Tom Campbell's My Big TOE

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
BecomingPhill
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:36 am

Tom Campbell's My Big TOE

Post by BecomingPhill »

Hi all,

I'm still a noob taking baby steps with RST but I think I grasp basic concepts. I came across these video's by Tom Campbell and found some of the concepts used interesting even though he is settled on conventional representation systems. Any thoughts?

http://youtu.be/2Nlbro2MNBs
http://www.my-big-toe.com/
drwater
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 9:12 pm

My Big TOE

Post by drwater »

Campbell's presentations and his book are higher level theoretical descriptions than what has been used in the development of RST and conventional physics. That is, his presentations don't dive deeply into the math. However, I also find his overall theory to be fascinating on many levels. The subset of his digital physics based theory that applies to our physical universe has many similarities to RST, including some form of discrete vibration as the basis for everything, the speed of light as the standard progression (although as a metaphorical "screen refresh rate" in his theory), and quantum mechanics uncertainty/probability. One of the major differences is that Campbell proposes that uncertainty exists even at the macro scale, not just at less than one space unit. Campbell also claims a theory that is compatible with the Big Bang, which Larson dismissed. Campbell doesn't explicitly mention rotational or translational motion as fundamental, but those could possibly be aspects or extensions of his concept of vibration. Campbell's theory also posits conciousness as the basis for everything, including other non-physical realities. This would be a broader or more fundamental theory of everything than RST. I think it would be very interesting to see how far some form of RST could be derived or be compatible with Campbell's My Big Toe.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Consciousness = RS "control units"

Post by bperet »

Haven't watched the video yet; downloading it and will watch it tonight, as it's over 2 hours.

Larson does delve quite deeply into metaphysics in his book, Beyond Space and Time, and deduces consciousness, what he calls "ethical control units," as a natural consequence of evolving life. Of course, this position is contrary to the New Age beliefs that consciousness comes first, and matter springs up around it to manifest consciousness.

Larson was a "yang" thinker, like many of the researchers of the post-Einstein era, where the concept of an "ether" was said to be abandoned, but in actuality, they just hid it in other terminology, like warping space, dark matter and dark energy. As such, he builds from the nothing, upwards, creating a universe from photons. The etherology thinkers of the 19th century did the opposite, starting from everything (the solid ether) and worked downwards, considering particles and photons to be "effluves," a decay product of the atomic/molecular system. From a quick look, Campbell appears to be on a similar path from the etherologists of the days of old.

The research we are doing here with RS2 accepts both perspectives, as a natural consequence of the theory--it is just a matter of perspective. If you are using a material perspective, you will start from zero and derive consciousness as a natural consequence of life (material-to-cosmic). A cosmic perspective gives you the inverse, where consciousness permeates the universe and "matter" is the natural consequence of consciousness (cosmic-to-material). If you use a scalar motion perspective, using the unit progression as a reference, then you just see both sides approaching the same unity, so much can be learned from examining both paths.

I read a lot of the 19th century etherology stuff (currently buried in Gustave Le Bon's books of the 1900s, which appears to be the source of T. Henry Moray's "valve"), and find it quite valuable as they have observations and experiments that deal with the cosmic half of the universe, something that Larson had a tendency to avoid.
Every dogma has its day...
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

BigTOE Part 1

Post by bperet »

I watched the Calgary lecture, Part 1, last night and took a few notes. The first 90 minutes is rather slow and a struggle to get through, discussing Relativity, QM and the two slit experiment. Had one difficulty with that part of the presentation, as he kept saying that they "measured but did not collect data and got a difraction pattern as a result." Well, if they did not collect the data, how could they possibly know what the result actually was? It seemed to me that it was more an assumption that a diffraction pattern was the "default" result, if they did not interpret the data.

Regarding the concept of things existing "in potential," and not having their state set until something reifies ("makes real") them--I agree with that, as I was just trying to explain that to Doug the other day, during Gopi's visit to ISUS HQ.

In the RS, there exists a "potential" physical reality that Larson calls "scalar motion." I consider it potential because it has all the structural information, but has not yet been projected into extension space (or time) and into a coordinate system to lock those variables into physical interaction. Campbell's concept of a nonphysical reality, at the atomic level, is a reference to Larson's scalar motion. But as you find out later, Campbell has another nonphysical reality for consciousness, which is Larson's third sector, the Ethical Sector.

As to reality being a "virtual reality..." well, what can I say? That's what RS2 has been about since I started computer modelling the RS back in 1996 with Prof. Nehru. Anyone familiar with artificial realities and how they are represented in computer software will recognize Larson's universe of motion as a very detailed conceptual description of a virtual reality. Unfortunately, back in 1959 when Larson first published the RS, computers were just getting started and weren't more than "4-banger" calculators, so the correlation was missed until a computer geek like myself came along.

Overall, I agree with what I have seen Campbell present, though Larson is further along on a conceptual basis. Larson also ran into the problem with metaphysics that Campbell describes, as discussing metaphysics along with physics is a way to get kicked out of the "scientific" community. Larson was trying to get the attention of the physicists of the day, so even though he wrote Beyond Space and Time, which documents life and consciousness, he would not allow it to be published until he died. (And it was published 5 years after his death.)

For some specific comments I took some notes on (times are HH:MM, approximate):

1:22 Commented on an average sun being a billion years old, than changed his mind to 50 million... thought that was a cute slip, as that's about the SAME value Nehru calculated for the middle age of a star, with a total lifespan of 100 million years.

1:32 "objectivity" is described as an "approximation," which is a really good way to describe it.

