- Power Poster
- Posts: 6578
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
- Location: Ocala, FL
Yorick von Fortinbras: Tom, you speak with such a high level of confidence in My Big TOE concepts. Is this because of your physical [and non-physical] experiences or more your conceptual experiences?
Tom Campbell: Both sets of experience were critical. MBT is a seamless unity of both experience sets.
YvF: Is it possible that you could be wrong about this reality being a virtual reality? I’m not asking for “proof” but really the question is about the origins of your confidence in this truth and whether it is more based in the NMPR experience or the PMR experience?
TC: Yes [it is possible I’m wrong]. Almost anything is possible. However, because of the nearly perfect “goodness of fit” of MBT theory to all the available experimental data (the collective subjective and objective human experience), it is unlikely that the theory is fundamentally flawed, though it may not be complete or expressed in the best way possible.
YvF: Do you think there is a way [for us PMR humans] to bring the simulation “to its knees”, i.e. exhaust local/available resources?
YvF: A possible way to do this might be to cause it to render incredible amounts of new data to many, many information streams concurrently. Not that the purpose would be to bring it to its knees, but that as a simulation it is vulnerable to a momentary glitch that could be observed/experienced…and if that glitch were caused, would we be able to even perceive it?
TC: That depends on how such a glitch is manifested, but the highest probability is that we would not notice…and if there were something subtle that could be noticed, we (collectively) would never guess the cause.
YvF: What is “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”s relation to the other dimensions/reality streams?
TC: None. They are “fudge factors” that are required to be conceptually invented in order to force physics theory to be consistent with experimental results. They are “dark” because they are invisible. That the theory may be wrong is never considered as a possibility. Dark matter is more likely to one day find an ordinary physical explanation.
YvF: Are you a non-PMR being assigned to help us? That is a bit of a joke, but really, do you see yourself as a catalyst for helping this PMR evolve consciousness faster?
TC: I am a flesh and blood PMR being like you and – like you – this is not my first trip to this PMR. However, I do have a mission to support positive consciousness evolution in PMR and MBT is a part of that plan.
YvF: While it is true humanity is obsessed with power, domination and control/manipulation, is it possible to NOT have these obsessions and still rise to the level of knowledge that we have so far?
TC: Yes, not only possible, but we would have accomplished, (from a big picture viewpoint) much more, much faster by using cooperative caring (love) instead of fear, ego and belief as a prime motivator.
YvF: Do other entities have these obsessions?
YvF: If they didn’t, would it help or hurt their progress to knowledge and consciousness evolution? How many others have the knowledge that this PMR humanity has? Do many have the clear view of the Big Picture?
TC: In the other reality frames I have visited, fear, ego, and belief is a more common motivator than love. We are somewhere in the middle with some being much more fear based and some being much less fear based than our PMR
YvF: When a baby is born, is it the foundation of a new consciousness that starts dim and evolves to a higher state of being within its limits?
TC: That is a possibility happening in the margins, but not a likely occurrence.
YvF: If yes, this means that a new individuated consciousness comes around every time a baby is born. Where are all these individuated consciousnesses coming from?
TC: Most are simply recycling while some newbies are added as needed.
YvF: Or is it the case that the consciousness that connects to a newborn is a piece (or whole) of a consciousness that previously existed elsewhere?
TC: This is the most common condition.
YvF: Are there limits to the number of individuated consciousness within the AUM?
TC: Sure, there is a theoretical limit because the LCS is finite. However, this constitutes no practical problem for the LCS since it can always optimize its work load to fit within its resources while maintaining conditions that favor positive evolution. Each PMR has a finite “carrying capacity” based on the rule-set and the cleverness of the inhabitants, so none can grow beyond specific limits.
YvF: Couldn’t AUM have invented (better) ways of directly (or more directly) generating low entropy consciousness or the aggregated result of individuated digital consciousnesses achieving low entropy instead of through complicated virtual-reality experiments?
TC: NO. This is likely the optimum process. Evolution is dependent on individual choice modifying the quality of an individual being.
YvF: Will reality cells ever evolve to have more than 2 states? Wouldn’t that offer an incredibly more rich and robust (low entropy) solution?
TC: They might – the two state binary model is the metaphor I used because it is easy for most people to understand. When technical details are not all that important to the fundamental theory, I try to keep the explanation as simple as possible.
YvF: Did you hurt yourself coming up with this? Seriously, how did this Big TOE idea evolve in your mind through your life? At what point did you put all of your experiences together to realize this? Very early? If later, what was the Eureka moment for you?
TC: There was no big EUREKA! Moment. More like many little eureka moments all interacting with each other to build the foundation. After the foundation was solid, the rest was just logical process. I didn’t figure this thing out in a week… it was about 35 years in the making… that is time enough for lots of incremental understanding to accumulate through experimentation into a big picture.
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:14 pm
Thanks for posting my interview with Tom. I was very happy to be able to correspond with Tom and hopefully the questions I asked were interesting to others familiar with his work. I have only recently come across MBT and as a lifelong reader of various philosophers, engineering student, computer system professional and author, the concepts within MBT are fascinating. For example, I always found it difficult to accept quantum principles because I felt they were too anthropo-centric (should it really matter whether a person looks at it or not?), but when you start to look at it in terms of a consciousness querying a great database and forcing the rendering of probability-based information it is not only digestible but begins to intuitively feel right. So I will keep reading and watching videos and to keep learning and evolving consciousness - that's not such a bad goal even if MBT doesn't model reality.
