Galileo - Descartes - Newton - Darwin - The Quantum mechanics - Bohr/Einstein - ?

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Tom Campbell?

https://www.my-big-toe.com/



This is an intro to Tom Campbell's Big Toe (Theory of Everything).

This is difficult to get into even a longish precis. What I'll sketch here is skeletal from the whole Big TOE, and leaves a lot to be taken on trust. But take a look at the video (50 mins will go quickly), and remember that it is only part one of nine, but with enough exegesis for a first-time watcher to begin to get it intellectually (though probably the initial emotional upheaval will prevent it all being taken in seriously at first blush).

So, in keeping with quantum mechanics -- which Tom's TOE postulates to be operating at all scales, not just at the scale of fundamental particles -- everything (sic) which we perceive in our normal, human-scale everyday world is actually nothing more material than a probability distribution, until some sentient being 'makes a measurement' of it, which means, for example, looking in the place where the probability wave is. This act of perception "collapses the wave function" in the jargon of QM, and causes a material manifestation of one of the range of probabilities.

But notice: until something sentient looks at (or otherwise senses; hears, smells, tastes, feels) the potential object for the first time, there's nothing there but a probability of the object. Literally: nothing but the potential, which is itself there because of the previous history of the material reality system, and its rule-set; its physics. So far, so orthodox quantum mechanical; except that quantum mechanics was not until now supposed to operate at the macro level, our scale of things.

Tom asserts repeatedly that we need to understand ourselves as, essentially, units of consciousness. If you view his presentations, you'll hear him repeat many times: "Remember, you are consciousness; that's your fundamental reality!"

He goes much further, with one of his main interpretive leaps of understanding, and asserts that all Physical Material Realities (PMRs) are actually rendered simulations. The rendering computer is the main, big consciousness, of which we are all autonomous but not fundamentally separate IUOC's (individuated units of consciousness), which Tom calls, with careful scientifically neutral language, the Larger Consciousness System (LCS).

The idea is an old one that's been around for a long time; that LCS, in order to grow its experience inputs, partially separates many small parts of itself off into quasi-independence, and allows these promontories or pseudopods of itself (like in amoebae) to exercise free-will.

In order to have an ostensible PMR in which to have the rich tapestry of experiences of many interacting free-will awareness units which are thus possible, the LCS feeds data-streams to each of its IUOCs, independently, like multiple players in a computer simulation game. These data-streams the IUOCs interpret as the allegedly-objective consensus world around us, in which we have our lifetimes' experiences; in fact multiple lifetimes, in Tom's schema; as in many traditional mystical systems.

But the supposed objective, solid material world is only a rendered simulation. And, to maintain economy of rendering, data-streams are only rendered to each individual consciousness as they are needed. Thus, when you look away from a particular object, the stream for that object stops. When you look back, it starts again. In both cases there is no object! Just the data-stream rendered to your IUOC; or not, according to whether you're 'making a measurement' by sensing it.

It's a fascinating theory. And entirely consonant with some of the latest radical but highly experimental-evidence-congruent new theoretical postulates currently working their way in from the periphery to the centre of theoretical physics.

But a key consequence of these ideas is that, until some sentience-unit, such as you, or me or your neuro-surgeon, looks inside our skulls, by one means or another, and precipitates not just the probability but the rendered simulation of a brain "there is no brain; just the probability..." And likewise with all the other bits of the PMR, including all our body parts.

Tom's Big TOE brings together all the aspects of the human attempt to understand its existence and the point of it all - physics, philosophy, religion, mysticism, paranormal, metaphysics - all are subsets of a bigger picture - where Einstein and Bohr were knocking at the door (as Tom explains in the beginning of his presentation, see video above) - Tom has pushed it open....

And the whole lovely Big TOE springs from just two fundamental axioms: Consciousness exists. And evolution happens.
Which seems a fine and solid set to build on. Enjoy!
 

