Return Home
It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:42 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:56 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
Tom and community,
Just playing with the fundamentals in our minds can we not solve for big C? If it is all a statistical model, why is big C not just a statistical probability? C and Time (exchange information, change, evolution, you get the idea) can just happen because without any rules anything is possible and without any information of what you can get, all we get is the simplest form of being, just C with potential.
Without any other information and no rules isn’t big C all we can get? It seems like a very satisfying model, its all just probability, probability of what at what time? Nothing. That is what you get, just existence with no information that has a potential of evolving. Maybe in that sense infinity may be real but just not connected to our big C, if big C can just happen? So only big C can be infinite but not connected to our big C? everything connected to our big C is finite.
It doesn’t really matter what regression we can go back to the beginning of anything began with nothing, Big C, a potential because of no rules?
With this model, the big C Bang happened out of nothing before the “digital big bang” as Tom would say because it was possible.
I have been searching for an answer to this for a while and it seems to work and is satisfying.
Any thoughts?
P.S. Tom I would like to connect with you about this idea if you agree that this is one of the most probable situation we are in so we can try to work though the logic and see where it goes? I am not sure if I am missing anything?
Your Friend
THE ONE


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:07 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
One thing I would say that you are missing is clarity as to just what you are talking about. Be less 'cute' and more precise, please. Try using words instead of undefined terms that are not standard here. Or define your terms as for example, what do you mean by C? You can't just pull terms out of the air and expect others to understand what you are talking about. What do you mean by C? As in E = MC^2 with C as the speed of light? If you mean Consciousness, why not use the word? No, we do not get the idea. Try restating with clear terminology and full statements. Define your terms.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:59 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
very sorry,

my apologies. I guess I just though everyone would understand what I meant by C.

C = Big C = LCS; everything connected to our larger consciousness system. For clarity I guess I should just use "LCS"

perhaps I should have spent more time putting it into language you can best understand.

Thanks!


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:28 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
Let me see if I can put it another way;
Under this model the probability of there being nothing to exist “ever” is 0. We know this for sure because we exist. At the other end of things, the probability of anything complex existing out of nothing is 0. Anything other than the start of a LCS cannot exist because it has no information although no rules. The beginning of our LCS, point consciousness is the closest thing next to not existing and that’s all we can get, the beginning of anything to exist was as close to nothing as you can get and as we all know evolution does the rest.
The model gives us much of what we know for sure;
Probability of nothing = 0
Probability of something complex out of nothing = 0
Probability of next to nothing with potential, the simplest form of being = unknown/no information/all that is possible to start existing out of nothing
I will try to work it out and maybe state the whole idea better somehow.

I hope you understand this is just my idea, i am not stating it as fact, i think we can never know for sure, but this is the best i have heard about the matter and I am trying to be helpful.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:16 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
Ted,

try this explanation derived from Toms work. (Thanks TOM!) I think it will help you understand the big picture.

The Theory has only 1 assumption, that consciousness exists and it is all that can exist. Without a conscious observer or data being collected, nothing exists. Without Consciousness you have nothing.

By understanding the fundamental of our reality, consciousness, we can derive 3 equations that seem to explain it all.
Probability of Nothing = 0
Probability of Spontaneous Complex Reality from Nothing = 0
Probability of simplest Form of Existence, as close to nothing as you can get with no information but potential given no rules and lonely (wanting to love) = No Information/unknown/nothing
And that is what we get, consciousness in the dark void, as close to nothing as you can get with no information and no rules and the ability to do whatever with intent but lonely = wanting to love. Most people can easily experience the dark void (point consciousness) while sleeping in this reality but without intent cannot hold it for long.

That is why our reality can exist, and is not perfect, and will never be. It is a probable and statistical model. The ultimate goal of the system is to lower its entropy and evolve, change, grow and it can only do this by creating other individual units of conciseness that can learn from experience and act with intent. One consciousness can only do so much. The system is finite and must create new units of consciousness that can have experience to collect data and have context for new experiences. Therefore it wants us to succeed in learning and growing after many experiences and the result is a system that continuously gets better and evolves as we do. It does not gain anything from deletion or duplication, only evolving, changing what it has through experiences and the creation of new units of consciousness, the system growing exponentially as it grows. That can only happen though interaction with others who have free will. One unified System that simultaneously controls everyone would not get it anywhere in terms of love. Until we really let go of fear, ego, greed, selfishness, and other intentions not based on love we cannot progress ourselves, but the system wants us to succeed.
The theory cannot explain what may be beyond our system in other “dimensions” and we can never know. But it does not matter. We understand ourselves and what we need to do. (Tom Campbell 1945)


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:59 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
THEONE
Quote:
try this explanation derived from Toms work
The 'kicker' here is the 'derived' aspect and that you do not cite what Tom actually stated versus what you have derived from what Tom really had to say. You are not the first to attribute words to Tom that he did not actually utter. This is something which I have constantly combatted as the Administrator of this board. I hold anyone who claims to be stating what Tom originally said to be doing so accurately and completely rather than creating their own meaning by omitting part of or adding to what Tom actually had to say. There is no way to do so, to figure out what Tom actually said, with your post above. In your own words it is derivative at best and actually interpreted rather than being anything which Tom actually said.

I prefer my 'statements' of what Tom said to be actual quotations and verifiable rather than paraphrases or restatements or interpretations with unknown and uncited origins. Frequently what is claimed to be something that Tom said turns out to be 'cut' from the total of what Tom said in a way that says what the person making the statement, other than Tom, wants to say.

If you want to cite Tom, then copy his words exactly and then add your interpretation clearly identifiable as your own. That allows you to be readily checked for factuality. Has Tom provided you with his authority to make statements in his behalf? Until he does so directly to the rest of us, stop speaking ex cathedra and making statements based on your ideas attributed to Tom. Your avatar name is your choice and not an anointment or authorization to speak for Tom.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
I understand exactly what you mean, my apologizes my dear sir.

It it just that all of these words from Tom just came to me in my head and I remembered them. He has been my teacher. If i misquoted him and it is important to clarify you can forgive me. Maybe when I have some time I will go back to all of the youtube videos and cite him properly.

I attribute any credit or anything to him other that the 3 equations that came to me in my head, but then again, i am not sure where i got that information in my consciousness so maybe credit is not a big issue.

Your friend

THEONE


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:03 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Don't misunderstand me that additions and extensions to what Tom has given us as information is not welcome. It is just that what Tom has had to say must be maintained clearly delineated from what anyone adds to it and Tom accepts as an addition or extension. It is my task particularly here to maintain the integrity of what Tom has stated himself from anyone else's interpretations or extensions. It is our expectation that this material will be maintained far into the future and that it be maintained accurately and without distortion by anyone, including me.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
From my perspective there are many ways I understand it.

You can't have infinity just like we can't have an infinity regression backwards. Anything that exists must have come from nothing. I will call that the Big C bang. Because nothing is unstable. But my understanding is just that. If it helps you great! It is just my theory that doesn't really matter and understanding it should not change how you live. But if this metaphor helps you understand the big picture that's all I am trying to do, help you to see the big picture so we can all more easily evolve in this life into higher Beings then ourselves and lower the high level of entropy.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:42 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Just so long as you understand that the only material that we allow to be promulgated here is Tom Campbell's and what ever he might accept as extending that point of view. Otherwise we limit board members to bringing us new information that is of some value in furthering the understanding of what Tom Campbell teaches.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
Whatever I can do to help you Ted,

That is my understanding of infinity, that it cannot exist and that our system if finite, so therefore there is no infinite regression backwards In a chain of causes.

But again that is just my understanding I am getting when I think about it but it does not matter....


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:55 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
A lot of our communication problem is that I do not find what you say to always be clear and unambiguous. As an example:
Quote:
Because nothing is unstable.
You likely think that this is a clear statement. However there are two ways to understand your statement which are contradictory but are equally possible interpretations of what you are saying.
Because nothing is unstable.
Interpretation 1) nothing is unstable as everything is stable.
Interpretation 2) nothing (as 'nothingness') is unstable, i. e. the Void is unstable.

While I am pretty sure that you mean interpretation 2, version 1 is not ruled out of your statement as it stands.

If you are going to talk metaphysics and have yourself unambiguously understood, you must be very clear in and tighten up your statements.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:48 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
Thanks for the information Ted,

I Have not thought about it that way. I was referring to the empty void of nothing.

I guess this is all just conjecture (an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information), but it is interesting to me to think about.

If you have any more interesting information please do share.

Thanks!

D.C.V.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:29 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I have mentioned this many times so I won't go into it in any depth now. Are you aware of the historical observation starting in ancient India over 2 millennia ago of the Void, the quickened Void and then Indra's Net? This is something which I have reported experiencing myself. This was by the Indian metaphysicians and mystics which were known in India at that time. Following them, the Buddha explained how our experience of what we experienced in our lives here in PMR was Illusion which I translate as a Virtual Reality which the Buddha was able to realize millennia ago, long before modern concepts of physics or general science.

This makes a complete parallel to Tom Campbell's model of Reality, but Tom established his model from explorations of the Virtual Realities and understanding developed by way of observation and analysis that he performed as a modern physicist rather than experience as a mystic. This is in part why I ask so many who come her to the board if they have determined their personality type under the testing developed by Dr. David Keirsey and information reported in his book, Please Understand Me II. Knowing this type can provide information about yourself and your normal cognitive approach and understanding as an approach to better understanding yourself and your approach to Reality and your way of understanding it. If you were for instance an INFJ, which stands for Introverted iNtuitieve Feeling Judging in the terminology which has been developed historically and used by Dr. Keirsey. We, as I am one as an INFJ, are known as the least numerous of personality types in the populace and include a high percentage of mystics among them although they are not all mystics.

I am attempting to understand the basis upon which you are obtaining information that you are trying to provide here. This would help me to understand what you are trying to say in your posts and general approach.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:53 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 177
Location: The Realm of Men
I am searching for answers Ted,

I want to understand my subjective experiences because many of them I have not heard about before.

thank you for providing that. I will research for sure.

Thank you for your wisdom. I will be forever grateful to you.

D.C.V.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited