Tom Campbell's MBT (My Big TOE (Theory of Everything))

[Robert Elliot]

I am interested in hearing opinions/criticism of MBT - thanks.

[Ben Iscatus]

Hello Robert- I used to be impressed myself, but these days am less so. The issues I have with MBT now are quite a few. Here are six I can think of immediately:

1. Time as a technology. TC says that Time is very real, running at different rates in different VRs (slower in Physical Matter realities than in Non Physical Matter realities). Any suggestion that Time is ultimately part of our mental apparatus rather than independently valid is not acceptable to MBT, probably because of some inherent belief that entropy is impossible without loss of structure through time. However, as Lanza points out in "Biocentrism", entropy could just be brought about by random movement (everything is naturally in motion), or perhaps due to lack of attention by Mind, resulting in a natural loss of pattern and order.

2. The digital physics and computer model is somehow lacking - life and reality just seem more nuanced than this. There is very little reference to the value of the arts - whole sections of culture seem undervalued by MBT. Also, he has no interest in the current environmental crisis, because, seeing our world as a computerized VR, he says it could all be rebooted again from any point in time. But if this were possible, wouldn't it mean that memories would have to be wiped clean and/or consequences of individual and collective decisions evaded? Also, rebooting before the computer age would eliminate MBT as a theory!

3. The idea that strong AI is just around the corner - TC believes that robots will be conscious, inhabited by individuated units of consciousness which will be different from humans, but still with real internal lives and freewill. Personally, I can't agree with this.

4.  The idea that life is only about evolution of consciousness, and that not striving to evolve results in negative evolution, due to entropy. Can't life also be about simply experiencing reality from different perspectives? Can't life also be about having fun, like a seagull riding the wind?

5.  It's insistence that eating sugar, imbibing alcohol etc are bad for consciousness, even in moderation. Sorry, can't live like that!

6. Although Tom states he freely travels OOBE and accesses a future probability database, he never produces any evidence that might be used to prove this. A theory without evidence? Is that science? Possible uses of evidence brought back from a future probability database: telling NASA about a rogue asteroid, telling the government about a probable major international incident, telling astronomers where to point their telescopes for life around other stars, probability of social collapse as a result of economic or environmental issues... He gets away with not providing evidence by saying that:

a. It is entertainment for the ego and so unworthy of his interest (entertainment? that depends who you tell and why you tell it)

b. The "psi uncertainty principle" would mess up any predictions he makes to a wide audience, thus rendering them useless and tending to discredit him. (Surely some probabilities are near certainties, and won't be altered by the telling?) Anyway, you could always preface a prediction with : "There is a probability of high X happening..."

These two excuses seem far too convenient. Easier for people to think he just can't reliably do it. Even if he can, the lack of evidence must surely put off thousands of potential supporters. Why put off people in this way when you aver that your mission is to spread a theory of everything to as wide an audience as possible?  

[Dana Lomas]

I'm not overly familiar with Tom's TOE (that sounds strange), but from what I've gleaned so far from his youtube talks, he at least starts off on the right foot recognizing the primacy of Consciousness. Beyond that, with the virtual reality analogy, we are pretty much getting into story-time, which one can buy into or not, as the case may be. But to be fair to Tom, I've yet to find anyone who has successfully put an explanation of what is actually going on into words -- if that is even possible. So far, I resonate with Bernardo's theories more so than any others. But even then, however it may involve some empirical scientific evidence -- which itself is constantly shifting -- there is a reason why he calls this blog ''Metaphysical Speculations.'

[Sciborg]

I've heard - though never seen anything from the man himself - that Tom is reluctant to share what he's seen in the subtle worlds because of the dangers that lie there.

Entirely possible, but also an incredibly convenient excuse.

[Ben Iscatus]

Sci, to be fair to Tom Campbell, it isn't him who is bothered by dangers of negative entities in NPMR - he says they're relatively easily deflected with "intent". It was actually Monroe who hinted at veiled threats and organized deceit - loosh harvesting, etc. 

