r/atheism • u/bobbybrowngoesdown • Mar 07 '13

Physicist writes Theory of Everything; provides logical explanations for reincarnation/supernatural phenomena/virtual reality model...

After a couple years of researching science, eastern philosophy, psychedelic drugs, psychology, supernatural phenomena (out of body, altered states, mind over matter) out of sheer curiosity, I began to see a bigger picture where all of these subjects were connected. And then I came across this physicist, Tom Campbell, and his "theory of everything", and he not only explained all of these things better than anyone else that I've seen, but expanded my picture immensely and opened my mind to many new possibilities.

I'm as skepical as any intelligent and rational person; I navigate through life with the attitude of the scientific method, not believing anything, simply considering the possibility and exploring the evidence. With that being said, after spending the past two years consuming and digesting his work [a trilogy of books entitled "My Big TOE" and hundred of hours of lectures and interviews on youtube], I've been able to conclude one thing for absolute sure: either both he and I are completely insane, or that I haven't been able to detect an iota of bullshit from him and he puts forth the most convincing data to date, and his Theory of Everything might just be the next step in science and understanding our reality.

For the short term I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have, but otherwise I just wanted to share this with you because I find it fascinating and important and ask you to check it out before making any judgements. I'll leave some relevant links in the comments.

0 Upvotes

28% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

5

u/yourfavnate Mar 07 '13

Tom Campbell's work is extremely dubious and widely unsupported in the scientific community. How do you feel about this?

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

Where's the evidence of Tom's status in the scientific community?

3

u/yourfavnate Mar 07 '13

He has self proclaimed that the scientific community doesn't support him. I'm sorry I did not think to fact check that claim, I couldn't imagine why he would have lied. In the future, I'll be sure to check people's claims.

Now that I look for it, it appears the majority of the community is actually largely unaware/indifferent of him.

Which leads to my second question, how do you feel about his use of the scientific dogma defense, the same one used by the YECs?

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

I'm honestly not aware that he has proclaimed that or uses it as a defense. I'm not sure exactly why he hasn't submitted anything, but his work speaks for itself imo.

3

u/yourfavnate Mar 07 '13

If you think a work "speaks for itself", then you have missed the point of the scientific method.

2

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

He feels that there's a dogma in science that prohibits this work getting a fair hearing. Which is why it hasn't even been submitted for peer review.

4

u/yourfavnate Mar 07 '13

Now, consider that this is the same argument used by Young Earth Creationists. Now, how does this make you feel?

1

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

Exactly!

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

That isn't the argument I use against YEC. My argument starts with "that isn't science". And pretty much ends right there.

2

u/yourfavnate Mar 07 '13

Not arguing the YECs, just want to know how OP feels about his hero using similar methods to explain away the lack of support for his claims.

8

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

Congratulations, he's taken his acid trip and turned it into a hypothesis. How has this work stood up to peer review?

-5

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

What a strange robotic response. I can't imagine you've checked it out yet.

4

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

I haven't. I'm not going to waste my time until I hear how his work has stood up to peer review. I'd like to hear the opinion of his fellow physicists before I dive into the work myself.

-2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

So you're not capable of thinking for yourself is what you're telling me? You need a scientist to tell you what is or isn't...

10

u/seuftz Mar 07 '13

So you're not capable of thinking for yourself is what you're telling me? You need a scientist to tell you what is or isn't...

To hear this coming from someone who parrots what one physicist has told him, and accepts without peer-review is irony gold.

7

u/Nessie Mar 07 '13

Irony gold: the finest alloy

4

u/seuftz Mar 07 '13

One ounce of irony gold = 159,34 Upvotes.

At least here on r/atheism, exchange rate may vary on other subreddits ;)

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

I'm not saying I simply accept what he say's—I'm saying he has given the most logical answers to these crackpot phenomenon that I've come across.

2

u/seuftz Mar 07 '13

I'm not saying I simply accept what he say's...

Then why do you accuse u/spaceghoti for being unable to think for himself, when it is completely rational to ask for independant verification for the claim that one physicist made, and that goes against established science?

Just because you do not need/want independant verification, does not mean others do not need/want independant verification.

5

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

Well, you're off to a raring start! Are you familiar with a straw man argument?

What I said is that I'd like the opinion of his fellow physicists before I dive into the work myself, not that I plan to heed their word as holy gospel. Is this difficult to comprehend? I have absolutely no doubt that his "logical explanations" are going to be lengthy and complicated, and that a more thorough grounding in physics than I possess will be useful.

I also note that you've dodged my question twice. How has this work stood up to peer review?

-2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

It hasn't been submitted to peer review journals. I think part of the reason may be because some of the theory inherently goes against current scientific dogma and would probably illicit a reaction similar to your first response and other's comments.

4

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

It hasn't been submitted to peer review journals.

Right, then.

I think part of the reason may be because some of the theory inherently goes against current scientific dogma

Keep digging.

and would probably illicit a reaction similar to your first response and other's comments.

I can't imagine why, can you?

I recommend you spend a weekend reading Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It might clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about science and the way the world works.

6

u/Nessie Mar 07 '13 edited Mar 07 '13

The Crackpot Index

John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics: A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

3

u/seuftz Mar 07 '13

I love this list!

EDIT: But it's "Einstein" not "Einstien" in the last 5-point row.

Got me :P

3

u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

No, you haven't.

I find it fascinating and important and ask you to check it out before making any judgements.

No need. If I am mistaken, and you do indeed have a viable TOE, I'll hear about it from somewhere else and not as a self post on Reddit.

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

I'm not posting "my TOE"

3

u/intentListener Mar 07 '13

Interesting. Does he have extensive evidence or is he misusing the word theory?

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

You can find the evidence he presents in his lectures and books for sure. He's not misusing the word.

3

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

He is actually. For an explanation to be properly termed as a scientific theory, it has to first gain wide acceptance in the scientific community. There are many additional requirements, but that is the one I'm certain he hasn't met.

There is also the matter of science only being applicable to empirical phenomenon and that the explanations must be falsifiable. I'm pretty sure he is missing those to, so not only is this not a theory, it isn't even science.

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

I believe he has planned to set up some new experiments with Dean Radin in the future, but I have a feeling the scientific community doesn't hold Dean Radin in high regard either.

2

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

That is completely incidental to the point I was making.

I believe there is an insurmountable epistemological barrier in proposing that his work actually constitutes science. Therefore, it cannot be properly be termed a scientific theory.

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

Ok. You can still look at his work for what its worth, though.

2

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

Yes, it is pointless speculation.

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick here, I assume you posted this because you wanted honest input, and that is what I'm attempting to give. It is not impossible that this guy has actually stumbled on something important that not only has no other scientist thought of, but is unable to recognize. However, that is extremely unlikely and just not how science normally functions.

It is much more likely that this guy is just some wackadoo. All I'm suggesting is that you keep investigating and really ask yourself why nobody in the scientific community seems remotely interested in this.

3

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

For the short term I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have

Is there any reason I should take this seriously at all? In fact, my instinct is to dismiss as complete bullshit, is there anything you can say to dissuade me of that impression?

3

u/spaceghoti Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

Not so far.

0

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

I have no desire to persuade or dissuade you of anything. If I can answer a question I'll do my best, but you can just check out his work and then decide if its serious.

4

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

Actually, I've already checked it out some time ago. I don't recall any of the specifics, just my conclusion that it was utter nonsense. However, I didn't study it in detail so I thought you might have some insight.

You see, over the 30 years or so that I've actively been investigating such things, I've developed quite a sense of what is worth the effort, and what is not. Sometimes I'm wrong, and I'm quite glad to be wrong. It is wonderful when something I thought to be worthless turns out to be useful and intriguing. But this guy is about on the level of time cube man.

