HomeAbout / MissionScience deconstructedPseudo-skeptics deconstructedConsciousnessNondualityDMTThe control systemDecentralization

Articles by topic

Tom Campbell's Big TOE

or: The virtual reality model of the subjective reality metaparadigm

Tom CampbellTom Campbell presenting his Big TOE — the Virtual Reality model of the subjective reality metaparadigm.

Tom Campbell is the first scientist to put together a real Theory Of Everything (TOE). Others have attempted this, but failed humongously at properly defining "everything", usually starting out with a large number of unquestioned initial assumptions. For that reason, Campbell calls his TOE My Big TOE — which is really a more humble way of saying: "hey, these TOEs are not real TOEs, so here's a real one".

Professionally, Campbell, a physicist and "rocket scientist", has worked on missile "defense" programs and various engineering projects at NASA. His more important work, however, has been on consciousness research, which for some reason isn't as lucrative. According to his website's page About the Author:

Tom Campbell began researching altered states of consciousness with Bob Monroe Journeys Out Of The Body, Far Journeys, and The Ultimate Journey) at Monroe Laboratories in the early 1970s where he and a few others were instrumental in getting Monroe's laboratory for the study of consciousness up and running. These early drug-free consciousness pioneers helped design experiments, developed the technology for creating specific altered states, and were the main subjects of study (guinea pigs) all at the same time. Campbell has been experimenting with, and exploring the subjective and objective mind ever since. For the past thirty years, Campbell has been focused on scientifically exploring the properties, boundaries, and abilities of consciousness.

During that same time period, he has excelled as a working scientist, a professional physicist dedicated to pushing back the frontiers of cutting edge technology, large-system simulation, technology development and integration, and complex system vulnerability and risk analysis. Presently, and for the past 20 years, he has been at the heart of developing US missile defense systems.

Tom is the "TC (physicist)" described in Bob Monroe's second book Far Journeys and has been a serious explorer of the frontiers of reality, mind, consciousness, and psychic phenomena since the early 1970s. My Big TOE is a model of existence and reality that is based directly on Campbell's scientific research and first hand experience. It represents the results and conclusions of thirty years of careful scientific exploration of the boundaries and contents of reality from both the physical and metaphysical viewpoints. The author has made every effort to approach his explorations without bias or preconceived notions. There is no belief system, dogma, creed, or unusual assumptions at the root of My Big TOE.

By demanding high quality repeatable, empirical, evidential data to separate what's real (exists independently and externally) from what's imaginary or illusory; Campbell has scientifically derived this general model of reality.

Essentially, what Campbell is claiming is this:

When the original founding fathers of quantum mechanics were doing these experiments they were really excited… making statements like- "if quantum mechanics doesn't blow your mind, that's because you don't understand quantum mechanics." They realized this was a really big deal philosophically, (and) scientifically… Then they tried to come up with a good explanation. They couldn't find one… Now they just blow it off as "nobody will ever know… it's just weird science." This My Big TOE theory though, explains it.

Tom Campbell

In other words, the "authority"-bound scientific enterprise, steered by the control system's dogmatic followers of scientism (the religion of science) — its dogmas zealously guarded by its most fanatical adherents (the self-proclaimed "skeptics" who have successfully removed Campbell's Wikipedia entry) — has solidified the general belief among scientists that quantum mechanics is an inexplicable, unsolvable mystery.

The My Big TOE wiki elaborates further on Campbell's magnum opus:

My Big TOE (Theory Of Everything) is a trilogy of books written by Tom Campbell {basically a work on Metaphysics} and is designed to present ideas leading to a Big Picture understanding and paradigm shift by answering many of the unanswered questions existing in science today. My Big TOE is conceived as a work of science, consistent with scientific principles of discovery and exploration of new knowledge, but presented at a level fully accessible to the general reader and without requiring mathematical and specialist based understanding of science. My Big TOE is based on the understandings that all of our reality as we experience it is based upon Consciousness and that we exist in a non physical subjective reality, rather than an objective physical reality. This strongly challenges the belief traps held by conventional and main stream Western science by treating our world as a Virtual Reality rather than an external, physical objective reality. My Big TOE extends the concept to include the existence of multiple Virtual Reality frames within which we exist simultaneously. It highlights that our Physical Matter Reality (PMR) is no more than a set of constraints defined by rules of physics that limit the information we receive that we interpret as physical. This Theory Of Everything also provides an understanding, as a model, of the Larger Consciousness System or LCS within which everything exists and is the fundamental base of all of our Reality. Essentially this new Paradigm makes those concepts and experiences considered as Paranormal or Psi based understandable as normal within this Bigger Picture understanding. This includes such experiences as The Placebo Effect, Quantum Entanglement, Precognition, Out of Body Experience (OOBE), Near Death Experience (NDE), After Death Communication (ADC) and even aspects of dreaming, particularly Lucid Dreaming.

This paradigm shift has recently been gaining more widespread acceptance in the area of Digital Physics and Quantum Mechanics that has been raising questions about the fundamental basis of physical reality and the role of Consciousness within it for about 100 years. It provides a better model with which to explain quantum physics and relativity which is analogous to the expansion from the Flat-Earth model to the Round Earth, Planetary Model. Tom Campbell is at the forefront of this movement in presenting a Theory Of Everything into which these developing ideas can fit.

Tom Campbell is thus a pioneer in the subjective reality metaparadigm — the intellectual paradigm that turns the old Newtonian-based scientific paradigms "inside out", setting the left-brain groundwork for a post-scientific era.

Beyond the obvious significance in relation to the idea of the human scientific enterprise, Campbell's magnum opus suggests the following as to what this actually means to the individual gnosis-seeking human consciousness:

This journey will take you to the beginning of time. It will dive deeply into the human heart as well as probe the limits of the human mind. My Big TOE will redefine the significance of you, and provide new meaning to your existence. It will help you realize and optimize your potential as well as provide you with a wholly new, fully integrated, scientific understanding of both your inside and outside world. My Big TOE, written by a scientist from a Western technological viewpoint, unifies the entirety of human experience, bringing our objective and subjective worlds together under one seamless scientific understanding.

Tom Campbell, My Big TOE

And this is very true and "true enough", but, TBP suggests, still too reductionistic in its approach to ontology (the study of reality), as will be contended below.

Theories of Everything

My Big TOE should be the first thing to read for anyone considering themselves a scientist, especially a cosmologist or theoretical physicist.

In the same sense, what Bashar says should be the first source to go to for anyone considering the idea of constructing a TOE.

The absurdly reductionistic fundamentalist-materialist Small TOEs that have been produced within the artificial parameters of the "authority"-bound mainstream scientific community are essentially a joke when compared to Campbell's Big TOE.

TBP further proposes that even Campbell's model is also too reductionistic, for no other reason than the assumption that VR is the only option, if reality is subjective. An alternative idea is that the existing paradigms we may have inherited from the objective reality delusion are ontologically insufficient and thus our thinking must be expanded even further — specifically, into higher dimensions, holographic oneness, and infinity. In other words, and in summary, the alternative The Biggest Picture is proposing is a monistic, holographic, pantheistic, nondual, VR-like, multi-dimensional One Being that infinitely experiences itself within itself.

This ontology, elucidated primarily by Bashar, seems to resolve all fundamental questions, especially the question of the origin/genesis, and seems to be to a large degree in harmony with the basics of Campbell's model (as a superset) along with the pioneering research and ideas of many others, such as Peter Russell, Bruce Lipton, and Rupert Sheldrake — and, perhaps most importantly, with the experience of nondual awareness, the experience of tapping into one's teleological Attractor, and (orders of magnitude moreso) the DMT experience.

