Audio Player
Starting at:
[Rewind] Chris Langan: IQ, Free Will, Psychedelics, CTMU, Bernardo Kastrup
May 26, 2023
•
5:20:42
•
undefined
Audio:
Download MP3
⚠️ Timestamps are hidden: Some podcast MP3s have dynamically injected ads which can shift timestamps. Show timestamps for troubleshooting.
Transcript
Enhanced with Timestamps
696 sentences
44,940 words
Method: api-polled
Transcription time: 313m 19s
The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze.
Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates.
Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toe listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount.
Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal. Now what to do with your unwanted bills? Ever seen an origami version of the Miami Bull?
Have you heard? Sling TV offers the news you love for less. Hey wait, you look and sound just like me. I am you. I'm the same news programs on Sling TV for less.
You mean you're me, but for less money? A lot less. I'm all the favorite news programs and more on Sling TV, starting at just $40 a month. Everything great about me, but for less money? Which makes me greater, don't you think? Get the news you love and more, for less. Start saving today. Visit sling.com to see your offer.
I'm delighted to reintroduce the episode featuring Chris Langan, whose appearance on our YouTube channel has sparked a remarkable resurgence of interest in the past few weeks.
And I figured, hey, since the YouTube algorithm is different than the iTunes slash Spotify slash wherever you're listening to this from, that's that algorithm. In fact, as far as I know, the audio versions don't even have an algorithm that why not open this opportunity up for you to hear as well?
By the way, Toe recently premiered the first episode of Season 3 with more in-depth content than ever before. We kicked it off with one of the most requested guests, Daniel Schmottenberger, where we discussed the dangers and boons of AI, as well as the particularities of consciousness, memes, and morality.
If you love Toe, then you'll surely love that Daniel Schmottenberger episode. He's one of the most requested guests, so you can click on that. And in the meantime, listen to this Chris Langan re-release. This time, there's an appended conversation with Bernardo Kastrup and Langan in a Theo locution at the end so that you can fully enjoy the CTMU and understand it from different perspectives.
Chris Langan is an autodidact who's known for having the highest recorded IQ in America. And he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, or the CTMU for short. This introduction will be fairly lengthy, so feel free to skip to the timestamp here if you're uninterested and want to get straight to the podcast. My name is Kurt Jaimungal and I'm a filmmaker with a background in math and physics.
As usual, this isn't meant as an introduction to the guest, but rather where one goes after they've done some research. In fact, the first hour can be rather technical. Most interviews with Chris are somewhat superficial and talk about his days as a bouncer, his experiences, what it's like to have a high IQ,
but we're interested in the topic of theories of everything and you're not afraid to get your hands dirty. I don't often like to give my opinion on the variegated theories that exist, but in Chris's case I have to say that
If I was to say that I'm impressed, that would be an extreme understatement. His theory is unfairly criticized by critics who have read his theory for approximately a day at most and who point to its supposed incoherence, but I found that critics tend to do this with virtually every theory that's self-proposed, like Eric Weinstein's or Stephen Wolfram's, though from my investigation of these, these theories are far from erroneous casuistry. It just takes plenty of difficult work to understand
It's far from nonsense, and the easiest way to tell is to ask the critic, can you explain their theory back to them in a manner that they would agree? Another way to think of this is that one field's technical achievement is word salad to someone who's outside that field. What we have in the case of Weinstein, Wolfram, and Chris Langan is that in
I highly recommend you check out CTMURadio.com and CTMU.org
to gain an overview of Chris's theories, as there are several in-depth PDFs containing some of the technical details and derivations. Another word on style. I may ask the same question to Chris in different ways multiple times because, like I said, his theory isn't exactly trivial, and so hearing the same phenomenon from different orientations often illuminate what was previously obscured. Now, a word on myself.
Preparing for this particular podcast took weeks and weeks. Usually I'm able to prep for multiple guests simultaneously, but this one was so involved that it consumed me and took a physical toll. I went through virtually each one of Chris's papers and even spoke to someone who is conversant in the CTMU, just so that I can make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly. That person's name is Sam Thompson, and he's a brilliant
Mathematically gifted humble soul who I dedicate this entire episode to since he put up with my naive pestering questions on a daily basis in fact it got to the point where I had to ask him if I could add him on whatsapp because texting takes far too long and it's much easier for me to send voice notes so almost every hour I would send him a voice note and then he would send me back and then I would
Ask him follow-up questions. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Because of this physical toll, like I mentioned, the pressure of releasing another podcast soon with the same quality as this one and the same quality as the others is a bit too much for me and I'm going to have to take a couple weeks off. Soon I'll be interviewed by ZDogg, the simulation podcast.
Coast to Coast AM and I'll be on someone else's podcast whose name is a fairly large name but I can't announce right now. Like I mentioned those aren't my podcast I'll be interviewed instead so I'll post the links to those on Twitter as they occur as well as
Perhaps put them on the iTunes Spotify audio version if you're interested. If you'd like to hear more conversations like these, then please do consider going to Patreon.com slash KurtGymungle. It may sound silly, but literally every dollar helps. And this is now thankfully what I get to do full time. It's absolutely encouraging to see that people care. And often the notes that I get when people donate are of the form. This is so that you don't have to worry so much about finances and you could spend time with your wife.
Thank you so much. I've recently opened up a crypto address, and PayPal is also an option. The plan is to have more conversations like this of the same quality approximately once per week, at least. At some point toward the end of the year, I also plan on interviewing some of the audience members who have sent me their well-articulated PDFs. People such as Steve Agnew, Tyler Goldstein, Steve Scully, and Jennifer Scharf. Links to their remarkable work are in the description. Again, I feel a bit icky saying this as I'm not a self-promoter.
But I've been told by some people who have donated that I need to be saying this a bit more, as they wouldn't have donated if they didn't hear it to begin with. Please do consider donating or supporting it in any way that you can at patreon.com slash curtside mongol. I look down or look angry. That's my thinking face. You're familiar with that. But if I look down, I'm making notes. So please don't think I'm not paying attention. I have a bitchy resting face. Apparently I do. People told me that I just look angry all the time.
How long does it take the average person to get through your theory such that they can grok it as intuitive to them? I really can't say. Their subjective criteria would determine the answer to that. I don't have access to anybody else's mind.
If it were me, I think I would catch on fairly quickly. But some people, I have a couple of groups and we occasionally hold conferences and they get to ask questions and I think that I bring a lot of them up to speed on the theory fairly quickly. The ones who have read the theory, there are people that read the 2002 paper for example, many of them and they're quite expert on it and they've done a lot of thinking about it and they know what it's about.
Why don't you give an overview of your theory for those who are uninitiated, a broad strokes view.
Well, the CTMU is a theory of everything. There are two kinds of theory of everything. One of them is a physical theory. Usually it's related to a unified field theory in some way, which means the forces of nature is supposed to be unified into one general force. But of course, that's only part of reality. My theory is a theory of everything in the metaphysical sense. It actually has to conform to certain logical criteria, which in philosophy and metaphysics govern what a theory of everything has to be.
So I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself about itself. It is a language. A language is an algebraic structure. This is a particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself and to make decisions regarding how it models itself, which is another way to say how it evolves. And it can be modeled in many ways. You can actually look at it as an operator algebra,
It's a quantization, a new kind of quantization of reality or reality self-simulation. You can look at it from the perspective of quantum mechanics as quantum metamechanics. I believe you must have read that paper or you mentioned having a matter thing, right? Once again, as a metaformal system, which is like a formal system, but it's a generalization of the formal system that goes deeply into the nature of language. What it takes to
Here's another way to describe CTME. Basically, you've got a system, you've got this metaphorical system and it relates intelligence and intelligibility. Ontology and epistemology are coupled in this theory. Reality actually has to recognize itself and process itself. It has to do both. That's what it does. It relates intelligibility and intelligence, which are dual quantities in CTME.
Let's start from what's most fundamental and then how you work your way up from there to derive your theory.
The theory is developed by a means called logical induction. You start with – you've heard of Descartes' Cogito ergo sum, which is I think therefore I am, and you've heard of Berkeley's SES Pacific, which is basically to be is to be perceived or to perceive. You start with perception and cognition.
then you develop the minimal model of how cognition and perception work, then you induce an overall system that works by those processes. That's the way you get to the CTMU. It's called logical induction. I've been using that terminology for years. It's superior to empirical induction, by the way. Most scientists use empirical induction.
Let's get into some of the more technical questions. And for those who are listening, as a first pass, you don't have to understand all of the terminology. It's much better. I think Wheeler said this, or Wigner, I'm not sure which one.
He said that people are trying to drink from the fire holes, but the point is to just get wet. And then another quote that I like is from Neumann, Von Neumann, who said, you're not supposed to understand math, you get used to it. So that's in a similar vein. Don't worry if you don't understand all the terms or follow the logical steps in the first pass of this podcast. It's more about rewatching and then recontextualizing. For me, one of the greatest pleasures in life is being
Is there a duality between syntax and semantics? Yes.
Well, all these dualities are related. There are all kinds of dualities out there. You know where duality, the idea of duality originally comes from, right? Two points determine a line. Two lines determine a point. Where the lines intersect, you've got a point. Whereas if you draw two points, put two points on a piece of paper, you can draw a line between them. That's a duality, basically. You permute your terms and you still have an invariant truth.
What the original form of the relation remains true. So that's what a duality is. Anytime you can do that, anytime there is an invariant and you can switch things around within that invariant and the invariant stays true, that's a duality. There are many kinds of duality at the CTMU. So how are syntax and semantics related?
Well, the syntax is intrinsic. If you take a look at the language, those are the absolute invariants that every intelligible statement is made from. You know, that grammar and non-terminals and how non-terminals are substituted cumulatively until they result in terminal expressions, right? That's basically what it is. If human cognitive syntax is syntactically covered by reality syntax, how can
one meaningfully describe reality as humans. Well, as a language, when you talk about syntax and semantics, you are talking about a language. And as I say, syntax is the intrinsic structure of the language, whereas semantics involves things like definitions and interpretations. You have to define terms. All the terms, syntactic terms, are supposed to be primitive. The non-terminals are cognitively primitive, whereas when you get into semantics, now you're
combining those primitives to get defined terms to get definitions, then you're combining those in certain ways. Then once you form your expression, now you have to interpret it or form a model of it in some other structure that you've got. It's a big process. Language is, as I say, the most general algebraic structure there is. To see that, any other algebraic structure you can name is a language.
When you write it down, you are writing it down in the form of language. So automatically you know language is the most general algebraic structure. Right, I heard you say that many people think that mathematics is extremely precise, has high fidelity, it's unequivocal, whereas language, natural language, is considered to be indistinct, opaque, dubious, volutinous at the edges. That's just that most people use it sloppily, that's all.
In reality, there's nothing dubious about it. Every mathematical language, every mathematical theory is, by definition, language. So you have to decide how precise you want to be and how precisely you want to formulate things, and then you make your judgment about what's loosened and what's tight.
Is there a relationship between those two? Yes, there is. There's at least an analogy between the two because when things combine in the non-terminal domain via inter-expansion, when they overlay each other, they are more or less merging their identities and that's what love is. Love is also a combination, a merger of identities that enhances the self-actualization or self-expression of the combined entity. In other words, it's synergistic. It's more than the sum of its
This is Marshawn Beast Mode Lynch. Prize pick is making sports season even more fun. On prize picks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, you'll always feel good to be ranked. Right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use. Pick two or more players. Pick more or less on their stat projections. Anything from touchdowns to threes. And if you write, you can win big. Mix and match players from
any sport on PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app. PrizePix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas,
Now, of course, you know, that
Why is there no such thing as a literal interpretation?
is it because you mentioned before we move between models and to look at the symbols one must apply an interpretation on it and so to say literal interpretation is like saying uninterpreted interpretation and so it's oxymoronic the meaning is very simple and that is that if i hand you a book written and say sanscript
Unless you understand Sanskrit, all you're going to see is little geometric shapes on the page and it is going to have no meaning whatsoever. To extract any meaning whatsoever from those symbols, you first have to know the alphabet, the signature of the language, then you've got to know the grammar and the syntax of the language, and then you've got to actually put things together, put all the terms and the expressions together, and then you've got to interpret those or model those
in some framework that allows you to actually make sense of it. All of those steps are necessary. These are absolutely necessary steps of language. As a matter of fact, in the way we deal with reality, you can look at external reality as a language. You're looking at it. All of those steps, they all have to be solved for. They all have to be deciphered before you can actually make sense of your environment.
As a preface to this, I thought it would be instructive to go through some of the sentences that are seemingly inscrutable to someone at first glance. Then we break it down turn by turn so that someone can read this Sanskrit, essentially, not understand it, and then all of a sudden be able to. So let's take one of them. Standard physics is largely confined to the linear ectomorphic semi-model, which is retroscopic. So firstly, what is retroscopic?
That means looking backward. That means you're seeing the past. You're looking at it in the past rather than in the... Of course, your reading operation is performed in the present, but what you're looking at is in the past. It takes time to get from there to your eyes. So the speed of light dictates that it has to be in the past. The referent of the expression has to be in the past. So that's what retroscopic is. Okay, what's a semi-model?
The CTMU consists of two semi-models because it consists of two semi-languages. The semi-languages have to be coupled with each other or transformed into each other and so there are two semi-models, one in each direction. There's the advanced semi-model that goes backward in time and basically from future past and then there's the retarded semi-model which goes from past to future. Okay and linear, why do you say that
Standard physics is linear with respect to being a semi-model. Because particles and objects follow linear trajectories. And of course, there are a number of other reasons that they're linear as well. Those are algebraic reasons. I'm sure you're familiar with most of those. But basically, when I use that terminology, I'm referring to the fact that things follow lines through space. And what does ectomorphic mean?
Ectomorphic means basically when something is moving, it is projected to a point outside of itself. That's the ecto. That's the outside. Raise a spoon to Grandma, who always took all the hungry cousins to McDonald's for McNuggets and the Play Play Slide. Have something sweet in her honor. Come to McDonald's and treat yourself to the Grandma McFlurry today. Ba da ba ba ba. And participate in McDonald's for a limited time.
Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts, scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars Rover.
Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines, Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible. Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors, not the best razor business,
So that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old school shave with the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime.
So in other words, when a particle is moving, it's moving from here to there, and the there is outside of the here.
Right? Whereas if the there was inside the here, then it would be endomorphic. Right, right, right. A special kind of endomorphism called a distributed endomorphism in the CTMU. Okay, now how does this ectomorphism relate to your issues with the Zeno's paradox or with its motion as standardly defined? Well, it relates to the fact that the real manifold, as we understand, is really kind of a paradoxical construct. Okay, you can't really, where is
If you take two adjacent points, obviously something has to move. You realize that a manifold consists of limit points or zero points or cuts, dedicating cuts, and they have zero extent. Now, no matter how many times you add zero, what are you going to get as a sum? Zero. How does a manifold have any extent? If it consists of zero dimensional points, when you add all those points up, it's nothing but zero itself. You start with nothing and you get nothing.
It's a paradoxical constant, right? You've actually got to construct a manifold in a different way so that things actually, so that no point leaves its predecessor. So there's no jump that it has to make through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another. That's basically what I mean. Okay. Telek recursion, I imagine is the process by which a point makes some evolution. Uh, yes. Yes. But it's a feed. It's a feedback between past and future.
You've heard all about—retrocausation is a very big term in physics today. You've already mentioned it. But this idea of there was somebody named Costa de Beauregard who came up with these zigzags, which are basically—let's just try to simplify here. If you have a trajectory through space-time, it's going from the past to the future.
Conspansive manifold is a term that will likely come up plenty, so we should define that.
Conspansive manifold is a manifold that is self-dual in the sense that it has both distributed endomorphic and linear ectomorphic aspects. Simple as that. Those two things are absolutely dual, totally equivalent. If you can explain something adequately in the linear world, in the ectomorphic world of physics, for example, automatically it is guaranteed to have a dual in the distributed endomorphic
I'm going to call it a semi-model here. That's a bit of a liberty because I'm using the term now in a different sense than I used it before, but I have only so much terminology to go around, so I'm going to reuse it. Okay, we have this tele-recursive process which is associated with meta-time, and meta-time, as far as I understand from your theory, has a preferred arrow, whereas our time doesn't.
But our experience is of unidirectionality. So what I'm wondering is, is there a way to take the preferred arrow from this meta space and pull it back or push forward to our experience? Yes. Basically, metatime and time are orthogonal. The reason they have to be orthogonal is because metatime distributes programming over time, you could think of this being like programming.
In other words, people tend to talk about time as a before and after thing. It involves prepositions. Meta-time always terminates at an origin.
What do you mean when you say meta-simultaneous? Meta-simultaneity means that you can not only see them at the same time
in space, you can also see them at the same time and time. In other words, you can consider a past event and a future event to be simultaneous even though they're separated by a timeline. And this is something that you have to do to use the concept of meta time because things that if you write a computer program, you schedule events in the program. You see, you schedule one event has to happen here, then there's a sequence of other events and then finally there's going to be event B is going to happen, right?
But when you've got that program in front of you, both of those events are present, programmed at the same, in the same time, and you're looking at it simultaneously. That's meta-simultaneous. They're separated in time when the program is run, those two events are at different times. But when you're looking at the program itself, they're virtually simultaneous or meta-simultaneous. What's the assertion that
What generates our experience or generates our world, this terminal world, is this meta-time world, this non-terminal world, where there's meta-simultaneousness. That's basically it. The universe is closed. There's nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect it. If it's real enough to affect reality, it's got to be real and it's got to be inside reality. So that's closure.
All right, so everything has to be closed. Everything has to be formulated in a respective, in a reflexive way. In CTMU set theory, there's descriptive inclusion. And I'm wondering if there's an analog of the axiom of foundation, which states that elements of a non-empty set must be subsets thereof. So is there an analog of the axiom of foundation in the set theory that CTMU has?
Sure. Well, actually when you're dealing with set theory, you're dealing with something called topological inclusion. Topological space is a point set. It's a set of points that relate to each other in certain areas. Whereas when you're looking at it, there is a dual to that and it's because sets have intentions. Usually if you take any given set and you say, okay, consider the set of all red apples. Red apples is your intention. It's actually a property and you just choose elements which instantiate that property.
Okay, the intention requires that you can't talk about topological inclusion with respect to the intention. You've instead got to talk about descriptive inclusion. In other words, you've got to talk about more specific properties that are included in the main overall intention of the set. So you've got two kinds of inclusion, topological inclusion, which applies to sets, and you've got descriptive inclusion, which applies to properties. In set theory, the way that we understand it as mathematicians,
would be axiomatic. And yours, how would you describe it if not axiomatic? It's not based on a first order language. Well, first of all, it's not just a set theory. It's not even just category theory. It's both. The metaphorical system is a foundational language. It's presented as a foundational language for mathematics, physics, the sciences, pretty much everything. Set theory can't pull that off and neither can category theory.
But on the other hand, once you've defined the metaphorical system, you get to make use of both of those other languages as you see fit. You can pull anything out of them you want. The important thing is that you have the metaphorical system, which is the very outside, idempotent meta-language that spans between these two so-called fundamental languages, set theory and category theory.
Of course, they say there's already a blend between set theory and category theory called topos theory, but that too leaves something to be desired. There's a lot of missing structure there. It doesn't qualify as foundation language. So how does your metaphorical system differ? Like, what is it? Describe it simply for people who are unacquainted. Sure, the metaphorical system is simply a language that is quantized, not in terms of signs, but in terms of syntactors and identification.
Syntactor is an active sign. It's something that actually has two data types, a syntactic data type and an input data type. It can accept things from the external world, process them internally, which gives it an internal statement, release its processing back into the real world, this output. That's a syntactor. It's fundamentally different from a sign. Usually when a person looks at a sign or a word or something like that, they do all the processing inside their head and they forget the fact that, wait a minute,
This processing, whatever it is, it requires me. I'm actually having to do this. Mathematicians don't usually reason that way. If you're a mathematician, you kind of forget about yourself and you look at things as though they're totally objective. That is not how reality is quantized in the CTMU. It has both a subjective and objective aspect. That's what syntactors and telors or syntactic identification operators and telic identification operators are in the CTMU.
and we would be an example of a teller yes and what are some other examples i heard god or god is the ultimate teller then we're almost global operator description and then fundamental fermions let's say are a tertiary level so is that correct okay and explain those are tertiary syntactics so explain that that there are three levels of syntactic operators or tellers
Okay, so why, first of all, why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means again once more to be a syntactic operator? You know, they're just scales, they're scales of coherence in causation, in structure and causation. Just basically you've got to, you have the universe, the universe is closed, it is one unary entity, that's your primary quantum. Okay, but now everything, it's got to be self-composed because there's nothing external of which it can be composed.
It has to
what it takes to actually decide on events and emerge in events. That takes telesis. You've got to have this other kind of quantum of causation, this secondary quantum of causation called telesis, and that means that telesis is bound. That's the monic substrate of the universe. It must be bound by these things called telors. We are telors. We actually bind telesis in this way so that causation can be completed, so that events can actually occur.
All of this nonsense about, well, quantum randomness and quantum indeterminacy. If something is totally random and indeterministic, there is no reason for it to occur and it won't occur. It's not just the principle of insufficient reason that I'm talking about here. I'm talking about something has to be distinguished from its logical complement. Basically, that act of distinction, it takes a certain amount of information to complete that.
So we are the ones who provide that information, either directly or indirectly. What is meant when you say that TELUS is bound, that we bind it? Well, basically, we're quantifying it. We're logically binding it using something analogous to quantifiers and predicate logic, so that events occur. In other words, we're binding it into events. We're taking something that is basically conspensive, that is self-potentializing, it consists of potentials and actualities
Intellic recursion, one of the ways I've heard it explained is that
for an evolution of the system it looks back at all possible at all the states that it previously has in its memory to make a decision about the future and it makes a decision about the future based on a generalized utility function when we are exercising free will first of all does free will exist we can talk about that okay secondly let's assume free will exist because yes right
How, when we're operating with our free will, how are we looking back at all the decisions? So for example, right now, if I make a decision, I don't have perfect memory. But at the same time, in tele-recursion, it seems like all of the states are being considered. So am I only conscious of a few, but unconscious? You're locked into terminal consciousness. You have a form of consciousness that is appropriate to life in the terminal domain. Okay, what I'm talking about, tele-recursion occurs in a non-terminal domain. It involves a different form of consciousness.
And in the Conspansive Manifold, it's its own memory. It consists of layer upon layer upon layer of events that never disappear and never go away. They're right there. You don't even have to reach into storage and pull this information out. It's right there. All right. That's one of the advantages of having a manifold structured in the way the CTME is structured. Everything is right there as it is needed. And of course, telons are adaptive. Telequicursion is adaptive.
When things happen that are not necessarily in accord with a certain telon, the telon adapts to the new set of resources at its disposal and comes together again approaching the same final outcome. Does one have to be adaptive if one is, let's say, incoherent, which I heard you equate evil to? Is that a possibility? I didn't equate evil to incoherence. I said evil is incoherent.
Basically, it's incoherent because evil is anti-existence. Basically, it hates existence and it wants to go out of existence. But when you take a bunch of evil and it won't recognize its own existence and it won't recognize the existence of anything else, it's very hard to coordinate. It can't be coordinated so it becomes incoherent. The only way that evil actually achieves any sort of reality
is it uses physical systems to do it. It nucleates physical systems and uses their structure, their power structures, their hierarchies, in order to be realized. But it has no coherence of its own. It's anti-coherent. In the CTMU there's this hierarchy of meta-languages. And what I'm wondering is, is it possible for two sub-languages to be incomparable under ordering? In other words, can languages be arranged in a
Totally incomparable? No, that's a violation of syndipheniesis. In the CTMU, there's a universal relational structure called syndipheniesis. It means that syntax, something synetic, is being distributed over different related or relapse, things that are related. The syntax distributes over them and makes them comparable. Things are never totally incomparable.
Okay, so this gets into separate objects which you would argue doesn't exist. So let's say we have an apple and then we have a cup. They're, in your terms, diphyonic Rillens.
But then by the fact that I can point them out, I'm using a cognitive structure and that cognitive structure distributes over both of them, which relates them. And so by even by pointing out that there are two separate objects, I'm also pointing out how these objects are the same. So by pointing out difference, I'm pointing out sameness. Is that correct? You don't have to point anything out. Basically, you're just distributing your awareness over both. Your awareness being the focus of your awareness is a logical property which you are distributing over both of those objects. That's syndiphaniesis.
A conscious universe has to have that. It's the only possible relational structure it can have. Okay. So we have this conspansive manifold and it has an intrinsic background or I assume that's related to what physicists may call background. It is its own background. That's closure. It's ontic closure. All real operations, real relevant valid operations basically start with reality and end with reality. It's complete closure. Nothing unreal ever really comes in for obvious reasons.
This background-free place, does it consist of non-terminal symbols? It consists of telexes. It consists of telexes. The whole idea here is we need a theory of multi-aspect monism. The monism refers to one underlying substance. It's actually a metasubstance because it's both self-attributive and self-composed. It does all of that stuff for itself. It makes attributions to itself and it is composed of itself.
In this monic structure, how does one get differentiation from monism, from unity? That's what TELESIS does. TELESIS differentiates itself syndepionically.
Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis?
Excuse me? Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Leptogenesis? Yeah. You got me on that one. There's a disparity between matter and anti-matter. One of the propositions is there's something called leptogenesis, which accounts for this asymmetry. Right. Well, let's just put it this way. If it cannot be explained within the CTMU, then it cannot be explained. The CTMU is called a TOE for a reason. It's comprehensive.
Would you consider the CTMU to be more of a definition than a theory? It's both a definition and a theory. It's the self definition of reality. Reality must define itself.
Getting back to this background independent place, there's a question here about
If this coincides with Einstein and Mach had this idea of... Sorry, I'm sure you've heard of Mach's principle. Yes. Okay. What does the CTMU have to say about Mach's principle and is it related to this intrinsic background? Maybe I better ask what your formulation of Mach's principle is. Sure, sure, sure. It's strange that we can feel rotation when we do so.
And it seems as if it's related by the distribution of matter far away, like there's an actual background. So now if there's an intrinsic background in the CTMU, does that serve as some basis for Mach's principle? Yes. Well, you're actually coupled with your background. That's one thing that you see in the theory of relativity. Basically, the medium is given some kind of separate structure separate from the content of the medium.
But you actually have to couple those two things. Relatively, it would make no sense at all if you didn't. So as far as being able to inertia and being able to feel, and you talk about angular momentum and inertia, basically those two things are a function of that coupling, the way you are coupled to your environment. Like I said, this is how the CTME quantizes things, uses these dual couplings to do that.
And of course, but that's all intrinsic. I mean, keep in mind that's all intrinsic. There's nothing external to the universe. So if you're going to talk about the universe rotating in some external medium, that's not valid. Okay, the rotation for all rotation is intrinsic. And the way it can be intrinsic is because you're formulating it as a coupling of it and its content that you're actually making. You're actually introducing some kind of angular momentum between them. That's intrinsic. And of course, as you know,
I also heard you talk about the fact that the universe is expanding. It's a strange concept because what is it expanding into? However, I think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding. It's more about the metric is changing. So now let's imagine
That's what the statement is. The metric is changing. So what's the problem with that statement and why does it need the CTMU to solve it? Because it's conspanding. It's basically when you say the metric is changing, you mean that the scale of the whole and its parts are changing with respect to each other. They're changing contravariantly. As the universe gets bigger, the parts, the little particles and objects embedded in it gets smaller relative to the universe.
to this, you know, everything is relative. Right. And the size of objects is defined relative to the size of the universe and vice versa. So you've got this relativistic relationship between the whole and its parts and this contravariance is called conspension. I'm not understanding how.
I understand that there's a problem with saying that the universe is expanding because it implies that it's embedded in something higher. The metric isn't expanding. The metric is actually contracted. You know what co-moving coordinates are? Basically, as the universe expands, co-moving coordinates actually co-move with the universe itself.
Our metric means the metric that we use, the scale of distance that we use in the everyday world that exists between us and the objects that surrounds us.
I'm going to be jumping around quite a bit. Now that we're on the topic of how you
thought of your theory and how you came up with it quite some time ago. I'm curious, what does the process of coming up with the CTMU look like practically speaking? Do you have a whiteboard? Do you just sit alone with a pipe? Do you bounce it off your wife? Do you go for walks? How are you coming up with the theory? It just sort of comes to you. Sometimes you start thinking, okay,
I'm very good at recognizing paradoxes and inconsistencies. It's just a little thing that I'm good at. I noticed a lot of paradoxes and inconsistencies from an early age onward in the way people explain things. I'd ask them for explanations. They wouldn't be able to explain things to my satisfaction. I'd ask myself, why doesn't this appear to make sense? I would find out there were certain things that didn't make sense. Then armed with those paradoxes, I would work on resolving
And from those resolutions came the CTM. Let's give an example of a paradox that's been resolved by the CTMU. So Newcombe's paradox is one. Do you mind explaining the paradox of Newcombe and then also your solution to it? So that's kind of a long paradox, but basically you've got this predictor who has never been wrong before.
And he's got this game that he plays where he shows you a box with $1,000 in it and tells you that you can take either one of these boxes, the opaque box, so you can take both boxes. But if you do not take this transparent box with $1,000 in it, I've put a million dollars. I already know what you're going to do. I've put a million dollars in the opaque box.
If you try to take both boxes and make that extra $1,000 that you can see right in front of your face here, if you've done that, I've left this opaque box empty. So you're going to get scummed. You're going to get your $1,000 and you're going to have a nice dinner someplace and then that's going to be it. That's Newcomb's paradox. But unfortunately, the subject, the one who he's running this game on, has to
strategies from which he has to choose. And one of them is, of course, that, well, this predictor has never been wrong. So therefore, I'd better do that. The other one says, well, wait a minute, nobody can actually predict the future. This is some kind of a lucky run that this guy has had.
The opinions rendered herein are those of the guests, and not necessarily those of Douglas Goldstein, Profile Investment Services, Ltd., or Israel National News.
And so that's enough. The thousand dollars has enough value that he's going to take that instead and he's going to enrich himself more and thusly increase his utility. And of course, increasing your utility is the whole raison d'etre of economics. In economic theory, that's what you're always supposed to do, increase your utility. So it's considered an important paradox because of its applicability to economics and causation in general. Is it possible to predict the future?
Well, Newcombe's demon, which is what I call him, is analogous to the programmer of a simulation. He's already run this simulation in which you think you have free will, but he basically knows what your free will is in advance, right? So he has, you know, that is what has allowed him to do this with the boxes. Okay, so that's the paradox. Now, how does the resolution come in?
The resolution is nobody ever placed it in a simulation before. I was the only person to ever place it in a simulation back in 1989 by saying, okay, well, basically now we have to use the idea that reality may be a simulation and that Newcomb's Demon is somehow a programmer of this simulation. This was the first application of the simulation hypothesis. Everybody talks about it now, but you'll never see my name mentioned in connection with it.
Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor
Okay, Mr. Moneybags, Elon Musk, and then there's another fellow named Nick Bostrom, who I guess is at Oxford or someplace. He's got something called the simulation argument, which is basically a little bit extraneous to the simulation hypothesis. It's how likely the simulation hypothesis is to be true on the basis of how humanity has evolved. How shall we say the species that is simulating
reality for humanity has evolved. Do they have the technology to do it? Don't they have the technology to do it? That's what Boston is talking about. Now, how does posing Newcomb's paradox in the frame of simulation help it? It basically tells you that you might be in a simulation. So you better take a very close look at what Newcomb's demon has actually succeeded in doing. It's got a long arbitrarily long sequence of sequence of correct predictions.
You'd better give the demon its due, and you'd better take just the opaque box. That's the only way you're getting your milk. Does that mean that the person being simulated doesn't have free will? No, it does not. Why would it? Just because the demon knows what he's going to choose, that somehow deprives him of free will? Well, see, this is the problem that I had to solve by integrating this into the CTME.
Okay, you actually have a pre geometric or non terminal domain in which Newcombe's demon actually exists and in which he actually makes his predictions. You see. So that's that's what it amounts to. You see, how does being here that sound.
That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms.
There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone.
of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com
In the non-terminal domain and being able to discern what this person's decision is going to be, not violate free will for that person. For that person from their perspective are you saying they have free will but from another perspective they don't have free will or no matter what they have free will from both vantage points?
Well, you have free will, period, to the extent that the universe has free will. As I said, the universe is self-composed. You are a component of the universe, therefore you have inherited free will from the universe itself. So everything, even a quantum particle to some extent, has free will or freedom. It has degrees of freedom. It's not totally determined. Now, from God's point of view, however, God knows, let's just put it this way, let's forget about Newcomb's Demon for a second and talk about God.
God can see reality as a whole. You know what Einstein's block universe is, right? God sees the universe not as a block. He sees the universe through the eyes of its secondary toes. That's how he's seeing. That's how he's looking and seeing the universe through our eyes, where God's sensor controls, which puts a whole different complexion on it. He waits for us to make up our minds before he knows what he's seeing. In other words, what we see is what we've decided on.
So God is automatically allowing for our decisions, automatically making them. We see what we decide. Can you explain? Everything we decide, when we decide to commit an event or commit an act, automatically we know we can see ourselves committing the act. That's what I mean. That doesn't mean that we determine everything that's going on around us.
But God sees that too through our hearts. So it doesn't mean that we can see whatever we like, that for example, if I wished that there was no wall here, then I would see no wall. Does that mean that or are there limitations on my perception? Well, of course there are. Okay. There is a state of affairs and external state of affairs that has been created by other tellers. It's not entirely up to you. Okay. So you are constrained in what you can see by the state of the external world.
When one does psychedelics, are they operating now in this geometric pre-infocognition plane? Well, what the psychedelics do is they introduce a gap between the terminal and non-terminal realms and kind of allow you to see things that aren't really in the terminal realm. And that's what those hallucinations are. Okay, you still got one foot in the terminal realm, but the psychedelic has kind of opened up a gap there.
and you're sort of in that gap so there are degrees of freedom but you can actually perceive or should I say hallucinate, you see. You have things that you think are perceptions that seem like perceptions but actually there's this gap that has opened up and you're inhabiting that gap and that's what the psychedelics are doing. They've been finding out that basically all chemistry is quantum and they know for example that quantum mechanics
When one says hallucinations usually they mean we're seeing apparitions that aren't actually there, that's not real. Now I know that you have a qualm with saying that anything is not real. Well it is, it's mentally real. I mean what I'm saying is
Reality is a coupling of mind and physical reality with non-terminal and non-terminal reality. Therefore, there is such a thing as subjective existence. Syntax exists, for example. Any combination of syntax, you can put it together however you want to and that has mental existence. Is it realized in the terminal realm? Not necessarily. You don't find me a unicorn. There are unary and slash nullary relations
They have two levels, synetic and dipheonic. Do you mind explaining that? Well, all relations are syn-dipheonic. When you see two different things, or even when you see yourself, you're distributing your own cognition over yourself. Therefore, you've got that synesis and dipheonesis. You've got basically a property and something instantiating the property. That's what that means.
You mentioned that there are three ways in which the syndepionic relationship is self-dual. There are three ways. But does it have to be three ways? Does it just happen to be that there are three ways, or is that a necessary component for them to exist somehow? I'm talking about general symmetries of the syndepionic relationship. You know what a Minkowski diagram is, right? It's got a space axis, horizontal space axis, and then temporal axes that are orthogonal to it that go up into the future and past.
And just imagine that you could rotate Minkowski space, right? Well, you can rotate a syndepionic relation in the same way, right? And because the time axis is ordinal, whereas the space axis is all about arity or the number of things that you're seeing in parallel out in the real world, you're actually making transformations between ordinality and arity.
in the relation and there are other kinds of duality as well. I could probably find more than three if I looked very hard. No, the line metatime axis that relates one to the other, that's ordinal.
You also mentioned that they're dual because they have an active and a passive interpretation. What do you mean by that? An active and passive interpretation? We recognize things, but have you ever heard of John Wheeler's observer participation thesis? No. John Wheeler had this idea called the observer participation thesis.
that when we see a quantum event, when we look at a far away star and a photon from that star hits our eye, we are somehow participating in that event. That's what we're talking about. Basically, you cannot just watch something without actively participating. You're actually agreeing to it in some way. You're actually actively putting yourself, by perceiving it, you are contributing your perception to it.
and because of the nature of telecysts it's impossible for you to stop yourself from becoming actively entangled with it. You can't just passively perceive things. Those things also have you and the thing that you're observing both have an impact on each other. That's the way it has to work because all of these you've got this causal symmetry in the CTMU and in other theories as well. How would that work
On a more mundane level where there's a wall, let's say, whether I look at the wall or not, does that have any bearing to the wall? Does it exist or not exist when I look? Does it erode more when I look, for example? Yes, you are participating in the existence of the wall. Right. Can the wall not self perceive? Can it not perceive itself? The tertiary syntactors in the wall can and do perceive each other in a limited way. Yes.
But in terms of the secondary utility of the wall, what it's actually doing in the world, you're participating in that. As a matter of fact, human constructed walls wouldn't exist unless they were useful to tellers like you. You can't look at anything without participating in its existence.
That's what a measurement event is. When you measure the spin of a particle up or down, you are participating in that determination. That measurement is yours. You're the one who set up the measurement device. You're asking a yes or no question, and your question is being answered. You impose the question on reality, and reality is answering the question for you. There's this active passive symmetry in everything.
Let's get to one more of these abstract sentences. The maximal generality in brackets, universality, comprehensiveness, criterion of a reality, theoretic identity, or ontologically necessary and sufficient theory of everything means that a fully general formal structure must be selected as the skeletal identity of a toe framework. OK, so let's break down some of these terms, term by term. Maximal generality. Comprehensive.
Okay, reality-theoretic identity. That means when you know what an identity is, that's something as which that thing exists, okay? Basically, that's its identity. You exist as a secondary tele, that's part of your identity, any property that you can assign to yourself, that's part of your identity. Fully general formal structure, is that related to the metaphorical structure you mentioned earlier? Yes, sometimes I use formal for metaphorical because
The Metaformal System is, you know, intrinsically a Metaformal System, but by virtue of its description. But I have to write that description down in a formal way. It's got to be written on a piece of paper and you kind of add the Metaformality to it with your own by understanding what it's saying. But it's written down on a sheet of paper and that makes it formal. It's a form as opposed to the content of the form. All right. And the skeletal identity.
