I just found a related book titled REALITY BEGINS WITH CONSCIOUSNESS by Vernon Neppe and Edward Close available at http://www.brainvoyage.com.

I think it would be interesting to have Neppe and Close get together with Campbell to discuss similarities/differences in their TOE. Maybe some of the people who commented below could also join in.

Here are some of the comments from the beginning of the book:

I was not overly impressed by the excerpts from 3 chapters that they provide on their web site as to either content or style. It appears from their chapter titles that they may not really go into the nature of the LCS. A lot is hidden in their acronyms as well. Did you find any more extensive excerpts?

By the way. If you will edit your post and put the whole URL from the top of their web site page when you load it between the URL function markers, the BB system will be able to pick it up properly and display it as a link.

Ted

Thanks for posting that, Dickison.

It's further very welcome evidence of a momentum that is building in the consciousness-first approach to understanding reality.

Without having read more than the excerpts on the website so far, it would not be fair to comment too much on the content, but just on the basis of the excerpts, I would tend to agree with Ted's general comments. Style does seem a little cumbersome, and although one reviewer comments on its potential to appeal to a general non-scientific reader, I wonder if it would. Again, as Ted says, the acronyms could be a little (even much!) easier. And although consciousness is given priority, it apears to be firmly within the PMR context. Having said that, although it doesn't seem to be the all-encompassing grasp that is Tom's MBT, there is so much in common here. But, again, not fair to make too much from these excerpts alone.

I do agree it would be excellent if these authors could be made familiar with MBT in some way, if they aren't already.

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

I have advised Tom of this publication and these authors and sent them a long e-mail through their system outlining Tom's work and providing links to everything. Perhaps we will hear from them and perhaps not.

Since the link to their site has not been corrected yet, here is the correct link. http://www.brainvoyage.com/

Ted

Well done Ted.

We will await events.

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

This is Dr Vernon Neppe, author of Reality Begins with Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift that Works.
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify our book—Dr Edward Close as my co-author.
It is best to respond to the comments that have been made so far:
(I will put the "initial comments in quotation marks and regular font"; my responses are in italics and in color.)
________
"…it would not be fair to comment too much on the content, but just on the basis of the excerpts, I would tend to agree with Ted's general comments. Style does seem a little cumbersome,"
You're correct that it's difficult to judge style based on the very short extracts given, applied out of context and without appropriate preceding introduction. These kinds of ideas reflect a complex area, however, and the excerpts were concentrated short sections. The style is readable certainly but the content is challenging.


"and although one reviewer comments on its potential to appeal to a general non-scientific reader, I wonder if it would."
We wrote Reality Begins with Consciousness: A metaparadigm that works, and its follow-up (due out late 2012) Space, Time and Consciousness to scientists, creative individuals and those with specific interests.
The General Reader will appreciate these books only if he/ she has a specific interest in the area. We were surprised at the feedback we received from the interested non-scientists as we did not write it for the General Reader. We are writing a separate General Reader/ Lay Person book which should be out by mid 2012.
This should be a hard copy book plus a PDF / EPub E-Reader version.


"Again, as Ted says, the acronyms could be a little (even much!) easier."
The acronyms are mainly spelt out (even in those short extracts), but thanks for the suggestion. We are adding even more onto our website extracts of chapters.


"And although consciousness is given priority, it appears to be firmly within the PMR context."
Essentially. C-matrix [a broader description of several kinds of consciousness ( C ) including neurological, psychological and broader metaconsciousness] is inseparably tethered to space (S) and time (T). This creates a triadic unit CST. Therefore, yes, the triadic CST is very much linked with the Physical Material Reality in sentient (live) beings who are experiencing much of their finite subreality in what they're perceiving and conceptualizing as the 3 dimensions of space and one moment in time (3S-1t) domain. Although 3S-1t describes Minkowski's 4 dimensional portrayal of physical reality. there has to be a further consciousness dimension in all (a 3S-1t-1C domain) at minimum. But this is the experience of humans only in the physically living context. Our book also describes the all-pervasive infinite subreality, which impinges not only on living beings but all things.

"although it doesn't seem to be the all-encompassing grasp that is Tom's MBT, there is so much in common here. But, again, not fair to make too much from these excerpts alone."
With respect, I would suggest you read the book before making such a judgement. This will demonstrate that indeed, there are several areas of commonality, but also major differences. You should find you are incorrect in assuming that the Neppe/ Close Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) model does not have an "all-encompassing grasp". It does. This statement is borne out based on comparative analyses. May I be so bold as to indicate that based on a qualitative comparison of applicable TOEs? TDVP appears to be currently the most all-encompassing TOE that has apparently ever been developed. This statement is, inter alia, based on the 39 different items used in the comparasion metric. Applying this very complex and regimented method, TDVP scores a full 39/39. We would expect that full score for a TOE that is "all-encompassing".

For comparison, we examined what the literature suggests are the 21 major paradigms involving any of consciousness, dimensionality or reality. This includes Dr Campbell's My Big TOE (MBT). Other than our earlier core models (Neppe's Vortical N-dimensionalism in a developed form was from 1989 and presented at a major conference in 1996) and Close's Transcendental Physics in an earlier published book form was from 1989, and his work started in 1985 ), no other models even score in the twenties. These models are based on qualitative criteria. When quantitation of degree is taken into account the difference is even greater: For example, the mathematics in our model scores 1 on these criteria, but involve many dozens of complex, sometimes original formulations. Moreover, our TDVP model can be expressed based on a single metaparadigm. This generates about 600 different ideas or hypotheses. These are described in our just published book Reality Begins with Consciousness: A metaparadigm that works, and in Space, Time and Consciousness. We use the term "metaparadigm" because TDVP can be applied across all major areas of scientific endeavor with supporting empirical evidence in 3S-1t in the physical, biological / life, psychological / social and consciousness/ parapsychological sciences. Additionally, it is supported by a large number of theorems, axioms and mathematical equations. But because it is metadimensional (multidimensional), with at times fluctuating transfinite dimensional elements being experienced by individuals or certain group, and involves the continuous infinite subreality interchanging with the discrete finite subreality, it can only at times be expressed in partin our common current "sentient being" domain of 3S-1t . The rest is hidden by our limitations as sentient beings so they're experienced by scientists like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in 3S-1t. Consequently, we also needed to introduce the concept of "Lower Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification" (LFAF) to Philosophy of Science as Popperian Falsifiability was insufficient.