Die-hard assumptions

Campbell, like Rob Bryanton, takes the orthodox view of unchanging constants — one of the fundamental assumptions of science. As scientism's #1 heretic Rupert Sheldrake points out most eloquently, the assumption that nature has unchangeable fine-structure constants (from which the "laws of physics" are defined) seems to be in logical contradiction to an always-evolving universe, and does not actually appear to be in harmony with the measurements themselves. Campbell points out that Einstein's assumption of the speed of light being constant was considered silly at the time, but he doesn't question its status as a constant.

From that assumption follows other assumptions, such as the intangibility of the idea of infinity (beyond mathematical abstractions).

My Big TOE

In the following presentation, Campbell outlines the basics of his Big TOE:

Tom Campbell in Calgary: Theory of MBT (Sat) 1/3

Tom Campbell begins his full workshop "Reality 101" presentation at the University of Calgary. This presentation is more science, more engaging, and more fascinating than ever before. Some have said that metaphysics and physics could never come together in one complete understanding, but it has, in Tom's trilogy, My Big TOE. Tom is first and foremost a scientist. Some say he is a mystic. He says he is "a scientist who has brought mysticism to science".

As Campbell observes, "everyone has a reality model", or believes that reality works a certain way, but "most reality models are not complete, nor are they fundamental".

What are models of reality?So "scientific facts" and "pseudo-scientific ideas" are really synonyms that mean "not necessarily not really real" — because every conceptualization is no more than a model, i.e. a theory.
Objective reality assumptions exposed and ignored by Relativity and QMSo if one drops both assumptions, one is left with a superset model that contains Relativity and QM. Both models are subsumed by a larger model, the subjective reality metaparadigm, from which they can then be derived — in a way similar to how QM derives Newtonian mechanics.


So if there is no objective reality, then VR is the only solution, Campbell concludes. It's information.

The double-slit experiment and QM interpretations

Tom Campbell on the state of Quantum Mechanics todayNot in terms of 4th-dimensional causality, but by elevating causality to the 5th dimension we avoid the need to embrace a more-reductionistic virtual reality subjective reality paradigm model (which is thus a subset idea of the subjective reality metaparadigm).

Campbell explains the double-slit experiment (DSE) and observes that science (the scientific method) is based on the assumption of an objective reality, and so because the scientists at the time didn't know where to go without that assumption, they just ignored the DSE, pretending it wasn't there. Once the original quantum physicists died, the DSE was sort of forgotten.

Campbell points out how Bohr and Heisenberg's original Copenhagen statement — a simple statement of what the DSE shows — was turned into an interpretation because the more conservative/reductionist/mainstream physicists desired to give it an objective interpretation. The interpretations of QM range from deterministic (i.e. highly reductionist) to the least-reductionistic many-worlds theories that lay the conceptual foundations for adding higher dimensions, as dimensional thinker Rob Bryanton phenomenally illustrates.

The most influential quantum physicist since the original founders of QM, Richard Feynman, unwilling to declare the non-existence of an objective reality, declared it an "impossible" problem. Campbell says that Feynman's (in)famous (and possibly misattributed) "shut up and calculate" statement was to his students, because he "doesn't understand QM", because it can't be explained in any "acceptable" way. And it's not just Feynman, Campbell says; all university physics departments are like this: shut up about what it means and keep calculating in the hopes that eventually we'll understand it within the objective reality metaparadigm. It's thought as "impossible" to explain, therefore let's forget about it, let's stop thinking about it, and just accept that it's impossible. Campbell makes the comparison with a child asking a priest about the age of the Earth not appearing to be just 7000 years old, to which the priest replies: "shut up and pray". It's "scientific fundamentalism", and that's why "they're stuck", Campbell says.

Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone - both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience...We would like to emphasize a very important difference between classical and quantum mechanics. We have been talking about the probability that an electron will arrive in a given circumstance. We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible - that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it... So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever - that it is impossible to beat that puzzle - that this is the way nature really is.

Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands

TBP would suggest that the filtering of information sources (i.e. the limitation of exposure to relevant information) by the various arms of the control system may lead one to believe that "no one has seen a way to avoid it" yet, and thus will resonate within the parameters of that definition, thus attract only the kind of information that reinforces that belief in one's experience. As Bashar would say, like vibration to like vibration — that's all this is.

Can nature possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?

Werner Heisenberg

Only if we insist on operating out of a non-fundamental (i.e. assumptive) ontological starting point and refuse to apply methodological skepticism (Cartesian doubt) to all of our existing ideas/models.

Outdated models still useful

Campbell then points out that we still use a flat Earth model for surveying, because accounting for the Earth's curvature over small areas (such as an acre or a kilometer) would only increase the accuracy by about ten decimal points, so it's a useful model that we still use, in the same way that we still use Newtonian mechanics for the physics of the "not very small" and "not moving too fast" (for which QM and GR are required). The same physics under QM would improve the accuracy by perhaps 15 decimal points. Thus, the old paradigm becomes a subset — it's not discarded. It becomes an approximation inside the bigger picture.

So, in Campbell's view, it doesn't mean that physicists would be out of a job, it just means that the objective reality model becomes a subset, and the physics within it an approximation. It's the subset in which uncertainty is small, while Newtonian mechanics is a subset within that subset in which mass is not too small and speed is not too high.

This idea is similar to Terence McKenna's observation that science is the study of "phenomena so crude" that they are time-invariant, thus there is a semblance (or illusion) of "restoration of initial conditions", which is a requirement for experiment but is really just an assumption. The idea that time is purely linear is a case of Occam's razor; such a determination "is completely beyond our intellectual reach", McKenna observed.

Science vs. scientism

Campbell believes the superset framework (Big TOE) will become accepted because of its superior explanatory power, but that it's still very early in the "struggle for acceptance". Referring to institutions, Campbell observes that "insiders give very little credit to outsiders — that's just a fact of life". As Peter Russell points out, however, the Copernican revolution took 150 years, and QM is already 90 years into its existence, yet here we are in the transformational age, and here is science, dominated by fundamentalists dominated by their ego identities.

Unlike to mainstream scientists, who automatically resist change, to Campbell, "every time you get new information, it's an opportunity to expand your theory". This is precisely what we would love to see Campbell do with the information presented here at The Biggest Picture.

Mainstream scientists, who, by definition, are bound by unnatural limitations such as "authority", funding, and career agendas, are necessarily becoming increasingly reductionist — hence the rise of the pseudo-skeptical movement, the proselytizers of the religion of science who believe they are defending "science" (itself), and that science needs defending from the "threat" of pseudo-science.

Campbell points out that mainstream science ignores its own research, such as that from Princeton's PEAR project — by simply labeling it non-mainstream, i.e. too outside of the parameters its "experts"/"authorities" dogmatically adhere to. It's also the reason why Campbell is largely being ignored, as with Sheldrake, Peter Russell, Walter Russell, Tesla, Reich, and many, many, others who are no longer "mainstream".

Campbell points out that a proper scientific theory shouldn't apply only to certain scales. "Is this particle small enough for this rule to apply?"

Campbell's Big TOE

Once he has explained where mainstream science fails, Campbell proceeds to go into detail about his actual subjective reality TOE. Campbell says that his Big TOE derives or "solves things like physics, speed of light, quantum mechanics, Paralabs, [...] metaphysics and philosophy, why we're here, what's our purpose, what happens after we die, [the] nature of existence, free will, moral code, how does synchronicity work, how does one account for paranormal happenings, theology", the placebo effect, mind healing, remote viewing, reincarnation, etc.

