Return Home
It is currently Fri Jul 19, 2024 10:04 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 Apr 08, 2014 11:28 pm 
I would like to preface this message by saying that if you know of a concept well enough, you should be able to summarize the gist of the implications in a few minutes or less, similar to how a research article provides an abstract, maybe even simpler than that.

My question is, based on the following facts, how does Tom Campbell jump to the conclusion that we live in a VR (please don't tell me to read the book. I will get to it, but I have been reading the forum in the mean time.)

1) The double slit experiment shows a fundamental flaw in our understanding of this reality.
2) The double slit experiment sheds light on the fact that a particle has a probability distribution of where it will land.
3) OOB experiences are real and we can communicate with each other while NOT in this "PMR"

So, given that, how can you conclude that you are DEFINITELY living in a VR?

In my opinion, the jump is too far. This is, still, just a hypothesis, and not at the level of a well defined theory* or law.

*Forgive me if you believe I am being arrogant. Many of the veterans here might assume my understanding of the theory is underdeveloped. You MAY think, "how could this person think MY views are wrong? I know I am right. I spent a lot of time studying. How arrogant for him to say I'm wrong," but please don't think that, at least just yet. I'm not trying to be arrogant.

I just want to see the logical conclusions simplified.

My next questions will pertain to entropy and love.

I believe that Tom is confusing ONE aspect of life as a TOTALITY, or an ULTIMATE END GOAL. I do not think that love is the ULTIMATE END GOAL.

I believe that caring for others (possibly aka "love") is an important COMPONENT to this "PMR," but it surely isn't the end goal.

P.S
My personal bias, for now, is that if such a greater consciousness exists (and it probably does exist based on my own experiences), then it is relatively (please don't get mad at me for saying this....) stupid. Yes, stupid. By stupid, I not only mean ignorant, but just naive to allow the permutations of the rule set to be so harmful.

I know the fundamental believe here is that freedom is valued far more than control. I perfectly understand that this is a reality rule-set/concept that is highly valued. However, let's not kid ourselves. You are not under complete freedom. You never have been under complete freedom in this PMR, and if I were to bet, you weren't in the NPMR, but that is a different topic for another day. I would like to focus on the first question (how the logical leap to VR was made), and possibly the second question (why love?).

Again, don't mean to be arrogant.

I firmly believe that complex ideas can be simplified in an introductory idea. I have proof from Tom's slides that he believes we live in a VR based on the "LOGICAL CONCLUSION" that a rule found in this reality (from the double slit experiment) equates to us living in a VR.

That is a big pill to swallow.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:32 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
The main problem with your understanding and what you thus state here is that you still lack sufficient real information about Tom Campbell's thinking and that this distorts your understanding. You are drawing conclusions ahead of your actual data.

Consciousness is fundamental to the nature of Reality as opposed to a 'physical' reality being fundamental to the nature of Consciousness. Otherwise, why cannot consciousness (as general and medical science) within this supposed physical reality determine the source (other than speculatively as the brain) of that consciousness as where being and how sourced within that physical reality. Conclusion: consciousness exists external to this apparent physical reality. If that consciousness which we believe ourselves to be experiencing exists outside of this apparent physical reality, does that not make this a virtual reality?

One can go to a standard dictionary, in this case, the Merriam Webster on line dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... %20reality and there one finds this definition of a virtual reality, although at this state of development of understanding of the full concept of virtual reality in this society, this is not a fundamental definition but a limited definition based upon the state of development of technology here and now.
virtual reality (noun): an artificial environment which is experienced through sensory stimuli (as sights and sounds) provided by a computer and in which one's actions partially determine what happens in the environment; also : the technology used to create or access a virtual reality
Now what does the statement in the previous by one paragraph make this previous by one paragraph but by present and reasonably authoritative definition in the just previous paragraph, the proof that this is a virtual reality (VR) as stated? The question then morphs into two questions: 'where is that host computer' and 'where then is that perceiving consciousness' for the VR? Tom Campbell's exposition tells us that the computer exists within the LCS as a Cellular Automaton like 'thing', existing outside of this VR. There is much elaboration provided (if you read the trilogy), amplifying on the details of the nature and development of this LCS as the computer that hosts this VR, as well as many others. He also tells us in some (but not all) detail where and how we, as the perceivers and experiencers (inhabitants) of this VR exist within the LCS and developed there as a part of the development of the whole and actual source of the computer that generates this VR (i. e., we as some subset of the whole are that computer). He also delineates how we, as subsets of the whole, in aggregate or Union, are that Consciousness known as AUM, which created the VR and TBC and many more instantiations of such VRs.