Chew

Senior Member.
So, in keeping with quantum mechanics -- which Tom's TOE postulates to be operating at all scales, not just at the scale of fundamental particles -- everything (sic) which we perceive in our normal, human-scale everyday world is actually nothing more material than a probability distribution, until some sentient being 'makes a measurement' of it, which means, for example, looking in the place where the probability wave is. This act of perception "collapses the wave function" in the jargon of QM, and causes a material manifestation of one of the range of probabilities.

So why do bugs splat on my windshield? Are bugs sentient?


But notice: until something sentient looks at (or otherwise senses; hears, smells, tastes, feels) the potential object for the first time, there's nothing there but a probability of the object. Literally: nothing but the potential, which is itself there because of the previous history of the material reality system, and its rule-set; its physics. So far, so orthodox quantum mechanical; except that quantum mechanics was not until now supposed to operate at the macro level, our scale of things.

Experiments have already been conducted that have falsified the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation.

The Observer effect. It's not what you think it is.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So why do bugs splat on my windshield? Are bugs sentient? Experiments have already been conducted that have falsified the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation. The Observer effect. It's not what you think it is.

I can deduce by the mathematics of time that you haven't watched the video. Yes, bugs are sentient. Like you, a car hitting you at 50mph is going to splat you as well. Unless you get out the way.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Does taking any of the above as a truth alter your experience of reality in any way? Enhance it? Even if reality is created a micro-second prior to our perception it still acts as if it exists outside of it, and material laws seem to describe what happens independent of perception.
So, what's the point?
It's just an elaborate imagining of what might be happening before we turn on the light switch, but we still have to deal with reality as it appears.
Even if we're brains in a vat and all reality is being virtually generated and fed into us we'll never be able to know it, and knowing it makes no conceivable difference to what we experience anyway.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Here's a good article on recent findings:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Works In 'Macro' As Well As Quantum World, Study Shows


The following quote is germane to this discussion:


Cheers, R.

Yes, old Heisenberg got the ball rolling - but did you watch Tom? Do yoursef a favour, if you haven't already - T works for Nasa as well as having his dual 'career' with his Big Toe. It's 35 plus years worth of Tom's life's work and he's a very engaging, easy to listen to speaker. What you're bringing up is a tiny subset of T's BIG TOE!

Plus, R, not sure about 'the bigger the object the less likely' idea - when you consider that, if you begin building things from the smallest measurable 'parts' upwards, then everything is made from nothing. Well, nothing material, it's just a probability.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Does taking any of the above as a truth alter your experience of reality in any way? Enhance it? Even if reality is created a micro-second prior to our perception it still acts as if it exists outside of it, and material laws seem to describe what happens independent of perception.
So, what's the point?
It's just an elaborate imagining of what might be happening before we turn on the light switch, but we still have to deal with reality as it appears.
Even if we're brains in a vat and all reality is being virtually generated and fed into us we'll never be able to know it, and knowing it makes no conceivable difference to what we experience anyway.


But, P! You haven't even dipped in a little toe! If you listen to Tom, you'll find out there is a point! And it does make a difference!
 

RolandD

Active Member
Cheers, R.

Yes, old Heisenberg got the ball rolling - but did you watch Tom? Do yoursef a favour, if you haven't already - T works for Nasa as well as having his dual 'career' with his Big Toe. It's 35 plus years worth of Tom's life's work and he's a very engaging, easy to listen to speaker. What you're bringing up is a tiny subset of T's BIG TOE!

Plus, R, not sure about 'the bigger the object the less likely' idea - when you consider that, if you begin building things from the smallest measurable 'parts' upwards, then everything is made from nothing. Well, nothing material, it's just a probability.

Haven't had the time to watch it, but I do intend to. I was already familiar with this idea. It's kind of a stretch to call it a theory with a capital T, it's more of a hypothesis and needs to be subject to general scrutiny. Time will tell, though I do agree with Pete's analysis, until we get more info, it's much ado about nothing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If they are really having Out Of Body experiences, then why don't they demonstrate it? Why not do something like he describes at around 12:00 - two physically isolated people having conversations?