Skeletal means that it's just a set of invariants in which without interfering with those invariants, there's a lot of variability. Reality can vary, can change, can adapt without disturbing its essential invariants. So those essential invariants are skeletal reality. You flush it out. Must a theory of everything explain mental activity? Yes.
To a certain extent, it's not going to determine mental activity. There's no such thing as a deterministic theory of reality, but it has to explain the wherewithal of mental activity. I'm trying to find out what ingredients, some people have different definitions of theories of everything, you mentioned this before, a grand unified one which is more of a physics term for gravity and so on, or one that explains consciousness or one that explains the explanations themselves.
The theory of everything has to explain all of those things, everything. It's to be taken literally. Anybody who doesn't take it literally is making a mistake. Do you have any thoughts as to the biological origins of life? Sure, life originated biologically, but it also originated metaphysically. It comes from the origin. It's part of the structure of the universe. It was inevitable.
to say that, well, there could have been a universe with no life where life just never got started, never formed. That's hogwash. There is basically no reason for such a universe to exist even for itself. That's an absurdity. It's a little bit like the anthropic principle, but it's the anthropic principle with utility.
Part of the reason the universe exists is because there are secondary tellers that derive utility from it. Otherwise, what is its reason to exist? The universe just simply exists and it has baked within it some teller, some purpose. And one of those purposes is to observe itself through secondary tellers. That's its structure. In order to exist, the universe must have certain aspects of structure.
Why is that inconsistent with the anthropic principle?
Why can't it just be that there are multiple universes and we can call that all the collection of universes one meta universe or one large universe and call that the true universe let's say? Well that's what the CTME does. The CTME incorporates something called a syntactic metaverse. But in terms of how do all those universes that you're talking about putting them all together and collecting them into a set, how do they come into existence? Why? It's the reason. You need to justify it otherwise
Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor
Schrodinger equation is deterministic and everything that all of those possibilities that exist in that equation should continue to exist without quantum collapse. So he converted quantum collapse events into a divergence of universes. In order for this to work, you need to have certain things, certain assumptions have to be in place. For example, you need a fixed array in order to parameterize all the events and identify all your particles and events.
in the universe so that you know just exactly how the eventualities are splitting. It turns out that these assumptions are not pathologically viable. Although Everett was correct in that there is a metaverse
He sort of mischaracterized it. It's not infinity upon infinity of the universes that are pointlessly diverging in every tiny little quantum event. That's ridiculous. But the idea of a metaverse of this universe that exists prior to, in some sense, the reality that we inhabit, that's a valid idea. So he sort of hit the nail on the head and then he kind of went off on a tangent.
in order to make his theory work, in order to get his interpretation of all of these, to interpret the multiverse or the metaverse as being this collection, this vast collection of pointlessly diverging universes. Because we have telec recursion, the way that I understand that is that at each expansion point in the manifold over time, somehow
the points are evolving and including their neighbors and I recall you saying at the speed of light forget about at the speed of light because that can take us down another route regardless their speed of constant the rate of construction is usually okay cool so they're absorbing and then that translates to a positive cosmological constant because the universe seems as if it's contracting from one point of view or expanding from another okay do you have to have a prediction for I know that your theory says
There should be a positive cosmological constant. Does it have a calculation as to what range it should look like? Yes. There's plenty of positive numbers. I've made calculations. I'm not going to announce them here. I'll publish them first and then we can talk about them. All right. What's meant by existence is everywhere the choice to exist? Well, that's that active passive duality that we were talking about before. Okay. In the CTMU,
Tellers are basically secondary quantum, and they've got to nucleate physical bodies. So they actually have to actively participate in their own birth. Do they do so of some proto-will, or is it happenstance? They inherit the will of the universe. The will of the universe is to exist. Therefore, any part of the universe in the non-terminal domain, you've got things everywhere that are seeking to exist.
The terminal domain provides them with resources that they can use to actualize themselves, and this is what happens. And you mean that they want to exist at the diphyonic level, at this terminal level, or you mean to say that they want to exist at all? Because to me, as I hear that, when someone says this entity wants to exist, it implies it already exists.
You need a physical, in order to truly exist in the sense that most people mean, you actually need this form content feedback. In order to fully exist, things do require some kind of a terminal body. Where people get confused is they think that their terminal body can only be of a certain kind in a certain world. That's not necessarily true. There can be many different kinds of terminal realization.
All right? For example, there can be an afterlife, a heaven or a hell for example, in which you can exist and have another kind of terminal body which was generated just for that world or just for that heaven or hell. You see, it doesn't necessarily have to be right here. One way or another, you need those resources in order to fully instantiate your existence.
Otherwise, your existence never achieves full resolution. It is never fully actualized. The universe wants to actualize itself everywhere it can. That's why we have this profusion of life. That's why we have all these different species, all these different organisms. Telesis wants to actualize itself. It wants to exist and this world provides it with the resources to do so.
So is it akin to God wanting to exist, God wanting there to be more God? Yes, that's exactly right. That's why I say reality is closed. It has to be totally self-justified. Existence is the will to exist. You've also heard me possibly use a term called triality. As the identity of reality, this global operator descriptor is not only
an object and a relationship, it's also a process or an operator. In other words, you can imagine that the universe is not just an object, it's an event. It's a creation event. That's what the universe is, a self-creation event or self-identification event. Everywhere in the universe, these self-creation or self-identification events are seeking to occur. They're trying to occur.
Particles are being created and annihilated everywhere in the universe because they're inheriting this will to exist from the universe itself and this is a criterion of existence. Without it, existence is impossible. You can't just exist for a second and then not be an operation that maintains your existence because that second is meaningless. It's got to be a permanent existence.
It's got to be in some sense atemporal or eternal. That's what God is. Basically, God is being equated to ultimate reality, so God is eternal in this sense. To get to Wittgensteinian, when you say eternal, do you mean infinite temporal length or timelessness? Basically, we're talking about atemporality which is timelessness. In other words, it's prior to time. It's pre-temporal in a way.
Before we get further, some people may be turned off by the use of the word God, so I'd like you to define how you use it because you have a
Well, it comports with the general definition of God, but it's more specific. Well, I've done everybody the favor of making an acronym out of it, global operator descriptor, the identity of reality or ultimate reality. Okay. As far as personifying it is concerned, anthropomorphizing it or whatever you want to call it, that follows from the properties of the G.O.D.
of the global operator descriptor. We find out that it has certain properties ordinarily attributed to God by people who have religious beliefs, usually monotheistic beliefs. That's the correct way.
So that's what
Now these tertiary tellers come into existence because of their will to exist, at least from my understanding, but at the same time at the secondary level, at our level, it seems like not everyone has a will to exist, which you also mentioned is equivalent to evil or at least cognate with it. Is
Is it possible for a particle to have an anti will to exist? Most people who commit commit suicide basically have no will to exist. They're not anti existence. Yeah. So suicide is not necessarily evil in the sense of a mass murderer who tries to destroy civilization and the human species. They're not quite the same thing. Can a particle commit suicide in a sense? Can a particle have a suicide? Particle does not have sufficient self modeling capacity to make that decision for itself.
Can you talk about what good is defined as and what evil is defined as? Basically good is what reality as a whole wants, teleology, the will of God, people have many terms for it and evil is its opposite.
Good wants self-actualization and self-identification. That is what the universe is doing. It is one huge massive self-identification event. Everything in it, all of the events are self-identification events that go into its self-actualization.
What's meant by self-actualization? That's a term that some new HP people use and let's delineate it. Okay, well, a physicist would call it a quantum wave function collapse. The quantum wave function, you know, according to the Schrodinger equation, you've got a quantum wave function, it expands, it's radiating out into space, and then suddenly it collapses. That's inter-expansion and collapse.
I tend to get bogged down in words, so I'm going to press you sometimes and it may seem unduly persnickety, but when you say self-actualized, is it not the case that there is only self-actualization, not just actualization because the universe
is itself? That's correct, that is correct. Everything is self-actualization of the universe, if not necessarily of you. Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the human singularity versus the theological, sorry, versus the technological singularity? The tech singularity, right. Well, the human singularity, it's all about how, it's all about human destiny and how responsibility for human destiny is distributed.
If there's a tech singularity, if there's a human singularity, we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and where it's going and how to realize it. That distributes the whole thing over humanity as a whole and no one gets left out. If we have a tech singularity, everything will be controlled by the people who own the technology. Those are mega corporations run by people who are not typically very nice or public spirited people.
They're highly acquisitive. They tend to be narcissistic, Machiavellian, sadistic sometimes. Basically, these are not all good people. There are exceptions. There are some people that have a lot of money or are in charge of various kinds of technological enterprise that aren't totally bad people. But when you put too many of them together, they start getting the idea that they're elite and they should be in charge.
and they start deciding that people are useless eaters. There are too many of them and for the good of the planet and really because they're a nuisance, we have to get rid of them. This kind of talk has been going on for centuries. A lot of people aren't aware of it, but the elite tend to form these ideations when left to their own devices. So if there is a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology, that technology will be used against the human species.
It's almost certain, and that is called a parasitic divergence, where they become a parasitic subspecies of the human race and the rest of us become their boosts. Now the human singularity, it's one that you advocate for, something that we should have instead of the technological singularity. What is the human singularity? Well, it's been laid out by others. For instance, Teilhard de Chardin, probably familiar with him, he was a Jesuit
Priest who came up with this idea of the Omega Point. We're approaching this quickening of consciousness where we're going to realize what we are, who we are, our relationship with God and reality and fulfill our destiny. This is going to be this huge worldwide global event and it's going to save us and allow us to pass through the great filter and realize our destiny.
That's what it is. He used that term great filter or did you just come up with that great filter? No, great filter is a term that's been around for a while. It's basically every species, you know, as it develops technology and starts killing itself with pollution and overpopulation, every species comes to a point where it either has to grow up and live sanely and sustainably in its environment or it dies.
Part of the technological singularity, one of the reasons why people are venerating it is because there's the potential for minds to be uploaded into classical computers. Really? Whose theory is that? This is what I want to ask you about. There is no theory. It has no underlying theory. Why do you laugh? Why is it absurd? And let's imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to, but some other, maybe quantum computer. Why is that outrageous? Because that's not the way reality is structured.
The reality exists on other terms entirely. You're not going to build a machine. It is not mechanical. It is metamechanical or protomechanical. You might be able to call it that, but you're not going to be able to use a universal Turing machine, or for that matter, a quantum Turing machine, to simulate it. It can't be done. It does not satisfy the requirements for existence. There is no theory. There is no theory of transhumanism, how this whole thing is going to occur.
All right, unless you can point me to a theory. Now, if you can do that, I'll change my mind. I'm an open-minded person. I don't think there is such a theory. You just mentioned mechanical. Is this because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telek causation, or is this unrelated to that? Telek causation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is. Mechanical causation is incoherent. You have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be bolted together in the right way that the machine works,
Do you have any
Entanglement speed. So what I mean by that is some theories predict that there's a maximum speed of entanglement. Right now, as far as we can tell, there's no speed to it. It's just instantaneous. I'm curious if in your models, it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere simultaneously, or if there is also a speed associated with it. Well, you're just talking about some kind of terminal lag. In reality, entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain.
How does one solve the Liar's Paradox in your model? The Epimenides Paradox?
The one that says this sentence is false. Right. Well, you simply exclude that kind of sentence from around and you say, well, that is a pathologically construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain. Unless you can find me an instantiation and I don't think you can because it's paradoxical. So it's akin to naive set theories move to ZFC where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements of them.
set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves. It's akin to that. You just negate it. You say that's not a possibility. It is a possibility. You just can't involve the negation product. You can't involve the self-negation product. You can have sets that are self-inclusive. We've got self-inclusion all over the place. Fractal geometry. There are all kinds of things. Consciousness itself. All kinds of things that are self-inclusive. But you can't allow this misuse of the negation factor
Okay, you can't allow that to intrude on them and render them paradoxical. That's what I'm saying.
It can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form, which is sufficiently well formed that you can apprehend it or think you apprehend it, but in reality it is incapable of instantiation. You can formulate it and then you can envision it in the non-terminal realm. You cannot, however, achieve an instantiation, an actualization on it because it violates the terms of existence in the terminal realm.
What happens after death? So there's a couple ways to interpret that. What I mean is, let's talk about what is death? What does it mean to die? That's the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this present time. When you are retracted from this reality, you go back up toward the origin of reality,
You can be provided with a substitute body, another terminal, another kind of terminal body that allows you to keep on existing. With the same memories? With the modicum of your memories before or a complete eraser? You can have, these memories can be, nothing goes out of existence in the Conspensive Math. Your memories can always be pulled back out if that's
But there's no reason to do that, usually. Okay? Why cling to memories of a world in which you are no longer instantiated? So there are certain automatic psychological things that happen on death, at the moment of death. And also you mentioned what happens after death. That's not quite appropriate, of course, because that's a temporal preposition. And when you're extracted from the terminal domain, you're no longer time-like. Now you're basically meta-temporal.
So when people talk about heaven, which I know you have your own views, a specific differentiated view I haven't heard before as to what heaven is and even hell,
When people talk about heaven, usually what they mean is something like a re-instantiation of this body with probably a better hairline than I have. You should see Bernardo Castro, which I should put you in touch with. Have you heard of Bernardo Castro? I've heard of Bernardo. I think he was on email distribution. One of Jack Sarfatti's email distributions. Who's that? Jack who?
Jack Sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics. Is he related to UFOs? Does he study UFOs? As a matter of fact, I think right now he's working on metamaterials that will allow us to build spacecraft that emulate tic tacs. We're going to talk about that, man. I mean, yeah, he's a gonzo physicist, right?
He's been around since the 1960s and he and a bunch of other guys like Sarag and Nick Herbert and Fred Allen Wolf and other people like this. There's a guy named David Kaiser, I think he's in MIT. He wrote a book called How the Hippies Saved Physics.
And these were the guys, these were non-locality and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes came from these guys. But in reality, they have a lot of very productive thoughts. And in a way, the world we're living in now is an outgrowth of some of what they were thinking and doing in those days. Some of these guys are still around. I mean, not just Jacques Zarfetti, but you've also got other guys like, I know Nick Herbert is still there. And I know that Wolf is still there. Sirag is still there. These guys are on email distributions that
that Jack sometimes puts me on one of his distributions. I want to talk to Jack at some point. I heard that I should talk to Jack. What I've been exploring recently is the topic of UFOs because like you know this podcast is about theoretical physics, consciousness, free will and God and it seems like UFOs from our observations of them break the laws of physics as we know. So a simple one is angular, sorry, a simple one is
Conservation of momentum. How can you move back and forth? We have to assume a certain mass is associated with the craft. Well, yes. And of course, mass amounts to inertia and that's a violation of inertia. You can't just suddenly turn on the turn on the time like that. Right. So that's what I've been exploring. Unless you're dealing with a projection. Right, right. That's also called spoofing, I believe. Have you heard that term? Yeah, I've heard the term spoofing, but you need a better theater.
What are your thoughts on UFOs in general, as well as the recent disclosure movements? Is there anything about UFOs that you find convincing that they are, in fact,
Maybe us from the future may be associated with God or demons or angels or just an advanced civilization visiting us in the same way that we house people at zoos. I mean animals. They could be any or all of those things. There could be different kinds that some kinds that come from the future. Sometimes there's some kinds that come from another planet elsewhere in the universe. But they definitely you've got too much reportage on them. There are too many people who are coming up with heartfelt stories
about them. They can't possibly all be fake. People aren't liars. If someone's going to risk his reputation and be called a nut by coming out and saying, I saw a UFO, you have to take that person a little bit seriously. Sure, there are scammers out there and people who are going to lie about it, but I don't think we could have this much reportage without actually having something to it.
With TD Early Pay, you get your paycheck up to two business days early, which means you can go to tonight's game on a whim, check out a pop-up art show, or even try those limited edition donuts. Because why not?
You mentioned the word woo about five minutes ago. What I'm wondering is, did you used to have a conception of what you thought was woo? So for example,
Well, I mean, I have had a number of paranormal experiences and began having them at a rather young age. And that's one of the reasons I had to develop the CTM, to develop an extended picture of reality that would actually accommodate alternate states of being, alternate states of mind.
And so that is rather than dismissing the experiences that I had in the past, I've actually become more comfortable with it. What are some of these paranormal experiences? Well, you know, psychokinesis, telepathy, lots of precognition in my case, out of body experiences, you name it.
I don't know the single kind of paranormal event that I haven't spontaneously experienced at one point or another. Have you witnessed any UFOs on your own? Well, yes, I have. And I was basically up near, I was working for the U.S. Forest Service and I was up near in central Montana, near Malmstrom Air Force Base, by the way, where their number has shown up. I saw
something in the sky and actually stood and watched it for 30 minutes until I got bored and drove away. I was driving a US Forest Service pickup truck, but literally stood there leaning against the back of the truck, looking directly at it for a long, long time. It was perfectly, it did not change shape. It did not change position. It was right up there in the sky over
What do you estimate its size to be? You see, it's very, very difficult to tell because getting a distance fix on something like that is very, very hard.
Could have been anywhere from 500 yards to five miles in diameter. I don't know, but it was huge. Was it one of the triangular UFOs or was it a more disc-like? It was oblate. It looked to me like an oblate spheroid. And one of the first things I thought, well, this must be a lenticular cloud.
And so I kept on looking at it to find out if it was, you know, to see, okay, if it's a lenticular cloud, I'm going to see some sign of movement. There's going to be something there. It was nothing like that. This thing was totally solid metallic and it did not change. I kept on staring directly at it to see if it would change. You know, if it doesn't change, change, you know, do something, but it would. So as I said, I stared there for, you know,
Can you give me an example of another paranormal experience of yours, a specific one?
I was lying down and I woke up and I thought maybe I'll get up and go to the bathroom or something. So I tried to move and I couldn't. Immediately I started to panic and there was a wall next to me. So I figured what's going on? There's a bookshelf next to me on the wall right next to my head. That bookshelf was four feet above the ground.
Okay. In other words, somehow I must have risen above my body. I couldn't figure out how this happened. But anyway, I thought, oh my God, am I dead? What time is it? How long have I been dead? Suddenly I floated. I began to move. I floated in from the room that I was on into the kitchen of the house that I was in, turned a corner and looked directly at a clock that was on the stove there and saw the time.
And at that point I realized this is basically the middle of the night and I woke up back up in my body. It took me a little bit and I got control of my muscles and I walked back in and it was one minute later than it was when I looked at the clock. So of course now some people are very good at gauging time and figuring out what time it is but that was an exact estimate of the time after I've been asleep for some period of time.
Have you had any intimations of God speaking to you? Well now you're getting a little bit, yes I have had religious caliber visions. Now I'm getting a little bit what? Now you're getting a little bit
I have too much experience with these despicable creatures called trolls that have been specializing in my case. You admit that you had a paranormal experience and suddenly these creatures were crawling all over the internet saying nasty things about you.
And unfortunately, I don't know if you know anything about me, but I've been cancelled, me and my ideas have been cancelled despite the fact that they're totally provable.
been canceled for a long time because of the God thing and also because people don't like IQ differentials. If there's an IQ differential, it's politically incorrect and if you're talking about God and say God is mathematically provable on top of that, the trolls come out of the woodwork on here. Pretty soon, people are reading the internet and they see all this troll nonsense
There is not an academic alive that can do a thing.
about anything that I've ever said or done. Nevertheless, I'm not invited to conferences or symposia. I'm not invited to do media appearances. There are ways that I should have been able to spread the word about my work and actually get it out there so that people could look at it. They would deny me. I don't like trolls.
I don't like people that talk out of turn about things they don't understand, and there are a lot of those people out there. Unfortunately, it would be fine, I guess, if most people were able to distinguish between a troll and someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Most people can't. If the troll uses a little bit of language, well, I work at a university and here's my opinion, it's all nonsense, then people think, well, he says he's from a university, maybe he really is.
All right. And this is, you know, the problem. People can't distinguish between truth and false, especially when it's, you know, when it takes the form of intermittent noise. What I find is that people don't go, honey, can you get me something to drink? Pardon me. That's okay. My mouth is getting dry. Yeah, no problem. No problem. What I find is that people dismiss intellectuals
like Stephen Wolf from Eric Weinstein yourself without delving into the papers maybe they'll watch they'll do a cursory glance at their work quote some of it so that if they want to look like they've read they'll quote a few paragraphs here and there i've seen criticisms of yours but they're not they're not they haven't see i'll tell you my my difficulty is when i'm going into your theories or anyone else's it takes sometimes weeks
And I tried to put myself in the position where not only am I understanding it at an intellectual level, but I'm realizing it. And what I mean by realizing is I'm trying to see how what you're saying, how can I model it such that I see it completely obvious? That's how I know I've internalized a theory. And I don't see anyone who criticizes you as as attempting that. So that's correct. Yeah.
They claim that it's so abstract and abstruse that they can't visualize it and that it's impossible to visualize. That's the usual line. I visualize all of it. It's not hard for me. For some reason, I think it's intellectual laziness. I think it's the idea that they don't want to become involved with something that might prove them wrong, mistaken about something. There are a number of psychological factors that go into it.
Well, Chris, if I can do something about getting you more notoriety, I will, man. If I can uncancel you, I do plan on having you on again at some once I've
I'm going to go through your theories more, which will take some months because I don't have only your theory. Now, I've only been studying yours for the past couple of weeks, but now I have to move on to someone's the best one. Right, right. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about that because I can get to that question right now. What I'm wondering is, I want to make sure that what I'm doing is honest and open and for the good. And I want to make a claim that I
Thank you. However, here's where it gets bad. You mentioned that your theory is the only one of God that is correct. And then what I'm wondering is, does that mean
When I'm interviewing other people on their ideas of God and so on, it's incorrect, which means I'm promulgating evil in some way and promulgating incoherence. Only if they claim they've got a true theory of everything that's totally comprehensive. Otherwise, the possibility exists that their theories or their viewpoints can be interpreted in such a theory and a true theory of everything. For example, these other guys that you mentioned and you asked me questions about other thinkers,
To the extent that their ideas can be interpreted in line, of course they're not correct, but my idea is called a super tautology. It cannot be broken. The conditions for intelligibility are realized by it, which means that if you try to come up with a counter example, it will be unintelligible and inadmissible. My theory cannot be broken. Although these other guys don't add that I'm the only person with a super tautology, but
All of these people have valuable insights. I don't think you've ever interviewed a dummy. These people actually see things. They've got insights. As long as those insights can be interpreted in the CTMU super tautology, that's okay. Another way for people to understand what you've just said is that think of set theory as the basis by which physics comes up with their theories. That's not exactly true. They don't axiomatize from set theory onward. No, it's empirical induction. Think of it like that.
What Chris is saying is that underneath first-order languages, there's a meta-language, a super tautological language, such that other theories are interpretable, almost like with physics, whatever the equation is that governs the grand unification. Let's imagine it's just a single equation. Well, that's based in axiomatic set theory. Okay, then you can take it a step back and say, what would a theory of everything at all have to look like in all of it? In its outline, it's the problem this way looked at.
The important thing is that it be comprehensive and not exclude anything that's true. Nobody can present a complete theory of everything that explains every detail of the universe right up front. The universe doesn't work that way. It is not deterministic. There is no such theory. What you need is you need the outline, the very generic form in which anything that is true that actually occurs in the universe or is relevant to the universe can be expressed.
If you've got that, then you've got a TOE. I'm the only person that has a TOE with that description. So even though it's not yet a unified field theory in the sense that most physicists would mean, unifying general relativity and gauge theory and quantum mechanics, although it comes pretty close actually. Once I start getting into it, if I were to give all the detail, it does come close in some respects to something like that, but that's not the way I present it.
I'm presenting it as a super tautology, as the logical form of a theory of everything that cannot be broken, can't get up, there is no escape, nobody gets over. I'm actually writing a book, maybe it's just for myself for now, on theories of everything. I have a chapter on yours, so as I've been studying for yours, I'm writing it, that's partly how I understand it.
At one point, I'll send it to you. Thank you. I would love to take a look at your chart. Yeah, for sure. It'll be maybe six pages long. So I have to condense what is about 300 pages down to five as well as what I'm trying to do is relate different theories of everything. And the reason I'm doing that is you yourself, you notice, I'm sure you've gone through this where you start to make connections between what you say. Let's take an example where you
Exactly. There are ways, if you have a general framework that is super tautological and you know it's a fact, all you have to do is worry about interpreting these different religions so that they are consistent within this framework.
So that's why I call it a meta-religion. All of these other religions that are usually at each other's throats because they don't know how to interpret their doctrines and what they pull out of scriptural documents. They don't know how to interpret that, so they end up imagining these conflicts. Those conflicts usually don't have to exist. If you have an overall framework in which the scripture and doctrine could be interpreted, they can be avoided. Why is it that intellect is associated with atheism?
Now you may disagree, but what I mean is, in academia, there's obviously an association with intellect there. That's a danger zone phenomenon. Just assume that proposition is correct. You know what I'm referring to. Why is it that most smart people now think that it's smart or it's intellectual to eschew God? They're dummies. They think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. That's the problem. The geniuses throughout history, if you want to look at the real geniuses throughout history,
Most of them believed in God. Most of them admitted that there was a higher power, that there had to be a higher power. The people who occupy universities, I'd say your average Harvard instructor, Harvard is a very good university of course, I'd say your average Harvard instructor might go 135, 140 max in terms of IQ. That's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God, especially when you've got people like Isaac Newton,
Okay, that you're looking at, you know, people like people like they're just thousands of great geniuses that have believed in God counter would be obviously that if we go back far enough in time, let's say 100 years in the 250 years in prior, almost everyone believed in God.
Both what you call dummy quote unquote and intellectual. So to say that the higher end of IQ spectrum believed in God previous to 250 years ago. Well, almost everyone did. So then we have to look at modern thinkers. Now, you're obviously someone who has someone who's extremely bright as an understatement.
Is there a correlation between those on the extreme end of the IQ spectrum who believe in God, but then those who are of higher intelligence that don't? So almost like a Dunning-Kruger, where the middle doesn't believe, you're that smart aleck teenager. But then if you gain a bit more insight, there's this false quote, I'm sure you've heard it, that says something like, the first sip of science makes you an atheist, but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer in God.
It's a false quote attributed to, I think, Schrodinger or Heisenberg. It's false. It's true. Even if it's false, it's actually there's something to it. You've got to have depth. The intelligence has to have a lot of penetration and you've got to get the big picture before you understand that there must be a God out there. And a lot of people don't have that. You mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect. People imagining that they're much smarter and more competent than they are. It's usually associated with stupid people. Stupid people tend to have Dunning-Kruger.
But there is a higher IQ version of that. It's called the danger zone effect. We've been talking about it for years. People who range an IQ between, you know, like 130 and 150, you would ordinarily think, well, it's extremely high IQ, almost up to genius range. So these people must hear that sound.
That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms.
There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone.
of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase.
Basically, it works against them because they're right so often compared to the ordinary person. They almost always turn out to be smarter. This gives them the idea that they're intellectually infallible.
They start to lose sight of their own intellectual limitations and believe that they're really what they've cracked themselves up to be, and they become insufferable at this point. This is the danger zone phenomenon. People would tend to exhibit this when they're within a certain IQ range that we call the danger zone. Like I said, it's like a two standard deviation range, right around where I said it was, maybe
I said 130, maybe it's like 120, 150. Whatever. I understand. Whatever. What you're saying is that some people, because they're so smart, they, and let's just say it's two standard deviations, they're above their peer group when they grow up and then they think they're the smartest in the room. So then they extrapolate that and say, I'm the smartest in the world at 150. Exactly. They were smartest in the room, but they weren't a small room. Okay. Then they get out there in the real world where there are people smarter and you know, suddenly it's like they were scolded.
I must still be the smartest person, so they start belittling and denigrating people who are smarter than they are. This describes a lot of people who are regarded as very intelligent, especially in academia. They regard each other as intelligent. It's kind of a club. Anybody who's not in our club has no intelligence whatsoever. This is what they believe. It's what they calm themselves into believing. It's not true, but they come to believe in it.
Speaking on intellect, I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Jay Gould. He has some criticisms of the concept of IQ. Non-overlapping magisteria. Meaning?
Meaning basically he thought that science and religion were non-overlapping magisteria and that one had nothing to say about the other. He's a complete dualist and his ideas, his conceptions of IQ are totally hogwash. He was obviously a smart guy but maybe he was a danger zone person who decided that all those people who scored better than he did on IQ tests must be really a bunch of nincompoops compared to him.
And that's where he got his ideas from. But he seemed to be largely motivated by ego. He got the impression that Stephen Jay Gould was a guy who thought very highly of himself and his own perspective, but couldn't really justify it. In other words, I saw him as a danger zone kind of person. Right? That's largely where a lot of this stuff, and it's not that IQ is all that special. IQ is by no means the whole of intelligence.
People like Gould are right about that, but it does correlate with intelligence to a certain extent. It's an aspect of intelligence. You can't just totally dismiss it and say, despite the fact that he's got a measured IQ of 65, he's just as smart as this guy with the 150 IQ over here. You can't make a statement like that, but that's what these people want to do. Everybody's equal, even intellectually equal.
They don't really believe that because they believe they're super smart. But when it comes to you, you can't be any smarter. It's ridiculous. What I wonder people who dislike the concept of IQ, mainly they dislike it because it has connotations with respect to race. And then they think eugenics is going to come out from conversations about it, or they're not happy with their IQ, or they're afraid to find out their own IQ, because it may be lower than they think. And they actually unconsciously attribute plenty to it. So they
There's this great quote which is, we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for but don't obtain. It's from Aesop's Fables. I put that in this movie that I was directing called Better Left Unsaid. It's about, you've heard of the radical left, I'm sure you're familiar with them. So it's about what makes extremism legal. It's obvious what extremism is on the right when it comes to ethno-nationalism and so on. It's easy to identify. But it's not easy to identify what extremism is on the left because it's couched in terms
What I would like is for someone who doesn't think the concept of IQ is important at all to say okay well I give them a pool of people here's a pool that has
People who are measured by IQ 80 to 90 and then people who have 150 to 160. Okay, are you telling me if you're running a company you would choose equally from them? Okay, then take the 80s. Take the 90s. I don't think that they actually would do so. I don't think when push comes to shove they would put their money where their mouth is. Unless they're practicing some form of affirmative action or have to abide by some kind of racial quota system. All right, then all bets are off.
I mean, I remember when I was in New York, and I needed money in New York. The rents were pretty high, so I was constantly looking for a better job. The civil service exam at the time that I was in New York, which was during the 1980s, 1990s, they spotted certain racial minorities, 30 points on that test. In other words, someone like a going in and score hundreds
But if you belong to one of these privileged minorities, you could score a 70 and get the job. That's because of a basically affirmative action racial quota system. It's obviously not very good for our society because you get a lot of people that really can't handle the jobs that they're given and because of that, society deteriorates. I feel for people that are denied work, for example, because they have a low IQ, but that's
that is not a reason to destroy a society. You can't pretend that you're being compassionate and pretend, oh, we can't hurt anybody else's feelings and then ask them to do things to be doctors, airline pilots, physicists. You can't expect them to perform functions like that because you feel compassionate toward them or because you don't want to hurt their feelings. It has to be a point at which reality cuts in. That's what we have to remember.
It's not that these people are bad people or that they're not as good as other people. They certainly can be as good as other people. Some people are capable or better at certain things than others. IQ is a good measure for some of those things. Employers should be able to put a certain amount of weight on IQ.
They don't because the academic system, Academia Incorporated, has more or less shoved the IQ off the stage and replaced it with having a college degree. So now what they're looking at is, does this person have a college degree? If he has a college degree, he's smart, and if he doesn't, he's a dummy. He's one of those high school dropouts, you know, forget about him because he's a bum. All right? That is a disservice to the world.
that kind of thing, because anybody at this point can get a college education. Sometimes I think that I have a dog, if I paid the money and put this dog in a class, the dog would end up with a degree. He can't write or spell his own name, but then again, it seems to me that some of the people who are graduating from college these days can't do that either. You see where it's getting. It's not very good.
We need to properly use our intellectual resources and that means we pay a little bit of attention to who's good at what kind of task. I see from both sides because there is, like you mentioned, it's a correlation, IQ is a correlation, which is important. It's one of the highest correlates with success in terms of money, in terms of even happiness and health. Well, up to a certain point.
Okay, that doesn't extend into this into the genius or super genius range, but it goes up to a certain level. It also correlates very highly with academic success, which of course correlates with materialism. But it does not correlate with morality. So for example, there's something called the, there's a psychometric, I think it's,
A dark triad is the closest to amoralistic behavior. It's not correlated with IQ. You may think, well, the smarter you are, the more you can take advantage of people and you'd actually be more harmful to society. It turns out there's zero correlation, which is great because that means that the smarter you are doesn't make you a good person. And people tend to associate intellect with moral worth or with even human worth. I'm not sure if you do that. I see that as a dangerous game.
And I also understand that if one belongs to like, I understand the controversy with IQ and race, because if you belong to a race that has been demonstrated to have a low IQ or supposedly demonstrate to have a low IQ, that's debilitating to be part of that group. It's, it's not a fun field. That's because you're identifying with the group. You know, everybody has a right to be taken, you know, as an individual.
If you have a high IQ, I don't care what color you are, what race, but the whole identity politics thing that we've fallen into leads people to take that attitude. And once again, it's counterproductive and we have to stop it. I mean, we've got to break out of that. That's one of my questions was with regard to IQ and race, or just IQ in general, if you're told that you have a low IQ, let's imagine that you're an individual who has taken an IQ test. So forget that you're inferring by membership of a group.
You tell them the truth about intelligence. There's a lot more to intelligence than just IQ. I mean, we have examples. You take Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ of approximately 125, which isn't that
sure isn't high enough to be a genius physicist in the estimate of most people, but it was high enough for him. Intelligence comes from another place. IQ is being able to focus all of your mental energy on specifically well-defined tasks within a certain time period. That's what it is.
Intelligence need not be focused that way. Intelligence is something that can be spread out over much larger areas of space and time. People that produce works of genius don't necessarily have to produce a work of genius every time they take an IQ test. So intelligence is much more than IQ. And this is something that I think if people understood this, and I'll try to help them understand this,
If they understood it, they wouldn't feel so bad about some kid who scores better on an IQ test than they do. They wouldn't even necessarily feel bad about belonging to a group that has a low mean IQ. There are differences between people. We're all good at certain things. We're all bad at certain things. Everybody is different as long as we learn to accommodate those differences but also
Sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself. Imagine that morality could also be placed on a spectrum much like IQ is. Would you take a decrement to your IQ for an increment in morality? I call it moral intelligence. I actually conflate the two. You mentioned the dark tetrad, the ponderological
I'm not entirely convinced that there might not be a little bit of a correlation in that range between those two things.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. This looks like the Blair Witch Project. Do you have another? What? Who thinks this looks like the Blair Witch Project? What? Do you have a more powerful light? Well, this is a more powerful light. It's got several adjustments.
I have a light Jeannie could you could you put this on just one more light one more light people need to see your beautiful face man with your no no I don't have a beautiful hairline matter of fact I would like I would like less of my face you'd like dark what we're fine it's fine that or that no that looks awful that looks okay do you want me to try opening the garage door
Missouri is big on bugs. What? Do you want me to try opening the door to see if that helps with the backlight? I don't think it will, honey. Just... It's fine. Don't worry about it. Let her know it's fine. Also, can you thank her for me? Because she's extremely assiduous. She puts so much energy and effort into someone with... Kurt wants to thank you, honey, for your punctilious attention to all of the details here. Okay? Yeah, and she's a sweetheart. She told me that you're a pussycat and to not be afraid of you.
When I first e-military. When I'm in a good mood. Yeah. Cause from what I've seen, you were probably being interviewed by people who either you didn't like or, or they conveyed that they didn't like you. And so you were in a more disagreeable mood. Well, with me or not, I'm happy. The, the Errol Morris video. I don't remember. Well, are you talking about the, well. No, I don't know which one.
I don't know which one, but I'm just saying that I thought that you'd be a combative person. She assured me you weren't and I'm happy that you're not. No, I'm actually a very easy to get along with person. Although I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book in which I was one of the people. It was called Outliers and he attributed to me zero social intelligence. So that may be where a lot of people get that impression.
I'm actually rather easy to get along with, but I was a bar bouncer for 25 years and my background, even before that, was such that I don't suffer fools gladly. So if someone wants to be an idiot, it rapidly changes my mood and perhaps I'm not so easy to get along with. What? You don't have the ass kissing gene. I don't. There's no ass kissing gene inside of me.
I love to be nice to people and make people feel good, but once it becomes evident to me that someone expects to get his ass kissed, then there's a problem. There's all kinds. It lasted from when I was about five years old to when I was well out of high school.
We came from a disciplinarian household, shall we say, where physical abuse was the norm to a certain extent. And that sort of got me going along a certain trajectory. And then we were usually the poorest folks in town, the poorest family in town, which caused us to get into fights with other kids. So I had to learn how to fight at a young age, and I didn't necessarily want to be bothered
But it's just the way things went for us. So that's what I had to do. And then, you know, when I went to get a, you know, I started working out working for the forest service, working construction, things like that. Ultimately, I figured out that it was there was a better way to make a living, paid almost as much, but wasn't so grinding. And I could actually think about my work and things that I was interested in while I was doing it. It was bar bounce. I worked in about 50
There are about 50 night clubs over the course of 25 years or so in the greater New York area. It's probably the best-known bar and dancer in New York for a long time. Physical altercation is more or less a way of life. You meet a lot of people, but some of them are not especially easy to get along with, especially when they get drunk, so altercations arise.
How did you choose your wife? How did you know she was the one? Well, she was actually a member of the super high IQ community.
such as it was back in the 1980s and 90s and so I met her through one of those groups and we you know gradually you know we corresponded a little bit and things just grew from there. So I got myself a very intelligent woman, beautiful too. Was there something about her that stood out to you compared to the other women of the high IQ range? I've always been attracted to
intelligent women. To me, intelligence is sexy, it makes a woman, more of a woman. Not that a woman who is not so intelligent can't be sexy, I mean that's far from the case, but it's always something to which I was attracted in a female. So that's one of the reasons that I held out for her. I mean I was single for most of my life up until I was about
My temper gets a little bit short sometimes. That's always something that I'm trying to improve. I have a weakness for certain kinds of snacks or candies, like licorice. I just can't stop eating it.
I literally have to hide it from myself after a certain point because I just eat bag after bag. I'm the same way, man. I know it may not look like it, but trust me, I'm actually 200 pounds greater than I am. I'm serious. My wife, I pig out like you wouldn't, I expand my, it hurts. And I'm like, okay, that's the, that's the beginning. Let me keep eating.
If you just keep on eating, I find myself getting in trouble if I just keep on stuffing myself for a week or two at a time, then I got to stop eating almost entirely for the same amount of time before I'm back to normal.
I see the workout, the weights behind you, I see the gym set. If you ever make it to this area, definitely you're welcome to enjoy the gym as much as you want to. I like working out. It helps keep you young. After a certain point, you've got to have resistance exercise and your muscles deteriorate. You start losing muscle mass and that's something that fortunately I haven't lost any muscle mass at all and I'm probably as strong as an athletic 20 year old.
I do military press with over 200 pounds for reps, which is very good for someone of my age. How old are you? I'm 69. Good job, man. So you don't work out because you want to keep your IQ. You work out for other reasons. The IQ, too. Believe you me, there are a lot of reasons to work out.
Okay, you just keep yourself young, you keep your mind sharp, you keep up your motivation, your level of testosterone doesn't decrease, so you maintain the amount of mental aggression you need to attack difficult problems. These things are important to me, so I work on it. Okay, I wanted to get your thoughts on some other thinkers, one of the reasons I facetiously call it Viyomaki, which is like the battle of the gods, and the reason is that these are intellectual giants, and
I'm not sure about you, but for me, I glean plenty from seeing these giants disagree with one another. It's as if I pick up nuggets from the damage of their fight from the fallout. So what are your thoughts on new atheists like Sam Harris? So new atheism in general, you don't have to attack Sam Harris, although you're more than welcome to. I don't. Look, there was a, you know, back in the they started publicizing me. I had a chance to get heavily publicized. I was asked
to appear on TV shows as early as the late 1980s. I refused. I simply didn't want to be involved. Then in the late 1990s, I was around 1998 when I started getting publicized. And after that, I got a few media appearances, one sort or another. But then I started, because I mentioned during some of these appearances,
that there was a mathematical way to prove the existence of God, I began getting trolled by atheists. For a while I was on a few sites that were supposedly religious sites that were dominated by Christians, people calling themselves Christians, and noticed that they weren't protecting me from these atheistic trolls. These atheistic trolls were saying an awful lot of bad things.
And there were some that actually attacked me personally. Name brand atheists who were nothing at the time but have since become, you know, the signatures of the new atheist movement. I'm not going to mention their names because that would be publicizing them, but they were nasty and I didn't get along with them at all. And then as I was trying to nevertheless get purchased for my theory, I found myself getting cancelled.
and there were several people, among them Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and who the hell was the other one? Not Chris Hitchens, but one of them. I don't know if it was Sam Harris or not, but they came up with this new policy of how to deal with people who believe in God, theists. You cancelled that. They must be refused to talk to
Right? We refuse to give them any sort of respect whatsoever and pretty soon nobody will pay attention to them at all. And so this is what they pulled on me and my theory and they pretty much managed to stop me dead for a long time. I'm not happy about it and I don't like those people. I think they're intellectually dishonest. Look at the scumbags. Although I'm not saying that they're stupid people.
I mean, his theory is easy to pick apart. Richie Dawkins, there's nothing there. I mean, they're intelligent in a way, but on the other hand, they're not really. They don't have much penetration. They can't understand the inconsistencies in their own work. I just don't respect them very much. I mean, I've been on a couple of sites. They're just awful, the things they say about you, the things that they do.
They apparently have no moral grounding. They don't believe in God so they don't believe there's any sort of moral identity in the universe that can make them act or behave in any particular way that others find acceptable. So all bets are off. They think they can do whatever they want, say whatever they want about you and get away with it and that's what they have done repeatedly. They've been deplatformed. People will say things and I will
You can't run intellectual commerce under the watchful eyes of such people who are canceling you. All you have to do is mention the G word and they've got a problem with you.
Right. And so this is where we've gotten to today. And as far as I'm concerned, that policy of theirs where they simply refuse to converse with you, that is intellectual cowardice. I mean, you take people like Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dent, easily crushed by someone like me. I mean, they wouldn't last a minute, but they still won't talk.
It's an excuse for them to flee. Oh, well, he believes in God. What a dunce. So he's beneath our dignity. We won't cast any of our, shed any of our glory on him. So this entitles us to run away. And they hide in the shadows. You'll see them. I mean, they get out there in public, but not where they can really be dealt with by anybody who's smarter than they are. And that's not a very tall order at all. There are plenty of people smarter than they are.
Speaking of hiding in the shadows, you look like Russell Crowe. Is there another light? I want to prevent you from making the same mistake that people do toward you. So, for example, they'll make ad hominins. I don't think Daniel Dennett or Dawkins have a low IQ. I think they're extremely intelligent people. They may not have as high an IQ as you. Have you ever been personally insulted by them or their friends? Because until you have been, you know,
You haven't walked in my shoes. Don't worry, man. I'm on your side and I'll defend you. Well, it's good. Thank you. I'm just saying that I think your animosity toward them is from being attacked. And if they were kinder to you, I don't think that you would denigrate their intelligence. It's been going on for 20 years. Certainly I would have been willing, you know, if they had just said, oh, well, you know, let's let's let's get together and I'll have a conversation. These people don't give an inch.
They're haters. They hate God. Richie Dawkins, if you listen to what he says, it becomes very evident that he doesn't really have an argument against God. He just hates God. This has been going on for 20 years in my case, and I've had it with the guy. He's misled a lot of people. This is something that you can go to hell for. Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me. He's got another thing coming. I'll just
Let's talk about the concept of hell. What is it? Some religions say that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations of Christianity is that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations is that it does exist or there's a place of purgatory.
And then there's that hell is a place where you'll be tortured for a finite amount of time and then you'll be brought back and then there's somewhere it's an infinite amount of time. What is your idea of hell derived from the CTMU? Hell is simply the process of ceasing to exist, of being teleically unbound and having your identity destroyed because it is unacceptable to God. See, God in the CTMU is something called a stratified identity and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity.
the level that we all share with each other. We're all united in God. But God is good and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does. So if you deny God and you cut your, basically you're cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you and can no longer accept you into himself because he's totally consistent.
God is totally, completely self-consistent and will not tolerate his denial. It's just not something that God can afford to tolerate because something that is perfect cannot tolerate, cannot absorb or assimilate imperfection into himself. He can tolerate it for a while, but then after a while, he's got to exclude it. All right, so this is what hell is. Basically, your own highest level of identity.
is telling you, you can no longer exist because you're no longer in touch with me. You've cut your own identity in half. You've severed it. It's called the soul, the human soul. That's what these levels of stratified identity are. They're your soul and once you interdict that, once you sever it, you're cut off from God. That way your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you anymore.
It can't see you. So when you die and you beg on the deathbed, please take me back in. God can't hear you anymore. That's a terrible thing and I don't wish it on anybody. But if people understand this and understand this stratified identity and understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now, because that's a very unpleasant experience, everybody wants to cling to their identity in the end.
There's this phrase, I don't know where I got it from, but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside. That's correct. Well, that's a very good, very opposite quote. Is it a place of torture? Is it a place of torment? Is it a place of infinite heat?
You bring with it your own ideas of what hell is? That's correct. Where else would they come from? For someone like Dawkins, who doesn't believe in the concept of hell either, would he then experience nothingness?
You're right. I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. Because he rejects, he will create his own kind of hell and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him. He's no longer a big shot at Oxford University. He can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God. Nobody wants to listen to him anymore.
You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect and no one that I've met is perfect, so does that mean that none of us are going to heaven, none of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded teleisys?
The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time, things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. It's an oxymoron to think that God holds this against you. We all have to adapt. We all have to do what it takes to survive and God doesn't hate us for that.
He doesn't, that doesn't, that isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of his, of ultimate reality and his own highest level of identity, which is God. All right? It's wanting to undo, to unbind reality, to say the name of reality backwards. That's what evil is. And that's what you get punished for. And that's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing.
There's someone like Peterson who would come out and say that, Sam Harris, you say that you're an atheist but you say that with your words but you don't act like that with your body because you treat people with humanity, you are concerned with the world living and not dying, flourishing. Do you agree with Peterson saying that you can say that you're atheistic but not act it and thus does someone get saved even though they profess atheism?
Yes, basically the problem, however, is that once you professed atheism, now you've got to get God's attention again. Once you've severed your soul, once you've put a cut in your soul and you've actually cut God off, now you've got to heal that severance before God can see you again. It takes a long time. It's not going to happen, oh well, I've changed my mind. I've decided not to hate God anymore. That's not good enough.
It needs to go on for a long, long time and you've really got to try and you've got to cry like a babe in the woods until God finally hears you again. Okay? So it's not easy. These people are hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that. Hey honey, is there a light over there? You know one of those lights, those hood lights over there? Turn on that clamp light. I want to see how that influences the... This thing is getting in my eyes.
What I'm getting at is almost the opposite of not all those who cry Lord, Lord will be saved. So on the one end, even if you claim to be a Christian or you claim to believe in God, that's not enough. You have to also act it. And on the other end, one can say that even if one says that they're against God, but one acts kindly, one acts lovingly, then does that mean that they still can be saved? Peterson would say, now he doesn't talk about heaven or hell, but he would say that you believe in God with your body.
Father, deeds shall you move.
Would you say that he in your model will be going to heaven or hell, assuming that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions, but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth? Unfortunately, your relationship with God cannot be faked. When somebody is doing good acts, it could be only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts. They want the moral approval of other human beings. That's not good enough.
Completely fine, can't hear a thing of the storm.
Pardon me, Kurt. Go ahead. Let's take a quote from someone who criticized you. You said, if someone denies the existence of God, then God will exclude them from reality. And then this person said, well, okay, how does Langen explain the continued existence of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins? Well, they have a physical body. They're basically co-hearing to their physical body, and that's what's providing them with a continued identity. They've reduced themselves, however, to be a physical body. There's not much left of them.
If God could not have been otherwise, like with your model, there are these meta laws that govern the universe. So it sounds to me like there is a bound to God. God is his own boundary.
Who is or was Jesus?
We cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that was written of him in the Bible. But we know what Jesus is now. Jesus is the ideal of human perfection. Someone who was willing to lay down everything and sacrifice himself for mankind. All right, that's what Jesus is. He was the image of human perfection. It is through a Jesus-shaped gateway that we can approach God.
We have to become perfect in order to unify with the perfection of God. So that's the way Jesus functions in the Christian religion and the way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our true and far between, if you know what I mean. In Buddhism, of course, Buddhism has another central figure who is Buddha, Gautama Buddha Siddhartha. He's basically another kind of cat and tiger.
He didn't talk much about God. You can sort of infer a conscious higher reality from some of the things that Buddha said, but he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God. He was also a rich individual that was born into privilege and then went around traveling and meditating and ministering to the masses and so forth.
In several ways, he doesn't quite measure up to the image of Jesus. Jesus was born poor. He didn't start out with any advantages at all. He lived like a normal man, like an ordinary human being, absorbing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at every turn, which is what we have to do. That's what we're expected to do. Therefore, Jesus is an exemplar for us.
Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from reality and have a meditative existence and never mention God. So there's a little bit of a difference between them. In the CTMU, we don't discriminate against Buddha because he lacks Jesus-like characteristics. Instead, we recognize him for his strengths
Let's get to some other intellectuals. Like I mentioned, for me I love hearing
Academic speak about other academics or intellectuals speak. For example, if Russell commented on Aristotle, it illuminates not only how Russell thinks, but it gives me a new perspective on Aristotle at the same time. So I'm going to bring up a few different giants, intellectual giants, and you may not consider them to be so, and we'll see what you think of them. Have you heard of Clea Irwin? Yes. Are you presenting Clea as an intellectual giant?
Yes, I'm wondering what you think of Clea Erwin's theories. Clea Erwin has theories on quantum gravity. I'm unsure if you've taken a look, and as well as consciousness. So what do you think about them? Well, Clea seems like a smart person. I don't want to say anything bad about Clea, but I will say that Clea has a lot of ideas that are very CTM-ulike. And the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before Clea did.
I actually had to force Klee to cite me in his most recent, what was the name of that paper? Reality Self Simulation Hypothesis. Anyway, Klee has a theory. It's got a number of ingredients, some of which are questionable, some of which aren't. It's based on Garrett Leasey's E8 theory. It's a certain symmetry group that he uses.
But there are other aspects that are straight, pure CTA media. I was simply not mentioned. I understand sometimes people don't know any better, but at one time I was on every major news network in the country. There are probably relatively few people who are above a certain age who never heard of me. A lot of them have forgotten that they heard of me, but nevertheless I was still there.
I think that a reasonable literature search should turn up something about the CTMU if you undertake it. If you're actually doing your job and looking for other ideas that are comparable to yours, you're probably going to bump into it. Cleve's theory is to the extent that it resembles the CTMU, it's great. Other parts of it are questionable, but the key part is
Klee is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self-simulation hypothesis and a reasonable TOE theory of everything. He's missing certain key ingredients that are built into CTME structure. His theory is not a super tautology. It has to be a super tautology in order to be a true theory of everything. He mentions language in his theory
He mentions a lot of things that I introduced with the CTMU, which was the first language-like theory of reality. He mentions a lot of things, but then they're kind of haphazardly glued together and it looks like you kind of made a snowball out of them and threw it up in the air to see what would happen. If he ever realizes this, he is going to realize that he has a CTMU clone.
that doesn't just differ from the CTMU, but is the CTMU in different language. That is where Klee is at. I don't want to detract from Klee. I think he probably thinks he's doing a good job. I do know that forcing him to cite me was not easy. I had a long string of correspondence. It originally happened. He introduced his paper, his new paper, and he put it up on RxEve, I guess. It was one of
is a email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known people. And he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his reality self-simulation hypothesis. And I'm like, what the hell? What is this? Because these people know me. They know who I am. So I said, wait a minute.
I've been talking about the reality of self-simulation for years. You're going to have to cite me. I've looked at your paper. I don't see you mentioning me here. You've got some of the same ideas in there. Went back, quoted a lot of self-simulation quotes from me. The problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he was responsible. It was. And in my estimation, in some ways he's got it right, but in some ways he's lashing it
What about Joschak Bach and his ideas of consciousness?
Joschabach, like Daniel Dennett, is a physicalist. You cannot explain consciousness with physics or in a computational system. The CTMU makes use of a concept called proto-computation, which is even more general than quantum computation. There's a universal Turing machine, there's a quantum Turing machine. The CTMU actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a proto-computer, except that it's the entire CTMU.
All of that structure has to go into this quantization. And then the universe is self-similar on that basis. Every part of it mirrors the whole. It's a metaphysical system. You cannot explain consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need. Your consciousness is coherent. You are a unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts. You feel
The Unity of Your Consciousness. That's what I mean by coherence. A machine is not coherent. It doesn't have that coherence. All right, you've got to figure out some way of getting that coherence in there, and that's a tall order. Okay, Joshua Bach doesn't have it. Daniel Dennett never had that. I mean, there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned. These guys, they have some good ideas. I mean, I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done. Everybody has remarkable insights.
I think I'm a marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennett sometimes. He talks around things like a lot of philosophers do. I mean, that's a skill that they develop in academia. Joshua Bach is better than that. He actually tries, makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennett ever did, but still, you know,
Still, he's not really getting to the root of what consciousness is in my opinion. And even if they're wrong, they're extremely inventive, both Joschabach and Daniel Dennett. I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points. These are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that they're trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem
and their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused the solutions to go awry. Can we talk about this proto-computer, this proto-computation you mentioned? So there's Turing machines as we
or classical machines as we ordinarily think of them, and then there's quantum computation, and then you're saying there's an even more general notion where different states of an infinite type are able to be used in the calculation simultaneously. I'm unsure, can you please explain that some more because I haven't encountered that in your work? Well, it means that basically a proto-computer is generative, which neither a universal Turing machine nor a quantum Turing machine are. The universal Turing machine is
That's Turing's original invention. Then you've got the quantum Turing machine, which I think was introduced by David Deutsch. They both resemble each other in certain respects. They're different. The nature of the tape is different. The nature of the storage module is different. The quantum Turing machine is more general and more powerful than the universal Turing machine. But what a theory of reality actually needs is generativity. In other words,
At the same time as new states are created, new medium has to be created to go with those states. The medium is constantly being generated. Space-time is constantly being generated. These people imagine that the medium of reality is some kind of fixed array, almost like a computer display, like the one I'm looking at right now and seeing your face. That's what they think reality is. They think it's kind of like a display screen.
It's discretized and basically that doesn't work for a number of reasons, one of which is relativity. You don't have the proper kind of covariance and contravariance. It's very hard to make that work.
If you've got discretized pixels, the Lorentz contractions and things like that would actually have to influence the number of pixels that are activated at any one time and that causes inconsistencies. But apparently these people don't realize there are also certain inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. But this idea of a discretized script, Dennett has the same damn thing.
I'll withhold. Basically, Dunnett talks about a Cartesian theater, as I recall, and the Cartesian theater is something that he attempts to depart from. Nevertheless, he is a physicalist, and physicalists do have to have something like a discretized pixelated display, even if they describe it in terms of quantum mechanics, which is erroneous. You can't do it that way, really.
Nevertheless, what reality actually needs is something that is generative and generates new space and time even as new states of matter are generated. That's one of the implications of triality. The medium has to change a lot. It's even an implication of Einstein's equation. You've got a stress energy tensor on one side and then you've got the metric tensor on the other. You see, the metric tensor being the medium and the stress energy tensor being the matter distribution
Okay, those two things actually have to be in sync. They've got to be coupled in a certain way. And these people are just not doing it. They're not approaching it in the correct way. Einstein, by the way, I can make a pretty good argument that relativity makes no sense outside of the CTN at all. The entire scenario, the way things are done there, the way things are coupled, the way space is coupled with time, for example,
And then the way he couples objects with space-time in Einstein's equation, these things actually don't work outside of CTM. So we need that. We need that generativity. We need we need tele-sys to be factored from the top down into space and time. And that's what neither of these other Turing machines, neither the UTM nor the QTM does. The CTM does do this, however, and it uses the entire structure of the metaphorical system
There are other models of discrete space. They wouldn't call it space time. Space time would emerge such as spin foam networks in loop quantum that still have the properties of being background free and Lorentz invariant and so on. So what about those? Would you say that those are also doomed? You've got to have a representation. You've got to have an observer immersed in a medium of representation.
And I don't see right now how you can salvage any of those viewpoints. I think that they all need to be interpreted in the CTME in order for their good points to actually be valid. I think that as it stands right now, excessive claims are being made. I don't think they live up to those claims. I think that if I were questioning
Any of these people, I don't think that they would be able to justify their claims. There's just no damn way that you can have a non-generative display. Once again, we're referring to the reality self-simulation, which can be likened to a computer. There is an analogy. It's a little bit more involved than you might suspect, but nevertheless, you can separate the display from the processor.
These people are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature of the processor. And usually what they're trying to do is confine everything to the display. And for various reasons, this is not allowed. You can't pull that off. All these guys are trying to do it. Bless their hearts. They've got a certain amount of good insight, but they're just not pulling it off. Let's get to the next one. How about Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity?
What are your thoughts on that? Eric Weinstein, okay, geometric unit. That's where he's got a triangle that has the Dirac equation spinners and spin one-half matter particles on one vertex. On the other vertex he's got general relativity and on the other vertex he's got the standard model with SU3 times SU2 times SU1 gauge theory.
Okay. I think that Eric is actually, he seems like a very bright guy. I remember when he had his, I think, isn't he the guy who had the mathematics encyclopedia up for a long time on the web? I think it was Eric Ronstadt, some guy named Eric Ronstadt had a math encyclopedia up on the web. It was pretty impenetrable. If you didn't already know the math, you're not going to get anything out of this encyclopedia. Nevertheless, it was
It was good. But anyway, here's the strength of his approach, this geometric unity. Basically, he seems to be saying, it sort of occurs to me that what he's saying is, well, we're having a hard time putting together a TOE, a purely analytic algebraic TOE. So let's look at the geometry of these theories, of the Dirac equation and
and the standard model and general relativity. And let's see if we can put those geometries together. And if we can merge those geometries, then guess what? We're going to automatically just be able to match it with a global formal theory coupled with the geometry. Okay? And this is really kind of an innovative way to approach it. However, it's the way I've been approaching it for decades. The CTME is the Logico Geometric.
It's a coupling of logic and geometry, but it's generative geometry, which is a fundamentally different kind than what I think Eric Weinstein is dealing with. Stephen Wolfram's theory of everything, the Wolfram Project. What are your opinions on that? Have you taken a look? Stephen Wolfram, he's obviously a very bright guy. He knows a lot about mathematics.
It's kind of an adorable character. What he's done, what it seems to me that he's done is he's tried to identify certain basic elements and rules of assembly and then like a bunch of ticker toys, he's trying to assemble those into the overall structure of reality. I appreciate that and it's entertaining to read Stephen's writing about it and there's a lot of insight there.
It doesn't work because if you're going to have a theory of everything, you need to start with everything. You're not going to take a subset of everything and then put it together and get something which is reality, which is more than the sum of its parts. You're not going to do that. You've got to start with everything, which means you've got to start with cognition and perception in general. You've got to logically induce your theory from that. That's the way to build a theory.
But as far as Stephen's writing is concerned and the other aspects of what Stephen does, I think he's a very bright guy. I get a big kick out of reading what he writes. But this is more or less right up front for me. The fact that he's going about it in the wrong way. He hasn't seen the big picture. He doesn't understand all of the criteria that have to be satisfied in order to have a TOE.
That's where you've got to start. You've got to start with everything. Nothing can be excluded, either implicitly or explicitly. You've got to have everything. You've got to have everything condensed or encapsulated somehow in some kind of process. And for us human beings, the process is cognition and perception. You start with those and then you build your reality out of that.
What about Donald Hoffman? Have you taken a look at his theories on consciousness and conscious agents interacting and so on? Yes, I did. I think I watched a video with him and Deepak Chopra at one time and I found him interesting. He's saying that basically cognition is deceptive. He's a cognitive scientist as I recall. He's saying that some aspects of how we see the world
is actually quite deceptive but adaptive. It helps us adapt and survive to the world if we actually don't see it correctly. He's got this idea of a kind of a graphic user interface that actually allows us to have cognition that is deceptive but nevertheless adaptive.
Basically, what Donald needs is an overall framework in which to insert his GUI, his graphic user interface. He needs the actual reality of self-simulation principle to make that work. He's a guy who is very much in need of the CTME. Of course, he's an academic, so he probably would have insisted it come from another academic. But if that would have happened, it would be called plagiarism. So I doubt that he's ever going to get to the true heart of things.
Okay, how about David Bohm? So how your theory compares in contrast with David Bohm's theories, which I would like you to explain Implicit order to me because I haven't had the chance to look it up. And then there's someone named Henry Berkson, which is related to Bohm. I'm not sure how they differ.
But you can elucidate me and the audience at the same time. Bergson is a great philosopher. He's one of the best. And as a matter of fact, some of what he had to say about manifolds, I find quite interesting because it very closely parallels what has to be done and what had to be done in the CTU creating the medium of reality. As far as David Bohm is concerned, his reputation precedes him.
There was an early bomb and a late bomb. The early bomb was Bohmian mechanics and then later on he came up with something called the holo movements, the holographic universe. I think he wrote a book on the holographic universe with Vassel-Heile. Anyway, he has this thing that he calls the holo movement that basically takes an implicate order and kicks out an exponent.
That is pure CTMU. That process is what the CTMU calls involution. It's just one aspect of the CTMU, but that aspect he actually captured very well with that polar movement, implicate and explicate order thing that he's doing with later bone. As far as the earlier bone mechanics is concerned, that's a little bit dicey. Hard to make that look.
Would the implicate order be associated with descriptive containment and then the explicit is topological containment or there's no relation? Explicate order is the display, the terminal display or the CTMU semi-language LO and the other part is the CTMU semi-language LS which corresponds to the processor instead of the display. That's the implicate order.
It's implicated, it's an implicate form there in the processor where things are actually getting non-locally combined and entangled and telons are working to actually determine overall causative patterns. That's where that's occurring. It's very, very interesting. Bohm actually matured as a thinker a very great deal in the course of his life. There are a couple of things I don't like. I mean, I think Bohm was a communist, wasn't he?
Right, and that may be one of the reasons why Bohmian mechanics came out of favor because it was as if you were supporting communism. Right. Well, let's... Communism is a very... Marxism is a very bad theory of philosophy. It's got a lot of holes in it. It's just awful in certain respects. So when you see a brilliant thinker like David Bohm grabbing a hold of it and embracing
This can't help his reputation. I think Bohm suffered a great deal because of that, but you can certainly understand why it happened. As far as Bohmian mechanics is concerned, he's basically trying to concretize everything. He's got a pilot field, he's got the Springer equation, but he's also got this, the pilot field is actually guiding the particle to its destination. But what is guiding the pilot field itself?
I mean, there are a number of philosophical questions that could be asked about Volm's theory that reveal that it is envelopably associated with the terminal side of the reality of self-simulation. So in other words, it's terminally confined in CTME terminology, which means that it's not really any kind of complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've been told I need to learn more about Volmian mechanics and Birx if I'm going to be investigating theories of everything.
A lot of people really like Bohmian mechanics because of its strong components. It does have strong components, but it won't really do in a theory of everything. The theory of everything relies on Bohmian mechanics. It's toast. There's just not enough there to pull it off. As far as Bergson is concerned, it's like a fine philosophy.
Okay, how about Douglas Hofstadter's Strange Loop idea of consciousness? You know, Gertl Escher Bach, I'm sure you've heard of that book. Yes, yeah. I think I was probably in my early 20s when I got a copy of that book. The Strange Loops and the Pushing and the Popping and all that stuff. Quite an intriguing book. Very much in fashion for a long time. Sort of a precursor to the reality of self-simulation.
People ask me who do I want to interview most? Douglas Hofstadter is up there, Penrose is up there and even M&M. Roger Penrose is brilliant. Where do you see Douglas Hofstadter's theory lacking and what do you like most about it? So what dislikes and then likes pros then cons? Well, you know, he relies a lot on computational principles and I think he might be
You know, nevertheless, even though he's relying on a lot of advanced logic and, you know, powers of metal languages and levels of computation and so forth, he shows no sign of being anything but a physicalist in the sense that it's all computational and computation is a mechanical process. So it looks to me like it might be like his outlook may be basically mechanistic. Right. Right. Which, you know, I can't agree with because that's not what reality is.
Now Penrose seems to agree with you in saying that there are many paradoxes associated with thinking that consciousness comes from something that's computational. Have you heard much about Penrose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction and so on with Hameroff? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hameroff is on a lot of these, or at least was on a lot of these distributions that I found myself on in the first one. And, you know, there is something to it. I mean, you know, Hameroff identified microtubules, cytoskeletons as being
as being a place where quantum coherence might actually be able to function in the brain. And there are other ways that quantum mechanics can serve itself in the neural processes as well. But, of course, he relies on Penrose for most of the physics and actually figuring out where it's all coming from. Penrose has this idea of a platonic realm or this platonic form of reality. It's a tripartite form of reality.
These mathematical truths that exist as these fully formed mathematical objects in platonic realm. He doesn't have the CTME, Roger Penrose, doesn't have a fully formed theory of reality, but he's just very hard not to appreciate because he's so brilliant.
He's brilliant, so I almost floor you sometimes when you read some of the things that he writes. Mathematically, he's a brilliant mathematician, he's a brilliant physicist, and this idea of his that basically, it's not just computation, that there's something that is undecidable going on in human thought. Basically, you know what Goodell theory implies? He says there's no
You've got a system, a system that actually is capable of trans-finite induction and is truly interesting. There are truths that cannot be derived from any finite set of axioms in such a system. Basically, what Penrose is saying is that human thought somehow generates undecidable theorems that are true on a metamathematical level but cannot be derived from any theory.
This is exactly what the CTNU says. I started publishing in the same year, I think. He came out with a book, I think his biggest theoretical statement was The Emperor's New Mind. Recognize that title? That's correct. That was 1989, which is when I wrote The Resolution of Newton's Paradox. We started publishing at about the same time. He got a hell of a lot farther than I did in that amount of time. Then again, he wasn't cancer. Teaching at Oxford does a very great deal for me.
when it comes to disseminating your work. How about Thomas Campbell and his My Big Toe? Have you heard of that? I've heard of My Big Toe, but let me defer to you. You probably know more about it than I do. What does it say exactly? It's a strange theory, essentially that there's another realm. When you mentioned that there are data points that come to us instantaneously in this non-terminal realm,
Thomas Campbell also says that that's the mechanism by which psychic phenomenon work, that it occurs to you instantaneously. We think that it has to travel some distance in the same way that it would have to travel in our space-time. And there's a finite speed, he says. Know that this other realm where consciousness operates is... He also has Aum. He calls it Aum, which you call unbounded teleesis.
He has Aum, unbounded absolute oneness. Or absolute unbounded oneness. Is that supposed to sound like Aum? No, I just, well, as far as I know, it's a coincidence. Anyway, he says that that's the fundamental constituents, this place of complete potential. Yes, that's CDMEU-consistent, yes. Although he says this, which I disagree.
He says that unrealized potential is trying to do is to create order and to decrease its entropy and I quibbled with him because I don't think that order and entropy are what people claim in common parlance entropy and order and disorder are not actually high entropy doesn't mean low order in the way that most people think and it's obvious because if you look at a coffee cup with some milk and you create some turbulence that looks completely disordered and then when you
That sounds like Maxwell's demon. That's Thomas Campbell's
It reminds me of yours, but yours is more rigorous. Yeah, I mean mine actually has structure, mathematical structure to it. But it sounds like he's coming up with some good ideas that are on the right track and can be successfully interpreted in a true theory. He also had out-of-body experiences and he would suggest that people who are younger are more naturally in tune, like you get out of tune as you get older, with
this other realm, and so you can go and what you think of as thought space is actually a real space, but it's another space. I wouldn't use the word dimension, but it's another realm, let's say, a primordial realm. Right, it's another terminal realm. Like I say, that's always a possibility. You can create terminal realms that are not identical to physical reality, and that may be related more or less tenuously to it, but aren't dependent.
How about Noam Chomsky? What do you agree with him about and then disagree with him about? Back when I was first developing the CTMU, Chomsky was one of the people, I had a correspondence with him, it was very brief, maybe three or four emails, and he didn't understand a word I said. Even though I was using his theory of grammar, generative grammar hierarchy, nevertheless actually making a metaphysic out of that was something that Noam couldn't
I don't know whether it was because I was just explaining myself poorly or whatever, but Gnome was a big nothing burger for me. I couldn't even get a conversation started. He has a certain perspective on language and it's all about where does it come from, how do we get it, and that's his focus. When you try to broaden the focus, I think that sometimes
Noam just doesn't pick up on what I'm saying. He's a brilliant guy, but that was my experience with him. The other guy was John Wheeler, who pretty much loved the CTN view. He wanted to meet with me. He wanted to meet with me. He asked to meet with me at Princeton, but I had a couple of jobs and I couldn't get away. It was a mistake. I should have given up the damn jobs and just gone to see Wheeler anyway.
With regards to Chomsky not understanding your theories, I think that you overestimate the intelligence of the average person trying to understand your theories and or you're too close to it and that leads to frustration on your part and the people trying to understand it. You think I overestimate their intelligence or underestimate? I think you overestimate.
by thinking that it's simple and the reason i say that is eric weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory he doesn't seem to get that the way that he explains it is esoteric and i wouldn't call it office it's almost like obscurantism though he's not trying to be and i'm not accusing you of that please don't take this as any slight i'm just saying that i think you may be too close to it to
understand the frustration of people who actually want, they're not trolls, some of them are, but they genuinely want to understand and they feel like it's impenetrable. The reason I say this is because it's hard for me to understand too, and I actually have a contact on your side, speaking to him on a daily basis, so I'm lucky that I have some physics and math background, so it's easier for me than the average person, but I still had a difficult time with it. What is the name of the person with whom you've been communicating? His name is Sam Thompson.
Yes, Sam is a mathematics student. He's actually pretty smart. Yeah, I love Sam. Me and Sam have been speaking almost each day. I actually had to get him on WhatsApp so I could speak. He's a big tall kid with red hair. I don't know if he's tall. I only spoke to him through webcam. But he's such a nervous person, but he's a sweetheart and he's extremely insightful and he understands your theories almost inside and out. He's a mathematician. He's smart.
Okay, we'll get on to the next one. Jordan Peterson, where do you agree, disagree? So it could be with either his biblical interpretations, his psychological book called Maps of Meaning, Order versus Chaos, and so on. Well, you know, Jordan is a, I think he's managed to do some good. I think that a lot of people get a lot of insight out of Jordan. And so I think that he's, you know, he's actually doing some good things. But as far as a TOE is concerned, he doesn't have
As I recall, his position on the existence of God is, well, I'm not going to say whether he exists or whether he doesn't, but I will say this, it would be better if we all believed he did, which is kind of a cop-out. But I don't think that he has the kind of philosophical understanding that would enable him to put together a basic theory that actually serves as a foundation
for morality, for example. And Jordan is really kind of a moral philosopher, so he needs that kind of foundation. I don't think he has it. He probably knows who I am. I mean, he's a psychologist. He's a Canadian, he's a North American psychologist. He has certainly heard of me, but I've never heard from him. As a matter of fact, I think there was some guy, some agent who was trying to set up a meeting between
Remember we were going through this exercise of stating a seemingly complicated sentence with terminology that wasn't articulated to the audience and then articulating them specifically. So let's do that once more.
Meta-causation and other metaphysical criteria require the standard physical conception of space-time be superseded by a more advanced metaphysical conceptualization that is a logical geometric dual to the linguistic structure of the triallic identity. Okay, so, before I move on to the next sentence, meta-causation, let's define that. Meta-causation is basically the... There's another dimension of time called meta-time,
that leads from the display to the processor of the reality of self-simulation and that is what we mean by meta-time and causation is pre-real, pre-causation that occurs in the processing section of the reality of self-simulation. In other words, meta-causation is really what causes things to happen. It's the real processing that is going on in causality. By the way, that can be mathematically demonstrated.
Causality doesn't have much to it. The reason is the structure of the manifold of the ordinary fixed real manifold that physics uses or even the complex manifold or any ectomorphic manifold. That doesn't do the trick. You just said that it goes from the screen to the process. That's meta time. Does it not go from the process to the screen? Let me just put it like this. Causation is distinct from the concept of origination.
When something is originated, it's originated from scratch. Causation, there always has to be a prior co-existence. You can go back in the infinite sequence. Origination means actually being able to originate something. That is what metacausation is. It's what ordinary people would call origination. This happens in a specific way in the CTMU. There's something called a distributed origin which exists everywhere in the non-terminal realm and that is where
This sounds like free will is associated here somewhere. Yes, it certainly is. Because it's the starting of a loop. Well, it's a loop, but it's not a loop that is fully resolved by physical law. There are gaps and holes in the causation. That's why there's something called
quantum uncertainty or quantum indeterminacy. The laws of physics are not sufficient to determine how a quantum wave function collapses. More is required. That's metacausation. There's a process called delic recursion that is actually a non-local feedback among the resources available in the semi-language LO, which allows causation to occur. It actually refines
Okay, then the next word is logical geometric dual. Okay, when I hear that, I can't help but think of stone duality like some generalization of it. Basically, basically it's the same thing. It's an intention extension duality between predicates and sets.
It's Logico-geometric, it's right there in the name. Logic is being coupled with geometry. They're dual to each other. Therefore, you've got a self-duality when you couple those two things in every quantum of reality. In other words, where you view reality in terms of identification events involving syntactors, this is what you get.
You get logico-geometric duality between the sides, between the syntactic data type and the input data type that you're accepting from the external environment. Physical input and then internal processing with internal metal states that go into your behavior. Okay, the last word is triolic identity. So what's meant by that? The identity of reality is triolic.
The identity of reality, of course, we've been through that. That is called the global operator descriptor. It has basically, it has syntactic structure. Give me that term again. Trialic identity. It's triallic, which means that it serves as its own object, its own relation and relational structure and its own operational structure. It is at once an object, a relation and an operator. That's what triality is.
Okay, it's as simple as that. You can also phrase it as, you know, it can be looked at in a couple of other ways as well, as basically the coincidence of space, time, and object. All of those things are everywhere combined. It can also be looked at as the combination of language, universe, and model. All right, which is, and that is implicit in the title of the CTMU, cognitive theory is a language, okay? Model is a model.
Triality, another way to understand it is that there's dualities which people can understand. It's two notions that are dual to one another. Now you're saying that there's three. Is it as simple as extending two to three? All you have to do is put space and time together and now you've got two things. You've got one medium and one object, so your triality has become duality right there.
There's no mystery about it. Basically, you've got space, time, and object, or object, relation, and operation, or universe, model, and language. You've got those three things, and those three things all have to be combined in every identity in reality. Every identity in reality is a coherent image of the global identity, which is a global operator descriptor.
Okay, is that also related to Hologi, the concept of Hologi? Well, here's the thing. In the generative universe, you've got syntax. You've got a universal distributed form that is in every syntactor. That means that every point of reality is automatically covered by the UDF or by syntax as it is created. In other words, the UDF or the universal syntax of reality is invariant with respect to rescaling.
Let's get to some audience questions and then we'll wrap up. We have an audience.
There's no one here watching right now, but I've asked for questions. I posted your face before on my theories of everything community tab. I said, hey, I'm interviewing Chris Langan in a few weeks. Let me know what questions you have for him. Okay. Okay. So this person, his name is Dav. He actually translated your publication to French. He writes a question here. Dav says, I made a French translation of your two publications, CTMU and the introduction to CTMU.
