Tom Campbell Theories

[SACOLUCCI]

Hi everyone,

I recently watched one of Tom Campbell's seminars on how we are living in a virtual reality as well as learning techniques like remote viewing and healing. I understand his theory some what with respect to this being a virtual reality but was wondering if someone can explain it to me in more layman's terms. I had a debate with someone on the theory of statistical probability of our future. I used the example of the tree in the woods and the question, if it fell down and no one was there to hear it, would it make a sound?. Tom Campbell's answer was, "there is no tree". My debating partner argued that reality is reality, we are just not aware of it. We are not aware of the tree falling but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Tom Campbell argued that the tree didn't exist until a measurement was made.

Someone please explain it to me along with Mr. Campbell's main point.

[Xanth]

Hi everyone,

I recently watched one of Tom Campbell's seminars on how we are living in a virtual reality as well as learning techniques like remote viewing and healing. I understand his theory some what with respect to this being a virtual reality but was wondering if someone can explain it to me in more layman's terms. I had a debate with someone on the theory of statistical probability of our future. I used the example of the tree in the woods and the question, if it fell down and no one was there to hear it, would it make a sound?. Tom Campbell's answer was, "there is no tree". My debating partner argued that reality is reality, we are just not aware of it. We are not aware of the tree falling but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Tom Campbell argued that the tree didn't exist until a measurement was made.

Someone please explain it to me along with Mr. Campbell's main point.

Your debating buddy is both correct and incorrect.  

The tree, in Tom's theory, doesn't exist... nothing exists, it's all just data.  Whether the tree fell or not is dependent upon the probability that, all of the statistics surrounding it, pulled the result of "tree down".  Now, obviously it's not as black/white as that example sounds, but that's where Tom's theory stands.  It's that there doesn't have to be a physical action for a result to occur.  The result is the case of the system pulling a probable statistic when a consciousness observes.  

Yet at the same time, it does exist... just in data form.  Use the example like Tom suggests... the video game.  A video game is thousands and thousands of lines of code (even graphics and images are nothing but 1's and 0's).  What you see on your monitor when you're playing a game is a virtual representation of that code and what the data in that game shows.  You change a 1 here or a 0 there in the DATA and something in the game changes.  Take the "position" of your character within that virtual reality for example... it's just a number, a positional number of x coordinate, y coordinate and z coordinate.  Put those numbers together and you can then render your "character" at that position.  Well, that's all your "position" is in this physical reality... an x/y/z coordinate.  So if when you move from, say, your job back to your house... and it's simply a piece of data that is changing... ARE YOU ACTUALLY MOVING? 

A spin off to that is how 3D worlds calculate your position... they don't move YOU in the world, they transform the world AROUND YOU.  LoL 
That's just a bit of behind the scenes logic on programming 3D worlds. 

In the end, you don't need to understand this to better yourself.  Spiritual growth doesn't have anything to do with understanding this... it has everything to do with how you interact with other consciousnesses.  

[SACOLUCCI]

Hi,

That makes more sense to me (I think) but moving from my job to my house is a physical sensation of movement so I would say that I did physically move and I do move around the world. The trees, for example, seem to stay in the same position so how can I say the world moves around me.

Can you elaborate on Tom's explanation of intention for the next futuristic probability?

[Xanth]

Hi,

That makes more sense to me (I think) but moving from my job to my house is a physical sensation of movement so I would say that I did physically move and I do move around the world. The trees, for example, seem to stay in the same position so how can I say the world moves around me.

"Physically", yes.  The system creates all of the supporting sensations for your 5 senses to create the illusion of "movement".
Your character in, say World of Warcraft, seems to "move" within their reality as well.  But in the code, they're only incrementally changing the x, y and z coordinates, which then reflects within the virtual reality.

It's all illusion... it's all virtual. 

Can you elaborate on Tom's explanation of intention for the next futuristic probability?

I'm not entirely certain what you're asking for here... let me begin and you can tell me if I'm going in the right direction. 

The system, according to Tom, is probabilistic.  As such, there are a range of "outcomes" and whatever outcome is chosen is based upon the system as it currently is... however, the possible outcomes are a bell curve, with the most likely occurrence to be at largest section of the bell curve.  Any outcome "can" be selected, which is why you get strange things occurring like objects not being where you think they should be.  But more often than not, what's logical to happen is what's chosen.

Is that what you're looking for?

[SACOLUCCI]

So Tom used the example of going to the doctor with a lump on your neck. He said when the lump is first discovered, there is a fair amount of uncertainty about what the lump could be. Then, let's say, you go to a pessimistic doctor who says he has seen a lump like that before and it is most-likely cancer. Now all of a sudden that uncertainty becomes more certain its cancer. Therefore, it is probabilistic that the lump will be cancerous.

So basically if we intend the future to be a certain way it will based on our intentions? Is that correct based on Tom's theories?

I will tell you a story that maybe you can relate back to Campbell's theory and tell me how it fits in. I do believe in the paranormal because I have had certain things happen to me that are not normal like predictive dreams, etc. However, this one is quite peculiar. I was starting to get into the phenomena of channelling after a friend of mine gave me a book called "Open to Channel". I would practice some of the activities in the book, trying to specifically get  into contact with the consciousness of a deceased relative. A few days had passed since my last session, when my husband and I were on the couch watching television. I took a sip of my tea and put my cup down. Not 5 minutes had passed when the stainless steel spoon in my glass started to move. It made a "ching" sound. My husband and I looked at each other acknowledging that something wasn't quite right but we continued to watch television. Another 5 minutes had passed and the same thing happened again.

All freaked out, I consulted various sources, who advised that if it was an entity to clear the energy with sage and ask the entity to leave. Nothing like that ever happened again. Now, did it not happen again because that was my intention for the future or because there was an entity? And was their an entity? Or was that my own energy?

[Xanth]

So Tom used the example of going to the doctor with a lump on your neck. He said when the lump is first discovered, there is a fair amount of uncertainty about what the lump could be. Then, let's say, you go to a pessimistic doctor who says he has seen a lump like that before and it is most-likely cancer. Now all of a sudden that uncertainty becomes more certain its cancer. Therefore, it is probabilistic that the lump will be cancerous.

So basically if we intend the future to be a certain way it will based on our intentions? Is that correct based on Tom's theories?

Yup!  However, in your case above, the probability that the lump is cancerous isn't 100%.  It can never be 100%, because there are other possibilities.  There could be a statistical chance of 95% of that lump being cancerous, yet it still pulls the 5% "non cancer" probability, hence making it non cancerous. 

But yeah, you're pretty much correct. 

I will tell you a story that maybe you can relate back to Campbell's theory and tell me how it fits in. I do believe in the paranormal because I have had certain things happen to me that are not normal like predictive dreams, etc. However, this one is quite peculiar. I was starting to get into the phenomena of channelling after a friend of mine gave me a book called "Open to Channel". I would practice some of the activities in the book, trying to specifically get  into contact with the consciousness of a deceased relative. A few days had passed since my last session, when my husband and I were on the couch watching television. I took a sip of my tea and put my cup down. Not 5 minutes had passed when the stainless steel spoon in my glass started to move. It made a "ching" sound. My husband and I looked at each other acknowledging that something wasn't quite right but we continued to watch television. Another 5 minutes had passed and the same thing happened again.

All freaked out, I consulted various sources, who advised that if it was an entity to clear the energy with sage and ask the entity to leave. Nothing like that ever happened again. Now, did it not happen again because that was my intention for the future or because there was an entity? And was their an entity? Or was that my own energy?

Tom's perspective would be that this was the "system" attempting to open your mind to the possibilities that exist out there and for you to, perhaps, begin to delve deeper into what "consciousness" has to offer. 

I had a similar experience 20 years ago that really shot me along my current path.  I was between college classes and at home... I sat down and meditated with some music playing in the background.  I had, at that point, what most people would probably refer to as a kundalini rising.  Pretty powerful.  It focused my resolve towards what I'm currently doing.  Just one thing after the other.  Had I not had that experience of the "system" telling me that I needed to delve deeper, I might not be here right now helping others. 

And so, in the end... here you are. 

[SACOLUCCI]

See that is my exact thought. I let my fear get the best of me though. And I wonder in what direction to go with that experience?