"I do agree it would be excellent if these authors could be made familiar with MBT in some way," …
Our attention was drawn to this excellent MBT model in early 2011 after our original models had been circulated to scientists and creative thinkers. As a consequence, as with the other TOEs we listed, we included in our book Reality Begins with Consciousness a brief section on Dr Campbell's work . There are, as indicated, certainly some areas of similarity between our models. However, there are also major fundamental differences. We greatly admire Dr Campbell's contribution and we would have liked to have had his feedback but could not locate him.

For more information, please visit http://www.brainvoyage.com/ and go to the menu on the left on Reality Begins with Consciousness.
http://www.brainvoyage.com/ is also the exclusive site to purchase a downloadable copy there (EPUB/ PDF): There is currently no hard copy, but this E-book is currently discounted about 40% ($32.99 to $19.95) as part of the introductory launch. I think many of you will find this a worthwhile comparison with Dr Campbell's book.

Thank you to Ted for inviting us to discuss our model here. That is most gracious and we are doing so in the context of scientists seeking truth and trying specifically to unify the scientific with the spiritual. We feel like guests at an "away ball game". But based on the comments on this site, I trust the referees will be fair to both sides! We're all partners in this major quest of trying to understand Consciousness, Reality, and Origins (areas very much in common with both TDVP and the MBT models).

Prof. Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD, FRS(SAf), DFAPA, DSPE

Hi and welcome to Tom's MBT discussion forums. That's a lot of information thank you so much. It will take time to go through for me for sure. How does your model handle the larger Reality of the nonphysical from which all the Virtual Reality frames are derived? I noticed you speak of infinity. You have infinity in your model? In Tom's model anything real is finite. In Tom's model anything other than the nonphysical digital information system Tom called consciousness from which Everything is derived is virtual. Consciousness is real as a nonphysical digital information system and is finite. What would your model say to that in comparison because those are the only points I saw that made me want to ask you about them? Welcome again I'll go read your post again. I know I say in Tom's model a lot but that is what this place is about. :)
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Welcome Dr. Neppe and I presume also Dr. Close by proxy to Tom Campbell's Bulletin Board.

You really surprised me by hearing from you so quickly. I must admit that I know little more about your work than I knew before I received a copy of your e-book purchased by one of our board members who passed it to me rather than try to tackle it himself. Tom is unfortunately out on the lecture circuit (Atlanta, Ga.) and cannot welcome you himself. That leaves me to try to sort out some kind of understanding of your work for our board members who will no doubt be asking their own questions. My official title might be board administrator but I find that being the cat herder is more descriptive of the job.

My initial thought of a parallel or metaphor for our situation is that Leonardo DaVinci has come to call upon Christopher Columbus to exchange ideas but no one is in port but the sub captain of the Pinta while CC is out on a sea trial of the Santa Maria. That is what comes to my mind as a metaphor with my present knowledge of how to compare the two TOEs. That is, that Tom Campbell is an explorer to your analytical and anatomical studies. To continue the analogy, Tom even had a sort of mandate from royalty for his journey. Tom describes this writing of his TOE as something that was created as an assignment from within NPMR under the governance of The Big Cheese, as Tom refers to him, as the chief administrator of Our System, OS, as the collection of linked Virtual Realities of Physical Matter and Non Physical Matter types, PMRs and NPMRs, that represents our local society in the fractally organized totality of the Absolute Unbounded Manifold, or AUM, that is the First Cause of our 'Reality Begun with Consciousness' to paraphrase your book title. His mission was to return the paradigm of science to the ancient origin Consciousness once held in Buddha's teachings and Indian metaphysics as the origin of all that is. This even includes parallels of Tom's Individuated Units of Consciousness or IUOCs to the Jewels of Consciousness on Indra's Net which Tom calls the Reality Wide Web or the RWW, analogous to the WWW of the Internet. These references and parallels are more my doing with my own origin in more traditional mysticism. And as you see, we have our own cryptic terminology that we have become used to originating in Tom's proclivities as a physicist.

Management could not be satisfied with only one arrow in their quiver however and I think that many scientists have been led in the direction of recognizing the importance of Consciousness to their field. Tom seems not to have been told in advance that he would have so much company, but we have many references to such here on the board and there are many more out there as this seems to be an idea whose time has come yet again. I would particularly refer to you to Dr. Brian Whitworth who is introduced here on this thread on the board. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3947 [Added note: And I include you among this group.]

Tom's book is available in total on Google books at this link. http://books.google.com/books/about/My_ ... X-j12LwLoC This page includes chapter links at the bottom and is searchable with their search engine. It is completely available with no left out pages. I am sure Tom would accommodate you with an electronic copy for use on your own computers if he has one available to him. I do not know if Google makes this available to him or not but the link makes the book pretty available. There is an index project that I believe nears completion on the BB here. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5982&hilit=index It unfortunately does not match across the 1 volume and 3 volume versions.

In my understanding, Tom's work was not meant to be a TOE in the sense that physics has sought a TOE describing all of physics in a few equations as Einstein sought and so many others. While he has pointed out that the constancy of the speed of light from special relativity can be demonstrated in first principles from his model and that quantum mechanics would have many of its characteristics based upon fractal aspects of his model as it is provided to IUOCs as their PMR experience, he did not attempt to replace the whole of PMR physics based upon his work. Others such as Michael Newton have described the experiences of persons 'between lives' under hypnotic regression and Robert Monroe described his OOB explorations, only Tom to my knowledge has so systematically explored and came up with a model which explains so much of paranormal reality and describes the veritable path to consciousness and our purpose within it. If you do this from within your own work, you will have to explain it as I haven't gotten that far yet in understanding your work and reading within it. Tom has always said that he expected his work to be extended and even I have helped with some of that. But it is best to pass this dialog back to you at this point. You have done your analysis of points within TOEs and can tell us reasonably readily if what I have told you here gives you any reason to modify your analysis of Tom's TOE.