1:37 talking about bricks as all different sizes within a range, and how they come from a mold. This is analogous to the psychological concept of archetypes, or the computer concept of class (archetype or template) and instance (actual thing). What I have noticed in the RS is that the archetype of motion, say a "class" describing helium, is not static, so when you do a "new helium()" you get a snapshot of the state of the archetype at that instant, which is the same process Campbell is describing by "fixing the state" of an object.

1:39 Discussing speed of light, which is virtually identical to Larson's description of the progression of the natural reference system (unit speed = speed of light). Larson uses the progression as his "datum," which is the minimum quantity of measurement of space, time or speed. Campbell's "pixel count" is Larson's "natural unit of space" and Campbell's "frame rate" is Larson's "natural unit of time."

Now they do disagree on the dimensions of those units; Campbell using Planck's units and Larson his natural units. The discrepancy is due to the fact that Campbell only recognizes Sectors 1 (material) and 3 (ethical), and assumes Sector 2 (cosmic, 3D time) is part of the spatial experience, so he has to have his units adjusted for 1D time, not a temporal volume as Larson uses. If you incorporate Sector 2, 3D time, then Larson's natural units would be the correct values to use.

1:47 discussing "big bang" as the "run" button being pushed for the Universe. Larson disagreed with the big bang theory, saying that the Universe is not bound by clock time (clock time is a consequence of the Universe, not its causality). Though Larson also said that there are a finite number of units of motion, which indicates some kind of seed process, which could be interpreted as a big bang event.

My personal view is that the virtual universe has a BIOS, some boot code, that got things going and that the number of units of motion are constantly increasing, because potential can be reified as consciousness evolves.

1:49 Campbell states the universe could be defined by a "couple simple things," like two, Fundamental Postulates?

1:54 consciousness being binary. Larson also takes this position, with his binary values being space and time, rather than 1 and 0. Being a long-time computer programmer, there is a third state that exists in the RS, but is not considered by either researcher: that of the NULL state, which could be interpreted as "potential." In the RS, the NULL state is unit speed--no displacement--which Larson requires for his theory to work, that "free dimensions" where things are carried by the progression, like photons. So in essence, it is a trinary system, space-unity-time. Just turns out that the unity state is very unstable because it takes only the absolute minimum change to flip that switch either way. Campbell also discusses this as a "static," unstable state; same thing.

1:57 using "entropy" to explain organization. I liked that idea, as it is more accurate word than "complexity." He discusses how low entropy = more organization (signal), implying less entropy = less organization (noise), more generalization. It is an interesting statement on our society, in general, as the push appears to be towards increasing entropy, particularly in the field of education, as my Venezuelan friend Jesus (a school teacher,) could spend hours telling you about--like how they disallow correcting papers and giving number grades, as it is too precise! Can't have mistakes, because you might hurt a child's feelings!

As another computer analogy, I found the concept of entropy to be analogous to the compression of data, where trends are generalized at the expense of resolution, such as the quadtree encoding used on DVDs, that divide the screen into blocks--if all the pixels in a block are the same color, then you can just represent a large area with a single block; if not, the block can be subdivided.

1:59 evolution = change; exactly the same conclusion Larson reached, at the end of the video on the RS site: "abstract change in 3 dimensions."

2:02 discussing choice and free will; not so much as an "array" as Campbell describes, but as a "tree." A reactive person only chooses from the forks in the branch they are on; a proactive person follows each of those forks a few levels further, to see where the trend goes, in general, to aid in making a decision.

This brought up the thought Larson expressed as, "complexity is entertaining, simplicity is not." We like complexity because if provides many, many possible choices--it has "high entropy." Simplicity is low entropy, the road is straight ahead, and therefore no choices and boring. We seem to associate the number of choices with "entertainment levels." And when there are too many choices, it becomes impossible to actually MAKE a decision, so one does not--and completely avoids all consequences, along with the duties and responsibilities that arise from making choices. (Not really an escape, as "no choice" is actually a choice, but a choice of devolution, not evolution.)

2:05 "Love" -- the only real issue I have with Campbell is his CHOICE to equate "love" with lower entropy states and spirituality. Yes, he does explain why and it makes sense to a rational mind, but love is not a rational concept. The subjective meaning of "love" is so unstable, that I consider the word useless to accurately relate information. I normally use the term "rapport," as it is more accurate and does not have all the subjective connotations. (Same thing daniel uses in his papers.) But I also notice Campbell is a prolific speaker, so it's probably a "marketing" choice for lectures, as all the New Age types want "love to be the answer," and from what I've seen, that is his target market.

As general, philosophic concepts: lower entropy = rapport; higher entropy = rivalry. And Campbell does make a good point that rapport "optimizes" and produces situations where consciousness can continue to grow, whereas rivalry "destroys," which is the obvious case with the world, right now.

2:11 Origins of consciousness; in the RS, consciousness is the "ethical control unit" that Larson describes in Beyond Space and Time. The consciousness-matter relation is much like the chicken-and-the-egg problem, because consciousness exists outside of physicality, so the only time there is correlation is once it is reified. Larson's position is that life creates consciousness. Larson's position is more sensible to me, as it indicates a system of lowering entropy to produce higher, spiritual states--evolution. But I've seen this dichotomy in the New Age community for decades, and there do seem to be two paths... but consider: if you start with a low-entropy, high consciousness state, then isn't the only direction to go is UP, towards higher entropy, and lower consciousness states? I suspect that both are necessary, and that there is a constant swing between the two conditions, where high entropy is needed to provide options, and low entropy results from taking advantage of those opportunities provided by making choices.

It will be interesting to see what Part 2 has to say...
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply