0:00 Waiting … 2:13 Start livestream 3:58 Welcome Tom, Don 6:28 Tom explains why he doesn’t have any hobbies at his age 9:48 Tom tells us he’s aware of Don’s theory and how it’s similar to his own 12:28 Don explains how he agrees with Tom’s work at the high level 13:12 Jack asks Tom wether his simulation-based argument is literal or metaphorical in nature 20:41 Don asks Tom wether he uses his model to make specific predictions in physics 28:45 Don, in your time meditating did you ever experience what Tom refers to as ‘point-consciousness’? Did you have an out-of-body experience? 29:37 Jack asks Don if he has any advice for people who have trouble meditating 31:12 Tom, do you have any advice for Don to reach ‘point-consciousness’? 38:28 Jack asks Tom wether his partitioned consciousness is similar to Bernardo Kastrup’s dissociated consciousness and Don’s conscious agents 41:16 Tom, what is the process behind the partitioning of consciousness? 44:12 Don goes into some more depth as to how his theory of fusion and combination of conscious agents works, and what a good scientific model should (not) assume 1:02:24 Tom explains why his model is very different than Don’s, in the sense that he’s a top-down thinker 1:14:09 Don adds why he doesn’t see his model as either bottom-up or top-down 1:17:02 Audience question by m3rlin: Can both of you have a back-and-forth about any things you might disagree on? 1:22:56 Don shares a slight disagreement he has with Tom about the possibility of having a theory of everything when it comes to even fundamentals 1:25:51 Tom responds by saying that he actually doesn’t disagree at all, and why the apparent disagreement is more a case of semantics 1:29:04 Jack wants to know wether Tom’s Non Physical Reality (NPR) is like wearing what Don would call another ‘headset’ 1:35:16 Audience question by Zyc Pata: Tom, can there be infinite suffering in the simulation, similar to the Christian ideas of hell? 1:38:49 Audience statement: It would be interesting and exciting to watch Tom and Donald discuss the spacetime concepts and the structure beyond that would cause it, but also how they’d compare their concept of agency with each other 1:41:45 Siri on Don’s phone decides to interrupt the conversation 1:44:38 Tom explains how he see the difference between the physical and the non-physical, how that relates to free choice, and that free will and time exists 1:46:59 Don interjects that they might indeed have an interesting disagreement and explains why he thinks free will can exist outside of time 1:48:56 Tom responds by saying he makes a difference between mathematical spaces and experiential spaces, and that you can’t make choices without time 1:50:34 Don wonders wether it’s possible to talk about the Ultimate One Consciousness as timeless and all the others as having an arrow of time 1:50:49 Tom explains why he doesn’t think the One is timeless 1:52:16 Jack interrupts Tom and asks if time exists, does that mean that can there be an end to consciousness? 1:56:12 Don adds why he feels he needs to be very modest in his claims 1:57:50 Tom kind of agrees and says he always tells his audience that they shouldn’t believe a word he says 2:01:03 Audience question from Anna Maria Birsa: What is a thought, and where does it comes from? 2:05:17 Thank you. Good evening.
This is epic! As a very left-brained person I needed a serious scientist like Tom to be able to see God, my ego, fears and beliefs in the big picture. My Big TOE of Tom is the best thing that happened to me in this life time. I find immediate application of it daily as it helps me find meaning for any individual or collective issue I experience. A new era of modern science married with ancient wisdom emerges and MBT theory of Tom is for me one of the most elegant by its coherence and simplicity.
Tom Campbell is like Deepak Chopra: BIG IDEAS but no substance to back it up. When you press him on it "you mean that literally, or as a metaphor?" he's like of course a metaphor but we want to know the specifics. Deepak Chopra is also good at metaphors, so are cult leaders
Re the metaphors- like this one “Re the process behind the partitioning - it’s basic . We are all one, there’s one Larger consciousness system , we’re all pieces of that system , we’re chips of the old block ,in that we have a lot of the same attributes of that system . We have most of the same capabilities just to a lesser degree . We’re not trying to build it we’re just trying to understand it ..” if you’ve never had an out of body experience perhaps you won’t understand this . And that’s where the proof comes from. I don’t think you can put a mathematical equation behind experiencing universal consciousness . Science is strange there are humanists who’ve been studying consciousness and believe they can create an artificial consciousness, for decades who believe they can hook us up to the metaverse where we can happily live in some virtual world without ever having to experience human experiences
Great interview between Donald Hoffman and Tom Campbell! I can't believe this is the first talk between them, but I'm glad it happened. Both of their perspectives on consciousness and reality are helpful to my daily life. It was a pleasure to listen to such an insightful conversation. I hope there will be more of them together in the future! Thanks so much for sharing this interview with us!
Donald Hoffman is now _Don Hoffman,_ eh? 😁😎 I'll take either, because this guy is one of the most important contemporary minds I know of, and so easy-going and modest!! Anyway, thanks for another video and for singlehandedly lifting the IQ of RUclips several points.
@@jr6200 My thoughts exactly! Not only in terms of technology but also the fact that they are not exactly household names. If they were, Mr. Campbell, Hoffman, Kastrup etc. would sit on a sofa on Breakfast TV answering inane questions for three minutes before they have to wrap it up before the next clip on the world's largest puppy clinic and so they probably couldn't make time for interviews like these.
Thank you for finally bringing these two together, its such an amazing thing having them discuss the same. Things so knowbly from their own perspectives
I got to know Tom two years ago and became really into in his TOE. Recently, I read Don's book, and it was another fantastic experience for me. I have so much respect for both of them. I'm so happy to know they’re familiar with each other's theories and have already spoken!
To be blunt and concise, it seems that Don thinks Tom is too sure of his ideas. Yet, Don lacks an entire sphere of experience that Tom claims to have surrounding OBEs and meditation, which greatly informed his theory. So, perhaps Tom's self-assuredness is deserved but we can't recognize it without having done our own exploration. Or, perhaps Tom should approach these ideas with more humility. Regardless, a very interesting conversation. Thanks!
Don is quite the meditator actually, so I wouldn't say he lacks the experience. He is also interested in OBE phenomena and, as a cognitive psychologist, well read on the literature. So, there's lots of common ground between the two. I admire Don's quest to place consciousness in a mathematically rigorous framework. It's also admirable for Tom to be attempting university-level empirical experiments of his own. Another idealist who is working to place consciousness in a mathematically rigorous framework is Andrés Gómez Emillson with the Qualia Research Institute.
