The Astral Pulse

Metaphysics => Welcome to Quantum Physics! => Topic started by: Daece on September 18, 2014, 04:35:34



Title: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Daece on September 18, 2014, 04:35:34
Tom Campbell gives a theory that, much like a simulated computer game, what we don't see is not rendered to us.  For instance, a place in the arctic with no consciousness to observe it (humans, animals, birds, etc) will not truly be "there".  As, in a simulation, why would a computer uselessly display graphics to no one?  After giving it some thought I wondered about our brains.  If no consciousness is there to "see" your brain, it technically isn't there, or being rendered in Campbell's theory.  In this case, what would fill in this gap?  It cant just empty space...  I'm approaching it with open minded skepticism so anyone's feedback is greatly appreciated.



Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Xanth on September 18, 2014, 12:12:03
Tom Campbell gives a theory that, much like a simulated computer game, what we don't see is not rendered to us.  For instance, a place in the arctic with no consciousness to observe it (humans, animals, birds, etc) will not truly be "there".  As, in a simulation, why would a computer uselessly display graphics to no one?  After giving it some thought I wondered about our brains.  If no consciousness is there to "see" your brain, it technically isn't there, or being rendered in Campbell's theory.  In this case, what would fill in this gap?  It cant just empty space...  I'm approaching it with open minded skepticism so anyone's feedback is greatly appreciated.


There is no space there.  Or anywhere for that matter, it's all just data.
The system only renders a brain when it has to.


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Daece on September 18, 2014, 16:11:11
"No space there" leads me to think that it is almost 2-d information that we are perceiving as 3-d reality when the information is downloaded.  Is that closer?

-D


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Xanth on September 18, 2014, 17:15:10
"No space there" leads me to think that it is almost 2-d information that we are perceiving as 3-d reality when the information is downloaded.  Is that closer?

-D
Use that computer game example Tom uses.

Think about how a video game works... in actuality, a video game is merely nothing but thousands of lines of code.  That's it.  There's nothing more to it.
Now, what do you see on your monitor when you "run" that game?  You're seeing a visual representation (a RENDERING) of those lines of code.  That's it.  What you're seeing on your screen is only a rendering of what the lines of code represent.  As such what you're seeing on your screen doesn't REALLY exist.

Take this back to your "brain" that's in your head.  You will only ever see a brain if you bash your head open and take a look... otherwise, there's no reason to render a brain there.  Same goes, for example, the bones in the index finger of your left hand.  The bones don't actually exist... unless you cut your finger open and look, then they're rendered.  You can feel them, sure... but you're only feeling the "result of the measurement" (as Tom would say).

There is no brain, there is no space for the brain... there is no bone in your finger, there is no space for the bone in the finger... it's all just data.   :)

Does that make any better sense?  LOL :D


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Daece on September 18, 2014, 20:36:58
There is no brain, there is no space for the brain... there is no bone in your finger, there is no space for the bone in the finger... it's all just data.   :)


I get the fact that it isn't in existence unless you are taking a measurement, making a record.  What confuses me still is the "space."  I'm not quite grasping that there is no space for the bone in the finger etc.  Take a cube for example.  What's inside the cube in our "reality" won't be rendered until someone actually opens up the cube to see it.  However, having volume, I see it as having "space" inside of it.  Yes, what's in the cube isn't rendered when the cube is closed, but what makes up that space in the meantime?  That's why earlier I was saying it seemed like it was 2-d because if the cube didn't have space it would be flat. 


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Xanth on September 18, 2014, 20:42:49
I get the fact that it isn't in existence unless you are taking a measurement, making a record.  What confuses me still is the "space."  I'm not quite grasping that there is no space for the bone in the finger etc.  Take a cube for example.  What's inside the cube in our "reality" won't be rendered until someone actually opens up the cube to see it.  However, having volume, I see it as having "space" inside of it.  Yes, what's in the cube isn't rendered when the cube is closed, but what makes up that space in the meantime?  That's why earlier I was saying it seemed like it was 2-d because if the cube didn't have space it would be flat.
That's just it, the "space" doesn't exist either until you take the measurement.
For us humans who think "physically", it just makes sense to us that if you have a "box", that "inside the box" is "space"... but how can you know that unless you open the box and look?

What makes up the space in the meantime?  Everything AND nothing.  It's all just probabilities.  It's all just data.

It's all very confusing, I know.  But realize too, that you don't need to understand any of this.  It's like driving a car... you don't need to know how the car functions in order to drive it.  :)

May I inquire as to WHY you feel you need to understand these concepts?


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Stillwater on September 18, 2014, 21:00:22
I think Tom's position is likely to be correct. Supposing as I do that consciousness is the only thing that exists, and physical worlds are a sort of software simulation whose outputs are sense-data like sights and smells, it only makes sense that places that have no experiencer thus have no existence outside of a background part of the simulation's code. The metaphor of computer games he harps on does have a very close relationship with the way things seem to be.

Consider it like music... is there music in a piano while it is laying still? It is only while the keys are played and the mechanisms are in good order that there is any music. There exists no "music space", or "potential music"- it only happens where there is the event of playing and a listener. So too with this reality stuff. The space of the physical world unoccupied is at best a few strings of code in the simulation that has no expression and thus no physical existence, because its only physical expression is in the form of sense data, which in that moment is denied.


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Daece on September 18, 2014, 23:53:11
That's just it, the "space" doesn't exist either until you take the measurement.

May I inquire as to WHY you feel you need to understand these concepts?

1) As simple as an answer it was, that really made it click :)

2) As much as I hate to be an armchair expert  :x , I've read all of Bruce's books and have sat through about 6 hours of Tom's youtube videos and just want to understand fully what I'm reading/watching! 
Thanks for the replies guys


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Rakkso on September 25, 2014, 10:56:27
Consider it like music... is there music in a piano while it is laying still? It is only while the keys are played and the mechanisms are in good order that there is any music. There exists no "music space", or "potential music"- it only happens where there is the event of playing and a listener. So too with this reality stuff. The space of the physical world unoccupied is at best a few strings of code in the simulation that has no expression and thus no physical existence, because its only physical expression is in the form of sense data, which in that moment is denied.

This really caught my attention.. "There is no music space" in the context of everything, including absolutely everything, being a simulation? therefore code, therefore not the real reality per se? Therefore concludes, everything is a Play, I am the Listener, watching, therefore creating my own experience by the single act of being aware.
Or, "There is no music space" like in music is sound, sound is waves, waves are pontentiality, and potentiality occupies no space at a given instant in the sinusoidal wave? But however, matter is the result of very, very high Frequency and Vibration of atoms and molecules, which are in turn 99% vacuum space. we just see stuff because we are exponentially much complex and bigger, so we perceive the illusion of space. So in turn, we are made of 99% pure vacuum, but so tighly compressed that cant percieve that vacuum flux charged space.

I know everything is just information and data of this and that. But IMHO, Data "floats" on a certain space/point/region on you Hard Drive, so, actual soul data, or spiritual data, or consciousness data (different names for the same thing) must have a space too, we just can't/don't know how to measure it maybe(??) This is because because as above so below.

I Apologize if i cant get my idea straight, but you get the idea, thats what the truth does to your brain lol.


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Stillwater on September 25, 2014, 16:17:03
Quote
therefore not the real reality per se?

That physical reality isn't what is perceived to be (namely, the base, ground reality, which doesn't depend on other realities for its existence), doesn't mean it isn't real... just not what it is made out to be.

In the (probably a bit too cryptic) music example, I am expressing the concept that there is no medium on which music is impressed, and no void (which is itself in some ways a thing- a space where nothing resides, but could) it occupies. Sure, soundwaves propagate as wave pulses on matter, but that isn't what music is, that is what sound is. Music is the experience humans have, as prompted by that sound. If you have a room full of crabs, and play for them a CD of "Bach's greatest hits", there is no music there.  The crabs can't integrate it into experience that is meaningful to them. Yet there can be music in your head, when no sound is playing- that should tell you what music is. Applying this analogy to physical reality, which we are supposing to be simulated, lines of code depicting empty and unexperienced space is truly nothing in our frame of reference. It is less than a void. Perhaps it has existence in the mind of the consciousness that animates the simulation by setting the code in motion, but that is the only place it could have reality.

Un-experienced space is Bach for Crabs. That is the Zen you should take away, lol.


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Xanth on September 25, 2014, 16:56:57
I agree with Stillwater.

Essentially, anything you can EXPERIENCE... *is real*.  It's something that REALLY happened to you.
Whether or not someone else can corroborate the event is meaningless. 

This is also why experience is individual and unique.


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: no_leaf_clover on September 26, 2014, 08:09:10
It seems like somebody mentioned WoW on another thread.  I think WoW (World of Warcraft), or any MMORPG is a good example of the kinds of things modern physics says.