The effect of such evidence on science would be astonishing, world changing, Nobel Prize winning, Randi Prize winning.

The fact that they (or anyone else) have NOT done such a demonstration indicates to me that it does not actually work.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I have trouble believing consciousness is some fundamental force from which all physical reality arises - it *seems* like that simply because WE are conscious (half the time). Conciousness arises out of physical reality, it's a self-diagnostic system, which allows for cool things like awe and wonder and science, but the universe would get along just fine without it. It's just another way to put ourselves at the centre of all things and tell ourselves that without us and our oh-so-vital consciousness the universe would collapse.
phenomenologically we are the centre of things, it is our experience that tells us that, but life is indifferent to our existence. To us it's the most important thing so of course we will come up with interpretations to prove our indispensability.
I assume the theory manages to scientifically prove that?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
But, P! You haven't even dipped in a little toe! If you listen to Tom, you'll find out there is a point! And it does make a difference!

Fair enough, I'll see if I can see the point.
Solipsism is an interesting way to view the world as a philosophical exercise - it does lead to a certain feeling of connection.

edit

Is there a written version? Internet slow.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I have trouble believing consciousness is some fundamental force from which all physical reality arises - it *seems* like that simply because WE are conscious (half the time). Conciousness arises out of physical reality, it's a self-diagnostic system, which allows for cool things like awe and wonder and science, but the universe would get along just fine without it. It's just another way to put ourselves at the centre of all things and tell ourselves that without us and our oh-so-vital consciousness the universe would collapse. phenomenologically we are the centre of things, it is our experience that tells us that, but life is indifferent to our existence. To us it's the most important thing so of course we will come up with interpretations to prove our indispensability. I assume the theory manages to scientifically prove that?
P - no offence, but you haven't seen the point - this isn't something you can judge in a few paragraphs of my text. We are just a tiny part of the whole - you need to spend some time with Tom, and less with Pratchett!
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
If they are really having Out Of Body experiences, then why don't they demonstrate it? Why not do something like he describes at around 12:00 - two physically isolated people having conversations?

The effect of such evidence on science would be astonishing, world changing, Nobel Prize winning, Randi Prize winning.

The fact that they (or anyone else) have NOT done such a demonstration indicates to me that it does not actually work.

Tom would/has replied thus; from his comments on the Youtube page


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iFpT9TbiMNM#!

here is some discussion from the Standford (SRI) guys:

http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/ESP.pdf

CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

I do not know what any of this means- just providing data.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The 50 minutes did not go as fast as you promised lee. It basically just seemed like another flavor of quantum mysticism.

I've personally always been fascinated by quantum mechanics, and the implications of things like the many-worlds interpretation, or the Copenhagen interpretation. I started reading about it around 30 years ago with The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and various other popular science books.

Yet the new-age interpretation, the quantum mysticism espoused by Campbell, and films like What The Bleep Do We Know?, is just nonsense, just a form of solipsism cloaked in the language of science. Quantum effects do NOT work in any meaningful way on a large scale, certainly not on the human body scale. And entire ten billion years of galaxy history did not collapse into existence just because someone looked in that general direction. As Chew quite eloquently put it:

The Observer effect. It's not what you think it is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Tom would/has replied thus; from his comments on the Youtube page


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iFpT9TbiMNM#!

here is some discussion from the Standford (SRI) guys:

http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/ESP.pdf

CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

I do not know what any of this means- just providing data.

It means crappy experiments, with statistically meaningless results.



Yet Campbell claims unequivocal absolute proof of holding conversation in OOB states, that would be very very easy to demonstrate in a proper experiment.
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Fair enough, I'll see if I can see the point.
Solipsism is an interesting way to view the world as a philosophical exercise - it does lead to a certain feeling of connection.

edit

Is there a written version? Internet slow.

Sorry, P. Don't know of internet written sources that do justice - but Tom's books (a few months of work, followed by a few months more of chewing the cud, and you'll get an idea)...and, P - solipsism isn't relevant - as you'll find out, if you delve a little. We are not the only entities in this consciousness system, not by a long chalk.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
It means crappy experiments, with statistically meaningless results.


Yet Campbell claims unequivocal absolute proof of holding conversation in OOB states, that would be very very easy to demonstrate in a proper experiment.

I'm surprised. (That horrible column of bore up there ^^^ was just to distract people from reading, a demotivator, yes?)

Tom repeatedly says - 'don't believe me' 'don't not believe me' - be 'sceptical and open-minded'. You have to do it for yourself in order to know it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm surprised. (That horrible column of bore up there ^^^ was just to distract people from reading, a demotivator, yes?)

Tom repeatedly says - 'don't believe me' 'don't not believe me' - be 'sceptical and open-minded'. You have to do it for yourself in order to know it.

One of those things that only works if you believe it does work. If it fails to work, then it must be because you did not believe hard enough.

What has you experience been with astral travel then? Why don't you do a demonstration. I'd be happy to believe in something if someone can demonstrate it works.

Can it be demonstrated? Can you demonstrate it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
One of those things that only works if you believe it does work. If it fails to work, then it must be because you did not believe hard enough. What has you experience been with astral travel then? Why don't you do a demonstration. I'd be happy to believe in something if someone can demonstrate it works. Can it be demonstrated? Can you demonstrate it?
Maybe you'e missing the fact that you can do it!? You don't need to rely on anyone else or their account, in fact you can't - and that's what Tom says, repeatedly.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe you'e missing the fact that you can do it!? You don't need to rely on anyone else or their account, in fact you can't - and that's what Tom says, repeatedly.

So what if I can? I'm not going to put effort into trying unless someone demonstrate it works. How would I know I was not just hypnotizing myself?

Since it's so trivially easy to demonstrate, according to Campbell, then WHY NOT?

And did you copy Rhisiart's post, or are you he? Seems a bit cheeky if you are not, perhaps some
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
And the OOBE is just a tiny tiny subset of the whole! As Tom says, it's like being locked in a house all your life and then one day you find the door to the yard and you go out and say _ wow! sky and neighbours and neighbourhood and plants and wind and yet you don't presume you've seen the county, the state, the country...etc....the methaphor is clear....OOBE is a miniscule part of the Big Toe
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You need to do it.... Nos da!

Why should I do what he says, and not what thousands of other different guru's say?

If it cannot be demonstrated, then it does not exist.

But the funny thing is, he claims that it CAN be demonstrated, he's just no interested in doing so. Why not?

His ideas are funny. Somewhat childish. I like his idea that the universe is rendered from a database for the individual observer to perceptible Level of Details (to save CPU cycles) based on probability. Funny, but an ultimately pointless abstraction. There is an objective common substrate to the universe, even if it's not directly observable. There's every indication it's made of subatomic particles because there's a commonality between the observations of individuals, right down to that level.

I'm assuming you can do "it" lee. What have you done?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And the OOBE is just a tiny tiny subset of the whole! As Tom says, it's like being locked in a house all your life and then one day you find the door to the yard and you go out and say _ wow! sky and neighbours and neighbourhood and plants and wind and yet you don't presume you've seen the county, the state, the country...etc....the methaphor is clear....OOBE is a miniscule part of the Big Toe

Why don't you demonstrate that part then? Then everyone will know the Big Toe exists, and we can all go and do it.