Tom Campbell on the statistical and probabilistic nature of realityCould location therefore be a property of an object, as Bashar says?
Tom Campbell on Relativity and the speed of lightAs mentioned earlier, Campbell points out that Einstein's assumption of the speed of light being constant was considered silly at the time, but he doesn't question its status as a constant. According to Bashar, the speed of light, or what we call the speed of light, "is literally the vibrational barrier of your 3rd dimensional reality" — so "it's more like a fabric, than something that actually has a rate".
Tom Campbell on the nature of realityThis is correct but does not necessarily point to VR, but perhaps rather to simultaneity of existence (which therefore has a VR-like structure).
Tom Campbell on Information as necessarily binaryInformation is not necessarily binary if infinite creation within is the logical step taken after simultaneity. As Terence McKenna pointed out, nature is a novelty-preserving machine, and — as Rupert Sheldrake demonstrates — it has habits or morphic fields. As Bashar explains, existence is a trinity, not a duality, because the One Being is the eternal, infinite balance point at the center of all polarity.
Tom Campbell on information and entropyThis lowering of entropy is an informational description of the ongoing increase in vibrational frequency of the collective consciousness of humanity.
Tom Campbell on the attributes of consciousnessAn alternative idea is that rocks are also alive, in the panpsychist sense. This would solve this "great problem of natural philosophy".
Tom Campbell on the origins of consciousnessAn alternative idea is that Creation/consciousness exists here and now (simultaneity), but expresses itself dimensionally in a top down rather than a bottom up fashion, i.e. from non-physical to physical (or less dense to more dense prime radiance).
Tom Campbell on knowledge and infinityIf existence is one thing experiencing itself from different points of view within itself, multi-dimensionally, then existence (Creation) can be infinite within an already-existing structure (the One).


These slides mark the end of part 1 of Campbell's 3-part Calgary presentation. Below is part 2:

Tom Campbell in Calgary: Theory of MBT (Sat) 2/3

Tom Campbell continues with his Saturday presentation of "Reality 101" at the University of Calgary.

Questions that seem impossible and mysterious are answered by Tom's My Big TOE.

In this presentation, Tom demonstrates that understanding the double slit experiment (Saturday part 1) allows you to better understand that this reality we live in is virtual, probabilistic, and statistical.

Tom delivers the scientific explanation of how we can receive information from auras, how we can tap into the data base to view the past and future, why, as the spiritual leaders over time have said, "We are all one".

As elegant and impressive as Campbell's model is, it seems excessively complex when compared to Bashar's version of the subjective reality metaparadigm:

Where did this "something" come from? We have no idea. There are limits to knowledge.

Tom Campbell

Existence does not "come from"; existence only is. [...] There is no outside to existence.

Bashar

Bashar - Existence

With the assumption of the intangibility of the idea of infinity, Campbell imagines that there must be something outside of consciousness ("beyond the Larger Consciousness System"). He makes an analogy of a bacterium living in the human gut — how could the bacterium possibly know what exists beyond its local environment? But that seems to stand in contrast to the experience of being All That Is (i.e. nondual awareness), and the unfathomably titanic magnitude of the DMT experience.

The smaller your reality, the more convinced you are that you know everything. And that's true whether you're a two-year-old, a teenager, a philosopher, a theologian, or a physicist.

Tom Campbell

But, conversely, the smaller one's reality, the less one needs to know. Thus, bacteria (and apparently all non-human organisms) are specialists at being what they are — whereas we humans diversify our expression into an infinitude of possibilities. This is one of the ideas that distinguishes 3rd density Human consciousness from 2nd density biological consciousness.

The two assumptions

Tom Campbell on the two assumptions of the VR modelAn alternative to the VR model of the SRM, described most convincingly by Bashar, is that we are beings of light, which exists orthogonally to spacetime, that interact in what we call 4D spacetime (3rd density) via the "projection" (vibrational resonance) of duality through the 3rd eye energy vortex — the "framerate" (frequency) of which is neuromodulated by DMT, secreted by the pineal pland (along with the sleep hormone, melatonin) — though mechanically we are really higher-dimensionally shifting from one simultaneously-existing parallel reality "frame" to the next, billions of times per second (frequency). The "external world" is the 5th-dimensional Higher Mind mirror reflecting back a symbolic representation (vibratory resonance) of one's state of being.
Tom Campbell summarizing the VR model of the subjective reality metaparadigmIn a multi-dimensional model of the SRM, the aspects of consciousness that we experience are best described by the (4th-dimensional) Physical Mind (the perceiver and experiencer) and the addition of the 5th-dimensional aspect of the self that in the objective reality metaparadigm we call the "external world": the Higher Mind. Furthermore, the idea of the 5th dimension (the plane of timelines or probability space) is a way to account for free will choice — by shifting from one parallel reality 4D "timeline" to the next at every "moment".

"More profitable" is what Terence McKenna would've modeled as the preservation of novelty (higher-order organization, lower entropy).


Occam's razor

All the results are logically deriven from just these two assumptions. In science we call that elegant simplicity, and it's known as the hallmark of fundamental truth. It's kinda codified in science—it's called Occam's razor. It basically means, if it isn't simple, if it isn't straightforward and have the minimum number of assumptions then it's probably not fundamental.

Tom Campbell

The problem lies in the identification of the fundamental assumptions upon which one is operating. Wikipedia has this slightly more nuanced definition:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

In addition to the question of which assumptions are actually being axiomatically/unconsciously embraced, how (precisely) does one determine which hypotheses predict better or equally well than other hypotheses? The principle that in explaining something no more assumptions should be made than are necessary seems valid, but it is by itself an assumption, and is an often misused principle invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.

Another perspective is that, when venturing into the unknown, Occam's razor is never applicable, because of the unknown unknowns (hidden variables) that are likely to exist. As Terence McKenna related in his lectures, once a Western mind has discovered DMT, the very notion of hidden variables becomes dominant in their thinking, and expansionist ideas begin to take the place of reductionist ideas such as Occam's razor.

My method, my style, has always been to be open-minded, to be critical, to be rational, but to seek the weird. And to seek it seriously. Now if you seek the weird without a critical intelligence, it will find you faster than you can lock your apartment behind you! The number of squirrelly ideas on the market these days is truly alarming. I coined a phrase (I hope), "the balkanization of epistemology". This is what we're dealing with now. You understand what I mean? It means people can't tell shit from shinola, but they wanna talk about it, a lot! This is a place where you have to bring to bear what are called razors, logical razors. One is: hypotheses should not be multiplied without necessity. Another is: equations should not be multiplied without necessity. Razors always seek what is called the principle of parsimony. In other words, keep it simple, stupid. The simplest explanation is always to be preferred first. If is found inadequate then wratch it up. One notch. Not twenty notches, one notch. Then we see if that works. You may think this is some kind of down-prescription for reducing the world to a fairly predictable and mundane place. It isn't at all. It's a way to rapidly filter out a lot of nonsense. But the truly weird -- and the truly true -- can survive this process. It doesn't do any damage to them, and you will then find them intact.

And I can only testify to my own experience. I've looked into a number of things, and found most inadequate for what I was interested in. What I was interested in was, I wanted to be astonished. I think astonishment is a very rare emotion. I wanted to be astounded. I remember when I was a little kid, there was a science fiction magazine, Astounding Tales, and I would just look at the cover and I would think, "What kind of emotion is it to be astounded?" Well I've only found it on DMT, I have to tell you. I don't know maybe I'm a... Well, no, I was astounded by Jerusalem, I was astounded by the Mosque of Omar, there've been maybe five or six other moments in my life when true astonishment broke through. But the psychedelic experience intensely brought to focus is made of pure astonishment. And I find that feeling to be a kind of maximizing of everything that I aspire to, enjoy... It's a combination of intellectual pleasure, surprise, amazement at one's presence before such a thing. And I invite all of you to seek the weird, and to put it to the test, and to force those who would purvey various paths to the mystery to deliver. You know? It's not subtle. That's the one thing you have to understand. It's not about looking into somebody's eyes and getting the whammy, it's not about some intuitive knowing, it's not some vague... It's about begging for mercy because they are rotating and balancing the wheels of your after-death vehicle having taken you prisoner in your own apartment! That's my idea of an encounter with the incredible. God knows, the worst thing you can say about any drug is that it's subtle! Deliver us from subtle drugs, please!