Thank you again for coming here. Tom will participate as soon as he can. We all welcome you here and await a developing understanding as a result. Perhaps our members can be of help in your developing your concept of your planned layman's book. It would take you quite some time and effort to develop an equivalent group on your own site. We specialize in questions. It's the answers that are hard to come up with at times. And the charge is all the same, for free. Ask me for anything that I may have forgotten or concepts that need expanding.

Ted

Hallo Dr Neppe, and many thanks for your post here!

You are quite right, (and as I suspected) that the short extracts on your website cannot give more than a hint of the full content or style of the whole work. The real proof of the pudding is in the eating, of course, and I have indeed purchased a copy of the book since my first post about it, and, as I posted in another thread (a shame there was a diversion away from this one), it is a very comprehensive work which deserves very careful reading over time, which is a process I am currently engaged in. Let me say thank you to you and your co-author Dr Close for writing it! As I have been reading, so I have seen that many of my initial assumptions were slightly off the mark, and that the parallels between your work and MBT are very close, often simply requiring the reader familiar with MBT to recalibrate their mental conceptions/terminology to the ones in your work. This is something I have found myself constantly doing, as I read and re-read the various sections. That this is fairly easily done is added proof of the fundamental truths inherent in both approaches, which are coming from slightly different viewpoints, and with slightly different objectives in mind. This gives the reader of both approaches an advantage, as the complementary nature of each is apparent.

Just as when I first read MBT, I am having to go slowly with your book, and absorb the content thoroughly - skim-reading of either is not advisable! So, any questions after completing a careful read, will hopefully be the better-informed for all that.

I had heard about your planned account for laypersons, and will greatly look forward to seeing that also, in due course.

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

Thank you Ted for your welcoming comments, and also Bette for your appreciation, and now Arthur.

Dr Ed Close is currently unavailable so I express my opinions here. Dr Close has asked me to convey the following, however:
Just reading through the questions and answers quickly, I see a number of places where I would like to comment in terms of dimensionometry, dimensional extrapolation, asymmetry, and the calculus of distinctions, but have no time. Maybe later. Please convey my dilemma.

I’m writing thoughts here, that incidentally, as per your suggestion, Ted, may be used in our later books. I would respect that this material is copyrighted in that regard—that others should not use it for their own published material outside this forum, without express written permission from Dr Close or myself. I’m giving you all parts of myself by doing so, in our quest for science.

Thanks too Ted for the links to Tom’s book and for the links to Tom Campbell and Dr Brian Whitworth.
I summarize what is linked here:
Tom Campbell: http://books.google.com/books/about/My_. .. X-j12LwLoC with chapter links at the bottom and search potential and partial index:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5982&hilit=index

Brian Whitworth information:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3947
and http://brianwhitworth.com/papers.html and
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/806
"The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" PDF:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf and http://brianwhitworth.com/papers.html
New Scientist Blog discussion: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/techno. .. hesis.html)
Chapter 2. "Simulating Space and Time": http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf
Chapter III. "The Light of Existence": http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf
"Simulating Space and Time" by Brian Whitworth, Prespacetime Journal| March 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 2 | Page 218-243
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5023&hilit=Whitworth
Tom Campbell’s Virtual Reality comments on this plus others and its calculation. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6395
______

Preliminary appreciation:
Our book is a unit. It was revised literally hundreds of times and there are already those re-reading it so as to obtain a perspective. So far, at least two individuals are writing books based on our Reality Begins with Consciousness (RBC) or our Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP).
Therefore, these comments may have limited intelligibility without investing that time and effort.
It is also multidisciplinary across all the sciences and mathematics so that, in a way, it is a multidisciplinary course at University level. First course entree is undergraduate possibly: Reality Begins with Consciousness (RBC). Second course dessert is our forthcoming book, which follows RBC namely Space, Time and Consciousness (STC).
My comments should be perceived in this context. The mathematical theorems and proofs, are solidly based and justified and involve numerous different approaches. Similarly, our empirical data is based on the 3S-1t jigsaw puzzle of higher dimensions being expressed incompletely but still feasible and not falsified. This is not just physics, but the life sciences, the consciousness sciences and the psychological sciences. This is one reason why we’re excited because we believe TDVP to indeed be a paradigm shift.

Bette:
How does your model handle the larger Reality of the nonphysical from which all the Virtual Reality frames are derived?
The TDVP model does not use the concept of Virtual Reality at all. No reality is virtual. Everything in reality is real.
However, individuals and other units experience reality subjectively, although at times this may correlate very closely (e.g. 99%) with the reality experienced by other living humans at the equivalent moment (e.g. millions watching live TV programs). But in TDVP, subjectivity is not the same as “virtual”.

Please refer to our book for:
1. the application of the systems model e.g. the ethicospirituobiopsychofamiliosociocultural approach, and our complex idea of “indivension” (individual units and dimensions) with fluctuating dimensional expressions dependent on the level of consciousness.
2. the differences between perceptual, conceptual and experiential realities. This incidentally fits into the “calculus of distinctions”.

It may be that similar ideas are being verbalized, however, in a different conceptual framework.

In Tom's model anything real is finite. In Tom's model anything other than the nonphysical digital information system Tom called consciousness from which Everything is derived is virtual
Consciousness is… finite.

We do not use terms like “non-physical” though non-physical is descriptive. In our notation, we don’t need to use non-physical because we refer to a broader consciousness (C-matrix), space and time (so CST) are inextricably and inseparably linked in part. They are tethered together. But like balloons on zillions of strings they can be separated in other parts, but this means that they are meaningfully linked through that tethering.
This may have relevance in areas such as psi phenomena and also entanglement, for example.

When there does not appear to be a physical element, there may be a loosening such that consciousness appears alone like a balloon from the tethered hand. But space and time are impacted in our conventional 3S-1t domain. It is relatively non-physical in domains where S=0 and T=0 reflecting ostensibly pure finite or transfinite consciousness dimensions.

I noticed you speak of infinity. You have infinity in your model?
Yes. Reality is a unit. In fact, our philosophical perspective is “Unified Monism”.
There are two fundamental and intertwined, inseparable components to reality, namely, Finite Subreality and Infinite Subreality.