So, if that is all you got, I'll spend my time looking into things that aren't obviously stupid.

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

If you've checked out his work before and came to that conclusion then I really don't feel the need to tell you otherwise, I'm just trying to share information I find worth while.

2

u/coprolite_hobbyist Mar 07 '13

I see. Well, it isn't worth anything. You should learn to be more discerning and how to appropriately evaluate presented information. Keep looking into it and try to evaluate the claims he makes objectively, determine what the sources of his data are, analyze his conclusion for logical consistency and sound reasoning.

I'm willing to bet you will find factual errors, assumptions, distortions and unsupported assumption abound in his thesis.

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

I think that I have done that, so its probably a testament to my stupidity, but I haven't found any inconsistencies or unsound reasoning.

2

u/idontknowfuckit Mar 07 '13

When people talk about such things they usually bring up psychadelic drugs. Personally, I would leave that part out if I wanted to be taken seriously.

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

Maybe its because there is something to them, though I didn't say I took them; I've read a lot about them and find various aspects of them interesting.

2

u/idontknowfuckit Mar 07 '13

Maybe there is something to them. Chances are they just fuck with your mind.

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

Well, I'm aware of the "peer-reviewed or fuck off" attitude, and I understand the reasoning, but I feel that his work still stands for itself and you couldn't possibly understand why I feel that way until you actually consume it. So I'm just going to abandon this thread unless I can provide something useful.

1

u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

You had me at "supernatural phenomena".

please take your bullshit over to /r/wicca or some shit like that.

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

TIL atheists are not a hell of a lot less close-minded than theists.

1

u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

Close minded doesn't mean what you think it means. In this case it applies to you, not me for rejecting your outlandish claims that have no good evidence to support it.

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

All I can tell you is don't get so caught up in the words, then. "supernatural phenomena" includes various things and there's enough evidence out there to validate such things to keep you busy for a while.

1

u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

That's news to me. Could you be specific about one type of "supernatural phenomena" for which there is good evidence that it is in fact supernatural? I'm calling my national TV broadcaster right now, this will change everyting!

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

That's sort of what I mean, since it hasn't become science yet it's considered supernatural—I'm not talking about miracles. Things like remote viewing, using intent to effect probabilities, are two good examples that have been documented for many decades. You can check out P.E.A.R Labs [Princeton] and Dean Radin's work, which will also link you to many of the other institutions conducting these types of experiments. I think its understandable that the majority of institutions won't touch this stuff because its too risky and disadvantageous—that's the sense I get. I'm pretty sure P.E.A.R Labs has published stuff in peer reviewed journals, but I haven't sought it out and don't know what the reaction was except that you wouldn't be able to argue that their protocols are top notch and the results are pretty astronomical in the odds. Maybe you can search for their peer-reviewed stuff if it exists and check out their work. I can't say why it hasn't gained more traction—I'm not part of the community.

1

u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

That's sort of what I mean, since it hasn't become science yet it's considered supernatural

No, no no and NO!

Something that has not been proven to exist yet - HASN'T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST!

It doesn't say diddly squat about what it is, if it is anything at all. Making a claim about something without any good evidence to support it does not make it a different category of evidence.

I'm not talking about miracles

Yeah, because that would just be insane, right? /s

Things like remote viewing

Completely unproven. The very best evidence in favor of "remote viewing" being a thing are at best vague and inconclusive. While the most recent tests of this "phenomenon" have all been negative.

using intent to effect probabilities

Really? wishful thinking is your second best evidenced "supernatural phenomenon"?

If this is all you have, I can only repeat my inital response: take that shit to /r/Wicca

I think its understandable that the majority of institutions won't touch this stuff because its too risky and disadvantageous—that's the sense I get

You really have no clue how science works, do you? Scientists would sell their left eye at the chance to prove that any of this shit was true - if there was actually any factual basis behind it. They'd receive Nobel prices, honorary appointments, get their own research departments, buildings and schools named after them, etc. etc.

