My Big Theory Of Everything: Thomas Campbell

I have recently read the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) by Thomas Campbell, a respected physicist and it is FABULOUS! For someone who believes, or would like to believe, that a Universal Consciousness interconnects, creates and continuously evolves all existence, this is a book of such compelling wisdom that reading it requires a block of post-it-notes, several highlighters and very patient relatives….

As usual we would welcome any comments or discussion on this review. If you are viewing on Facebook or Linkedin please feel free ‘Like’ and to post comments on

“Only the quality and depth of our consciousness is what matters…” This refers to the quality of an individual at their very core. Not what a person appears to be or how they behave on the surface but what they actually are inside….You evolve higher quality consciousness not through right action or result, but through right motivation and intent” Thomas Campbell, Author of My Big Toe

This version I read was in a large 800 page single volume trilogy, The 3 books are also available separately and are called AwakeningDiscovery, and Inner Workings. 

Starting with the theory that consciousness is the foundation of all being, MBT makes the paradoxes of quantum physics, being and our infinitely expanding and self-programming universe explainable to everyone. This fascinating book weaves together science, spirituality, consciousness, love, values and paranormal experiences such as the out of body experience into a complete unified theory of absolutely everything in a way that leaves room for beliefs such as a universal love consciousness, or as Campbell calls is ‘Absolute Unbounded Oneness’ (AUO), or if you prefer the existence of God.

Campbell puts this larger reality onto a solid footing by combining Quantum Physics with his own ability to enter the single point consciousness awareness state through meditation (the point of fundamental consciousness) and using this, and his scientific knowledge as the basis for the understanding that the connectedness of all beings is the fundamental nature of consciousness. Campbell explored consciousness and reality through his work as a physicist and consciousness researcher at the Monroe Institute, the worlds most respected research centre for the Out of Body Experience (OBE). Through meditation and later exploring methods such as Binaural Brainwave techniques Campbell was able to access a dual state of conscious awareness where he was able to perform high level functions simultaneously in both Physical Reality (PR) and Non Physical Reality (NPR). His awareness later developed further enabling him to continuously see ‘energy’ such as auras within this state of dual awareness, something that is difficult to achive for prolonged periods.

In book one, ‘Awakening’ the author described his spontaneous childhood out of body experiences and Shaman like journeys before the door closed on them in his later childhood.  This door was reopened again by meditation. A familiar pattern to me as is the  ‘re-opening’ of other PSI experiences.

The foundation of Campbell’s theory is that (AUO) is the primary consciousness and that individual beings are derivative consciousnesses within a digital pattern of being and evolution which he describes as a hologram or a 3D digital fractal. According to Campbell’s theory, personal identity is simply a consciousness that has evolved as a result of all the choices (intents) a person has made in conjunction with all the people and objects with whom that person has interacted. The result is a continuously expanding array of unactualized (past), present and projected (future) states or probabilities. In other words our choices manifest a continuously expanding and unfolding happening. Moreover, we get to live with what we as consciousnesses collectively create. Or as Campbell puts it “Team Earth succeeds or fails together”

This leads Campbell to the conclusion that ‘God’ is the father of all fractals. He hypothesises that solar systems, galaxies and human bodies all evolve through the same natural pattern. Life, the universe and every form of being and existence starts from any point (no beginning or end) each self evolves its existence in a continuous pattern of processes. Darwinian mechanics followed this same process to populate the world with diverse life forms. All forms of existence follow an identical pattern, biology, (cells) molecules, (chemistry) and atoms (physics). Time and space time all execute their own version of that same basic model within their unactualised past, present and future probabilities. If we consider that the big picture is a consciousness driven fractal image. We are a repetition of all that is within us and all that exists that we have interacted with. In the really big picture this theory extends into artificial digital intelligence, for example the internet and the intelligent computers of the future (already being developed by IBM) although in my view the evolution of technology as part of the consciousness AUO system can only ever be an extension of human sentient intelligence. In a digital conscious reality everything that can be conceived is possible including those things that have not yet even been imagined. Even considering a new idea brings the possibility of this happening into consciousness and its potential realisation into the fractal process.

The awareness that all beings are interconnected puts the onus on all aware individuals to improve their overall consciousness in order to ensure that ‘team earth survives’ as Campbell puts it. This rests on the ability of individuals to understand that right motivation and intent (selfless actions motivated by love and not self interest). According to Campbell ‘right intent’ is what moves individual consciousness to higher quality states. This puts the interests of the Absolute Unabounded Oneness (AUO) above that of the individuals own ego.

