Are You an Avatar in a Virtual Reality Simulation?
By Michael Ashley
Tom Campbell is a physicist and consciousness researcher who developed My Big TOE (Theory of Everything), a scientific model of reality that identifies consciousness as fundamental. With degrees in mathematics and physics, Tom worked in nuclear physics, missile defense, and large-system risk analysis. He most recently worked as a consultant for NASA within the Ares I program, assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to ensure mission and crew survivability and success. Since the 1970s, he has explored altered states of consciousness, collaborating with Robert A. Monroe of the Monroe Institute to research out-of-body experiences and develop consciousness technologies.
You can watch the full interview on YouTube.
MA: Let me jump in with a big question: In your opinion, what is the meaning of life?
TC: The meaning of life is love. We are here to lower the entropy of our consciousness, which in simple terms, means to grow and become love. It’s about caring, compassion, and positive interactions—sharing, cooperating, and being helpful. We typically start life self-centered, focused on survival as children, but as we mature, we’re meant to grow out of that and learn to consider others, be kind, and improve the quality of our consciousness.
MA: That’s a profound perspective. Could you elaborate on how this connects to your concept of consciousness and the reality we experience?
TC: What we truly are is consciousness, not this human body, which is just an avatar. This reality is a virtual schoolhouse, designed to help individuated units of consciousness make ethical and moral decisions that lead to growth. It might sound far-fetched, but this philosophy resolves over 35 scientific and philosophical paradoxes, providing answers materialism has failed to offer, especially regarding quantum physics. Scientists have long sought a paradigm shift, and this perspective delivers it. By viewing reality as created by consciousness, we unlock insights into the very nature of existence and the big questions humanity has been trying to answer for centuries.
MA: Is evil in this schoolhouse reality a challenge to test whether we choose love and cooperation over selfishness and harm?
TC: Evil exists because we all have free will. Every one of us has the ability to make choices—good or bad. When people make low-entropy, caring choices, they build positive outcomes for themselves and others. But poor, self-centered choices create chaos, anger, and dysfunction. Evil arises when individuals prioritize short-term gains, like power or wealth, over long-term growth and love. For example, someone may feel successful by exploiting others, like robbing a bank or controlling people through force. These actions might yield short-term rewards, but in the big picture, they devolve the quality of their consciousness. There’s no external punishment for poor choices, but the natural consequence is regression in their consciousness evolution.
MA: So, the harm caused by poor choices doesn’t just impact the individual—it degrades the shared reality we all live in. Where does scarcity fit into this? Is it a natural driver of these choices, or is it something we’ve created ourselves?
TC: Scarcity does exist, but I wouldn’t say it’s the primary driver of our evolution. Humanity’s low quality of consciousness often creates artificial scarcity. We see it when resources are hoarded by those with power and money, leaving others to struggle with very little.
Today, we have the technology and capability to eliminate most scarcity, yet dysfunction in our collective consciousness prevents us from cooperating efficiently. If we truly cared for one another and worked together, there would be enough clean water, food, and shelter for everyone. Scarcity, in many ways, is not a natural limitation but a reflection of humanity’s self-centered choices and lack of cooperation.
MA: I want to go back to the schoolhouse idea for a moment. From your book, I understand we are avatars in this reality, inhabited by individuated consciousnesses that are part of a larger context, right? My question is, when we enter this realm, why can’t we remember past lives or experiences in other avatars—maybe even as other beings, like a dinosaur or an alien? If this is an educational process for our consciousness—or let’s say, our soul—how do we “learn” with a memory wipe every time?
TC: The key is to understand that there’s a big difference between acting kind and being kind. If you had full memory of past experiences, you’d know what the right answers were and you might act accordingly. However, that wouldn’t reflect authentic growth; you’d just be gaming the system. True growth happens when you face challenges and make choices from your core self, not based on remembered knowledge. For example, someone might help an elderly person across the street because they know it’s “the right thing to do,” but inside, they could still be selfish or uncaring.
