My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Share your thoughts on the written word.
User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:14 pm

I thought this book was absolutely fascinating. Style is somewhat dense and humorous rather than technical in places. Campbell presents a Unified Theory of Everything which reconciles General Relativity and Quantam Mechanics. Wonder why we haven't seen this in the mainstream yet? You can read it for free at https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_ ... =1&f=false

Would love to get the opinions of some sceptics. Why isn't this work more widely recognised?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:51 am

Oh my god, we have a BOOK REVIEW SECTION?!?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Campbell

Thomas Warren Campbell (December 9, 1944) is a physicist, lecturer, and author of the My Big T.O.E. (Theory of Everything) trilogy, a work that claims to unify general relativity, quantum mechanics, and metaphysics along with the origins of consciousness. The work is based on the simulation argument, which posits that reality is both virtual and subjective. Campbell agrees with other notable philosophers and scientists including Hans Moravec, Nick Bostrom, Brian Whitworth, Marcus Arvan and others who hypothesize that reality is a simulation generated by a computer (or peer-to-peer network according to Aravan), while Campbell contends reality evolved from a "digital big bang". These ideas are heavily influenced by the concepts of digital physics.

I dunno, sounds pretty wonky to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindhush

Thomas W. Campbell, Jr. (born December 9, 1944 - ) is the "TC (physicist)" described in Robert Monroe's second book Far Journeys and has been a serious explorer of the frontiers of reality, mind, consciousness, and psychic phenomena since the early 1970s beginning at The Monroe Institute. Thomas Campbell has been experimenting with, and exploring the subjective and objective mind ever since. For the past thirty years, Campbell has been focused on scientifically exploring the properties, boundaries, and abilities of Consciousness.

Thomas Campbell graduated in 1966 with honors and majors in both Mathematics and Physics. A master's degree in Physics was granted by Purdue University in 1968. Tom was admitted to the PhD program at the University of Virginia, however, he chose to accept an offer of employment before completing the program. Tom's specialization was in experimental nuclear physics and his thesis explored excited states of the NA21 nucleus. Most recently, he worked as a consultant for NASA within the Aries I program (follow-on to the Shuttle) assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to ensure mission and crew survivability and success.

Author of [My Big TOE], Thomas Campbell combines science, philosophy, physics, metaphysics, mind, matter, purpose, meaning, the normal and the paranormal together. The entirety of human experience (mind, body, and spirit) including both objective and subjective worlds, are unified under one scientific understanding. It is written in trilogy form with the main title, 'My Big TOE'. Book 1: Awakening. Book 2: Discovery. Book 3: Inner Workings. This work can be shown to provide a basis for understanding the teachings of mystics and meta-physicians of the past. The acronym "TOE" is a standard term in the physics community that stands for "Theory Of Everything." Such a theory has been the "Holy Grail" of physicists for more than fifty years. 'My Big TOE' delivers the solution to that scientific quest at the layman's level. Campbell chose to first publish these ground breaking concepts in a “trade publication” rather than a technical journal because of their potential importance to every individual, and because the nature of the material (like Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, for example) requires broad explanations spanning multiple academic disciplines. This material develops entirely new scientific and reality paradigms.

Campbell has appeared on many radio programs such as Coast to Coast AM. He has conducted lectures on his model of reality in London at The London School of Economics and in Austin Texas. Tom was also in the cast of ["Afterlife" The Path documentary Volume one] released in February 2009.

That's...actually sounding a bit lame. He didn't finish his PhD, he worked in risk assessment for NASA, and he "chose to...publish...in a 'trade publication'...because of their potential importance to every individual, and because the nature of the material...requires broad explanations spanning multiple academic disciplines".

Wow. That last part is...wow. I don't know if that's a quote from him or if someone just made it up, but...wow. It's basically saying he avoided peer-review because his work was both accessible to non-experts and simultaneously too complicated for experts. I don't know what to make of that.

Without a PhD in physics, I'm wondering if he's even remotely qualified to come up with a Theory of Everything that takes into account...well, everything.

BUT, having said all this, I haven't read his books (and there are geez three of them? ain't nobody got time for that!). Can someone post some of his good points so that I may know what they are?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:51 pm

Fair enough that you would want to investigate his credentials. But we are self proclaimed sceptics - so we are looking at the actual information rather than the messenger. A valid theory is valid regardless of who's presenting it.