You are not going to get this out of watching videos. That medium is simply not sufficient in capability to provide this full range of information put into your demanded few paragraphs. The purpose if such videos is to catch someone's attention, in this fast paced world of the present, sufficiently to lead them to reading the trilogy in order to understand better.

Read the books.

Your other gross errors exhibited within your above and previous posts can also be resolved by this simple expedient. I see no value to answering piecemeal and those same questions have been addressed already for others here on the board. I will say one thing. No, becoming love is not a 'fundamental' goal but it is an automatic result of the fundamental goal. Stating it this way catches the attention of those coming from a new age perspective and it is not a false statement as such. The fundamental purpose of creating all the VRs and 'incarnating' there is to reduce entropy. Such an incremental reduction of entropy within the individual IUOCs as they participate in the VR incarnation process produces an incremental reduction of the entropy of the whole, as AUM as the Union of all IUOCs. This entropy reduction results in an incremental improvement in the Quality of Consciousness of the individual IUOCs and of the Union that is AUM. It can be demonstrated that the end result of this sequence of ideas is the stated: becoming love. Becoming love is a corollary of the fundamental goal of entropy reduction and thus can be viewed as fundamental. Since we cannot directly know the thinking of AUM as the One Consciousness, we cannot know for sure what the real fundamental purpose, within AUM is as entropy reduction or becoming love. But this is my understanding.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
PracticalProof wrote:I would like to preface this message by saying that if you know of a concept well enough, you should be able to summarize the gist of the implications in a few minutes or less, similar to how a research article provides an abstract, maybe even simpler than that.

My question is, based on the following facts, how does Tom Campbell jump to the conclusion that we live in a VR (please don't tell me to read the book. I will get to it, but I have been reading the forum in the mean time.)

1) The double slit experiment shows a fundamental flaw in our understanding of this reality.
2) The double slit experiment sheds light on the fact that a particle has a probability distribution of where it will land.
3) OOB experiences are real and we can communicate with each other while NOT in this "PMR"

So, given that, how can you conclude that you are DEFINITELY living in a VR?

In my opinion, the jump is too far. This is, still, just a hypothesis, and not at the level of a well defined theory* or law.

*Forgive me if you believe I am being arrogant. Many of the veterans here might assume my understanding of the theory is underdeveloped. You MAY think, "how could this person think MY views are wrong? I know I am right. I spent a lot of time studying. How arrogant for him to say I'm wrong," but please don't think that, at least just yet. I'm not trying to be arrogant.

I just want to see the logical conclusions simplified.

My next questions will pertain to entropy and love.

I believe that Tom is confusing ONE aspect of life as a TOTALITY, or an ULTIMATE END GOAL. I do not think that love is the ULTIMATE END GOAL.

I believe that caring for others (possibly aka "love") is an important COMPONENT to this "PMR," but it surely isn't the end goal.

P.S
My personal bias, for now, is that if such a greater consciousness exists (and it probably does exist based on my own experiences), then it is relatively (please don't get mad at me for saying this....) stupid. Yes, stupid. By stupid, I not only mean ignorant, but just naive to allow the permutations of the rule set to be so harmful.

I know the fundamental believe here is that freedom is valued far more than control. I perfectly understand that this is a reality rule-set/concept that is highly valued. However, let's not kid ourselves. You are not under complete freedom. You never have been under complete freedom in this PMR, and if I were to bet, you weren't in the NPMR, but that is a different topic for another day. I would like to focus on the first question (how the logical leap to VR was made), and possibly the second question (why love?).

Again, don't mean to be arrogant.

I firmly believe that complex ideas can be simplified in an introductory idea. I have proof from Tom's slides that he believes we live in a VR based on the "LOGICAL CONCLUSION" that a rule found in this reality (from the double slit experiment) equates to us living in a VR.

That is a big pill to swallow.
I would shift your approach to rather thinking in terms of possible models of reality, and then triage your models against your direct personal experience.

I would assert, that if you are a serious open skeptic, taking a professional modern attitude, there is simply no competing alternative to the Campbell hypothesis.

It does require three components:

1) true open skepticism and an educated (formal or otherwise) modern attitude
2) direct experience, triangulated conviction or intuitive openness to PSI, quantum effects, or anything para-Newtonian.
3) some form of spiritual intuition and openness to the empathy mental paradigm.

The VR model, which is not unique to MBT, and I don't think is even Campbell "new art", which is suggestive that this is something bigger than Tom (I mean this in terms of we are dealing with reality, not just Tom's imagination), appears to be the only model that actually explains scientific quantum effects, resolves the hard historical TOE problem of the physics of the small and very large (generally infra/invisible to the naked human eye) being different than the physics of the normally visible, and as well explains the vast anecdotal PSI evidence as well as direct experience of many. Also throw in that it explains through big science what religion has been trying to beat into our heads for millenia.

And then there is Pascal's wager. As a human, it has always been profitable to believe in God, or the para-material world, and its fellow travellor, the empathetic paradigm, regardless of whether it is true or not. Similarly, notwithstanding Tom and Ted's protests of faith, it will continue to be profitable to believe in this modern version of Theism (AUMism), regardless of whether it is true or not.

Its possible that "becoming love" is the best answer possible for humans at this time in history, and that it is actually about something else in the bigger picture, at a level beyond our comprehension, or that we are not yet evolved enough to be able to handle the answer. For everyone's sake though, I hope enough go with the becoming
love thing, or we are in for a rough ride. If it were not true, we would have to invent it in order to make the best of the situation, this problem of being alive and getting through it.

You perceive the ruleset as being harmful, which could be true, but I would argue that harmfulness is only apparent if you are looking at this through a PMR or physically centric lens. If you rather make the shift, and view everything through the lens of us being eternal beings experiencing a video simulation, well, then everything starts to make more sense. Surely you have observed that the challenges of incarnation increase the depth of soul, the quality of those you know, and that a life without challenge normally creates a superficial, vain adult.

Freedom and control are subservient to profitability. This PMR, being a kindergarten, is subject to very restrictive rulesets for the protection of its incarnates as well as to maximize profitable feedback, and this is the good side of control, order, constraint. Because ego seeks to control others with selfish intent, as a pervasive human problem, control gets a bad rap due to this asymmetry of pedagogical attention, in application.

Yeah, where does love come into this? Where did that come from, seemingly out of left field? It appears that when the veil of physical incarnation is lifted, there is revealed a deeper/truer reality, which suggests this love consciousness, not as a new age sort of crystal hugging thing, but more as something along the lines of the mechanical plumbing of the greater truer reality.

This reality appears to be most brutally revealed in the Near Death Experience. Hang out at NDERF for a while to absorb/triangulate that datapoint. Watch some Dannion Brinkley or Eben Alexander youtubes. This reality is less brutally revealed in the less disruptive albeit deeper versions of OBE experience, beyond the TMI flavor of things and more the MBT flavor of things.

It is most gently and organically revealed through extensive incarnate life experience, as we observe each human life cycle in old age resolve seemingly and binarily toward capitulation toward a version of relative love/harmony, or less often, capitulation toward TOEian relative ego/fear, relative to the fundamental quality of the FWAU and their life decision space.

A big pill indeed, but no swallowing necessary. One simply becomes a student of the meme, possibly moving deeper into it, hopefully making changes to your life, or you reach a limit and move on to another philosophical meadow to graze in.

I think few are meant or equipped to be quite this lucid in this waking dream that is human life.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
PracticalProof,
PractialProof wrote:1) The double slit experiment shows a fundamental flaw in our understanding of this reality.
2) The double slit experiment sheds light on the fact that a particle has a probability distribution of where it will land.
3) OOB experiences are real and we can communicate with each other while NOT in this "PMR"

So, given that, how can you conclude that you are DEFINITELY living in a VR?

In my opinion, the jump is too far. This is, still, just a hypothesis, and not at the level of a well defined theory* or law.

The better question is: given that, what is the most likely scenario? Terms like "definite," "proof," and "law" are sticky words in science. Notice the shift in science from calling things laws (such as Newton's laws, laws of thermodynamics) to calling things theories (such as atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory). Plate tectonics, though commonly considered a fact, is actually a theory. There is no "proof" per say, just evidence. The furthest we have drilled down into the earth is 7 miles (that I know of) - not far enough for us to dive in and directly observe the currents of molten earth. Before careful study of the ocean floor and other bits of evidence that came about through advanced technology, the idea of continental drift and plate tectonics was considered absurd by many - as too great a leap. Darwin's theory of evolution - too great a leap. Yet, in both cases, the evidence grew and now plate tectonics and biological evolution are considered solid theories. Science is full of models and theories. The atom, though considered real and as certain as anything in this world has never been seen by the naked eye. It's existence is assumed within atomic theory. While we can "see" atoms via scanning tunneling microscopy, what we are really seeing is the effects of the presumed atom. There is of course other evidence that supports atomic theory. However it is important to remember that it is only a theory based on evidence - in the same way that geocentricism (earth at the center of all celestial bodies) was based on evidence. Things change. In todays rapidly advancing technology, things are changing very, very fast. In terms of understanding the nature of reality, we seem to currently have arrived at more questions than answers - a very clear sign that it is time to change the way in which we are looking at the questions. A major paradigm shift is in order - leaps are often necessary (though not as dramatic as they may first seem).