I plan to continue. What's the best way to stay in touch with you on this matter? Well, obviously, that would be through the Mega Foundation. What is our email address at the Mega Foundation, honey? What's that? info at megacenter.org
In the context of the afterlife processing the sum of information of an individual's consciousness, in your opinion, to what extent could the continuity
Yes, but you've got to have something that encodes your memories and will actually instantiate them. You've got to have something
Like a brain that serves as an antenna for the telor, it actually realizes cognition that is determined by telecrucrusion. The answer to your question is yes, but basically goes back to what I was saying about always having to have, aside from the telor, something approximating a terminal body that you use.
which is why all of these religions talk about an afterlife and having a new body, a resurrection body, etc., a reincarnation. You always have some kind of terminal body for your italic aspect of your existence, for the purely metaphorical aspect of your existence to be instantiated in. Then you can have specific memories and things. Otherwise, you are a syntactic entity, a group of impulses
I haven't gotten to any questions on consciousness, but in your theory, how is consciousness defined and where does it fit in?
Every quantum of the universe is conscious because it's a syntactor. A syntactor is a generalization of a computational acceptor. It's a proto-computational generalization of what in computation theory is called an acceptor. An acceptor is just a processing unit that accepts input from the external environment, applies a kind of syntactic filter in it to decide what gets through and in what form, and then
processes it and returns it to the environment. That's basically what it comes down to. And if you take a look at the structure of the syntactor, because it's performing that recognition function, it has to be conscious. Every quantum of the universe is conscious. But it's a generic form of consciousness that it inherits from the global operator descriptor. We have a more complex form of consciousness
Because we have more inherent complexity in our terminal embodiments and more self-modeling capacity because of that. We have a very complex brain that encodes all of our memories and thoughts and everything else and allows us to separate and resolve them. Okay, so that's how that works. Dav also wants to know, have you heard of the work of Jonathan Mize, in particular tractatus, logical, syndephyonicus,
which proposes an exploration of CTMU in the manner of Wittgenstein's. Well, I've never met Jonathan, but I know who he is and I know he's done some writing on the CTMU. He's an intelligent fellow and he's actually written a book or two. And as far as I know, he's still a member of our groups, but it's like I said, I've never met him. We've had a few conferences. I would have liked Jonathan to come to a couple of them, but he did send me a copy of this book. Dav again.
Yeah, I'm open to whatever you might have in mind, but there are a couple of people that are probably on your list of interviewees with whom I have had peripheral reactions or interactions in the past, and some of these people have
I think as I recall, Bernardo Kastrup was pretty darn persnickety. I think he was on one of Jack Sarfati's lists, and there was a kind of an antagonism going on there. And I made a couple of comments and got a couple of what I regarded as pretty persnickety responses out of Bernardo. And I remember being slightly rubbed the wrong way by it. But you know, that's water under the bridge, so sure. I participated in a discussion that Bernardo was in.
Didn't he start writing for Scientific American or something? That atheistic rag? I don't know, but I do know that he's a sweetheart and I don't think, I think if he was picking a fight with you, then it's, I think you may be thinking of the wrong person. I don't think people would do that. No, I'm not.
Stephen Nicolich
I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and operate equally regardless of substrate, that is, whether it's material or consciousness. Essentially, idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. Okay, that's not a question. Read the first part of that comment. I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary... Information and logical what?
Okay, so I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and they operate equally regardless of the substrate. So whether it's consciousness or material, information and logical rule set are primary. So then he's saying essentially that idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. So what are your thoughts on that? It's not a question. I just want to hear what occurs to you.
Well, it is a false dichotomy in the sense that all of those things are coupled, information and logic. There is no information without a logical rule set. Language is the medium of information and language has syntax and that's a logical rule set, especially where your language includes the language of logic itself. Those two things are very closely coupled.
You can't separate them dualistically and put one on one side and one on the other and say we've got a complete dichotomy here. In that sense, he's right about there being a false dichotomy. As far as reducing all of reality to just information and logical rule set, that omits a lot of structure that probably deserves mention, but it could just be that he didn't have the time to write it on down. What would be an example of a structure that's not captured in information or logical rule set?
Well, you've got all kinds of – read the CTNU papers. There are many, many pages of structure that are missing from that characterization. But one thing that can be said for it is that information mappings are also captured in these little quanta, these state transition events of syntactors, of syntactic operators and telecom operators. It can all be captured.
Which of the major philosophers came the closest to discovering and expressing the true nature of reality? Came the closest?
Well, there were a number of very, very good ones. I mean, if you look back, there are just so many. Pythagoras came up with something that looked a little bit like Syndiphanes and Aristotle followed up on that. And Leibniz also had, there was much to be said for what he did. Whitehead with his process philosophy also very good. Bergson had some good ideas.
There are just a number of philosophers out there that, you know, Plotinus had some good things going for him. Plato, of course, just all kinds of, I mean, Heraclitus. Sierran Dudley, same person, number two. As you know, Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that they apply to all sufficiently expressive formal systems. So why should one think Gödel's theorems don't apply to the CTMU?
They do apply to the CTMU. That's why the CTMU is formulated the way it is. To get around, that's why it's generative. You can generate new axioms in the CTMU. You don't need to derive everything in the CTMU from some finite set of axioms. Exactly what Gödel's theorem says. There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what the CTMU actually says. Can the generative grammar
Introduce an uncountably infinite amount of axioms? Yeah, it can introduce an infinite set of axioms if that's what you're asking. An uncountably infinite is what I'm wondering. Anything in which the elements can be distinguished is countable. You can count them one by one. Count, count, count. Okay? The fact of the matter is real numbers are uncountable because you never have to complete one of them. You never have to write out all the little decimal spaces.
Timothy O'Brien asks,
Please ask him how Leibniz's monadology relates to the CTMU. Well, monads, it's an old Greek concept that goes back quite a ways and Leibniz, he had a good, there's actually some logical complexity to Leibniz's monadology that I could actually write a paper about it.
What role do the requirements of the existence of difference relations play in the metaphorical reasoning of the CTMU?
The metaphysical requirements of difference relations, did you say? Yep. He has a bracket, which says... Well, that would be syndiphenesis, would be the metaphysical requirement of a difference relationship. That would be that the difference relationship be defined within a syndiphenic relation, which means that you need basically the CTNU to make sense of it. Steven Oles has a great question that's more general. Are there any arenas where
Sometimes I roll out of bed feeling pretty stupid about nearly everything. My mind is not always functioning in peak efficiency. There are times when I feel pretty much incompetent no matter what I do, but there are times when all the mirrors are cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on. Then I sometimes feel as though I can pretty much handle anything.
So it just varies with the time of day, I guess you'd have to say. Have you done any meditation or taken nootropics like phenylparacetam or paracetam and seen any improvements? Is there anything that you can reveal? I don't really take nootropics. I drink coffee in the morning, you know, I often switch to tea later on if I need some kind of stimulant.
How about psychedelics? I spent time on an Indian reservation when I was a kid. It was the Wind River Reservation.
When we stayed there, it was usually in proximity to friends of the family, the Big Road family. There was a guy named Mark Big Road. He was a shaman, a Arapaho, I think. But he could have been Seward Shoshone, I don't rightly recall, but he was a shaman. And there would be meetings, prayer meetings on the North American church, Wepe, and one other kind of religion. But anyway, Mark's prayer meetings
were such that the attendees took mescaline at these prayer meetings. I suppose that probably got some of that, although certainly I don't do drugs. Have I ever done drugs? Yeah, I've experimented a little bit with drugs but I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to mess with drugs too much because
It interferes with what's going on up here and I don't like that. It's generally a feeling that bothers me in some respects. The psychedelics, I think that they have great potential for being beneficial, psychologically beneficial if they're used in the right way under the right circumstances. However, it's easy for them to get out of control. You can have a psychotic break on psychedelics.
This is something that you always have to be careful of. There was a lot of this stuff going on. My family was involved in the counterculture, both in the beat generation, the beatniks, you know, that thing's when the whole thing started, the whole counterculture movement got started. And then with the hippie generation, we were the ones who actually there was a teepee. It was a big deal. There was an Indian teepee erected in Berkeley by a guy named Charlie Hartman. Your stepfather coined the term beatnik, correct?
Jack was running a bar called The Place in North Beach and Boob used to come in there because that's where you can rub elbows with Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy and
Alan Ginsburg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and all the rest of these beats, these beat figures, and Herb liked to do that. He was a columnist. He was staying au courant. He was actually rubbing elbows with the right people. Jack told a joke about how in a symphony, he said, Russia seems to be sending up satellites. Look, they've got Sputnik. All we seem to be able to produce is beatniks.
Well, Herb heard that. It appeared like the next day in The Chronicle under Herb's byline. And I can remember my stepfather was furious. He was not the kind of guy you wanted to get furious around. But I remember it was a big deal. So that really pissed him off. But, you know, the place was the center of the culture in San Francisco. There was something called Blabbermouth Night that was invented by
Getting back to psychedelics you were mentioning, I was wondering, personally, did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight that you then took to the CTMU? What I can remember from my days on the reservation are a feeling of great affinity for the planet. I thought it was alive.
I could look at it, and I could see it living. That's the thing that hit me, that becoming aware of the life of the Earth. They talk about the Gaia hypothesis, and they talk about Mother Earth. It hit me viscerally that the Earth needed to be saved.
I feel pretty poorly about it. I think that a lot of it is unnecessary. A lot of it is very poorly done. But on the other hand, people have to live. The earth is overpopulated. We should not have so many people on it. We're encountering all kinds of problems because of it already. We're going to encounter many, many more if it continues. And we've got to start regulating our numbers and living coherently.
living consistently with the environmental limitations of the planet. The planet is finite. The resources are finite, but human population is exponential. It's exponential. It's essentially governed by a logistic equation. But when we get to the peak of that equation, that can be influenced. Now it's being pushed way ahead so that when we have a collapse, it's going to be a doozy. We need to get out of that right away. That being said,
The way the elite, the oligarchs, the people who run the world who have all the money and power, the way they're handling this problem, the way they seem to be handling it sometimes is not the right way. We've got to put this in front of the human race and we've got to appeal to what is best in mankind to make mankind voluntarily and responsibly limit their own reproduction.
That's what we've got to do. We've got to think about future generations. We've got to watch about transmitting genetic diseases or disabilities to them. People say, that's horrible because now you're talking about eugenics. Guess what? It's horrible to be born with a genetic disability. How can you sentence a child to that? We've got to do something about the reproductive situation. It is too easy for us to live too long on this planet at this point to be reproducing indiscriminately.
Okay, this person named Snord Grimstad is a huge fan of yours. It looks like this person has read
Plenty of your work. Do you have any views? I'm going to paraphrase this question. Basically, he or she wants to know if the CTMU can concretely help someone who's going through a psychological disorder like schizophrenia or depersonalization or... He just mentions those two. Yes, it certainly can. As a matter of fact, we're going to be setting up a program
for people that can actually help them do this. The whole idea of a stratified identity and knowing the structure of reality as we do, we can make inroads in terms of psychological and sociological integration and that is something that we're going to be concentrating on. I already have plans for it. Does the concept of sinned feoness necessarily connect to a self-distributing top-down model of reality?
Is there a sense in which one still has to understand reality in an experiential sense?
Absolutely. Absolutely. You've got to understand reality by actually living in it. That's what's so dangerous about the predicament we're in today. The people who are running the world are filthy rich people that live in bubbles. These people have never worked an honest day in their lives. They don't know what it's like to miss a meal.
You understand we can't have the world run by people who don't understand it and who don't understand what it feels like to actually live in it on the ground floor, absorbing its slings and arrows at all times. The people who are running the world are pampered, coddled elites that live in their own champagne colored, rose colored bubble of privilege.
This has to stop. These people don't know what the world is. Not only don't they know what it is intellectually, they don't know what it's like to live it. And this is creating terrible, terrible problems for us. So what can we do as the general population besides understanding the CTMU? Let's just take that out of the bag as one of the potential solutions. What can we do to ameliorate this problem given to us by or inherited to us from the rich elite, as you put it?
Well, we have to engage in the political process to try to stop the elites from basically destroying our freedom, destroying freedom and human dignity and everything else that makes us human. We've got to stop that by engaging in the political process. We have to exercise civil disobedience when necessary.
But aside from that, if that fails, we have to go back to the Constitution. The Constitution contains a certain amendment which says that we have to defend, we are entitled and have the duty to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If they're going to take human freedom and human dignity and validate the Constitution, they have no right to be here.
Something that strikes me about your theory is it's derived logically. That made me wonder in keeping with this question where he was asking is there an experiential element to reality that's not captured in the CMTU. What I'm wondering is do you consider the CTMU to be or even yourself to be rationalist or do you have problems with the rationalists?
I have no problems with rationalists as long as they're competent, which a lot of them aren't. A lot of people criticize me because basically you're like those old medieval philosophers who used to pontificate on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. You're trying to derive everything from logic, but really the world is experiential. It is the logic of experience. To derive the CTME, you start with experience. You start with cogito and
You start with Descartes and Berkeley. You take cognition and experience, you logically induce the minimum model, the bare minimum that you need to make cognition and perception work, then you form an identity incorporating that potential and you have the CTNU if you do it right. A true rationalist knows how to do that right.
There aren't very many of them. I love what you said. The logic of experience. I don't think I've heard that phrase before. Did you just come up with that on the spot or have you heard that before? First time I ever said it. What I'd like to know is how is science as it's currently formulated limited? Well, it's limited by the lack of an understanding of what a meta-language is. Back in the 19th century, for example, they thought there was something, physical theory contained something called the Limit of Receiver.
And that was basically mapped into physical reality as a kind of a space filling substance, or perhaps the space itself. Then when Einstein came along with the theory of relativity, he changed physical theory so that luminous, luminous ether disappeared. It totally disappeared from the scene. So the truth value of
of luminiferous ether exists had to be changed from true in the 19th century to false in the 20th century. That involves the use of something called a meta-language where you attach truth values to physical attributions. Physicists did not understand and still do not understand the structure of the meta-language that they need to do things like that, and it's called metaphysics. In other words,
Businesses actually need metaphysics. They need a metaphysical metal language to actually make changes like this, to pass, to affix truth values to physical attributions, to change their theories, to correct their theories and things like that. The amazing thing is they don't realize this. They still don't realize it.
They don't realize that physics has actually absorbed metaphysics of necessity. It needs metaphysical functionality in order to do this. But most physicists think that metaphysics is some kind of woo or some kind of quackery. And it's just what it is, is this logical ignorance. They're not trained properly in what a metal language is or what an object language is, but for that matter, how a universe relates to it. They don't know anything about model theory.
Some of them may have taken a course in model theory, but they don't really know anything about it. Because of that, the CTMU is an advanced meta-language for science. It's a metaphysical meta-language, and it's absolutely logically necessary. You can't get by without it. So this is what's the matter with science. It doesn't understand the language in terms of which its theories are formulated or how they relate to the physical universe. It's kind of a hit and miss thing where
We're following the scientific method, we're empirically inducing theories, and we're sort of affixing them or gluing them onto observations in physical reality, but we don't know how or why that is happening. It's some kind of lucky break that we're getting, right? It's the unexpected efficiency of mathematics, of being able to actually use mathematical models on reality, right? They don't have a metal language whose structure actually tells them why that's occurring. So this is
This is bad news for science. It remains bad news. I'm trying to help them fix it. Some other ways people would say that are on the more eastern end, they may say that it doesn't incorporate enough experiential elements or that it's too mathematically defined. That's part of the problem, yes. They don't understand that there is actually a subjective as well as an objective aspect to reality.
They need a metal language to actually put those two things together. That's the coupling. Metal language provides the coupling for a subject of an object of reality. And the lack of such a metal language means that they can't actually put those two things together. That's what we're trying to help fix with the CTMU. And we're getting a lot of bonuses. There are a lot of things that you can do with the CTMU. For example, physicists are trying to explain dark energy. They're never going to do it.
until they have the CTMU. The CTMU offers the only viable explanation for dark energy. And there are other things, consciousness, there are all kinds of things that cannot be explained without this metal language, this metaphysical metal language, and the admission on the parts of scientists and physicists in particular, that metaphysics is already built into their discipline. How they could still be ignorant of it, I'm not quite sure.
I recall you saying that the universe is not simply a sum of its parts. I'd like you to explain why. Well, it's synergistic, basically. If you put things together and you're basically doing so, it's like bolting a machine together. You're putting the parts together, you're putting in the little screws and they're all in the right place and then you turn the crank and the machine works. But if you take one of those little pieces out, well, the machine doesn't work anymore. It just sort of falls apart and there is no coherence to it.
When you think, you know, the things that are going on in your mind, they're all connected to each other. You notice there's no division. There's no, there's no one thing is, you know, missing or anything like that. It's all there. Everything is coherent and machines don't function that way. Machines have a kind of mechanical coherence, but that's not sufficient. So what we need is higher order coherence. That's what the CTMU also brings to bear as it has higher order
quantum coherence, actually meta quantum coherence. And this is something else that we need to make a viable theory of reality. Yeah, you know, this idea that everything is just happening at random and it's just sort of all popping up at random and things sort of emerge at random. This is nonsense. Total nonsense. You can't build a theory of reality that way. You're just you're just trying to glue parts together and you will never get more than their sum. And the sum of parts is just a pile of parts. That's it.
Everything has to work together. As a matter of fact, it has to work synergistically, and that is more than the sum of the parts. Why can't it be somewhat simple in Wolfram's theories he has, or in his classical theories, he had those cellular automaton with simple rules, adjacent neighbors signify whether you live or die, and then seemingly complex behaviors emerge from that. Why can't it be like that?
Emerge? Well, let's have a definition. Let's have Stephen's definition of emergence and how it occurs. Stephen doesn't have one, nor does anybody else. You have to have a theory of self-organization. It's one of the reasons I had to come up with it is because there are a lot of deficits and holes. For all of the inroads and advances that science has made, it's still full of holes. We have to try to patch some of
What would you have done differently in the development of your theory? So for example, you would have spent more time writing with a pen and a paper instead of going for walks. I'm speaking practically here. Or you would have taken more time off or taking less time off. Time off? I've never had a vacation in my life. You know, and I don't quite know what time off means. I think about the CTMU every day and I get up, I think about mistakes that I've made in the past. I'm constantly questioning myself.
What would you have done differently if you could advise yourself, let's say, 30 years younger?
I had the CTMU in full form decades ago. Basically, if I had to advise myself of something, it would be how to present it and how to actually get people to pay attention to it. I'd advise myself to have actually tried to go to Princeton and meet with John Wheeler as I was invited to do, per example. That could have changed everything. But when you're raised like I am, like I was,
My family got kicked out of houses when we were kids, you know, we found ourselves in the street. And when I was in New York and I had these jobs and I, you know, I simply was afraid to lose, felt that I was going to be in the street again. So I didn't go and visit John Wheeler. You know, people think, well, you know, that's ridiculous. There's always a job and it's always a source of money. Not for all of us, there isn't. And the way I was raised, there wasn't, there wasn't anything. There was no one who was going to help you.
There are people who are watching this who are developing their own theories and so it's almost like when I ask you what would you have done differently
It's also couched in well, what would you have done differently such that they can apply it? So when you say speak to John Wheeler, that's so that's extremely specific. First, they can't apply it. Second of all, not everyone was invited. So given that now, what is your answer? What would you have done differently? What would you advise your 30 year younger self to do or not to do? Basically, I would be you're kind of OK, I've already succeeded in finding what I want to
All right, so basically what I would try to do is make sure that I was not distracted and taken off the track. All right, one thing that you must bear in mind if you are a young person who's trying to figure reality out is that you cannot serve God and mammon. God is reality and reality is God. You don't like God, you're sunk. You're not going to get a true theory of reality. You can learn a lot of math, you can learn how to kind of put things together and
tack one mathematical theory onto another, but you're not really going to get to the identity of reality. And that's how we define the G O D. That's what I was telling you. Okay. Anyway, you can't serve the G O D and mammon. You want to be a big shot? You want to go out and be a hedge fund manager? Go ahead and do it, but you can forget about your aspirations to reality theory. There are all kinds of people out there, elites, you know, money bags of various kinds who think, well,
First of all, what I'm going to do is I'm going to get out there and I'm going to make a billion dollars. I'm going to make a lot of money. And then armed with that money, I'm going to save the world. No, you're not because you spent all your capital. It's hard to get money. Okay. It actually you really, it really does kind of knock you out. You've got to have the right connections. You've got to have the lucky breaks. If you immerse yourself in that goose chase,
If that's what you live for, by the time you get your money and you're sitting there and now you're a big billionaire and you're going to do this and you're going to do that, there's nothing left. All you can do is put on a show. This has been proven time and time and time again. You point me out a billionaire who's actually got some kind of big insight or some big idea about the nature of reality and that's nonsense.
Anyway, go ahead, try it. You know of any billionaires that really have any good ideas about reality? Well, anyway, that's what I would remind myself of. Don't chase money. Okay? Don't... There is a cost for that. People sell their soul for it. And that has a very literal interpretation in the CTMU. You're actually subscribing to a telon that is designed to get you money, and that telon now controls your thoughts. It's not going to let any distractions through
by way of reality theory. You're not going to be able to keep those things in mind anymore because it's all about getting money, furthering the interests of the corporation, not running afoul of corporate culture. All of these things are going to occupy your attention and you're not going to be the big genius you thought you were going to be. You make up your mind. You're either going to be a genius or you're going to be a money big.
What if someone says, I want to be a philanthropist like Bill Gates?
Yeah, they think Bill's a philanthropist, do you? I spent a large amount of time. Okay. When I was a kid, you know, one would think, well, you know, why wasn't Lang, and if he's a big genius, why wasn't he involved in the computer revolution? And why didn't, why wasn't he Bill Gates? Well, it was very easy, you know, I can explain that. Basically, there was a, there was one, there was a computer at Montana State University.
And I think it was called the Sigma seven. It was, uh, I don't know if it was an IBM 360 or what the hell it was, but, uh, but, uh, anyway, it, uh, it was, you know, a marvel of the time, you know, in the sixties here in the, in the, in the mid sixties, they've actually got a computer up there that people can probe. I was, when I went to this computer class to actually, you know, sign up and learn how to program using Fortran, you have to program this, this, this university computer.
I was recognized by Mr. Chandler, who taught the course, as someone that he didn't particularly like. He said, well, he said, I count 31 students. I only have 30 textbooks. So I'll just hand them out. And then when I run out, well, then that person will have to double up with somebody else. I was the person who didn't get, he walks around the classroom, you know, following this trajectory. And I'm the person, the last person. And he looks down at me and says, well,
I'm sorry, you'll have to double up with somebody else. But when you're the least popular kid in class, nobody wants to double up with you. I just got up and walked out of this class. All right. So this is what can happen. You get a couple of bad breaks. No. All right. Then, you know, I got eventually bought a computer, an Atari computer, and started programming in BISP. Okay. But that was a problem because then Atari went out of business and I needed
an IBM type Bill Gates computer. They were all $2,000. For me, that was four months rent. I could not afford it. So by the time it got around to where I could afford to get all the equipment that I needed to be a big computer hotshot, it was too late. I'm not going to waste my time on it now. There are too many kids out there. There are apps this and apps and programs that. I'm going to be in the next big shot. They have connections. Their families have money.
I'm not Bill Gates, whose father was a millionaire and got his own little computer and was able to do it. He had everything handed to him and most of these people do. Show me the billionaire who's self-made and I'll show you a BS artist. There's simply no doubt about it. Is there such a thing as philanthropy? Yes, of course there is. Unfortunately, most of these people, to be a philanthropist, you not only got to have a lot of money, you've got to know to whom you should give that money.
Who should be the object of your charity? Who would you say is a good philanthropist? I don't know of any. There are organizations that give grants, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, other people that give grants that someone like me should be eligible for. Well, every time I have gone to fill out the application for one of these charitable organizations,
First thing, you fill out an application and they want to know what institution you're affiliated with, namely what university you're affiliated with. If you're not a professional academic, you're just out. That's it. They ignore you. This is not philanthropy. This is a circle jerk. It's an unbroken circle. Everybody links their arms and nobody gets in from the side.
Okay, so that's what it is. And that is that is what these philanthropists are all about. You know, the only people they will give to are people that come out of their own indoctrination mills. Right? That's that's it. Nobody else is eligible for their charity. And basically, what they're doing is they're just choosing the people, you know, that are going to tell them what they want to hear. And they're doing it in such a way that they get maximum credit for that they look especially good, for example,
the American Cancer Society, donate to the American Cancer Society and you look good for doing that. Bill Gates has done a lot of that kind of donating, but now we find out that Bill Gates has parlayed that into an amazing amount of control over the world health system. So it's not as though it was just charity, is it? Okay. Bill has now got himself, you know, has wangled a leading position in the, you know, I mean,
You know what this amounts to. This entire vaccine thing was more or less previewed by Bill Gates. What was that? Event 201? Was that what it was called? I mean, this guy has known what was happening all along. It's as though it was planned, previewed, rehearsed in advance, and Bill Gates is right in the middle of it. Now, I can't point the finger at Bill and say, he's definitely guilty. He definitely did this. He definitely did that.
The last question is from me. What advice do you have for me? Basically, I'm on this mission to understand different theories of everything. It's autodidactic for various reasons, so it's similar to yourself in that manner.
I am making sure that I'm not closing my doors. I'm trying to be open to non. I used to be like, as you would understand, the standard academic who was materialistic and despised everything that even resembled mysticism. But now I'm opening myself up to what people would ordinarily call woo, like free will, consciousness, God, even UAPs. So what advice do you have for me as I go on this mission? Other than Kurt, just read the CTMU.
You've got to stick with it and you can't become discouraged. Obviously, I'm going to tell you, you have to read the CTMU and you have to try to grok it. You have to try to deeply understand it. Remain open minded, but don't allow yourself to be unduly influenced by people just because they are persuasive. There are a lot of very persuasive people out there who will try to convince you that they have the correct perspective on reality, but in reality, they do not. But a lot of people say, well,
This person is so intelligent and they seem so confident. What they're telling me about reality, there's got to be something to it. It must be true. Meanwhile, they're talking out of the other side of their mouths, disparaging. You don't want to let that happen. Maintain a certain amount of skepticism regarding whatever anyone is telling you. I think that what I've succeeded in doing during this interview is actually answering questions and actually making sense of some of this for you. I don't know how successful I've been, but at least I've tried. There is
I don't know of anyone you can actually push to ground, you can actually tree like this and get straight answers about the overall structure of reality from. As far as I know, I'm the only person like that. So just don't listen to anybody who disparages me or my work. That's my main piece of advice and also just stick with it, man.
You need to know, remember, when you study reality, when you're looking at the structure of reality, you're looking for the structure of your own ultimate identity. That's what you get at the top. That's what it all boils down to in the end. If you correctly understand that, then you can be salvaged. The universal identity will keep you alive forever. All right?
But you need to find it. You need to come to grips with it. And you need to keep on traveling up that ladder as far as you can get. All right. Most people become discouraged. I'm tired of this. I'm so tired. I can't do this anymore. My mind just won't handle it. This is, well, it's death for a person like you, someone who really needs to know, who really wants to look in. It's a lifelong thing, Kurt. You've got to stick with it no matter what.
Thank you, man. You know, when I ask that question, I'm actually also asking on behalf of the audience because many of them are on a similar journey of explicating toes. That's the whole point of this channel. So from what I understand, read the CTMU. Okay, I have and I will continue to do so. Second, don't listen to people who appear to have cogency or persuasive relevance, but
The criteria that you listed was if they disparage you, so I'm going to ask you what is an alternate criteria, not just that, because some people have made no comment about you, and also someone could just be simply mistaken. So for the people who are listening, who are also on a similar journey of self-exploration, trying to understand the universe, which seems to be intimately tied to understanding oneself, they're on this journey. What other advice do you have for them besides reading the CTMU, which I advise everyone who's listening or watching to do,
Sometimes clues come from the most
I find that when I'm trying to understand structure of reality, things are given to me, are put in my proximity that would be very easy to ignore or to miss. You must be attuned to them. You must be aware at all times of how reality may give you clues about what you're looking for. That is a piece of advice that I think is very important.
for everybody to understand. Remain in a state of awareness. Guard your awareness. Life is very distracting. It's easy to get distracted and to just bumble from one mental state to another. Don't do that. Maintain, persevere, maintain focus, maintain awareness. Remember, reality is always trying to show you things. Let it show you things. Pay attention
I'm not just talking about paying attention to the spectacular things or the things that interest you or guzzling a beer and watching a football game. I'm not talking about that kind of awareness and perception. I'm talking about subtlety. Give an example if you don't mind. For example, in the morning when I wake up I'm thinking about something. I might reach over and I might grab my
My iPad or whatever kind of pad it is, I might take it and look at it. There might be a page there and I might go to my email and without even pressing the email thing I'll see under the page I'll see a bunch of stories that are listed there by some mainstream outlet like Google or something and then I'll look down the list of stories and there's something that catches my eye and I know there's something in there that I should pay attention to.
So I click and invariably I find that it's there. It's a gut instinct I have. I can tell when there's something there that I can use. I know when reality wants to show me something and I can follow those little bread trails, those little trails of crumbs that leads for me with great accuracy. This is a special, this is a skill you need to develop.
It's not something that everybody knows how to do right away, but it's definitely there. If you're looking for understanding, this is what you've got to do. This is your state of mind. You're like an antenna and you are attuned to what reality is trying to show you. It's a whole new way of life. That being said, we're entering very troubling times and you've got to be willing to get in there,
Roll up your sleeves and develop some mental and physical muscle and deal with the problems we have. We've got some terrible problems and they're very distracting too. It's going to be tearing our minds away from what reality is but there's one thing you have to know about reality and that is that existing in reality means that you're free. You're an individual. You cannot allow yourself to be enslaved. You can't allow yourself to be mechanized and programmed.
Chris, man, thank you so much. You're very welcome.
It's been a pleasure. That now concludes the full interview with Chris Langan. Now the episode featuring Chris Langan and Bernardo Kastrup in the Theo Locution discussion on the CTMU. Can computers be conscious and God?
Chris Langan is an autodidact who has the highest reported IQ in America. And he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything, based in language or meta-language and logic or meta-logic, called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, or the CTMU for short. The link to Chris's CTMU YouTube channel, as well as other links, are in the description. Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of the Essencia Foundation. Bernardo is one of the most cogent champions of metaphysical idealism.
That is the notion that reality is essentially mental and he puts this forward with analytical precision. The link to Bernardo's YouTube page and other links are in the description as well. In this podcast, Bernardo and Christ both expound on their views on consciousness, on
Computation and whether materialism or idealism is most coherent. My name is Kurt Jaimungal. I'm a Torontonian filmmaker with a background in mathematical physics dedicated to the explication of the variegated terrain of theories of everything that is primarily from a physics perspective
Nice to meet you, Chris. Nice to meet you too, Bernardo.
Plenty of people are excited
Why don't we start? Just so you know, we'll talk about metaphysics, consciousness and computation. Those are the general themes for today. We'll start with the substrate independence of consciousness, quote unquote. So Lambda, I'm sure you've heard of this computer or this algorithm or this AI called Lambda. Some people claim it's indeed conscious. Why or why not? And we'll start with you, Bernardo, if you don't mind.
Certainly not. When we say something is conscious, what we normally mean is that something has private conscious inner life that is separate from yours, from mine and from the rest of nature. So to be conscious is to have private experience, private phenomenality, another way to put it. And I think we have absolutely no reason to think that a silicon mechanism
has private inner life of its own. Is it in consciousness? Absolutely. Everything is in consciousness. Everything begins, unfolds and ends in a field of subjectivity that underlies all nature, in my view. So lambda is in consciousness. That doesn't mean that it is conscious in and of itself. I think what nature is telling us empirically all the time
is that private conscious in your life correlates with life metabolism, protein folding, DNA transcription, ATP burning, all that good stuff. This is
a far from trivial process, metabolism, it uniquely separates biology from everything else in the universe and it ties all biology together despite the tremendous differences between say an amoeba swimming in my toilet and me.
We are completely different, yet if you look down a microscope to the details of metabolism, we are identical. We all do protein folding, ATP burning, transcription and all that stuff. So nature is screaming to us that what private conscious inner life looks like is warm, moist biology, metabolism. And lambda is a silicon computer. Now, can it
emulate or simulate human cognitive processing very well. Well, I have little doubt that it does, but the simulation of a phenomenon is not the phenomenon. I mean, I can simulate kidney function on my computer accurately down to the molecular level.
And yet my computer will not pee on my desk because a simulation of kidney function is not kidney function. So lambda is simulating human intelligence. That doesn't mean that it is conscious because a simulation is not the thing simulated. It's a primary logical mistake that unfortunately has been rendered seemingly plausible.
Chris, what's your opinion on the same question? If you want, I can reread the question. Read the question again.
I agree with everything that Bernardo said, but go ahead and read it again for me, please. So whether we basically want to know whether or not Lambda is indeed conscious, why or why not? Are you talking about the Lambda calculus of a program? Recently in the news, there was this AI from Google, which was much like a, like a talk, like a bot. A talk bot, yeah.
I will probably explain it incorrectly. So, Bernardo, do you mind explaining what lambda is? It's a chat bot. That's what it is. Yeah. And it probably will pass the Turing test. Well, for what that means, I mean, as Bernardo pointed out, the Turing test isn't the end all be all. You've still got a machine simulator, even if it stimulates very, very well and convinces you that it's human. Nevertheless, it is not human.
So basically, you're asking me, well, the lambda calculus is a construct. It's a computer program. It's a mathematical construct, which exists in something that can be likened to the syntax, the accepting syntax of something in computation theory that's called acceptor. You've got acceptors and processors that transduce information. They accept input and output from the external world, and then they process it internally. So we're talking about consciousness being the internal phase of that process. And the idea is, you know,
Metaphysics, as far as metaphysics is concerned, as far as I'm concerned anyway, in my opinion, metaphysics is about putting the mental side of your existence in contact with the physical side. We understand the physical side quite well, thanks to the empirical sciences, and the mental side, we don't have such a firm grasp on. Kant, you know, came up and started talking about mental categories in terms of which we perceive phenomenal reality.
And that gives us a clue as to what we're talking about. We are talking about something very much like accepting syntax with a computational acceptable. OK, the idea of putting those two things together requires something called all we have to do is we very simple operation. We basically say that cognition is akin to a cognitive identity language. It allows us to identify things. So it's a language. Then we say the physical universe is a manifold.
space-time manifold out there in which things are happening. The idea then is to connect these two things. That takes a kind of metal language that spans both of these two object languages that we have, one of which deals with values, coordinate systems, and things like that. That's the manifold. And then you've got the other side, which is qualitative, more qualitative, more attribute, right? That's the metal side. So we're uniting those two things in one metaphorical language that has to be quantized in a certain way.
and those identity operators that I was just talking about, that are a little bit like computational acceptors, those are the quanta. Okay, they're active signs. If you look at the linguistic aspect of what I'm talking about, they are active signs in the language, but they are also the points of the manifold or the universe that contains the content to which you refer with the language. Follow me? This is a mathematical, this is a, this is something that I, you know,
I did 30 years ago and I more or less have my own way of talking about it. Let me know if I'm losing it. Sure. So I have a quick question and then Bernardo, please jump in if you're unsure or you have clarifying questions. So you said that there's a mental world and then there's something like the physical world, which you said is like a manifold. Well, they're both metaphorically coupled. You can't if you take a state, it consists of attributes and values for the attributes. You can't take those two things apart.
What I'm saying is they're metaphorically coupled. You can deal with pure attributes, but you can't do that without instances or at any rate a cognitive identity operator to actually perform the mental functions involved. As far as the values are concerned, you take an object without attributes, that's an oxymoron. There is no object that is totally without attributes. You've pinned an attribute on it,
Chris jumped into probably more details of his theory, which I'm not acquainted with. So if I start asking questions now, you'll probably
speak for the next two hours just for me to understand something I should have understood by reading a paper which I haven't read so I'm not going to tax you with this Chris. Yeah well what I was trying to answer more or less was the idea of what metaphysics is and how consciousness relates to metaphysics. Okay so what I'm saying is that metaphysics has to be this metaphorical metal language and consciousness relates to it as a distributed property thereof.
That would be your particular usage of the word metaphysics. Metaphysics is a word that has been used since the pre-Socratic, so there is a sort of a common meaning for the word in philosophy. Metaphysics, that which stands behind physics or the essence or the beingness of things as opposed to appearances and behavior. Precisely. I'm saying that has to take the form of a metaphorical metal language.
of the metal and physical sides of reality. It's going to span between both of those things, building a bridge between them. That's the purpose of metaphysics. And I understand that many different people have defined it in many different ways. And the long and short of it is, although I respect people having their own ideas about things, I don't find that especially useful. You can go and look at everybody's definition and not come out with anything very stable that you can work with. So
I settled on a mathematical structure that I can work with to make sense of these concepts, these metaphysical concepts. Okay. So how about we talk about computation? So what does computation mean? What is reality's relationship to computation? Obviously that depends on one's definition of reality. Let me tell you the reason why I'm asking this question. It's because some people think that our
Conscious experience is generated by an algorithmic process. And then some people don't think that. So, for example, Penrose famously. And secondly, some people think reality is understood as or is equivalent to computation. So Wolfram, for example, again, the question is. What is computation and what is its relationship to reality in Bernardo? In its most generic definition, computation just means changes of state.
When future state states depend on previous states, then you have a computation. It's the function by means of which you create future states based on past states. That's the most generic possible definition of computation. Some of the other things you brought up.
attach more qualifications to the word computation. Wolfram considers the laws of physics to be emergent from cellular automata like computation. In other words, local computations based on simple rules. So now you're not seeing only computation. Now you're specifying more what kind of computation is involved. Then you have digital physics.
in which the idea is that the laws of physics should be reducible to digital computations. So you're specifying what kind of computation there are analog. There has been analog computers in our history and less than 100 years ago. So computation is not only digital. So most people, when they say, well, nature is a computer, usually they mean something more than to just say computations happen.