So glad this channel popped up for me. Back in the 80's and 90's Ralph Abraham, Terence McKenna, and Rupert Shelldrake had a fantastic series of "Trialogues", and I'd love to see something similar with these two and Klee Irwin. Feels like they, combined, have quite the powerhouse of perspective.
Unfortunate description of ‘real scientists’ as opposed to mainstream scientist by Don. His need for funding from the mainstream will understandably determine his model. As Tom says there are many paths to the ultimate truth. Listening to these two wise people helps me understand why the LCS gave us Tom as I was unfortunately lost after 30 seconds of Don’s explanation. As TC says it’s not about being right, it’s about knowing. TC as a ‘mystical scientist’ will speed up our understanding of reality whilst mainstream science will find its own (acceptable) modal. If it moves us from Fear to Love .. who cares about the path! BTW Jack if you are able to have TC on again ask him about his scientific experiments to confirm his theories on reincarnation, database (Akashic records), consciousness upon death etc. that would really be of interest.
55:22 - With the description of decorative permutations being 'static', that part's really interesting as Michael Silberstein's 'adynamic global constraints' come to mind.
Another great dialogue between the good guys! Love the idea we are here to evolve and move towards love ❤️ That adds such powerful meaning to life. I really wanted to ask Tom, if the consciousness system is finite then what lies beyond it? I would also love to ask about people with dementia,are they still fully conscious but with out a functioning mind?Are they still conscious agents? I’m sure the answer is yes but how can they move towards love. Finally, I’m glad Tom is optimistic about the future and there does seem to be a massive ground swell of consciousness arising but will it be enough to over come the challenges of global warming and the nuclear threats in Europe which at the moment feel insurmountable. I’m not really expecting any answers just glad to get these questions out there. Thank you so much for your world changing work and for this dialogue and I hope your long covid gets better soon Don and Toms cough gets better soon too. Much love to you, Ann Gerrard
20:40 - Something this part of the conversation is bringing up to me, the word 'physicalism' seems to imply that dynamics are making contact with and driving / limiting / governing one another in a reliable manner. In that stripped-down sense would could perhaps consider anything with sufficient causation to be a physicalist set of dynamics within an absolute idealist frame. In a way as well Forrest Landry's IDM seems to fit this where one of the analogies for his transcendent, omniscient, and immanent where the transcendent would be the containing context for both the omniscient and immanent (omniscient in the boring sense like knowing the properties of a red rubber ball), and an analogy he did give is an example where - for a computer, the software might contain the immanent and omniscient but the hardware would be the transcendent. In that case it raises the question - can fixed laws (like that of light or thermodynamics) tell us - indirectly - that there's a structured external context for those laws - like the hardware vs. software example where the hardware to a degree does limit and govern the context of the software. If that makes sense that might be a good way to abstract it (ie. structured external containing reference) rather than worrying about whether or not we're being simulated on silica transistors on some super-powerful but very 'physical', in the naive realist sense, desktop PC somewhere.
You may find more pieces of information with regards to the clear and logical distinction that should be made between the player, the avatar played, the big computer etc and the implications of it, here: ruclips.net/video/t_RwcGzGurc/видео.html
This was the best/most clear explanation of the details of his theory/logic I’ve heard Donald give so far! Fantastic conversation. 👏🏻 Wish Bernardo could’ve made it! Would like to have heard the likely lively discussion that would follow between Tom and Bernardo after Tom said consciousness is computational.
@gangsterkami1 1:50:00 Totally agree with you in a chat and very disagree with Tom. I wonder how come he is so stubborn when he is supposed to know astral projection. When you go really deep into yourself, there is definitely "place" where there is no time. Also it is really clear to spot from the behaviour of the two gentlments, Tom is really confident in his theory and believe in his own truth, Don on the other hand is very humble and always says how he may be wrong ! The claim about evolution/deevolution of base-level consiousness is nonsense... To not be negative, Tom has really good points as well.
Joscha Bach has a good bit on how computations have what could be considered a spirit. The same reason you choose to be and continue is connected to the same reason that computation happens....the same reason consistency consists.
This (below) would also explain dissociation and individuation into units of consciousness who only seem separate but are one as the energetic, perceived boundaries to self and other, inside and outside, subject and object could be nothing but the energetic appearance of mind-thought at the place of conceived separation. It therefore also explains why this “imagined” or chosen boundary by view can resolve through meditative introspection and some say psychedelics (which force the process) and it could explain Dissociative Identity Disorder, all created through fundamental dualistic mind-thought processes and their energetic manifestations.
Tom's idea is philosophy, not physics. That's not to say he's wrong, but there's little in the way of measurables, which is the paradigm that both Donald and mainstream physicists operate within, and mostly for good reason. I would love to see them work together to try to apply mathematical proofs to Campbell's model, because it would go a long way in validating it. With claims so lofty, I'm sure Hoffman is skeptical of Campbell's ability to even perform the math necessary for "proof". I would be, and without any offering of having attempted the required math, it certainly comes across as a lack of rigor at minimum. And without any sort of measurable validation, there is no way for others to build on Campbell's ideas, from the perspective of physics. In philosophy, it's all perfectly fine. Someone could take the abstract and hypothesize further about why this or that appears the way it does, but it feels disingenuous to associate Thomas Campbell with physics while describing his "TOE".
On the levels of higher, subtler consciousness manifestations are called into being not through dualistic choice by directed thought but through intention only and this is where free will exists. On the dualistic level of appearing reality choice becomes necessary for the movement through space in time as duality generates kinetic energy towards the goal of survival. This results in the paradox of a unit of consciousness striving towards survival, whereas it is actually part of higher consciousness (universal awareness) that is immortal because it is not only eternal but outside of time.
Consciousness is fundamental (mind-at-large). You and I are dissociated from MAL. The boundary between us and MAL is illusory. Physical reality is what the mentation of MAL looks like from the perspective of our dissociated boundary.