There is no need to believe anything. We simply have to look at the evidence and consider the theory (or theories) that most closely match the evidence and that is based on the fewest assumptions. From there we move forward to poke and prod for more evidence to support or counter the theory.

In addition to MBT, there are plenty of places for you to begin your journey in the matter.
Nick Bostrom, Are You Living in a Computer Simulation
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Brian Whitworth, The Physical World as a Virtual Reality
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

Also, a thread here on the forum has links to several other current articles and information related to virtual reality:
Digital Reality Concept Gathering Momentum
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7468&hilit=virtual+reality+momentum

"Everything that we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." Though that might sound like something that the Buddha said, those are the words of Neils Bohr, a Danish physicists who won the nobel prize in 1922 for his contributions in quantum theory and in understanding the atomic structure. Max Plank, often referred to as the father of quantum mechanics, wrote, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness” (The Observer, 25 January 1931).

Keep in mind that the distance that you must leap to arrive at the notion that reality is virtual is relative to you. With more evidence and understanding, you might find that it is as obvious as stepping from a flat earth to a round earth (in hindsight of course).
PractialProof wrote:*Forgive me if you believe I am being arrogant. Many of the veterans here might assume my understanding of the theory is underdeveloped. You MAY think, "how could this person think MY views are wrong? I know I am right. I spent a lot of time studying. How arrogant for him to say I'm wrong," but please don't think that, at least just yet. I'm not trying to be arrogant.

I just want to see the logical conclusions simplified.
I don't think you are being arrogant - just a bit lazy maybe. You are asking all of us to do the work for you. Questions are good, but you really need to have some form of foundation from which to ask the questions. Many people begin reading the trilogy and stop in to ask a pressing question that can't wait. Others finish the trilogy and join the forum to ask for clarification in some parts. In my own experience of interacting on the forum and reading the various posts, the majority of people that make a point to disagree or to submit a "logical" argument countering the theory, do so from a weak foundation. In all cases that I can recall, it has been clear that these people did not understand the basic concepts presented in MBT. Often, within the first few sentences of their post it is painfully obvious that they did not read MBT. In other words, their argument was flawed from the beginning because they did not even understand what they were arguing against. This is why you might find so many "veterans" here - some have taken the time to work through the evidence (objective and subjective), considered alternatives, applied the concepts, and in turn found the theory to be a very sound one.

I can only speak for myself, but I am not at all concerned if you agree or disagree with MBT or my own views; nor do I feel threatened by what you think of them. In my own journey of uncovering Truth, I am only concerned with the evidence (objective and subjective) and forward progress. If I happen to come across some bit of information that counters my own findings, then I will, to the best of my ability, consider it and make any necessary adjustments. For now, I see no other theory that so closely matches my experience, makes such accurate predictions, fits the current evidence, solves the paradoxes, and has had a real (as apposed to assumed) positive influence in my life in every regard. Is it "true?" That is the wrong question. I neither agree or disagree with MBT. Instead, I find it immensely useful.

I can't say that I am "DEFINITELY living in a VR." However, I can say that, based on my own experiences and the available evidence, it seems to be the most probable scenario. Do you see the difference? This type of approach requires being open-minded and skeptical, living gracefully with uncertainty, and letting go of fear, ego, and beliefs. The irony of course, is that such an approach is explained (both directly and indirectly) in MBT - thus, part of the usefulness in reading it.
PractialProof wrote:My next questions will pertain to entropy and love.

I believe that Tom is confusing ONE aspect of life as a TOTALITY, or an ULTIMATE END GOAL. I do not think that love is the ULTIMATE END GOAL.

I believe that caring for others (possibly aka "love") is an important COMPONENT to this "PMR," but it surely isn't the end goal.
Again, your confusion might be cleared up by reading the books and understanding the basic concepts. Love is a word with many, many different meanings. Even if we agree on a single word-based definition (such as from a dictionary), we still might have completely different internal understandings of the concept. In the same way, your red may look nothing like my red, and your hot may feel nothing like my hot. We can only agree on the data itself, but not the experience of the data. Tom points out that the system is working toward lower states of entropy, more organization, more information, more potential, more ability to do work, etc. In the same way that biological evolution does not have a specific end goal, the evolution of consciousness does not have a specific end goal. Like biological systems, it is in a constant state of flux driven by internal pressures. In the case of biology, the internal drive is to procreate and survive, in the case of the larger consciousness system, the drive is to reduce entropy, self-improve, become more, etc.