Because, yes, computations happen. The state of the universe is changing, so it's computing. By definition, there is nothing metaphysically polemical or complicated about it. It is when you add more qualifications to what you mean, that's where it gets tricky. When you say, for instance, that consciousness does not have a nontic reality of its own,
but is the result of a computation and therefore epiphenomenal in some sense. Now you're saying more than just that the universe computes. Now you're saying not only does the universe compute, sometimes it structures its computations in such a way that it produces an epiphenomenal result that we know as consciousness. Now you're saying something distinct and absolutely wrong and internally contradictory and incoherent and explanatory powerless.
But at least you are saying something. Penrose would say that in orchestrated reduction together with Hameroff, they would say that it's when mass crosses a certain threshold that you have collapse and the moment of collapse is an experience. So they are saying a lot more than to just say the universe computes.
So if you stick to the general thing, the universe computes, I would say, of course, because computational computation, generically speaking, just means that there are state transitions.
And future states are based on prior states, which we know empirically is what's happening in the universe. The universe doesn't begin at every moment independently of what the state was before, otherwise it would be completely random. And it's not, it's predictable. So yes, there are computations, but that's a very generic and non-polemical thing to say. Chris, again, so the question is,
What is computation and what's reality's relationship to computation? And again, what's behind the question is some people think that the mind has to be non-algorithmic, like Penrose, and then some people think that reality itself is algorithmic or computational, like Wolfram.
Okay, the problem with, you know, computations with a Turing machine does. A Turing machine can do its computations in one of two ways. It's got a, you know, recursive process, and it can either do things deterministically, like Bernardo was talking about, something in the past happens, then you've got causal efficacy within the machine, and then something else happens, or it can do it non-deterministically, which means that it's making random choices. In either case, those don't describe consciousness, because those random junctures, they're disconnects.
Consciousness is something that we understand as a pretty much continuous process. Whereas if you take non-deterministic computation, there is this disconnect there. Whereas if it's deterministic, then consciousness is completely trivial. In other words, a deterministic process gives you no room for free will, doesn't allow you to make choices, doesn't allow you to realize your
your will, as Schopenhauer might put it. You see what I mean? So that's the main limitation of computation theory. The fact that you've got this pseudo causal dichotomy between determinacy and randomness. Now there's a third way to look at things and that is called self-determinacy. That is what occurs in the metaphorical system, which is why instead of using computation to model this whole thing, I use something called proto-computation.
Because quantum Turing machine is a little bit like a classical Turing machine. Still got the tape, it's still got the processor. That tape, by the way, that's like a typographical array in formal systems. And this is, once again, inadequate. The reality is generative. It actually has a way of putting itself together from scratch. It originates things rather than causing them.
So, that would be my answer to the shortfalls of computation modeling consciousness. If I if I can just comment on something.
When I said the universe certainly computes, I didn't mean to restrict it to deterministic computation. I know that, Bernardo. There is indeterministic or non-deterministic computation. Quantum computers are not deterministic and yet they produce precise solutions to very complicated problems, solutions that you can test and see while they are really solutions. They do so mechanistically, right? By the word representation. So for Schopenhauer, the will is the inner essence of everything.
It's what really exists. He equates that to Kant's noumena, the collection of noumenons that forms existence, that forms the universe. And the representation is just the outside appearance of the will. If I can quote him, the representation is how the will presents itself. Can you give me an analogy or an example? Combustion presents itself as flames.
Combustion is the thing in itself, an oxidation process that releases energy, forms ions leading to a plasma, and what we call flames is how it looks like. It's what combustion looks like. So for Schopenhauer, all there is is will. In other words, endogenous conscious states. That's what he means. By using the word will, he means endogenous experiences.
In other words, experiences that are not perceptual in nature, they are endogenous, they arise from within. And representation is how those experiences present themselves to external observation. So the world is will.
And the world presents itself to us as the physical world, which is pure representation. And for Schopenhauer, causality as a concept applies only to representation. So only when you're talking about the language of representation can you talk about causality. The will behind it as the thing in itself precedes causality, but it is not random.
because it follows certain archetypal templates and he goes on and compares that with Plato's ideal forms and so on. So in essence, Schopenhauer, I think, well, in spirit, Schopenhauer was a determinist with the important caveat that he was a subtle determinist. He would say he wouldn't say that causality is the whole thing. He would say causality is emergent. Causality is something
that applies to the language of appearances, not of the things in themselves. But the things in themselves are not purely random, they also unfold according to certain templates. So in that sense, the spirit of determinism is preserved in Schopenhauer, if not the latter. Yes, I would say that Schopenhauer was a metaphorical meta-determinist, and I would say that basically he was a semiotician.
as well. I would say that he had this idea that there was something called will from which a semiotic representation emerged. Emergence is of course a concept that you've already mentioned. So in my system, in my system of metaphysics, telus is primary, will is primary, and then it factorizes itself. It actually fractionates or factors itself into two sides of representation, which is the sign and the thing signified by it.
Okay, plus something called thirdness, which of course is, is the interpreter of the sign. And all of these things, the three things are combined in the CTMU, in the Metaformal System, by something called Triality, which means that any object can be regarded as a relation, or an operation, or a process. You can take all of those things and everywhere combine them. So that's, that's, that's very good. Yes, I think that this is something that
Schopenhauer was trying to formulate, but he didn't have the mathematics at the time. He lived a long time ago and they didn't have most of these concepts out there, so he was unable to marshal them all and scrape them together and build the system. So that's what I'm trying to make up for, is lost time due to insufficient mathematical understanding of what was going on with these concepts.
The reference to semiotics, well, semiotics is language related. It's something that has to do with language. That's the word semiotics. That's what it means. Actually, they're separated, used language and semiotics. Semiotics is the pure science, the pure representational information mappings that mediate between science and the reference. Whereas language is something that takes those signs and puts them together in higher order combinations.
So I think for Schopenhauer, the wheel in itself would not be related to signs or language. Signs and language would be the paradigm of the appearances, of the representations, the Vorstellung, not anything inherent in the wheel itself. The wheel for Schopenhauer was beyond time and space.
and therefore the distinctions that are presupposed by semiotics wouldn't be there in the will in itself. Those distinctions would only appear in the appearances in the representations and then language could be applied or semiotics at first. And in Schopenhauer you would even have to get to what he called abstract representations
which was his old fashioned word for what we today would call meta cognition. It's when you take a sign, in other words, an appearance, and then you cognitively process that sign. You think about the thought or you think about the perception. And that would be an abstract representation in Schopenhauer's language.
language would require that first. It would require not only representations, but abstract representations. In other words, representations of representations. And now we are talking about the world of semantics, you know, signs and their meanings and how those meanings are put together in a linguistic structure. So I'm not contradicting what you said, Chris, but we are talking about Schopenhauer and I feel
a responsibility for adding more color and nuance to Schopenhauer? Yeah, no problem whatsoever. Yeah, I'm just saying that basically, I do think that Schopenhauer was, although he may not have realized it completely, he was a, he was a monist. He believed in a monarch theory in which, in which it's not, the, the, tell us this or, or will and representation are not just dualistically linked and separate.
I say that on some level he understood that the representations have to be coming from the will. Will has some kind of metacausal privacy and that's more or less what I'm talking about. I'm saying that that representation is a binary mapping or a binary relation and I'm saying that it's like cellular mitosis. I'm saying that telus has to split into those two things.
while meanwhile forming itself from the bottom up by two things coming together in a physical event, two particles whack into each other or something of this nature. And that's basically the metaphorical concept I'm getting at. And Schopenhauer is useful in this regard because that's what I think he was trying to get at too.
People today who think that Schopenhauer was in some sense a dualist or a dual aspect monist, I can only say they haven't read Schopenhauer. They didn't even begin to read Schopenhauer because the man couldn't have been more unambiguous, more explicit than he was. In the world as well in representation, particularly from the second edition on when he added twice the material, he kept the original but then doubled it.
He repeats himself so many times. He says the same thing in so many different ways, as though to make sure that he couldn't be misunderstood. Other than he was being paid by the word. Yeah, it's just it's surreal. In Wikipedia, the other day, it was still listing Schopenhauer as a dual aspect theorist. And even the world's supposed greatest scholar in Schopenhauer,
character from the UK called Christopher Janeway. The man just doesn't understand Schopenhauer. I mean, I'm sure he has studied Schopenhauer a lot, but, you know, intensity of study does not guarantee understanding and the guy doesn't even begin to understand Schopenhauer. He thinks Schopenhauer is a crass materialist and it's absurd. I think I read some of your comments on Janeway in an essay he wrote about, I know you wrote a book on Schopenhauer.
Okay, let's talk about free will. It seems like that's what is at the core here. So I'll do so by reading a question which is directed toward Chris.
But then obviously, if you pull something out, even though it has some terminology that's specific to the CTMU, Bernardo, please comment on it as well. Okay. Hey Kurt, I'm reposting this from YouTube. It's for Chris on the topic of free will derived from the CTMU. If you can ask this, you'll forever be my hero. You once said, I believe he's referring to you, Chris. Chris, you said that the universe, that because the universe has only itself to define itself, everything in it must exemplify its elementary freedom.
I think I understand from your defining reality as all real influence that reality cannot be abbreviated, because if you were able to simplify it with no loss, whatever was removed could not logically have been real. I understand where to take this to imply that reality could not have come from anything simpler than its full definition, and what can't be simplified must be contributory throughout.
That said, you've still maintained a strong distinction between tertiary syntactors, objects, and secondary syntactors slash tellers, life forms, read life forms, in terms of the amount that they are determinative. Considering that you've shown that reality is a mind, could we liken the distinction to the difference between ideas of objects and ideas of self, where just like ideas, all objects have some significance specific to them, however, seemingly banal, but only tellers
as ideas of self would be self-modeling and therefore truly take on self-awareness. That's why they're called tellers. That's why self-type identity operators are called tellers, whereas tertiary identity operators are fermionic, more or less, and they are inanimate, or at least usually considered to be inanimate. But basically they're embedded in secondary tellers and therefore they take that higher-order meta-causation, that ability to self-model from the secondary tellers.
So I assume you're answering the question right now, but Chris, I didn't understand the question. So can you explain the question back to myself and then answer it? Well, states, you know, there's no such thing as a state in isolation. States are always relatively defined. That's why we have theories of relativity and things like that. But what must the state be defined relative to? Well, to completely define any state in the universe, you need to refer to every other state in the universe because it parameterizes
that state. Okay, and you don't get a complete parameterization unless you have the full matter distribution and the full metric. Okay, so that's what it takes. Can I see if I can I make an analogy? There's a duality between a set and the complement of a set, assuming that the set is within some other large set that you can call. So let's say the large set is S, you have a subset U, then there's a duality between you and you with a C, which is a complement of it, the tell or and the environment, right? Exactly. Self and non-self.
Okay, sorry, continue. Okay, well, the environment, of course, is just the medium minus the Tellur. In other words, it's external to the medium, but it's outside the boundary of the Tellur. And so you get this basically the self dual construct, which is a Tellur environment coupling.
Okay, and this Taylor environment coupling is very important to the CTME because that's kind of a metaphorical quantum. It's one way of expressing CTME quantization. Okay, you have to put the medium together with the object. The object is its own medium through this process called expansion, which is the operation through which the universe evolves on the global level. Now, in order to get semantic meaning out of that, you know, basically, basically, it's called cosmic expansion.
Chris, it's been almost a year since I studied the CTMU. And when I did, I didn't go back to it, which means I've forgotten so much of it. So much of the terminology as I would have done myself. Okay. So much of the terminology, it goes through me. So tell it recursion. I have a vague recollection that it's where
the universe exercises free will, it looks at some generalized utility state, and then makes a decision. That's where TELOR is self-configured. That's where secondary identity operators or TELOR is self-configured. They actually become the medium. And I know that Bernardo actually embraces something like this in his analytic idealism, I think is what he calls it. Basically, you've got to have that going.
Okay, so let me be blunt. So free will in your theory, in your model, Chris exists. And Bernardo, if I'm correct, you're against the idea of free will, at least currently. Well, let me tell you what free will is first before Bernardo gets gone. Okay. Yes. As I said, there is no typographical array in the metaphorical system. Okay. You can't use the parameter as a state, you cannot just use a
fixed array, fixed array, the array has to be changing geometric, geometric dynamically, is the term that the followers of Einstein came up with to describe what must be going on, it's happening behind the scenes. Okay, free will happens because things are determined metacausally, you know, and metaphorically, which means that, that, that things have to be coupled or factorized.
Right. In other words, it's just not this linear process, this causal process, but it's this higher order process called meta medicalization that is a curve. And this is free will. If we look at a conspensive cycle in the CTMU, it's an alpha omega cycle. In other words, it starts at an origin and ends with the boundary. And those two things are in advanced and retarded communication with each other. Right.
Free will is in determining one of those conspensive cycles, regardless of what its size is. So in other words, there is a way to define free will that gets out of this pseudo causal dichotomy between determinacy and indeterminacy that we were talking about earlier. In other words, you're creating the medium. You're actually creating space-time as you create a new state. When you bring that new mental state into your head, you've actually done it by creating space-time.
This is kind of a very profound, very weird way of looking at it. I understand that it sounds weird, but it's the only way, in my opinion, things can work. I will comment more generically because I'm not familiar with Chris's terminology, so it's impossible for me to go into the details of that. But you offered, Kurt, that I am currently against free will. There's a lot of nuance to this, so let me try to clarify this.
The question of free will is linked to a materialist metaphysics, like people worrying that if my choices are determined by the patterns of brain activity in my brain, then I don't have free will. Well, on that account, I think people need not be afraid because I don't think physiological patterns of brain activity cause your choices. I think they are what your choices look like.
In Schopenhauer's terminology, they are appearances, representations. The thing in itself is your choice. So no, your choices are not determined by your brain activity. Your brain activity is what the process of making choices look like. And then you would say, well, then I am endorsing free will. But now we have now to understand what people mean by free will. What people mean by it is that their choices are determined by that which they identify themselves with.
as opposed to being determined by something that they don't identify with and most people don't identify with their brain activity they never get to see it they don't identify with it that's why when when a physicalist says well your choices are determined by your brain activity people feel that as a violation of their free will because they identify with their own mental processes the the flow of their consciousness not with
physical patterns of brain activity inside their skull, which they never saw in their lives. Now, let's think about the mind of nature. The mind of nature is the only thing there is. So need and will are the same thing. There is nothing. I mean, I have to work, right? I'm forced by my society to work. So my choice to work is not freely determined by me.
It's a need imposed on me by the society and I don't identify with the rest of the society. So my free will has been cut short in that regard. But if you are the mind of nature, there is no society. There is no world outside of you. There's nothing beyond you. So whatever choices you make as the mind of nature are free in the sense that they are determined, but they are determined by you.
The need and the choice are one and the same. There is no semantic difference between determinism and free will at the level of the mind of nature. Because yes, the choices are determined. Even people who believe in free will, they are not saying that their choices are random. They are saying that their choices are determined by their preferences, their tastes. They are determined by them.
At the level of the mind of nature, every choice is determined by the mind of nature because there is nothing beyond the universal mind, the universal consciousness. So even the question of free will disappears. There is a semantic space for it. It doesn't make sense to talk about it, but the choices are still determined in the sense that they are not random. The choices of the mind of nature are determined by what the mind of nature is.
its characteristics, its properties, determine the choices it makes. It cannot abstract of itself. Otherwise, the choices would be completely random. And that's incoherent to say that. I would merely add that what we have to do is we have to distinguish free will what's happening there from determinacy and non-determinacy.
Okay, so it is useful to talk about free will just to distinguish it from what we usually mean by causation. And once we do that, then we find out that we can describe it in a certain way, right, in terms of this expansion and telepercursion thing that I was talking about earlier. I think ultimately everything is determined. Even your choices are determined by your tastes, by your dispositions, your opinions. Can I ask you a question? Imagine
just imagine the origin of reality. What determined the structure of reality? In other words, there was nothing outside, according to general relativity, basically, reality is optically and geometrically closed. Okay, so there's nothing outside, there's no there's no extrinsic causation that could have caused the universe to take any particular form. So aren't we talking about the universe taking its own form, somehow deciding within itself, what form it should take
Deciding within itself can only happen if that decision is determined by what it is.
Something exists that cannot be explained in terms of anything else. We cannot explain one thing in terms of another forever. It doesn't matter what metaphysics one subscribes to, one cannot keep on reducing forever. Otherwise, eventually you will go back to the beginning and it will be circular reasoning. Unless it's idempotent, unless it's idempotent, that actually applies to themselves. You don't get to the top of the ladder, you just keep on going from run to wrong, and each wrong is identical to the last wrong.
You're going the other way around now. I'm thinking about the reduction. I'm going down to the bottom. There has to be something at the bottom that simply is. It simply is what it is.
For something to exist, it needs to have properties. To say that something is an object means that it has properties. So to be is to have properties. I agree with you there. To be is to have properties. Whatever it is that you are, you are one thing and not another. In other words, there are properties associated to your beingness. Now, whatever there is at the end of the chain of reduction, the bottom line of nature, it just is and therefore it has properties.
everything that it does is then determined by its properties. It's determined by what it is as opposed to what it is not or to what it could have been. So even the mind of nature is a mind that has properties. I mean we're not attaching any, you're not attaching any properties to this ultimate reduction that you're talking about.
so and that but you're saying and yet everything that the universe is is somehow determined by it i don't think that's you know quite kosher i think that we have to actually try to attach some properties to it in order to derive attaching i just said to be is to have properties so whatever there is at the bottom level of the chain of reduction it has properties now we may not know directly self-assigned properties right
Not self-assigned. It's intrinsic to the beingness of the thing. To be is to have properties. But against what background are we distinguishing those properties? The background of what could have been. So the laws of nature are what they are. So gravity makes objects fall. We could live in a universe in which gravity pulls objects up. It's a repellent as opposed to an attractor. Now, that's not what is.
The laws of nature are what they are, as opposed to what they could have been in our imagination. So whatever nature is, it has properties, and that's why objects fall and static electricity is produced when you rub amber to a cloth.
I understand everything that you're saying. Okay, but if it had properties, then those properties had negations, and something had to distinguish those properties from their negations. Otherwise, it is useless to talk about them having properties at all. There's got to be the property, there's got to be the logical complement of that property, and something has to be doing the logic of it all for us to, for reality itself, for ultimate reality, to perceive what its properties are, or to act as though those properties exist.
You follow me? That something is us and our ability to conceive of nature being different than what it is. And we are parts of reality where sensor control is for reality as a whole. So that's our function. To conceive of what could have been in theory or in principle. Right. And then after conceiving of that to conceive of what is. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm trying to speak of something even much simpler than we are getting to right now. What I'm trying to say is the following.
wherever there is at the chain of reduction, it has properties, and its behavior is determined by the properties it has. In other words, the behavior of nature is determined by what nature is, as opposed to anything else we could conceive nature to be. So ultimately, everything is determined, it ought to be determined. Otherwise, we just throw science down the toilet. Right, but that's a tautology.
You're not actually we're looking for something when you say determined, I'm looking for a causal dependency, I'm looking for a cause and an effect of some kind. Okay, that's what we're talking about the same. Right, right. Okay. So that what we're talking about, however, is a tautology. Everything is intrinsic. Yes, it is. It's not anything is intrinsic, because reality is optically closed. There is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect reality.
It's a logical contradiction to disagree with. What I said is not a tautology. It's not a tautology. What I'm saying is that of all things that nature could conceivably have been, it is what it is and not anything else.
and what it is entails properties and those properties determine what happens. So the universe expands as opposed to collapsing because the properties of the universe are such that they cause the universe to expand. I agree. So you can speak of causation in the language of representation in that sense without being tautological.
And if we speak of minds, then we have to abandon, well, we have to set aside the language. Yes, I'm trying to get down to the properties that you are ascribing to ultimate reality. Reality is what it is, as you say, you're 100% right about that. But what are its properties and how do things happen because of those properties? So I'm trying to get to that. So we've been speaking with the language of Schopenhauer's representations, the physical world and science and causation,
But you and I agree that at the end of the day, there is only one mind, one consciousness. So what is the language of the will? How do we describe what I'm saying in the language of the will of the thing in itself? Well, Jung gave us the language. Jung talked about the archetypes, which are these intrinsic primordial templates of mental behavior. And those templates are intrinsic. They are there because mind is what it is.
And if nature is a mind, then the archetypes of nature are those properties. So you don't think the mind is conditioned to have those properties? You don't think there's any capital? No. You think the mind just is what it is? To be is to have properties. And I'm saying those properties are the archetypes in Jungian psychology applied to the collective unconscious, applied to a mind that is not an individual mind. OK, so you realize you are assigning a property
But that's what I'm saying, Chris. I'm saying that to be is to have properties. Yes, I would agree with that. And it's also to have values or instances. So that way it's self-dual. You don't have to separate the instances from the properties. Okay. And if you can call reality an instance of itself, and that's the tautology that I'm talking about.
Okay, so I call it a super tautology. I don't know why you're saying this. I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. I don't know what you're talking about. Instances of itself. Reality is what it is to be, to have properties. Those properties are what we could call archetypes, templates of behavior of mind, and that's why nature behaves the way it does, because it has whatever archetypes it does have by virtue of existing. Nature instantiates those properties. You're assigning or distributing properties to nature, and then nature is instantiating the properties. Am I right?
If you want to speak the language of mathematics, you can speak that way. I'm not sure how helpful it is to the audience. It's very helpful because that's what a super tautology is. It's something that is its own properties and its own instances. Why do we speak of instances if there is only one thing? I don't think this language is helpful at all. It's obscurantism. Well, with all due respect, it's not just obscurantism. There are instances of properties out there.
You are an instance of the properties that make up Bernardo. An instance of the properties that make up Chris and likewise for Kurt. Yeah, but Chris and Bernardo exist in a broader context, but the mind of nature is what there is. There is nothing else. So why to speak of instances? I'm not arguing against you there. I'd be the last person in the world to argue with you about that. I'm just trying to pin down some of these properties that we're ascribing to ultimate or basic reality.
Once you get all the way down to the bottom of the reduction, as you said, then there's got to be something there. What is it? So now we are we're stuck, you see, we have to say, OK, well, whatever it is, it's part of reality. Therefore, reality goes in a circle. It's this big self-defined loop. Right. That's so that's my point. You follow that? Fair enough. OK, fair enough. Now, do we know what those properties are directly? Of course not. We know
What results from those properties, the behavior of the universe results from those properties or those archetypes, whatever those intrinsic properties are.
It turns out that the behavior of nature is regular, fairly predictable. So I would say that they are determined by those properties, which we don't know directly, but we can infer that they exist because nature behaves in a fairly regular and predictable way. Do you think that we have anything to do with determining any of those properties?
the properties are what they are by virtue of the fact that the universe is what it is and we are part of the universe so we don't determine them we are determined by them well could there be reciprocity there i mean could there be they determine us and then we determine them back i don't think so i think if you're talking about the most innate properties then they are the properties of what there is they are what they are because the universe is what it is now we could
We could determine the matter properties or we could play a role in the causal unfolding that derives from those properties. Yes, that we could do. But I don't think there we go. And by participating in that unfold, you mean we're just like passive things that allow properties to emerge through us but have nothing to do with creating the properties themselves.
I'm talking about the fundamental properties. Now you could talk about properties at many levels that are not fundamental. Of course. Like human beings have properties, but those are not the fundamental properties of the universe. Or black holes have properties, but those are not the fundamental properties of the universe at the bottom of the chain of causation. And you don't see yourself as implicated at all in actually configuring those larger properties.
Yes, those secondary derivative properties. Yes, of course, we are part of the unfolding dynamics of the universe. So now if you detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon, we will change the properties of the moon. Yeah, we can influence that. That's trivial, trivially so. But I was talking about the bottom level fundamental properties of existence.
I don't think we can change those for the same reason that a human being can't change his or her own mental archetypes. Those are inherent to the beingness of the universe. I agree. I agree with almost everything you said, except for you seem to be saying, okay, it just is, that's it. And I'm saying, maybe we can actually reach in there and induce some properties, some actual specific properties that lead to this whole thing being structured the way it is.
Well, I commented on that already, so I think it's clear, hopefully. OK, well, you seem to be saying the universe is meta-deterministic or super-deterministic. I don't know what you mean by that, so I cannot say yes or no, but maybe, maybe. Well, you say that the structure of the universe is determined by what it is and what its properties are, right? What it is and what its properties are, are the same thing.
Well, yes, but there's also an extension with the intention. The intention is the properties, and then we need the instances as well. Those are the things that the properties intersect. If you could talk about a red heavy object, and then you could pick a cannonball and paint it red, that's an instance instantiating both of those properties. The properties don't refer to each other. Heavy isn't red and red isn't heavy, but if we have instances, then we can make the properties interact.
Are Jesus and Buddha attempting to answer the same problem but from different perspectives? Are they answering different problems? Are their answers, their teachings, whatever they may be, are they commensurate? Though on the surface, at least to me, they contradict.
There's quite a few questions there. Bernardo, if you don't mind starting that off. I'm not a religious studies specialist, so you have to take anything and everything I'm about to say with an enormous grain of salt, maybe a whole bag of it. I have a good friend who is a specialist, Jeffrey Kripal. If Jeff is listening to this, I hope he will not cringe with what I'm about to say. I think they are.
they were trying to answer the same question. And I think if you penetrate beyond the surface of appearances and different metaphors and symbols and the different languages they spoke, there is a difference of 500 years between them and the difference in geographies as well. So if you can penetrate beyond all that and look at the essence of their answers, I think it was essentially the same answer.
Actually, there are serious studies and there's a serious academic opinion that Christianity, in fact, may be derived from Buddhism. There is even speculation about where Jesus might have been during that time between his 12th year and his 30th year. You mean Vedism? Or do you really mean that Christianity was derived from Buddhism?
Christianity derived from Buddhism. That's one academic opinion that has been put forward. There's even speculation that Jesus was in India during that time of his life where the Bible says nothing about him. I think the fundamental question they were both trying to answer is, what is the relation between us as human beings and the universe at large? What is that relationship? Jung put it in the following words.
Are we related to something transcendent, to something infinite or not? That is in the kazillion dollar question. Are we related to something infinite or not? And I think they both were trying to answer this question, that relationship between us as individuals and the universe at large, existence at large. What is that relationship? Because we take the cue for our behavior from our tentative
answer to that question, our inner narrative about what that relation is. And I would even go as far and to say that they gave the same answer. When Jesus talked of himself as the son of God, he was talking about a fundamental kinship between a human being and the divinity, a fundamental kinship. Now, the son of a father is of the same kind as the father.
bare force, because it's something that came from the father. And he also emphasized the need to surrender the direction of our lives to a greater power. And if that's not Buddhism, what is it? Buddhism is the surrender of the ego is seen through the illusion of personal identity, individual identity. It is
connecting to a greater mental context, a greater cognitive context. So I think in essence, yes, they were both saying the same thing. And then 600 years later, a little bit more, there came the Prophet and said the same thing. And that's why Muslims bow to a greater power five times a day, which I think is a fantastic ritual. It's a daily reminder that our lives are not about us.
The podcast is now concluded. If you'd like to support more conversations like this, then do consider visiting theories of everything dot org. Again, it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on that allow me to work on toe full time. You get early access to ad free audio episodes there as well. Every dollar helps far more than you may think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you.
Raise a spoon to Grandma, who always took all the hungry cousins to McDonald's for McNuggets and the Play Play Slide. Have something sweet in her honor. Come to McDonald's and treat yourself to the Grandma McFlurry today. Ba da ba ba ba. And participate in McDonald's for a limited time.
▶ View Full JSON Data (Word-Level Timestamps)
{
"source": "transcribe.metaboat.io",
"workspace_id": "AXs1igz",
"job_seq": 8367,
"audio_duration_seconds": 18798.9,
"completed_at": "2025-12-01T01:07:14Z",
"segments": [
{
"end_time": 20.896,
"index": 0,
"start_time": 0.009,
"text": " The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze."
},
{
"end_time": 36.067,
"index": 1,
"start_time": 20.896,
"text": " Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates."
},
{
"end_time": 64.514,
"index": 2,
"start_time": 36.34,
"text": " Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toe listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount."
},
{
"end_time": 78.114,
"index": 3,
"start_time": 66.203,
"text": " Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal. Now what to do with your unwanted bills? Ever seen an origami version of the Miami Bull?"
},
{
"end_time": 106.732,
"index": 4,
"start_time": 78.626,
"text": " Have you heard? Sling TV offers the news you love for less. Hey wait, you look and sound just like me. I am you. I'm the same news programs on Sling TV for less."
},
{
"end_time": 126.015,
"index": 5,
"start_time": 107.005,
"text": " You mean you're me, but for less money? A lot less. I'm all the favorite news programs and more on Sling TV, starting at just $40 a month. Everything great about me, but for less money? Which makes me greater, don't you think? Get the news you love and more, for less. Start saving today. Visit sling.com to see your offer."
},
{
"end_time": 151.869,
"index": 6,
"start_time": 127.705,
"text": " I'm delighted to reintroduce the episode featuring Chris Langan, whose appearance on our YouTube channel has sparked a remarkable resurgence of interest in the past few weeks."
},
{
"end_time": 167.585,
"index": 7,
"start_time": 151.869,
"text": " And I figured, hey, since the YouTube algorithm is different than the iTunes slash Spotify slash wherever you're listening to this from, that's that algorithm. In fact, as far as I know, the audio versions don't even have an algorithm that why not open this opportunity up for you to hear as well?"
},
{
"end_time": 183.268,
"index": 8,
"start_time": 167.585,
"text": " By the way, Toe recently premiered the first episode of Season 3 with more in-depth content than ever before. We kicked it off with one of the most requested guests, Daniel Schmottenberger, where we discussed the dangers and boons of AI, as well as the particularities of consciousness, memes, and morality."
},
{
"end_time": 204.497,
"index": 9,
"start_time": 183.592,
"text": " If you love Toe, then you'll surely love that Daniel Schmottenberger episode. He's one of the most requested guests, so you can click on that. And in the meantime, listen to this Chris Langan re-release. This time, there's an appended conversation with Bernardo Kastrup and Langan in a Theo locution at the end so that you can fully enjoy the CTMU and understand it from different perspectives."
},
{
"end_time": 228.234,
"index": 10,
"start_time": 204.821,
"text": " Chris Langan is an autodidact who's known for having the highest recorded IQ in America. And he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, or the CTMU for short. This introduction will be fairly lengthy, so feel free to skip to the timestamp here if you're uninterested and want to get straight to the podcast. My name is Kurt Jaimungal and I'm a filmmaker with a background in math and physics."
},
{
"end_time": 249.684,
"index": 11,
"start_time": 228.234,
"text": " As usual, this isn't meant as an introduction to the guest, but rather where one goes after they've done some research. In fact, the first hour can be rather technical. Most interviews with Chris are somewhat superficial and talk about his days as a bouncer, his experiences, what it's like to have a high IQ,"
},
{
"end_time": 262.176,
"index": 12,
"start_time": 250.026,
"text": " but we're interested in the topic of theories of everything and you're not afraid to get your hands dirty. I don't often like to give my opinion on the variegated theories that exist, but in Chris's case I have to say that"
},
{
"end_time": 290.247,
"index": 13,
"start_time": 262.807,
"text": " If I was to say that I'm impressed, that would be an extreme understatement. His theory is unfairly criticized by critics who have read his theory for approximately a day at most and who point to its supposed incoherence, but I found that critics tend to do this with virtually every theory that's self-proposed, like Eric Weinstein's or Stephen Wolfram's, though from my investigation of these, these theories are far from erroneous casuistry. It just takes plenty of difficult work to understand"
},
{
"end_time": 309.002,
"index": 14,
"start_time": 290.247,
"text": " It's far from nonsense, and the easiest way to tell is to ask the critic, can you explain their theory back to them in a manner that they would agree? Another way to think of this is that one field's technical achievement is word salad to someone who's outside that field. What we have in the case of Weinstein, Wolfram, and Chris Langan is that in"
},
{
"end_time": 328.131,
"index": 15,
"start_time": 309.002,
"text": " I highly recommend you check out CTMURadio.com and CTMU.org"
},
{
"end_time": 353.951,
"index": 16,
"start_time": 328.131,
"text": " to gain an overview of Chris's theories, as there are several in-depth PDFs containing some of the technical details and derivations. Another word on style. I may ask the same question to Chris in different ways multiple times because, like I said, his theory isn't exactly trivial, and so hearing the same phenomenon from different orientations often illuminate what was previously obscured. Now, a word on myself."
},
{
"end_time": 378.507,
"index": 17,
"start_time": 354.292,
"text": " Preparing for this particular podcast took weeks and weeks. Usually I'm able to prep for multiple guests simultaneously, but this one was so involved that it consumed me and took a physical toll. I went through virtually each one of Chris's papers and even spoke to someone who is conversant in the CTMU, just so that I can make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly. That person's name is Sam Thompson, and he's a brilliant"
},
{
"end_time": 400.828,
"index": 18,
"start_time": 378.507,
"text": " Mathematically gifted humble soul who I dedicate this entire episode to since he put up with my naive pestering questions on a daily basis in fact it got to the point where I had to ask him if I could add him on whatsapp because texting takes far too long and it's much easier for me to send voice notes so almost every hour I would send him a voice note and then he would send me back and then I would"
},
{
"end_time": 421.374,
"index": 19,
"start_time": 401.22,
"text": " Ask him follow-up questions. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Because of this physical toll, like I mentioned, the pressure of releasing another podcast soon with the same quality as this one and the same quality as the others is a bit too much for me and I'm going to have to take a couple weeks off. Soon I'll be interviewed by ZDogg, the simulation podcast."
},
{
"end_time": 434.701,
"index": 20,
"start_time": 421.374,
"text": " Coast to Coast AM and I'll be on someone else's podcast whose name is a fairly large name but I can't announce right now. Like I mentioned those aren't my podcast I'll be interviewed instead so I'll post the links to those on Twitter as they occur as well as"
},
{
"end_time": 463.951,
"index": 21,
"start_time": 435.316,
"text": " Perhaps put them on the iTunes Spotify audio version if you're interested. If you'd like to hear more conversations like these, then please do consider going to Patreon.com slash KurtGymungle. It may sound silly, but literally every dollar helps. And this is now thankfully what I get to do full time. It's absolutely encouraging to see that people care. And often the notes that I get when people donate are of the form. This is so that you don't have to worry so much about finances and you could spend time with your wife."
},
{
"end_time": 494.411,
"index": 22,
"start_time": 464.787,
"text": " Thank you so much. I've recently opened up a crypto address, and PayPal is also an option. The plan is to have more conversations like this of the same quality approximately once per week, at least. At some point toward the end of the year, I also plan on interviewing some of the audience members who have sent me their well-articulated PDFs. People such as Steve Agnew, Tyler Goldstein, Steve Scully, and Jennifer Scharf. Links to their remarkable work are in the description. Again, I feel a bit icky saying this as I'm not a self-promoter."
},
{
"end_time": 525.435,
"index": 23,
"start_time": 495.811,
"text": " But I've been told by some people who have donated that I need to be saying this a bit more, as they wouldn't have donated if they didn't hear it to begin with. Please do consider donating or supporting it in any way that you can at patreon.com slash curtside mongol. I look down or look angry. That's my thinking face. You're familiar with that. But if I look down, I'm making notes. So please don't think I'm not paying attention. I have a bitchy resting face. Apparently I do. People told me that I just look angry all the time."
},
{
"end_time": 555.708,
"index": 24,
"start_time": 526.186,
"text": " How long does it take the average person to get through your theory such that they can grok it as intuitive to them? I really can't say. Their subjective criteria would determine the answer to that. I don't have access to anybody else's mind."
},
{
"end_time": 585.06,
"index": 25,
"start_time": 556.237,
"text": " If it were me, I think I would catch on fairly quickly. But some people, I have a couple of groups and we occasionally hold conferences and they get to ask questions and I think that I bring a lot of them up to speed on the theory fairly quickly. The ones who have read the theory, there are people that read the 2002 paper for example, many of them and they're quite expert on it and they've done a lot of thinking about it and they know what it's about."
},
{
"end_time": 602.824,
"index": 26,
"start_time": 585.623,
"text": " Why don't you give an overview of your theory for those who are uninitiated, a broad strokes view."
},
{
"end_time": 632.995,
"index": 27,
"start_time": 604.206,
"text": " Well, the CTMU is a theory of everything. There are two kinds of theory of everything. One of them is a physical theory. Usually it's related to a unified field theory in some way, which means the forces of nature is supposed to be unified into one general force. But of course, that's only part of reality. My theory is a theory of everything in the metaphysical sense. It actually has to conform to certain logical criteria, which in philosophy and metaphysics govern what a theory of everything has to be."
},
{
"end_time": 661.357,
"index": 28,
"start_time": 633.729,
"text": " So I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself about itself. It is a language. A language is an algebraic structure. This is a particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself and to make decisions regarding how it models itself, which is another way to say how it evolves. And it can be modeled in many ways. You can actually look at it as an operator algebra,"
},
{
"end_time": 691.118,
"index": 29,
"start_time": 662.193,
"text": " It's a quantization, a new kind of quantization of reality or reality self-simulation. You can look at it from the perspective of quantum mechanics as quantum metamechanics. I believe you must have read that paper or you mentioned having a matter thing, right? Once again, as a metaformal system, which is like a formal system, but it's a generalization of the formal system that goes deeply into the nature of language. What it takes to"
},
{
"end_time": 721.459,
"index": 30,
"start_time": 691.698,
"text": " Here's another way to describe CTME. Basically, you've got a system, you've got this metaphorical system and it relates intelligence and intelligibility. Ontology and epistemology are coupled in this theory. Reality actually has to recognize itself and process itself. It has to do both. That's what it does. It relates intelligibility and intelligence, which are dual quantities in CTME."
},
{
"end_time": 748.814,
"index": 31,
"start_time": 721.749,
"text": " Let's start from what's most fundamental and then how you work your way up from there to derive your theory."