As a consciousness researcher, im building a model that almost similar like tom but im focusing on know all the attributes about ourself so we can make less damage to the world and people around us. When somebody like me build up a model, we keep switching left and right brain faculty. So its easy for us to make a presentation with less and less assumptions is needed. I can tell that donald theory of consciouss agent is very good and also with tom theory of LCS. It much be better that two theory became one overarching understanding. Its so hard first for living in paradoxical uncertainty idea. But we human are build in paradox within us so yeah. Why not
This is hilarious. Hoffman's "Markov Chain" is essentially the same thing as Campbell's "State Machine". Both of these concepts are old, but it's interesting that you have 1 person (Campbell) trying to describe how the universe is essentially computation, and the other trying to describe that it's math (Hoffman), and they're using the same metaphors! I'm a software engineer, so I might as well invent my "React Hooks Theory of Consciousness"
I can't understand a dialog in this discussion. On other discussions with Tom Campbell I feel the same. The problem is me, probably, of course, but I can't understand Tom. He talks about finite, information, says consciousness is infomation. Than what is aware of the information? What produces information?
@@mhill9600 yesterday I Saw a vídeo with Bernardo Kastrup and Tom Campbell. On that debate I could understand better Tom's theory. And now it seems good to me. In this debate with Don Tom Campbell intervention don't seem so clear to me.
Tom Campbell is basically describing us as a bubble of blank conscious awareness, whose purpose is to be linked to a 'realty' experience via a physical body, and when the body expires, Tom believes that the conscious awareness then returns to the original consciousness who then strips the memories (data) for storage/analysis, and the conscientious awareness, now empty (having forgotten it's life) is reabsorbed back into the original conscientious. In other words, when we die in this reality, the conscious awareness that was us is stripped of us/our identity and we essentially die, stored as data. Now that is irony.
I gotta say though I’m surprised that Tom is so adamant about the existence of time. He’s clearly open to OBEs, parapsychology, and the like so I’m wondering why NDE accounts don’t seem to be used as experiential data to inform his theory. They often report either experiencing timelessness or everything simultaneously (perhaps like Einstein’s block universe?). Seems to support what Donald’s saying about time more than Tom’s view on it? So I’m wondering how he accounts for those reports of the experience of time (or lack thereof) in his theory. Also have to add how much I greatly appreciate Donald’s humility. 🙏🏻
Experiencing timelessness is a contradiction. A logical impossibility. Experience is time. Experience requires time. Without time, no experience. An experience has a beginning, a middle and an end. That's time. There's "before the experience", "during the experience" and "after the experience". That's time.
@@Erik-V I understand that. But you are missing the point. I’m saying there are reported experiences where time is not experienced in the linear past/present/future arrow that waking/living consciousness describes it as (as you just did). Where there is a perspective described sometimes timeless (void), and sometimes described as experiencing all things at once (for example multiple lives/time lines instantly). The translation from these experiences to every day consciousness is also reported as almost impossible to convey because we experience time in the linear fashion in which you just described. I’m saying these accounts suggest it is not necessary for experience to occur to have a beginning/middle/end in the way you (and Tom) described. My point is that certainty should be shelved until their reports can be accounted for.
@@surrendertoflow78 Can you share an example of such a report? To me it sounds like a huge information download that includes information on past lives. Can people see their future lives as well as their past lives, in that experience of simultaneity? If they can only see their past lives, then that should be a strong clue that it's not about experiencing time simultaneously, but rather about receiving a large download containing past data all at once, which might indeed seem as though one is experiencing everything all at once. I understand your point, but I can argue the opposite direction by saying that people end up drawing false conclusions from their experiences all the time. Just because an intellectual conclusion is drawn from experience, doesn't make it a valid conclusion. Example: Back in the stone age it would make sense to look around and conclude that the Earth is flat, because it obviously looks flat, and how on would things not fall off if it were round? Our experience was valid, but our conclusions weren't. It becomes especially tricky once we start drawing intellectual conclusions based on experiences that are not even ours, but reports from other people who were in a special/altered state of consciousness. Your point on certainty is well taken, and I would even take it further to the point of saying that certainty should be shelved even beyond that, until forever. The best we can achieve is to move the needle closer into the direction of 100% certainty, but we should never get there.
@@Erik-V I don’t have a particular one saved to send you a link. I’ve listened to and read about so many over the years, and attended IANDS meetings pre-pandemic. But it is something readily available to explore for whomever is interested. (I suggest starting with IANDS and DOPS at UVA Charlottesville.) Next time I come across an example I will post here. Yes some include futures too. And by multiple lives, I don’t just mean their own lives, but the lives of those around them too (interpreted as a lesson in learning the spread of one’s influence/impact). And there are cases where the information they get from their experience can be corroborated by medical staff/family etc., so it isn’t always just taking the experiencer’s word. I definitely take anyone’s interpretation with a bag of salt BUT the point is they report a completely different experience of time and I think that is data to be investigated. Any theory that doesn’t is incomplete (I understand they are all incomplete (forever perhaps) but it’s even more incomplete without taking that possibility into account.)
Re consciousness & time: I think Tom is right that consciousness is subject to time and therefore choice (only on level of body-mind consciousness) but I think that the different forms or levels of consciousness are not taken into account. Body-mind consciousness operated within the constrictions of time but higher levels do not as can be seen by his own example of using intention to modify future probability, which is not possible on a mere level of physical reality consciousness. Access to spontaneous knowledge as in Intuition and inspiration is also bypassing physical logics and time by viewing reality from a more refined and subtle level of consciousness.
Thought could be explained through duality, its appearance and consequences. Mind in its coarser form of body-mind is constantly busy trying to resolve the contradictions discrepancies and problems that the unlimited number of dualities produce as they constitute the appearance of physical illusory reality and without these dualities apparent reality would not take form. These tensions result in the energetic appearance of thought by consciousness creatively expressing these attempts of understanding and analysis in combination with conceptual categorising and ensuing language.
42:42 "principium individuationis" is not relevant???? maybe it is the case... since so many people are not even tuned in idealism... but if idealism is to reign it surely needs some reasonable arguments beyond the metaphor of the "mind at large" (will) being a powerful computer and each human being a "virtual (will) machine"... A simple example of the relevance: dependend on how each being is plugged in the mind at large then it is (or not!!) possible several levels of communications between human beings (e,g, ESP).
I kinda may disagree with tom's idea if low entropy being good, if you are in a system with no entropy, nothing can happen anymore so not sure that's something desirable or good.
I used to make the same contention. We really don't understand entropy as well as we may be lead to believe though. Instead of thinking about it in terms of possible interaction or useable energy within a system..see the complexity side of it instead.
I'm having hard time swallowing that consciousness isn't timeless. Whatever the ultimate reality is, it has to be timeless. Because it has to be without beginning or end. If it had a beginning or end, it obviously wouldn't be the ultimate reality. IF consciousness is fundamental, in other words, the ultimate reality, doesnt it necessitate that it is timeless?
