My Big TOE

[PauliEffect]

"Digital reality"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term, can you elaborate?

As you may have noticed in my review, Campbell thinks that consciousness, all consciousness (not only human), is digital. The consciousness mind is very equivalent to a computer using something similar to ones and zeros to "think" and "feel", which also is the reason why consciousness is digital in its core. The physical reality is a digital simulation, much like the computer game SIMS or a computerized war game. The computer/software is consciousness and it's digital, also - non-physical time is portioned in small well defined increments, much as ones and zeros are. Time is stepped forward (or backward in simulations) like the digital counter in a computer program.

The Whole, Source, All-Mighty God or what you want to call All-There-Is, is in other words digital in function, only working with ones-and-zeros, according to Campbell.

The physical reality can according to Campbell be stopped/paused, while other parts of the computer/God/Source continues to execute computations of possible future development. Then the computer can start reality again and let the simulation run and see what its tiny small inhabitants do by use of "free will", which is an ingredient needed to make the computer run at some randomness. Without free will, the simulation would not be needed as the huge computer would be able to calculate all results on its own, without the need for a simulation (= physical reality).

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

[Sinera]

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]

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.

[Korpo]

... 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.

[PauliEffect]

I would at least expect a physics professor to include
in a TOE how the non-physical can connect to the physical.

I think he does so, if I understand (and remember) it correctly by explaining the basis of the physical which is the non-physical. It might be equivalent to the holographic viewpoint. The physical is just "another" digital reality in a set of virtual realities. Hence there is not really interaction necessary. As in every reality created and experienced, it's all based on non-physical consciousness / mind. At least that is how I understood it, but it is a while ago when I read it.

(I'm not sure about what you mean with a holographic viewpoint. Campbell doesn't really use
that expression in his book. Somehow I think that any talk about "holographic", is a way of
escaping explanatory problems.)

Well, maybe Campbell has explained it in a very general and easy-going way.

But I have some problems with it, at least:

1. If the physical reality is a simulation, and my consciousness is real, I should somehow
be able to view the connection between physical and non-physical reality.

2. If the physical reality is a simulation, things like retrievals, where non-physical people
gets stuck should be explained a little more, as other non-physical inhabitants should be
able to quite easily alter the stuck person's unreal surroundings., which after all are only
"simulations", right? Yet you seem to need some other kind of help in Moen-style to
retrieve stuck dead people. Why?


There are other issues, but if one thing is the simulation and another thing is the real
deal, there should be some explanation how they are connected, right? And it should
be possible to see why one thing is either of them two and their connection?

And also some explanation to _how_ we can or can't observe the connection between physical
and non-physical reality, unless we are silly small dolls, walking around like robots inside
the huge AUM computer, the EBC, driving all those TBCs - or...?

To me at least, this far Campbell has only produced a very sketchy and fuzzy model,
apparently disguised in a dress which looks a little "scientific", but he hasn't produced
something which could resemble a TOE and I feel that the part, which has been presented
is quite unclearly in the book.

In my opinion, not clearly addressing important questions in detail over +800 pages,
raises some doubt, when talking about a Unifying Grand Theory, a theory of them all,
a TOE.

[Sinera]

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).

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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).