Since you don't want to read the book, you might want to start with his lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1vYHOPFgcg

Skip to 8:56 to avoid the fluff at the beginning.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19763
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:32 pm

You already decided his 'theory' is valid?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Hex
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:26 pm
Custom Title: mi malam ciuj el vi
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Hex » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:27 pm

sayer wrote:Fair enough that you would want to investigate his credentials. But we are self proclaimed sceptics - so we are looking at the actual information rather than the messenger. A valid theory is valid regardless of who's presenting it.

Since you don't want to read the book, you might want to start with his lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1vYHOPFgcg

Skip to 8:56 to avoid the fluff at the beginning.

In many instances a persons credentials is something of value when trying to assess something. If there is something wrong with me and I need to see a doctor that doctors credentials are important.

When it comes to scientific theories I use credentials as a benchmark for my investment in time. People have limited time for things, even things that interest them. If an Engineer that specialises in bridge construction has a theory about astronomy I'm much less likely to want to go down that rabbit hole. If an actual astronomer has a theory about astronomy I'm much more likely to invest some time to hear what they have to say.

This is the same system I use when creationist "scientists" start spouting off some new "theory". I'm not interested in hearing their message, the only time I might be interested in their message is listening to someone that is offering a rebuttal that actually knows something about the subject matter.

So as a skeptic, I prefer to allocate the time I have and scale it to the knowledge of the person talking. This is not a dismissal of any persons claims or theories, this is me realizing that I live in a wonderful time where information is easily accessible and there are other people out there who know more about a given subject that give some of their time up to look at someones claims and theories. All I have to do is wait.
Spoiler:
  TOYNBEE IDEA
IN KUBRICK'S 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwoaOJZ7Dfk

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:47 pm

Of course, that is fair enough - however considering the gravity of the claim (a unified theory of everything, literally the holy grail of science), it might be wise to check out all potential candidates and avoid dismissiveness where possible.

I would ignore a homeless person if they came up and started rambling at me about religion.
But I'd be more ready to hear Sam Harris' opinion on religion.

That being said, if either of them claimed to have unlocked and unified the mysteries of existence... I wouldn't take any chances on missing out regardless of their credentials.

However to save time it might be faster to check out debunking attempts, which would rapidly show us whether something can be rapidly dismissed as nonsense rather than us having to review the whole thing ourselves.

With the theory concerned in this book even though the original text was sent to major scientific institutes, the amount of debunking or EVEN CRITICISM = practically nothing. Just give it a Google.

Now you could say that that's because its nonsense that they won't even look at - but all you have to do is watch one lecture to see that's not the case. It would seem more likely that the lack of any debunking is due to it actually being quite valid.

Imo that's enough to look past the credentials.... which are good credentials as it is!

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:49 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:You already decided his 'theory' is valid?


Personally I have read the whole book and watched many of the lectures. I've also read the available debunking, which is scant, and attempted some refuting of my own. Having been through this process, yes I've decided that in my experience it's valid. :)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:22 am

sayer wrote: I've decided that in my experience it's valid.
Explain to us what is going on in the double slit photon experiment? :D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:17 am

Gord wrote:...Can someone post some of his good points so that I may know what they are?

Why can't anyone ever just post some of the good points? :cry2: I don't WANNA watch a video!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:28 pm

One person asked for me to explain the double slit and another asked for the 'key points', so I'll present that breakdown here:::

Most of you probably already know the story, but there is a much-repeated experiment in quantum physics where you fire photons at a barrier with two holes or slits in it. After a while these photons will form a pattern on the other side.

Now you'd expect to see the rough shape of two slits on the other side, which would occur if the light was in particle form. But what you actually get is a pattern that could ONLY exist if the light was a wave instead; it's an interference pattern.

Even if we shoot through photons one at a time, slowly, we STILL get an interference pattern - the pattern of a wave!

So, apparently, that is how reality works. When the photons pass through the double slit, they only exist as probabilities, and once they're measured on the other side, show us a wave pattern.

Even spookier, if you set up a detector which tells you WHICH SLIT EACH PHOTON LASSES TROUGH - in other words, you've measured the location of the photons - you get he pattern of particles!

The inescapable conclusion, much to the disgruntlement of established physics, was that the ACT OF MEASUREMENT was changing the nature of the particles! Until somebody observed them, they only existed as a probability; it was clearly the act of observation only that gave them an actual reality, an existence in particle form.

That flies against the idea that reality is 100% independent of the observer and tells us something very important. Consciousness and matter are apparently inextricably tied. If there is no observer, there is no 'external physical world' - just probabilities. Only once a consciousness is present do these probabilities collapse into actualities.