Tc and dh disagree on consciousness having time. Tc says that there has to be time because when there is choice you have before and after choice. Dh says time ensues as part of projections. I think tc is leaving out the fact that choices become only necessary as part of projections because there are dualities between consciousness has to choose. Intrinsically there are no dualities in pure consciousness only if it considers them to be as in projection of reality.I think tc also didn't take into account that before choice performed by consciousness there has to be intention and attention directed at sth by consciousness. For that a duality I.E. Sth to direct these towards has to exist I.E. A projection, dissociation or separation of the whole or the one has to exist. The choices he talks about exist only within a framework of reality projection. Tc says consciousness is finite. I think the forms and levels of consciousness have to be differentiated: consciousness on the physical realm in its coarse appearance within a body guided by senses he is right. But the higher levels of consciousness as in the "One" of which we are part the nature of consciousness is not limited though individuation, separation or disassociation in other words dualities. Therefore, there is no time as there are no limits.
I think a lot of us feel like even if I believe Tom (or want to believe him) I still want to 💯 % understand it for myself and not just have to take his word on it. I’m sure he would be willing to easily explain how we can all have these experiences to get first hand evidence and understanding.
I would suggest that the large system's contents evolve, however the ground and holding space of the contents do not, so consciousness could never stop only the contents can change Evolve or devolve that we witness and take part with the virtual reality headset. I also would suggest that our free will attention and intention has a limited capacity, and that our will can only make changes within the contents of consciousness to a certain point, and that there is a higher intelligent field of consciousness that guides things such as weather , tides planetary movement etc just as we have to relate with other individual units on consciousness, we also have to relate with the other fields of consciousness, thus letting us know who is really in charge and that is not our ego. This prevents inflation. We have free will to a limit the rest is up to God or the larger field of consciousness. There are other types of consciousness within our individual unit of consciousness that are not ego consciousness such as our instinctive drives jaak Pankespp's work on the 7 basic emotional INSTINCTS is a good start to read upon to understand this. This would explain where the thought that arises for eating comes from or the thought to reproduce etc.
OK I have to ask. Don really looked like he was labouring, at least early in the interview. Like he had bad heart burn or something. I’ve just never saw him be bothered in interviews and surprised nobody acknowledged it. He did have a heart operation last year and just hope he is well.
t=6800 This is, what recently came to my Mind, when i had a exceptional Experience through Mariuana, which i consumed (~ only 20 Times in life, and i'm 56 now): "god thinks through you".
This is exactly what i thought when I saw heard him 6yrs ago for the first time..but recently I saw a interview with conversation with Stephen swatz ..then I have got hooked..his expression is very bland once you get used to it you will see the depth of understanding and his metaphors are phenomenal
Beliefs are important. I believe a gun to my head will kill me..dont think I want to experience it. This is where these brilliant guys tend to spin out into guru talk. We are all human...nobody is omnipotent.
Awareness requires thought? What did tom just say? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. When there were just two states the consciousness system could pick from, how could there be thought? Do animals have thoughts? They don't even have language
I guess time is outside of the physical reality, since it's related to the clock speed of the "computer" running the virtual reality simulation. Each increment of time (delta t) is one clock cycle of the "CPU" running the show.
@@corkeymonster Monter, the explanation behind idea its virtual reality; means it works like as simulation; there are rules for that simulation goes foward, one of those rules is existance of time. there has to be time, to have present, future and past within the simulation.. The observer stuff is another rule within the simulation. We pretend creating or watching material things but its only digital information, we as consciousness are receiving it. Like if we were looking at TV. Wear stuff, doesn't it.. To make rhe concept more understandabl
@@olmosmer I understand Tom's model. I first read his books in 2009 I think it was, participated in his MBT forum, watched hundreds of his videos and even met him in person one time.
As the delayed Quantum choice Eraser Experiment shows: Time must be an Illusion. "We even have to consider the "Past" as something consisting out of Data". john archibald wheeler
0:00 Waiting …
2:13 Start livestream
3:58 Welcome Tom, Don
6:28 Tom explains why he doesn’t have any hobbies at his age
9:48 Tom tells us he’s aware of Don’s theory and how it’s similar to his own
12:28 Don explains how he agrees with Tom’s work at the high level
13:12 Jack asks Tom wether his simulation-based argument is literal or metaphorical in nature
20:41 Don asks Tom wether he uses his model to make specific predictions in physics
28:45 Don, in your time meditating did you ever experience what Tom refers to as ‘point-consciousness’? Did you have an out-of-body experience?
29:37 Jack asks Don if he has any advice for people who have trouble meditating
31:12 Tom, do you have any advice for Don to reach ‘point-consciousness’?
38:28 Jack asks Tom wether his partitioned consciousness is similar to Bernardo Kastrup’s dissociated consciousness and Don’s conscious agents
41:16 Tom, what is the process behind the partitioning of consciousness?
44:12 Don goes into some more depth as to how his theory of fusion and combination of conscious agents works, and what a good scientific model should (not) assume
1:02:24 Tom explains why his model is very different than Don’s, in the sense that he’s a top-down thinker
1:14:09 Don adds why he doesn’t see his model as either bottom-up or top-down
1:17:02 Audience question by m3rlin: Can both of you have a back-and-forth about any things you might disagree on?
1:22:56 Don shares a slight disagreement he has with Tom about the possibility of having a theory of everything when it comes to even fundamentals
1:25:51 Tom responds by saying that he actually doesn’t disagree at all, and why the apparent disagreement is more a case of semantics
1:29:04 Jack wants to know wether Tom’s Non Physical Reality (NPR) is like wearing what Don would call another ‘headset’
1:35:16 Audience question by Zyc Pata: Tom, can there be infinite suffering in the simulation, similar to the Christian ideas of hell?
1:38:49 Audience statement: It would be interesting and exciting to watch Tom and Donald discuss the spacetime concepts and the structure beyond that would cause it, but also how they’d compare their concept of agency with each other
1:41:45 Siri on Don’s phone decides to interrupt the conversation
1:44:38 Tom explains how he see the difference between the physical and the non-physical, how that relates to free choice, and that free will and time exists
1:46:59 Don interjects that they might indeed have an interesting disagreement and explains why he thinks free will can exist outside of time
1:48:56 Tom responds by saying he makes a difference between mathematical spaces and experiential spaces, and that you can’t make choices without time
1:50:34 Don wonders wether it’s possible to talk about the Ultimate One Consciousness as timeless and all the others as having an arrow of time
1:50:49 Tom explains why he doesn’t think the One is timeless
1:52:16 Jack interrupts Tom and asks if time exists, does that mean that can there be an end to consciousness?
