Tom Campbell's Theory of Everything: Information Based Unive

Post Reply New Topic

I just stumbled on this guy a few days ago after doing a lot of reading in corollary directions. Why I'm posting it - its somewhat new and fringe information but its something that looks like it may very well be the new paradigm within a couple decades within the physics world.

I'm not really posting this to prove or disprove or debate, its really more of an exploration adventure and as I know a lot of people here can get bored of constantly regurgitated and rehashed political and religious topics that are well established this might be a new time to grab some new theories to throw against the wall.

Admittedly the videos are long, which is why I suggest watching the first video (approx 2 1/2 hours) and seeing what you think - again *if* you have the time and motivation - TLDWDNTK; I'm just sharing the info not ordering anyone to watch it. If I were to make the most general one-liner summary I can: he's tying in physics and metaphysics through QM, essentially claiming that the universe as we know it is virtual (nothing new) and the suggestion that consciousness is the generator as well as that consciousness in aggregate also agrees on the rule sets and creates them to generate more experiences. Around here that kind of thing sounds like fluff but, I think he makes some pretty cogent arguments.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1vYHOPFgcg[/youtube]

Saturday - Theory Only:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nlbro2MNBs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wISsxE-EZU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqyK9lbwTEQ

Sunday - Application Only:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRar8IOwic8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej1FcJG_NZY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_iI5p5vPTI

I didn't watch the video but it sounds like John Wheeler's "it from bit", and other physicists are interested in it too.

how many frontline physics theories has this approach produced?

ruveyn

How many engineering principles have been derived?

How many has String Theory, The Big Bang, or most of cosmology? Not all science has to have practical applications. Nor does something lacking practical applications make it any less true or valid.

I'm not asking about String Theory, Big Bang, or most of Cosmology.

I'm asking about the topic of THIS THREAD, which is, "Tom Campbell's Theory of Everything: Information Based Universe".

Do you have anything other than a snarky answer to contribute?

You're knocking over a straw man and your comment was snarky. Something is not invalid because it doesn't have practical applications. Nobody claimed you could engineer anything because of it. It's a straw man and doesn't refute anything.

I'm not trying to refute anything. I'm asking a question: Have any engineering principles been derived from Tom Campbell's "Theory of Everything" or not?

Of course you are. You obviously don't think it is credible and that's why you asked that stupid and irrelevant question.

1. You have no idea what I'm thinking.

2. No question that seeks answers is stupid.

3. My questions are relevant to the topic of this thread.

There is no need to be defensive; if you can't answer the question, just say so. Otherwise, I'll seek enlightenment from someone else.

1. Yes I do.

2. Yes they are. You got that out of a fortune cookie.

3. How is it relevant? If somebody posted a video of the Big Bang and some guy came in here and said, "What engineering principles have been derived from this?" That would be a stupid and irrelevant question. Just like yours.

lol at seeking enlightenment. You're so transparent. Your mind is already made up.

matrix platonic-cave Ghost-in-The-Shell

tron (between the two lists)

pythagorean-cult
orobouros
freemasonry
samsara
yinyang

information flows through the universe in patterns and it is the pattern of these that makes it all up

If you like this sort of thing. His perspective is another form of neo-Kantian idealism (reality as "consciousness"). I find that approach to be very problematic for a variety of reasons, especially its tautology.

Also, why would a scientist throw psychic remote viewing (systematic clairvoyance) into a lecture?

That's what I was trying to say in the first post - it includes remote viewing, out of body/astral projection, healing, etc. etc. lots of new agey stuff. Some people might be interested to see what the guy is saying based on a definite belief in physics and an at least partial belief in the possibility of some of the other things. Other people believe that the very second someone mentions an idea that's not reductive materialistic that that one angle has enough Midas touch to turn anything else that person says to complete and utter garbage.

I really don't care which view someone ascribes to - they can watch it, they can also not watch it. I'm just pointing out that its there for anyone who is interested.

If people, like Ed Dames or Courtney Brown, are interested in remote viewing, that is their own business. However, they don't combine it with the natural sciences.

Courtney Brown is an academic mathematician. He keeps his work on remote viewing entirely separate.

This guy just throws it all together. That is my problem with his approach.