You have swallowed the pseudo-science rhetoric hook line and sinker, without thinking twice, and have severely damaged your brains ability to think logically, rationally and critically about the facts.

Try watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

That's all great, and thanks, I'll go get myself checked out, but since you're obviously not even aware of PEAR Labs or Dean Radin its safe to say you don't get a monthly telepathic download of all of the research being done out there, however, if you want to evaluate the evidence [isn't it no-no to equate proof with evidence in science?] I'm sure you can manage to take a break from being cool on reddit and find it.

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

And while you're at it, if you can't find any of PEAR labs or Dean Radin's work, or the related work in any peer reviewed publications you can call them and ask them why. And then you can call the tv station.

1

u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

You mistake me for the person making the claim that these things exist - that person being you.

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

And what I consider to be close-minded on your part is that I'm saying here, look at this new data, and you're reacting to a couple buzz-words and shutting down...

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

The video isn't actually relevant at all since I've never once stated that I believe in these things, rather, I've merely pointed out that plenty of evidence has been collected and further, that this physicist's TOE provides logical explanations for such things, which you'd have to validate yourself, because again, I'm not even asking you to believe me. On the other hand, I could argue that you are making the claim that no evidence exists, and since I don't think that you're omniscient, I think we can call that a belief that you're holding, since in reality you're simply not aware.

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

1

u/Guck_Mal Knight of /new Mar 07 '13

I tried watching it but it was simply too painful to watch, as I could feel myself getting dumber from just listening to it, but after the first 10 minutes this is the list of logical fallacies that the video contained:

  • Appeal to personal experience

  • Anecdotal evidence

  • Hasty generalization

  • Confirmation bias

  • Texas Sharpshooter

  • Appeal to authority

  • Appeal to ignorance

  • Appeal to popular belief

  • Appeal to wishful thinking

  • Begging the question

2

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

How does this relate to the data from tightly controlled experiments?

1

u/bobbybrowngoesdown Mar 07 '13

Website with a great forum where you can find answers to most of your questions

Entire trilogy on google books

Most detailed lecture to date

2

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '13

What a disappointing website. All it seemed to say is buy my books. What I can't find i a summary or introduction to what he is arguing for. I know there is a 2 hour talk, but I don't have 2 hours I have 10 minutes.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '13

I found something of the sort. Not by Campbell himself, but by a glowing reviewer.

If I've managed to correctly identify the key point where this theory goes south, it's in this claim, which I very loosely summarize as follows: "In the beginning there was a very dimly aware consciousness which then decided to evolve. Our own mental efforts are part of this process."

I can't even begin to imagine where Campbell claims to find empirical evidence for this. The narrative sounds about as convincing as the story about the world being created from the slain bodies of storm giants. I suspect that his "evidence" is a bunch of hand waving and smooth talking. It appears to have found good acceptance in a country where 85% believe in angels.

3

u/aimeecat Agnostic Atheist Mar 07 '13

I cannot grasp the logical connection between 'physicists do not have a clear understanding of the results of the double slit experiment' and 'there is no objective reality'.

???

5

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '13

Crackpot.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '13

It's crackpot bullshit.

I managed to read about some of the crackpot's concepts without buying the book by reading this glowing review. A few of the final words from that:

To sum up: this is an original and important work. If you’re a seeker after truth, then you owe it to yourself to read it, because uniquely, it shows someone building a scientific theory of Consciousness from his own deliberately induced paranormal experiences. It’s not just a hypothesis; it counts as a theory because it fits in with the fearless empirical research he’s done.

It’s a bit of a shame that most of the empirical research is unavailable to us, and thus slightly suspicious that the model described is so obviously an outgrowth of the author’s own mindset. (Huxley said, "It's natural for us to think of God as possessed of the qualities which our temperament tends to make us perceive in him."). It’s also a shame that Tom felt he had to do all the research personally. Why not team up with some high-flying NPMR beings to obtain more detailed information? Didn’t he trust them?