1:56:12 Don adds why he feels he needs to be very modest in his claims
1:57:50 Tom kind of agrees and says he always tells his audience that they shouldn’t believe a word he says
2:01:03 Audience question from Anna Maria Birsa: What is a thought, and where does it comes from?
2:05:17 Thank you. Good evening.
This is epic!
As a very left-brained person I needed a serious scientist like Tom to be able to see God, my ego, fears and beliefs in the big picture.
My Big TOE of Tom is the best thing that happened to me in this life time. I find immediate application of it daily as it helps me find meaning for any individual or collective issue I experience.
A new era of modern science married with ancient wisdom emerges and MBT theory of Tom is for me one of the most elegant by its coherence and simplicity.
Many people don't understand Tom's theory. He is a genius.
Can't agree more..I am like why is he not the most celebrated physist ever
@@Abrakadabra9to5 You know why??? Because nobody wants to do the work to evolve and get rid of fear, lol
Tom Campbell is like Deepak Chopra: BIG IDEAS but no substance to back it up. When you press him on it "you mean that literally, or as a metaphor?" he's like of course a metaphor but we want to know the specifics. Deepak Chopra is also good at metaphors, so are cult leaders
Re the metaphors- like this one “Re the process behind the partitioning - it’s basic . We are all one, there’s one
Larger consciousness system , we’re all pieces of that system , we’re chips of the old block ,in that we have a lot of the same attributes of that system . We have most of the same capabilities just to a lesser degree . We’re not trying to build it we’re just trying to understand it ..” if you’ve never had an out of body experience perhaps you won’t understand this . And that’s where the proof comes from. I don’t think you can put a mathematical equation behind experiencing universal consciousness . Science is strange there are humanists who’ve been studying consciousness and believe they can create an artificial consciousness, for decades who believe they can hook us up to the metaverse where we can happily live in some virtual world without ever having to experience human experiences
His theory hasn't been proven yet ..his own words.. You're not a genius until your theory's been proven.
Great interview between Donald Hoffman and Tom Campbell! I can't believe this is the first talk between them, but I'm glad it happened. Both of their perspectives on consciousness and reality are helpful to my daily life. It was a pleasure to listen to such an insightful conversation. I hope there will be more of them together in the future! Thanks so much for sharing this interview with us!
i dont think it the first one
As far as I know this is the first time they spoke with each other.
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
Very enjoyable conversation. Thanks Jack and thanks to Don and Tom for their time and insights.
2:02:04: What about though-forms ?
"The truth is simple and elegant". Tom Campbell
Very happy to hear this conversation between two favourite thinkers
Donald Hoffman is now _Don Hoffman,_ eh? 😁😎 I'll take either, because this guy is one of the most important contemporary minds I know of, and so easy-going and modest!! Anyway, thanks for another video and for singlehandedly lifting the IQ of RUclips several points.
Can you imagine years ago various young interviewers being able to get Einstein. Then calling him Al and asking his hobbies etc? Times have changed.
@@jr6200 My thoughts exactly! Not only in terms of technology but also the fact that they are not exactly household names. If they were, Mr. Campbell, Hoffman, Kastrup etc. would sit on a sofa on Breakfast TV answering inane questions for three minutes before they have to wrap it up before the next clip on the world's largest puppy clinic and so they probably couldn't make time for interviews like these.
Don’s been a regular guest on the podcast. I think I’ve earned the right to call him Don ;)
@@AskingAnything No criticism intended. I'm sure he wants it that way too. This is just another way that "times have changed".
@@MagicJoshuaweird
Wow!! A great conversation between great minds! Thank you Jack, for bringing these wonderful teachings to us all; priceless!
Another great interview Jack! Outstanding!!
Thank you for finally bringing these two together, its such an amazing thing having them discuss the same. Things so knowbly from their own perspectives
I got to know Tom two years ago and became really into in his TOE. Recently, I read Don's book, and it was another fantastic experience for me. I have so much respect for both of them. I'm so happy to know they’re familiar with each other's theories and have already spoken!
what a great discussion.
This is such a gem of a channel. Thank you! 😌💭💫🪐💖
To be blunt and concise, it seems that Don thinks Tom is too sure of his ideas. Yet, Don lacks an entire sphere of experience that Tom claims to have surrounding OBEs and meditation, which greatly informed his theory. So, perhaps Tom's self-assuredness is deserved but we can't recognize it without having done our own exploration. Or, perhaps Tom should approach these ideas with more humility. Regardless, a very interesting conversation. Thanks!
Maybe we are mistaking the masking of autism for 'self-assuredness'. 🤔 Just a thought. 🤷🏻♂️
Well said, Ethan. I agree
Don is quite the meditator actually, so I wouldn't say he lacks the experience. He is also interested in OBE phenomena and, as a cognitive psychologist, well read on the literature. So, there's lots of common ground between the two.
I admire Don's quest to place consciousness in a mathematically rigorous framework. It's also admirable for Tom to be attempting university-level empirical experiments of his own.
Another idealist who is working to place consciousness in a mathematically rigorous framework is Andrés Gómez Emillson with the Qualia Research Institute.
I agree. Tom seems absolutely convinced that his theory is true, while Don says he (Don) could be proved wrong in the future.
@@davidfield8122Excellent comment.
Have been waiting for this one! ❤️ The interview of the year in my opinion.
So glad this channel popped up for me. Back in the 80's and 90's Ralph Abraham, Terence McKenna, and Rupert Shelldrake had a fantastic series of "Trialogues", and I'd love to see something similar with these two and Klee Irwin. Feels like they, combined, have quite the powerhouse of perspective.
Pumped for this one!
Unfortunate description of ‘real scientists’ as opposed to mainstream scientist by Don. His need for funding from the mainstream will understandably determine his model. As Tom says there are many paths to the ultimate truth. Listening to these two wise people helps me understand why the LCS gave us Tom as I was unfortunately lost after 30 seconds of Don’s explanation. As TC says it’s not about being right, it’s about knowing. TC as a ‘mystical scientist’ will speed up our understanding of reality whilst mainstream science will find its own (acceptable) modal. If it moves us from Fear to Love .. who cares about the path! BTW Jack if you are able to have TC on again ask him about his scientific experiments to confirm his theories on reincarnation, database (Akashic records), consciousness upon death etc. that would really be of interest.