That is the double slit experiment and the basic basis for Tom's Unified Theory - the idea that reality is not solid and objective and separate from us, but rather, a probabilistic simulation that only exists physically in the consciousness of observers. This is perhaps a bitter pill, but is exactly what the experiment suggests, and the experiment doesn't lie.

I'll do another post later that breaks Toms actual theory down fully.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:31 pm

sayer wrote:The inescapable conclusion, much to the disgruntlement of established physics, was that the ACT OF MEASUREMENT was changing the nature of the particles! Until somebody observed them, they only existed as a probability; it was clearly the act of observation only that gave them an actual reality, an existence in particle form.

That flies against the idea that reality is 100% independent of the observer and tells us something very important. Consciousness and matter are apparently inextricably tied.

The term "observer" is really a misnomer. It really just means "an interaction". When two particles meet, they "observe" each other by interacting with each other.

You don't need a conscious observer. Consciousness is not a requirement. What you're really struggling to figure out (and so are physicists) is, "what is a measurement?"

If there is no observer, there is no 'external physical world' - just probabilities. Only once a consciousness is present do these probabilities collapse into actualities.

The "external physical world" is its own "observer". Everything is just probabilities until interactions occur. Consciousness is not required.

In the case of the double-slit experiment, whenever an electron is not observed/measured/interacted with, it behaves as a wave. It appears to pass through both slits simultaneously. Both possibilities exist as a superposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

It's a very complicated concept which should not be dumbed down to something as silly as "consciousness makes things". Quit it. Just accept that you don't know and probably never will, and stop believing in crap designed solely to fill the gaps without having any facts to back them up. That is called a "god of the gaps" argument.
Last edited by Gord on Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:33 pm

sayer wrote:I'll do another post later that breaks Toms actual theory down fully.

That would be nice. I hope there's something better that just more fallacious reasoning behind it, though.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:33 pm

Gord wrote:
sayer wrote:The inescapable conclusion, much to the disgruntlement of established physics, was that the ACT OF MEASUREMENT was changing the nature of the particles! Until somebody observed them, they only existed as a probability; it was clearly the act of observation only that gave them an actual reality, an existence in particle form.

That flies against the idea that reality is 100% independent of the observer and tells us something very important. Consciousness and matter are apparently inextricably tied.

The term "observer" is really a misnomer. It really just means "an interaction". When two particles meet, they "observe" each other by interacting with each other.

You don't need a conscious observer. Consciousness is not a requirement. What you're really struggling to figure out (and so are physicists) is, "what is a measurement?"

If there is no observer, there is no 'external physical world' - just probabilities. Only once a consciousness is present do these probabilities collapse into actualities.

The "external physical world" is its own "observer". Everything is just probabilities until interactions occur. Consciousness is not required.

In the case of the double-slit experiment, whenever an electron is not observed/measured/interacted with, it behaves as a wave. It appears to pass through both slits simultaneously. Both possibilities exist as a superposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

It's a very complicated concept which should not be dumbed down to something as silly as "consciousness makes things". Quit it. Just accept that you don't know and probably never will, and stop believing in crap designed solely to fill the gaps without having any facts to back them up. That is called a "god of the gaps" argument.



That wasn't my understanding or the understanding put forward in books such as 'The Quantam Enigma', or in Science Daily.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1 ... 055013.htm

The implication is that if there is no conscious observer, the particles behave like waves.

It is, literally, the observer who causes them to become particles.

You're telling me that particles can interact with and observe eachother when there is no consciousness.... that goes against the evidence which says that there ARENT ANY particles without a conscious observer. Only waves and probabilities.

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:47 pm

The concept of an external world is flawed because things are only probabilistic until consciousness collapses them into actuality. That's what I've gleaned from all of the texts on the matter that I've read.

What about the delayed choice experiment?
The double slit could still produce a wave pattern while being observed.
But it was only the act of the experimenter knowing the data that produced a particle result.

I don't understand why so many quantum physicists are eagerly discussing the implications of quantum physics with consciousness, and what it might tell us about the ongoing materialism vs idealism debate. But you seem to have dismissed the entire mystery and said: now, now, don't be jumping to any conclusions about consciousness affecting reality; there's still an objective world out there and you're still just a brain epihenomena!

I don't understand how you can so stoically stick with materialism when the actual physicists seem much more speculative and enamoured by the mystery??