In Campbells view: “The primary hallmark of a poor quality consciousness is self-centeredness. Beings with low or no ego have the highest quality consciousness and the greatest personal power, this means the power to take charge of your life, find satisfaction and fulfilment and to lead and inspire others. Also…Love – highly evolved consciousness is Love, as you increase the quality of your consciousness you increase your capacity for unconditional love”

I found the following paragraphs from My Big Toe to be of particular significance:

Developing spiritually is much more about raising the individual quality of consciousness than accumulating knowledge. What matters most is the development of wisdom, understanding and the capacity to love and synthesising your experience into larger and larger perspectives until everything is seen to be interactive and part of everything else. Right intents and choices help us improve the quality of our being.” As a foot note to exploring your own consciousness Campbell also says “PSI  should not be your end goal, it is a benefit of a path well-travelled”

“The journey starts with exploring your consciousness through meditation and not intellectual achievements. The first ingredient is a sincere desire to grow the quality of your own consciousness and second you must have the courage to change- the courage to face your fears. Meditation requires an inner attentiveness, where you become aware of your own personal consciousness as a unit amongst many consciousnesses. Becoming aware of your consciousness at a fundamental level will eventually lead you to the ‘real’ you, the whole you and the sacred you. In order to develop consciousness you must first become acquainted with that consciousness”

“To that end, we must engage our free will to move us away from lower-energy-consciousness states (ignorance, fear, ego) toward higher-energy-consciousness states (knowledge, wisdom, love The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”

With the above in mind it seems that science often prefers to dismiss the facts it cannot explain. By believing what is ‘delusional’ is real, and what is ‘real’ is delusional scientists have boxed themselves into a corner of reality that does not provide the answers and is nowhere near to producing a credible theory of being. In Campbell’s theory, consciousness and evolution are the basic mediums from which reality is formed, the fundamental ‘non material’ of material existence. His explanation suggests that the reason Einstein failed to create a unified theory of existence was because in creating a small picture theory based on mathematics, he missed the fact that the bigger picture fundamental field is non-physical. Taking this further, Campbell’s theory suggests that the current basis of scientific understanding is the reverse of the reality we perceive. To put this into context science believes the physical body (brain) ‘hallucinates’ a consciousness, when what we really are is a consciousness ‘hallucinating’ a physical body.

In his later work, Campbell is a systems consultant to NASA. Campbell began his career as a physicist researching altered states of consciousness with Bob Monroe, an author and businessman credited with popularizing the term “out-of-body experience” through his writing and later the Monroe institute.

Further articles of similar interest on our blog are:

New Scientist: Keeping the faith and Integral Thinking: Consiousness and the Cosmos another related article that relates to Thomas Campbell and MBT can be found here: Where all the ladders start

Please leave your comments….

23 thoughts on “My Big Theory Of Everything: Thomas Campbell

  1. This may be a second helping Fiona, the first disappeared on me. Excellent review, very comprehensive and gave me a good overall understanding of why you were lugging that large volume around. I can affirm only the parts of the Campbell theory that match my own experience and there are quite a few but there are large areas outside my range. It would be interesting to hear what you have to say about how it fits or doesn’t with Douglas Harding’s The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth. Can I reprint your review in our NOWletter? Alan Mann
    Having trouble posting this comment. This is my third attempt to send.

    • Hi Alan
      Thanks for your comments, You would be very welcome to publish the review in your journal. Could you publish a link to the article on this blog also.

      I had in mind to do a comparison of Thomas Campbells theories with Douglas Hardings ideas. I also plan to review Douglas Hardings books as I read them.

      I have no formal training in Science or Mathematics, but I have an interest in both subjects, all the Physics itself is outside of my technical expertise. To me Science is a means of potentially arriving at rational answers to the non material aspects of being. Personally I believe in a Supreme Being, Creator or God. So far science has proven itself to be inept at coming up with a credible theory for our existence. My own line of enquiry is Metaphysical, and the reason for my interest is really a philosophical enquiry into the reason for and cause of being and how each component fits into and relates to the bigger picture. For me this also means self enquiry, Who am I, what is my reason for being, how can I become a better person and how do I fit into the bigger picture. These are just a few of the reasons why the work of Douglas Harding appeals to me so much

  2. The book is based on a paradigm of physics which is fundamentally incorrect and stands openly challenged on the basis of published articles. The paradigm shift suggested after rectifying the fallacies of the adopted paradigm of physics reveals that the mechanism of consciuosness is beyond the scope of physics. You can see the open challenge on
    and also on

    • Mohammed,
      Thanks for that. I look forward to checking out the links.And just when I thought I had it all wrapped up nice and neat!

