If you go to the gocamels.com website and look under cheerleading, and then
the news tab there should be an article showing that tryouts set for April
29th and 30th, and under that article are the requirements for this past
years tryouts.
Campbell University | Meet J. Bradley Creed | Pt. 5
Campbell University | Meet J. Bradley Creed | Pt. 4
Campbell University | Meet J. Bradley Creed | Pt. 1
New Campbell University President-elect J. Bradley Creed talks about what drew him to Buies Creek.
Campbell University | Meet J. Bradley Creed | Pt. 3
Tom Campbell: Spokane Workshop Pt 1/2
"Tom Campbell is one of the great thinkers of our age" comments Dr Eric Cunningham of Gonzaga in his introduction at the Spokane event May 18, 2014. Topics ...
Dear Mr. Tom Campbell, I agree with most of the things you coverd during
this video, except the when you mention that belief (that it somehow
makes us close-minded. You believe the world we are in is a VR, well that
is belief, you believe Love lower the entropy, that's belief too!?). On the
other hand I agree with you about the Internet (how it makes information
more accessable) , and making adding up the those litle enlightenment
buobles to a bigger entity. One question though, have you solution on how
to overcome, in my mind, the biggest barrier called language in order to
make the information accessable to as many people as possible? After all,
we all we all seem to looking/searching the Truth(s), wich is promised to
set us free and make us evolve. Last but not least, I want to thank You for
spreading/promting Love, thank You :)
Ali Sajedi: "You believe the world we are in is a VR, well that is belief, you believe Love lower the entropy, that's belief too!?)." No, neither is a belief. Both are the logical results of the MBT model of reality and existence (MBT theory). The value of a model is how well it fits the known experimental data and whether or not it can lead to a more general scientific understanding. Belief has no part in any scientific theory or model -- a model succeeds or fails based on how scientifically useful it is. Open minded but also skeptical is the only way forward.Yes, the language barrier is a major problem... but, thanks to the internet, even that problem is diminishing with time.
Again a nice explanation of your theory Tom. Yet, that's somewhat of the
problem I have with all your talks, it never passes the stadium of yet
another 'nice explanation'. Although you always mention it, you never pay
much attention to your time with Bob Monroe and the scientific 'proof' you
got with the experiments you did, during those days. I would very much like
to hear a little bit more about the 'proof' from back then. But I also
wonder why you don't do more experiments today, which would support your
theory. What happened with the alleged collaboration between you and Dean
Radin. Why not setup some controlled experiments with results that would
support your theory. Wouldn't it enlarge your credibility exponentially?
+Tom Campbell Thanks, I'll look into it. Maybe you could refer to these articles more often (and publish them on your website). I would also love to know more about the experiments you did back in the days with Monroe and which convinced you that what you were doing was actually 'real'.
+Boudewijn Rooseboom Yes, I agree with you completely. Here is the experiment that explains my discussion of the double slit. Most wouldn't want to see it, but I am glad you asked. //xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf
+Tom Campbell Thank you for your response. And although I understand and would agree with what was said, I don't think it covers my question completely. For one thing, I (having had a scientific education myself) think it would at the very least be helpful if claims were supported by evidence. Maybe you (or MBT) could set up an overview of the experiments done and refer to them more often. It could be that the scientific community disregards them (for all sorts of reasons), but I think that at the same time a lot of people - me including - who do not have a reputation to protect, would find it extremely helpful and convincing. Furthermore, it seems that your approach with expressing your theory is to skip the scientific community all together and speak directly to the individual layman (youtube etc.) for the obvious reasons. Why then suddenly use the scientific community as an argument to not be scientific about it? Aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water? Why not leave the right of judgement to the individual your directly speaking to. I think you would address a lot of people in your audience (and even amplify it) when you would provide them with the research and evidence that you say was already done and would support your theory. Wouldn't it be a classic win win situation?
If everything we experience is just virtual reality, is self-enquiry even
worth the bother? With the limited probability options available to us,
couldn't we just let the experience be & let the VR roll on, effortlessly,
rather than trying to get larger than the game that someone else started,
that something else is playing and that who knows who will shut off when
he/she/they get bored of it?
+Devendra Tak Of course it is worth the bother...your consciousness is not virtual. It is like poor little helpless arms, legs, and heart think it is not worth the bother to move because the big boss brain seems to run everything. Getting "larger than the game that someone else started" is not the point.
+Ola Normann Ancient history (from my personal perspective) that has nothing to do with me.
Unlocking the Cage with Johnny Campbell pt. 2
A follow up interview with Johnny Campbell during a Brown University sociology class. Johnny is a professional MMA fighter out of MA.
Tom Campbell MBT Forum March 2011 Pt 1/5
Tom Campbell's My Big TOE forum has some of the most advanced information and discussions on our existence and our roles in this life available anywhere.
Does the wave function collapse based on whether there is potential for
consciousness to perceive the data of the detectors or does the data
collapse the wave function merely by being present in the reality?
The wave function collapses (a "physical" particle is produced in PMR) when a measurement is made of (data collected on) that "physical" particle. This measurement forces the LCS to produce the "result of the measurement" in the PMR VR based upon the various probabilities associated with all possible results.
Tom who is behind the Source Code ?
Source Code - Official Trailer [HD] amazing movie that come so close to the
reality as digital information
Source Code - Official Trailer [HD]
The LCS evolved the initial conditions, rule-set, and the processing capability, then punched the "run" button. After that ("big digital bang"), the PMR VR we call our universe began to evolve in a probability based simulation until it became the wondrous marvel we live in today. Of course it is still evolving. We IUOCs receive a data stream that defines what our avatar experience in the PMR VR and we IUOCs make choices accordingly. Those PMR VR experiences, of which our avatar body is a part, are limited or constrained by what is possible and supported within the VR -- i.e., by the rule-set and how the rule-set driven, probability based VR (including all the avatars being played) happened to evolve up to the present time.