Tom Campbell: The Observer Effect and Virtual Reality for a General Audience

21 thoughts on “Tom Campbell: The Observer Effect and Virtual Reality for a General Audience”

1. the brain recollect the picture the pixels are producting it look like a door and therefor we see it is a door.

2. You can get wet in a river without any interpretation needed. Just saying.

3. This is way over my head….?

4. Tom Always sending us deep into the Abyss! For that I am greatful!!??

5. Actually the client are responsible for rendering the game world. The server makes sure your actions are synchronized amongst other players.

6. TC essentially plagiarizes Jane Roberts Seth material which he even admits was the model for his non physical meanderings. He is repackaging Seth and getting paid. I urge you all to read Jane Roberts Seth material for yourself to prove I’m right. It is compelling stuff.

7. I disagree with Mr CAMPBELL : 1) it is not the detection process which is responsable in the change of behavior of the particule, because if you place only 1 detector on 1 slit, this is enought to know where the particule went throught ( not detected: means it went by the slit without detector) Now when this experience is finished : you have around 50% of photons which interacted with detector & the other 50 % which were undisturbed by detection. In this case, you get the interference pattern because informations exist to determine the path of particules. So, for sure : it is not the detector or detectors. My opinion is that it has to do with TIME, which has no reality except in the consciousness of the observer. TIME HAS THE SAME NATURE AS QUALIAS like the aware experience of BLUE, GREEN, or RED…as cleaver as you are : Try to explain what is BLUE to a blind alien… NO WAY…. Now finally, TRY to explain TIME to QUANTUM PARTICULE like a PHOTON…good luck ! No way ! It is the observer who brings TIME into the experience. TIME / CONSCIOUSNESS always go hand in hand.

8. So if I understood this correctly, Mr. Campbell is saying that before data gets to be "physical" in this reality, it's just in a state of possibility. Let's say, for example, I arrive in a new planet that has never been observed by a consciousness before, at the precise moment that I observe this new planet, it renders a random data stream from many feasible possibilities. When I leave said planet, it'll be rendered the same way to anyone else that comes afterwards because I've already observed it. So what happens if I die before anyone else gets to see it? Does it go back to just being in a state of randomness until the next consciousness comes and observes it? Is that how it works?

9. Nothing brilliant about this, it’s been done before. His analogy of world of Warcraft is so off base it is laughable.

10. Tom always explaining these concepts but never tell us that how an Individuated Unit of Consciousness intentionally controls or determines his data stream. Does that data stream a deterministic process? Or do we have a conscious control over it? If answer is yes then how? I think his explanations are theoratically best but not carrying too much practical value.

11. If this is virtual reality then his experiments are virtual experiments and the results are virtual results.
    This here is non-conceptual reality!!
    Consciousness, observer, virtual reality are all concepts/ideas/thoughts.
    Non-conceptual reality has nothing to do with mind based concepts.

12. Me cago en la puta tio.

13. I wonder what would happen if you were to do the standard double slit experiment but encrypt the which way data with an encryption algorithm that randomizes the data in some fashion, where the key doesn't exist at the time of encryption but could be deciphered only by using a computer and brute force tactic (remove the intellectual decipher methodology). Possibly requiring a computing time span greater than a human lifetime.

14. @tom campbell 5:45 when you talk about turning off the recorder , this was a kind of experiment already done or not? you talked about this is your conferences about the double slit experiment as it was done.

15. Brilliant

16. Excellent talk!

17. Mr Campbell, all you are saying is very compelling, but what if your model is just a subset of a greater scheme? Some fifteen years ago I started writing a sci-fi short story about a group of great engineers who devised a 4D projector for molecular chemistry and physics experiments. Just for the purpose of proofing and designing new molecules in VR, instead of risking causing problems in the real world. It soon turned out that the VR could be developed and suited to do much, much more, and eventually created a whole new world – canned and artificial, yet absolutely real, where e.g. new concepts of new life-forms could be tested. Later on it was used as a political weapon to predict and gain the upper hand over a real society as the VR world would give real and concise data to its controlers and moderators. Now I wonder if we don't live in a similar simulacrum. There might be no point in denying the existence of this VR – it may be running without the observer as a necessary factor to render its elements, though it may be just a mirror-image of something greater.

18. The best!♥

19. It sounds like your talking about the exact experiment thats already been done a hundred times, also, my issue with this is just be observing you are effectively recording the data in your own memory, this is still recording the data and thus should show the same results.

20. What I like about 3rd experiment Tom has mentioned in the end is that regardless of the outcome it is going to be resounding either way. Will conscious observer collapse superposition without recording it? If true – mind boggling. If no – even more mind boggling, because how is human observer's brain and memory different from a hardware recorder?

21. Thank you very much Tom. Sending you greetings from Berlin.

Comments are closed.