      • I wonder how the so-called physicists of the main-stream paradigm could deceive people by selling the concept of God under the adopted paradigm of physics. Philosophically for any existence including God there are two basic requirements, space & substance. Now according to adopted paradigm of physics which envisages the Einstein’s perspective & Big Bang Theory the universe started from a point with no space, thus God never existed before the universe came into existence and nor it can exist after the universe came into existence. Now there are four constituents of universe namely space, time, matter & energy according to adopted paradigm of physics and as stated above God cannot be in the space, God cannot be simply the time, matter as is known cannot be God and energy is photons which is a wave-motion of defined frequencies & wave-lengths and in no case can be God. Thus connecting God with physics under the adopted is simply cheating the common people. I wonder could so-called physicists so dishonest.
        The God & physics could be connected only after a paradigm shift in the Thomas Kuhn sense is worked out.. The open challenge mentioned above would lead you to the articles under which a paradigm shift is put foirward and once the fallacies of the adopted paradigm are rectified a paradigm shift emerges under which existence of God is a pre-condition of existence of God and existence of God is obvious & evident.

        • Mohammed,
          I’ve had look at your links and unfortunately I am not in a position intellectually to follow your argument. I am a poor mathematician. What I can certainly identify with is the refusal of ‘experts’ in many fields to review and modify their worldview. There is usually too much status and power involved and often a whole lifetime of intellectual pursuit would have to be admitted as a huge mistake. Few have the courage to do that, and peer group pressure will usually get them to toe the line.

          For example, it is not permissible to question evolutionary theory, which is now promulgated as proven fact.

          In medicine accepted treatment modalities are difficult to challenge- for example the use of antidepressants and antipsychotics in psychiatry has been unquestioned until recently, with psychiatrists needing to be bludgeoned with the weight of overwhelming evidence to change their minds. This month’s British Journal of Psychiatry has a paper and editorial which brings the question on the limitations of antipsychotics out into the open. Of course it is too early to be certain (as the editorial states) but at least it is now open for discussion, and psychiatrists who have had doubts for many years may finally have their voices heard.

          Global warming is also a topic about which it is difficult to have a rational discussion.

          So I sympathise with your position, and the difficulty you are no doubt experiencing having your challenge taken seriously. Keep the faith…

        • Mohammed, Thank you for sharing your point of view.

          Mohammed, My own view on our existence is not materialist, I believe that there is a supreme being or creator, I also believe that this supreme being created itself from no beginning and will have no end.

          I completely agree that humanity is in the clutches of materialism. I have young children in School in the UK and they are in effect being taught to believe in Atheism. While Science is an important means of creating understanding, it has no moral fibre and is therefore not a fit structure for a meaningful belief structure.

          Firstly I would recommend you read this book. I believe that you will find it has a non-materialist vision beyond what physics currently has to offer. MBT does not put forward a materialist point of view, indeed the Author Thomas Campbell has several issues with the theories put forward by Albert Einstein. He also states that Science tends to dismiss what it cannot understand and that Physics itself has not yet come up with a credible explanation for ‘being’ This book is far more spiritual than Scientific in its nature. Like yourself the Author is a spiritually minded individual who’s profession happens to be Physics. It may be that the combination of spiritual and material does humanity a great service in the end…

          You referenced the Mathematical flaws in both Einsteins ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ and the Lorentz transformation, Anyone interested in this can read more here:

          You also mentioned Kuhn. Kuhn was right by stating that science undergoes shifts that open up new understanding that would not have been given any validity before. In truth not one scientific theory put forward is able to satisfactorily reconcile our being or reality. As he puts it, science can never rely fully “objectivity”; we must account for subjective perspectives as well.

          I personally find the work of David Bohm very interesting, below is an extract from one of his essays:

          Bohm’s view on consciousness: The individual is in total contact with the Implicate Order and is the “focus for something beyond mankind.” Using the analogy of the transformation of the atom ultimately into a power and chain reaction, Bohm believes that the individual who uses inner energy and intelligence can transform mankind. Bohm goes on to suggest that an intense heightening of individuals who have shaken off the “pollution of the ages” (wrong worldviews that propagate ignorance), who come into close and trusting relationship with one another, can begin to generate the immense power needed to ignite the whole consciousness of the world. In the depths of the Implicate Order, there is a “consciousness, deep down–of the whole of mankind.”

          Bohm also talks of “Holiness” having existed since the foundation of the cosmos. It is present in the cyclical process of the universe. It is pure, active intelligence from which all that is manifest in the cosmos comes. It acts through inwardness in consciousness. It enfolds information into the many levels of consciousness, into all of life. It is the Implicate Order which is the Ground of All Existence.
          The full essay can be located here:

          Unlike yourself I do not have a M.Sc. in Physics. In fact I have no formal training in Physics, Mathematics or Philosophy. My interest is Metaphysics, and in particular Consciousness, a subject I am exploring out of personal interest. I am in touch with one of the Academics on the MBT project, Ted Vollers who I will contact so that he can put forward a more qualified point of view on the MBT book.

  3. Corrections of above post
    I wonder could so-called physicists so dishonest.= I wonder how so-called physicists could be so dishonest?
    God is a pre-condition of existence of God = God is a pre-condition of existence of universe

  4. My endeavour is to put theology, philosophy & science on the same platform where all are complementary & compatible to one another. In fact if we explore nature including humans there are sufficient evidences which have been studied by several past philosophers but because of science all their efforts were wasted. The paradigm shift of the physical sciences is the only alternative under which theology, philosophy & science could exist symbiotically and that is exactly what has been done. I know that there will be opposition, criticism and even ridicules but I am confident of my work. In fact when we apply physics of today, God just cannot exist physically & scientifically and since science has taken over socially as well as politically then talking about spirituality & metaphysics within the purview of the adopted science would be irraional & futile. The most appropriate action would be to set right the fallacies of the adopted paradigm of physical sciences and that will naturally lead to the spirituality & metaphysics.

  5. Fiona, Excellent review of an outstandingly important trilogy of books. Tom’s model of reality really offers a totally new path of understanding that is neither materialist nor spiritual but takes the best of both and, in doing so, presents an intellectually satisfying model of what may be the fate of all of us.

  6. A very brief synopsis would clarify my work to all members & justify the relevance of my work to relationship of physics & consciousness. Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute thereby God had no power on space, time & matter but he empowered God with the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter). Newton through his laws held that matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent nature of matter by which matter attracts other matter.Coming to how Newton’s Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at the time Newton also same perspective of space was held. Now finite space means the universe has boundaries and according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe finally to collapse there. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton’s Laws the rest condition of any celestrial object is just not possible. Having rejected the Descartes’s aether and assumed the space as vacuum; in the 1st Law of Motion he states that objects with uniform (linear) motion faces absolutely no resistance but under second Law of Motion Newton states that objects pose resistance to the change in motion which he represented by inertia or mass. He assigns no physical reason to this resistance to the change in motion and it is here the philosophy/rationality was sacrificed on mathematics. Now even today physicists do not know what is mass & where it is in the particles. Representation of planetary motion of solar system by Newton Laws mathematically was the only criteria for adopting the Newton’s Laws; though his Laws were irrational, incorrect & untenable; was the greatest scientific error in the history of science. This Newton did to reject the existence of aether which was scientifically introduced by Descartes. The harm done by Newton was that irrational & incorrect laws were introduced by him which closed the doors of investigation into the existence of God especially by rejecting the existence of aether which together with nature of light contained the secrets of reality. Later this was very well known that Newton laws cannot be correct as explained by Mach; whatever corrections were required those corrections Einstein introduced with the help very confusing trickeries (described in detail in my article). Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist. Four constituents of the universe were reduced to two by Einstein namely space-time concept and matter & energy transmutability where space is emergent, matter is emergent and time is interconnected with space. Philosophically for any existence including God there are two basic requirements namely space & substance. Without discussing the substance; by the emergent space is meant that space came into existence at a point in time as such there is no possiblity that eternal God could have existed before the space came into existence i.e. 13.7 billion years ago or thereafter. Both of them; Newton & Einstein; had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute, time is relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. Now for emergence of matter & time the existence of God is a pre-condition and once we investigate the matter, aether & forces in nature there have to be substances which do not have electromagnetic properties & cannot be seen. Soul & God being such substances. Conscience is in the soul and since it does not have any electromagnetic properties as such it cannot interact with light so soul cannot be seen & investigated through physics.As a private researcher I have several publications which challenge the present main-stream biological & physical science paradigm. The list of publications is
    1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (; March2012)
    2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (; Sep 2010)
    3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment (; April 2011)
    4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (; August 2010)
    5. ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries ( Feb.2012)
    6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (; August 2010)
    7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life (; August 2010)
    These publications are also available on,, viXra, Intellectual Archives & ResearchGate in my profile.

  7. Bray
    I had a look at the book you have refered but with pantheism there seems to no purpose of creation like atheism and transcendentalism is not logically justified explanation of theology as for any existence including God, space & substance are the prerequisites i.e. anybody can exist if it occupies space & is made up of some substance; whether visible or not.

  8. Thank you Anthony,
    I believe you are working on some new books. Perhaps you would like to tell us more about these?You may also find Mohammed’s (shafiqifs) comments very interesting in relation to the Labyrinth of time

  9. Comment via Bill Powers on Linkedin: Link to Bill Powers Linkedin Profile:

    To Shafiq: I’ve looked briefly at Fiona’s recommended site, and I’ll say this. There are far too many undefined and vague concepts to really comment. I agree that subjectivity, consciousness, and the like is a mystery to modern science, and this, at least in part, because of its third person and mechanistic paradigm. Hence, the conclusion by many that it is all a trick and done with mirrors, i.e., that there is no such thing. I have a serious problem with those who so easily dismiss it. Consciousness and subjectivity are not only fundamental to our experiences, they are necessary for this discussion, and even all science and statements that deny they are real. So it appears performatively self-contradictory to deny their reality (as in saying, “I don’t exist.”). What does Campbell mean by “being”? Nothing is for us unless we are aware of it. It is this “for us” that is important. From it does not follow that everything “in itself” depends for its existence upon our “for us.” (I’m employing Sartre’s language here). A lot of the baggage in this discussion depends upon what one means by “existence.” A lot of it depends upon what kind of ontology we will admit. If we are satisfied or limited by a kind of phenomenology whereby whatever is outside the phenomena is “bracketed off” (and so we agree to say nothing of it), then existence will have a very different meaning than for someone who allows and pursues the qualities of a mind-independent reality. So, it seems, what Campbell offers us is a kind of idealism, one that finds satisfaction in our subjectivity. The powerful observation offered by all that start, Cartesian style, from ourself is the observation that all we really have is our own subjective states. These all have the same problem Descartes had: how do we get out of our head. Descartes ultimately had to conclude that there was a God to do so. I suggest that all attempts to get out of our head and into a head-independent world have to do likewise. What kind of a God it is, what kind of creator, will vary from one to another, but it appears necessary, and represents one of those usually unspoken premises of our understanding of the world and ourself.

    To Shafiq: Shafiq: Having looked at a number of posts, I have better idea of where you are coming from. It seems to me that you are arguing that the present scientific paradigm makes the existence of God impossible. You take this paradigm to be represented by General Relativity; and you believe there are flaws in this theory. When these flaws are removed, the possibility for God’s existence emerges. So there are two things that needed to be understood. First, how you think GR precludes God’s existence; and second what your fix is. I have tried to access those articles you refer to and have failed. The links appear to be broken. I’ll try to read more carefully what you have written to see if I can get more out of it.

    • To Socialmedia comments
      Please read the articles if you know some physics you will know as to why ultimate questions are not answered. The fact that physically God is almost powerless or non-existent, is the perspective of the philosophy & physical sciences from the time of Aristotle and once we realise time is relative & emergent and there is aether all secrets of the nature unfold on the physical level. The basis of SR & GR is the space-time concept and if space-time concept proposed by Einstein is incorrect the whole SR & GR becomes incorrect. That is what has been done in my articles and an alternative paradigm proposed.

      • Shafiqifs,
        None of your links appear to work. can you post them again with a little explanation on the physics themselves for people who are not mathematicians.

  10. Pingback: My Big Theory Of Everything: Thomas Campbell | Reality |

  11. Pingback: Spirituality: The path of the heart « Dr Joseph Bray's Blog

  12. Tom was a professional applied physicist right out of grad school and the volunteer work with Bob was evenings and weekends. I believe he was mostly a catastrophic risk analyst in the area of missal defence, before retiring and doing NASA risk analysis…for example, the risk of the shuttle being brought down by a flock of geese, that sort of thing.

  13. Pingback: My Big Theory of Everything: A Review by Alan Mann | What's it all about anyway?

Feel like replying? Go for it.....!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s