I did have a follow-up question to Tom that he again was so kind to respond to. Since the other questions were posted above I will post this one as well below, but first thanks to everyone that has visited "The Functional Lunatic" blog to read the interview. Please check out some other parts of the blog and see if it resonates:
Yorick von Fortinbras: How are effects of relativity near light travel explained by My Big TOE: as one approaches light speed travel, the relative passage of time slows, i.e. flowers delivered to a faraway location at near light speed may be fresh, but the intended recipient has long died by the time they arrive…
Tom Campbell: Time dilation (the attribute of special relativity you mentioned), length contraction, and increasing mass are all the logical result of the speed of light being a constant. Einstein started with the assumption of light speed being invariant under the motion of its source (light speed is constant in all reference frames moving relative to each other) and then, with a little deductive logic in the form of algebra, he derived Special Relativity. Special relativity is the basis for General Relativity. Today most physicists have no idea why Einstein’s assumption should represent a fundamental truth. Until MBT, there has been no known reason why light should exhibit this singular property. MBT explains clearly why light speed is constant. Thus starting from MBT, one can logically derive Special relativity (Relativity theory is a logical result of MBT theory). Without MBT, one must first start by making an theoretically unsupported assumption (unproven guess) about the nature of reality. It was a good guess since experiment indicated to Einstein that it might be true, but no one understood its causality -- why it must be true. At first, most physicists thought Einstein was goofy, but when experiments verified that his wild assumption was indeed true, “goofy” quickly morphed into “genius”.
And by the way, when someone creates the first "It's just INFORMATION" t-shirt, I'll buy one!!
Yorick von Fortinbras (The Functional Lunatic)
- Ted Vollers
- Posts: 11788
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
- Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
You might find the point of view here in this post to be of interest as another perspective on Tom's Big TOE model of reality. viewtopic.php?f=220&t=7777#p66371 Ancient confirmation of the completeness of the MBT Model. Not only does Tom's model permit an explanation of Special Relativity, but it also permits the reinterpretation of the metaphors of ancient to modern mysticism and metaphysical descriptions of reality in terms of modern science and information technology. We can then understand why Tom describes the same elements as basic to our reality as ancient mysticism and why mysticism cannot observe beyond the elements described by the ancients.
Everything else described by Tom such as the RWW, VRs, TBC, the EBC is not observable as fundamentally different from each other but constitute what I have referred to as meta realities which can only be observed from within those meta realities since they are comprised entirely of different aspects, special purposes, within the over all 'messaging' between IUOCs over the RWW. It is the receiving of those messaging streams and interpreting them and responding to them appropriately which determines whether an IUOC is at any given instant participating as a part of the Unity that is AUM, a functional part of TBC or the EBC or as a participant within a given NPMR or a given PMR. From an 'external' viewpoint which is what is provided to mystics by the LCS in some manner, these different functionalities cannot be observed with the result that the observation is describable only within the mystical metaphors of jewels of consciousness reflecting each other in their 'facets'.
- Normal User
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:04 am
I figured in a virtual universe: speed of light = simulation pixel/simulation timestepFunctionalLunatic wrote:Tom Campbell: Time dilation (the attribute of special relativity you mentioned), length contraction, and increasing mass are all the logical result of the speed of light being a constant. Einstein started with the assumption of light speed being invariant under the motion of its source (light speed is constant in all reference frames moving relative to each other) and then, with a little deductive logic in the form of algebra, he derived Special Relativity. Special relativity is the basis for General Relativity. Today most physicists have no idea why Einstein’s assumption should represent a fundamental truth. Until MBT, there has been no known reason why light should exhibit this singular property. MBT explains clearly why light speed is constant. Thus starting from MBT, one can logically derive Special relativity (Relativity theory is a logical result of MBT theory). Without MBT, one must first start by making an theoretically unsupported assumption (unproven guess) about the nature of reality. It was a good guess since experiment indicated to Einstein that it might be true, but no one understood its causality -- why it must be true. At first, most physicists thought Einstein was goofy, but when experiments verified that his wild assumption was indeed true, “goofy” quickly morphed into “genius”.
(Planck length and Planck time are related in this exact way.) A PMR rule saying we cannot 'skip' a pixel, would then fix this as the maximum speed.
But then I stumble on the question: how can the speed of light be the same to all observers? Observers who themselves are travelling over the simulation grid. Perhaps there is no independent grid, but each IUOC is the center of his own grid (analogous to the theory of relativity, if I seem to move fast respective to you, you seem to move fast respective to me).
- Ted Vollers
- Posts: 11788
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
- Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
This is essentially the case. Each IUOC participating in PMR receives its own message stream, providing its own experience of PMR. Thus in a sense, each is the center of its own experience. There is not a vast array of pixels out there, like a Star Trek VR simulation room like a holodeck of vast instead of limited size and into which we tap at a particular location. The whole of PMR is calculated as a probability only, not on a pixel by pixel basis, and only when we get down to an individual IUOC's experience do we find that showing up and then only when it can be observed. If you aren't using a quantum capable apparatus to observe reality, you cannot observe at the quantum level. The same goes for the very large scale of the universe as without a telescope, there are only lights in the sky.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests