I have not seen what the bleep only because I have had several
   people over the past year fanatically telling me, "You HAVE TO
   SEE THIS, KEN! IT IS SO-TRUE, MAN!" And I just can't bring
   myself to watch it, because I do not believe that we create
   reality. (I posted my "quantum" message before I saw your reply)
   I suppose I SHOULD see it. I know I'd enjoy it, and as a
   teenager I would have eaten it up. (that's why I get along well
   with people who believe their manifest reality, or believe
   strongly in quantum-fields-of-influence, or The Power of
   Positive Thinking (Norman Vincent Peale can be great to read if
   you're depressed and semi-religious but only as a pick-me-up),
   or The Force, or Wiccan magic spells, or Karma -it's all
   versions of the same basic idea. ("What I believe is true, IS
   true, because I believe it to be true.") Anyway, I get along
   with them because I believed in it all, once a long time ago).
   But I'm 36 years old now and believe the various ideas of
   "manifesting reality" are not so different than having a
   dayplanner and setting 20 year, 5-year, 1 year, 1 month goals.
   It's just a different way of setting goals and setting out to
   acheive them. It works for some people and I'm cool with it, but
   I wouldn't use it as a basis for describing reality. Perhaps a
   small personal reality, but not the reality of reality. My love
   of reality, I think, is on the particle and dimensional levels,
   with analogies to describe perceived phenomena. Not the math of
   it. Other people can go and do the math. Ugh, Math. I think a
   new math is required to describe quantum mechanics. Newton's
   Calculus was created to describe the motions and workings of big
   things. Working in ordered sets and with probabilities are great
   for describing the wind and for calculating return on investment
   (I'm a Microsoft Excel nut, so I know sets NOT from school (they
   never taught me sets) but from Excel). But for describing the
   actions of the REALLY SMALL - forces, wave-particles and the
   like - especially the interaction FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, and
   answering questions such as, "Why do atomic shells jump in and
   out at prescribed orbits releasing massive amounts of energy? -
   why don't they move smoothly?) requires a math that hasn't been
   invented yet. Or perhaps it just requires working with math in a
   higher dimension. [I think they jump orbits because of friction
   against a higher dimension - rather like a flatlander scraping
   the 3rd dimensional paper beneath him ever so slightly and
   creating a release of strange particles (the particles of paper
   he didn't know existed before) and heat from the 3rd dimension
   (two dimensional creature would know 2 dimensional friction -
   not friction coming at them from an unseeable dimension).
   Thoughts?