Synopsis of the My Big TOE Trilogy

My Big TOE, written by a nuclear physicist in the language of contemporary Western culture, unifies science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics, mind and matter, purpose and meaning, the normal and the paranormal. The entirety of human experience (mind, body, and spirit) including both our objective and subjective worlds, are brought together under one seamless scientific understanding.

If you have a logical, open, and inquisitive mind - an attitude of scientific pragmatism that appreciates the elegance of fundamental truth and the thrill of breakthrough - you will enjoy this journey of personal and scientific discovery.
Based upon careful scientific research and logical deduction, this is a book for all who have an interest in the nature of the reality in which they exist. My Big TOE is not only about scientific theory, function, process, and discovery - but also speaks to each individual reader about their innate capabilities. Readers will learn to appreciate that their human potential stretches far beyond the limitations of the physical universe.
&nbspThis trilogy delivers the next major scientific conceptual breakthrough since relativity and quantum mechanics raised scientific eyebrows in the first half of the twentieth century. No catch, no megalomania, no hypothetical wackiness, no goofy beliefs, no unusual assumptions - just straightforward science that better describes the totality of our experience and provides a wealth of practical results and new understanding that can be applied personally and professionally by scientists and nonscientists alike. This is the real thing.
My Big TOE is about life, purpose, personal significance, physics, evolution, and the reason why. The acronym "TOE" is a standard term in the physics community that stands for "Theory Of Everything." Such a theory has been the "Holy Grail" of physicists for more than fifty years. My Big TOE delivers the solution to that scientific quest at the layman's level with precision and clarity. This book is an adventure into the overlapping worlds of science, philosophy, and metaphysics. It is tightly analytical and logical as all good works of science and philosophy should be, while at the same time down to earth, easily understandable, and full of good humor. No leaps of faith or beliefs of any sort are required to get to where these books will take you.
Campbell did not put the "My" in My Big TOE to flaunt pride of authorship. Nor does the "My" indicate any lack of generality or applicability to others. The "My" was added to be a constant reminder to you that this reality model cannot serve as your personal Big TOE until it is based upon your personal experience. On the other hand, personal or subjective experience is only one piece of the reality puzzle. In the objective physical world of traditional science, My Big TOE delivers a comprehensive model of reality that subsumes modern science, describes our objective material reality, and is universally applicable. Contemporary physics is shown to be a special case of a more general set of basic principles.

This trilogy delivers the next major scientific conceptual breakthrough since relativity and quantum mechanics

j.mills wrote:

This trilogy delivers the next major scientific conceptual breakthrough since relativity and quantum mechanics

Then I'm sure we'll hear about the stir it causes, shaking the scientific community into accepting a new paradigm. - Although oddly that hasn't happened yet, despite the books emerging seven years ago...

j.mills wrote:I doubt you would have objected if I had assumed the books were good from the synopsis: you must have posted the synopsis to help others form preliminary judgements, and now you chastise me for doing so. Big claims are made for these books, but they have not made a corresponding splash. It is not unreasonable to assume that the claims are exaggerated. I could read the books to find out, but then the same is true of the Upanishads, the Koran, The Shack, The Secret, The Bible Code... Life's too short to pursue every hyped-up rabbit that crosses the field.

twcjr wrote:Hello Viv,

Viv: “…..what in your opinion, could your work contribute to the future of Physics”

A very good and reasonable question trying to figure out: “where’s the beef”….. indeed “is there any beef?”

You know, it is difficult to assess the value of your own work objectively. To be valid, verification and general acceptance needs to come from others. To me, it seems perfectly clear though the concepts are very challenging to most who hear them for the first time – other technical people, including physicists who approach my work with open minds generally find that it is logically solid and answers fundamental questions otherwise unanswerable. I live my talk about open-minded skepticism -- The skeptical part will feel satisfied and successful – standing on perfectly solid ground -- only after physics (science in general) absorbs, embraces and accepts the core ideas in My Big TOE – that’s real validation. But such a major change in attitude and perspective will not come easily or quickly – it will require physicists to rethink their notions of reality from the ground up – to cast aside the beliefs with which they now paint themselves into a corner that does not contain the answer. Trying to change the mind of committed believers has historically been a very difficult thing to do – whether in metaphysics or physics. Cultural beliefs run much deeper than the intellect.

However, the good news is, physics does seem to be moving in that direction – digital physics is a concept that is growing more acceptable by the mainstream. The research describing mind-matter entanglement at prestigious universities like Princeton and Temple (backward causality, modifying random event generators, the placebo effect, anticipatory empathetic reactions, etc.) represent rock solid objective science with immaculate protocol. The fundamental failure of physics in almost 100 years to make any serious progress toward finding a TOE that unites the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics under one more-general set of principles is shouting that the fundamental assumptions of physics are incomplete. The solution to all that is both fundamental and unfathomable is at hand: My Big TOE theory, with just two unremarkable assumptions provides the critical missing ingredient in digital physics (what and where is Dr. Fredkin’s “other”), explains the mind-matter experiments with clear logical science, and unites relativity and quantum mechanics, showing them to be an approximation, a special case of a larger, more general and more complete theory. Just as the “flat earth” assumption was found to be valid for short distances, and Newtonian physics was found to be a special case approximation valid for a limited set of Macro conditions (slow speeds and medium to large sizes).