Dankjewel Jack voor deze zeer interessante discussie. Ik heb ervan genoten. Respect voor de keuze van de gasten en het goed leiden van dit interview.
Epic interview - thank you for getting them together and bringing out the best in them!
55:22 - With the description of decorative permutations being 'static', that part's really interesting as Michael Silberstein's 'adynamic global constraints' come to mind.
Another great dialogue between the good guys!
Love the idea we are here to evolve and move towards love ❤️ That adds such powerful meaning to life.
I really wanted to ask Tom, if the consciousness system is finite then what lies beyond it?
I would also love to ask about people with dementia,are they still fully
conscious but with out a functioning mind?Are they still conscious agents?
I’m sure the answer is yes but how can they move towards love.
Finally, I’m glad Tom is optimistic about the future and there does seem to be a massive ground swell of consciousness arising but will it be enough to over come the challenges of global warming and the nuclear threats in Europe which at the moment feel insurmountable.
I’m not really expecting any answers just glad to get these questions out there.
Thank you so much for your world changing work and for this
dialogue and I hope your long covid gets better soon Don and Toms cough gets better soon too.
Much love to you,
Ann Gerrard
I've wanted to see these 2 giants communicate for a long time.............Thank you Jack.
20:40 - Something this part of the conversation is bringing up to me, the word 'physicalism' seems to imply that dynamics are making contact with and driving / limiting / governing one another in a reliable manner. In that stripped-down sense would could perhaps consider anything with sufficient causation to be a physicalist set of dynamics within an absolute idealist frame. In a way as well Forrest Landry's IDM seems to fit this where one of the analogies for his transcendent, omniscient, and immanent where the transcendent would be the containing context for both the omniscient and immanent (omniscient in the boring sense like knowing the properties of a red rubber ball), and an analogy he did give is an example where - for a computer, the software might contain the immanent and omniscient but the hardware would be the transcendent. In that case it raises the question - can fixed laws (like that of light or thermodynamics) tell us - indirectly - that there's a structured external context for those laws - like the hardware vs. software example where the hardware to a degree does limit and govern the context of the software. If that makes sense that might be a good way to abstract it (ie. structured external containing reference) rather than worrying about whether or not we're being simulated on silica transistors on some super-powerful but very 'physical', in the naive realist sense, desktop PC somewhere.
You may find more pieces of information with regards to the clear and logical distinction that should be made between the player, the avatar played, the big computer etc and the implications of it, here:
ruclips.net/video/t_RwcGzGurc/видео.html
This was the best/most clear explanation of the details of his theory/logic I’ve heard Donald give so far! Fantastic conversation. 👏🏻 Wish Bernardo could’ve made it! Would like to have heard the likely lively discussion that would follow between Tom and Bernardo after Tom said consciousness is computational.
@gangsterkami1 1:50:00 Totally agree with you in a chat and very disagree with Tom. I wonder how come he is so stubborn when he is supposed to know astral projection. When you go really deep into yourself, there is definitely "place" where there is no time. Also it is really clear to spot from the behaviour of the two gentlments, Tom is really confident in his theory and believe in his own truth, Don on the other hand is very humble and always says how he may be wrong ! The claim about evolution/deevolution of base-level consiousness is nonsense... To not be negative, Tom has really good points as well.
@33:33 (cool #eh?) You don't have to recognize it. When the ego gets pushed aside the systems that you consist of operate more efficiently.
Joscha Bach has a good bit on how computations have what could be considered a spirit.
The same reason you choose to be and continue is connected to the same reason that computation happens....the same reason consistency consists.
This (below)
would also explain dissociation and individuation into units of consciousness who only seem separate but are one as the energetic, perceived boundaries to self and other, inside and outside, subject and object could be nothing but the energetic appearance of mind-thought at the place of conceived separation. It therefore also explains why this “imagined” or chosen boundary by view can resolve through meditative introspection and some say psychedelics (which force the process) and it could explain Dissociative Identity Disorder, all created through fundamental dualistic mind-thought processes and their energetic manifestations.
Loved it! Part 2 please
Tom's idea is philosophy, not physics. That's not to say he's wrong, but there's little in the way of measurables, which is the paradigm that both Donald and mainstream physicists operate within, and mostly for good reason. I would love to see them work together to try to apply mathematical proofs to Campbell's model, because it would go a long way in validating it. With claims so lofty, I'm sure Hoffman is skeptical of Campbell's ability to even perform the math necessary for "proof". I would be, and without any offering of having attempted the required math, it certainly comes across as a lack of rigor at minimum. And without any sort of measurable validation, there is no way for others to build on Campbell's ideas, from the perspective of physics. In philosophy, it's all perfectly fine. Someone could take the abstract and hypothesize further about why this or that appears the way it does, but it feels disingenuous to associate Thomas Campbell with physics while describing his "TOE".
Thank you!!!!
Thank you ❤
On the levels of higher, subtler consciousness manifestations are called into being not through dualistic choice by directed thought but through intention only and this is where free will exists. On the dualistic level of appearing reality choice becomes necessary for the movement through space in time as duality generates kinetic energy towards the goal of survival. This results in the paradox of a unit of consciousness striving towards survival, whereas it is actually part of higher consciousness (universal awareness) that is immortal because it is not only eternal but outside of time.
I'm not familiar with Bernardo Kastrup's position on these matters. Can anyone sum up his key views in a couple of sentences? Thanks.
Consciousness is fundamental (mind-at-large). You and I are dissociated from MAL. The boundary between us and MAL is illusory. Physical reality is what the mentation of MAL looks like from the perspective of our dissociated boundary.
@@AskingAnything Thanks.
@@stevekrause5931 Mathematically, internal disassociation = self-differentiation
As a consciousness researcher, im building a model that almost similar like tom but im focusing on know all the attributes about ourself so we can make less damage to the world and people around us.
When somebody like me build up a model, we keep switching left and right brain faculty. So its easy for us to make a presentation with less and less assumptions is needed.
I can tell that donald theory of consciouss agent is very good and also with tom theory of LCS.