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:37 pm

sayer wrote:That wasn't my understanding or the understanding put forward in books such as 'The Quantam Enigma', or in Science Daily.
Gord is absolutely right. No conscious observer is required . The two slit photon experiment would work just the same, 12 billion years ago before any life had arisen anywhere in the universe. It is the activity of measuring that causes waveform collapse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:39 pm

sayer wrote:I don't understand how you can so stoically stick with materialism when the actual physicists seem much more speculative and enamoured by the mystery??
Who said mysteries can't be undiscovered normal physics? Think about the discovery of the electron.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:14 am

sayer wrote:
Gord wrote:
sayer wrote:The inescapable conclusion, much to the disgruntlement of established physics, was that the ACT OF MEASUREMENT was changing the nature of the particles! Until somebody observed them, they only existed as a probability; it was clearly the act of observation only that gave them an actual reality, an existence in particle form.

That flies against the idea that reality is 100% independent of the observer and tells us something very important. Consciousness and matter are apparently inextricably tied.

The term "observer" is really a misnomer. It really just means "an interaction". When two particles meet, they "observe" each other by interacting with each other.

You don't need a conscious observer. Consciousness is not a requirement. What you're really struggling to figure out (and so are physicists) is, "what is a measurement?"

If there is no observer, there is no 'external physical world' - just probabilities. Only once a consciousness is present do these probabilities collapse into actualities.

The "external physical world" is its own "observer". Everything is just probabilities until interactions occur. Consciousness is not required.

In the case of the double-slit experiment, whenever an electron is not observed/measured/interacted with, it behaves as a wave. It appears to pass through both slits simultaneously. Both possibilities exist as a superposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

It's a very complicated concept which should not be dumbed down to something as silly as "consciousness makes things". Quit it. Just accept that you don't know and probably never will, and stop believing in crap designed solely to fill the gaps without having any facts to back them up. That is called a "god of the gaps" argument.



That wasn't my understanding or the understanding put forward in books such as 'The Quantam Enigma', or in Science Daily.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1 ... 055013.htm

The implication is that if there is no conscious observer, the particles behave like waves.

It is, literally, the observer who causes them to become particles.

You're telling me that particles can interact with and observe eachother when there is no consciousness.... that goes against the evidence which says that there ARENT ANY particles without a conscious observer. Only waves and probabilities.

Go back and reread the article to which you have linked. You'll find the sixth paragraph says:

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

No consciousness required.

And if this is the book you referred to as "The Quantam Enigma": https://www.amazon.ca/Quantum-Enigma-Ph ... 019517559X

...then please do us a favour and post a quote from their book which you believe demonstrates that they've concluded anything. Because, according to an interview which is hard to find online anymore (but is quoted from here), Bruce Rosenblum said:

If physicists don’t address the quantum mysteries and honestly tell others what we know and what we don’t know—what is mysterious—then we concede the field to the purveyors of pseudoscience. In any event, the Quantum Enigma course, and later our book, tells of something generally avoided in physics courses.

...

We don’t pretend to resolve the enigma. But we do bring people to a point where they can clearly see the enigma. We say physics “encounters” consciousness. We bring you to the point where you can recognize that encounter, and see it as clearly as any physicist can.

He states that the book didn't pretend to resolve the enigma.

Of course, we can clearly see that honestly telling others what he knew did not prevent the purveyors of pseudoscience from claiming the field anyway.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:19 am

sayer wrote:The concept of an external world is flawed because things are only probabilistic until consciousness collapses them into actuality. That's what I've gleaned from all of the texts on the matter that I've read.

Then either you haven't read enough of them, you've read only the wrong ones, or you haven't understood what you've read. Do some texts claim that consciousness is required? Yes. Are those texts the majority view of physicists? No. But they are the majority view of the pseudoscience purveyors.

If you want to know more about reality, avoid the pseudoscience -- even when science can't [yet] explain something.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:49 am

The things is, even if they up the measurement with a non-human measured and unconscious 'observer', didn't a consciousness still actually retrieve the result from the device? Didn't the data still actually become known to a consciousness?

Surely no measurements can even occur outside of a consciousness? Because any time we look at data or do science, a conscious observer is by definition involved.

My question is: if no conscious observer is required to collapse the wave packet, what actually makes the photons change form? I understand that the idea is that it's measurement, but I don't understand how a 'measurement' occurs with no measurer?

Pleas explain.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:55 am

sayer wrote:The things is, even if they up the measurement with a non-human measured and unconscious 'observer', didn't a consciousness still actually retrieve the result from the device? Didn't the data still actually become known to a consciousness?