The left brainers can use "entropy reduction" and the right brained folks can use "love." In this case, love, is not such a concrete word. The goal is not to sit around in a white light and feel "love." The "goal" is forward progress via what most would call love. You could also say, compassion, selflessness, caring, cooperation, etc. You ask "why love." Consider your own life and the observations you have made in regard to the lives of others. Consider the positive effects of love, compassion, cooperation, caring, selflessness, etc as opposed to the negative effects of fear, selfishness, greed, etc. Which way do you want to go? Which will help you to become more than you currently are? Contrast Gandhi with a hardened gangster in prison. One path leads to greater understanding, joy, usefulness, etc while the other leads to potential self destruction.
PractialProof wrote:My personal bias, for now, is that if such a greater consciousness exists (and it probably does exist based on my own experiences), then it is relatively (please don't get mad at me for saying this....) stupid. Yes, stupid. By stupid, I not only mean ignorant, but just naive to allow the permutations of the rule set to be so harmful.

It's all about perspective. If you do find it probable that a larger consciousness system exists, it would not seem logical to assume that you (a small blip on a planet in a solar system... in a galaxy with 100 to 400 billion other solar systems... amongst 100 to 200 billion plus other galaxies... in a universe that might be but a blip amongst other realities... all of which exists in a complex system of information) are less naive or have a larger view than that system. Remember that from the perspective of the disgruntled teenager, his teachers are dumb and school is stupid.
I know the fundamental believe here is that freedom is valued far more than control. I perfectly understand that this is a reality rule-set/concept that is highly valued. However, let's not kid ourselves. You are not under complete freedom. You never have been under complete freedom in this PMR, and if I were to bet, you weren't in the NPMR, but that is a different topic for another day.
Again, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. A good chunk of the first portion of MBT focuses on the limiting effects of beliefs (all beliefs: scientific, cultural, religious, etc). Maybe I missed it, but I have never heard any such notion in regard to MBT "that freedom is valued far more than control" - not in the context that you are suggesting anyway. As Ted noted, there are just too many layers to even begin to sort through to help you. The most efficient means for you to understand the basic concepts (or in this case, even know what they are) is to read the book. I don't mean for that to sound harsh. It is just the truth of the matter.

Keep in mind that there is no need to agree or disagree with MBT. Use it as a guide for forming your own theory. Consider the ideas within it and test out the concepts. The good news is that, no matter what conclusions you draw in the end about MBT, you will have mounds of evidence to arrange into your very own TOE. That, as pointed out in the book, is at the core of MBT - to encourage the reader to begin their very own journey toward understanding "all-of-this."

All of that, of course, is just my limited and current understanding.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:30 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:24 am
Posts: 26
PracticalProof: 'how can you conclude that you are DEFINITELY living in a VR?'

DEFINITELY would mean a 100% sure thing. I'm not that sure, but I have some personal indicators that I add up to at least 80% in favor of the VR theory. I barely made it through basic physics at school so the following might contain some misunderstandings. I am a rusty amateurprogrammer, and sometimes that helps when I think about this stuff.

Most of what I consider evidence is at the 'edge' of the simulation. In a movie called "the 13.th floor" they found out they were in a simulation by driving through roadblocks and continuing until the graphics turned bad. In this VR the edge is where the highest speed and resolution and the smallest particles and timechunks can be observed. Thats where the VR is revealed. These are some of the indicators:

A ray of light traveling from A to B through 2 or more different media (example: air and water) makes turns when entering another medium. There is something special with the path from A to B. The light ALWAYS takes the path that is shortest in time (Fermats principle). To me this indicates that calculations are made. And everybody knows that photons can't calculate, which indicates that light is simulated by a computer.

Zeno's paradoxes indicates a VR. Just do a Google search, and you'll get tons of hits where objective reality fans in vain try to explain these paradoxes. The only theory that convincingly makes these paradoxes go away is the VR-theory. Let's take the flying arrow, we know that time comes in small 'chunks' called the Planck time. A consequence of this is that the arrow must be 'frozen' in space within the Planck time. This used to give me a headache, because it means that the information about the arrow's direction and speed has disappeared. The best solution to this paradox is that the information is stored as variables in a computer, and the arrow is a simulation.

The speed of light can't be exceeded. Your computer has a maximum number of 'frames' or pictures it can show per second (fps). So does this VR.

Let's go to the edge of the universe. It's supposed to be expanding. How does the universe expand into 'The Nothing'? Strange. In the VR-theory the circumference of the universe is just an incrementing variable in a computer. Problem solved.

