My Big TOE

**Sinera** · 11th April 2012, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by PauliEffect

Nothing in the physical really exists on its own, as everything physical only is pieces of software in the Source's mind/consciousness.

... which ties in perfectly with the mystic's reality + god concept of (us humans being part of) "All-That-Is"

**Korpo** · 11th April 2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Volgerle

... which ties in perfectly with the mystic's reality + god concept of (us humans being part of) "All-That-Is"

But not necessarily in a valid way. Two similar sounding items can be linked in inappropriate ways if not ultimately based on direct energetic experience validating the link.

A lot of things sound the same or similar in language and in concepts, but aren't.

**Sinera** · 11th April 2012, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Korpo

But not necessarily in a valid way. Two similar sounding items can be linked in inappropriate ways if not ultimately based on direct energetic experience validating the link. A lot of things sound the same or similar in language and in concepts, but aren't.

We always find what we are looking for. Look for differences and you find differences. Look for commonalities and you find commonalities. I like the second thing much more now, but of course your have a point in looking for differences too.
Still, for me regarding these concepts and descriptions, it is a lot about language, analogies and metaphors, as I cannot find a way to describe the larger reality in any other way, anyway. The semantic denotation behind the connotation is the core for me that mostly remains the same.
There is some"thing" bigger and we are part of it (ok, some already digress here as they say that bigger reality is mostly pure potential and thus it is no"thing", albeit still "existing" ...).
The computing / IT analogy (and that is what I like about it) does not disturb me. It's one method or viewpoint to describe the same core truth (I'm aware of 'truth' being too big word here, maybe), since it is a good way to explain it to myself or others if necessary.

(E.g. I like to think of my personality, including body and 'mind ego', here now as being an 'avatar' in a multi-person video game called Earth Life

, with my Higher Self being the player who also kind of co-created / assembled the 'ego' before to 'play the game' with this token. There's my HS in it (in "me"), but it is not necessarily my HS in total. This description is of course only an analogy, humourously done, and it's 'play'-ful, and applied just for the sake of description - not too literally to be taken, but still there is some value and 'truth' in it for me - it serves its purpose, for the time being).

**Korpo** · 11th April 2012, 01:05 PM

Thank you for explaining, PauliEffect!

And does he provide any evidence for this hypothesis, any validation through his own mystic experiences, or is this just speculation? Your review seems to indicate he seems to be a bit light on anything to validate his beliefs.

**PauliEffect** · 11th April 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Korpo

And does he provide any evidence for this hypothesis, any validation through
his own mystic experiences, or is this just speculation? Your review seems to
indicate he seems to be a bit light on anything to validate his beliefs.

In the book I haven't found any non-physical experiences of Campbell, which could
support his TOE ideas.

But he mentions some experiences of his own in Volume I, Section 1, which are
worth reading.

**CFTraveler** · 11th April 2012, 05:32 PM

I have some thoughts about this- perhaps I should hold off until I finally read the trilogy (I've read parts and seen parts, but it's not the same) but I don't think he means that the simulation isn't real- 'reality' is subjective, and I've heard him say this in various places- I think what he is trying to say is that the experience of threedimensionality is the simulation, and the actual experience is 'other' (nonlocal?) but we don't perceive it that way, because our focus is in the simulation.

...I should somehow be able to view the connection between physical and non-physical reality.

But I think you do, it's the basic premise of Mysticism- all Mystics say the same thing in different ways in various traditions.
Wow, that was not clear at all. I might come back and clarify, when I have time to sit and ponder for a while.

**PauliEffect** · 11th April 2012, 09:42 PM

I found this on Wikipedia on digital physics:

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

Also, someone on another forum pointed out to me that perhaps I'm wrong
when I thought Campbell was a professor.

**Sinera** · 12th April 2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by PauliEffect

Also, someone on another forum pointed out to me that perhaps I'm wrong
when I thought Campbell was a professor.

He's a Dr. - iirc. But should we be blinded now by academic titles? Do we need to make it that personal? Is "not a professor" sth negative now?
I'd even go so far and state that if he was fully integrated into a career path in academia, he wouldn't have been as open minded as needed for the book and his work and practical experience with TMI. Look what happened to many 'professors' in the academic establishment. They receive their pay checks, do their daily work necessary for upholding a (questionable?) status quo (which isn't science at all, as science must be always on the MOVE).