It's all in your head Rhisiart. If you can't change things that are NOT in your head, then how does that differ from hypnotizing yourself?
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Quantum physics these days is plagued with a whole lot of new age bunk because so much of it gets misinterpreted. For example, the whole thing about observation changing or influencing an object comes from the fact that when you use a machine that uses electrons or photons to observe particles, you change them slightly; as the link in Mick's post explained. But the fact is that quantum physics isn't easy to understand and I look to the most successful in the field to help get a grasp on it. Murray Gell-Mann was one of the two theorists who predicted the quark and he is very helpful in dispelling some of the mystic stigmas that have formed around the field. Here is a Q&A with him:
http://www.williamjames.com/transcripts/gell1.htm

MISHLOVE: The paradox here, if I understand it, is that in quantum theory the probabilistic event is sort of viewed as a probability function, or sometimes I've even heard the term a probability cloud. It's as if both true and false are occurring at the same time.

GELL-MANN: Yes, and that's what I think is very misleading, and my colleagues think is very misleading. In the Schroedinger cat story, for example, the part I told is very reasonable and simply illustrates that a probabilistic quantum event can be coupled to some classical change in the heavy, macroscopic objects around us. That's fine. But the other thing people say is, "Well, suppose the cat is in a box, and the quantum event occurs, but you don't know which way it went, and the cat is dead if it went one way and alive if it went the other, and so until you open the box and see, well, the cat is in some sort of funny quantum-mechanical, coherent mixture of being dead and being alive. That's very strange and paradoxical and weird, and so on." It isn't really true.

MISHLOVE: That was the point Schroedinger tried to make.

GELL-MANN: Well, I don't know exactly what he was after, but it's a point that people have belabored after Schroedinger, and I think it's not really a very good way to look at it, because a live cat certainly is in interaction with its environment. It's not isolated.

MISHLOVE: That's right.

GELL-MANN: Even the dead cat is in interaction with its environment. It's decaying, emanating various chemicals. The live cat of course is breathing and in contact with its environment. Even if the cat is in a box, the box is in contact with the environment. It's being hit by photons from elsewhere in the universe. It's radiating a certain number of photons because it's not at absolute zero; if it were at absolute zero it would certainly not contain a live cat. And so on and so forth. Therefore, whatever it is that we're talking about, it's in interaction with other things, and those other things are being averaged over and integrated over and not seen. And under those conditions, the two situations, alive and dead, decohere, as we say. There is no interference between them; they are simply alternatives -- just like the alternatives at the race track when either one horse wins or another horse wins; there's nothing mysterious or peculiar about it. And when you open the box it's no different from the experience that you may actually have of going to the airport and accepting a cat box and not knowing whether the poor animal is alive or dead until you open the box. It's exactly the same. The two situations are on different branches of history. They are not coherent with each other because of the interaction with the rest of the world that's averaged over.

What this Big TOE comes down to is a strictly theoretical, I use that term very loosely here because it is not really evidence-based, idea that can be likened to a spiritual belief or faith. I think it's a cool idea and I would love for it to be true. Maybe if he designed an experiment to test it he could turn it into a real theory.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Then it's not science.

What's not science? OOBE?

Maybe not 'science' as we've known it up to now? Science is mutable, at its best. But science has replaced 'God' in modern society; the scientists are the priests. 'Science' (as we've known it) will always fail to explain the human condition, it doesn't really try. Thinking that science as it is will eventually answer all the questions is indulging in pseudo-religious dogma. And it can only answer a question if we have the ability to ask it - is it the 'right' question etc. Science is a brilliant tool for helping make sense of what and where we are - no doubt, but it's really just a subset. The scientific method is the best tool yet for many applications - but the point of the OP is to ask where science goes now - look at Bohr and Einstein, struggling with the knowledge that conciousness is critical to the whole deal, but not being able to push on from there. Science has stalled on this, scientists can't agree, there is no consensus. Many aren't looking there. We all know Einstein was a truly great scientific mind...but read what he's said about his work in words not numbers, and on many an occasion it looks like philosophy/theology quite often...

Remember, the video is one of nine - it's just the beginning; OOBE is a sub-atomic particle of the whole Toe. As you go along, if you wish to, you'll see where it leads. And remember what T says - that science begins with a mystical assumption - there was this ball of energy and then there was this Big Bang! But what was there before it? Nothing? Outside of it? How did the ball get there? Science doesn't go back to before it began....with a mystical assumption!
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Quantum physics these days is plagued with a whole lot of new age bunk because so much of it gets misinterpreted. For example, the whole thing about observation changing or influencing an object comes from the fact that when you use a machine that uses electrons or photons to observe particles, you change them slightly; as the link in Mick's post explained. But the fact is that quantum physics isn't easy to understand and I look to the most successful in the field to help get a grasp on it. Murray Gell-Mann was one of the two theorists who predicted the quark and he is very helpful in dispelling some of the mystic stigmas that have formed around the field. Here is a Q&A with him:
http://www.williamjames.com/transcripts/gell1.htm



What this Big TOE comes down to is a strictly theoretical, I use that term very loosely here because it is not really evidence-based, idea that can be likened to a spiritual belief or faith. I think it's a cool idea and I would love for it to be true. Maybe if he designed an experiment to test it he could turn it into a real theory.

Cheers for the info - good read.

Lots of opinions, D, ofcourse. But same to you as my post above says - what do you think on the quasi religious nature of science as it is? Or that we've started out with a mystical assumption? It's certainly what is classified as unfalsifiable.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Have any of you attempted to 'expand' your consciousness, by any means? SR? Pete? Mick? Roland? Dan? Anyone I missed (sorry)?

Here's a good example of why the establishment doesn't want you to...piss funny, too!

How to end all war in about 70 mins - and only 2 mins long!!

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Have any of you attempted to 'expand' your consciousness, by any means? SR? Pete? Mick? Roland? Dan? Anyone I missed (sorry)?

Here's a good example of why the establishment doesn't want you to...piss funny, too!

How to end all war in about 70 mins - and only 2 mins long!!

Lee . . . This obviously won't work . . . the arms dealers won't make enough profit . . . Please !!!!!
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee . . . This obviously won't work . . . the arms dealers won't make enough profit . . . Please !!!!!

No profit in Love, G! And the laughing bit's just the beginning....

How about you, G? Have you 'expanded'?

Check this out, lovely 8 mins....

 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Have any of you attempted to 'expand' your consciousness, by any means? SR?

Indeed.

I try to expand my consciousness every day...just by living life.

...but yes, I have traveled with Don Juan...more partial to fungi then lab material.

I also know- not every person will react with giddiness of silly soldier or be amazed at the technicolor as a 50s housewife.

I have seen people who wished they never crossed that threshold and others who never quite made it all the way back.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No profit in Love, G! And the laughing bit's just the beginning....

How about you, G? Have you 'expanded'?

Check this out, lovely 8 mins....

No . . . it was frowned upon by my employer of 30 plus years . . . In fact, he would put you in jail and throw away the keys if you did . . . or of course if he did it to you that was OK (just for experimental reasons of course) . . . I occasionally would dip into the Southern Comfort for a trip into never, never land . . . I am sure it isn't the same . .
 

RolandD

Active Member
Have any of you attempted to 'expand' your consciousness, by any means? SR? Pete? Mick? Roland? Dan? Anyone I missed (sorry)?

Here's a good example of why the establishment doesn't want you to...piss funny, too!

How to end all war in about 70 mins - and only 2 mins long!!

I have. Unfortunately, psychedelics have little effect on me. LSD and 'shrooms produce nothing but a nice buzz. DMX knocks me out. Salvia does produce a complete disassociation from reality, but only for about a minute and it tastes like shit. My only true hallucinogenic experience was over 30 years ago on just marijuana. It was great, but nothing revelatory. I do look forward to trying peyote someday, but I'm afraid that I will be disappointed, once again.
 
Top