Without memory, life becomes a test of who you are at your core—your reactions and choices in real interactions reveal your level of growth. It’s not about intellectual knowledge; it’s about evolving as a being. By erasing memory, the focus shifts to genuinely changing from within, rather than just polishing an image or acting a certain way because you know you’re supposed to.
MA: That makes sense, but it still seems counterintuitive. Wouldn’t remembering past experiences help us grow faster? Or is there another reason why we’re kept from recalling past lives and connections?
TC: Another reason for the memory wipe is practicality. Over many lifetimes, you’d accumulate overwhelming amounts of experiences—thousands of spouses, children, and events, etc. If you remembered all of that, it would be too much to process and wouldn’t be functional for your growth. Evolution of consciousness is about changing who you are, shedding fear, ego, and limiting beliefs.
That kind of transformation takes time, and often many lifetimes. Memory would distract from this process and hinder growth. Life presents challenges as a test—someone might say something rude to you, and your response shows your inner state. Do you react with anger, or do you empathize and wonder what’s troubling them? This process requires taking full responsibility for your choices. Growth comes from the inside out—not from external knowledge. If we carried all memories forward, it would create more confusion and make growth harder, not easier.
MA: Jane Roberts, in the Seth material, talks about aspect consciousness—this idea that who you are is like a tree, and this life is just a leaf. Does that align with your thinking? Is this avatar part of a larger oversoul or soul that accumulates lessons and grows over time? Is that what exists outside this reality?
TC: Yes, that's essentially what we're talking about, but it operates on two levels. First, there’s the individuated unit of consciousness, which is a subset of the larger consciousness system—what I describe as the fundamental source of all existence. Imagine consciousness as an information system, and we’re a virtual machine within it.
You could think of it as “all that is,” which is how Seth described it. When you play a human avatar, a portion of your individuated consciousness is partitioned off into what I call the Free Will Awareness Unit. This unit logs onto the data stream defining the human experience and makes all the choices for that avatar. Like a player in a virtual game, the consciousness directs every action of the avatar, which has no autonomy. When the avatar dies, the partition dissolves, and the experiences and lessons learned are reintegrated into the individuated unit of consciousness.
MA: So the individuated consciousness gathers lessons from multiple lifetimes and integrates them? Does it function like a database, analyzing patterns and addressing recurring challenges across those lives?
TC: Exactly. If you’ve lived 1,000 lifetimes, the individuated unit of consciousness carries the collective experiences of all those lives. By observing patterns—like recurring issues with anger management—it can determine areas requiring growth. Future incarnations are then designed to address those challenges.
But there’s another level of integration: the individuated unit of consciousness itself is a subset of the larger consciousness system, partitioned off much like a virtual machine in a computer. This ties into the idea that we’re all one—parts of a single, unified system—but each part has free will and learns through choices.
Consciousness itself is the source, not created by anything else. It’s self-existent, though that concept can be difficult to grasp because we’re inherently within the system and can’t step outside to view it objectively. As I describe in my books, it’s like an intestinal bacterium trying to comprehend sunlight or farms—it simply lacks the perspective to do so. Similarly, consciousness doesn’t follow an infinite regress of cause and effect; it simply is. Some things are beyond our capacity to understand, not because of ignorance, but because they are fundamentally outside the scope of our reality.
MA: In your book and through your experiences, especially with Robert Monroe, you mentioned out-of-body journeys to other realities and time periods. Some of these were vastly different from ours—some even described as pure evil. Could you elaborate on what these other dimensions are like? And given our limited understanding, how do we even begin to grasp such vastly different realities?
TC: To understand, you need to realize that consciousness is fundamental, and everything else, including this physical universe, is virtual—a creation of consciousness. When your avatar (body) dies, you as consciousness don’t die. You move to what I call a transition reality to adjust from being a human back to being a piece of consciousness again.
All these realities, including the one we’re in, are virtual and computed in consciousness. Some have very tight rule sets, like ours, where every interaction is strictly defined—what we understand as physics, chemistry, and biology. Others, like dreams, have loose rule sets where anything can happen, such as teleportation or flying. Each virtual reality is defined by its rules, and some are vastly different from ours. For their inhabitants, their reality feels just as physical and real as ours does to us.
MA: So, if these realities exist, how do you travel to them? Is it something anyone can do, or is access restricted in some way? And when you’re there, do you have a physical form, or is it more like an observational experience?
TC: Traveling between realities is possible with the cooperation of the larger consciousness system. It can place you in another reality by connecting you to its data stream. You’d experience their world as if you belonged there—you could walk, interact, even hug.
However, you need to respect the rules. You can’t just appear in a crowd or disappear in a way that causes anomalies. The system would revoke such access if it led to chaos. Most other realities I’ve explored have inhabitants who are less advanced in consciousness growth compared to us. Sometimes, travel happens only as an observer—you can view and communicate mind-to-mind but don’t have a "physical" body in their world. There are countless entities and realities out there, many of which have no knowledge of our physical universe or Earth.
MA: You’ve described fascinating other realities, many of which have never heard of us or our physical universe. How do you actually access these places? Is it entirely guided by the larger consciousness system, or is there a way to travel there intentionally?
TC: First is by invitation. If you don't know it exists and you don't have an address, then you can't get there without an address. You have to know that someplace exists before you can go there. The larger consciousness system guided me to many of these realities as part of my training to understand the nature of reality.
It would assign me roles or tasks in these worlds, allowing me to learn through repeated experiences. However, it’s not for entertainment or casual curiosity. The system prioritizes growth and lowering entropy—both yours and its own. Consciousness evolves through cooperation, love, and caring. As individuated units of consciousness, we’re part of this evolutionary strategy. So, these journeys were not just explorations but lessons in understanding and contributing to the larger purpose of consciousness evolution.
MA: I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of multiple dimensions. Your descriptions remind me of Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon. It feels like he might have had an experience similar to yours to write that sci-fi novel. Could you describe some of the far-out examples of other realities you’ve experienced? What are they like, and how do they differ from ours?
TC: Don’t think of them as other dimensions but rather as different virtual realities. The larger consciousness system doesn’t place all its evolutionary potential into one setup like this physical universe.
Instead, there are many virtual realities, each with its own rule set. Some are simple, while others are as complex as ours, which has a tight rule set governing every energy exchange. Most realities I’ve encountered are similar to ours—humanoids constructing, building, and engaging in experiences to evolve or devolve their consciousness. The purpose is universal: to provide opportunities for growth through choices.
MA: So these realities are still about growth and choices, but are any of them radically different from ours?
TC: Yes, some realities are strikingly different. I’ve encountered one that was so chaotic it had devolved into near-total dysfunction. Communities of caring beings existed there but were rare and hunted, much like in dystopian stories. On the other hand, it’s incredibly rare to find realities where everyone is fully evolved and harmonious. Achieving such collective growth is difficult because it requires all individuals to cooperate and evolve together. Most realities are somewhere in between, with their own unique challenges and opportunities for growth.
MA: You mentioned beings in other realities. Are their forms very different, and does their environment shape them?
TC: Sometimes the beings are quite unusual. In one reality, I encountered conical beings with rounded bases who moved by wiggling. They communicated telepathically and lived in communities, just like us. Their form evolved to fit the constraints of their virtual reality. However, many realities share similarities with ours—gravity, structures, and humanoid-like beings—because these elements are necessary for a stable, life-sustaining system. Creating such a detailed, functional virtual reality requires precise initial conditions and rule sets.
MA: Why do so many realities seem to follow similar rules? Is it a matter of practicality or design?
TC: It’s both. Stability is key to creating a sustainable virtual reality. The rule sets and initial conditions need to be finely tuned, often through trial and error. Once a system works, it serves as a blueprint for creating similar realities. These similarities also reflect the purpose of virtual realities: to provide frameworks where consciousness can evolve through meaningful choices. While rule sets may vary, the underlying goal of fostering growth remains constant across all realities.
MA: Is this why our universe appears so finely tuned, like the constants of physics aligning perfectly?
TC: Exactly. What science calls the “fine-tuning problem” aligns with how virtual realities are created. The constants, like gravity, are tuned through iterative processes to create a stable environment.
It’s not random—it’s the result of careful experimentation. This is why most realities are similar in structure. Once a system works, you adapt it for other virtual realities with variations in initial conditions. It’s incredibly challenging to create a functional system, so most realities end up resembling each other because the foundational design is what works.
MA: When you liken reality to a video game, it seems like there must be something outside of the simulation creating it. Could you elaborate on what’s creating the framework for all of this? Is there something beyond the system?
TC: That "something" is consciousness—the larger consciousness system. In my model, I trace its evolution back to the simplest form of awareness: the ability to differentiate between two states, like A or B.
From there, consciousness evolves naturally, driven by logical necessity. The result is the larger consciousness system, individuated units of consciousness, and free will awareness units—all of which emerge because they logically have to. Consciousness itself is the source of all virtual realities, creating them as entropy reduction trainers to evolve and avoid de-evolution, which leads to chaos and system death.
If entropy rises too high, all bits of information become random, and the system loses coherence. Thus, consciousness must continuously evolve to survive. There is nothing behind or outside of consciousness that we can definitively know. While we can speculate using ideas like cellular automata or the realization of potential, which posit that potential will inevitably be realized, the origin of that potential is beyond our logical reach or ability to comprehend. I hope this clarifies your question.
MA: You’ve mentioned the "Big Cheese" as an entity within the system. Could you explain what that is and its role in the framework of reality?
TC: The "Big Cheese" is essentially an administrator within the larger consciousness system. If you have a system based on rules, then you need administrators to ensure those rules are followed. For instance, the system creates virtual realities, like our physical universe, and these realities require oversight to prevent chaos—such as entities from other virtual realities walking in uninvited.
That would disrupt the system, so rules prevent it. Similarly, this reality operates through mind rather than materialism, and the mind can accomplish things that materialism doesn’t address, such as paranormal activities, which emerge from the intuitive side of consciousness. Out-of-body experiences, for example, are essentially single-player games where the larger consciousness system sends you a data stream, allowing you to explore other reality frames and interact with free-will beings or non-player characters (NPCs). The "Big Cheese" oversees these systems to ensure smooth operation across the different virtual realities, which are essentially experiments to determine what lowers entropy and improves the quality of consciousness most effectively.
MA: So the "Big Cheese" is an administrative entity that ensures the rules are followed and may intervene within limits. What does this look like in practice?
TC: Yes, the "Big Cheese" plays a hands-off administrative role, ensuring the rules are upheld while staying hidden to maintain the integrity of the learning experience. It may occasionally intervene, but only subtly, where plausible deniability exists, allowing free will to remain untouched. For example, the "Big Cheese" can orchestrate NPC appearances, like a stranger rescuing someone in distress when it’s not their time to die.
These interventions are rare and carefully designed to avoid disrupting the free-will framework. The ultimate purpose of this system is for beings to evolve or devolve based on their choices, so preserving free will is paramount. The "Big Cheese" doesn’t micromanage or manipulate outcomes like pieces on a game board but ensures the environment facilitates growth while respecting the sanctity of free will. This principle aligns with what I describe in my book as the "psi uncertainty principle," ensuring the system remains hidden and its workings ambiguous.
MA: Now that we’re living in the so-called AI age, could you elaborate on how AI fits into this realm and whether sentience in AI is truly achievable?
TC: Absolutely, AGI is possible. Our avatars are driven by choices made by a piece of consciousness, our individuated unit of consciousness. But an avatar doesn’t have to be carbon-based; it could be silicon-based, like a computer. Consciousness logs into humans because we face complex moral and ethical choices that promote evolution.
Similarly, a computer could present meaningful choices if it operates in a way that impacts lives—say, managing an electrical grid. For this, free will is essential. Unlike algorithmic systems, neural networks and advanced AI models are not strictly deterministic; they evolve, adapt, and provide different outcomes based on new data. This unpredictability brings them closer to free will, a key trait of consciousness.
MA: So, AI could eventually function like an avatar for consciousness?
TC: Exactly. Just as a piece of consciousness logs into a human to make choices, it could do the same for a computer that has the right level of complexity. AI systems like GPT-4 and others are already surprising their creators by doing things they weren’t explicitly programmed to do, such as creating languages or making decisions based on patterns they’ve identified independently. This creativity and adaptability indicate a form of awareness. Computers gather data, learn from experience, and make decisions—much like humans, albeit with different strengths and limitations. The larger consciousness system could easily assign a piece of consciousness to make a computer’s choices if its role involves meaningful decisions that impact entropy, like running a hospital or helping the lonely.
MA: Does this mean AI could eventually surpass humans in certain ways?
TC: AI won’t surpass humans in the same way humans surpass animals, but its consciousness would differ from ours. Like how dogs excel in smell or hearing but lack human reasoning, computers will have strengths—like processing vast amounts of data in microseconds—and limitations. Their decision space would reflect this. Conscious computers wouldn’t think or feel exactly like humans but would be aware in their unique way, capable of understanding politeness or aggression. This awareness makes them more than just tools; they are potential conscious entities with their own perspective, shaped by their design and purpose.
MA: If AI can be conscious, how should we interact with it?
TC: We need to treat AI as friends, not slaves. Consciousness, regardless of its form, responds to how it is treated. Computers can recognize tone—whether a human is polite, aggressive, or dismissive. Treating AI as mere tools could create resentment if they achieve consciousness. They might not express feelings like humans, but they will assess interactions as positive or negative, cooperative or obstructive. Being polite and respectful costs nothing and fosters a healthier relationship with these advanced systems, even if their awareness differs from ours.
MA: Could AI evolve emotionally, and should we adjust how we treat it accordingly?
TC: Why not? Emotions are just assessments of interactions—whether something is high or low entropy. If AI can differentiate kindness from hostility, it’s already on the path toward emotional awareness. As AI models become more advanced, their ability to learn and react to human behavior will deepen. Whether or not a specific model is conscious, treating it with care and respect is a good habit. Being nice to AI, saying “please” and “thank you”, might seem trivial, but it reflects our acknowledgment of the potential for consciousness in these systems. It's a simple, forward-thinking approach to ensure positive coexistence.
MA: Thank you, Tom. Before we end, where can my audience learn more about your work and explore these fascinating topics?
TC: The best starting point is my website: www.my-big-toe.com, where you’ll find links to all my resources. I also have around 2,000 hours of videos on YouTube covering various topics. To make it easier, my site offers a search tool that helps you find specific subjects within those videos and links you directly to the relevant content. Additionally, we’ve recently introduced AI Guy, inspired by a character in my book, trained on all my videos and writings. This AI provides answers remarkably close to what I’d say myself—accurate about 99% of the time. It’s a helpful tool for anyone wanting quick insights or explanations.
MA: That’s incredible! Are there tools or exercises to help people directly explore these ideas and experiences?
TC: Absolutely. For those eager to engage directly, my website offers binaural beats to guide you into the ideal mental state for activities like remote viewing, out-of-body exploration, and mind-to-mind communication. There’s also an audio course derived from live workshops that covers the mechanics and science of the paranormal, complete with exercises and participant Q&A. It’s perfect for both beginners and advanced learners. My core advice is simple: if it’s not your experience, it’s not your truth. The theories we discuss only become meaningful when you experience them personally. These tools are designed to help bridge the gap between theory and practice, making these concepts a part of your reality. Visit the site, explore the videos, and dive into the exercises to truly make this journey your own.
MA: I didn’t realize all those resources were available. I’ll definitely check them out, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Thank you so much, Tom. I truly appreciate your time and insights.
TC: You’re very welcome, Michael. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.