I have a few physics questions and I was hoping someone could explain them to me in a simple way. Here is how i understand it...Quantum mechanics works in its place, and relativity works in its place. But when you but them together they don't agree. String theory is an attempt to derive the two and complete Einsteins unified field theory. So far it has not been successful, but has made some progress over the last 15 years or so. According to MBT the reason why is because consciousness is fundamental and this reality is virtual. String theorists are using the assumption that we live in an objective world, and Tom's model says it is a subjective reality, which solves this problem.

Question 1. MBT makes the claim that it derives quantum mechanics, and relativity. I have a very basic understanding of these two things. How does the virtual subjective model complete the puzzle? I probably don't understand this because my my knowledge of this subject is limited. But can anyone explain this to me in dummy terms?

Question 2. If M theory is successful in the future, and it does solve this problem. And it turns out to be the TOE. Does that discredit Tom's model? Would that mean that reality is objective, and the materialist view is correct, and consciousness is a product of the brain and when it dies so does consciousness?

Question 3. I remember in Tom's books he talks about string theory, but I can't remember what he said exactly. How does string theory fit into My Big Toe?

I have followed all of Tom's work and I don't have any experience in the larger reality. I don't even know if it exists. I am still stuck on the question Is this guy nuts or what? But just from a spectator's perspective it makes since from a logical point of view. Even if he is nuts, he is probably the best philosopher since Plato. It has definitely been an eye opener for me. I am new to the forum, so hello to all, and I hope to meet some like minded people.
Marc

In very simple terms, as that is what I know for answering these questions.

Q1) MBT 'derives' QM because it explains, by describing the nature of our VR as projected ahead by probability and in a multiple fractal level format and only those levels of the fractal VR which a person can perceive are rendered and presented to them in their data stream to their IUOC which they can perceive. That is, if you are using just your senses, you perceive a light pattern from the particles passing through slits in an interference pattern resulting from probability and displays as such on the display screen. If you augment your senses by a method that lets you know through which slit the particle passes, there is no interference pattern as your observation 'collapses' the particle out of the probability field into an actualization before it passes through the interference region and gets to the display screen. The presence and difference in observation by a conscious observer and without explains what happens.

Relativity, as epitomized by the constant speed of light, is explained as the existence of a calculated Virtual Reality having a minimal time for a photon to pass from node point to adjacent node point, related to the time required to make the calculations involved. In other words, the VR cannot be simulated at a faster rate than is represented by this rendering speed. Thus the functioning of a calculated VR is demonstrated.

Q2) No. There are many physicists working towards the paradigm that reality is based upon consciousness, although they don't necessarily know this and it is not a concerted and coordinated effort. It is just what is presently happening. Each works within their own field, including mathematics, and the concept is incrementally gaining ground.

Q3) I don't remember either. It does not really do so as I understand. It was just current when Tom first wrote the book. All of these theories are based upon present understanding of the present paradigm in PMR. Individual attempts at pushing understanding further based upon present levels of knowledge.

Tom has been dropping in when he has time available and perhaps he will find time to give his more definitive answer.

Ted

Welcome to the forums mcarbone80.

Q1: Have you seen Tom's Youtube videos? Quite a few of his lectures spend quite a large time talking about how quantum mechanics and relativity are explained by MBT in laymen's terms. It goes into much greater detail than the books on this subject.

Q2: From what I understand about M theory, it is still a little picture model (stuck within PMR causality). If it turns out to be "true", remember that it is still just a theory/model of reality that may just be a subset of the larger reality. Objectivity and materialist views are also little picture models - they are approximately true within the little picture. That's the problem, being stuck in the box.

Q3: Same deal, little picture model. Where do the strings come from? etc.

_________________
Mike

Hi Ted, thanks for the response. I kind of understand what you are saying, I read your paragraph a few times and it made a little more sense each time, it's still over my head though. A few more questions while I got you then.

1. What does fractal actually mean? I hear it talked about a lot, but don't understand it.
2. In the double slit experiment, how I understand it is a photon of light sometimes behaves as a wave and sometimes as a particle, when shot through the slits. I think that Tom would say that is because it depends on the observer. So your consciousness determines how subatomic particles behave. I don't really understand the double slit but I hope i have the right idea. My question is..is it accepted as a fact in the physics community that the way that the particle behaves is dependent on the observer? In other words if you were to ask some one on the materialist side like a Stephen Hawking would he say that it depends on the observer, or would he say its just the way the dice falls and the observer has no effect?
3. Our universe is so huge. 100 billion galaxies, and our little galaxy we live in is almost to huge to comprehend. All of the consciousness takes place on earth this little blue dot that is like a grain of sand on an entire beach. Its probable that there is other life in the universe but why is this VR so big? There is just light years of space that doesn't contain any life, or any consciousness. It's hard to imagine that our consciousness would have anything to do with the cosmos. So is consciousness just human beings, animals, and basically everything with a brain. Or is the entire universe conscious? In other words would a little rock on mars be a form of consciousness? (hope that makes since)
4. The big digital bang happened about 13.7 billion years ago I think. Tom talks about time in this reality frame being measured as a delta t, which is a second divided by a 100 or something like that. So when he talks about the origin of consciousness that started as AUO before it evolved to AUM. If you were to measure when this happened by using the delta t time, when did consciousness start? When was the first VR created?
5. How does Jesus fit into My Big Toe? That's one subject I have never heard Tom discuss, probably because it's so controversial and he doesn't want to go there which is understandable. I read a lot of biblical scholarship and there can be a case that he never existed and was just a mythological figure. So many perspectives on this. I'm not a religious person at all I'm just really curious to what Tom would say about this.
Thank you so much
Marc