Once physics sees the logic of it and can outgrow the limiting beliefs that now constrain the traditional solution set such that it does not contain the correct answer, the effect upon our understanding and culture will be as big, if not bigger, than the round earth, Newtonian physics, and relativity and quantum mechanics all put together. (and I think it will one day happen because it is a better theory under the criteria science traditionally uses to determine the worth of a theory). An age of discovery and change will open up the minds and affect the personal lives of hundreds of millions of individuals over a decade – this is science that affects people personally – it is about the point and purpose of their existence – life and death. Science by itself would not have that large of an affect. However, My Big TOE not only delivers a breakthrough in physics but more importantly delivers an even larger breakthrough in philosophy, metaphysics, and theology. It would be hard to overestimate its potential impact on the people of this planet – scientists, philosophers, and theologians all solving their long standing intractable issues of understanding with the same set of overarching principles.

One minor example to make this point seem more real: Most who are seriously committed to religion and who attend my workshops or read the MBT trilogy, tell me that they equate the larger consciousness system with God. It’s a perfect fit for those with a broader perspective of their religion. In their minds MBT derives God – i.e., an understanding of God that explains who, what, why, and how God is – and defines their personal relationship to God with logic and science replacing belief, creed, and dogma. Can you imagine theology where open-minded skepticism replaces belief as the fundamental requirement? I have people telling me they keep MBT and their bibles together on their nightstand?! And that is just theology (the most belief laden and intractable of the four) – the other three: physics, philosophy, and metaphysics are affected no less. If this attitude were to become a widespread concept (MBT does explain theology very nicely – and the fact that it also explains physics very nicely provides vast credibility) what kind of an effect would it have on the world – that is but one potential, one simple example that could contribute to a tsunami of changing attitudes toward the nature of our reality. Do you see the potential and why I said that “It would be hard to overestimate its potential impact on the people of this planet – scientists, philosophers, and theologians all solving their long standing intractable issues of understanding with the same set of overarching principles.” The changes in physics alone would be revolutionary and that would be the smaller part.

This theory is falsifiable. There are literally dozens of experiment that can be done to verify the predicted results. This is real science, not just another wild improvable theory that sounds good if you don’t think about it too hard.

When any of this might happen, I have no idea – perhaps not in my lifetime – it all depends on how the ball bounces – who picks it up and how the knowledge spreads. Who knows, the scientists might not lead this massive cultural change (cultural, scientific, spiritual, growth spurt), instead they may be dragged along by it because they are so committed to their beliefs. Science is the de-facto religion of the West (what most people believe in as being the fundamental source of truth) and science, like religion, has a vested interest in maintaining their belief systems. However, the truth is not fragile – science will eventually, sooner or later, accept it.

I hope this is what you are looking for. In short, here is the potential impact of MBT: this theory could turn physics on its head, produce a broader, more powerful, and more generally correct scientific method (the old one becoming a special case approximation), and advance the level of understanding and productivity of science greatly. It could unify physics, metaphysics, philosophy and theology, solving most all of the outstanding fundamental problems, and all derivable from the same overarching elegantly simple principles based on two easily acceptable assumptions. And that would be the least of it. And because I know that logic, truth and science are what they are, and MBT is what it is, I think one day, when the time is right and people are ready to let go of fear and belief for a better, more productive understanding of reality and existence, all this change will happen because the truth is not fragile – eventually it will become known. Today we are on the cusp of that happening – perhaps even in our lifetime.

Tom

t5aylor wrote:Well I guess my point is I agree that it seems we would have heard a lot more criticism from published physcists if this guy is wrong, and he makes some remarkable claims. He has been a working physcist (risk analysis on NASA spacecraft, maybe some of those that supported Carl Sagan) so I wouldn't expect him to have a lot of published papers like an academic would. And his theories are based on well established work very much peer reviewed. He seems to be a good synthesist, and no one is challenging his views as far as I have been able to determine. His reasoning seems sound to me and I am familiar with much of the peer reviewed material he cites. However, his conclusions are anathema to scientific materialism per se, and I am surprised he hasn't been corrected.

Calilasseia wrote:If you know so much about this, you'll be able to present the relevant material to us, so we can evaluate it, won't you?

There's your next task.

t5aylor wrote:Well I guess my point is I agree that it seems we would have heard a lot more criticism from published physcists if this guy is wrong, and he makes some remarkable claims. He has been a working physcist (risk analysis on NASA spacecraft, maybe some of those that supported Carl Sagan) so I wouldn't expect him to have a lot of published papers like an academic would. And his theories are based on well established work very much peer reviewed. He seems to be a good synthesist, and no one is challenging his views as far as I have been able to determine. His reasoning seems sound to me and I am familiar with much of the peer reviewed material he cites. However, his conclusions are anathema to scientific materialism per se, and I am surprised he hasn't been corrected.