Neil: I don't see any reason for PMR to require quantum mechanics in order to be a profitable VR trainer
Tom: QM is a result, a logical consequence of a virtual reality consciousness trainer, not a fundamental enabler. Such a trainer requires the ability to assess probable consequences. In the MBT model of reality, the mechanics by which that happens - a probable future database progressing to actualized and unactualized history databases by the application of free will intent operating in the present moment - defines the process that leads to PMR time and causality. QM simply expresses how the VR works; it is not in any way responsible for making it work that way.
Neil: It looks like book 1 chapter 31 covers relativity, book 2 chapter 31 covers how to derive PMR physics and book 2 chapter 37 covers quantum mechanics. Is that where this is covered?
Tom: MBT (the books) were written to share the significance that MBT (the theory) has to the everyday existence of the players engaged in this consciousness evolution VR trainer. You will be disappointed in MBT if you are looking for a dissertation on relativity and QM. You will find the fundamental concepts that lead to a derivation of both QM and relativity in MBT, but they will not be spelled out as such with a drum roll to attract attention. I dealt a little more explicitly with these issues in the just completed Toronto workshop (since some physicists were in attendance) and occasionally they come up for discussion in the forum. MBT is focused more as "news you can use" than "science breakthrough" because this reaches, and is more pertinent and valuable to more people. The Toronto workshop will be available on DVD in a few months. The next edition of the books will have a few paragraphs added to make the logical necessity of "c" (the speed of light) being invariant clearer - just as there are a few paragraphs scattered about now pointing to the logical necessity of particles as probability distributions. There is no one or two places where all the "science information" is discussed. For example, it is not until half way through Book 3 that the core concept of the future probable reality data base is examined.
The above accurately state the facts, however, to help you understand more fully why it is as it is, there is a bit of history that needs to be explained. Because my focus was on sharing the results of my research on the nature of the larger reality, I did not fully realize that I could logically derive QM and relativity theory from the same logical model that described consciousness until after the books were published. It was all there in MBT, just as obvious and clear as it could be (c was stated to be a constant in book 1 and existence was stated to be constructed as probability distributions before being brought into PMR experience by free will intent expressed in the present moment in books 2 and 3). However, not until Ted wrote his treatise on the VRRE did it occur to me that I had actually already derived QM. A year later, It came to me that the one fact that launched relativity was c being constant -- a fact that I had already derived years earlier from the nature of virtual reality - Bingo! the same logical model that derived consciousness, QM, and the nature of reality also clearly derived relativity as well. All along, I was well aware that an accurate description of the larger reality would necessarily lead to a more fundamental understanding of PMR but I failed to notice that the logical consequences of my model fully derived QM and relativity and laid them at my feet without me even noticing until Ted inadvertently gave me a nudge (I use the word "derived" as described in my last post). In the second printing, I added a short paragraph pointing out the QM derivation and in the next printing (sometime in the future) I will add another paragraph that describes (in a little more detail than is already there) why c must be invariant within my VR model.
Neil: It's not how well it supports current scientific beliefs but rather how well it supports current scientific results. The easiest path to that is to base your work on current scientific belief.
To do otherwise requires a huge amount of work. More than one person can do, in my opinion.
Tom: You are absolutely right on all four counts. Some comments:
1) It is often very difficult for scientists to differentiate scientific results from scientific beliefs. Beliefs, whether religious or scientific, appear to be beyond question.
2) A big TOE must not only support objective scientific results but also explain subjective experience, point and purpose, meaning and significance, from a bigger perspective that resonates true with individual experience and the gathered wisdom from the lessons of life.
3) Indeed it is the easy and only safe career path to rummage about in the corners of the status quo of scientific belief - anything else is a career killer within academia. But also note that breakthrough belongs to the young who have not yet been captured by the status quo and those on the fringe (e.g., Schrodinger, who proposed probability waves, was a graduate student and Einstein wasn't much older). The center provides little other than infrastructure and resistance (thus stability) to the process of breakthrough.
4) No doubt, to change cultural/scientific beliefs is very difficult and takes a very long time. Darwin published his theory in 1850 and 150 years later it is still a very controversial idea. True believers are a tough group to change no matter what the particular beliefs are that they cling to.
5) Yes, More than one person can do. However, every year there are more scientists realizing that an assumption of virtual reality explains scientific results better than an assumption of objective reality. Brian Whitworth's two papers demonstrating this fact (the link to the latest referenced above) is just the most recent (look at the length of his bibliography). There are many people pulling on this oar and the numbers are steadily growing because facts are more convincing than dogma - especially to the young.
Neil: I think the best approach is to publish in a reputable scientific journal. That way, you can raise the interest of the scientific community and get more people to help you. I also think you'll be more successful at reaching the populace. Once MBT becomes established science it'll be all over the news.
Tom: I am not an academic physicist - I am an applied physicist generating what is called "physics models" of complex systems in order to assess potential risk to NASA missions and to the lives of astronauts. I am perfectly happy letting Fredkin, Whitworth, and others bang their heads against that particular wall. They are making progress from inside the physics and applied math academic establishment - much more effectively than I could do as an outsider. My Big TOE theory is much more general and describes a much bigger picture than they can describe within the confines of their academic culture. My Big TOE is immediately useful to thousands of people - life changing in very positive ways to many. It is my goal to be useful to others - I have no interest in proving anything - I prefer to let the facts of experience speak for themselves.