We living sentient beings experience most often just a tiny component, namely what is in 3S-1t (our usual worldly domain of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 point in time). But this is incomplete: Consciousness always play as a role: With 3S-1t, there is always C-matrix. So actually it is 3S-1t-1C. More specifically, it is 3S-1t-NC * because there can be numerous ways broader metaconsciousness is experienced: We can transcend to higher dimensions of the “finite”. So we sometimes may experience transfinite, but discrete “metaconsciousness”. Metaconsciousness is the term applied to all-encompassing consciousness that derives from the infinite and expresses itself in discrete fragments of finite consciousness. Metaconsciousness involves meaningful all-encompassing information.
* NC signifies any number of C-matrix dimensions: This will vary with every individual-unit dependent on the level of transcendence of consciousness, if any, that they have attained: And it varies both as a more consistent trait over time, or as a specific momentary state (e.g. dreams or meditation may allow attaining of a special heightened level of consciousness dimensions).

However, the infinite and the finite subrealities are so inextricably intertwined, that even though we don’t know it, we’re impacting both subrealities. But that depends on the ability of sentient beings to open to those greater bidirectional realities. Infinite interfaces with the finite: We impact the continuous infinite. The infinite impacts us in the discrete finite. We have a “track” of our special reality that we’re experiencing.

The mathematics is such that STC (space, time, and consciousness) always exists in all dimensions. However, in dimensions, particularly at the transfinite level, S and T both may equal zero. Therefore the expression is pure metaconsciousness (one component of our broader consciousness--- others are neurological consciousness in living sentient beings and psychological consciousness which pervades experience and may have components within and outside the brain.) Metaconsciousness implies meaningful broader information from the infinite.

The mathematics is such that STC always exists in all dimensions. However, in dimensions particularly at the transfinite level, S and T both may equal zero. Therefore the expression is pure metaconsciousness (one component of our broader consciousness--- others are neurological consciousness in living sentient beings and psychological consciousness which pervades experience and may have components within and outside the brain.) Metaconsciousness implies meaningful broader information from the infinite.

Because we in our physical domains of 3S-1t-1C (or more C) experience our own little jigsaw puzzle of broader reality, does not mean that this would be the same in different domains. For example, one fundamental element is three dimensional space, with three dimensions of time and three of “consciousness” (3S-3T-3C). Our conceptual experience would be very different in that context. And if there were survival after bodily death (and there is cogent evidence for that) or subjective out-of-body experiences (OBEs), we may be experiencing different domains. In the infinite context, this could be NS-NT-NC but the so-called “discarnate” entity may be experiencing still some finite dimensional component subrealities such as 0S-0T-nC (a specific series of transfinite consciousness dimensions).
The same could apply to the OBE. If time is experienced then we may be also experiencing some kind of multidimensional time like 2T or 3T. And dream states may also show some combinations. Essentially, we are limited by “physical reduction valves” in 3S-1t and in all these other states, our limitations are state dependent.



Ted:
… that Leonardo Da Vinci has come to call upon Christopher Columbus to exchange ideas
Thank you for that compliment in the metaphor for our situation to exchange ideas. That is great company to be expected to keep! However, certainly we are exploring paradigms and ideas that are pioneering.

fractally organized totality
RBC does not emphasize fractals or holograms but does not exclude them either. In TDVP, indeed even in the tiniest subquantal infinitesimals, the CST exists. That extends to the greatest astrophysical existence. In that way, yes, there are holograms but we show mathematically fundamental differentiation and asymmetry. To be more correct in our terminology, we do not refer to discrete “quanta” in TDVP, but we postulate discrete “quality” because the “quality” also involves packets of “consciousness” – consist, as well as quits (space) and chon its (time) elements.]

Instead of describing our derivations as fractals, it would be better to characterize them as zillions of vortices (simply curved movement, not in its narrow sense; all of nature is curved—there is no such thing as a right angle in nature). This process-wise interfaces across finite dimensions by “vortical indivension”.

that is the First Cause of our 'Reality Begun with Consciousness' to paraphrase your book title.
Yes. Both models emphasize Reality, both emphasize origins (our term is “Primary Receptor”, which some interpret as divinity without any of the trimmings) and the infinite elements allow for no contradictions prior to the event equivalent of the big bang or another postulated “finite” origin of the cosmos.

His mission was to return the paradigm of science to the ancient origin Consciousness once held in Buddha's teachings and Indian metaphysics as the origin of all that is.
An excellent mission. We did not start in that direction with TDVP (Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm). We developed our model and then discovered that Kaballic Mysticism contained much of what we were postulating. We also realized that many of the ancient teachings similarly contained this. Now in these instances, it was esoteric and ambiguous but it was there.
Initially, I thought, “Wow! We’ve spent a combined half-century and now we discover there is nothing new under the sun!”. Well, obviously so. If you have a metaparadigm (“an all-embracing single broader axiom explaining all of reality) it better be embedded in ancient wisdom! And if it is not, it is likely incorrect! So this is a big plus.

What needs then to be done by a theorist is the science behind it. This means developing testable hypotheses, finding empirical supporting data, and applying Philosophy of Science to this. And then the next stage is the mathematics. This involves demonstrable proof.

We believe that TDVP fills these voids. This is why it scores 39/39 on the 39 different items for analysis. This allows for a unified metaparadigm.

many scientists have been led in the direction of recognizing the importance of Consciousness to their field.
This is certainly possible and I agree it may be so. The time is ripe for these kinds of ideas.
I like the term “consciousness research” and in fact, we have initiated the discipline of “dimensional biopsychophysics”. I am not particularly fond of “parapsychology” because scientists have misinterpreted it, though it may turn out to be the most important of the sciences because of its far-reaching implications.
It does seem that open-minded skepticism is good. Closed “denier” skeptics are not. We see both.