It much be better that two theory became one overarching understanding. Its so hard first for living in paradoxical uncertainty idea. But we human are build in paradox within us so yeah. Why not
This is hilarious. Hoffman's "Markov Chain" is essentially the same thing as Campbell's "State Machine". Both of these concepts are old, but it's interesting that you have 1 person (Campbell) trying to describe how the universe is essentially computation, and the other trying to describe that it's math (Hoffman), and they're using the same metaphors! I'm a software engineer, so I might as well invent my "React Hooks Theory of Consciousness"
When did he talk about state machine
@@jdspharmacopeiamaybe he's referring to Campbells LCS?
Finally,......the two lads together......tanks.
Just being conscious implies positive impulses.
I can't understand a dialog in this discussion. On other discussions with Tom Campbell I feel the same. The problem is me, probably, of course, but I can't understand Tom. He talks about finite, information, says consciousness is infomation. Than what is aware of the information? What produces information?
Your question nailed it (the problem with Tom’s theory)
@@mhill9600 yesterday I Saw a vídeo with Bernardo Kastrup and Tom Campbell. On that debate I could understand better Tom's theory. And now it seems good to me. In this debate with Don Tom Campbell intervention don't seem so clear to me.
Cutting edge.
Love Tom's ideas.....😊
Tom Campbell is basically describing us as a bubble of blank conscious awareness, whose purpose is to be linked to a 'realty' experience via a physical body, and when the body expires, Tom believes that the conscious awareness then returns to the original consciousness who then strips the memories (data) for storage/analysis, and the conscientious awareness, now empty (having forgotten it's life) is reabsorbed back into the original conscientious.
In other words, when we die in this reality, the conscious awareness that was us is stripped of us/our identity and we essentially die, stored as data.
Now that is irony.
9 stages of shamatha meditation....aka perfect single-pointed concentration
I gotta say though I’m surprised that Tom is so adamant about the existence of time. He’s clearly open to OBEs, parapsychology, and the like so I’m wondering why NDE accounts don’t seem to be used as experiential data to inform his theory. They often report either experiencing timelessness or everything simultaneously (perhaps like Einstein’s block universe?). Seems to support what Donald’s saying about time more than Tom’s view on it? So I’m wondering how he accounts for those reports of the experience of time (or lack thereof) in his theory. Also have to add how much I greatly appreciate Donald’s humility. 🙏🏻
Experiencing timelessness is a contradiction. A logical impossibility. Experience is time. Experience requires time. Without time, no experience. An experience has a beginning, a middle and an end. That's time. There's "before the experience", "during the experience" and "after the experience". That's time.
@@Erik-V I understand that. But you are missing the point. I’m saying there are reported experiences where time is not experienced in the linear past/present/future arrow that waking/living consciousness describes it as (as you just did). Where there is a perspective described sometimes timeless (void), and sometimes described as experiencing all things at once (for example multiple lives/time lines instantly). The translation from these experiences to every day consciousness is also reported as almost impossible to convey because we experience time in the linear fashion in which you just described. I’m saying these accounts suggest it is not necessary for experience to occur to have a beginning/middle/end in the way you (and Tom) described. My point is that certainty should be shelved until their reports can be accounted for.
@@surrendertoflow78 Can you share an example of such a report? To me it sounds like a huge information download that includes information on past lives. Can people see their future lives as well as their past lives, in that experience of simultaneity? If they can only see their past lives, then that should be a strong clue that it's not about experiencing time simultaneously, but rather about receiving a large download containing past data all at once, which might indeed seem as though one is experiencing everything all at once.
I understand your point, but I can argue the opposite direction by saying that people end up drawing false conclusions from their experiences all the time. Just because an intellectual conclusion is drawn from experience, doesn't make it a valid conclusion. Example: Back in the stone age it would make sense to look around and conclude that the Earth is flat, because it obviously looks flat, and how on would things not fall off if it were round? Our experience was valid, but our conclusions weren't. It becomes especially tricky once we start drawing intellectual conclusions based on experiences that are not even ours, but reports from other people who were in a special/altered state of consciousness.
Your point on certainty is well taken, and I would even take it further to the point of saying that certainty should be shelved even beyond that, until forever. The best we can achieve is to move the needle closer into the direction of 100% certainty, but we should never get there.
@@Erik-V I don’t have a particular one saved to send you a link. I’ve listened to and read about so many over the years, and attended IANDS meetings pre-pandemic. But it is something readily available to explore for whomever is interested. (I suggest starting with IANDS and DOPS at UVA Charlottesville.) Next time I come across an example I will post here. Yes some include futures too. And by multiple lives, I don’t just mean their own lives, but the lives of those around them too (interpreted as a lesson in learning the spread of one’s influence/impact). And there are cases where the information they get from their experience can be corroborated by medical staff/family etc., so it isn’t always just taking the experiencer’s word. I definitely take anyone’s interpretation with a bag of salt BUT the point is they report a completely different experience of time and I think that is data to be investigated. Any theory that doesn’t is incomplete (I understand they are all incomplete (forever perhaps) but it’s even more incomplete without taking that possibility into account.)
@@surrendertoflow78 Agreed.
Re consciousness & time: I think Tom is right that consciousness is subject to time and therefore choice (only on level of body-mind consciousness) but I think that the different forms or levels of consciousness are not taken into account. Body-mind consciousness operated within the constrictions of time but higher levels do not as can be seen by his own example of using intention to modify future probability, which is not possible on a mere level of physical reality consciousness. Access to spontaneous knowledge as in Intuition and inspiration is also bypassing physical logics and time by viewing reality from a more refined and subtle level of consciousness.
Thought could be explained through duality, its appearance and consequences. Mind in its coarser form of body-mind is constantly busy trying to resolve the contradictions discrepancies and problems that the unlimited number of dualities produce as they constitute the appearance of physical illusory reality and without these dualities apparent reality would not take form. These tensions result in the energetic appearance of thought by consciousness creatively expressing these attempts of understanding and analysis in combination with conceptual categorising and ensuing language.
42:42 "principium individuationis" is not relevant????
maybe it is the case... since so many people are not even tuned in idealism... but if idealism is to reign it surely needs some reasonable arguments beyond the metaphor of the "mind at large" (will) being a powerful computer and each human being a "virtual (will) machine"...
A simple example of the relevance: dependend on how each being is plugged in the mind at large then it is (or not!!) possible several levels of communications between human beings (e,g, ESP).
Tom said nothing is infinite. But consciousness is eternal.
thanks HCS for the blocking option. Please stay civil and kind in a discord chat section. You know who you are.
İf you can't reach from below then it must have inaccessible cardinality
Siri wishes to join the conversation...
You should interview Peter Ralston and Brendan Lea.
Thank you for the suggestion, man!
I kinda may disagree with tom's idea if low entropy being good, if you are in a system with no entropy, nothing can happen anymore so not sure that's something desirable or good.
I used to make the same contention.
We really don't understand entropy as well as we may be lead to believe though. Instead of thinking about it in terms of possible interaction or useable energy within a system..see the complexity side of it instead.
There’s a My Big TOE Discord over at discord.gg/KTAxJyqfmU. Very friendly folks. Very active server.
I'm having hard time swallowing that consciousness isn't timeless. Whatever the ultimate reality is, it has to be timeless. Because it has to be without beginning or end. If it had a beginning or end, it obviously wouldn't be the ultimate reality. IF consciousness is fundamental, in other words, the ultimate reality, doesnt it necessitate that it is timeless?
Tc and dh disagree on consciousness having time. Tc says that there has to be time because when there is choice you have before and after choice. Dh says time ensues as part of projections. I think tc is leaving out the fact that choices become only necessary as part of projections because there are dualities between consciousness has to choose. Intrinsically there are no dualities in pure consciousness only if it considers them to be as in projection of reality.I think tc also didn't take into account that before choice performed by consciousness there has to be intention and attention directed at sth by consciousness. For that a duality I.E. Sth to direct these towards has to exist I.E. A projection, dissociation or separation of the whole or the one has to exist. The choices he talks about exist only within a framework of reality projection. Tc says consciousness is finite. I think the forms and levels of consciousness have to be differentiated: consciousness on the physical realm in its coarse appearance within a body guided by senses he is right. But the higher levels of consciousness as in the "One" of which we are part the nature of consciousness is not limited though individuation, separation or disassociation in other words dualities. Therefore, there is no time as there are no limits.
I think a lot of us feel like even if I believe Tom (or want to believe him) I still want to 💯 % understand it for myself and not just have to take his word on it.
I’m sure he would be willing to easily explain how we can all have these experiences to get first hand evidence and understanding.
I like Tom's definition of miracle. Computer would be a miracle 200 years ago.
This is about time, existentialism at the highest level, Buddha meets Jesus level !
I would suggest that the large system's contents evolve, however the ground and holding space of the contents do not, so consciousness could never stop only the contents can change Evolve or devolve that we witness and take part with the virtual reality headset. I also would suggest that our free will attention and intention has a limited capacity, and that our will can only make changes within the contents of consciousness to a certain point, and that there is a higher intelligent field of consciousness that guides things such as weather , tides planetary movement etc just as we have to relate with other individual units on consciousness, we also have to relate with the other fields of consciousness, thus letting us know who is really in charge and that is not our ego. This prevents inflation. We have free will to a limit the rest is up to God or the larger field of consciousness. There are other types of consciousness within our individual unit of consciousness that are not ego consciousness such as our instinctive drives jaak Pankespp's work on the 7 basic emotional INSTINCTS is a good start to read upon to understand this. This would explain where the thought that arises for eating comes from or the thought to reproduce etc.
Jack I bet you could have a good conversation with Chris Langen
Leo Gura as well.
Haha.... Leo Gura.
OK I have to ask. Don really looked like he was labouring, at least early in the interview. Like he had bad heart burn or something. I’ve just never saw him be bothered in interviews and surprised nobody acknowledged it. He did have a heart operation last year and just hope he is well.
Don explained at the end of the interview that he’s battling post-Covid conditions.
t=6800
This is, what recently came to my Mind, when i had a exceptional Experience through Mariuana, which i consumed (~ only 20 Times in life, and i'm 56 now): "god thinks through you".
So what are Don's hobbies?
Photography.
Tom's life is a meditation. He doesn't meditate any longer. Highest art of meditation.
Ya I laugh on the inside when Don points out his 3-4 hr meditation routine.
Don is the one who will make this mainstream….Tom does not have the understanding of what he is saying
Great episode! Tom's vibes don't really resonate with me - as if he is scared and is a bit aggressive because of it.
Thank you! I don’t think Tom was either. Despite the topic of conversation, Tom is quite matter-of-fact and down to Earth (:
This is exactly what i thought when I saw heard him 6yrs ago for the first time..but recently I saw a interview with conversation with Stephen swatz ..then I have got hooked..his expression is very bland once you get used to it you will see the depth of understanding and his metaphors are phenomenal
Tom needs to have debate with a well know theoretical Physicist about his views and see how he stands up against a real challenge
Matter is what matters! Is something real? Did it have a real effect on your concussion.
Tom needs to go against someone smart who doesn't agree with him..an actual debate in theories.
Beliefs are important. I believe a gun to my head will kill me..dont think I want to experience it. This is where these brilliant guys tend to spin out into guru talk.
We are all human...nobody is omnipotent.
Awareness requires thought? What did tom just say? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. When there were just two states the consciousness system could pick from, how could there be thought? Do animals have thoughts? They don't even have language
He doesn't say that there "were just two states". He says there was 1 state with 2 possibilities.
Two possible states@@MichaelSmith420fu
JAck, i wish you would stop interrupting people. just let them talk. ffs
Thanks for the feedback man (honestly).
Donald seems much more detailed. Side note, NDE people often say time doesnt exist. For what its worth.
Tom says the physical isn't real until its measured by the observer, yet time for him is somehow real outside of measurement? Not consistent.
I guess time is outside of the physical reality, since it's related to the clock speed of the "computer" running the virtual reality simulation. Each increment of time (delta t) is one clock cycle of the "CPU" running the show.
@@corkeymonster Monter, the explanation behind idea its virtual reality; means it works like as simulation; there are rules for that simulation goes foward, one of those rules is existance of time. there has to be time, to have present, future and past within the simulation..
The observer stuff is another rule within the simulation. We pretend creating or watching material things but its only digital information, we as consciousness are receiving it. Like if we were looking at TV. Wear stuff, doesn't it..
To make rhe concept more understandabl
@@olmosmer I understand Tom's model. I first read his books in 2009 I think it was, participated in his MBT forum, watched hundreds of his videos and even met him in person one time.
As the delayed Quantum choice Eraser Experiment shows: Time must be an Illusion.
"We even have to consider the "Past" as something consisting out of Data".
john archibald wheeler
@@5piles its not time then, its just movement
not into Buddha.