And now lets go to the edge of time, at the start of the universe. As mentioned the universe is expanding, which means that at the start of time it was all contained within the Planck length. A point in 'The Nothing'. All the galaxystuff and matter in the entire universe crunched together into nothing. Thats HARD to understand if this is an objective reality, it's almost starting to look like a religion. If it's a VR it's simple: The startvalues of the VR were set, 'Enter' was pressed and the simulated expansion started.

The Quantum Zeno effect is another mind boggler for the mainstreamers. We have a radioactive particle with a halflife of lets say 5 minutes. After 5 minutes there is a 50% chance the particle has emitted a photon and decayed if its left alone, unobserved. The longer time that proceeds the greater the chance of decay is. But If the particle is observed continuously it will not decay, no matter how much time passes by. Again, hard to understand in an objective reality, how does the particle keep track of observers? Does it have eyes and brains? :) In a VR the location of the observer is always tracked, just like in Sims or WOW. The computer knows when the particle is observed.

Another strange one from Wikipedia: 'Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently – instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.' In other words these particles seem to be connected no matter how far they are from each other. 'Spooky' in an objective reality, not in a VR, were they easily can be simulated.

The double slit experiment is a nice one. My understanding is that it works just like the video stress test you can find in some computergames, where the graphics card's ability to render a smooth, high resolution and credible video is tested. In the double slit experiment we have extremely small particles at extremely high speed, a stresstest for the VR's 'rendering engine' . A particle (a photon or balls of up to 200+ carbonatoms) is fired one by one toward a sheet with two small, parallell slits. Behind the slits is a screen that registers hits.

It's my understanding that photons are used to measure the particles at the slit, so to keep it simple we'll use the 200+ carbonatoms in our experiment. In comparison it would be like using a sowingthread to measure the moon passing by at high speed. The moon would not be affected by our measurment. (Maybe I should have said meteor or mountain instead of the moon, but it doesnt matter.)

If we measure which slit the particles pass they pile up nicely behind the slits. If we dont measure the pattern on the screen changes to an interference pattern, as if a wave went through both slits at a time. What we know is that the waves don't exist, this was indirectly confirmed by the Michelson–Morley experiment where they found that no aether exists for waves to propagate through.

So why the interference pattern? The rendering engine has to calculate all possible particle-positions and it might as well us the wavefunction to do so. My guess is that a position is calculated, then there is an observer check. If no observer, loop to the next position and so on until all the probable positions on the screen are calculated. Then a random draw is done among all these positions and a particlehit is rendered at this point of the screen. On the other side, if there is an observer by the slits all the calculated positions so far are discarded, the particle is rendered, and the calculation of probable positions restarts immediately from the new point. This will result in no interference, a much smaller collection of probable hits behind the slit and they pile up nicely as expected.

My interpretation of the double slit experiment is that the rendering engine gets revealed, its ability to render a credible world gets under pressure. We get the interference pattern because this is a VR. When nobody observes by the slits we don't get a credible rendering at the screen, because the rendering engine doesn't have enough observationdata. Instead we get a sloppy rendering that surprises us. What I would expect is that particles would pile up behind the slits, observer or not. That would be the result if this is an objective reality, where all particles were created in the Big Bang. They should exist independent of any observer.

These are my personal VR-indicators. Use whichever you like, and discard the rest :) I am sure someone has more to add.

All in all, I personally would make a wager on the VR-theory if anyone offered me twice the money.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:13 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
nauinnin,

Many thanks for such a well thought out post and a prime example of sorting through the evidence oneself and applying open-minded skepticism to formulate personal, probable truths.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:10 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
once you get the science straight, then there is the next thing, which is what to do with this information and apply it to one's day.

PSI and directed intent are interesting applications to play with, but I think there is a higher benefit to investing in the science theory behind the becoming love aspect of Tom's theory.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:06 pm 
With objective conclusions from data within this PMR, one could hypothesis that we live in a VR, but Tom only offers belief systems when he discusses the concepts of "love", "other", and NMPRs. The totality of his work can be summarized as a belief system based upon a handful of corroborative evidence supporting the hypothesis that this reality is virtual.

However, the information relayed in this article does not mean that this reality is virtual. It just means it could be. There are always alternative explanations, and what one chooses based on limited evidence is stemmed from BELIEFS, FAITH, and HOPE.

Personally, I think Tom's TOE is limited in view and based on fantasy, particularly about visiting other realms and how the purpose of reality is to achieve "love."