Terence McKenna, 1996

Entropy and morality

Campbell derives moral behavior based on the simple question:

How does it affect the overall entropy of the system?

If it decreases it, it's good, it's moral. If it increases it, it's bad, it's immoral.

So things that build up, that construct — and this is moving toward love, right? — these things are moral, are good. And the things that tear down, and separate, and pull apart — these things are not good.

Tom Campbell

So Campbell is stating the equivalency of higher entropy as negative energy (that which separates, segregates, pulls apart) and lower entropy as positive energy (that which constructs, builds up, unites; preserves novelty). Campbell says that our purpose is to lower the entropy (i.e. becoming love), which is when we distinguish right from wrong, and realize what is moral and what is immoral — i.e. when we align with the Natural Law.

Bashar mirrors this mechanical description, saying that positive energy is integrative, collective, expansive, connective (spirals upward/outward), while negative energy is segregative, disconnective, contractive (spirals downward/inward). Both types of energy are contained within All That Is (the self), and the full, integrated recognition of that allows one to become love and choose what one prefers from the balance point in the center of the polarity. Bashar says that unconditional love is the vibrational frequency of existence itself.

Moral code in Campbell's Big TOE

Campbell says that a member of the MBT forum has created a moral code derived from MBT (Moral Code Part I, Moral Code Part II):

Well in the interest of simplicity and with due respect for Occam's razor, I have narrowed down the core of the ethical code as follows: Any action honestly generated by the intention of caring is said to be moral, while the lack of an intention of caring causes an individual's actions to be amoral or immoral.

[...]

It is also important never to claim that any action in itself has the property of being moral or immoral. An action can be helpful or not helpful in realizing intentions that are moral or immoral but intentions and only intentions can be given the value of moral and immoral. Any act motivated by the right intent that is not negligent would be moral regardless of what action was realized through executing the caring intent.

This seems fallacious because we can't necessarily know the intent behind actions, whereas the actions themselves are more difficult to conceal. In contrast to this idea of morality, Natural Law defines immoral actions as those which cause harm to another sentient being, and moral actions as those which do not cause harm to another sentient being.

Virtual realities inside consciousness

Campbell thinks of the dream reality as another VR just like the waking reality. All realities, including afterlife realities, are virtual realities created within consciousness (itself another virtual reality?), in an "as above so below" fractal fashion. "Consciousness is the only thing that's fundamental. All other reality frames are virtual," including out-of-body experiences, "wherever you go when you die", etc, which "are created to generate personal experience" (evolution of the individual). "So we are characters in a virtual reality, making characters in a virtual reality," and one day our computers will be able to generate virtual realities inside our virtual reality as realistic as the one we are "in".

Tom Campbell on VRs inside VRsThe idea of VRs inside VRs is not dissimilar to the idea of dimensionality, each dimension providing a way for the dimension below to change its state. In that sense, spacetime (4D) provides a way for space (3D) to change from one state to another, and the 5th dimension provides a way for the "timeline" of an otherwise-deterministic spacetime to change state. This kind of dimensional scaling is what is being proposed as the alternative to the VR model of the SRM. As for "switching data streams", Campbell doesn't seem to be aware of what that really means — as no one can be until experiencing exogenous DMT.
Tom Campbell on reality as a multi-player virtual reality systemBut is it really an error in thinking? A nondual One being that experiences itself within itself as parts of itself in dimensions which contain the idea of linear time is a model which would provide a cosmogony (simultaneity) in addition to a cosmology, thus seemingly having superior explanatory power to Campbell's model. It is furthermore interesting in that it is provided not as a model but as "obvious truth" by a source that purports — exceedingly convincingly — to be an extradimensional extraterrestrial consciousness channeled through one of the human incarnational aspects of the same oversoul.


Rulesets

So the brain, just like our body, represents the constraints on our virtual reality game. It represents the ruleset. It was the ruleset in that big digital bang that evolved into this virtual reality—right? It's all part of that big digital bang, it all ran out in this simulation. So here we have this simulation—that's because of the ruleset. So because we have these bodies, we have this brain — and all that's simulated in this ruleset — that creates our virtual reality. That's the limits. We can't go past those limits, so we can't contain anything more in our brains than what this virtual reality simulation says we can. It's the limiting factor. So it defines what we can and cannot do, based on the ruleset, because any virtual reality has to abide by its ruleset, otherwise it's a funhouse reality. You need a ruleset for consistency.

Tom Campbell

As McKenna explained, "naïve empiricism worked well enough, until the discoveries of quantum physics seventy or eighty years ago revealed the hideous secret that the bedrock of reality is a funhouse basement!" The self-transforming machine elves, or similarly astonishingly "impossible" entities one may easily and consistently encounter in the DMT sensorium would have to be described in terms of orders of magnitude beyond the mere idea of a "funhouse basement reality" with no ruleset — or at least no ruleset that we are in any way familiar with. And this is why we say that scientists who believe they are open minded don't really know what they are talking about until they have experienced higher-than-usual concentrations in their brain of our endogenous frequency neuromodulator: dimethyltryptamine.

Campbell on the brain

TBP agrees with Campbell that "our brain doesn't store information" (as the physicalists/fundamentalist-materialists would have it), but not entirely that "it doesn't process information", and not that it merely "sets limits on what can be stored and processed". If such limits can be trespassed to the unimaginable degree to which they can (with a tiny molecule released by a tiny gland in the center of the brain) in a harmless (and even medicinal) fashion, it would seem that such boundaries are far more ephemeral and ethereal than Campbell assumes.

We have this idea that consciousness downloads information to our brain; it's like a calm line, a higher self has a calm line down to our brain. It's not like that; there is no calm line [because] there is no brain. It's just virtual. You are one with the server; you're in the server; you get the direct connection, it doesn't have to come to your physical brain, that doesn't exist. Virtual brain and virtual body are just data limitations. [...] You can't do any more than your brain will allow your consciousness to do, your body can't do any more than the ruleset allows, you know, your body [to do].

Tom Campbell

According to Bashar, the brain is the receiver antenna for higher-frequency (which is also higher-dimensional) information transmitted by the Higher Mind from the 5th dimension. Once received, the information is electrochemically translated/decoded into the perception that the Physical Mind experiences — but first filtered through the belief systems and definitions that the ego construct within the Physical Mind is holding onto by embracing as true.

Probability and the self

You're just a probability model; it's what you are. You're data, you're rules, you're content, you're experience, you're history; everything you've ever done, thought, felt, in any of your incarnations, are all tied up in [your] "history file", if you'd like; that's you. And what makes you different right here than in the future or in the past database, is here you have a free will. When you enter into a virtual reality, you enter into a reality that has choice, and decision space. And where you have choice and decision space because you are consciousness you have free will. The free will exists only here in the present; in those databases you're just data. It's just information. And you're just a piece of the Larger Consciousness System. You're just data in the file of the big "mainframe", if you will. So you're just a piece of the LCS — there you don't have free will because it's just a datafile — you don't need free will. You're part of the larger system; the larger system has free will. It's like, you know, you're ears — do they have free will? Well, no, they're just part of a larger system that has free will.