Tom's work was not meant to be a TOE describing all of physics in a few equations as Einstein sought and so many others. While he has pointed out that the constancy of the speed of light from special relativity can be demonstrated in first principles from his model and that quantum mechanics would have many of its characteristics based upon fractal aspects of his model as it is provided to IUOCs as their PMR experience, he did not attempt to replace the whole of PMR physics based upon his work.
Indeed, you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. We dedicate our book to Einstein and Planck as physicists and Gödel and Cantor as mathematicians. Their contributions were amazing. We’ve tried to build on them in TDVP.

persons 'between lives' under hypnotic regression and Robert Monroe described his OOB explorations, only Tom to my knowledge has so systematically explored and came up with a model which explains so much of paranormal reality and describes the veritable path to consciousness and our purpose within it.
In our book we discuss the 9 different areas of psi research that reach on meta-analysis or otherwise six sigma levels --- one billion against chance statistically. Additionally, personal experiences (I coined the term “subjective paranormal experience” in 1980) are so relevant and is to me a legitimate scientific approach, although many will argue against that approach.

We specialize in questions. It's the answers that are hard to come up with at times.
True.

Perhaps our members can be of help in your developing your concept of your planned layman's book.
Indeed, this is my hope. So please let the questions fly!

But please bear in mind that I’m discussing in this forum, a very intense condensation of ideas. It is simply a tiny fraction of nearly a quarter million words (full-length 400 pages of 11*8.5 inch typography) in the book, RBC, combined with STC being another several hundred pages. Add to this journal articles, either published or in press, and you will appreciate that this portrayal is just the butter on a tiny loaf in a whole delectable bakery. And this bakery has been visited by more than 200 scientists and creative individuals from more than 20 countries and many different specialties. And additionally, I’m introducing a very dense amount of new ideas, so the object here is just to portray a perspective, not to teach everything—ultimately, there are some six hundred such ideas.

It would take you quite some time and effort to develop an equivalent group on your own site.
Yes, that is true. This is an outstanding site and I commend the webmaster. We may extract some of my answers to answer questions that come up on our site.
There are two of relevance:
Please examine the ever-growing left menu for Reality Begins with Consciousness on http://www.brainvoyage.com where you can also order the book at that introductory 40% off.
Brainvoyage.com site appears to be in the same computer web language as this site, http://www.my-big-toe.com, namely PHP. Once again, that menu on our book is very valuable (as incidentally are the other books too) but you will really only get a perspective on this area once you read the book.

And also we are building a site called RealityBegins.com. This is at its early stage. It is in a web language called Drupal (which derives from PHP) which enables changes to be rapidly made by those who don’t know computer web languages.
If you want, you could visit also two other relevant sites relating to my work.
http://www.pni.org is the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute and has a major section on my consciousness research (e.g. see http://www.pni.org/research/anomalous/)
http://www.5eca.com may be interesting for creative, intelligent individuals to peruse.


Arthur
The short extracts on your website cannot give more than a hint of the full content or style of the whole work.
Correct, they are just the appetizers!

it is a very comprehensive work
Thank you.
which deserves very careful reading over time, which is a process I am currently engaged in
Excellent. One object is education through fascination. Consolidation of ideas takes time.

.… the parallels between your work and MBT are very close, often simply requiring the reader familiar with MBT to recalibrate their mental conceptions/terminology to the ones in your work.
Yes. There are some similarities and some major differences. We usually analyze information in the context of one’s current knowledge and then use that as a jumping point… a very legitimate approach.
But also there are apparent differences. Sometimes, the same phenomenon is interpreted differently.

…added proof of the fundamental truths inherent in both approaches, which are coming from slightly different viewpoints, and with slightly different objectives in mind.
A very important point. Three elements are relevant: inherent truth impressions, common-sense and being able to apply the data are excellent ways to approach new information.

This gives the reader of both approaches an advantage, as the complementary nature of each is apparent.
Always—and it allows priorities.

Just as when I first read MBT, I am having to go slowly with your book, and absorb the content thoroughly - skim-reading of either is not advisable! So, any questions after completing a careful read, will hopefully be the better-informed for all that.
Good. That is a legitimate approach and should serve you well.

I had heard about your planned account for laypersons, and will greatly look forward to seeing that also, in due course.
I’m looking forward to it, too! And the questions and comments in this forum contribute to what we may include.

Vernon M Neppe.

Hi Dr. Neppe,

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the book here. Could you provide a brief summary on what the fundamental assumptions are in your theory? I see your book has "The Key Axioms" in Chapter 16 which (I'm guessing) goes into detail about your assumptions.

Thanks.

_________________
Mike

Yes great request Mike. I was thinking I need to read the book to get the metaphors but getting the basic assumptions would be very useful too. I still need to read the book of course.

And thank you as well Vernon if I may. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Thank you, Dr. Neppe, for posting your six originating statements for your TOE as published in your book Reality Begins with Consciousness. Let me try to translate between terminologies and models from your RBC and Tom's MBT. I wish that Tom were here and doing this himself. For the moment until he makes any corrections he sees fit, you are stuck with the input from the sub captain of the Pinta. This has taken some time and some doing so there will be a substantial lapse of time between the posting of your six statements and this attempt at a comparison and translation of terminology. The first basic and over all difference is that Tom takes the Consciousness System as the base reference point while you take our experience here and now as the base viewpoint. This means that references as in sub realities and meta realities are reversed. I have tried to point these all out along the way. My initial metaphor for Leonardo DaVinci coming to meet and compare notes with Christopher Columbus also reflected this as I saw it. DaVinci did not only analysis but also some of the, if not the, first recorded anatomical studies, seeking to know how this reality as the here and now and humans as the point of it all works from the inside. Tom as Columbus however explored in the non physical Consciousness non physical reality and reported upon how he saw, a map of the territory, as to how it might work from that direction and how Consciousness might generate physicality (quite well) while physicality has come up with no real description of how consciousness arises from simple physicality. Proceeding on, statement by statement.


"Reality involves a unified wholeness of the continuous infinite subreality" would seem to translate to what Tom calls the Larger Consciousness System which is Everything as One Unified Whole. It is in essence, and can be viewed in terms of pure PMR based mathematics, as a Cellular Automaton. With a translation of your reference to "infinite subreality" to "unbounded underlying reality", we have a match. Tom's terminology is based upon this LCS having an edge, unknown to us, beyond which it does not presently exist but this is not a boundary to extension at need for expansion. Thus unbounded, but not truly infinite. It is taken that the LCS is real and nothing real can truly be infinite so the LCS is finite but unbounded. This is Tom's AUM as it now exists. Your "bidirectionally pervading the discrete finite subreality experience" would seem to be simply saying that the/any finite subreality (any meta reality known to Tom as a Virtual Reality) within which we perceive ourselves to exist is part of this underlying reality. Tom basically takes his reference point for AUM and Consciousness as the Source and reference viewpoint while you take PMR/(our experience here) as the reference point so the basis for Reality and sub reality is reversed and thus the terms are reversed.


"The continuous, infinite subreality reflects all of time and space in totality simultaneously (and therefore, on a finite level appears “nonlocal”)" or AUM in Tom's terminology represents all of that as you state. This described from our point of view here would be a vast plane of a two dimensional Cellular Automaton upon which the information that represents all that exists is spread out as digital data. This 'vast plane' represents one state of the CA and thus represents your simultaneity of existence.

AUM in our terms translates to your terms as you continue: "and exists as a subreality essence (a metareality) involving a pervasive consciousness (information expressed through meaning as metaconsciousness) and multidimensional order (extropy) with potential life —“polife”. Again, the reference point is reversed and we refer to the sub realities as being within AUM and meta realities and not AUM as being the subreality. Again another difference is that we consider AUM to arise from a meta reality within the LCS as a CA as a whole as opposed to being a VR. This is the basis upon which AUM becomes AUO as a preliminary stage on the way to becoming AUM. AUM (as it was AUO) then is in a position to consciously, deliberately, create more meta realities as VRs which as you say "then manifests as physical life in our current experiential specific finite domain (3 dimensions of space and one moment in time: "3S-1t") when linked with the correct current physiology."


Here I will break off creating a more or less direct translation of terminology. It does not fit well that way. What you are describing in RBC terminology is AUM as the fractal reality within which vastly many VRs of both PMR and NPMR types exist. Many of each type exist within each fractal element into which AUM can be viewed as being divided. Each VR is "tethered" in your terminology to the underlying reality of the LCS which is a CA in effect. This 'tether' is the communication and processing hub which Tom generically described as The Big Computer. We of course do not know whether there is one effectively or many as they will all in fact be interconnected as part of the LCS as the underlying CA. There is no way to observe the underlying reality of the CA. It can only be known by what it can obviously do. Looking at CAs described in the literature, I selected one as a demonstration reference for visualization (referenced in our Wiki) because it could provide the advancing state plane of a simultaneous existence and the 3rd dimension represents the advance of state planes, i.e. time at its most fundamental. That reference is given on the appropriate page of the Model on our Wiki and exhibits as described in the abstract of the paper: " A novel two-state, Reversible Cellular Automata (RCA) is described. This three dimensional RCA is shown to be capable of universal computation. Additionally, evidence is offered that this RCA is capable of universal construction.” That it is binary digital, reversible, three dimensional (two dimensions in the plane map 3 physical dimensions for PMR type VRs or two dimensions in the plane map no dimensions of an NPMR type VR plus much more, 3rd CA dimension maps time as state changes of the CA), and capable of universal computation and construction are obvious necessities to represent the capabilities of AUM or your "subreality essence involving a pervasive consciousness".

As you go on to say: "This allows a merging of zillions of individual-unit realities and yet retains a profound potential communication with the tethered CST components. Individual-units may reflect individual humans or any other individual sentient beings." We would state this as "zillions" of IUOCs representing individual humans or other sentient beings "tethered" to the underlying LCS reality thru an instantiation of TBC which provides their experience of each VR with which each IUOC is associated. We would say that the norm is for each 'human' IUOC to be continuously associated with one NPMR type VR which is what from 'here' is thought of as the afterlife but is instead as stated, continuous. Continuing the norm, each IUOC is periodically and simultaneously with their NPMR experience, a participant in one PMR type VR (i.e., here).

I have the feeling that while we refer to IUOCs as our true self as a digital non physical mind residing within the LCS, you refer to Individual-units as their appearance here within the PMR VR since you conclude this item as: "Importantly, individual units can also reflect groups, or families, or societies or cultures or ethnic groups or any other living population. They may also reflect any inanimate (not living) components of the finite S, T or C substrates." Your "individual units reflecting groups, families or societies or cultures or ethnic groups or any other living population" would have to refer only to representation within the VR in terms of visual or other senses. And finally, what you say next as: "They may also reflect any inanimate (not living) components of the finite S, T or C substrates." puts you as including what we would just call scenery as well. This is again a matter of your taking the here and now as your base reference while Tom takes Consciousness as the base reference. This puts everything here to us, per Tom, as virtual and a representation or simulation, including our brains, while our real minds reside within the LCS as our digital IUOCs. That is where we would place all consciousness with the here and now as representation of our experience only, what appears to us within our consciousness as what is here and happens within our VR experience.


"Our experience of the commonly interpreted physical domain (3S-1t) is profoundly limited by subjective perception, conception and common experience." No need for any translation here. We fully consider all conscious perceptions as subjective with no true objective reality. The only objective reality as deterministic is the CA that represents the LCS model as there everything is deterministic. The CA performs highly reliably and the state plane of 'now' is deterministically translatable into the future and followed back into the past. Consciousness arises within meta realities where free will permits it to so arise.

"In humans, the endpoint expression of such a finite-infinite interface is the brain, and the brain can filter, integrate or manifest meaning through neurological consciousness (N-consciousness). N-consciousness (N-C) can be clear, or in various states of altered or impaired consciousness."

Again here we have a reversal of base reference point. We would consider the manifestation of our brains here within PMR as a representation of the results of our consciousness as located within our digital IUOCs as they reside in the LCS. Regarding altered or impaired consciousness, we would consider altered consciousness as the result of 1) connecting to a different data stream than our PMR experience such as an NPMR data stream. The other possibility is 2) an alteration of consciousness as a result of the rule set defining our PMR experience such as taking a drug as a medication or as entertainment or as a result of trauma within the PMR experience. Impaired consciousness would come under category 2.

"There is a technicality here, implying that because of the “consciousness” element, at minimum, any sentient being is dealing with 3S-1t-1C because there is a dimension of conscious meaning that is fundamentally linked with S and T. And if we describe 1C, then it is technically more consistent to describe N-C as there is no restriction in our experience to 1 dimension of consciousness and therefore, it is 3S-1t-NC even in our regular human experience. This Neurological Consciousness expressed through the brain becomes the final common pathway for Psychological Consciousness as well as the broader metaconsciousness (which may include qualities like love, honor, courage or even negatives such as hatred)."

All of which in our viewpoint translates to the fact that our present consciousness is anchored here within our PMR VR experience and the PMR rule set. This means that even if we perceive another data stream such as from an NPMR experience, it will be of necessity filtered through our PMR perceptions and the PMR rule set and thus subjectively altered based upon this filtration. Thus when we perceive NPMR experience which is non physical with no body, no bodily senses and no places as being non physical, we will subjectively perceive all such non existent characteristics of NPMR as in fact being there, based upon our PMR experience and the PMR rule set.


With the exception of the last sentence of this statement, I would take this as a continuation or restatement of the basic message of statement iv. We are here in our PMR VR experience limited in how we can perceive of reality outside of this PMR VR experience. Such perception will always be subjective. Your reference to a 'top-down approach' would appear to be a reference to the mystical tradition with its relatively consistent record of perceiving the Void, the Void as the 'quickened' Plenum, Indra's Net with its infinite number of jewels of consciousness reflecting each other in their facets. All of these ancient concepts have counterparts in Tom Campbell's model. I cannot translate your last sentence in this 5th statement as they would require further reading in RBC to know your meanings of these terms. Everything else that I have said here is on the basis of normal meanings of the words used within your statements.

Tom has commented in the past that his project here in this PMR VR experience packet was indeed a project. That understanding at the level as represented in his TOE is not common knowledge within the rest of the LCS. That it may be in fact known elsewhere and presumably must be known at sufficiently high levels of 'management'. It was up to him to explore and create the best model that he could to fulfill the requirement to attempt to create a new paradigm for science as a return, with major enhancements, to the ancient paradigm of Consciousness as the source of everything. Contact with the basic information is available to anyone as it has been for millenia on the mystics path. But that information will be filtered through the society and times within which it is perceived and will thus be subjective as always. We are now, with the development of science through quantum mechanics and digital technology and information theory, in a position to take the development of this material further as Tom has done.


As you represent Unified Monism as a new term, not described further here, there is nothing really to say except that also from Tom Campbell's view and model, we do in fact exist within One Unified Whole as the One Consciousness. We are all just 'pieces' created within that One Whole Thing.

This has been an interesting exercise. I hope that you find some value in it as well.

Ted

Thank you Ted for your comments.
It’s very difficult to effectively translate languages and this applies to theoretical models.
Moreover, the abbreviations and concepts on both sides are complex and create a language that doesn’t allow one to do justice to either model. I truly would appreciate that everyone (including you and me) make sure that these are covered. I spent some time looking for TBC assuming it is the big computer: similarly, I guessed at CA.
Please remember that six statements in isolation do not make the model. This is why I added a little ancillary data which was not addressed. But even then this is very scanty, even when reading what we’ve already written on this site, and then adding by going through the numerous extra sections, ever growing on http://www.brainvoyage.com.
The only way TDVP will be properly understood is reading the book, Reality Begins with Consciousness, and some scientists are now reading it several times.

This is such an important discussion, is there a way it can be “aliased” for easier access? Even I cannot easily locate it on the MBT site. For example, can it be relocated to another forum or aliased there. I fear there are not many on this site who can access this easily.

You’ve made a valiant attempt to show similarities between the models. With respect, I see them as very different but not the same differences as you point out. There are similarities too but other than the broad similarity of topic, these are superficial.

As you say, Here I will break off creating a more or less direct translation of terminology. It does not fit well that way.
You’re correct. It’s like fitting in a square peg into a round hole. It does not mean the one is better or worse. The tests there are what can be universally applied and I can provide some questions there. But they are very different.

Let me re-go through some of your comments:

Tom takes the Consciousness System as the base reference point while you take our experience here and now as the base viewpoint.
Not true in TDVP. I point out that there is a bottoms up and top down approach. The here and now may be relevant for individuals in our current 3S-1t and is largely bottoms-up because this reflects the empirical scientific approach. But it’s not even fundamental in our model.

Fundamental in finite discrete subreality, is tethering of CST. This has profound implications when theoretically dimensionally separated but there is no single reference point in TDVP. It is in the eyes of the observer. When referring to physical reality in our experience one uses 3S-1t as the primary domain in sentient beings. Any domain-reality would then be primarily dependent on orientation e.g. 3S-3T-NC but it could just as easily be the infinite subreality (and theologians could perceive as this as the “observer” position of a higher power).

Subreality is simply a convenience to emphasize the real is inseparable between the infinite and finite. There is no virtual reality in TDVP. Everything is real. There is an objective reality which is the whole. This objective reality exists independent of humans or living beings. It has space, time and consciousness, though depending on orientation domains, S and T can easily equal zero and mass-energy may not be relevant.

It’s just that humans, for example, experience that objective reality through their subjectivity. The commonality can be very close: Fifty million watch the same events on TV in the Superbowl. That is an objective reality. However, it’s only different perceptually, conceptually and ultimately interpretatively in our experience. But the objective score remains and the subjective differences may be close across the same society or culture (and these are “individual units”.

The Da Vinci element metaphor you used in TDVP relates purely to humans in 3S-1t. However, even then in 3S-1t, our model moves from the subquantal to the astrophysical, in both animate and inanimate form and always including a “consciousness”.

Our whole model, indeed, also includes The Columbus as this explores the whole terrain of discrete finite and continuous infinite subrealities.
In your Columbus metaphor in MBT, you include the Larger Consciousness System. But TDVP seems to me to be even more than the LCS – it includes not only all of Consciousness, but all of Space and Time in the real infinite and with it exists all of Order, and eternal Life (a potential for physical life) and these are reflected in the Infinite essence. All of these are relevant therefore not only metaconsciousness.

If and only if " "unbounded underlying reality" (UUR) in MBT includes specifically
a. Multidimensionality not just virtual reality
b. The transfinite
c. infinite subreality including those 5 elements
d. Real reality not virtual.
then it corresponds with TDVP.
But I cannot see reference to a, b, all of c and this being real in d. in MBT. So UUR appears to be different.

MBT: “Absolute Unbounded Manifold ( AUM) has ostensible similarities.
The simultaneity from origin or “begins” in the RBC title is certainly similar.
But TDVP reflects an infinite origin which therefore was, is, and will be in linear time, and also includes multidimensional time. and the broader “metainformation” becomes meaningfully relevant in “metaconsciousness”.
MBT : “… a vast plane of a two dimensional Cellular Automaton upon which the information that represents all that exists is spread out as digital data. This 'vast plane' represents one state of the CA and thus represents your simultaneity of existence.”
TDVP infinite subreality is vast. But it involves multidimensionality, never 2D plane although “dimensional extrapolation” can be represented by dimensionometry in 2D representations, theoretically.


“Each VR is "tethered" in your terminology to the underlying reality of the LCS which is a CA in effect. This 'tether' is the communication and processing hub which Tom generically described as The Big Computer. We of course do not know whether there is one effectively or many as they will all in fact be interconnected as part of the LCS as the underlying CA. There is no way to observe the underlying reality of the CA. It can only be known by what it can obviously do.”

This may be a parallel implying that the “cellular automata” (is that CA?) reflect virtual metadimensional realities.
But the reality in TDVP is real always, and a unit, just not all expressed.
Tethering provides a communication mechanism allowing for psi or entanglement. So conceptually I think this is different. The mechanism across, between and within metadimensions reflects zillions of interfacing “vortical indivensions”.


“individual humans or other sentient beings "tethered" to the underlying LCS reality thru an instantiation of TBC which provides their experience of each VR with which each IUOC is associated.”

There may have some similarities to “vortical indivension” but this is real not virtual or effectively equivalent to a computer: I suspect it is more complex because of the metadimensionality, metaconsicousness, and STC.

Also, the TDVP model is not purely individual but involves multisystems reality. E.g. The ethnic, social, cultural and religious all blend, and the orientation may therefore not be individual but that is why we use “individual-units”.
TDVP is necessarily multidimensional.


“Your "individual units reflecting groups, families or societies or cultures or ethnic groups or any other living population" would have to refer only to representation within the VR in terms of visual or other senses. And finally, what you say next as: "They may also reflect any inanimate (not living) components of the finite S, T or C substrates." puts you as including what we would just call scenery as well.”

This is again a matter of your taking the here and now as your base reference while Tom takes Consciousness as the base reference. This puts everything here to us, per Tom, as virtual and a representation or simulation, including our brains, while our real minds reside within the LCS as our digital IUOCs. That is where we would place all consciousness with the here and now as representation of our experience only, what appears to us within our consciousness as what is here and happens within our VR experience.
This may be paralleled but I see it as a major difference. Again, this is not a virtual reality in any sense. Again it is Real Reality but relative to the subjective experience of the observer effectively. This is never a virtual reality, but based on the reference source of the “individual-unit”. Objective reality exists. Except we cannot fully conceive of it.


We fully consider all conscious perceptions as subjective with no true objective reality. The only objective reality as deterministic is the CA that represents the LCS model as there everything is deterministic. The CA performs highly reliably and the state plane of 'now' is deterministically translatable into the future and followed back into the past. Consciousness arises within meta realities where free will permits it to so arise.

In TDVP we talk of “common reality”. This effectively approximates to the “objective reality” but everyone’s common reality is still subjective but at the sociocultural level this may be very close to objective. But objective empirical data exists. If not we would have to utilize pantheism or panentheism. This is a very fundamental difference.

A novel two-state, Reversible Cellular Automata (RCA) is described. This three dimensional RCA is shown to be capable of universal computation. Additionally, evidence is offered that this RCA is capable of universal construction.” That it is binary digital, reversible, three dimensional (two dimensions in the plane map 3 physical dimensions for PMR type VRs or two dimensions in the plane map no dimensions of an NPMR type VR plus much more, 3rd CA dimension maps time as state changes of the CA), and capable of universal computation and construction are obvious necessities to represent the capabilities of AUM or your "subreality essence involving a pervasive consciousness".
This is an excellent example of how we can certainly fit the square peg and the round hole but they are different. But it reflects too the similarities.

Again here we have a reversal of base reference point. We would consider the manifestation of our brains here within PMR as a representation of the results of our consciousness as located within our digital IUOCs as they reside in the LCS. Regarding altered or impaired consciousness, we would consider altered consciousness as the result of 1) connecting to a different data stream than our PMR experience such as an NPMR data stream. The other possibility is 2) an alteration of consciousness as a result of the rule set defining our PMR experience such as taking a drug as a medication or as entertainment or as a result of trauma within the PMR experience. Impaired consciousness would come under category 2.
Again the orientation in TDVP could in living sentient beings refer to one base reference point in brain, but this is not all.
Most important is the conceptualization of TDVP consciousness: There is a brain and that manifests consciousness (neurological; plus psychodynamic psychology; plus metaconsciousness which is the continuous metaconsciousness stream into the limited brain.)


vi. The philosophical portrayal of TDVP is best described by a new term, “Unified Monism”.

As you represent Unified Monism as a new term, not described further here, there is nothing really to say except that also from Tom Campbell's view and model, we do in fact exist within One Unified Whole as the One Consciousness. We are all just 'pieces' created within that One Whole Thing.
I think that MBT may be best represented by something close to Berkleyian Idealism or (as indicated) pantheism or panentheism. Would that be correct?

There is a section on this in our book.
The monism represents the unit of multidimensionality in the finite and the continuous infinite.
But it is not purely consciousness as a fundamental component. CST is fundamental.

Overall, these are very different models.
Please look at the title of our metaparadigm. Every word is important and I don’t think are paralleled in MBT. I have indicated everyone of these. We also have these defined in a key glossary in our book that will be on our http://www.brainvoyage.com site under the left margin of Reality Begins with Consciousness (concepts).

Triadic
Dimensional
Distinction
Vortical
Paradigm

Please look at these as fundamental – they reflect the title of the metaparadigm!

Best,
Dr Vernon Neppe.