsifiable? How was it tested? What were the results, and where were those results published?

“We are all quantum fields at our base. There is no way of not being connected to the quantum field. It’s our FUNDAMENTAL physical theory of matter/energy.”

The movie is claiming, without evidence, that all sorts of information is being stored in some sort of quantum field.

As far as I can tell, only one falsifiable claim about this field is made in the film. Dr. Dietmar Cimbal claims that flocks of birds use this field to make “instantaneous” direction changes. Cimbal provides no evidence to back up his claim, and published science shows that the direction changes are definitely not instantaneous. Cimbal’s claim was not only falsifiable, it’s actually false!

I cannot find any other falsifiable claims in the film. Can you?

“What you probably mean is large scale non-local entangled states in thermally unprotected environments.”

What I mean is that such claims require rigor. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If the evidence exists, please provide a reference to the published paper. If the evidence does not exist, please acknowledge that.
The executive producer of “The Living Matrix” has acknowledged that there exists no science to back up the central claim of his movie. You can look it up in the “infoceuticals” discussion on the facebook page thelivingmatrix.

“Well, they did not only mention quantum fields but talked about more regular EM fields. However, they hinted at something quantum like by mentioning vacuum energy.”

Hinting is vastly different from providing science.

“Look at http://www.tiller.org for papers/books on a theory with decades of related experiments and lots of questions (theory).”

I do not see a single scientific theory there. I see lots of writings and speculation: lots of hints.

Can you provide an exact URL to a single falsifiable theory on the tiller website?

“Plus, who said you need a fully fleshed out scientific theory anyway!”

When you’re discussing a movie about “The New Science of Healing”, it’s completely appropriate to ask about the science.

If the movie’s subtitle were “Hopeful Hints About Health”, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

“If I’m influencing a body far away with thought or I’m seeing something far away like I’m right there, then my mind is probably not tied to my brain and body and is at those locations. Fields would be something that could mediate this effect or it maybe something beyond human understanding.”

That is the point! “Would be something that could […]” indicates that you are speculating. As is what is happening in the movie. “We can’t explain this, therefore … quantum physics must be involved!”
It’s fine to make a movie about hopeful speculation — just don’t call it science.

MJS: I asked you some specific questions above. If you wish to continue the discussion, please address them. Thanks.

One reason for the A- was that it didn’t mention fields that William Tiller has written many books on and done associated experiments. Here a contrast could have been made the Russian work on “torsional fields” in this area.

I’m still scratching my head wondering how much time you wanted spent on this theory without boring the target audience to death.

“I see No linkage to some quantum physics field.”

We are all quantum fields at our base. There is no way of not being connected to the quantum field. It’s our FUNDAMENTAL physical theory of matter/energy.

What you probably mean is large scale non-local entangled states in thermally unprotected environments. Well, they did not only mention quantum fields but talked about more regular EM fields. However, they hinted at something quantum like by mentioning vacuum energy. That’s one reason for the -A rating. Look at http://www.tiller.org for papers/books on a theory with decades of related experiments and lots of questions (theory).

Plus, who said you need a fully fleshed out scientific theory anyway! That doesn’t even happen often in orthodox science. In fact, in orthodox scientific journalism you get worst than bullshit speculation. Without the slightest shred of evidence, contradicting with existing facts and even being irrational by self-contradicting itself, one see “scientific” propaganda promoted all the time as cutting edge. If your wondering what I’m talking about, lately it’s the “multiverse.”

Lastly, you ask if the claims of parapsychology are valid then what’s their relevance. I hope you understand that some healing experiments are para-psychological. That was in the film. But let’s run with this a bit. If I’m influencing a body far away with thought or I’m seeing something far away like I’m right there, then my mind is probably not tied to my brain and body and is at those locations. Fields would be something that could mediate this effect or it maybe something beyond human understanding.

The movie claims to deliver science, but there is no science to back up its central claim. How could that be a good thing for any audience?

“Third, are some parapsychological phenomena. Good experimental evidence of that and plenty of credible real-world reports. So-called skeptics even admit that the parapsychology experiments are more than adequate to show the existence of the phenomena by any sciences standards.”

Even if such experiments are accepted are valid, what do they do to validate the central claim of this movie? Remember, the movie claimed there is a “viable scientific theory”. What is the theory? Where is it written down? How could a theory which has never been stated possibly be viable?

“Epi-genetics is on the web and what Lipton says about it is true.”

Epigenetics is real. Cellular differentiation in the developing embryo is an example: the DNA stays the same, but cellular function is specialized. On the other hand, I see no science linking epigenetics to some quantum-physics “field”. Do you?

What specific claims that Lipton made on this topic do you think are true? Why do you think they are true?

“Overall, I give the film an -A rating and do give it to patients to view.”

The film fails to deliver on its central claim, and you give it an -A grade.

What does a film have to do before you downgrade it to a B?

Did you find any other falsifiable claims in the movie? Are you concerned that a science documentary has essentially zero falsifiable claims?

Did you read the Cavagna paper? Did you find any holes in it? If so, please share!