Tom Campbell

The reductions denoted by the use of the word "just" make Campbell's model seem a bit bland and disempowering when compared to Bashar's ontology. Has Campbell really gotten his mind out of the core assumptions that underlie the objective reality metaparadigm?

In Bashar's model (he doesn't present it as a model, but let's use that term for the sake of comparison), the Creator is expressing itself as parts of itself, within itself, so that we are each not merely "just a piece of the Larger Consciousness System" — we are the LCS itself, expressing itself as a limited subset of itself, within itself, in incarnational experiences that contain the idea of forgetting who and what we really are (who and what one is). Reality is entirely holographic (like dew drops in Indra's net) and pantheistic, happening within one's own consciousness, which, at higher frequencies of perceptual focus (densities), contains less and less sense of separation (duality) and less and less collective agreements ("rulesets").

Causal mechanics of the larger reality

Tom Campbell on rendering of Virtual RealitiesIf not constricting the model to a 4th-dimensional spacetime framework, an alternative idea is that all the non-experienced ("non-rendered") reality elements already exist in the higher dimensions. According to Bashar, there are an infinite number of (5th/6th-dimensional) static parallel reality frames, through which we are constantly shifting billions of times per second. Other channeled sources explain this idea as a twin soul that contains and experiences all the other parallel reality frames.
Tom Campbell on the nature of Virtual RealitiesIn Bashar's model, the (4th-dimensionally-causal) history is created in the present according to what beliefs and definitions one is embracing as true at any given moment. In the dream reality, when the ego construct is dormant and the pineal gland secretes DMT, the Physical Mind's perceptual focal point is expanded from the 3rd to the 4th density, wherein far fewer collective agreements ("rulesets") apply, including the ideas of gravity/mass and 4th-dimensional causality.


When something is rendered, Campbell says, "the only two criteria" are a consistent history (causal consistency), which basically says that "we don't live in a funhouse reality". "You can't have this data that's observed measured fact, conflicting with this data that's an observed measured fact — they can't conflict; that's basically what the ruleset is. We have to abide by the ruleset, or you have to have historical consistency."

In Bashar's model, causality is only an illusion of continuity, for all things exist simultaneously, here and now:

Bashar on non-locality and the forces/interactions (theoretical physics)

Bashar's concept of the 13th step illustrates this idea of not necessarily having a consistent history.

Oneness: finite or infinite?

The Larger Consciousness System is an aware, evolving system; it's real and therefore finite. I have a lot of people who fumble over this finite thing — they say, "finite? How can it be finite? The Larger Consciousness System has to be infinite." Well, there is no thing as real that's infinite. Infinity is just an abstraction; nothing real can be infinite. Infinite systems require infinite energy. Any time you get to infinite, you can always add something to it and now you get bigger an infinite and that's not allowed. So any real system has to be a finite system; if it's a finite system it has to have boundary; if it has boundary then there has to be something outside of it — that was that chart we had that there's some things you just don't know.

Tom Campbell

Tom Campbell on who and what we are
Tom Campbell on being one but separated
Tom Campbell on being one with the Higher Mind or Oversoul
Tom Campbell on the illusion of separation
1
2
3
4

Campbell assumes that for a system to exist — to be a real system — it must be finite. An infinite system, Campbell imagines, would be unparsimonious (in a sense the opposite of the idea of Occam's razor) and thus a "funhouse basement" of entropy incapable of establishing highly-defined subsets such as the specific rulesets that would define the parameters/boundaries/rules of our physical reality experiences.

The Buddha was right when he said 'we are all one', you know? The One is the larger consciousness system that is evolving — it's a real system, it's a finite system; it's evolving, it's trying to evolve and we are part of its strategy to do that, and we're just a piece of it.

Tom Campbell

The apparent intangibility of infinity is well-established in the thought realms of mainstream physics:

To a mathematician, infinity is simply a number without limit; to a physicist, it's a monstrosity! It means that, first of all, gravity is infinite at the center of a black hole, that time stops — and what does that mean? Space makes no sense; it means the collapse of everything we know about the physical universe. In the real world, there's no such thing as infinity [giggling]. Therefore there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory.

Michio Kaku

Under this assumption that reality must be finite, when infinities arise in quantum field theories, they are treated by "renormalization":

In quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization is any of a collection of techniques used to treat infinities arising in calculated quantities.
[...]
Renormalization was first developed in quantum electrodynamics (QED) to make sense of infinite integrals in perturbation theory. Initially viewed as a suspect provisional procedure even by some of its originators, renormalization eventually was embraced as an important and self-consistent actual mechanism of scale physics in several fields of physics and mathematics. Today, the point of view has shifted: on the basis of the breakthrough renormalization group insights of Kenneth Wilson, the focus is on variation of physical quantities across contiguous scales, while distant scales are related to each other through "effective" descriptions. All scales are linked in a broadly systematic way, and the actual physics pertinent to each is extracted with the suitable specific computational techniques appropriate for each.

Contrast this understanding (or fear) of infinity, and the "initially viewed as a suspect provisional procedure" to "renormalize" calculated infinities, to what alleged intragalactic scientists are communicating to us:

Bashar - Self Awareness - Part 1

"If it were not infinite, once again, it would be a closed framework, and in a closed framework, there cannot be self-reflection."

Repeatability / falsifiability

The objective folks — the scientists — say [that] this stuff is all nonsense because it isn't repeatable. In an objective reality, that's part of the scientific method — it's gotta be repeatable. Well it's not repeatable [because] this is not an objective reality, it's a probabilistic statistical reality. Doesn't always happen the same way twice. You've taken random draws from distributions — you can modify the distribution, but that doesn't give you a 100% chance of making the probability come out the way you want.

Tom Campbell

Even if we granted the objective reality metaparadigm, the objectivity that scientists presume the scientific method represents is itself based on the assumption of "restoration of initial conditions", as mentioned earlier. As Terence McKenna observed, a scientist does not ask that experiments be performed between 3 and 4 a.m. or only on Fridays or only up to a particular year. The semblance (or illusion) of "restoration of initial conditions", which is a requirement for experiment, is based on the assumption that time is purely linear — another case of Occam's razor. Such a determination (that time is linear and phenomena are therefore time-invariant) "is completely beyond our intellectual reach", McKenna observed.

Dogma-buster Rupert Sheldrake, a non-dogmatic scientist, put it this way back in 1988:

Very few scientific experiments are repeatable, in fact. They are repeatable only approximately. I've spent years teaching practical classes in Cambridge and other universities, Harvard, teaching practical classes to undergraduates in biochemistry. It's an enlightening experience, because there any given experiments to do which are textbook experiments that everyone already knows work... So you give them the most certain, established, and repetitive and repeatable of all the systems you can think of. You don't want them right up at the research frontiers where results fluctuate wildly and no one knows really what's going on, until it's sort of stabilized, being published and become kind of habitual thoughts and expectation. You give them things that are already believed by everyone to work. And the results you get are astounding, they're all over the place... The results are extremely variable, for any biological experiment I've ever had in hundreds among ones I've conducted. They're given the same apparatus, the same pipettes, the same solutions. [...] Even in 3rd year undergraduate [unintelligible], the results keep coming out all over the place; and, you explain away the ones that either they didn't know the technique, they put the wrong solution in, they must've done this or that; you can find a hundred ways to explain why this actually happens. The only actual examples we have where people try to repeat experiments on a mass scale turn out to be highly unrepeatable. And most scientists don't spend their time repeating standard experiments and measuring whether they fluctuate or not; they're always getting on to the next thing. And so this idea has never been tested.

Rupert Sheldrake, 1988

So give students "the most certain, established, and repetitive and repeatable of all the systems you can think of" and they'll become faithful members of scientism, without realizing that at less trivial levels (such as for any of the hundreds of biological experiments Sheldrake conducted), and certainly at the cutting edge of "scientific discovery", "the results are extremely variable".

Uncertainty and the placebo/nocebo effect

Campbell says that the more people who measure something, the less uncertain a "fact" becomes. Thus, "once that uncertainty starts to go away, now you're trying to change probability—it's tough to change because there's not a whole lot uncertainty left in it; there's not so much wiggle room". Campbell observes that if a pessimistic doctor assumes that a lump is cancerous, that by itself increases the probability, before a biopsy has even been conducted. More than one biopsy showing the same result would also solidify the idea further, greatly lowering the probability of experiencing other less-probable realities, Campbell says. However, according to Bashar's ontology, this is really entirely dependent on the beliefs that the "patient" chooses to buy into. A "patient" tired enough of his/her self-imposed suffering may experience a spontaneous remission at any time. As Bashar says, "all pain is resistance to the natural self". Healing, just as movement and change itself, happens higher-dimensionally, and thus all tools, techniques, or rituals (i.e. permission slips) really work by means of what we have labeled the mysterious, intangible "placebo effect".

The soft sciences have to take effect that the mind alters the result. Nobody likes to admit that that's what's going on, but that's obviously the case. It's just not objective. You know, the placebo effect is just not an objective effect. What you tell a patient shouldn't have anything to do with whether that medicine works or not, or whether or not they get well or not — but it does.

Tom Campbell

"You will find that the pessimistic doctor will have a higher percentage of cancerous tumors in his patients than the optimistic doctor. They've done many studies and they find that doctors [who can] really relate to their patients, and are encouraging and give them information and talk to them, those doctors have a higher percentage of healthy patients." It's a "reverse placebo effect", Campbell says — what has been labeled the nocebo effect. "So it works either way; you can move a probability to the positive side or to the negative side, based on your intent and based on the intent of others." According to Bashar, it's not really actually based on the intent of others, because they are simply reflections of your own intent, and have no ability to affect you in any way you don't want to be affected:

bashar life is meaningless

message for the awakening of human consciousness

So the only problem is the disempowering negative belief system of the "patient", choosing to believe that there is nothing oneself can do about the lump (which is believed to probably be a cancer), because reality is objective and thus its processes, including those of one's body, are beyond an individual's control.

Synchronicity and causality

Tom Campbell on synchronicity and other anomalies of a statistically based systemCampbell thinks of synchronicity as an "anomaly" rather than as the nature of things. In the higher-dimensional model of the subjective reality metaparadigm, synchronicity is simply coincidence seen from the perspective of the Higher Mind in the 5th dimension, wherein all spacetime events are ("nonlocally") conceptually connected. As Bashar says: "Synchronicity is spacetime's way of showing you that everything is connected as best as it possibly can." When one is generating ego resistance (misaligned beliefs and definitions absorbed mostly during the first six years following birth), natural synchronicity becomes infrequent "coincidence".
Tom Campbell on the false appearance of backward causality"There is no such thing as backward causality; the cause always has to preceed the effect", Campbell says. "The error in their thinking is that the data has to represent what happened. That's the problem." The way Bashar describes it is that the cause and the effect are the same event — they are a geometric relationship that the "one particle" moving at infinite speed has with itself. In Bashar's ontology, there is a kind of reverse causality — an Attractor, a pulling force, a "transcendental object at the end of time" as Terence McKenna put it — that lures the Physical Mind's free will towards the themes the soul chose to explore in its experience of physical materialization.


Campbell on fear

You can de-evolve by what you imagine, besides what you experience. Your beliefs, fearful attitudes, religion, propaganda, conspiracy theories, whatever it is — if it's drumming up fear, that can push you in the wrong direction. You can de-evolve because you watch the nightly news too often... (it's a little joke).

Tom Campbell

The main purveyors of fear are indeed the mainstream media, so in reality it's more of an observation than a joke. It's an accurate observation, except that it's not so much about what one may imagine, but rather about what fear-based beliefs one chooses to buy into, whether coming from one's own imagination or someone else's imagination.

The failure of physical explanations

Tom Campbell on consciousness not being a physical phenomenaThe alternative is the dimensional model, in which remote viewings and telepathic communications are happening "outside" of spacetime, being experienced from a higher-dimensional perceptual focal point — peeking into spacetime from the dimension above, similar to how the 3-dimensional Spacelanders in Flatland: The Film peek into the reality of the 2-dimensional Flatlanders from "above" (a direction that doesn't exist in Flatland).
Tom Campbell on the value of a scientific theoryThe value of a theory, Campbell says, "is not that it supports current scientific beliefs. Of course, within academia that's debatable, but it's not supposed to be because it supports current scientific beliefs." In other words, Campbell recognizes that science is so far from the impartial objective process that it is presented as being that by today the principal value of a theory within academia is how well it fits with current scientific dogmas.


The most common source of the great, truly tragic failures of official society's attempted practice of physical science, are found in the chasm which separates science pursued merely as a professional occupation, from science pursued as a mission for discovery of truth. In the first case, the professional asks, "Will it be accepted? Will it work?" In the second case, he asks, "Have I proven that this is actually true?"

Forget the customary academic double-talk! Forget what your peers say! "Is it really true? Do you really know it to be true, or do you merely expect that your peers will share your wish to believe that it is true? Do you believe it, only because you fear ridicule if you do not?"

"Should you actually believe in what you propose?" For the so-called "practical mind," the usual philistine of business, politics, or science, the difference between the two may be thought to be slight, even of merely trivial significance. On the contrary, between the two states of mind there is a gulf, a deep gulf, and one which is almost unbridgeable, a gulf which represents what is often a tragic difference, not only for the scientist, but for the culture itself.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr [source]

To conclude part 2 of his Calgary presentation, Campbell says:

So now we know what Lao-Tze and the Buddha were talking about — why some people are happy and some aren't. The ones that are happy are the ones that are growing, becoming love; the ones that aren't are the ones that are failing, that they're de-evolving. We know the difference between right and wrong, morals, ethics; what's important, what's not. What's important is what helps the system lower its entropy; what's not is what doesn't.

Tom Campbell

In part 3, Campbell demonstrates a remote viewing exercise, and then takes questions:

Tom Campbell in Calgary: Theory of MBT (Sat) 3/3

"As far as paradigm shifts go...this (My Big TOE) is going to be a paradigm earthquake". Tom continues with "It's going to be a major, gut-wrenching, culture twisting, mind-bending shift"...."but it won't happen fast." In this conclusion to Saturday's presentation, Tom demonstrates how one can heal with the mind, and remote view with the exercises he provides, and explains different ways psychic data can be interpreted from a scientific point of view.

Campbell on permission slips

Rituals and other tools are "basically unnecessary", because "your intent is just your consciousness". It's not that the tools aren't good and useful, "it's just that there's no theoretical reason why you have to use them"; "they're just part of your toolset". This parallels Bashar's idea of permission slips:

All tools, all techniques, all rituals, all objects, are nothing but permission slips. They're not doing anything for you [by themselves]. They're just a vibratory resonance that symbolically depicts, symbolically reflects, the state of the belief system within you at present, that, by that reflection will allow you to give yourself permission to be more of who you are.

Bashar

The more one expands one's consciousness, the less permission slips one needs.

Non-physical vs. quasi-physical

Campbell thinks of imagination as "non-physical", while Bashar describes it as quasi-physical, because something non-physical would not normally be visible from the physical. Imagination is 5th-dimensional conceptual quasi-physical information transmitted from the Higher Mind to the Physical Mind, while the non-physical levels of consciousness are above the Higher Mind in the spirit realm.

Remote viewing exercises

Tom Campbell on operating in the larger reality
Tom Campbell on how to focus your intent
Tom Campbell on the right approach to remote viewing
Tom Campbell on tools and specific approaches to remote viewing
Tom Campbell on exercise considerations
Tom Campbell on typical interferences when remote viewing
Tom Campbell on 5 ESP exercises
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Campbell observes that the main impediment to any ESP or healing work is the automatic tendency to judge what is happening. Other impediments include distinctions between imagination and "realness" (assuming that imagination somehow isn't "real"), expectations, and intentions. One must become "an independent, detached observer; you don't care how it comes out, it just comes out however it does". "No intellectual control, no analysis," and "forget about the answers being rational or making sense."

Campbell suggests entering meditation with what he calls point consciousness. "Point consciousness is basically where you are only aware of one thing and that's that you exist, that you're conscious." In other words, one appropriately enters the state of meditation from what really is the only genuine ontological starting point (cogito ergo sum) — which is achieved by the logical mind (left hemisphere) by applying methodological skepticism (Cartesian doubt).

Reality models for the left brain

After the remote viewing exercises, there is a Q&A, during which Campbell describes how he sees his model (and by extension what TBP is generalizing to metaparadigm):

What I have produced is a model of reality. What's unique about it, and interesting about it, I think, is that it's a logical process model. It talks to the left-brained people in the world. It talks to all the, you know, the mechanics, and the scientists, and engineers, and the lawyers and the doctors, and everybody who does logical process, for a living. And that's the way they think. All those left-brained people, right now, are out there with nothing that they can connect to. There's tons and tons of right-brained type things about spirituality and about, you know, reality models, and that sort of stuff. They're all, uh, poetical, [...] it's descriptive; it's not logical process.

[...]

So here we have probably 70% of our population is probably left-brain dominant, and all the lawyers make all the politicians, right? And the scientists tell the politicians, you know, in our culture, a lot about what to think. I would say that science is our culture's religion. So we have the high priests of our culture, the scientists, and we have the politicians of our culture (the lawyers), and then we have the doctors, and we have all these other professionals, [and] the CEOs and the businessmen, and they're all left-brained, because it's all logical process is what they deal with. They're the ones running things. They have a lot of influence in our culture, and they're the ones that tell everybody else what to believe and what not to believe. So, my thought was that what we needed was a description that reached into spirituality, reached into metaphysics, but it had to start with physics. You couldn't have metaphysics deriving physics because you couldn't get these left-brained guys to start with metaphysics. You can have physics deriving metaphysics, because they'll get on board with the physics, and oh my god, it leads you to metaphysics, and this metaphysics makes sense.

So, you know, my model was basically designed for all those, you know, left-brained techies and bureaucrats and other people who do logical process, so that there be something that they could read that would make sense to them, and will maybe lead them to a better place of how to be, because it'll be logical to them.

Tom Campbell

While the idea is valid, the premise that physics could derive the real metaphysics might be quite an absurd assumption. Nonetheless, Campbell has created precisely that: a model of reality built on top of the actual "empirical" observations produced by the scientific method — unlike the mainstream models that disingenuously ignore data that doesn't fit their absurd pre-conceived model of a physical(ist) objective reality — which elegantly (i.e. parsimoniously) derives a metaphysics that is the closest to what our intragalactic neighbors are communicating to us through "unauthoritative" instrumentalities. Campbell's model may perhaps be excessively reductionistic and less self-empowering in comparison to the latter, but is still a whole scientific revolution ahead of mainstream science. A perhaps valid analogy is that Campbell's model is to science what quantum mechanics is to classical mechanics. Campbell's creation of the distinction between small TOEs and big TOEs (objective vs. subjective reality TOEs, or consciousness as primordial vs. epiphenomenological TOEs) by itself creates this (meta)paradigm gap that renders all small TOE models as historical curiosities akin to pre-Copernican epicycling (as Peter Russell puts it).

[...]

I'm hopeful. I think this theory will probably gain credibility at one time, sometime in the future. The reason I believe that is that it answers the mail. It explains the unexplainable. There's all kinds of unexplainable scientific experiments out there, the double slit being just one of them.

[...]

As far as paradigm changes go — you can talk about paradigm shift — this is gonna be like paradigm earthquake. Think of the paradigm shifts from flat Earth all the way up to where we are today — that's gonna be a bump in the road, compared to this paradigm shift. If they get to this paradigm shift that I'm talking about, there's gonna be a major gut-wrenching, culture-twisting, mind-bending shift, and it isn't gonna happen fast. Something that big is gonna happen, slowly, and it's gonna take a long time, because it's gonna have to build very very slowly, but at least it's, you know, a start.

[...]

Whether it takes a hundred years or not, I don't know. [...] Everything moves faster now than it did before. I'm hoping that within decades we might see some significant push into the universities and other things [when] people start taking this seriously. But, my thought was, and I came to the conclusion that, it's a bottoms-up kind of thing. It's not the right idea to start at the top, which means start with the university professors and the guys who are doing research in consciousness. It's not a good idea to start there and try to convince them, and then let that flow down; it's much better to start at the bottom, talk to you guys, other people, and let it bubble up — for a couple of reasons. One, all the top guys doing things have one big reputation and big careers on the line; if anything changes very much, they missed it [and that] doesn't look good. Secondly, they're very very busy — anybody that at the top of their game gets, you know, way more input than they want, cuz everybody wants to show them their idea, so they don't have time for much other than what they're doing. And lastly, things that are imposed from the top down—when the top says, "oh, this is a great idea, we should all, you know, move to this" — ideas imposed from the top down don't tend to last long, and don't tend to have a very deep impact. They're easily ignored, time goes by, years go by and they go away, because they were dependent on the people, you know, the experts—when the experts go away it goes away too. If it bobbles up from the bottom, then you have a groundswell, and you have a few hundred thousand or a few million people, who think, you know, "this is the way, this makes sense, this is good", then suddenly, the experts have to pay attention. It doesn't matter how busy they are — they have to pay attention, they have to deal with it. And that's a lot harder to chase away. That will then grow and grow and grow and I think become something. So I believe the bottom up is the correct solution, if you really wanna make a long-term change in the way we see reality. It's gotta start from the bottom, and let the people drag the scientists kicking and screaming into the game.

Tom Campbell

The feeling or assumption that the left-brained people need to be reached is one we all agree with (hence this website), but the idea that we need to "drag the scientists kicking and screaming into the game" is not necessarily at all relevant to the (r)evolution of human consciousness, which is already happening completely independently of dogmatic left-brained individuals, scientists and not, who will simply go on to experience ever-increasing degrees of limitation in the 3rd density, and eventually perhaps experience a transhumanistic reality under the control system under the objective reality delusion that would be reminiscent of that experienced by the Greys. The idea is that either one or the other of these polarized general thematic timelines (ascensional timelines and transhumanism timelines — positively-oriented and negatively-oriented) have already been chosen to be experienced by most or all of each incarnated soul from the non-physical level of consciousness.

To some degree, the virtual reality meme plays into the hands of the control system, but only when the idea is approached from within the objective reality metaparadigm, as mainstream science (scientism) is increasingly doing. Though central to Campbell's model, it is not as central as the underlying subjective reality metaparadigm, being really an assumption based on the perception of lack of parsimony of MWI-like models that don't make tangible use of dimensionality models.

Subjective reality metaparadigm models

Tom Campbell has produced the first "Big" (serious) TOE, while Bashar is in effect a "meta-TOE". In other words, if Bashar is to be believed, it means that Bashar's perspective is so much larger, relative to ours, that it is "beyond" the "E" that small (i.e. fundamentalist-materialist) TOEs have attempted to describe, and even beyond Campbell's "E", and can thus fill in the details and gaps we are missing (not to mention completely reconfigure our fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality).

You see, all these things that we talk about, they're not opinions — they're observations. We are actually describing to you the mechanism of existence itself, we're describing how it works — in much the same way that if you were holding a red rose and I asked you what color the rose was, you would just say red. It's not an opinion, it's just an observation. We can see the mechanism of Creation — that's where we're at in our evolution. So we're describing to you that we know these things are true, because we can see that they are true — and when you start to know how it works and understand the mechanism clearly, then you will also know that this is true. And then it will be in your behavior, because you know it to be true.

Bashar

Campbell says that every phenomena, all data, beautifully fits within his Big TOE virtual reality framework. In the same way, his Big TOE appears to fit beautifully in Bashar's metaphysical framework, with perhaps just a few fundamental adjustments.

The assumption that VR is the only option leads to what would seem to be the least preferred theory, if only due to the simulatory nature of reality painted by this model. Bashar's ontology is significantly more empowering and describes reality as simultaneously-happening and therefore VR-like, but rather multi-dimensional, with time/change being an experience within existence. When we interact with another person, we are creating a "simulation" of their energy in order to experience them, but this idea is ontologically distinct from that of a simulation in a virtual reality.

Laws of Creation

According to Bashar, there are only a few absolute, objective, intrinsic laws:

Bashar - The Four Laws of Creation

For the purpose of increasing clarity, the idea of the four Laws of Creation was expanded to include a 5th law in 2013. In an event on July 6, 2013, in San Francisco, CA, titled The 5th Law, Bashar describes the reasoning behind this idea (the additional law being really an implied subset of the 1st and 2nd laws).

Bashar - 5th Law Q&A

From 'The 5th Law': Bashar invites us to join in and share our perspectives in an ongoing exploration by the Interstellar Alliance as to whether or not there is a Fifth Law of Creation in addition to the Four Laws Bashar has previously discussed.

One can buy the video from Bashar Communications (thus supporting their work in a fair exchange of energy) or (against their wishes/agenda) download it via the Bittorrent network.

The virtual reality assumption

Is it information that is fundamental, or is it consciousness?

It's not that consciousness collapses the wavefunction to a particle; it's not that the measurement collapses the wavefunction into a particle; it's the creation of the information. The consciousness takes the measurement, which creates information. And if the information is here, now you can't have any inconsistency with the information. ... It's not about consciousness, it's not about measurement, it's about information. And what does that tell you? It's a virtual reality, based on information.

Tom Campbell

You must understand, again, that the idea of causation actually starts with consciousness. These things do not happen because of the wave; the wave is a physicalized manifestation of a change going on in your consciousness, thus the wave is a reflection of a change already going on in your consciousness evolution. So it doesn't cause it, but it represents it, it reflects it — you understand?

Bashar

Remember: what you call physical reality isn't actually "out there"; it's in your consciousness. So it's a relation of energy, of frequencies, within your consciousness that you interpret as a dimensional reality "outside" yourself — but that's just a perspective, it's not an accurate description of the actual structure.

Bashar

Tom Campbell the coincidence theorist

Campbell has a dismissive attitude towards "conspiracy theories" — the term the "news" media uses to label ideas that are too outside of the absurd notions that the inhabitants of tax farms (nation-states) are expected to believe by the people who believe they have the right to grant or revoke the natural rights of other Human beings, and whose edicts their enforcers (order followers) use as a justification for the initiation of violence against their fellow Human being. Thus, the people who call themselves "government", and their enforcers, are given credibility by the existence of the media itself. That is the only reason why there are no physical shackles any longer. The practice of slavery simply evolved to its current "subtle" form, with the media presenting a grandiose illusion of choice.

Those conspiracies that are too incredible to be believed, are by the same right, those which most often succeed. Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity.

Marshall McLuhan

The (money-seeking) people in the media and the (influence-seeking) politicians they report "news" about are both part of the group of people on one side of the only real good/evil divide: they are people who unconsciously believe in the legitimacy of slavery. The belief in authority is the mechanism that elevates one human being over another — i.e. the distinction that creates the polarity that defines a master—slave relationship — one with the "right" to rule and the other with the moral obligation to obey.

Campbell says that one can "explain anything with a conspiracy theory" — but that applies just as much to the "official storytellers", or "official mythologers", as to anyone else. The idea that a major war could be initiated today without a false flag event is almost absurd. The attacker always has to make it seem like he is defending himself, even if disproportionally.

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

Plato

As researcher Daniel Pouzzner writes in his book The Architecture of Modern Political Power (p.16):

The establishment cloaks itself in cultural camouflage, employing tactics for which it almost seamlessly maintains plausible deniability. Subtle, ubiquitous, often implicit propaganda fosters a broad public acceptance and embrace of the authority of the establishment, and of the establishment’s definitions of good and evil, preventing the public from seriously contemplating the reality that the establishment is itself quite often evil by its own definition. The establishment reiterates the mantra that the President of the United States is “the leader of the free world“, but a free world has no leader. The President of the United States is simply the most obvious spearhead of the authority of the establishment. He gathers strength at the expense of the world’s freedom.

Generally, an errant public attributes the results of the establishment’s meddlesome actions to happenstance, or to motives viewed as essentially innocuous or virtuous. The design is irrefutably evident only in the pattern of results, or by actually showing proof of meddling. The public has been systemically conditioned to ignore such patterns, and to condemn those who draw attention to them (derisively calling them “conspiracy theorists“). Thus, controlling access to and dissemination of information that constitutes proof of meddling suffices in large part to protect the establishment program from exposure. The compartmentalization of the establishment’s covert apparatus assures that those exposures which do transpire cause only limited damage.

Daniel Pouzzner

Like with dimensionality, the perception of benevolence and necessity of having "leaders" "governing" the masses of people is due to a lack of scalar perspective:

The incomprehensibly Big Lie - Larken Rose

[Published on Aug 26, 2015] Why would anyone ever give up his freedom, in favor of having a master? Because aspiring tyrants are very good at deceiving people into thinking that it's for their own good. It's sad that this ever works, since it's akin to a slave-master convincing a slave that the purpose of the institution of slavery is to serve the slaves. How on earth could a megalomaniac ever make such a ridiculous lie sound believable?

One very popular means of deception, used in an effort to justify tyranny, is to talk in really big terms, on a scale that most people can't imagine. The aspiring tyrant needs to use problems--real or made up--to make normal people think that normal people can't possibly solve them.

The most powerful deconstructions of the belief in involuntaryism — which is what "authority" and "government" are euphemisms for — are provided by Larken Rose and Mark Passio.

Videos

TBP is not necessarily the first source of information to notice the similarities and degree of overlap between Campbell's work and what Bashar says:

Bashar & Astrophysicist Tom Campell: Link between Ascension & Speed of light

[Published on Feb 21, 2014] Bashar Workshop Info: Brick Walls and Beliefs

I thought is was interesting that what Bashar put forth about the speed of light in 4th density & beyond, was very similar to Tom's ideas of potential correlations in the speed of light & lowering of entropy.

Much appreciation to Tom Campbell, Darryl Anka & Bashar for the co-creation of this information! The 3 minute Bashar clip was used with permission according to Bashar Communication guidelines.

*LINKS*
Tom's Channel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1axh6ki0oc
Forum for all things "My Big T.O.E." - http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/
Visit www.Bashar.org for more information or to order workshops.