I have to completely agree with Beth that the film, What the Bleep do we know?, had some ideas that I completely agree with and others that seem too far-fetched to be realistic. One of the things that was funny was the part when they discussed all of the frozen water appearing differently when words were spoken into them. Maybe they didn't know that all snowflakes (aka small amounts of frozen water) look differently?
But the part that I am really focusing on for class is the nullification of touch. Now one could argue that, if no two things touch you can still feel the effect of the close proximity of another object (like knowing a door or a wall is nearby because the air around it feels differently). But let's take humans out of the equation. If two objects never touch, how can a pencil leave markings on a sheet of paper? Does the graphite simply float above the paper but it is too close to the paper for the human eye to tell? And if so, is there some kind of attraction that prevents the graphite from moving to a different position on the paper?
This is a prime example of how confusing the world becomes when you present theories as facts. If something occurs in only specific situations, wouldn't it be more beneficial to label it as an anomaly than to try to force others to believe it is a scientific law? The world is simple; people make it complicated.