Hi Mike I have seen all of Tom's videos, I know he explains it. I just still can't really get a grip on it due to my limited brain capacity. I think I need to study Quantum physics, and relativity more and get a better understanding, and then Tom's explanation might make more since.

Actually not already being stuck in the limiting Belief Systems physics is still stuck in could give you an advantage. :)
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Actually not already being stuck in the limiting Belief Systems physics is still stuck in could give you an advantage. :)
Love to you and yours,
Bette

Thanks Bette, but I have no experience of any other reality other then this one. Open minded and skeptical right:)
love to u too
Marc

Marc,

1) Fractals are something that the best way to get hold of is to just do a search for on the Internet. You could also search for Mandelbrot set. A fractal is a pattern that repeats at larger and larger and larger scales and at each scale is similar in shape. Look at some of the pictures and you will see. They appear a great deal throughout reality in such things as the shores of continents and in the spacing of trees in the forest. These are natural fractal patterns and they have a great deal of irregularity. The patterns are not perfect. Then there are the perfect fractal images that you will find on the Internet in pictures. A fractal pattern originates because they represent the repetition of a very simple rule set repeated at different scales. This is a method that is used frequently in Consciousness Space so it tends to get used a lot. You will just have to dig a little to get the concept.

2) Look up the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Some physicists will say that it is outdated, but many would disagree. There are many who have tried to manipulate this interpretation. A famous quotation by a famous quantum physicist went something like 'shut up and calculate' meaning don't consider the meaning, just apply the theory to determining how physical systems will work through the mathematics that defines QM. It is yet an open question. We have had arguments about it here before but it turned out that the 'physicist' causing all the disagreement was a junior college student who was not even studying physics. This proves nothing of course. You are welcome to believe what you wish about this matter of interpreting the relationship of QM to consciousness. The materialists opinion is by no means proven.

3) There have been arguments on the board in the past about what is conscious. The defining concept is that consciousness resides within IUOCs that exist in CS. This is a VR within which the physical nature of conscious entities is simulated. That simulation is fed to an IUOC that experiences this VR. To be conscious requires in a sense a decision space. What just sits there like a rock has no decision space but it is rather portrayed according to the laws of physics in this VR. A rock has no associated IUOC nor is it therefor conscious. Plants and vegetation likewise have no decision space although they are alive but they do not decide things like 'it's bad here, inadequate food and water, so I think I will move somewhere else'. They have no linked IUOC nor are they conscious. Neither rocks nor plants have a data stream sent to them to provide what they are conscious of. At the small end, once there is a decision space for an entity, something to be decided, a choice to be made, then an IUOC of limited capacity will be associated with it to provide this choice making. Then we go up the scale to larger and more intelligent life forms like humans to whom more capable and intelligent IUOCs are associated to serve as their minds. It is all there in Tom's books.

4) Tom gives the relative rates of time in his book and I would have to spend some time to find it right now. I will try to find it and post it but you will run across it as you read. Delta t for the base CS is fantastically small and as I remember, it takes something line 10^170 (that is 10 to the 170th power and I could be wrong in my memory as to the precise number) of them to equal the length of delta t in the NPMR type VRs. Then it takes about the same 10^170 cycles in NPMR for one cycle in this VR of PMR to come up. If you think that our galaxy or universe is old and huge, think about how old and huge the whole of Consciousness Space is as it contains many, many PMR type universes as large as ours. Don't think infinite however. Think unbounded.

5) Jesus does not fit into MBT at all. There is argument even among religions as to various aspects of their founding figures. Some are more documented than others. Buddha and Mohammed as founding figures of religions are pretty well documented as to existence. Jesus happens to be less well documented and clear as to his actual life. This is not an argument into which Tom or I care to get. We have no quarrel with religion. We deal in metaphysics here, not really history or religion.

If you will read around on the BB and look at the Wiki, new and incomplete as it yet is, you will find many ways to get information and further understanding. Learn how to use the search function here on the BB. There is a link to the Wiki and some notes about its current state at the bottom of the index page. You can also search internally on the books on Amazon and links have been given frequently here. Ultimately it is much more efficient to find out this material in this way rather than have it repeated here in bits and pieces to answer questions.

Ted

Ted thank you so much for the very thorough answers. Those are things I have been wondering about ever since I ran into MBT a couple of years ago. I know it took some time to type all that out and I really appreciate it! I will have a look at the BB.
thanks again
Marc