See, from a logical standpoint, this PMR could be the past, which you perceive as the present, since a point of consciousness from an "other" or simply the future could be viewing past data, of which we reside in. Therefore, you're just data without free will. One can hypothesize all that is which you experience is the progression of one probability "stream" from the past.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:22 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7231
Location: Ocala, FL
PracticalProof - it seems as though MBT isn't for you. The real purpose of MBT is to help you grow the Quality of your Consciousness. Maybe you should find a TOE that works better for you.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:37 pm 
Sainbury wrote:PracticalProof - it seems as though MBT isn't for you. The real purpose of MBT is to help you grow the Quality of your Consciousness. Maybe you should find a TOE that works better for you.
Objective, scientific facts aren't based on one's personal approval. It's not what I feel about a theory, it's whether or not it can be corroborated or refuted properly.

Thanks for your suggestion, though.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:49 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:39 pm
Posts: 1247
PracticalProof wrote:
Objective, scientific facts aren't based on one's personal approval.
History refutes this, and your comments below allude to why.
PracticalProof wrote:With objective conclusions from data within this PMR, one could hypothesis that we live in a VR, but Tom only offers belief systems when he discusses the concepts of "love", "other", and NMPRs. The totality of his work can be summarized as a belief system based upon a handful of corroborative evidence supporting the hypothesis that this reality is virtual.

However, the information relayed in this article does not mean that this reality is virtual. It just means it could be. There are always alternative explanations, and what one chooses based on limited evidence is stemmed from BELIEFS, FAITH, and HOPE.

Personally, I think Tom's TOE is limited in view and based on fantasy, particularly about visiting other realms and how the purpose of reality is to achieve "love."

See, from a logical standpoint, this PMR could be the past, which you perceive as the present, since a point of consciousness from an "other" or simply the future could be viewing past data, of which we reside in. Therefore, you're just data without free will. One can hypothesize all that is which you experience is the progression of one probability "stream" from the past.
Based on my experiences here on the forum, there are few, if any, active members that are willing or eager to persuade you into "believing" in Tom or MBT. There is no point in doing so. This is not Scientology, and there are no dues to pay or beliefs to profess. You will not find MBTists on missions around the world knocking on doors to save the lost masses. MBT is a theory - plain and simple. The burden of assessing the accuracy/inaccuracy and usefulness/uselessness of the theory is completely and entirely up to you. The best we can do is try to clarify your misunderstandings of MBT so that you can make a more informed assessment. Sainbury's suggestion is a logical and valid one. If MBT does not sit well with you, no problem. If that is the case, there is no need to stick around and wallow in it.

Keep in mind though, that It would be most logical to read the trilogy before making any final assessments. This is not to suggest that "if only you would read it then you would agree." Not at all. I have no idea what your assessment of the theory will be once you have a good understanding of it and have test driven some of the concepts. That is all up to you. I do know that you cannot accurately refute that which you have yet to fully grasp. It just won't work. Disbelief is only three letters away from belief.

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"


Top
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:47 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7231
Location: Ocala, FL
Tom: I believe that what I said (or at least intended to say) was that we (early explorers at Monroe labs) did hundreds of evidential tests, one of which was reading numbers from a blackboard in another room. Experiments involving the reading of numbers that were written on the board or describing pictures being looked at by the person in the control room were done successfully many times but also were two of the most problematical of the tests we performed. We would be startlingly correct sometimes (one chance in several million of succeeding with a random guess) and oddly off other times (report seeing a number that was the target number divided by two or with each digit shifted by a constant), and flat out wrong other times. Practice didn't seem to improve the situation very much. There seemed to be something inhibiting the process -- something intentional -- sometimes even with a twist of humor or irony. It was from these experiences and later corroborating research that I began to formulate the psi uncertainty principle to make sense out of the data collected. That certain types of data are problematical had a certain consistency to it that eventually led to a general understanding of why that was so.

There are also several pages in MBT that discuss why psi research is often problematical. There are research results with strong scientific protocols that evidence psi. Duke did Psi research for decades with some clear results. I mention several books in MBT that will provide both scientific data and further references. To prove that it is possible for a bird to fly, one only needs to scientifically demonstrate one bird flying one time. The rest is only about prying egos away from their belief traps. The hard scientific evidence of psi is almost as common as birds flying; however, prying egos away from their beloved belief traps must occur one individual at a time. A high quality scientific report on psi has little effect beyond those who did the research.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2728&p=3503&hilit=p ... iple#p3503

Tom: Proof is likely to be subjective --usually in the form of information or ideas or perspectives that are not yours -- something that is outside your knowing or understanding. You must have very specific questions with relatively easy to convey answers.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2767&p=3895&hilit= ... tion#p3895

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_philosophy

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we- ... 121216.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Dream-World-S ... id=5142081

http://theconversation.com/alert-you-ma ... erse-10671

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:16 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3510
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Sainbury wrote:-- sometimes even with a twist of humor or irony.
Repeating some anecdotes I have told before....

Travelling several years ago we were having dinner with close friends of relatives, and as I am wont to do, I would send out a little conversational feeler in the direction of PSI, to see if anyone would rise to the bait, and this one time one of the ladies said...

"I have never told anyone this, but..." which led into a VERY intense discussion, her jealous spouse, some interactive drama, which was funny/interesting/surprising as this was a lesbian couple.

So apparently she had the ability to go OBE at will as something naturally occuring from childhood, so we decided to set up a test of her ability, which involved me placing a number on a sticky note in a room of the house back home, I think it was the number 7 (don't recall exactly), but I wrote it out many times and placed these sticky notes all around the room.

She did her thing and described the inside of our house, thousands of miles away, to the satisfaction of my very skeptical wife, and then she came up with a number, like 127, which we initially took as a "miss", until I realised that I had written the number 7 out 12 times (12*7), which I took as a reflection of playfulness or humor on the part of the system or entity overseeing the test from NPMR.

A similar indication of this occured in a University psychology experimental methods course I was taking...when the prof asked if anyone thought they had ESP, my hand shot up, as I had experimented with playing card suit guessing, and when we ran a test, my performance successfully breached the threshold of statistical significance that the class had established together, however, it was for NEGATIVE ESP, which nevertheless, the prof pointed out was equally significant as a deviation from a random result. Having a negative/significant result however, I took as consistent with this humor or playfulness on the part of the system.

Humor (that is not at the expense of someone else), possibly in ways that parallel music and most of the Arts, itself seems to go hand in hand with consciousness, not only as an indicator of consciousness and mental health, but as well as a curative or organic suppressor of interactive fear and ego.

Hence the significance and seriousness of Tom's sense of humor and silliness, anti-stuff-shirted-ness. Lack of a sense of humor, like profitable violence or threat thereof (i.e. MAD), should be something reserved for very special situations, and rarely arise.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 102
Practicalproof, there is some validity scattered in some of the things you stated and confusion in others.. rather than going into each and running in circles w/o basis..
let us say:
all overarching simplified summary concepts need to rest upon more detailed lower level supporting concepts and in turn supported by other lower level supporting concepts and so forth til the base assumptions..
by not reading Tom's books first you may be missing alot of those underlying concepts and assertions
suggest you first to read the books as they have more detail than the videos and presentations

afterwards you should be better armed in forum discussions

and since you are seemingly somewhat versed in science, that would mean MBT's metaphors are also better suited for you


Top
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:25 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:24 am
Posts: 61
Location: Palma de Mallorca
I just read through this thread and I merely wanted to thank all of you for the great replies you have given to PracticalProof.

Some years have passed now since I read the trilogy for the first time. Since then I have watched an amount of Tom's videos, visited two lectures personally, discussed MBT with a lot of intelligent people and most importantly (for myself) tried to find logical holes or contradictions in the theory on the one hand while independently researching the claims made about the quantum physics, the phenomenon of the speed of light being the maximum velocity in our universe and related issues.
I have also followed the latest discoveries and developments in physics and science, like Anton Zeilinger's experiments showing that the weirdness of quantum physics is not limited to particles, but can be demonstrated with a lot larger molecules (like the Fullerene C60 for example). Or in Zeilinger's words (reproduced by my memory, it is not an exact quote): "Provided we can build the necessary machinery, it is in my opinion safe to assume that the double slit experiment could be also repeated with molecules the mass and size of a virus".

If that is not at least strongly scratching at the edge of our virtual reality, then I don't know what is. Turning an entity like a virus either into a wave or a particle creating either an interference pattern (with itself) or two solid bars on the screen just by storing the "which path"-information is an amazing progress. And I don't know I should be more amazed by the success of Zeilinger's experiments or the missing interest of the general public in his publication considered that he cleary demonstrated that quantum physics is not limited to the world of atoms.

Personally after pondering MBT for several years now I have to agree with the previous posts in this thread. So far MBT seems to be the most logical and sound theory explaining all the different phenomena and experiences of this PMR and beyond.

And it was a very fascinating read for me to see all of you answer and explain to PracticalProof your perspective in a way that I could have written in a very similar fashion myself (only most likely with a poorer choice of words).

It would be so great if we could have an exchange of ideas and experiences in person instead of a purely text based communication. But I am nonetheless very grateful for the Internet allowing at least the latter. :-)

_________________
Always expect the unexpected...


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 0 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

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