No, a "consciousness" (by which I mean a person) just looked at the result from the effect of the photons being "measured", observing the pattern and seeing whether it was showing an interference pattern or not. The "consciousness" didn't actually see any of the photons that were being "measured".

Surely no measurements can even occur outside of a consciousness? Because any time we look at data or do science, a conscious observer is by definition involved.

Such measurements happen "outside of a consciousness" on an ongoing basis. It's called the universe.

My question is: if no conscious observer is required to collapse the wave packet, what actually makes the photons change form? I understand that the idea is that it's measurement, but I don't understand how a 'measurement' occurs with no measurer?

The "measurer" does require "consciousness". When two atoms in deep space interact, they are "measuring" each other.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:35 pm

If it's all this simple, what's up with the whole presentation of the mystery of quantum mehanics as something revolutionary?

You've made it sound like hey-hey, it's just an every day thing. Nothing to see here folks.

Everything has given me the impression that there was something massively controversial and revolutionary about quantum mechanics? Why we're all these physicists so excited and why has it sparked such debate if it's just nice, easy, mundane and explainable.

Not to mention that there are so many different interpretations and speculations that I thought we were far from understanding it....

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:44 pm

So this is Campbell's theory: (gulp - aware of the ruthlessness of this forum and hoping it will be given a chance)

He explains that because this is a Unified theory of EVERYTHING, it must necessarily contain absolutely everything. That means all data including the normal and the paranormal, every perspective, the mystical and the scientific - everything has to be united into a coherent framework. If anything and any experience is left out then it's not really a theory of everything. This is what he claims to have achieved.

In essence, though I'll go into more depth, this is the premise of the theory. Rather than a physical and deterministic system where consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain, reality is a probabilistic information system which works like a computer, our physical reality being a simulation within a non-physical probability calculation space. In the same way that when you are running around in a 3D video game, it appears like a 3D environment with physics but is actually just information on a flat screen being simulated by the computer console. The idea of a computer is of course analogous and he is saying that computers are LIKE reality rather than that reality is a literal simulation someone is running on their computer (lol).

Now if that sounds wacky, Tom encourages you to stay open minded and sceptical rather than dismissive and reactive. The reader is reminded that the idea of a round Earth, of plate tectonics and of the Big Bang were all once scoffed at but are now accepted in the mainstream. He also warns you that the way you distinguish whether someone is telling the truth is NOT by comparing their hypothesis to your own beliefs... it's by testing what explanatory power their hypothesis has. As Tom says, the 'proof is in the pudding'.... judge the theory by how much it is able to explain ONCE I've finished outlining it. Even if it seems woo, you must persevere till the end or you won't see how it ties together.

Tom then explains that we have limits to what we can know. Just like stomach bacteria are unable to comprehend the nuances of human relationships, we are unable to see or understand the larger reality, but it's quite probable that there is one. The conclusion that 'physical reality is all there is' is like the bacteria concluding 'the stomach is all there is' without really knowing where its reality emerged from.
To the bacteria, its origins MUST seem mystical, because they are beyond its comprehension.

In the same way, Tom says that the origins of our reality must seem mystical for us. Because a subset cannot contain the superset ( the stomach is a subset of the body but does not contain the body), we must necessarily assume that our physical reality is probably a subset of something non-physical and, to us, mystical in its nature. THE LOGIC OF CAUSALITY DICTATES THAT THE BEGINNING OF ANY CAUSAL SYSTEM MUST BE BEYOND ITS CAUSAL LOGIC - BECAUSE THE BEGINNING MUST HAVE COME FROM OUTSIDE OF THAT SYSTEM.

Tom highlights the limits of our physical focus in science by stating the following : it is not reasonable to believe that EVERYTHING must have an objective physical cause. It IS reasonable to believe that everything which LOOKS objective from a physical perspective must have an objective physical cause. Reread that, it's highly important. If we assume that NOT everything has a physical cause then the 'paranormal' suddenly becomes normal and worth studying, because we're operating from a paradigm of higher causal logic. We have a habit of trying to fit everything - "why do I have emotions? Why do I love you? Why do I enjoy music?" - into the straight jacket of physical causality because it is comfortable for our belief systems. Just like it's comfortable for the stomach bacteria to assume that the food does not have an origin outside of the stomach and that all is explainable in terms of the stomach alone; there are no other important systems that interact with it (as we know, that's an erroneous assumption that only SEEMS right from the bacteriums perspective).

