Science and Spirituality successfully meet: the work of physicist Tom Campbell

For any who are interested in the convergence of science and spirituality, the following content may be of value to you. This post is a recommendation to look into the work of NASA physicist and consciousness explorer Tom Campbell. Tom Campbell has created a “Theory of Everything” model which explains ALL phenomena from consciousness. You might call his work a “consciousness-based physics model.” Very importantly, this work is both personally and objectively verifiable- you don’t have to take any of it on belief. I am a strict left-brained logic-oriented type and have found Tom Campbell’s work to have the potential to change how the whole world understands science and spirit. All things fit into the model: physics, personal experience, God, Love, psychic phenomenon, out-of-body experiences, etc.

Here is a video link to a 13 hour lecture he gave in Spain (this is hour 1 of 13), I suggest watching the first four hours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AihD2__gKE

If that’s too long look up “Tom Campbell” on YouTube and watch whatever you like.

His book trilogy is called “My Big TOE” (TOE stands for Theory of Everything). It’s a thick read but well worth it. The entire trilogy is available on Google docs for free, or you can buy the books on Amazon, it's the book with a huge big toe on the front of it.

Tom Campbell's work has been personally transformative and wonderful for me.

Enjoy!

The problem with his stuff is much of it relies on his interpretation of the double slit experiment. Where if you leave the detector on but don't record then the wave doesn't collapse. It only collapses when a conscious observer observes the which-way information.


I tried to verify that and it's just not true.
It's a good idea to check out pop-science theories with a real physics forum first.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...ording.414617/

That thread helps clear up some issues.
I've seen these claims about the double-slit experiment made before and they are exciting but not literally true. It's misleading language designed to entice and sell books.

[ask21771]

Originally Posted by joelr

The problem with his stuff is much of it relies on his interpretation of the double slit experiment. Where if you leave the detector on but don't record then the wave doesn't collapse. It only collapses when a conscious observer observes the which-way information.


I tried to verify that and it's just not true.
It's a good idea to check out pop-science theories with a real physics forum first.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...ording.414617/

That thread helps clear up some issues.
I've seen these claims about the double-slit experiment made before and they are exciting but not literally true. It's misleading language designed to entice and sell books.

Has his theory been 100% disproven

Originally Posted by joelr

The problem with his stuff is much of it relies on his interpretation of the double slit experiment. Where if you leave the detector on but don't record then the wave doesn't collapse. It only collapses when a conscious observer observes the which-way information.

I tried to verify that and it's just not true.
It's a good idea to check out pop-science theories with a real physics forum first.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...ording.414617/

That thread helps clear up some issues.
I've seen these claims about the double-slit experiment made before and they are exciting but not literally true. It's misleading language designed to entice and sell books.

Joelr, good post- it is important that we don't take things at face value or "believe" certain interpretations of experiments just to believe them. Also I agree that often the double-slit is misinterpreted. I am reviewing the thread you posted on the physics forum and will do some digging about statements there (for instance Cthugha's statement: "Once the data is detected by an irreversible process, deleting the data does not induce any changes.").

I have spent significant time reviewing Campbell's work and pertinent research. I can say clearly that Campbell's model does not "rely on his interpretation of the double slit experiment." His conclusions have been reached both through physical data and research- which does include his interpretation of double slit/ quantum eraser/ delayed choice etc.- and also his personal non-physical experiences. For some physical data that may be interesting here's a couple links regarding consciousness' affects in the physical-
Peer reviewed publications on psi-research:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Princeton did 25+ years of good scientific conscousness research, here's a link:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
After the conclusion of all the studies Princeton somehow calculated the statistical likelihood of their research confirming that consciousness alters the physical world was something like a billion-to-one odds in favor.

Regarding Campbell's non-physical personal experiences, certainly they are not externally verifiable- and Campbell is clear and up-front that no one can (or should) just take his word about them. But in his books Campbell encourages the reader to explore their own consciousness and verify the model personally (personally experience non-physical data), which I have been carefully and skeptically doing, and it has been positively life changing.

Campbell encourages his readers to NOT believe his work, but instead encourages them to carefully verify it themselves (in line with his espoused "open minded skepticism"). As for suggesting that Campbell's motivation might be to sell books, he gives them away for free (you can download them on Google docs) and has made very little money on the printed books- in fact he self-published to avoid the marketing environment.

Regarding the linked Physics Forums post, it is clear that some of the participants there understand QM much better than I do. However, the knowledgeable participants on that thread disagree about the interpretation of the results. Also I'm certain Campbell has a better understanding of QM than I do as well. :) Not saying that's an excuse for me- I need to improve my understanding and I intend to- but just pointing out Joelr that as far as I can tell at this time, the thread you reference does not "debunk" Campbell's interpretation of the double slit.

I saw on one of his videos where he say's it's not consciousness that collapses the wave function but just having the which-way information available. That is pretty much true.

I'm familiar with Dean Radin and all that stuff. I haven't seen that much of Campbell's work but it seems to be the standard modern metaphysics lecture/book type gig. Use the double slit experiment, consciousness and intent are the fundamental things of reality, tips on how to use altered states, meditation, focused awareness, talk about physics but only vaguely.

Pretend it's really a theory of everything but it's really just a bunch of ideas and no mathematical model at all.

I'm not knocking it really, I've followed those type of movements.
But a TOE will be a mathematical theory because that is the language of physics. So to imply that terminology seems like fancy marketing on the same old metaphysics lecture.
Does he have anything new to say?
Where is this theory that is supposed to be the next big thing since relativity?
It's not published.

What he does do is sell workshops all over the world, do paid lectures and has a movie and a book trilogy he sells on his site and on Amazon.
This is how he makes a living, do not be fooled.
http://www.mbtevents.com/Home_Page.php
http://www.my-big-toe.com/index.php/...and-forum-gems

There is nothing wrong with writing a book and making a living, I'm just saying does he actually offer anything new? And is his work that of a physicist or just new age ideas with supposed personal experiences?

Science and spirituality unite in Thelema and modern occultism and have for at least a century, arguably since the dawn of religion. Makes things like this - especially since this is pretty pseudo-scientific if I'm thinking of the right guy.

Originally Posted by joelr

Pretend it's really a theory of everything but it's really just a bunch of ideas and no mathematical model at all.

I'm not knocking it really, I've followed those type of movements.
But a TOE will be a mathematical theory because that is the language of physics. So to imply that terminology seems like fancy marketing on the same old metaphysics lecture.
Does he have anything new to say?
Where is this theory that is supposed to be the next big thing since relativity?
It's not published.

Your expectation that a TOE will be a "mathematical theory" is based on the current common "scientific" belief that physical reality is fundamental and that all things follow its laws of physics. You have an assumption. We've seen how physical laws can be boiled down to basic equations, so we believe that all reality will be like that. In Campbell's model, those equations are the "rule-set" for this physical reality, which is a sub-set of something else, as it is virtually derived. Campbell spends a good deal of time in his book speaking to what a "Theory of Everything" must do (especially a "Big TOE" which comprises all reality versus a "Little TOE" which only speaks to this local reality's rule-set). If one is within a virtual reality, proving the super-set reality which spawns the virtual reality, from within the virtual reality, is not possible: virtual reality content can only speak to virtual reality content- in other words, physics equations can only speak to the physical rule-set, but cannot speak to where that rule-set is derived from. World of Warcraft characters cannot prove in World of Warcraft Physics that you are playing the game or how Earth works. If that sounds like a cop-out, it's only because one hasn't delved enough into Campbell's work to see that he speaks to why that must be so- much of his book is dedicated to that discussion. Campbell is strictly against "mystical assumptions" and is dedicated to "hard science" without mysticism.

As a simple example, science currently theorizes the "big bang." But where did that come from and why? As Campbell has stated, since we can't explain it, we "borrow one mystical assumption to explain all other reality"- but in a true TOE, all must be explained- and in Campbell's model, it is. Campbell's reality model does require a Physically incarnated awareness such as ours to think outside-the-physical-box.

So, can Campbell prove his theory in Physical Material Reality ("PMR") mathematics? No, he cannot. Does that mean he's wrong? No. Can Campbell's model solve existing questions in physics that are un-answered within the traditional scientific paradigm? Indeed yes! Can his model be verified when one accounts for consciousness, including one's own? Yes.

Originally Posted by joelr

What he does do is sell workshops all over the world, do paid lectures and has a movie and a book trilogy he sells on his site and on Amazon.
This is how he makes a living, do not be fooled.
http://www.mbtevents.com/Home_Page.php
http://www.my-big-toe.com/index.php/...and-forum-gems

His workshops are typically free, his book is free, and the movie you reference is a series created by an organization for which he earns no royalties (to my knowledge)- he sells it because of the content. He still works as a consultant for NASA. Your judgment for his motivations are a common challenge I see on his forum, and one that's understood given our society, but after having interacted with him and interacted with others that he has personally worked with on many topics, I ascertain that his intentions are pure. (Indeed, one's genuine intention is an important element to his model. ;) )

If you are interested I suggest seeking out Campbell's "Big TOE Forum" and poking around/ asking questions. I think you'll find 0 tolerance for "metaphysical hype" or "wish-washy science" from the moderators there just as you would from Campbell himself.

http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/

[Morpheus]

I really don't think it is so difficult, unless one has personal and subjective issues involved, and going on. We're all adults here, yes? Where is your head at? Your heart?

Think about it.

Science tells us about what we find when we reduce things, further, and further. No? Scrutinize. What is borne out in the Math. What is it about you joel, that is resistant? You don't like the conclusions?

Knowledge. - Step upon step, precept upon precept... yes?
Conclusions in the 21st century.

What is a particle?
Atoms we know are not simply one particle, yes? Then we delve closer and scrutinize it's sub particles...
What do we find?
Have you thought about this..?

Now we have gotten to Superstrings, or loops. I've been posting from early on, that material reality is founded upon "Frequency, Vibration, and Resonance".
You think this is new age garble, or what?

Also...
We are told in the spiritual teacdhings we are created in God's image. Think about our Larnyx. What are we doing when we talk?
Make sound?
"Frequency, Vibration, and Resonance"... Yes?

Material Reality is founded upon the "Voice" of God.

Also, we are to understand that the Messiah, long prophesied in the Old Testament writings, is the Word of God, made flesh. What makes prophecy true?
It inolves what we've learned about Time, No? That, our linear perception of it is an illusion. No?
You see, things aren't all that difficult, when one manages to actually, think.

Objectively.

What is it about people that want to unecessarily complicate the findings? Personal issues?
I'm asking.
Now... what is, "The World" ? Is it as we percieve? Joelr?
Don't be found among the "inured" in your mindset and thinking.

Atittude, and heart... joelr.

Originally Posted by Morpheus

I really don't think it is so difficult, unless one has personal and subjective issues involved, and going on. We're all adults here, yes? Where is your head at? Your heart?

Think about it.

Science tells us about what we find when we reduce things, further, and further. No? Scrutinize. What is borne out in the Math. What is it about you joel, that is resistant? You don't like the conclusions?

Knowledge. - Step upon step, precept upon precept... yes?
Conclusions in the 21st century.

What is a particle?
Atoms we know are not simply one particle, yes? Then we delve closer and scrutinize it's sub particles...
What do we find?
Have you thought about this..?

Now we have gotten to Superstrings, or loops. I've been posting from early on, that material reality is founded upon "Frequency, Vibration, and Resonance".
You think this is new age garble, or what?

Also...
We are told in the spiritual teacdhings we are created in God's image. Think about our Larnyx. What are we doing when we talk?
Make sound?
"Frequency, Vibration, and Resonance"... Yes?

Material Reality is founded upon the "Voice" of God.

Also, we are to understand that the Messiah, long prophesied in the Old Testament writings, is the Word of God, made flesh. What makes prophecy true?
It inolves what we've learned about Time, No? That, our linear perception of it is an illusion. No?
You see, things aren't all that difficult, when one manages to actually, think.

Objectively.

What is it about people that want to unecessarily complicate the findings? Personal issues?
I'm asking.
Now... what is, "The World" ? Is it as we percieve? Joelr?
Don't be found among the "inured" in your mindset and thinking.

Atittude, and heart... joelr.

I think the evidence is sound that any theories related to a TOE will be a mathematical theory.
A TOE has to account for all other theories in physics, only with math can that be done. Literally, it's the only possible way.

Again I think you're getting way to deep into adHom arguments by trying to attach personal issues to one's beliefs or in this case simply challenging that something outside of science is COMPLETELY true.

How dare I challenge a metaphysical idea? Fundamentalism is creepy.

I'm questioning things like one should and you seem intolerant of that. Putting together a few physics quotes isn't even stating a personal theory.
Why don't you use words and put forth your ideas?
Not your ideas on someone's "personal issues".

That says nothing but implies insecurity.

It's not the conclusion, it's the use of bad science to get there.
Show me where it says if one doesn't believe random meshing of metaphysics and religion that one has some type of problem?

The OT has no prophecies about Jesus. Anything that does match was put in the NT to make it look like a match. It's an unprovable thing either way and pointless. Every religion has proof of prophecies, they harp on it endlessly.