Want parallel universes?  You got them.... Multiple servers with the exact same terrains, cities, general occurrences... but the people and their interactions are totally different on each one, even if you "incarnate" onto each of them with a different character.  So you have the same world existing in many different "parallel realities" at the same time.

All these universes not really taking up much, if any, higher-dimensional space?  Just look at how much room all of these digital worlds take up on physical hard drives.  You're walking around on what seems like a huge planet to you, but outside of the game you're pretending to play, it all fits on a little chip that fits between the thumb and forefinger of its creator.  :P


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Rakkso on September 27, 2014, 23:05:26
That physical reality isn't what is perceived to be (namely, the base, ground reality, which doesn't depend on other realities for its existence), doesn't mean it isn't real... just not what it is made out to be.

In the (probably a bit too cryptic) music example, I am expressing the concept that there is no medium on which music is impressed, and no void (which is itself in some ways a thing- a space where nothing resides, but could) it occupies. Sure, soundwaves propagate as wave pulses on matter, but that isn't what music is, that is what sound is. Music is the experience humans have, as prompted by that sound. If you have a room full of crabs, and play for them a CD of "Bach's greatest hits", there is no music there.  The crabs can't integrate it into experience that is meaningful to them. Yet there can be music in your head, when no sound is playing- that should tell you what music is. Applying this analogy to physical reality, which we are supposing to be simulated, lines of code depicting empty and unexperienced space is truly nothing in our frame of reference. It is less than a void. Perhaps it has existence in the mind of the consciousness that animates the simulation by setting the code in motion, but that is the only place it could have reality.

Un-experienced space is Bach for Crabs. That is the Zen you should take away, lol.

Yes, you are right about Music, and all else, I was blinded by scientific notions, forgetting what I once knew. That third last sentence, I think the same as well, specially since you dont often hear people say that. Thank you.


It seems like somebody mentioned WoW on another thread.  I think WoW (World of Warcraft), or any MMORPG is a good example of the kinds of things modern physics says.

Want parallel universes?  You got them.... Multiple servers with the exact same terrains, cities, general occurrences... but the people and their interactions are totally different on each one, even if you "incarnate" onto each of them with a different character.  So you have the same world existing in many different "parallel realities" at the same time.

All these universes not really taking up much, if any, higher-dimensional space?  Just look at how much room all of these digital worlds take up on physical hard drives.  You're walking around on what seems like a huge planet to you, but outside of the game you're pretending to play, it all fits on a little chip that fits between the thumb and forefinger of its creator.  :P

Lol, as above so below strikes again  :lol:
Its all fun for the characters once they know what they can really do, isn't it?  :-P


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Nameless on January 29, 2019, 23:25:12
Great observations. My take is that the Box/Cube or your Head is then filled with code. The code only renders when activated.

Now my question is why is it we assume that only humans or those with human-like or above intelligence have the ability to activate the code?

So if there is no one in the frozen arctic to experience/activate that code except perhaps an arctic crab then is the frozen arctic rendered or not? If not that crabs gonna starve. Or is he only code as well?


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Xanth on January 30, 2019, 01:48:37
Great observations. My take is that the Box/Cube or your Head is then filled with code. The code only renders when activated.

Now my question is why is it we assume that only humans or those with human-like or above intelligence have the ability to activate the code?

So if there is no one in the frozen arctic to experience/activate that code except perhaps an arctic crab then is the frozen arctic rendered or not? If not that crabs gonna starve. Or is he only code as well?
Yes, it's rendered for whatever consciousness is around.


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Nameless on January 30, 2019, 02:57:12
Bingo!!! And so therefore we are not the gods we think we are... if even a lowly little crab can activate the code. :-)


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: Xanth on January 30, 2019, 03:33:46
Bingo!!! And so therefore we are not the gods we think we are... if even a lowly little crab can activate the code. :-)
I'd prefer to say that we are ALL gods.  :)


Title: Re: Tom Campbell's theory of "rendering"
Post by: LightBeam on January 30, 2019, 04:00:55
To me everything is consciousness to the smallest matter particle. Not just living organisms and vegetation, but all matter. For billions of years space was composed only of matter not living organisms, yet it kept expanding, spinning through the gravity, electromagnetic forces, etc. So there is recorded history that today we observe billions of years later to find out what happened while not observed by intelligent consciousness. Another thought, who is to say spiritual consciousness that can observe physical matter doesn't count. I think creation in levels like ours are provoked and started by non-physical consciousness. It starts from inside out (for lack of better terminology) if you will, not the other way around.