Tom sets out two concepts initially and these are the only two assumptions that you have to swallow if the rest is to be extrapolated. In modern physics we assume that there is an external objective world and that our senses do not deceive us; if we're to do any science we have to have a couple of assumptions. Here are Toms:

1. Consciousness exists as the primary substance of reality - and consciousness is organised information
2. Evolution is the Fundamental Process on which everything operates

By evolution, Tom means an increase in quality (better able to do work, more organised, more structurally stable), and a decrease in entropy (randomness, chaos, disorganisation). This process is what he believes reality is doing on every level from the biological to the molecular to the societal and social - it's all evolution.

Tom hypothesises that reality as we can understand it began in a state of Absolute Unbounded Oneness (or AUO). Now if that seems mystical or woo to you, IT WOULD, because it's a step up of causal logic - just like the origins of the stomach look mystical to the bacterium. The true judge of whether it is TRUE is not whether you think it sounds right or if it works with your beliefs, but HOW WELL IT LOGICALLY EXPLAINS THE DATA WE HAVE. Now AUO is not actually infinite or unbounded but just appears to be from our physical existence. It predates both space and time. It is simply One.

Now AUO can be compared (analogously) to the single celled organisms of early life on Earth. From a being with very dim awareness can come, through evolution, a brighter and brighter consciousness until we have human consciousness, which in terms of the data it's juggling is much more sophisticated than that of a single celled organism. We will derive our physical universe, its logic, and our consciousness from AUO shortly.

Now AUO eventually discovers, by some manner unknowable to us (if AUO seems mind bending, we definitely can't conceive of the causal logic above that - it would be like one dimensional people trying to imagine three dimensional life), that it can distort and undistort its internal state. In other words, this Oneness can form a relationship with itself - distortions, patterns of distortions.

If you can understand that a complex open world game like skyrim is entirely computed on 1s and 0s, you can see how such a binary ability would allow very complex patterns to begin to emerge. This is reflected of course in the hot-cold, light-dark, etc. dualities that we find in our local physical reality. Because of course, the child shares the features of its parent.

Now through these distortions, AUO has some patterns that are profitable and constructive, and some that don't work profitably. Evolution begins. The patterns that work survive, the ones that don't are left behind. AUO carries out the fundamental process. This distorted/ undistorted state is creating INFORMATION - in other words, data, content, stuff - and it's creating TIME - sequenced information.

Eventually, you get Absolute Unbounded Manifest (AUM).This is essentially AUO once it has left behind its state of Oneness and reached a significant enough state of organised information that it now has lots of stuff, lots of data, to play with. It evolves the power to compute; it becomes like a computer - it can organise its internal information and process the internal interactions between its parts. Returning to the analogy of a dimly aware single celled organism, you can now imagine that it has become a more advanced multicellular being, with a brighter consciousness. (Consciousness is just information, and brighter consciousness means information that's better organised and more stable).

Because it has a computing ability, it can now take the next step in its evolution. It can begin to specialise just like how we have specialised cells in our body. It can create INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS, then split itself into UNITS OF CONSCIOUSNESS with free will. These free willed units of organised information can then RUN THEMSELVES THROUGH a set of constraints and by doing so, evolve, improve their quality. As each unit evolves it is able to, as a part of AUM, increase AUMs overall quality.

Now we can begin to derive our physical reality. AUM creates a rule set with some constraints inside of its information processing space. These rules are what we call PHYSICS - space, time, and various laws like gravity and thermodynamics. Once these rules have been set into place, units of free willed awareness (like you and me!) can ENROL IN THE SIMULATION. By experiencing in the simulation, we can grow, we can become greater, we can increase our quality, and therefore we can increase the quality of the overall system.

Now what is happening on planet Earth begins to make more sense. Can you see that as life evolves, its consciousness has become brighter, of a higher quality, a higher level of organisational complexity. We have gone from titchy, dimly aware little cells to complex multicellular organisms and finally to human beings who can create theories like this and postulate about the nature of reality.

Now HOW physical reality actually works is a little different in this theory. Tom does not think that it exists separately from us; instead he theorises that it works exactly like the game No Mans Sky, which recently came out on PS4. You'll notice that we can only describe reality in terms of what metaphors we've got on hand; when clockwork was the best technology we had, we thought about reality like clockwork, but with new technology we have far more sophisticated metaphors at our disposal.

If you haven't played No Mans Sky, the game is incredible - it offers a world bigger than our actual galaxy. Of course, a game world that big can't all be designed and processed, so it's randomly generated. Each time the player lands on a planet, what they're seeing is randomly generated. Once a player has seen something however, the system RECORDS what was there. If they turn away from an object, it's no longer simulated, if they turn back and look at it, it's simulated again. If a player leaves the planet and comes back three years later, the planet was not there while he was gone. Instead, when he returns, the system just calculates the probabilities and gives him what the planet WOULD look like if he'd been gone for three months. It's a probability draw and a simulation, not an objective physical reality. It is simulated by the individual consciousness, with its own data stream, running that data stream through a rule set and querying the database of what has been saved and recorded before by itself and other consciousnesses. Complicated - but I hope it makes sense!

Now the actual player is not the avatar in the game. Just how you could log on to No Mans Sky, run around and shoot some aliens. But once you turn the game off, you're in a causal reality which is ONE STEP UP. The avatar in the game THINKS that its world is real but can't understand that it's just one character being run by a player who's actually in the game's "parent reality", who is running multiple characters and is not affected by what happens in the game. In the same way, your consciousness isn't produced by your brain. It's just non-physical information. You exist in the parent-reality of physical reality and the person you think you are is just one character being run in this simulation for the purpose of the evolution of the self. So is there an afterlife? Yes, it is the parent-reality, the superset, of physical reality.

Then what does the brain do?? Nothing! It's a simulated brain! Something has to be there when we open someone's head up. The brain is simply the most probable thing that would be there given the rule set. It doesn't produce consciousness or even control the body, it is just there because something is simulated when we look inside a persons skull. Now that being said, of course the rule set of physics says that: if you damage the brain, then you become like this; if you prod the brain, then this happens, etc. Because those are the local rules. But when the character dies, the consciousness is not extinguished, any more than when you're playing a video game and your character dies, you die. No - you just de-focus from the game and feet on with things in the superset reality. This is the best example: you run around and get up to some stuff in world of warcraft, absorbed in the game. Then your character dies. Crap! You remove your attention from the game, and go and make a sandwhich in real life (which is the parent reality that produced the smaller more limited rule set simulation we call world of Warcraft). You then get back to the game and make a new character. Makes sense?

The final thing to address is, how the {!#%@} does Tom know all this? As sceptical as you might be about this, the theory was derived from out-of-body experimentation. Tom found that in his work with fellow scientists Dennis, they were able to go into separate sound proof booths, meet up out-of-body, and record their experiences. The experiences correlated! They'd found that one is not really leaving their body, but just changing the data stream, moving into a focus which is a superset of physical life. It was the study of this which inspired Tom to discover its implications and the science behind it.

Tom also interprets quantum physics as evidence of his theory that the observer is in a probabilistic simulation. If you go on YouTube he suggests a number of quantum physics experiments that can be used to prove this.

The theory also RECONCILES QUANTAM MECHANICS AND GENERAL RELATIVITY. How? Because it shows us that we get different results depending on how you as a consciousness query the rule set, the database, of the physical universe. One system applies if consciousness is querying a microcosmic scenario, the other system applies if consciousness is querying a macro cosmic situation. The idea that consciousness is fundamental seems to reconcile the two because things do not actually exist independently of us on either scale, but are only there when a query demands that the rule set simulate them.

Tom also presents the psi-uncertainty principle for why psychic phenomena are so rare and difficult to replicate. Because they break or bend the rule set, they cannot be allowed to happen all over the place or the universe would be in chaos. Therefore they can only occur in situations where there is UNCERTAINTY around whether they were really paranormal or not, and only where the consciousnesses involved are benefited by the event. This is why the paranormal can't be replicated in a lab; this situation is too certain and measured. The integrity of physical reality has to be maintained, and can only be warped in areas of subjective uncertainty (which is why paranormal phenomena are very frequently reported but can't be verified).

That is a rough overview and summary of an 800+ page book, so understandably if you have questions or want to explore more you'd have to read it (link at the top of the thread) or go to Tom's website/ forum where people will answer your questions.

You can also ask me any questions you have right here and I'll try my best although I'm no expert.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:27 pm

sayer wrote:.....didn't a consciousness still actually retrieve the result from the device?
I will say it again. Quantum mechanics worked exactly the same way 12 billion years ago as it works today. No living thing had evolved 12 billion years ago thus there was no "conscious observer". Therefore this claim is falsified.

sayer wrote:My question is: if no conscious observer is required to collapse the wave packet, what actually makes the photons change form?
Waveform collapse is caused by interaction ("measurement")
Quantum Mechanics for Dummies.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29440
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Gord » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:31 pm

sayer wrote:If it's all this simple, what's up with the whole presentation of the mystery of quantum mehanics as something revolutionary?

You've made it sound like hey-hey, it's just an every day thing. Nothing to see here folks.

It's not that simple. I've just tried to present it in a dumbed-down way so that you and I can pretend to understand it. In reality, neither of us can understand its full implications because we don't have enough background in the really intensive physics. (I think I have just barely enough background in the pre-intensive physics to know that I don't have enough background in the really intensive physics to understand it.)

For instance, there's a way to conduct the experiment so that it appears to change the results after the fact. It's called the Quantum Eraser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

It's freaky deaky stuff.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:09 am

Gord wrote:
sayer wrote:If it's all this simple, what's up with the whole presentation of the mystery of quantum mehanics as something revolutionary?

You've made it sound like hey-hey, it's just an every day thing. Nothing to see here folks.

It's not that simple. I've just tried to present it in a dumbed-down way so that you and I can pretend to understand it. In reality, neither of us can understand its full implications because we don't have enough background in the really intensive physics. (I think I have just barely enough background in the pre-intensive physics to know that I don't have enough background in the really intensive physics to understand it.)

Did you find the time to read over the long summary of the theory yet?

I understand if not it's a bit hefty.

For instance, there's a way to conduct the experiment so that it appears to change the results after the fact. It's called the Quantum Eraser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

It's freaky deaky stuff.

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:10 am

Did you get a chance to check out the theory above? If it doesn't make sense but you have enough of an interest to investigate further then there's plenty on YouTube

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:30 am

Video is phenomenal btw

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:39 am

sayer wrote:....u have enough of an interest to investigate further then there's plenty on YouTube

Citing You tube is for those people who can't write down their own claims themselves. :lol:

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
sayer wrote:....u have enough of an interest to investigate further then there's plenty on YouTube

Citing You tube is for those people who can't write down their own claims themselves. :lol:


*facepalm*

That wasn't me citing evidence, I was saying that IF Gourd was interested enough to pursue this further personally, then there are lectures avaialable on YouTube.

I was being helpful, that wasn't for an antagonistic argument.

Man, Matthew, you are out to get em today

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Citing You tube is for those people who can't write down their own claims themselves. :lol:
sayer wrote:That wasn't me citing evidence,
You said look at some specific you tube videos. If you, yourself, can't set out the claims and supporting evidence from these "You Tubes" then why should I bother looking at them? :D

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:02 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Citing You tube is for those people who can't write down their own claims themselves. :lol:
sayer wrote:That wasn't me citing evidence,
You said look at some specific you tube videos. If you, yourself, can't set out the claims and supporting evidence from these "You Tubes" then why should I bother looking at them? :D


What?! I wasn't citing them as evidence for something I'm trying to push on you. I'm saying that if YOU are interested PERSONALLY in your OWN TIME in this theory, you can find lots of his lectures on YouTube.

Hot damn Matthew you are leading the troops; I surrender. You're like Joan of Arc today man.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26763
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:08 am

sayer wrote:Hot damn Matthew you are leading the troops; I surrender. You're like Joan of Arc today man.


I don't lead any troops and I get corrected by friendly members for my errors, like anyone else on the forum.

The Skeptic Society Forum's motto is "Promoting Science and Critical thinking" . That means the forum is evidence based and making an error is not a problem but part of the course in learning. Karl Popper would be the first person to agree that we learn from our mistakes. ( hypothesis falsification. )

User avatar
sayer
Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm
Custom Title: Critical Thinker

Re: My Big TOE by Tom Campbell

Postby sayer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
sayer wrote:Hot damn Matthew you are leading the troops; I surrender. You're like Joan of Arc today man.


I don't lead any troops and I get corrected by friendly members for my errors, like anyone else on the forum.

The Skeptic Society Forum's motto is "Promoting Science and Critical thinking" . That means the forum is evidence based and making an error is not a problem but part of the course in learning. Karl Popper would be the first person to agree that we learn from our mistakes. ( hypothesis falsification. )



Well, that's alright man. You are correct in positing that us humans are subject to the making of errors in which we are fortunately capable of correcting our erroneous behaviour for the purpose of self improvement (meep meep)


Return to “Book Reviews/Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest