Return Home
It is currently Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:35 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:45 pm
Posts: 229
That article actually references the movement of a 1250 ton stone for the construction of the bronze horseman statue. As far as I know, the largest stones involved in monolithic building were 1500 ton stones in Baalbek. There are still questions of how the Baalbek stones were separated from the quarry and lifted, as it seems the 1250 ton "thunderstone" was found and quarried at just below ground level. Generally if you want to believe the ancient builders used conventional means you will see the conventional evidence, and vice versa with unconventional means. Personally I see a lot of unanswered questions.

_________________
"Then when he has become a man, let him return to his century as an alien figure; but not in order to gladden it by his appearance..."


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:04 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
That article actually references the movement of a 1250 ton stone for the construction of the bronze horseman statue. As far as I know, the largest stones involved in monolithic building were 1500 ton stones in Baalbek. There are still questions of how the Baalbek stones were separated from the quarry and lifted, as it seems the 1250 ton "thunderstone" was found and quarried at just below ground level. Generally if you want to believe the ancient builders used conventional means you will see the conventional evidence, and vice versa with unconventional means. Personally I see a lot of unanswered questions.
Yeah, and the drilling or apparent drilling is a bit odd as well. http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/prehistoricdrilling.htm

All in all quite the mystery how they did a lot of things.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:51 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:45 pm
Posts: 229
FUN FACT: This page is now the *TOP* search result for "Tom Campbell debunked".

Can someone suggest sources or material like the following:
-Quick blurb or thesis describing Tom
-Quick blurb or thesis describing MBT and Tom's work
-Links to crucial video or text material for those who might never come across it again
-Links to respectful and/or astute criticisms, in so far as they actually exist


I will edit them into the original post to give those who clicked a fair rundown of Tom's work and its existing criticism.

_________________
"Then when he has become a man, let him return to his century as an alien figure; but not in order to gladden it by his appearance..."


Top
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:10 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Well then something else that we should add to this page is something that I have written about in several places on the board. That Tom Campbell's model of Reality just so happens to match the ancient information provided by Hindu metaphysicians and mystics of 2,000+ years ago as The Void, The Void after it becomes 'activated' producing Tom's starting point of reality cells and contained data which has just become activated to start the interaction of data within the cells and finally Indra's Net with Jewels of Consciousness reflecting each other in their facets. Note that this is something that I claim to have experienced myself and which anyone could do who was seriously interested and willing to expend the effort required to develop the ability.

Note that Indra's Net is an exact correlation to Tom Campbell's model of Reality where IUOCs make up the Jewels of Consciousness and where the messaging over the RWW makes up the reflections in their 'facets'. What this comes down to is something which if approached in this way must be provided to you as an 'image' by the Larger Consciousness System or LCS. Because we as IUOCs experiencing ourselves as avatars in this Virtual Reality that Tom Campbell calls PMR can not be directly comprehended. To be able to do so, to 'view' this information ourselves unaided, would be like having the ability in materialist terms to see our own body and brain cells as they exist invisibly within our own bodies and without using any aids such as microscopes or scanning devices such as MRI medical devices.

So I think that this is good information to add to a 'debunking' page for Tom Campbell. Good in two ways. It fits the debunking mindset in that it shows that Tom Campbell's ideas existed thousands of years before Tom Campbell's birth. But it also shows how, despite the obvious similarities, Tom Campbell has by means of his abilities and scientific knowledge and on another path entirely than that of mystics, come up with the same information but greatly extended as he includes the scientific and mathematical background into his model to bring out all of the details of the 'early' aspects of the model which the ancients could not include. That is he explains how the development occurs from Void when activated to the Indra's Net form. He explains how modern pure mathematical concepts of Cellular Automata, Emergence and Self Organization can create the present state of the Larger Consciousness System as IUOCs interconnected by the RWW. And thus we have Tom Campbell's model of how we can have Tom Campbell's The One Consciousness, AUO and then AUM come into existence as the LCS internal organization evolves from randomness to Consciousness, then Virtual Realities where our IUOCs in Union create all of these things.

So we 'debunk' Tom Campbell by showing exactly what sequence of development and logic can result in the Big TOE which Tom Campbell has provided to us! Now this does not include the exact actual path of exploration of non-physical reality that Tom has followed and the actual analysis that Tom has followed, beginning from his original explorations starting with Robert Monroe. Tom has outlined that in his trilogy of My Big TOE but there is much missing information which would probably require decades of writing down a description of that internal path of thought that went into the analysis. And Tom doesn't have time to satisfy our curiosity with all of the writing and lecturing/speaking tours and in videos that he is involved in now.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:45 pm
Posts: 229
Great idea Ted. I will search around the forum and blog for a good summation of the relation between MBT and metaphysics. Any other suggestions for a rough summary of MBT's most interesting aspects and claims, as would appeal to someone interested in the topics of science and skepticism?

_________________
"Then when he has become a man, let him return to his century as an alien figure; but not in order to gladden it by his appearance..."


Top
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:02 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
There are two big statements that Tom makes often in his videos that seem to be controversial on the internet.

1. His explanation of quantum erasure, in which he states it doesn't matter if we measure the particles and erase the measurement data before looking at the result, or don't measure at all. A quantum measurement that is never looked at is as good as no measurement.
2. That in the double slit experiment the 'detectors' are acausal in the "collapse of the wave function" (a common misconception--that the detectors are somehow interfering with the particle and causing wave collapse). He uses the analogy that they one day decided to leave the detectors on, but just didn't record the data...and still got interference.


For item one, everyone is probably familiar with the slogans "interaction causes wave function collapse" or "you can't measure a particle without interacting with it". The former is false (or at least unproven), and the latter is obviously true. Thus, these statements are not equivalent and cannot be logically combined. In other words, you cannot combine them into one statment that if interaction happens, the wave function of a particle will collapse. The wave function collapsed, therefore interaction with the particle happened. This is a formal logical fallacy. This is just not true. There are many experiments, mostly of the delayed choice variety, that prove empirically that the time ordering of measurement events does not matter. Measurement/interaction does not cause wave function collapse. If it did, these experiments would not work the way they do.

Item two has been somewhat more controversial, even garnering attention in a popular thread on a popular physics website. Here I will pick some of the most cogent arguments from the thread and demonstrate how they are either wrong or misleading.
Quote:
No. Once the data is detected by an irreversible process, deleting the data does not induce any changes. It does not matter whether you throw away the data or look at it. The only thing you can erase are reversible markers. For example you can make the paths in the double slit experiment distinguishable by using polarizers at each slit. Afterwards it is possible to change this polarization without destroying the photon, so you can shift the polarization of the beams originating from both slits such, that they are the same again. As no irreversible process happened, the interference pattern will reappear. In this case you could get which-way information and destroy the interference pattern if you measured the photon at the right position and time, but as you never measure, it persists. This is very different from actually measuring and throwing away the data, which will never give a persisting interference pattern.
He is talking here about the two slit quantum eraser. This is in fact the very experiment Tom is talking about. Entangled pair is created, and one goes to Dp, other passes through slits to Ds. Standard setup produces interference due to the slits at Ds. Place QWP's(functional detectors) at each slit to measure polarization, and this marking causes which path info to be known and interference disappears. Now, perform a suitable polarization projection measurement on entangled particle going to Dp, and you can recover interference even leaving the QWP's in place. This person's entire argument hinges on the assumption that polarization is "reversible". That before the polarization measurement at Dp, no irreversible process happens. This is false. Polarization and position ( and spin and momentum) are separate degrees of freedom of a quantum particle. The measurement of polarization does nothing actively to the position of any particle, especially if this measuement is separated in space with nothing physically connecting it to the particle. It simply provides a means by which to know which path a particle took (polarization X for path 1, polarization Y for path 2).


The apparatus is adjustible, and the experimenters placed Dp out in front of Ds, so that Ds registers a detection before Dp erases the information. Therefore, a so-called "irreversible" measurement does happen at Ds before Dp later erases the information. Registration at detector Ds, aka "irreversible physical interaction" did not cause the wave function to collapse. Keep in mind that this is all conditional on the fact that nobody looks at Ds before erasing the information later at Dp: "In as much as our quantum eraser does not allow the experimenter to choose to observe which-path information or an interference pattern after the detection of photons (at Ds), it does allow for the detection of photon s before photon p, a situation to which we refer to as delayed erasure."

This fact is conveniently ignored and explained away in the context of coincidence counting. They go on to make the assertion that the decades of experiments and physicists doing them are only using a "trick" of coincidence counting, and so really there is nothing to contradict their beliefs, because we never actually see the interference when information is erased in a delayed manner. Just ignore what the time stamps say. Beliefs preserved:
Quote:
The information is not really obtained after detection of the first photon because all information is available only in coincidence counting, when both photons are already detected. What they do is more like a clever kind of filtering process than changing the past.
This is nonsense. Of course the information is not obtained after the physical detection of the first photon, because that measurement does not matter and does not collapse the wave function. It never happened because nobody ever looked at it. Then in coincidence the two measurements always correlate regardless of what order they happened. This is Tom's whole point.
Quote:
I hope this simplified scheme shows, why the choice between the interference pattern and the which-way information can be done after the signal photon has already been detected, why it does not depend on whether we have a look at the data or not and that there are no problems with causality

None of this is fact. This ideology is of course at odds with experiment, and proven wrong long ago:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0501010.pdf
"It may be instructive to compare this proposal with other implementations of quantum eraser. In other implementations, one doesn’t get the interference directly and has to do a coincident counting of particles with certain states of the which-way detectors. Some people have this feeling, that the interference pattern is actually lost for good and one is only picking it out from the erased pattern in an artificial way. In this respect, this method has the advantage that one can observe the interference appear right before one’s eyes as the eraser magnet is switched on. Another point is that this method allows one to demonstrate quantum erasure using massive particles, instead of photons.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0117v2.pdf
"Discussing the delayed-choice experiment, Wheeler concludes: “In this sense, we have a strange inversion of the normal order of time. We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon” [5]. We disagree with this interpretation. There is no inversion of the normal order of time – in our case we measure the photon before the ancilla deciding the experimental setup (open or closed interferometer). It is only after we interpret the photon data, by correlating them with the results of the ancilla, that either a particle- or wave-like behaviour emerges: behaviour is in the eye of the observer."

Quote:
Well, it is very hard to find information about that guy. The only info I found is as follows: "Tom holds a Bachelor of Science in Physics and Math from Bethany College and a Master of Science in physics from Purdue University, as well as having done doctoral-level work at the University of Virginia. He is the physicist described as “TC” in Bob Monroe’s Far Journeys. Tom began researching altered states of consciousness with Bob in the early 1970s. He and Dennis Mennerich helped to design experiments and develop the technology for creating specific altered states. They were also the main subjects of Bob’s investigations at that time. For the past thirty years, Campbell has been focused on scientifically exploring the properties, boundaries, and abilities of consciousness. During that same time period, he excelled as a working scientist—a professional physicist dedicated to pushing back the frontiers of cutting-edge technology. Using his mastery of the out-of-body experience as a springboard, he dedicated his research to discovering the outer boundaries, inner workings, and causal dynamics of the larger reality system. In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy. The acronym “TOE” is a standard term in the physics community that stands for “Theory Of Everything” and has been the Holy Grail of that community for fifty years. My Big TOE represents the results and conclusions of Tom’s personal and scientific exploration of the nature of existence. This overarching model of reality, mind, and consciousness merges physics with metaphysics, explains the paranormal as well as the normal, places spirituality within a scientific context, and provides direction for those wishing to personally experience an expanded awareness of All That Is."

This sounds very much like crackpottery.
He didn't look hard enough.

Read: He uses words we fear like "consciousness", therefore he is a crackpot.
Quote:
However, he's almost certainly wrong if he's claiming conscious observation of the data caused the interference to disappear.
Tom does not claim this and never has.
Quote:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html

Is this guy also selling crackpottery? It's another claim of a double slit experiment being done wherein the data is thrown out prior to backwall observation. (interference) ...The peer-reviewed references he cites (and also the one blandrew just cited) are all valid, but this guy's interpretation of what these mean is a clear case of crackpottery/
They are talking about the bottom layer website (reality as a simulation) that explains the delayed choice quantum eraser accurately. It was even read and approved by Yoon Hoo Kim, one of the physicists who ran the experiment: "I do not think that there is anything wrong with your explanation." - Yoon-Ho Kim
Quote:
You need spatially coherent light to form an interference pattern. The light in one arm of the entangled beams is not coherent enough for that.
No, you do not. Interference is seen at Ds. This can be thought of in a physical manner as caused by two real waves interacting somehow (on path s1 and s2), correct? That is what is supposed to be causing interference. However, even when there is no photon emitted by NL2, there is still interference at Ds. So how does one photon traveling down path S1 still produce an interference pattern? Because there is no which-path information. The detector data alone (the only point in the experiment where there are measurements) cannot give information about the path of the photons. The paths are indistinguishable. So even though sometimes NL1 emitted a photon when NL2 didn't, there is still interference because when the measurement is made there is no way to know for sure the path that was taken. Thus interference is not caused by physical waves interacting, but "probability amplitudes adding". This is known as induced coherence without induced emission, where even the possibility that a photon could have come from another path from a separate source (even though it only went down one path) creates interference. One photon traveling one arm of an interferometer may produce a two-path interference pattern, if there are other paths that are indistinguishable from that path by looking at only the detectors.
Quote:
This means that even if you did replace the beam-splitters BSA and BSB with mirrors, guaranteeing that the idlers would always be detected at D1 or D2 and that their which-path information would always be erased,
Talking about the delayed choice quantum eraser here. This is a blatant falsehood/misinterpretation. The purpose of the beamsplitters is to make paths to detectors indistinguishable (erase which path info). They are doing the same thing the polarization measurements do in the above two slit eraser (erasing info or not). It's just done in a different way. If there are mirrors in place of the beamsplitters, you then have created a distinguishability between paths (there is which path info).


It seems clear that these supposed "physics experts" have no clue what they are talking about, so i'll stop there. Tom is right and always has been. Debunked indeed. Feel free to repost this.

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Posts: 28
Hi All,

Has Tom addressed these criticisms anywhere?

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=28331


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 5485
Location: Ocala, FL
Criticism by people who haven't read the book isn't worth replying to.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:29 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Posts: 28
I disagree. I think the physics issues raised need addressing.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:29 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:47 am
Posts: 216
That link you provide is not really a criticism. There is one person in there explaining the double-slit experiment and Tom's conclusion and then there are a few simply not understanding what is being said and asserting a physical external universe is all there is with no good argument.

Skeptic forums like these are more for people who practice close-minded skepticism and have an agenda against theists, supernatural events, and things like alternative medicine in the name of being an, "intellectual".

Generally, it is good to be skeptical of MBT as well but also open-minded, not like many people in there simply reverting to ad-hominems and disbelieving because it sounds too outside of the norm before they lay a finger to actually look at the content.

If you have any specific inquiries or critiques, maybe we could answer them.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:58 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Posts: 28
Thanks, 'Human+', you're quite right. I've come across such attitudes surrounding the issues of psi etc. before and am familiar with the format. Such is the mentality behind rationalwiki (an oxymoron if ever there was one).

There's a comment in that thread to suggest that Tom and Dean Radin didn't engage in the experimental collaboration that was agreed during their joint interview. Does anyone here know what the true outcome of that proposed union was? The author of the comment is making a rather underhand suggestion that Dean does not take Tom's work seriously. That's not the impression I got from watching that joint interview.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1494
Location: Lincoln, NE
I don't recall the exact word for word exchange between Tom and Dean on that video to begin with. Then there's the evidence of Dean's book's which speak even louder to me, than the video, anyways.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:03 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:47 am
Posts: 216
Quote:
There's a comment in that thread to suggest that Tom and Dean Radin didn't engage in the experimental collaboration that was agreed during their joint interview. Does anyone here know what the true outcome of that proposed union was?
I don't think so. They didn't really plan anything, they just casually agreed in their video that it would be a good idea to do some experiments in the unspecified future. But of course, there are many possible things that can lead to plans being changed or postponed.
Quote:
The author of the comment is making a rather underhand suggestion that Dean does not take Tom's work seriously.
Don't think Dean has ever expressed this sentiment. He is a parapsychology researcher himself and talks about the PSI phenomena and has a book called, "real magic" so I highly doubt it.

It seems like that person who made that comment is trying to extrapolate a bit too much.

However, Tom is currently in the process of doing QM experiments.

Since MBT is theory, and a far-fetched one from the standard conception of reality, there will always be people like that until these ideas were to become main-stream. It's more important to find evidence for yourself and see how it relates to your own experience of life.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:12 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:10 am
Posts: 175
Quote:
Skeptic forums like these are more for people who practice close-minded skepticism and have an agenda against theists, supernatural events, and things like alternative medicine in the name of being an, "intellectual".
Very true. Ten years ago I was for some time member of a 'skeptics' / atheist forum, but left disappointed since I found out that these people are even more close-minded than staunch fundamentalist religionists.

Since then I shun any of these places online. It is to no avail to start any discussions with them. They are trapped in their own cage they built with their belief system, supported and created by societal pressure (accepting authority as truth instead of the other way round), cognitive dissonance (leading to ignoring, ridiculing or even fighting other opinions) and confirmations bias (by staying amongst each other and only reading/watching their ideological material they already subscribed to anyway).

_________________
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:22 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 852
Ten years ago..... I lived in complete hell. Now, I accept my place, and do with it what I will. I live as I am, and I live as I will. I accept full responsibility, and I do as I will....

Love the skeptics. Bless them. They are in a trap of their own creation. May they find find their way out, for the benefit of All. :)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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