[Dana Lomas]

Just came across Ben's review of My Big Toe, which is well worth checking out IMO. This may also be of interest, if not already viewed, an inspired chat with Tom and Bruce Lipton (author of The Biology of Belief) that augments the big TOE, and factors in fractal iteration in nature, wherein the individuated mind is a fractal of Consciousness as the whole, ever-evolving into a lower entropy system.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, Robert Elliot wrote:

[Robert Elliot]

Thanks for the replies.

[Alex Merab]

Hi Ben, cannot agree more! I was myself initially very impressed by his TOE but after carefully reading his Trilogy there are certain ideas i dont agree. I totally agree with all the points you laid out above. I also send him an email with my questions couple of years ago but he never responded. I'm posting my email content below, may would be of interest for someone:

Hi Tom!

First of all thank you for this great trilogy. As you encouraged us multiple times to be skeptical (but open minded), based on this healthy skepticism I would like to ask you couple of questions related to the ideas raised in your book which are in odds with my experience or I’m skeptical for logical reasons. Below are my questions and I will appreciate if you can answer them whenever you get a chance.

 

1. AUOs infinity/eternity – I think AUO is not seemingly but also actually infinite, because AUO is out of space and time, thus eternal and infinite. And if there was no time, there was no causality and we can assume it was ‘always’ there and there was nothing before AUO. Also if AUO is primary to space and time, then question what was before is irrelevant. And even if there is anything outside AUO consciousness system, that bigger system also would need to be conscious so it loses the point I think. Could you please comment on this? (ref. pages 190 & 213 book 1)
   
2. Free Will – I will try to disagree with you and say there is no free will. That is my experience, because in order for free will to exist there should be a chooser. For example I don’t choose my thoughts, they just come to me – and it seems so apparent that there is no chooser. You may say thoughts are coming to us according to our intentions and motivations, but if we trace back where our motivations and intentions were formed, we discover that we were not in charge of forming them as well. Could you please comment on this?
   
3. You say brain supports consciousness, but my experience is vice versa – I think consciousness supports brain, in other words brain appears inside the consciousness (it is image in our minds) and it is made out of consciousness. Could you please comment on this? (ref. page 104 book 2)
   
4. How can I directly experience NPMR? I understand it takes lots of meditation practice and evolving consciousness, but I think I’m already great meditator and hopefully quite evolved, full of love person J, but I still cannot switch data stream to directly experience other realities. Could you please give me a hint how can I switch to desired data stream? (ref. page 137 book 2)
   
5. Manipulating future events – if we can manipulate future event to particular outcome (through PK or telepathy), then skeptics may say that for example casinos will not exist and people with such abilities will make a fortune in casino, but we see it is not happening. Could you please comment on this? (ref. page 199 book 2)
   
6. Consciousness Evolution – I think AUM is already perfect and complete and what you call evolution of our personal consciousness (although I think there is no personal consciousness) is just recognition of our true nature – infinite consciousness, that lacks nothing, longs for nothing and is self-sufficient. Could you please comment on this? (ref. page 263 book 2)
7. My experience is that there is no time (stand-alone thing with its own right), rather then it is just a description of change. More and more scientists also navigate to that understanding. Why do you insist that time exists and it is not just a tool of mind?
   
8. Mind altering Drugs – You are strongly against psychedelic drugs, but my personal experience dealing with these substances are actually positive. They are powerful tools that can help you to tap into true nature of reality and help you become better person. Of course I understand they could be dangerous used in excessive amounts or continuously. Could you please comment on this? (ref. page 183 book 3)

[Ben Iscatus]

Hello Alex, it's a shame you didn't get a response. In the early days, he used to respond on his forum - I recall that he responded promptly and eagerly when physicists posted on his forum - he was dying to get them onboard. Other mortals were sometimes offered replies too. Later, as physicists stopped posting, he became rather remote. To the observer, this seems like self-importance, though of course he would deny that ego was involved. He still responds to individual questions in his fireside chats I believe, but the responses I listened to were often unsatisfactory. I'm not sure what he's doing now - last I heard, he was still trying to get his double slit experiments done so that he could prove the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.  

Having said all that, there is a lot about his model that I have found intriguing and useful! 

[Alex Merab]

Thats true Ben. he provides lots of interesting and useful ideas worth further exploration.