},
{
"end_time": 774.428,
"index": 32,
"start_time": 749.411,
"text": " The theory is developed by a means called logical induction. You start with – you've heard of Descartes' Cogito ergo sum, which is I think therefore I am, and you've heard of Berkeley's SES Pacific, which is basically to be is to be perceived or to perceive. You start with perception and cognition."
},
{
"end_time": 799.497,
"index": 33,
"start_time": 775.094,
"text": " then you develop the minimal model of how cognition and perception work, then you induce an overall system that works by those processes. That's the way you get to the CTMU. It's called logical induction. I've been using that terminology for years. It's superior to empirical induction, by the way. Most scientists use empirical induction."
},
{
"end_time": 829.821,
"index": 34,
"start_time": 799.906,
"text": " Let's get into some of the more technical questions. And for those who are listening, as a first pass, you don't have to understand all of the terminology. It's much better. I think Wheeler said this, or Wigner, I'm not sure which one."
},
{
"end_time": 859.565,
"index": 35,
"start_time": 830.401,
"text": " He said that people are trying to drink from the fire holes, but the point is to just get wet. And then another quote that I like is from Neumann, Von Neumann, who said, you're not supposed to understand math, you get used to it. So that's in a similar vein. Don't worry if you don't understand all the terms or follow the logical steps in the first pass of this podcast. It's more about rewatching and then recontextualizing. For me, one of the greatest pleasures in life is being"
},
{
"end_time": 885.179,
"index": 36,
"start_time": 860.333,
"text": " Is there a duality between syntax and semantics? Yes."
},
{
"end_time": 914.855,
"index": 37,
"start_time": 886.22,
"text": " Well, all these dualities are related. There are all kinds of dualities out there. You know where duality, the idea of duality originally comes from, right? Two points determine a line. Two lines determine a point. Where the lines intersect, you've got a point. Whereas if you draw two points, put two points on a piece of paper, you can draw a line between them. That's a duality, basically. You permute your terms and you still have an invariant truth."
},
{
"end_time": 933.66,
"index": 38,
"start_time": 915.282,
"text": " What the original form of the relation remains true. So that's what a duality is. Anytime you can do that, anytime there is an invariant and you can switch things around within that invariant and the invariant stays true, that's a duality. There are many kinds of duality at the CTMU. So how are syntax and semantics related?"
},
{
"end_time": 963.575,
"index": 39,
"start_time": 935.555,
"text": " Well, the syntax is intrinsic. If you take a look at the language, those are the absolute invariants that every intelligible statement is made from. You know, that grammar and non-terminals and how non-terminals are substituted cumulatively until they result in terminal expressions, right? That's basically what it is. If human cognitive syntax is syntactically covered by reality syntax, how can"
},
{
"end_time": 992.79,
"index": 40,
"start_time": 963.916,
"text": " one meaningfully describe reality as humans. Well, as a language, when you talk about syntax and semantics, you are talking about a language. And as I say, syntax is the intrinsic structure of the language, whereas semantics involves things like definitions and interpretations. You have to define terms. All the terms, syntactic terms, are supposed to be primitive. The non-terminals are cognitively primitive, whereas when you get into semantics, now you're"
},
{
"end_time": 1019.292,
"index": 41,
"start_time": 993.456,
"text": " combining those primitives to get defined terms to get definitions, then you're combining those in certain ways. Then once you form your expression, now you have to interpret it or form a model of it in some other structure that you've got. It's a big process. Language is, as I say, the most general algebraic structure there is. To see that, any other algebraic structure you can name is a language."
},
{
"end_time": 1049.275,
"index": 42,
"start_time": 1019.753,
"text": " When you write it down, you are writing it down in the form of language. So automatically you know language is the most general algebraic structure. Right, I heard you say that many people think that mathematics is extremely precise, has high fidelity, it's unequivocal, whereas language, natural language, is considered to be indistinct, opaque, dubious, volutinous at the edges. That's just that most people use it sloppily, that's all."
},
{
"end_time": 1079.565,
"index": 43,
"start_time": 1049.565,
"text": " In reality, there's nothing dubious about it. Every mathematical language, every mathematical theory is, by definition, language. So you have to decide how precise you want to be and how precisely you want to formulate things, and then you make your judgment about what's loosened and what's tight."
},
{
"end_time": 1109.394,
"index": 44,
"start_time": 1080.64,
"text": " Is there a relationship between those two? Yes, there is. There's at least an analogy between the two because when things combine in the non-terminal domain via inter-expansion, when they overlay each other, they are more or less merging their identities and that's what love is. Love is also a combination, a merger of identities that enhances the self-actualization or self-expression of the combined entity. In other words, it's synergistic. It's more than the sum of its"
},
{
"end_time": 1138.558,
"index": 45,
"start_time": 1109.94,
"text": " This is Marshawn Beast Mode Lynch. Prize pick is making sports season even more fun. On prize picks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, you'll always feel good to be ranked. Right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use. Pick two or more players. Pick more or less on their stat projections. Anything from touchdowns to threes. And if you write, you can win big. Mix and match players from"
},
{
"end_time": 1148.422,
"index": 46,
"start_time": 1138.558,
"text": " any sport on PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app. PrizePix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas,"
},
{
"end_time": 1178.319,
"index": 47,
"start_time": 1148.66,
"text": " Now, of course, you know, that"
},
{
"end_time": 1202.381,
"index": 48,
"start_time": 1178.609,
"text": " Why is there no such thing as a literal interpretation?"
},
{
"end_time": 1224.172,
"index": 49,
"start_time": 1202.79,
"text": " is it because you mentioned before we move between models and to look at the symbols one must apply an interpretation on it and so to say literal interpretation is like saying uninterpreted interpretation and so it's oxymoronic the meaning is very simple and that is that if i hand you a book written and say sanscript"
},
{
"end_time": 1251.937,
"index": 50,
"start_time": 1224.65,
"text": " Unless you understand Sanskrit, all you're going to see is little geometric shapes on the page and it is going to have no meaning whatsoever. To extract any meaning whatsoever from those symbols, you first have to know the alphabet, the signature of the language, then you've got to know the grammar and the syntax of the language, and then you've got to actually put things together, put all the terms and the expressions together, and then you've got to interpret those or model those"
},
{
"end_time": 1276.169,
"index": 51,
"start_time": 1252.193,
"text": " in some framework that allows you to actually make sense of it. All of those steps are necessary. These are absolutely necessary steps of language. As a matter of fact, in the way we deal with reality, you can look at external reality as a language. You're looking at it. All of those steps, they all have to be solved for. They all have to be deciphered before you can actually make sense of your environment."
},
{
"end_time": 1304.224,
"index": 52,
"start_time": 1278.234,
"text": " As a preface to this, I thought it would be instructive to go through some of the sentences that are seemingly inscrutable to someone at first glance. Then we break it down turn by turn so that someone can read this Sanskrit, essentially, not understand it, and then all of a sudden be able to. So let's take one of them. Standard physics is largely confined to the linear ectomorphic semi-model, which is retroscopic. So firstly, what is retroscopic?"
},
{
"end_time": 1333.097,
"index": 53,
"start_time": 1304.991,
"text": " That means looking backward. That means you're seeing the past. You're looking at it in the past rather than in the... Of course, your reading operation is performed in the present, but what you're looking at is in the past. It takes time to get from there to your eyes. So the speed of light dictates that it has to be in the past. The referent of the expression has to be in the past. So that's what retroscopic is. Okay, what's a semi-model?"
},
{
"end_time": 1359.889,
"index": 54,
"start_time": 1334.445,
"text": " The CTMU consists of two semi-models because it consists of two semi-languages. The semi-languages have to be coupled with each other or transformed into each other and so there are two semi-models, one in each direction. There's the advanced semi-model that goes backward in time and basically from future past and then there's the retarded semi-model which goes from past to future. Okay and linear, why do you say that"
},
{
"end_time": 1381.408,
"index": 55,
"start_time": 1360.265,
"text": " Standard physics is linear with respect to being a semi-model. Because particles and objects follow linear trajectories. And of course, there are a number of other reasons that they're linear as well. Those are algebraic reasons. I'm sure you're familiar with most of those. But basically, when I use that terminology, I'm referring to the fact that things follow lines through space. And what does ectomorphic mean?"
},
{
"end_time": 1405.964,
"index": 56,
"start_time": 1382.5,
"text": " Ectomorphic means basically when something is moving, it is projected to a point outside of itself. That's the ecto. That's the outside. Raise a spoon to Grandma, who always took all the hungry cousins to McDonald's for McNuggets and the Play Play Slide. Have something sweet in her honor. Come to McDonald's and treat yourself to the Grandma McFlurry today. Ba da ba ba ba. And participate in McDonald's for a limited time."
},
{
"end_time": 1424.36,
"index": 57,
"start_time": 1406.561,
"text": " Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts, scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars Rover."
},
{
"end_time": 1446.169,
"index": 58,
"start_time": 1424.36,
"text": " Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines, Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible. Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors, not the best razor business,"
},
{
"end_time": 1466.186,
"index": 59,
"start_time": 1446.169,
"text": " So that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old school shave with the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime."
},
{
"end_time": 1493.336,
"index": 60,
"start_time": 1466.186,
"text": " So in other words, when a particle is moving, it's moving from here to there, and the there is outside of the here."
},
{
"end_time": 1523.183,
"index": 61,
"start_time": 1493.951,
"text": " Right? Whereas if the there was inside the here, then it would be endomorphic. Right, right, right. A special kind of endomorphism called a distributed endomorphism in the CTMU. Okay, now how does this ectomorphism relate to your issues with the Zeno's paradox or with its motion as standardly defined? Well, it relates to the fact that the real manifold, as we understand, is really kind of a paradoxical construct. Okay, you can't really, where is"
},
{
"end_time": 1553.183,
"index": 62,
"start_time": 1523.66,
"text": " If you take two adjacent points, obviously something has to move. You realize that a manifold consists of limit points or zero points or cuts, dedicating cuts, and they have zero extent. Now, no matter how many times you add zero, what are you going to get as a sum? Zero. How does a manifold have any extent? If it consists of zero dimensional points, when you add all those points up, it's nothing but zero itself. You start with nothing and you get nothing."
},
{
"end_time": 1583.097,
"index": 63,
"start_time": 1553.677,
"text": " It's a paradoxical constant, right? You've actually got to construct a manifold in a different way so that things actually, so that no point leaves its predecessor. So there's no jump that it has to make through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another. That's basically what I mean. Okay. Telek recursion, I imagine is the process by which a point makes some evolution. Uh, yes. Yes. But it's a feed. It's a feedback between past and future."
},
{
"end_time": 1606.647,
"index": 64,
"start_time": 1584.121,
"text": " You've heard all about—retrocausation is a very big term in physics today. You've already mentioned it. But this idea of there was somebody named Costa de Beauregard who came up with these zigzags, which are basically—let's just try to simplify here. If you have a trajectory through space-time, it's going from the past to the future."
},
{
"end_time": 1632.807,
"index": 65,
"start_time": 1607.261,
"text": " Conspansive manifold is a term that will likely come up plenty, so we should define that."
},
{
"end_time": 1663.131,
"index": 66,
"start_time": 1634.616,
"text": " Conspansive manifold is a manifold that is self-dual in the sense that it has both distributed endomorphic and linear ectomorphic aspects. Simple as that. Those two things are absolutely dual, totally equivalent. If you can explain something adequately in the linear world, in the ectomorphic world of physics, for example, automatically it is guaranteed to have a dual in the distributed endomorphic"
},
{
"end_time": 1689.735,
"index": 67,
"start_time": 1663.422,
"text": " I'm going to call it a semi-model here. That's a bit of a liberty because I'm using the term now in a different sense than I used it before, but I have only so much terminology to go around, so I'm going to reuse it. Okay, we have this tele-recursive process which is associated with meta-time, and meta-time, as far as I understand from your theory, has a preferred arrow, whereas our time doesn't."
},
{
"end_time": 1717.346,
"index": 68,
"start_time": 1690.162,
"text": " But our experience is of unidirectionality. So what I'm wondering is, is there a way to take the preferred arrow from this meta space and pull it back or push forward to our experience? Yes. Basically, metatime and time are orthogonal. The reason they have to be orthogonal is because metatime distributes programming over time, you could think of this being like programming."
},
{
"end_time": 1744.94,
"index": 69,
"start_time": 1717.892,
"text": " In other words, people tend to talk about time as a before and after thing. It involves prepositions. Meta-time always terminates at an origin."
},
{
"end_time": 1775.998,
"index": 70,
"start_time": 1746.067,
"text": " What do you mean when you say meta-simultaneous? Meta-simultaneity means that you can not only see them at the same time"
},
{
"end_time": 1804.753,
"index": 71,
"start_time": 1776.288,
"text": " in space, you can also see them at the same time and time. In other words, you can consider a past event and a future event to be simultaneous even though they're separated by a timeline. And this is something that you have to do to use the concept of meta time because things that if you write a computer program, you schedule events in the program. You see, you schedule one event has to happen here, then there's a sequence of other events and then finally there's going to be event B is going to happen, right?"
},
{
"end_time": 1829.514,
"index": 72,
"start_time": 1805.179,
"text": " But when you've got that program in front of you, both of those events are present, programmed at the same, in the same time, and you're looking at it simultaneously. That's meta-simultaneous. They're separated in time when the program is run, those two events are at different times. But when you're looking at the program itself, they're virtually simultaneous or meta-simultaneous. What's the assertion that"
},
{
"end_time": 1856.305,
"index": 73,
"start_time": 1829.94,
"text": " What generates our experience or generates our world, this terminal world, is this meta-time world, this non-terminal world, where there's meta-simultaneousness. That's basically it. The universe is closed. There's nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect it. If it's real enough to affect reality, it's got to be real and it's got to be inside reality. So that's closure."
},
{
"end_time": 1881.51,
"index": 74,
"start_time": 1857.159,
"text": " All right, so everything has to be closed. Everything has to be formulated in a respective, in a reflexive way. In CTMU set theory, there's descriptive inclusion. And I'm wondering if there's an analog of the axiom of foundation, which states that elements of a non-empty set must be subsets thereof. So is there an analog of the axiom of foundation in the set theory that CTMU has?"
},
{
"end_time": 1910.418,
"index": 75,
"start_time": 1882.978,
"text": " Sure. Well, actually when you're dealing with set theory, you're dealing with something called topological inclusion. Topological space is a point set. It's a set of points that relate to each other in certain areas. Whereas when you're looking at it, there is a dual to that and it's because sets have intentions. Usually if you take any given set and you say, okay, consider the set of all red apples. Red apples is your intention. It's actually a property and you just choose elements which instantiate that property."
},
{
"end_time": 1939.514,
"index": 76,
"start_time": 1910.964,
"text": " Okay, the intention requires that you can't talk about topological inclusion with respect to the intention. You've instead got to talk about descriptive inclusion. In other words, you've got to talk about more specific properties that are included in the main overall intention of the set. So you've got two kinds of inclusion, topological inclusion, which applies to sets, and you've got descriptive inclusion, which applies to properties. In set theory, the way that we understand it as mathematicians,"
},
{
"end_time": 1968.831,
"index": 77,
"start_time": 1939.974,
"text": " would be axiomatic. And yours, how would you describe it if not axiomatic? It's not based on a first order language. Well, first of all, it's not just a set theory. It's not even just category theory. It's both. The metaphorical system is a foundational language. It's presented as a foundational language for mathematics, physics, the sciences, pretty much everything. Set theory can't pull that off and neither can category theory."
},
{
"end_time": 1993.268,
"index": 78,
"start_time": 1969.224,
"text": " But on the other hand, once you've defined the metaphorical system, you get to make use of both of those other languages as you see fit. You can pull anything out of them you want. The important thing is that you have the metaphorical system, which is the very outside, idempotent meta-language that spans between these two so-called fundamental languages, set theory and category theory."
},
{
"end_time": 2021.288,
"index": 79,
"start_time": 1994.053,
"text": " Of course, they say there's already a blend between set theory and category theory called topos theory, but that too leaves something to be desired. There's a lot of missing structure there. It doesn't qualify as foundation language. So how does your metaphorical system differ? Like, what is it? Describe it simply for people who are unacquainted. Sure, the metaphorical system is simply a language that is quantized, not in terms of signs, but in terms of syntactors and identification."
},
{
"end_time": 2050.043,
"index": 80,
"start_time": 2022.398,
"text": " Syntactor is an active sign. It's something that actually has two data types, a syntactic data type and an input data type. It can accept things from the external world, process them internally, which gives it an internal statement, release its processing back into the real world, this output. That's a syntactor. It's fundamentally different from a sign. Usually when a person looks at a sign or a word or something like that, they do all the processing inside their head and they forget the fact that, wait a minute,"
},
{
"end_time": 2079.548,
"index": 81,
"start_time": 2050.503,
"text": " This processing, whatever it is, it requires me. I'm actually having to do this. Mathematicians don't usually reason that way. If you're a mathematician, you kind of forget about yourself and you look at things as though they're totally objective. That is not how reality is quantized in the CTMU. It has both a subjective and objective aspect. That's what syntactors and telors or syntactic identification operators and telic identification operators are in the CTMU."
},
{
"end_time": 2104.275,
"index": 82,
"start_time": 2080.162,
"text": " and we would be an example of a teller yes and what are some other examples i heard god or god is the ultimate teller then we're almost global operator description and then fundamental fermions let's say are a tertiary level so is that correct okay and explain those are tertiary syntactics so explain that that there are three levels of syntactic operators or tellers"
},
{
"end_time": 2130.572,
"index": 83,
"start_time": 2104.616,
"text": " Okay, so why, first of all, why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means again once more to be a syntactic operator? You know, they're just scales, they're scales of coherence in causation, in structure and causation. Just basically you've got to, you have the universe, the universe is closed, it is one unary entity, that's your primary quantum. Okay, but now everything, it's got to be self-composed because there's nothing external of which it can be composed."
},
{
"end_time": 2158.268,
"index": 84,
"start_time": 2130.896,
"text": " It has to"
},
{
"end_time": 2187.756,
"index": 85,
"start_time": 2158.49,
"text": " what it takes to actually decide on events and emerge in events. That takes telesis. You've got to have this other kind of quantum of causation, this secondary quantum of causation called telesis, and that means that telesis is bound. That's the monic substrate of the universe. It must be bound by these things called telors. We are telors. We actually bind telesis in this way so that causation can be completed, so that events can actually occur."
},
{
"end_time": 2215.469,
"index": 86,
"start_time": 2188.063,
"text": " All of this nonsense about, well, quantum randomness and quantum indeterminacy. If something is totally random and indeterministic, there is no reason for it to occur and it won't occur. It's not just the principle of insufficient reason that I'm talking about here. I'm talking about something has to be distinguished from its logical complement. Basically, that act of distinction, it takes a certain amount of information to complete that."
},
{
"end_time": 2244.65,
"index": 87,
"start_time": 2215.913,
"text": " So we are the ones who provide that information, either directly or indirectly. What is meant when you say that TELUS is bound, that we bind it? Well, basically, we're quantifying it. We're logically binding it using something analogous to quantifiers and predicate logic, so that events occur. In other words, we're binding it into events. We're taking something that is basically conspensive, that is self-potentializing, it consists of potentials and actualities"
},
{
"end_time": 2269.872,
"index": 88,
"start_time": 2244.957,
"text": " Intellic recursion, one of the ways I've heard it explained is that"
},
{
"end_time": 2295.572,
"index": 89,
"start_time": 2271.817,
"text": " for an evolution of the system it looks back at all possible at all the states that it previously has in its memory to make a decision about the future and it makes a decision about the future based on a generalized utility function when we are exercising free will first of all does free will exist we can talk about that okay secondly let's assume free will exist because yes right"
},
{
"end_time": 2326.357,
"index": 90,
"start_time": 2296.698,
"text": " How, when we're operating with our free will, how are we looking back at all the decisions? So for example, right now, if I make a decision, I don't have perfect memory. But at the same time, in tele-recursion, it seems like all of the states are being considered. So am I only conscious of a few, but unconscious? You're locked into terminal consciousness. You have a form of consciousness that is appropriate to life in the terminal domain. Okay, what I'm talking about, tele-recursion occurs in a non-terminal domain. It involves a different form of consciousness."
},
{
"end_time": 2355.657,
"index": 91,
"start_time": 2326.664,
"text": " And in the Conspansive Manifold, it's its own memory. It consists of layer upon layer upon layer of events that never disappear and never go away. They're right there. You don't even have to reach into storage and pull this information out. It's right there. All right. That's one of the advantages of having a manifold structured in the way the CTME is structured. Everything is right there as it is needed. And of course, telons are adaptive. Telequicursion is adaptive."
},
{
"end_time": 2382.227,
"index": 92,
"start_time": 2356.22,
"text": " When things happen that are not necessarily in accord with a certain telon, the telon adapts to the new set of resources at its disposal and comes together again approaching the same final outcome. Does one have to be adaptive if one is, let's say, incoherent, which I heard you equate evil to? Is that a possibility? I didn't equate evil to incoherence. I said evil is incoherent."
},
{
"end_time": 2412.568,
"index": 93,
"start_time": 2383.285,
"text": " Basically, it's incoherent because evil is anti-existence. Basically, it hates existence and it wants to go out of existence. But when you take a bunch of evil and it won't recognize its own existence and it won't recognize the existence of anything else, it's very hard to coordinate. It can't be coordinated so it becomes incoherent. The only way that evil actually achieves any sort of reality"
},
{
"end_time": 2442.517,
"index": 94,
"start_time": 2413.012,
"text": " is it uses physical systems to do it. It nucleates physical systems and uses their structure, their power structures, their hierarchies, in order to be realized. But it has no coherence of its own. It's anti-coherent. In the CTMU there's this hierarchy of meta-languages. And what I'm wondering is, is it possible for two sub-languages to be incomparable under ordering? In other words, can languages be arranged in a"
},
{
"end_time": 2470.145,
"index": 95,
"start_time": 2443.524,
"text": " Totally incomparable? No, that's a violation of syndipheniesis. In the CTMU, there's a universal relational structure called syndipheniesis. It means that syntax, something synetic, is being distributed over different related or relapse, things that are related. The syntax distributes over them and makes them comparable. Things are never totally incomparable."
},
{
"end_time": 2497.824,
"index": 96,
"start_time": 2470.794,
"text": " Okay, so this gets into separate objects which you would argue doesn't exist. So let's say we have an apple and then we have a cup. They're, in your terms, diphyonic Rillens."
},
{
"end_time": 2526.937,
"index": 97,
"start_time": 2498.353,
"text": " But then by the fact that I can point them out, I'm using a cognitive structure and that cognitive structure distributes over both of them, which relates them. And so by even by pointing out that there are two separate objects, I'm also pointing out how these objects are the same. So by pointing out difference, I'm pointing out sameness. Is that correct? You don't have to point anything out. Basically, you're just distributing your awareness over both. Your awareness being the focus of your awareness is a logical property which you are distributing over both of those objects. That's syndiphaniesis."
},
{
"end_time": 2560.555,
"index": 98,
"start_time": 2530.606,
"text": " A conscious universe has to have that. It's the only possible relational structure it can have. Okay. So we have this conspansive manifold and it has an intrinsic background or I assume that's related to what physicists may call background. It is its own background. That's closure. It's ontic closure. All real operations, real relevant valid operations basically start with reality and end with reality. It's complete closure. Nothing unreal ever really comes in for obvious reasons."
},
{
"end_time": 2589.718,
"index": 99,
"start_time": 2561.084,
"text": " This background-free place, does it consist of non-terminal symbols? It consists of telexes. It consists of telexes. The whole idea here is we need a theory of multi-aspect monism. The monism refers to one underlying substance. It's actually a metasubstance because it's both self-attributive and self-composed. It does all of that stuff for itself. It makes attributions to itself and it is composed of itself."
},
{
"end_time": 2600.196,
"index": 100,
"start_time": 2590.913,
"text": " In this monic structure, how does one get differentiation from monism, from unity? That's what TELESIS does. TELESIS differentiates itself syndepionically."
},
{
"end_time": 2629.343,
"index": 101,
"start_time": 2601.783,
"text": " Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis?"
},
{
"end_time": 2660.384,
"index": 102,
"start_time": 2630.93,
"text": " Excuse me? Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Leptogenesis? Yeah. You got me on that one. There's a disparity between matter and anti-matter. One of the propositions is there's something called leptogenesis, which accounts for this asymmetry. Right. Well, let's just put it this way. If it cannot be explained within the CTMU, then it cannot be explained. The CTMU is called a TOE for a reason. It's comprehensive."
},
{
"end_time": 2685.896,
"index": 103,
"start_time": 2660.964,
"text": " Would you consider the CTMU to be more of a definition than a theory? It's both a definition and a theory. It's the self definition of reality. Reality must define itself."
},
{
"end_time": 2716.442,
"index": 104,
"start_time": 2686.544,
"text": " Getting back to this background independent place, there's a question here about"
},
{
"end_time": 2745.674,
"index": 105,
"start_time": 2716.886,
"text": " If this coincides with Einstein and Mach had this idea of... Sorry, I'm sure you've heard of Mach's principle. Yes. Okay. What does the CTMU have to say about Mach's principle and is it related to this intrinsic background? Maybe I better ask what your formulation of Mach's principle is. Sure, sure, sure. It's strange that we can feel rotation when we do so."
},
{
"end_time": 2773.114,
"index": 106,
"start_time": 2746.152,
"text": " And it seems as if it's related by the distribution of matter far away, like there's an actual background. So now if there's an intrinsic background in the CTMU, does that serve as some basis for Mach's principle? Yes. Well, you're actually coupled with your background. That's one thing that you see in the theory of relativity. Basically, the medium is given some kind of separate structure separate from the content of the medium."
},
{
"end_time": 2797.892,
"index": 107,
"start_time": 2773.456,
"text": " But you actually have to couple those two things. Relatively, it would make no sense at all if you didn't. So as far as being able to inertia and being able to feel, and you talk about angular momentum and inertia, basically those two things are a function of that coupling, the way you are coupled to your environment. Like I said, this is how the CTME quantizes things, uses these dual couplings to do that."
},
{
"end_time": 2825.674,
"index": 108,
"start_time": 2799.104,
"text": " And of course, but that's all intrinsic. I mean, keep in mind that's all intrinsic. There's nothing external to the universe. So if you're going to talk about the universe rotating in some external medium, that's not valid. Okay, the rotation for all rotation is intrinsic. And the way it can be intrinsic is because you're formulating it as a coupling of it and its content that you're actually making. You're actually introducing some kind of angular momentum between them. That's intrinsic. And of course, as you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 2855.128,
"index": 109,
"start_time": 2826.169,
"text": " I also heard you talk about the fact that the universe is expanding. It's a strange concept because what is it expanding into? However, I think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding. It's more about the metric is changing. So now let's imagine"
},
{
"end_time": 2882.773,
"index": 110,
"start_time": 2855.486,
"text": " That's what the statement is. The metric is changing. So what's the problem with that statement and why does it need the CTMU to solve it? Because it's conspanding. It's basically when you say the metric is changing, you mean that the scale of the whole and its parts are changing with respect to each other. They're changing contravariantly. As the universe gets bigger, the parts, the little particles and objects embedded in it gets smaller relative to the universe."
},
{
"end_time": 2903.951,
"index": 111,
"start_time": 2883.268,
"text": " to this, you know, everything is relative. Right. And the size of objects is defined relative to the size of the universe and vice versa. So you've got this relativistic relationship between the whole and its parts and this contravariance is called conspension. I'm not understanding how."
},
{
"end_time": 2933.558,
"index": 112,
"start_time": 2904.497,
"text": " I understand that there's a problem with saying that the universe is expanding because it implies that it's embedded in something higher. The metric isn't expanding. The metric is actually contracted. You know what co-moving coordinates are? Basically, as the universe expands, co-moving coordinates actually co-move with the universe itself."
},
{
"end_time": 2956.715,
"index": 113,
"start_time": 2934.019,
"text": " Our metric means the metric that we use, the scale of distance that we use in the everyday world that exists between us and the objects that surrounds us."
},
{
"end_time": 2991.971,
"index": 114,
"start_time": 2962.568,
"text": " I'm going to be jumping around quite a bit. Now that we're on the topic of how you"
},
{
"end_time": 3019.462,
"index": 115,
"start_time": 2992.432,
"text": " thought of your theory and how you came up with it quite some time ago. I'm curious, what does the process of coming up with the CTMU look like practically speaking? Do you have a whiteboard? Do you just sit alone with a pipe? Do you bounce it off your wife? Do you go for walks? How are you coming up with the theory? It just sort of comes to you. Sometimes you start thinking, okay,"
},
{
"end_time": 3047.022,
"index": 116,
"start_time": 3019.718,
"text": " I'm very good at recognizing paradoxes and inconsistencies. It's just a little thing that I'm good at. I noticed a lot of paradoxes and inconsistencies from an early age onward in the way people explain things. I'd ask them for explanations. They wouldn't be able to explain things to my satisfaction. I'd ask myself, why doesn't this appear to make sense? I would find out there were certain things that didn't make sense. Then armed with those paradoxes, I would work on resolving"
},
{
"end_time": 3071.783,
"index": 117,
"start_time": 3047.841,
"text": " And from those resolutions came the CTM. Let's give an example of a paradox that's been resolved by the CTMU. So Newcombe's paradox is one. Do you mind explaining the paradox of Newcombe and then also your solution to it? So that's kind of a long paradox, but basically you've got this predictor who has never been wrong before."
},
{
"end_time": 3098.37,
"index": 118,
"start_time": 3072.295,
"text": " And he's got this game that he plays where he shows you a box with $1,000 in it and tells you that you can take either one of these boxes, the opaque box, so you can take both boxes. But if you do not take this transparent box with $1,000 in it, I've put a million dollars. I already know what you're going to do. I've put a million dollars in the opaque box."
},
{
"end_time": 3124.377,
"index": 119,
"start_time": 3098.712,
"text": " If you try to take both boxes and make that extra $1,000 that you can see right in front of your face here, if you've done that, I've left this opaque box empty. So you're going to get scummed. You're going to get your $1,000 and you're going to have a nice dinner someplace and then that's going to be it. That's Newcomb's paradox. But unfortunately, the subject, the one who he's running this game on, has to"
},
{
"end_time": 3142.432,
"index": 120,
"start_time": 3125.452,
"text": " strategies from which he has to choose. And one of them is, of course, that, well, this predictor has never been wrong. So therefore, I'd better do that. The other one says, well, wait a minute, nobody can actually predict the future. This is some kind of a lucky run that this guy has had."
},
{
"end_time": 3170.623,
"index": 121,
"start_time": 3142.875,
"text": " The opinions rendered herein are those of the guests, and not necessarily those of Douglas Goldstein, Profile Investment Services, Ltd., or Israel National News."
},
{
"end_time": 3197.329,
"index": 122,
"start_time": 3170.623,
"text": " And so that's enough. The thousand dollars has enough value that he's going to take that instead and he's going to enrich himself more and thusly increase his utility. And of course, increasing your utility is the whole raison d'etre of economics. In economic theory, that's what you're always supposed to do, increase your utility. So it's considered an important paradox because of its applicability to economics and causation in general. Is it possible to predict the future?"
},
{
"end_time": 3224.036,
"index": 123,
"start_time": 3197.79,
"text": " Well, Newcombe's demon, which is what I call him, is analogous to the programmer of a simulation. He's already run this simulation in which you think you have free will, but he basically knows what your free will is in advance, right? So he has, you know, that is what has allowed him to do this with the boxes. Okay, so that's the paradox. Now, how does the resolution come in?"
},
{
"end_time": 3252.432,
"index": 124,
"start_time": 3224.275,
"text": " The resolution is nobody ever placed it in a simulation before. I was the only person to ever place it in a simulation back in 1989 by saying, okay, well, basically now we have to use the idea that reality may be a simulation and that Newcomb's Demon is somehow a programmer of this simulation. This was the first application of the simulation hypothesis. Everybody talks about it now, but you'll never see my name mentioned in connection with it."
},
{
"end_time": 3282.073,
"index": 125,
"start_time": 3252.773,
"text": " Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor"
},
{
"end_time": 3310.111,
"index": 126,
"start_time": 3282.534,
"text": " Okay, Mr. Moneybags, Elon Musk, and then there's another fellow named Nick Bostrom, who I guess is at Oxford or someplace. He's got something called the simulation argument, which is basically a little bit extraneous to the simulation hypothesis. It's how likely the simulation hypothesis is to be true on the basis of how humanity has evolved. How shall we say the species that is simulating"
},
{
"end_time": 3339.838,
"index": 127,
"start_time": 3310.725,
"text": " reality for humanity has evolved. Do they have the technology to do it? Don't they have the technology to do it? That's what Boston is talking about. Now, how does posing Newcomb's paradox in the frame of simulation help it? It basically tells you that you might be in a simulation. So you better take a very close look at what Newcomb's demon has actually succeeded in doing. It's got a long arbitrarily long sequence of sequence of correct predictions."
},
{
"end_time": 3368.575,
"index": 128,
"start_time": 3340.299,
"text": " You'd better give the demon its due, and you'd better take just the opaque box. That's the only way you're getting your milk. Does that mean that the person being simulated doesn't have free will? No, it does not. Why would it? Just because the demon knows what he's going to choose, that somehow deprives him of free will? Well, see, this is the problem that I had to solve by integrating this into the CTME."
},
{
"end_time": 3385.333,
"index": 129,
"start_time": 3368.951,
"text": " Okay, you actually have a pre geometric or non terminal domain in which Newcombe's demon actually exists and in which he actually makes his predictions. You see. So that's that's what it amounts to. You see, how does being here that sound."
},
{
"end_time": 3412.398,
"index": 130,
"start_time": 3386.237,
"text": " That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms."
},
{
"end_time": 3438.422,
"index": 131,
"start_time": 3412.398,
"text": " There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone."
},
{
"end_time": 3461.817,
"index": 132,
"start_time": 3438.422,
"text": " of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com"
},
{
"end_time": 3490.811,
"index": 133,
"start_time": 3461.817,
"text": " In the non-terminal domain and being able to discern what this person's decision is going to be, not violate free will for that person. For that person from their perspective are you saying they have free will but from another perspective they don't have free will or no matter what they have free will from both vantage points?"
},
{
"end_time": 3521.715,
"index": 134,
"start_time": 3492.398,
"text": " Well, you have free will, period, to the extent that the universe has free will. As I said, the universe is self-composed. You are a component of the universe, therefore you have inherited free will from the universe itself. So everything, even a quantum particle to some extent, has free will or freedom. It has degrees of freedom. It's not totally determined. Now, from God's point of view, however, God knows, let's just put it this way, let's forget about Newcomb's Demon for a second and talk about God."
},
{
"end_time": 3551.323,
"index": 135,
"start_time": 3522.056,
"text": " God can see reality as a whole. You know what Einstein's block universe is, right? God sees the universe not as a block. He sees the universe through the eyes of its secondary toes. That's how he's seeing. That's how he's looking and seeing the universe through our eyes, where God's sensor controls, which puts a whole different complexion on it. He waits for us to make up our minds before he knows what he's seeing. In other words, what we see is what we've decided on."
},
{
"end_time": 3577.961,
"index": 136,
"start_time": 3551.578,
"text": " So God is automatically allowing for our decisions, automatically making them. We see what we decide. Can you explain? Everything we decide, when we decide to commit an event or commit an act, automatically we know we can see ourselves committing the act. That's what I mean. That doesn't mean that we determine everything that's going on around us."
},
{
"end_time": 3605.572,
"index": 137,
"start_time": 3578.473,
"text": " But God sees that too through our hearts. So it doesn't mean that we can see whatever we like, that for example, if I wished that there was no wall here, then I would see no wall. Does that mean that or are there limitations on my perception? Well, of course there are. Okay. There is a state of affairs and external state of affairs that has been created by other tellers. It's not entirely up to you. Okay. So you are constrained in what you can see by the state of the external world."
},
{
"end_time": 3634.07,
"index": 138,
"start_time": 3607.568,
"text": " When one does psychedelics, are they operating now in this geometric pre-infocognition plane? Well, what the psychedelics do is they introduce a gap between the terminal and non-terminal realms and kind of allow you to see things that aren't really in the terminal realm. And that's what those hallucinations are. Okay, you still got one foot in the terminal realm, but the psychedelic has kind of opened up a gap there."
},
{
"end_time": 3663.08,
"index": 139,
"start_time": 3634.445,
"text": " and you're sort of in that gap so there are degrees of freedom but you can actually perceive or should I say hallucinate, you see. You have things that you think are perceptions that seem like perceptions but actually there's this gap that has opened up and you're inhabiting that gap and that's what the psychedelics are doing. They've been finding out that basically all chemistry is quantum and they know for example that quantum mechanics"
},
{
"end_time": 3690.23,
"index": 140,
"start_time": 3663.439,
"text": " When one says hallucinations usually they mean we're seeing apparitions that aren't actually there, that's not real. Now I know that you have a qualm with saying that anything is not real. Well it is, it's mentally real. I mean what I'm saying is"
},
{
"end_time": 3719.889,
"index": 141,
"start_time": 3690.674,
"text": " Reality is a coupling of mind and physical reality with non-terminal and non-terminal reality. Therefore, there is such a thing as subjective existence. Syntax exists, for example. Any combination of syntax, you can put it together however you want to and that has mental existence. Is it realized in the terminal realm? Not necessarily. You don't find me a unicorn. There are unary and slash nullary relations"
},
{
"end_time": 3748.404,
"index": 142,
"start_time": 3720.862,
"text": " They have two levels, synetic and dipheonic. Do you mind explaining that? Well, all relations are syn-dipheonic. When you see two different things, or even when you see yourself, you're distributing your own cognition over yourself. Therefore, you've got that synesis and dipheonesis. You've got basically a property and something instantiating the property. That's what that means."
},
{
"end_time": 3775.589,
"index": 143,
"start_time": 3750.776,
"text": " You mentioned that there are three ways in which the syndepionic relationship is self-dual. There are three ways. But does it have to be three ways? Does it just happen to be that there are three ways, or is that a necessary component for them to exist somehow? I'm talking about general symmetries of the syndepionic relationship. You know what a Minkowski diagram is, right? It's got a space axis, horizontal space axis, and then temporal axes that are orthogonal to it that go up into the future and past."
},
{
"end_time": 3799.07,
"index": 144,
"start_time": 3776.032,
"text": " And just imagine that you could rotate Minkowski space, right? Well, you can rotate a syndepionic relation in the same way, right? And because the time axis is ordinal, whereas the space axis is all about arity or the number of things that you're seeing in parallel out in the real world, you're actually making transformations between ordinality and arity."
},
{
"end_time": 3818.933,
"index": 145,
"start_time": 3799.633,
"text": " in the relation and there are other kinds of duality as well. I could probably find more than three if I looked very hard. No, the line metatime axis that relates one to the other, that's ordinal."
},
{
"end_time": 3849.224,
"index": 146,
"start_time": 3820.316,
"text": " You also mentioned that they're dual because they have an active and a passive interpretation. What do you mean by that? An active and passive interpretation? We recognize things, but have you ever heard of John Wheeler's observer participation thesis? No. John Wheeler had this idea called the observer participation thesis."
},
{
"end_time": 3878.541,
"index": 147,
"start_time": 3849.616,
"text": " that when we see a quantum event, when we look at a far away star and a photon from that star hits our eye, we are somehow participating in that event. That's what we're talking about. Basically, you cannot just watch something without actively participating. You're actually agreeing to it in some way. You're actually actively putting yourself, by perceiving it, you are contributing your perception to it."
},
{
"end_time": 3905.947,
"index": 148,
"start_time": 3878.882,
"text": " and because of the nature of telecysts it's impossible for you to stop yourself from becoming actively entangled with it. You can't just passively perceive things. Those things also have you and the thing that you're observing both have an impact on each other. That's the way it has to work because all of these you've got this causal symmetry in the CTMU and in other theories as well. How would that work"
},
{
"end_time": 3935.282,
"index": 149,
"start_time": 3906.186,
"text": " On a more mundane level where there's a wall, let's say, whether I look at the wall or not, does that have any bearing to the wall? Does it exist or not exist when I look? Does it erode more when I look, for example? Yes, you are participating in the existence of the wall. Right. Can the wall not self perceive? Can it not perceive itself? The tertiary syntactors in the wall can and do perceive each other in a limited way. Yes."
},
{
"end_time": 3959.906,
"index": 150,
"start_time": 3935.555,
"text": " But in terms of the secondary utility of the wall, what it's actually doing in the world, you're participating in that. As a matter of fact, human constructed walls wouldn't exist unless they were useful to tellers like you. You can't look at anything without participating in its existence."
},
{
"end_time": 3987.022,
"index": 151,
"start_time": 3960.657,
"text": " That's what a measurement event is. When you measure the spin of a particle up or down, you are participating in that determination. That measurement is yours. You're the one who set up the measurement device. You're asking a yes or no question, and your question is being answered. You impose the question on reality, and reality is answering the question for you. There's this active passive symmetry in everything."
},
{
"end_time": 4015.896,
"index": 152,
"start_time": 3987.875,
"text": " Let's get to one more of these abstract sentences. The maximal generality in brackets, universality, comprehensiveness, criterion of a reality, theoretic identity, or ontologically necessary and sufficient theory of everything means that a fully general formal structure must be selected as the skeletal identity of a toe framework. OK, so let's break down some of these terms, term by term. Maximal generality. Comprehensive."
},
{
"end_time": 4047.449,
"index": 153,
"start_time": 4017.841,
"text": " Okay, reality-theoretic identity. That means when you know what an identity is, that's something as which that thing exists, okay? Basically, that's its identity. You exist as a secondary tele, that's part of your identity, any property that you can assign to yourself, that's part of your identity. Fully general formal structure, is that related to the metaphorical structure you mentioned earlier? Yes, sometimes I use formal for metaphorical because"
},
{
"end_time": 4076.578,
"index": 154,
"start_time": 4047.858,
"text": " The Metaformal System is, you know, intrinsically a Metaformal System, but by virtue of its description. But I have to write that description down in a formal way. It's got to be written on a piece of paper and you kind of add the Metaformality to it with your own by understanding what it's saying. But it's written down on a sheet of paper and that makes it formal. It's a form as opposed to the content of the form. All right. And the skeletal identity."
},
{
"end_time": 4106.749,
"index": 155,
"start_time": 4077.312,
"text": " Skeletal means that it's just a set of invariants in which without interfering with those invariants, there's a lot of variability. Reality can vary, can change, can adapt without disturbing its essential invariants. So those essential invariants are skeletal reality. You flush it out. Must a theory of everything explain mental activity? Yes."
},
{
"end_time": 4137.841,
"index": 156,
"start_time": 4108.097,
"text": " To a certain extent, it's not going to determine mental activity. There's no such thing as a deterministic theory of reality, but it has to explain the wherewithal of mental activity. I'm trying to find out what ingredients, some people have different definitions of theories of everything, you mentioned this before, a grand unified one which is more of a physics term for gravity and so on, or one that explains consciousness or one that explains the explanations themselves."
},
{
"end_time": 4164.599,
"index": 157,
"start_time": 4138.592,
"text": " The theory of everything has to explain all of those things, everything. It's to be taken literally. Anybody who doesn't take it literally is making a mistake. Do you have any thoughts as to the biological origins of life? Sure, life originated biologically, but it also originated metaphysically. It comes from the origin. It's part of the structure of the universe. It was inevitable."
},
{
"end_time": 4190.35,
"index": 158,
"start_time": 4165.265,
"text": " to say that, well, there could have been a universe with no life where life just never got started, never formed. That's hogwash. There is basically no reason for such a universe to exist even for itself. That's an absurdity. It's a little bit like the anthropic principle, but it's the anthropic principle with utility."
},
{
"end_time": 4217.193,
"index": 159,
"start_time": 4190.879,
"text": " Part of the reason the universe exists is because there are secondary tellers that derive utility from it. Otherwise, what is its reason to exist? The universe just simply exists and it has baked within it some teller, some purpose. And one of those purposes is to observe itself through secondary tellers. That's its structure. In order to exist, the universe must have certain aspects of structure."
},
{
"end_time": 4237.398,
"index": 160,
"start_time": 4217.773,
"text": " Why is that inconsistent with the anthropic principle?"
},
{
"end_time": 4263.814,
"index": 161,
"start_time": 4237.807,
"text": " Why can't it just be that there are multiple universes and we can call that all the collection of universes one meta universe or one large universe and call that the true universe let's say? Well that's what the CTME does. The CTME incorporates something called a syntactic metaverse. But in terms of how do all those universes that you're talking about putting them all together and collecting them into a set, how do they come into existence? Why? It's the reason. You need to justify it otherwise"
},
{
"end_time": 4286.408,
"index": 162,
"start_time": 4264.241,
"text": " Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor"
},
{
"end_time": 4316.681,
"index": 163,
"start_time": 4286.783,
"text": " Schrodinger equation is deterministic and everything that all of those possibilities that exist in that equation should continue to exist without quantum collapse. So he converted quantum collapse events into a divergence of universes. In order for this to work, you need to have certain things, certain assumptions have to be in place. For example, you need a fixed array in order to parameterize all the events and identify all your particles and events."
},
{
"end_time": 4337.159,
"index": 164,
"start_time": 4317.056,
"text": " in the universe so that you know just exactly how the eventualities are splitting. It turns out that these assumptions are not pathologically viable. Although Everett was correct in that there is a metaverse"
},
{
"end_time": 4366.408,
"index": 165,
"start_time": 4337.654,
"text": " He sort of mischaracterized it. It's not infinity upon infinity of the universes that are pointlessly diverging in every tiny little quantum event. That's ridiculous. But the idea of a metaverse of this universe that exists prior to, in some sense, the reality that we inhabit, that's a valid idea. So he sort of hit the nail on the head and then he kind of went off on a tangent."
},
{
"end_time": 4393.131,
"index": 166,
"start_time": 4367.483,
"text": " in order to make his theory work, in order to get his interpretation of all of these, to interpret the multiverse or the metaverse as being this collection, this vast collection of pointlessly diverging universes. Because we have telec recursion, the way that I understand that is that at each expansion point in the manifold over time, somehow"
},
{
"end_time": 4422.841,
"index": 167,
"start_time": 4393.49,
"text": " the points are evolving and including their neighbors and I recall you saying at the speed of light forget about at the speed of light because that can take us down another route regardless their speed of constant the rate of construction is usually okay cool so they're absorbing and then that translates to a positive cosmological constant because the universe seems as if it's contracting from one point of view or expanding from another okay do you have to have a prediction for I know that your theory says"
},
{
"end_time": 4452.142,
"index": 168,
"start_time": 4423.422,
"text": " There should be a positive cosmological constant. Does it have a calculation as to what range it should look like? Yes. There's plenty of positive numbers. I've made calculations. I'm not going to announce them here. I'll publish them first and then we can talk about them. All right. What's meant by existence is everywhere the choice to exist? Well, that's that active passive duality that we were talking about before. Okay. In the CTMU,"
},
{
"end_time": 4481.578,
"index": 169,
"start_time": 4452.602,
"text": " Tellers are basically secondary quantum, and they've got to nucleate physical bodies. So they actually have to actively participate in their own birth. Do they do so of some proto-will, or is it happenstance? They inherit the will of the universe. The will of the universe is to exist. Therefore, any part of the universe in the non-terminal domain, you've got things everywhere that are seeking to exist."
},
{
"end_time": 4504.206,
"index": 170,
"start_time": 4481.869,
"text": " The terminal domain provides them with resources that they can use to actualize themselves, and this is what happens. And you mean that they want to exist at the diphyonic level, at this terminal level, or you mean to say that they want to exist at all? Because to me, as I hear that, when someone says this entity wants to exist, it implies it already exists."
},
{
"end_time": 4531.237,
"index": 171,
"start_time": 4504.838,
"text": " You need a physical, in order to truly exist in the sense that most people mean, you actually need this form content feedback. In order to fully exist, things do require some kind of a terminal body. Where people get confused is they think that their terminal body can only be of a certain kind in a certain world. That's not necessarily true. There can be many different kinds of terminal realization."
},
{
"end_time": 4553.575,
"index": 172,
"start_time": 4532.108,
"text": " All right? For example, there can be an afterlife, a heaven or a hell for example, in which you can exist and have another kind of terminal body which was generated just for that world or just for that heaven or hell. You see, it doesn't necessarily have to be right here. One way or another, you need those resources in order to fully instantiate your existence."
},
{
"end_time": 4576.169,
"index": 173,
"start_time": 4553.951,
"text": " Otherwise, your existence never achieves full resolution. It is never fully actualized. The universe wants to actualize itself everywhere it can. That's why we have this profusion of life. That's why we have all these different species, all these different organisms. Telesis wants to actualize itself. It wants to exist and this world provides it with the resources to do so."
},
{
"end_time": 4606.578,
"index": 174,
"start_time": 4577.602,
"text": " So is it akin to God wanting to exist, God wanting there to be more God? Yes, that's exactly right. That's why I say reality is closed. It has to be totally self-justified. Existence is the will to exist. You've also heard me possibly use a term called triality. As the identity of reality, this global operator descriptor is not only"
},
{
"end_time": 4635.06,
"index": 175,
"start_time": 4607.432,
"text": " an object and a relationship, it's also a process or an operator. In other words, you can imagine that the universe is not just an object, it's an event. It's a creation event. That's what the universe is, a self-creation event or self-identification event. Everywhere in the universe, these self-creation or self-identification events are seeking to occur. They're trying to occur."
},
{
"end_time": 4662.398,
"index": 176,
"start_time": 4635.35,
"text": " Particles are being created and annihilated everywhere in the universe because they're inheriting this will to exist from the universe itself and this is a criterion of existence. Without it, existence is impossible. You can't just exist for a second and then not be an operation that maintains your existence because that second is meaningless. It's got to be a permanent existence."
},
{
"end_time": 4693.046,
"index": 177,
"start_time": 4663.08,
"text": " It's got to be in some sense atemporal or eternal. That's what God is. Basically, God is being equated to ultimate reality, so God is eternal in this sense. To get to Wittgensteinian, when you say eternal, do you mean infinite temporal length or timelessness? Basically, we're talking about atemporality which is timelessness. In other words, it's prior to time. It's pre-temporal in a way."
},
{
"end_time": 4723.217,
"index": 178,
"start_time": 4693.763,
"text": " Before we get further, some people may be turned off by the use of the word God, so I'd like you to define how you use it because you have a"
},
{
"end_time": 4746.817,
"index": 179,
"start_time": 4724.241,
"text": " Well, it comports with the general definition of God, but it's more specific. Well, I've done everybody the favor of making an acronym out of it, global operator descriptor, the identity of reality or ultimate reality. Okay. As far as personifying it is concerned, anthropomorphizing it or whatever you want to call it, that follows from the properties of the G.O.D."
},
{
"end_time": 4759.906,
"index": 180,
"start_time": 4747.551,
"text": " of the global operator descriptor. We find out that it has certain properties ordinarily attributed to God by people who have religious beliefs, usually monotheistic beliefs. That's the correct way."
},
{
"end_time": 4791.152,
"index": 181,
"start_time": 4761.152,
"text": " So that's what"
},
{
"end_time": 4817.602,
"index": 182,
"start_time": 4791.596,
"text": " Now these tertiary tellers come into existence because of their will to exist, at least from my understanding, but at the same time at the secondary level, at our level, it seems like not everyone has a will to exist, which you also mentioned is equivalent to evil or at least cognate with it. Is"
},
{
"end_time": 4847.824,
"index": 183,
"start_time": 4817.892,
"text": " Is it possible for a particle to have an anti will to exist? Most people who commit commit suicide basically have no will to exist. They're not anti existence. Yeah. So suicide is not necessarily evil in the sense of a mass murderer who tries to destroy civilization and the human species. They're not quite the same thing. Can a particle commit suicide in a sense? Can a particle have a suicide? Particle does not have sufficient self modeling capacity to make that decision for itself."
},
{
"end_time": 4877.978,
"index": 184,
"start_time": 4848.37,
"text": " Can you talk about what good is defined as and what evil is defined as? Basically good is what reality as a whole wants, teleology, the will of God, people have many terms for it and evil is its opposite."
},
{
"end_time": 4900.896,
"index": 185,
"start_time": 4878.319,
"text": " Good wants self-actualization and self-identification. That is what the universe is doing. It is one huge massive self-identification event. Everything in it, all of the events are self-identification events that go into its self-actualization."
},
{
"end_time": 4933.029,
"index": 186,
"start_time": 4903.797,
"text": " What's meant by self-actualization? That's a term that some new HP people use and let's delineate it. Okay, well, a physicist would call it a quantum wave function collapse. The quantum wave function, you know, according to the Schrodinger equation, you've got a quantum wave function, it expands, it's radiating out into space, and then suddenly it collapses. That's inter-expansion and collapse."
},
{
"end_time": 4962.483,
"index": 187,
"start_time": 4933.217,
"text": " I tend to get bogged down in words, so I'm going to press you sometimes and it may seem unduly persnickety, but when you say self-actualized, is it not the case that there is only self-actualization, not just actualization because the universe"
},
{
"end_time": 4988.131,
"index": 188,
"start_time": 4963.217,
"text": " is itself? That's correct, that is correct. Everything is self-actualization of the universe, if not necessarily of you. Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the human singularity versus the theological, sorry, versus the technological singularity? The tech singularity, right. Well, the human singularity, it's all about how, it's all about human destiny and how responsibility for human destiny is distributed."
},
{
"end_time": 5018.251,
"index": 189,
"start_time": 4988.848,
"text": " If there's a tech singularity, if there's a human singularity, we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and where it's going and how to realize it. That distributes the whole thing over humanity as a whole and no one gets left out. If we have a tech singularity, everything will be controlled by the people who own the technology. Those are mega corporations run by people who are not typically very nice or public spirited people."
},
{
"end_time": 5046.476,
"index": 190,
"start_time": 5018.643,
"text": " They're highly acquisitive. They tend to be narcissistic, Machiavellian, sadistic sometimes. Basically, these are not all good people. There are exceptions. There are some people that have a lot of money or are in charge of various kinds of technological enterprise that aren't totally bad people. But when you put too many of them together, they start getting the idea that they're elite and they should be in charge."
},
{
"end_time": 5075.538,
"index": 191,
"start_time": 5046.869,
"text": " and they start deciding that people are useless eaters. There are too many of them and for the good of the planet and really because they're a nuisance, we have to get rid of them. This kind of talk has been going on for centuries. A lot of people aren't aware of it, but the elite tend to form these ideations when left to their own devices. So if there is a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology, that technology will be used against the human species."
},
{
"end_time": 5104.514,
"index": 192,
"start_time": 5076.51,
"text": " It's almost certain, and that is called a parasitic divergence, where they become a parasitic subspecies of the human race and the rest of us become their boosts. Now the human singularity, it's one that you advocate for, something that we should have instead of the technological singularity. What is the human singularity? Well, it's been laid out by others. For instance, Teilhard de Chardin, probably familiar with him, he was a Jesuit"
},
{
"end_time": 5127.824,
"index": 193,
"start_time": 5105.026,
"text": " Priest who came up with this idea of the Omega Point. We're approaching this quickening of consciousness where we're going to realize what we are, who we are, our relationship with God and reality and fulfill our destiny. This is going to be this huge worldwide global event and it's going to save us and allow us to pass through the great filter and realize our destiny."
},
{
"end_time": 5154.991,
"index": 194,
"start_time": 5128.524,
"text": " That's what it is. He used that term great filter or did you just come up with that great filter? No, great filter is a term that's been around for a while. It's basically every species, you know, as it develops technology and starts killing itself with pollution and overpopulation, every species comes to a point where it either has to grow up and live sanely and sustainably in its environment or it dies."
},
{
"end_time": 5185.486,
"index": 195,
"start_time": 5156.391,
"text": " Part of the technological singularity, one of the reasons why people are venerating it is because there's the potential for minds to be uploaded into classical computers. Really? Whose theory is that? This is what I want to ask you about. There is no theory. It has no underlying theory. Why do you laugh? Why is it absurd? And let's imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to, but some other, maybe quantum computer. Why is that outrageous? Because that's not the way reality is structured."
},
{
"end_time": 5215.845,
"index": 196,
"start_time": 5186.237,
"text": " The reality exists on other terms entirely. You're not going to build a machine. It is not mechanical. It is metamechanical or protomechanical. You might be able to call it that, but you're not going to be able to use a universal Turing machine, or for that matter, a quantum Turing machine, to simulate it. It can't be done. It does not satisfy the requirements for existence. There is no theory. There is no theory of transhumanism, how this whole thing is going to occur."
},
{
"end_time": 5245.998,
"index": 197,
"start_time": 5216.459,
"text": " All right, unless you can point me to a theory. Now, if you can do that, I'll change my mind. I'm an open-minded person. I don't think there is such a theory. You just mentioned mechanical. Is this because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telek causation, or is this unrelated to that? Telek causation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is. Mechanical causation is incoherent. You have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be bolted together in the right way that the machine works,"
},
{
"end_time": 5274.053,
"index": 198,
"start_time": 5246.169,
"text": " Do you have any"
},
{
"end_time": 5298.37,
"index": 199,
"start_time": 5274.394,
"text": " Entanglement speed. So what I mean by that is some theories predict that there's a maximum speed of entanglement. Right now, as far as we can tell, there's no speed to it. It's just instantaneous. I'm curious if in your models, it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere simultaneously, or if there is also a speed associated with it. Well, you're just talking about some kind of terminal lag. In reality, entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain."
},
{
"end_time": 5326.084,
"index": 200,
"start_time": 5298.66,
"text": " How does one solve the Liar's Paradox in your model? The Epimenides Paradox?"
},
{
"end_time": 5354.718,
"index": 201,
"start_time": 5326.476,
"text": " The one that says this sentence is false. Right. Well, you simply exclude that kind of sentence from around and you say, well, that is a pathologically construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain. Unless you can find me an instantiation and I don't think you can because it's paradoxical. So it's akin to naive set theories move to ZFC where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements of them."
},
{
"end_time": 5381.527,
"index": 202,
"start_time": 5355.077,
"text": " set of all sets that aren't elements of themselves. It's akin to that. You just negate it. You say that's not a possibility. It is a possibility. You just can't involve the negation product. You can't involve the self-negation product. You can have sets that are self-inclusive. We've got self-inclusion all over the place. Fractal geometry. There are all kinds of things. Consciousness itself. All kinds of things that are self-inclusive. But you can't allow this misuse of the negation factor"
},
{
"end_time": 5398.063,
"index": 203,
"start_time": 5382.193,
"text": " Okay, you can't allow that to intrude on them and render them paradoxical. That's what I'm saying."
},
{
"end_time": 5427.739,
"index": 204,
"start_time": 5398.66,
"text": " It can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form, which is sufficiently well formed that you can apprehend it or think you apprehend it, but in reality it is incapable of instantiation. You can formulate it and then you can envision it in the non-terminal realm. You cannot, however, achieve an instantiation, an actualization on it because it violates the terms of existence in the terminal realm."
},
{
"end_time": 5456.271,
"index": 205,
"start_time": 5428.046,
"text": " What happens after death? So there's a couple ways to interpret that. What I mean is, let's talk about what is death? What does it mean to die? That's the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this present time. When you are retracted from this reality, you go back up toward the origin of reality,"
},
{
"end_time": 5486.271,
"index": 206,
"start_time": 5456.613,
"text": " You can be provided with a substitute body, another terminal, another kind of terminal body that allows you to keep on existing. With the same memories? With the modicum of your memories before or a complete eraser? You can have, these memories can be, nothing goes out of existence in the Conspensive Math. Your memories can always be pulled back out if that's"
},
{
"end_time": 5516.425,
"index": 207,
"start_time": 5486.476,
"text": " But there's no reason to do that, usually. Okay? Why cling to memories of a world in which you are no longer instantiated? So there are certain automatic psychological things that happen on death, at the moment of death. And also you mentioned what happens after death. That's not quite appropriate, of course, because that's a temporal preposition. And when you're extracted from the terminal domain, you're no longer time-like. Now you're basically meta-temporal."
},
{
"end_time": 5546.869,
"index": 208,
"start_time": 5517.159,
"text": " So when people talk about heaven, which I know you have your own views, a specific differentiated view I haven't heard before as to what heaven is and even hell,"
},
{
"end_time": 5577.142,
"index": 209,
"start_time": 5547.21,
"text": " When people talk about heaven, usually what they mean is something like a re-instantiation of this body with probably a better hairline than I have. You should see Bernardo Castro, which I should put you in touch with. Have you heard of Bernardo Castro? I've heard of Bernardo. I think he was on email distribution. One of Jack Sarfatti's email distributions. Who's that? Jack who?"
},
{
"end_time": 5606.305,
"index": 210,
"start_time": 5577.654,
"text": " Jack Sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics. Is he related to UFOs? Does he study UFOs? As a matter of fact, I think right now he's working on metamaterials that will allow us to build spacecraft that emulate tic tacs. We're going to talk about that, man. I mean, yeah, he's a gonzo physicist, right?"
},
{
"end_time": 5624.906,
"index": 211,
"start_time": 5606.63,
"text": " He's been around since the 1960s and he and a bunch of other guys like Sarag and Nick Herbert and Fred Allen Wolf and other people like this. There's a guy named David Kaiser, I think he's in MIT. He wrote a book called How the Hippies Saved Physics."
},
{
"end_time": 5655.469,
"index": 212,
"start_time": 5625.759,
"text": " And these were the guys, these were non-locality and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes came from these guys. But in reality, they have a lot of very productive thoughts. And in a way, the world we're living in now is an outgrowth of some of what they were thinking and doing in those days. Some of these guys are still around. I mean, not just Jacques Zarfetti, but you've also got other guys like, I know Nick Herbert is still there. And I know that Wolf is still there. Sirag is still there. These guys are on email distributions that"
},
{
"end_time": 5684.241,
"index": 213,
"start_time": 5655.845,
"text": " that Jack sometimes puts me on one of his distributions. I want to talk to Jack at some point. I heard that I should talk to Jack. What I've been exploring recently is the topic of UFOs because like you know this podcast is about theoretical physics, consciousness, free will and God and it seems like UFOs from our observations of them break the laws of physics as we know. So a simple one is angular, sorry, a simple one is"
},
{
"end_time": 5711.937,
"index": 214,
"start_time": 5684.77,
"text": " Conservation of momentum. How can you move back and forth? We have to assume a certain mass is associated with the craft. Well, yes. And of course, mass amounts to inertia and that's a violation of inertia. You can't just suddenly turn on the turn on the time like that. Right. So that's what I've been exploring. Unless you're dealing with a projection. Right, right. That's also called spoofing, I believe. Have you heard that term? Yeah, I've heard the term spoofing, but you need a better theater."
},
{
"end_time": 5729.343,
"index": 215,
"start_time": 5712.688,
"text": " What are your thoughts on UFOs in general, as well as the recent disclosure movements? Is there anything about UFOs that you find convincing that they are, in fact,"
},
{
"end_time": 5759.258,
"index": 216,
"start_time": 5729.616,
"text": " Maybe us from the future may be associated with God or demons or angels or just an advanced civilization visiting us in the same way that we house people at zoos. I mean animals. They could be any or all of those things. There could be different kinds that some kinds that come from the future. Sometimes there's some kinds that come from another planet elsewhere in the universe. But they definitely you've got too much reportage on them. There are too many people who are coming up with heartfelt stories"
},
{
"end_time": 5783.012,
"index": 217,
"start_time": 5759.65,
"text": " about them. They can't possibly all be fake. People aren't liars. If someone's going to risk his reputation and be called a nut by coming out and saying, I saw a UFO, you have to take that person a little bit seriously. Sure, there are scammers out there and people who are going to lie about it, but I don't think we could have this much reportage without actually having something to it."
},
{
"end_time": 5811.647,
"index": 218,
"start_time": 5783.712,
"text": " With TD Early Pay, you get your paycheck up to two business days early, which means you can go to tonight's game on a whim, check out a pop-up art show, or even try those limited edition donuts. Because why not?"
},
{
"end_time": 5834.275,
"index": 219,
"start_time": 5812.449,
"text": " You mentioned the word woo about five minutes ago. What I'm wondering is, did you used to have a conception of what you thought was woo? So for example,"
},
{
"end_time": 5863.814,
"index": 220,
"start_time": 5834.667,
"text": " Well, I mean, I have had a number of paranormal experiences and began having them at a rather young age. And that's one of the reasons I had to develop the CTM, to develop an extended picture of reality that would actually accommodate alternate states of being, alternate states of mind."
},
{
"end_time": 5889.394,
"index": 221,
"start_time": 5864.377,
"text": " And so that is rather than dismissing the experiences that I had in the past, I've actually become more comfortable with it. What are some of these paranormal experiences? Well, you know, psychokinesis, telepathy, lots of precognition in my case, out of body experiences, you name it."
},
{
"end_time": 5919.343,
"index": 222,
"start_time": 5889.94,
"text": " I don't know the single kind of paranormal event that I haven't spontaneously experienced at one point or another. Have you witnessed any UFOs on your own? Well, yes, I have. And I was basically up near, I was working for the U.S. Forest Service and I was up near in central Montana, near Malmstrom Air Force Base, by the way, where their number has shown up. I saw"
},
{
"end_time": 5947.346,
"index": 223,
"start_time": 5919.906,
"text": " something in the sky and actually stood and watched it for 30 minutes until I got bored and drove away. I was driving a US Forest Service pickup truck, but literally stood there leaning against the back of the truck, looking directly at it for a long, long time. It was perfectly, it did not change shape. It did not change position. It was right up there in the sky over"
},
{
"end_time": 5976.101,
"index": 224,
"start_time": 5947.671,
"text": " What do you estimate its size to be? You see, it's very, very difficult to tell because getting a distance fix on something like that is very, very hard."
},
{
"end_time": 6002.363,
"index": 225,
"start_time": 5976.476,
"text": " Could have been anywhere from 500 yards to five miles in diameter. I don't know, but it was huge. Was it one of the triangular UFOs or was it a more disc-like? It was oblate. It looked to me like an oblate spheroid. And one of the first things I thought, well, this must be a lenticular cloud."
},
{
"end_time": 6028.029,
"index": 226,
"start_time": 6002.961,
"text": " And so I kept on looking at it to find out if it was, you know, to see, okay, if it's a lenticular cloud, I'm going to see some sign of movement. There's going to be something there. It was nothing like that. This thing was totally solid metallic and it did not change. I kept on staring directly at it to see if it would change. You know, if it doesn't change, change, you know, do something, but it would. So as I said, I stared there for, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 6052.261,
"index": 227,
"start_time": 6028.473,
"text": " Can you give me an example of another paranormal experience of yours, a specific one?"
},
{
"end_time": 6077.398,
"index": 228,
"start_time": 6052.568,
"text": " I was lying down and I woke up and I thought maybe I'll get up and go to the bathroom or something. So I tried to move and I couldn't. Immediately I started to panic and there was a wall next to me. So I figured what's going on? There's a bookshelf next to me on the wall right next to my head. That bookshelf was four feet above the ground."
},
{
"end_time": 6106.92,
"index": 229,
"start_time": 6078.268,
"text": " Okay. In other words, somehow I must have risen above my body. I couldn't figure out how this happened. But anyway, I thought, oh my God, am I dead? What time is it? How long have I been dead? Suddenly I floated. I began to move. I floated in from the room that I was on into the kitchen of the house that I was in, turned a corner and looked directly at a clock that was on the stove there and saw the time."
},
{
"end_time": 6135.64,
"index": 230,
"start_time": 6107.568,
"text": " And at that point I realized this is basically the middle of the night and I woke up back up in my body. It took me a little bit and I got control of my muscles and I walked back in and it was one minute later than it was when I looked at the clock. So of course now some people are very good at gauging time and figuring out what time it is but that was an exact estimate of the time after I've been asleep for some period of time."
},
{
"end_time": 6164.616,
"index": 231,
"start_time": 6136.493,
"text": " Have you had any intimations of God speaking to you? Well now you're getting a little bit, yes I have had religious caliber visions. Now I'm getting a little bit what? Now you're getting a little bit"
},
{
"end_time": 6188.063,
"index": 232,
"start_time": 6165.23,
"text": " I have too much experience with these despicable creatures called trolls that have been specializing in my case. You admit that you had a paranormal experience and suddenly these creatures were crawling all over the internet saying nasty things about you."
},
{
"end_time": 6196.783,
"index": 233,
"start_time": 6188.78,
"text": " And unfortunately, I don't know if you know anything about me, but I've been cancelled, me and my ideas have been cancelled despite the fact that they're totally provable."
},
{
"end_time": 6218.865,
"index": 234,
"start_time": 6197.398,
"text": " been canceled for a long time because of the God thing and also because people don't like IQ differentials. If there's an IQ differential, it's politically incorrect and if you're talking about God and say God is mathematically provable on top of that, the trolls come out of the woodwork on here. Pretty soon, people are reading the internet and they see all this troll nonsense"
},
{
"end_time": 6246.732,
"index": 235,
"start_time": 6218.865,
"text": " There is not an academic alive that can do a thing."
},
{
"end_time": 6275.094,
"index": 236,
"start_time": 6247.176,
"text": " about anything that I've ever said or done. Nevertheless, I'm not invited to conferences or symposia. I'm not invited to do media appearances. There are ways that I should have been able to spread the word about my work and actually get it out there so that people could look at it. They would deny me. I don't like trolls."
},
{
"end_time": 6304.428,
"index": 237,
"start_time": 6275.52,
"text": " I don't like people that talk out of turn about things they don't understand, and there are a lot of those people out there. Unfortunately, it would be fine, I guess, if most people were able to distinguish between a troll and someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Most people can't. If the troll uses a little bit of language, well, I work at a university and here's my opinion, it's all nonsense, then people think, well, he says he's from a university, maybe he really is."
},
{
"end_time": 6330.247,
"index": 238,
"start_time": 6305.162,
"text": " All right. And this is, you know, the problem. People can't distinguish between truth and false, especially when it's, you know, when it takes the form of intermittent noise. What I find is that people don't go, honey, can you get me something to drink? Pardon me. That's okay. My mouth is getting dry. Yeah, no problem. No problem. What I find is that people dismiss intellectuals"
},
{
"end_time": 6359.838,
"index": 239,
"start_time": 6330.555,
"text": " like Stephen Wolf from Eric Weinstein yourself without delving into the papers maybe they'll watch they'll do a cursory glance at their work quote some of it so that if they want to look like they've read they'll quote a few paragraphs here and there i've seen criticisms of yours but they're not they're not they haven't see i'll tell you my my difficulty is when i'm going into your theories or anyone else's it takes sometimes weeks"
},
{
"end_time": 6389.121,
"index": 240,
"start_time": 6360.111,
"text": " And I tried to put myself in the position where not only am I understanding it at an intellectual level, but I'm realizing it. And what I mean by realizing is I'm trying to see how what you're saying, how can I model it such that I see it completely obvious? That's how I know I've internalized a theory. And I don't see anyone who criticizes you as as attempting that. So that's correct. Yeah."
},
{
"end_time": 6418.097,
"index": 241,
"start_time": 6389.821,
"text": " They claim that it's so abstract and abstruse that they can't visualize it and that it's impossible to visualize. That's the usual line. I visualize all of it. It's not hard for me. For some reason, I think it's intellectual laziness. I think it's the idea that they don't want to become involved with something that might prove them wrong, mistaken about something. There are a number of psychological factors that go into it."
},
{
"end_time": 6444.667,
"index": 242,
"start_time": 6419.258,
"text": " Well, Chris, if I can do something about getting you more notoriety, I will, man. If I can uncancel you, I do plan on having you on again at some once I've"
},
{
"end_time": 6474.155,
"index": 243,
"start_time": 6446.203,
"text": " I'm going to go through your theories more, which will take some months because I don't have only your theory. Now, I've only been studying yours for the past couple of weeks, but now I have to move on to someone's the best one. Right, right. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about that because I can get to that question right now. What I'm wondering is, I want to make sure that what I'm doing is honest and open and for the good. And I want to make a claim that I"
},
{
"end_time": 6503.899,
"index": 244,
"start_time": 6474.633,
"text": " Thank you. However, here's where it gets bad. You mentioned that your theory is the only one of God that is correct. And then what I'm wondering is, does that mean"
},
{
"end_time": 6533.234,
"index": 245,
"start_time": 6504.275,
"text": " When I'm interviewing other people on their ideas of God and so on, it's incorrect, which means I'm promulgating evil in some way and promulgating incoherence. Only if they claim they've got a true theory of everything that's totally comprehensive. Otherwise, the possibility exists that their theories or their viewpoints can be interpreted in such a theory and a true theory of everything. For example, these other guys that you mentioned and you asked me questions about other thinkers,"
},
{
"end_time": 6561.92,
"index": 246,
"start_time": 6533.473,
"text": " To the extent that their ideas can be interpreted in line, of course they're not correct, but my idea is called a super tautology. It cannot be broken. The conditions for intelligibility are realized by it, which means that if you try to come up with a counter example, it will be unintelligible and inadmissible. My theory cannot be broken. Although these other guys don't add that I'm the only person with a super tautology, but"
},
{
"end_time": 6592.619,
"index": 247,
"start_time": 6562.756,
"text": " All of these people have valuable insights. I don't think you've ever interviewed a dummy. These people actually see things. They've got insights. As long as those insights can be interpreted in the CTMU super tautology, that's okay. Another way for people to understand what you've just said is that think of set theory as the basis by which physics comes up with their theories. That's not exactly true. They don't axiomatize from set theory onward. No, it's empirical induction. Think of it like that."
},
{
"end_time": 6621.698,
"index": 248,
"start_time": 6592.841,
"text": " What Chris is saying is that underneath first-order languages, there's a meta-language, a super tautological language, such that other theories are interpretable, almost like with physics, whatever the equation is that governs the grand unification. Let's imagine it's just a single equation. Well, that's based in axiomatic set theory. Okay, then you can take it a step back and say, what would a theory of everything at all have to look like in all of it? In its outline, it's the problem this way looked at."
},
{
"end_time": 6649.633,
"index": 249,
"start_time": 6621.988,
"text": " The important thing is that it be comprehensive and not exclude anything that's true. Nobody can present a complete theory of everything that explains every detail of the universe right up front. The universe doesn't work that way. It is not deterministic. There is no such theory. What you need is you need the outline, the very generic form in which anything that is true that actually occurs in the universe or is relevant to the universe can be expressed."
},
{
"end_time": 6679.138,
"index": 250,
"start_time": 6650.299,
"text": " If you've got that, then you've got a TOE. I'm the only person that has a TOE with that description. So even though it's not yet a unified field theory in the sense that most physicists would mean, unifying general relativity and gauge theory and quantum mechanics, although it comes pretty close actually. Once I start getting into it, if I were to give all the detail, it does come close in some respects to something like that, but that's not the way I present it."
},
{
"end_time": 6703.677,
"index": 251,
"start_time": 6679.548,
"text": " I'm presenting it as a super tautology, as the logical form of a theory of everything that cannot be broken, can't get up, there is no escape, nobody gets over. I'm actually writing a book, maybe it's just for myself for now, on theories of everything. I have a chapter on yours, so as I've been studying for yours, I'm writing it, that's partly how I understand it."
},
{
"end_time": 6728.166,
"index": 252,
"start_time": 6705.009,
"text": " At one point, I'll send it to you. Thank you. I would love to take a look at your chart. Yeah, for sure. It'll be maybe six pages long. So I have to condense what is about 300 pages down to five as well as what I'm trying to do is relate different theories of everything. And the reason I'm doing that is you yourself, you notice, I'm sure you've gone through this where you start to make connections between what you say. Let's take an example where you"
},
{
"end_time": 6758.336,
"index": 253,
"start_time": 6728.626,
"text": " Exactly. There are ways, if you have a general framework that is super tautological and you know it's a fact, all you have to do is worry about interpreting these different religions so that they are consistent within this framework."
},
{
"end_time": 6788.814,
"index": 254,
"start_time": 6759.155,
"text": " So that's why I call it a meta-religion. All of these other religions that are usually at each other's throats because they don't know how to interpret their doctrines and what they pull out of scriptural documents. They don't know how to interpret that, so they end up imagining these conflicts. Those conflicts usually don't have to exist. If you have an overall framework in which the scripture and doctrine could be interpreted, they can be avoided. Why is it that intellect is associated with atheism?"
},
{
"end_time": 6818.763,
"index": 255,
"start_time": 6789.053,
"text": " Now you may disagree, but what I mean is, in academia, there's obviously an association with intellect there. That's a danger zone phenomenon. Just assume that proposition is correct. You know what I'm referring to. Why is it that most smart people now think that it's smart or it's intellectual to eschew God? They're dummies. They think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. That's the problem. The geniuses throughout history, if you want to look at the real geniuses throughout history,"
},
{
"end_time": 6845.572,
"index": 256,
"start_time": 6819.189,
"text": " Most of them believed in God. Most of them admitted that there was a higher power, that there had to be a higher power. The people who occupy universities, I'd say your average Harvard instructor, Harvard is a very good university of course, I'd say your average Harvard instructor might go 135, 140 max in terms of IQ. That's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God, especially when you've got people like Isaac Newton,"
},
{
"end_time": 6863.439,
"index": 257,
"start_time": 6846.049,
"text": " Okay, that you're looking at, you know, people like people like they're just thousands of great geniuses that have believed in God counter would be obviously that if we go back far enough in time, let's say 100 years in the 250 years in prior, almost everyone believed in God."
},
{
"end_time": 6880.435,
"index": 258,
"start_time": 6863.933,
"text": " Both what you call dummy quote unquote and intellectual. So to say that the higher end of IQ spectrum believed in God previous to 250 years ago. Well, almost everyone did. So then we have to look at modern thinkers. Now, you're obviously someone who has someone who's extremely bright as an understatement."
},
{
"end_time": 6905.486,
"index": 259,
"start_time": 6880.93,
"text": " Is there a correlation between those on the extreme end of the IQ spectrum who believe in God, but then those who are of higher intelligence that don't? So almost like a Dunning-Kruger, where the middle doesn't believe, you're that smart aleck teenager. But then if you gain a bit more insight, there's this false quote, I'm sure you've heard it, that says something like, the first sip of science makes you an atheist, but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer in God."
},
{
"end_time": 6934.991,
"index": 260,
"start_time": 6905.64,
"text": " It's a false quote attributed to, I think, Schrodinger or Heisenberg. It's false. It's true. Even if it's false, it's actually there's something to it. You've got to have depth. The intelligence has to have a lot of penetration and you've got to get the big picture before you understand that there must be a God out there. And a lot of people don't have that. You mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect. People imagining that they're much smarter and more competent than they are. It's usually associated with stupid people. Stupid people tend to have Dunning-Kruger."
},
{
"end_time": 6953.08,
"index": 261,
"start_time": 6935.316,
"text": " But there is a higher IQ version of that. It's called the danger zone effect. We've been talking about it for years. People who range an IQ between, you know, like 130 and 150, you would ordinarily think, well, it's extremely high IQ, almost up to genius range. So these people must hear that sound."
},
{
"end_time": 6980.111,
"index": 262,
"start_time": 6954.019,
"text": " That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms."
},
{
"end_time": 7006.22,
"index": 263,
"start_time": 6980.111,
"text": " There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone."
},
{
"end_time": 7032.005,
"index": 264,
"start_time": 7006.22,
"text": " of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase."
},
{
"end_time": 7057.841,
"index": 265,
"start_time": 7032.005,
"text": " Basically, it works against them because they're right so often compared to the ordinary person. They almost always turn out to be smarter. This gives them the idea that they're intellectually infallible."
},
{
"end_time": 7087.773,
"index": 266,
"start_time": 7058.268,
"text": " They start to lose sight of their own intellectual limitations and believe that they're really what they've cracked themselves up to be, and they become insufferable at this point. This is the danger zone phenomenon. People would tend to exhibit this when they're within a certain IQ range that we call the danger zone. Like I said, it's like a two standard deviation range, right around where I said it was, maybe"
},
{
"end_time": 7116.032,
"index": 267,
"start_time": 7088.387,
"text": " I said 130, maybe it's like 120, 150. Whatever. I understand. Whatever. What you're saying is that some people, because they're so smart, they, and let's just say it's two standard deviations, they're above their peer group when they grow up and then they think they're the smartest in the room. So then they extrapolate that and say, I'm the smartest in the world at 150. Exactly. They were smartest in the room, but they weren't a small room. Okay. Then they get out there in the real world where there are people smarter and you know, suddenly it's like they were scolded."
},
{
"end_time": 7144.172,
"index": 268,
"start_time": 7116.664,
"text": " I must still be the smartest person, so they start belittling and denigrating people who are smarter than they are. This describes a lot of people who are regarded as very intelligent, especially in academia. They regard each other as intelligent. It's kind of a club. Anybody who's not in our club has no intelligence whatsoever. This is what they believe. It's what they calm themselves into believing. It's not true, but they come to believe in it."
},
{
"end_time": 7167.79,
"index": 269,
"start_time": 7144.718,
"text": " Speaking on intellect, I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Jay Gould. He has some criticisms of the concept of IQ. Non-overlapping magisteria. Meaning?"
},
{
"end_time": 7197.79,
"index": 270,
"start_time": 7168.234,
"text": " Meaning basically he thought that science and religion were non-overlapping magisteria and that one had nothing to say about the other. He's a complete dualist and his ideas, his conceptions of IQ are totally hogwash. He was obviously a smart guy but maybe he was a danger zone person who decided that all those people who scored better than he did on IQ tests must be really a bunch of nincompoops compared to him."
},
{
"end_time": 7224.241,
"index": 271,
"start_time": 7198.183,
"text": " And that's where he got his ideas from. But he seemed to be largely motivated by ego. He got the impression that Stephen Jay Gould was a guy who thought very highly of himself and his own perspective, but couldn't really justify it. In other words, I saw him as a danger zone kind of person. Right? That's largely where a lot of this stuff, and it's not that IQ is all that special. IQ is by no means the whole of intelligence."
},
{
"end_time": 7250.862,
"index": 272,
"start_time": 7224.667,
"text": " People like Gould are right about that, but it does correlate with intelligence to a certain extent. It's an aspect of intelligence. You can't just totally dismiss it and say, despite the fact that he's got a measured IQ of 65, he's just as smart as this guy with the 150 IQ over here. You can't make a statement like that, but that's what these people want to do. Everybody's equal, even intellectually equal."
},
{
"end_time": 7279.974,
"index": 273,
"start_time": 7251.391,
"text": " They don't really believe that because they believe they're super smart. But when it comes to you, you can't be any smarter. It's ridiculous. What I wonder people who dislike the concept of IQ, mainly they dislike it because it has connotations with respect to race. And then they think eugenics is going to come out from conversations about it, or they're not happy with their IQ, or they're afraid to find out their own IQ, because it may be lower than they think. And they actually unconsciously attribute plenty to it. So they"
},
{
"end_time": 7309.753,
"index": 274,
"start_time": 7280.316,
"text": " There's this great quote which is, we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for but don't obtain. It's from Aesop's Fables. I put that in this movie that I was directing called Better Left Unsaid. It's about, you've heard of the radical left, I'm sure you're familiar with them. So it's about what makes extremism legal. It's obvious what extremism is on the right when it comes to ethno-nationalism and so on. It's easy to identify. But it's not easy to identify what extremism is on the left because it's couched in terms"
},
{
"end_time": 7336.374,
"index": 275,
"start_time": 7310.196,
"text": " What I would like is for someone who doesn't think the concept of IQ is important at all to say okay well I give them a pool of people here's a pool that has"
},
{
"end_time": 7365.896,
"index": 276,
"start_time": 7337.756,
"text": " People who are measured by IQ 80 to 90 and then people who have 150 to 160. Okay, are you telling me if you're running a company you would choose equally from them? Okay, then take the 80s. Take the 90s. I don't think that they actually would do so. I don't think when push comes to shove they would put their money where their mouth is. Unless they're practicing some form of affirmative action or have to abide by some kind of racial quota system. All right, then all bets are off."
},
{
"end_time": 7392.176,
"index": 277,
"start_time": 7366.8,
"text": " I mean, I remember when I was in New York, and I needed money in New York. The rents were pretty high, so I was constantly looking for a better job. The civil service exam at the time that I was in New York, which was during the 1980s, 1990s, they spotted certain racial minorities, 30 points on that test. In other words, someone like a going in and score hundreds"
},
{
"end_time": 7421.63,
"index": 278,
"start_time": 7392.722,
"text": " But if you belong to one of these privileged minorities, you could score a 70 and get the job. That's because of a basically affirmative action racial quota system. It's obviously not very good for our society because you get a lot of people that really can't handle the jobs that they're given and because of that, society deteriorates. I feel for people that are denied work, for example, because they have a low IQ, but that's"
},
{
"end_time": 7450.964,
"index": 279,
"start_time": 7423.217,
"text": " that is not a reason to destroy a society. You can't pretend that you're being compassionate and pretend, oh, we can't hurt anybody else's feelings and then ask them to do things to be doctors, airline pilots, physicists. You can't expect them to perform functions like that because you feel compassionate toward them or because you don't want to hurt their feelings. It has to be a point at which reality cuts in. That's what we have to remember."
},
{
"end_time": 7478.251,
"index": 280,
"start_time": 7451.305,
"text": " It's not that these people are bad people or that they're not as good as other people. They certainly can be as good as other people. Some people are capable or better at certain things than others. IQ is a good measure for some of those things. Employers should be able to put a certain amount of weight on IQ."
},
{
"end_time": 7505.555,
"index": 281,
"start_time": 7478.712,
"text": " They don't because the academic system, Academia Incorporated, has more or less shoved the IQ off the stage and replaced it with having a college degree. So now what they're looking at is, does this person have a college degree? If he has a college degree, he's smart, and if he doesn't, he's a dummy. He's one of those high school dropouts, you know, forget about him because he's a bum. All right? That is a disservice to the world."
},
{
"end_time": 7532.671,
"index": 282,
"start_time": 7506.254,
"text": " that kind of thing, because anybody at this point can get a college education. Sometimes I think that I have a dog, if I paid the money and put this dog in a class, the dog would end up with a degree. He can't write or spell his own name, but then again, it seems to me that some of the people who are graduating from college these days can't do that either. You see where it's getting. It's not very good."
},
{
"end_time": 7556.476,
"index": 283,
"start_time": 7533.268,
"text": " We need to properly use our intellectual resources and that means we pay a little bit of attention to who's good at what kind of task. I see from both sides because there is, like you mentioned, it's a correlation, IQ is a correlation, which is important. It's one of the highest correlates with success in terms of money, in terms of even happiness and health. Well, up to a certain point."
},
{
"end_time": 7575.759,
"index": 284,
"start_time": 7557.227,
"text": " Okay, that doesn't extend into this into the genius or super genius range, but it goes up to a certain level. It also correlates very highly with academic success, which of course correlates with materialism. But it does not correlate with morality. So for example, there's something called the, there's a psychometric, I think it's,"
},
{
"end_time": 7606.135,
"index": 285,
"start_time": 7576.852,
"text": " A dark triad is the closest to amoralistic behavior. It's not correlated with IQ. You may think, well, the smarter you are, the more you can take advantage of people and you'd actually be more harmful to society. It turns out there's zero correlation, which is great because that means that the smarter you are doesn't make you a good person. And people tend to associate intellect with moral worth or with even human worth. I'm not sure if you do that. I see that as a dangerous game."
},
{
"end_time": 7633.319,
"index": 286,
"start_time": 7607.125,
"text": " And I also understand that if one belongs to like, I understand the controversy with IQ and race, because if you belong to a race that has been demonstrated to have a low IQ or supposedly demonstrate to have a low IQ, that's debilitating to be part of that group. It's, it's not a fun field. That's because you're identifying with the group. You know, everybody has a right to be taken, you know, as an individual."
},
{
"end_time": 7659.65,
"index": 287,
"start_time": 7633.814,
"text": " If you have a high IQ, I don't care what color you are, what race, but the whole identity politics thing that we've fallen into leads people to take that attitude. And once again, it's counterproductive and we have to stop it. I mean, we've got to break out of that. That's one of my questions was with regard to IQ and race, or just IQ in general, if you're told that you have a low IQ, let's imagine that you're an individual who has taken an IQ test. So forget that you're inferring by membership of a group."
},
{
"end_time": 7689.565,
"index": 288,
"start_time": 7660.162,
"text": " You tell them the truth about intelligence. There's a lot more to intelligence than just IQ. I mean, we have examples. You take Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ of approximately 125, which isn't that"
},
{
"end_time": 7710.111,
"index": 289,
"start_time": 7690.077,
"text": " sure isn't high enough to be a genius physicist in the estimate of most people, but it was high enough for him. Intelligence comes from another place. IQ is being able to focus all of your mental energy on specifically well-defined tasks within a certain time period. That's what it is."
},
{
"end_time": 7734.838,
"index": 290,
"start_time": 7710.623,
"text": " Intelligence need not be focused that way. Intelligence is something that can be spread out over much larger areas of space and time. People that produce works of genius don't necessarily have to produce a work of genius every time they take an IQ test. So intelligence is much more than IQ. And this is something that I think if people understood this, and I'll try to help them understand this,"
},
{
"end_time": 7761.493,
"index": 291,
"start_time": 7735.145,
"text": " If they understood it, they wouldn't feel so bad about some kid who scores better on an IQ test than they do. They wouldn't even necessarily feel bad about belonging to a group that has a low mean IQ. There are differences between people. We're all good at certain things. We're all bad at certain things. Everybody is different as long as we learn to accommodate those differences but also"
},
{
"end_time": 7790.828,
"index": 292,
"start_time": 7762.039,
"text": " Sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself. Imagine that morality could also be placed on a spectrum much like IQ is. Would you take a decrement to your IQ for an increment in morality? I call it moral intelligence. I actually conflate the two. You mentioned the dark tetrad, the ponderological"
},
{
"end_time": 7811.886,
"index": 293,
"start_time": 7791.271,
"text": " I'm not entirely convinced that there might not be a little bit of a correlation in that range between those two things."
},
{
"end_time": 7834.889,
"index": 294,
"start_time": 7815.384,
"text": " Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. This looks like the Blair Witch Project. Do you have another? What? Who thinks this looks like the Blair Witch Project? What? Do you have a more powerful light? Well, this is a more powerful light. It's got several adjustments."
},
{
"end_time": 7860.759,
"index": 295,
"start_time": 7835.452,
"text": " I have a light Jeannie could you could you put this on just one more light one more light people need to see your beautiful face man with your no no I don't have a beautiful hairline matter of fact I would like I would like less of my face you'd like dark what we're fine it's fine that or that no that looks awful that looks okay do you want me to try opening the garage door"
},
{
"end_time": 7888.524,
"index": 296,
"start_time": 7860.862,
"text": " Missouri is big on bugs. What? Do you want me to try opening the door to see if that helps with the backlight? I don't think it will, honey. Just... It's fine. Don't worry about it. Let her know it's fine. Also, can you thank her for me? Because she's extremely assiduous. She puts so much energy and effort into someone with... Kurt wants to thank you, honey, for your punctilious attention to all of the details here. Okay? Yeah, and she's a sweetheart. She told me that you're a pussycat and to not be afraid of you."
},
{
"end_time": 7915.401,
"index": 297,
"start_time": 7888.985,
"text": " When I first e-military. When I'm in a good mood. Yeah. Cause from what I've seen, you were probably being interviewed by people who either you didn't like or, or they conveyed that they didn't like you. And so you were in a more disagreeable mood. Well, with me or not, I'm happy. The, the Errol Morris video. I don't remember. Well, are you talking about the, well. No, I don't know which one."
},
{
"end_time": 7943.677,
"index": 298,
"start_time": 7916.049,
"text": " I don't know which one, but I'm just saying that I thought that you'd be a combative person. She assured me you weren't and I'm happy that you're not. No, I'm actually a very easy to get along with person. Although I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book in which I was one of the people. It was called Outliers and he attributed to me zero social intelligence. So that may be where a lot of people get that impression."
},
{
"end_time": 7966.476,
"index": 299,
"start_time": 7944.07,
"text": " I'm actually rather easy to get along with, but I was a bar bouncer for 25 years and my background, even before that, was such that I don't suffer fools gladly. So if someone wants to be an idiot, it rapidly changes my mood and perhaps I'm not so easy to get along with. What? You don't have the ass kissing gene. I don't. There's no ass kissing gene inside of me."
},
{
"end_time": 7994.155,
"index": 300,
"start_time": 7967.005,
"text": " I love to be nice to people and make people feel good, but once it becomes evident to me that someone expects to get his ass kissed, then there's a problem. There's all kinds. It lasted from when I was about five years old to when I was well out of high school."
},
{
"end_time": 8023.848,
"index": 301,
"start_time": 7994.718,
"text": " We came from a disciplinarian household, shall we say, where physical abuse was the norm to a certain extent. And that sort of got me going along a certain trajectory. And then we were usually the poorest folks in town, the poorest family in town, which caused us to get into fights with other kids. So I had to learn how to fight at a young age, and I didn't necessarily want to be bothered"
},
{
"end_time": 8053.558,
"index": 302,
"start_time": 8024.326,
"text": " But it's just the way things went for us. So that's what I had to do. And then, you know, when I went to get a, you know, I started working out working for the forest service, working construction, things like that. Ultimately, I figured out that it was there was a better way to make a living, paid almost as much, but wasn't so grinding. And I could actually think about my work and things that I was interested in while I was doing it. It was bar bounce. I worked in about 50"
},
{
"end_time": 8083.507,
"index": 303,
"start_time": 8054.36,
"text": " There are about 50 night clubs over the course of 25 years or so in the greater New York area. It's probably the best-known bar and dancer in New York for a long time. Physical altercation is more or less a way of life. You meet a lot of people, but some of them are not especially easy to get along with, especially when they get drunk, so altercations arise."
},
{
"end_time": 8113.831,
"index": 304,
"start_time": 8084.121,
"text": " How did you choose your wife? How did you know she was the one? Well, she was actually a member of the super high IQ community."
},
{
"end_time": 8143.558,
"index": 305,
"start_time": 8114.172,
"text": " such as it was back in the 1980s and 90s and so I met her through one of those groups and we you know gradually you know we corresponded a little bit and things just grew from there. So I got myself a very intelligent woman, beautiful too. Was there something about her that stood out to you compared to the other women of the high IQ range? I've always been attracted to"
},
{
"end_time": 8172.056,
"index": 306,
"start_time": 8143.882,
"text": " intelligent women. To me, intelligence is sexy, it makes a woman, more of a woman. Not that a woman who is not so intelligent can't be sexy, I mean that's far from the case, but it's always something to which I was attracted in a female. So that's one of the reasons that I held out for her. I mean I was single for most of my life up until I was about"
},
{
"end_time": 8202.944,
"index": 307,
"start_time": 8173.643,
"text": " My temper gets a little bit short sometimes. That's always something that I'm trying to improve. I have a weakness for certain kinds of snacks or candies, like licorice. I just can't stop eating it."
},
{
"end_time": 8227.551,
"index": 308,
"start_time": 8203.439,
"text": " I literally have to hide it from myself after a certain point because I just eat bag after bag. I'm the same way, man. I know it may not look like it, but trust me, I'm actually 200 pounds greater than I am. I'm serious. My wife, I pig out like you wouldn't, I expand my, it hurts. And I'm like, okay, that's the, that's the beginning. Let me keep eating."
},
{
"end_time": 8255.879,
"index": 309,
"start_time": 8228.234,
"text": " If you just keep on eating, I find myself getting in trouble if I just keep on stuffing myself for a week or two at a time, then I got to stop eating almost entirely for the same amount of time before I'm back to normal."
},
{
"end_time": 8285.06,
"index": 310,
"start_time": 8255.981,
"text": " I see the workout, the weights behind you, I see the gym set. If you ever make it to this area, definitely you're welcome to enjoy the gym as much as you want to. I like working out. It helps keep you young. After a certain point, you've got to have resistance exercise and your muscles deteriorate. You start losing muscle mass and that's something that fortunately I haven't lost any muscle mass at all and I'm probably as strong as an athletic 20 year old."
},
{
"end_time": 8309.753,
"index": 311,
"start_time": 8286.084,
"text": " I do military press with over 200 pounds for reps, which is very good for someone of my age. How old are you? I'm 69. Good job, man. So you don't work out because you want to keep your IQ. You work out for other reasons. The IQ, too. Believe you me, there are a lot of reasons to work out."
},
{
"end_time": 8336.92,
"index": 312,
"start_time": 8310.196,
"text": " Okay, you just keep yourself young, you keep your mind sharp, you keep up your motivation, your level of testosterone doesn't decrease, so you maintain the amount of mental aggression you need to attack difficult problems. These things are important to me, so I work on it. Okay, I wanted to get your thoughts on some other thinkers, one of the reasons I facetiously call it Viyomaki, which is like the battle of the gods, and the reason is that these are intellectual giants, and"
},
{
"end_time": 8367.637,
"index": 313,
"start_time": 8337.773,
"text": " I'm not sure about you, but for me, I glean plenty from seeing these giants disagree with one another. It's as if I pick up nuggets from the damage of their fight from the fallout. So what are your thoughts on new atheists like Sam Harris? So new atheism in general, you don't have to attack Sam Harris, although you're more than welcome to. I don't. Look, there was a, you know, back in the they started publicizing me. I had a chance to get heavily publicized. I was asked"
},
{
"end_time": 8393.677,
"index": 314,
"start_time": 8368.268,
"text": " to appear on TV shows as early as the late 1980s. I refused. I simply didn't want to be involved. Then in the late 1990s, I was around 1998 when I started getting publicized. And after that, I got a few media appearances, one sort or another. But then I started, because I mentioned during some of these appearances,"
},
{
"end_time": 8422.056,
"index": 315,
"start_time": 8394.155,
"text": " that there was a mathematical way to prove the existence of God, I began getting trolled by atheists. For a while I was on a few sites that were supposedly religious sites that were dominated by Christians, people calling themselves Christians, and noticed that they weren't protecting me from these atheistic trolls. These atheistic trolls were saying an awful lot of bad things."
},
{
"end_time": 8451.442,
"index": 316,
"start_time": 8422.568,
"text": " And there were some that actually attacked me personally. Name brand atheists who were nothing at the time but have since become, you know, the signatures of the new atheist movement. I'm not going to mention their names because that would be publicizing them, but they were nasty and I didn't get along with them at all. And then as I was trying to nevertheless get purchased for my theory, I found myself getting cancelled."
},
{
"end_time": 8476.766,
"index": 317,
"start_time": 8452.415,
"text": " and there were several people, among them Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and who the hell was the other one? Not Chris Hitchens, but one of them. I don't know if it was Sam Harris or not, but they came up with this new policy of how to deal with people who believe in God, theists. You cancelled that. They must be refused to talk to"
},
{
"end_time": 8505.998,
"index": 318,
"start_time": 8477.79,
"text": " Right? We refuse to give them any sort of respect whatsoever and pretty soon nobody will pay attention to them at all. And so this is what they pulled on me and my theory and they pretty much managed to stop me dead for a long time. I'm not happy about it and I don't like those people. I think they're intellectually dishonest. Look at the scumbags. Although I'm not saying that they're stupid people."
},
{
"end_time": 8533.404,
"index": 319,
"start_time": 8506.374,
"text": " I mean, his theory is easy to pick apart. Richie Dawkins, there's nothing there. I mean, they're intelligent in a way, but on the other hand, they're not really. They don't have much penetration. They can't understand the inconsistencies in their own work. I just don't respect them very much. I mean, I've been on a couple of sites. They're just awful, the things they say about you, the things that they do."
},
{
"end_time": 8558.968,
"index": 320,
"start_time": 8533.677,
"text": " They apparently have no moral grounding. They don't believe in God so they don't believe there's any sort of moral identity in the universe that can make them act or behave in any particular way that others find acceptable. So all bets are off. They think they can do whatever they want, say whatever they want about you and get away with it and that's what they have done repeatedly. They've been deplatformed. People will say things and I will"
},
{
"end_time": 8589.036,
"index": 321,
"start_time": 8559.241,
"text": " You can't run intellectual commerce under the watchful eyes of such people who are canceling you. All you have to do is mention the G word and they've got a problem with you."
},
{
"end_time": 8615.503,
"index": 322,
"start_time": 8589.77,
"text": " Right. And so this is where we've gotten to today. And as far as I'm concerned, that policy of theirs where they simply refuse to converse with you, that is intellectual cowardice. I mean, you take people like Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dent, easily crushed by someone like me. I mean, they wouldn't last a minute, but they still won't talk."
},
{
"end_time": 8642.09,
"index": 323,
"start_time": 8615.759,
"text": " It's an excuse for them to flee. Oh, well, he believes in God. What a dunce. So he's beneath our dignity. We won't cast any of our, shed any of our glory on him. So this entitles us to run away. And they hide in the shadows. You'll see them. I mean, they get out there in public, but not where they can really be dealt with by anybody who's smarter than they are. And that's not a very tall order at all. There are plenty of people smarter than they are."
},
{
"end_time": 8672.125,
"index": 324,
"start_time": 8643.217,
"text": " Speaking of hiding in the shadows, you look like Russell Crowe. Is there another light? I want to prevent you from making the same mistake that people do toward you. So, for example, they'll make ad hominins. I don't think Daniel Dennett or Dawkins have a low IQ. I think they're extremely intelligent people. They may not have as high an IQ as you. Have you ever been personally insulted by them or their friends? Because until you have been, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 8699.206,
"index": 325,
"start_time": 8672.756,
"text": " You haven't walked in my shoes. Don't worry, man. I'm on your side and I'll defend you. Well, it's good. Thank you. I'm just saying that I think your animosity toward them is from being attacked. And if they were kinder to you, I don't think that you would denigrate their intelligence. It's been going on for 20 years. Certainly I would have been willing, you know, if they had just said, oh, well, you know, let's let's let's get together and I'll have a conversation. These people don't give an inch."
},
{
"end_time": 8728.763,
"index": 326,
"start_time": 8699.718,
"text": " They're haters. They hate God. Richie Dawkins, if you listen to what he says, it becomes very evident that he doesn't really have an argument against God. He just hates God. This has been going on for 20 years in my case, and I've had it with the guy. He's misled a lot of people. This is something that you can go to hell for. Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me. He's got another thing coming. I'll just"
},
{
"end_time": 8759.104,
"index": 327,
"start_time": 8729.121,
"text": " Let's talk about the concept of hell. What is it? Some religions say that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations of Christianity is that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations is that it does exist or there's a place of purgatory."
},
{
"end_time": 8788.78,
"index": 328,
"start_time": 8759.411,
"text": " And then there's that hell is a place where you'll be tortured for a finite amount of time and then you'll be brought back and then there's somewhere it's an infinite amount of time. What is your idea of hell derived from the CTMU? Hell is simply the process of ceasing to exist, of being teleically unbound and having your identity destroyed because it is unacceptable to God. See, God in the CTMU is something called a stratified identity and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity."
},
{
"end_time": 8816.63,
"index": 329,
"start_time": 8789.053,
"text": " the level that we all share with each other. We're all united in God. But God is good and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does. So if you deny God and you cut your, basically you're cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you and can no longer accept you into himself because he's totally consistent."
},
{
"end_time": 8845.06,
"index": 330,
"start_time": 8817.073,
"text": " God is totally, completely self-consistent and will not tolerate his denial. It's just not something that God can afford to tolerate because something that is perfect cannot tolerate, cannot absorb or assimilate imperfection into himself. He can tolerate it for a while, but then after a while, he's got to exclude it. All right, so this is what hell is. Basically, your own highest level of identity."
},
{
"end_time": 8870.725,
"index": 331,
"start_time": 8845.981,
"text": " is telling you, you can no longer exist because you're no longer in touch with me. You've cut your own identity in half. You've severed it. It's called the soul, the human soul. That's what these levels of stratified identity are. They're your soul and once you interdict that, once you sever it, you're cut off from God. That way your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you anymore."
},
{
"end_time": 8899.957,
"index": 332,
"start_time": 8871.22,
"text": " It can't see you. So when you die and you beg on the deathbed, please take me back in. God can't hear you anymore. That's a terrible thing and I don't wish it on anybody. But if people understand this and understand this stratified identity and understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now, because that's a very unpleasant experience, everybody wants to cling to their identity in the end."
},
{
"end_time": 8927.824,
"index": 333,
"start_time": 8900.845,
"text": " There's this phrase, I don't know where I got it from, but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside. That's correct. Well, that's a very good, very opposite quote. Is it a place of torture? Is it a place of torment? Is it a place of infinite heat?"
},
{
"end_time": 8956.084,
"index": 334,
"start_time": 8928.763,
"text": " You bring with it your own ideas of what hell is? That's correct. Where else would they come from? For someone like Dawkins, who doesn't believe in the concept of hell either, would he then experience nothingness?"
},
{
"end_time": 8982.773,
"index": 335,
"start_time": 8956.305,
"text": " You're right. I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. Because he rejects, he will create his own kind of hell and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him. He's no longer a big shot at Oxford University. He can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God. Nobody wants to listen to him anymore."
},
{
"end_time": 9012.278,
"index": 336,
"start_time": 8983.558,
"text": " You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect and no one that I've met is perfect, so does that mean that none of us are going to heaven, none of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded teleisys?"
},
{
"end_time": 9042.022,
"index": 337,
"start_time": 9013.183,
"text": " The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time, things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. It's an oxymoron to think that God holds this against you. We all have to adapt. We all have to do what it takes to survive and God doesn't hate us for that."
},
{
"end_time": 9070.947,
"index": 338,
"start_time": 9042.261,
"text": " He doesn't, that doesn't, that isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of his, of ultimate reality and his own highest level of identity, which is God. All right? It's wanting to undo, to unbind reality, to say the name of reality backwards. That's what evil is. And that's what you get punished for. And that's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing."
},
{
"end_time": 9099.633,
"index": 339,
"start_time": 9071.715,
"text": " There's someone like Peterson who would come out and say that, Sam Harris, you say that you're an atheist but you say that with your words but you don't act like that with your body because you treat people with humanity, you are concerned with the world living and not dying, flourishing. Do you agree with Peterson saying that you can say that you're atheistic but not act it and thus does someone get saved even though they profess atheism?"
},
{
"end_time": 9128.456,
"index": 340,
"start_time": 9101.527,
"text": " Yes, basically the problem, however, is that once you professed atheism, now you've got to get God's attention again. Once you've severed your soul, once you've put a cut in your soul and you've actually cut God off, now you've got to heal that severance before God can see you again. It takes a long time. It's not going to happen, oh well, I've changed my mind. I've decided not to hate God anymore. That's not good enough."
},
{
"end_time": 9157.551,
"index": 341,
"start_time": 9129.599,
"text": " It needs to go on for a long, long time and you've really got to try and you've got to cry like a babe in the woods until God finally hears you again. Okay? So it's not easy. These people are hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that. Hey honey, is there a light over there? You know one of those lights, those hood lights over there? Turn on that clamp light. I want to see how that influences the... This thing is getting in my eyes."
},
{
"end_time": 9187.705,
"index": 342,
"start_time": 9158.302,
"text": " What I'm getting at is almost the opposite of not all those who cry Lord, Lord will be saved. So on the one end, even if you claim to be a Christian or you claim to believe in God, that's not enough. You have to also act it. And on the other end, one can say that even if one says that they're against God, but one acts kindly, one acts lovingly, then does that mean that they still can be saved? Peterson would say, now he doesn't talk about heaven or hell, but he would say that you believe in God with your body."
},
{
"end_time": 9207.688,
"index": 343,
"start_time": 9188.131,
"text": " Father, deeds shall you move."
},
{
"end_time": 9237.517,
"index": 344,
"start_time": 9208.643,
"text": " Would you say that he in your model will be going to heaven or hell, assuming that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions, but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth? Unfortunately, your relationship with God cannot be faked. When somebody is doing good acts, it could be only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts. They want the moral approval of other human beings. That's not good enough."
},
{
"end_time": 9251.766,
"index": 345,
"start_time": 9238.183,
"text": " Completely fine, can't hear a thing of the storm."
},
{
"end_time": 9282.722,
"index": 346,
"start_time": 9254.138,
"text": " Pardon me, Kurt. Go ahead. Let's take a quote from someone who criticized you. You said, if someone denies the existence of God, then God will exclude them from reality. And then this person said, well, okay, how does Langen explain the continued existence of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins? Well, they have a physical body. They're basically co-hearing to their physical body, and that's what's providing them with a continued identity. They've reduced themselves, however, to be a physical body. There's not much left of them."
},
{
"end_time": 9310.555,
"index": 347,
"start_time": 9282.995,
"text": " If God could not have been otherwise, like with your model, there are these meta laws that govern the universe. So it sounds to me like there is a bound to God. God is his own boundary."
},
{
"end_time": 9341.596,
"index": 348,
"start_time": 9311.903,
"text": " Who is or was Jesus?"
},
{
"end_time": 9373.387,
"index": 349,
"start_time": 9345.009,
"text": " We cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that was written of him in the Bible. But we know what Jesus is now. Jesus is the ideal of human perfection. Someone who was willing to lay down everything and sacrifice himself for mankind. All right, that's what Jesus is. He was the image of human perfection. It is through a Jesus-shaped gateway that we can approach God."
},
{
"end_time": 9402.022,
"index": 350,
"start_time": 9374.036,
"text": " We have to become perfect in order to unify with the perfection of God. So that's the way Jesus functions in the Christian religion and the way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our true and far between, if you know what I mean. In Buddhism, of course, Buddhism has another central figure who is Buddha, Gautama Buddha Siddhartha. He's basically another kind of cat and tiger."
},
{
"end_time": 9429.77,
"index": 351,
"start_time": 9402.671,
"text": " He didn't talk much about God. You can sort of infer a conscious higher reality from some of the things that Buddha said, but he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God. He was also a rich individual that was born into privilege and then went around traveling and meditating and ministering to the masses and so forth."
},
{
"end_time": 9452.858,
"index": 352,
"start_time": 9430.52,
"text": " In several ways, he doesn't quite measure up to the image of Jesus. Jesus was born poor. He didn't start out with any advantages at all. He lived like a normal man, like an ordinary human being, absorbing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at every turn, which is what we have to do. That's what we're expected to do. Therefore, Jesus is an exemplar for us."
},
{
"end_time": 9482.773,
"index": 353,
"start_time": 9453.336,
"text": " Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from reality and have a meditative existence and never mention God. So there's a little bit of a difference between them. In the CTMU, we don't discriminate against Buddha because he lacks Jesus-like characteristics. Instead, we recognize him for his strengths"
},
{
"end_time": 9505.725,
"index": 354,
"start_time": 9483.319,
"text": " Let's get to some other intellectuals. Like I mentioned, for me I love hearing"
},
{
"end_time": 9532.176,
"index": 355,
"start_time": 9506.032,
"text": " Academic speak about other academics or intellectuals speak. For example, if Russell commented on Aristotle, it illuminates not only how Russell thinks, but it gives me a new perspective on Aristotle at the same time. So I'm going to bring up a few different giants, intellectual giants, and you may not consider them to be so, and we'll see what you think of them. Have you heard of Clea Irwin? Yes. Are you presenting Clea as an intellectual giant?"
},
{
"end_time": 9561.698,
"index": 356,
"start_time": 9533.541,
"text": " Yes, I'm wondering what you think of Clea Erwin's theories. Clea Erwin has theories on quantum gravity. I'm unsure if you've taken a look, and as well as consciousness. So what do you think about them? Well, Clea seems like a smart person. I don't want to say anything bad about Clea, but I will say that Clea has a lot of ideas that are very CTM-ulike. And the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before Clea did."
},
{
"end_time": 9588.968,
"index": 357,
"start_time": 9562.585,
"text": " I actually had to force Klee to cite me in his most recent, what was the name of that paper? Reality Self Simulation Hypothesis. Anyway, Klee has a theory. It's got a number of ingredients, some of which are questionable, some of which aren't. It's based on Garrett Leasey's E8 theory. It's a certain symmetry group that he uses."
},
{
"end_time": 9619.206,
"index": 358,
"start_time": 9589.804,
"text": " But there are other aspects that are straight, pure CTA media. I was simply not mentioned. I understand sometimes people don't know any better, but at one time I was on every major news network in the country. There are probably relatively few people who are above a certain age who never heard of me. A lot of them have forgotten that they heard of me, but nevertheless I was still there."
},
{
"end_time": 9645.572,
"index": 359,
"start_time": 9619.462,
"text": " I think that a reasonable literature search should turn up something about the CTMU if you undertake it. If you're actually doing your job and looking for other ideas that are comparable to yours, you're probably going to bump into it. Cleve's theory is to the extent that it resembles the CTMU, it's great. Other parts of it are questionable, but the key part is"
},
{
"end_time": 9675.213,
"index": 360,
"start_time": 9646.954,
"text": " Klee is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self-simulation hypothesis and a reasonable TOE theory of everything. He's missing certain key ingredients that are built into CTME structure. His theory is not a super tautology. It has to be a super tautology in order to be a true theory of everything. He mentions language in his theory"
},
{
"end_time": 9705.606,
"index": 361,
"start_time": 9675.742,
"text": " He mentions a lot of things that I introduced with the CTMU, which was the first language-like theory of reality. He mentions a lot of things, but then they're kind of haphazardly glued together and it looks like you kind of made a snowball out of them and threw it up in the air to see what would happen. If he ever realizes this, he is going to realize that he has a CTMU clone."
},
{
"end_time": 9734.957,
"index": 362,
"start_time": 9706.749,
"text": " that doesn't just differ from the CTMU, but is the CTMU in different language. That is where Klee is at. I don't want to detract from Klee. I think he probably thinks he's doing a good job. I do know that forcing him to cite me was not easy. I had a long string of correspondence. It originally happened. He introduced his paper, his new paper, and he put it up on RxEve, I guess. It was one of"
},
{
"end_time": 9755.469,
"index": 363,
"start_time": 9735.094,
"text": " is a email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known people. And he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his reality self-simulation hypothesis. And I'm like, what the hell? What is this? Because these people know me. They know who I am. So I said, wait a minute."
},
{
"end_time": 9784.701,
"index": 364,
"start_time": 9755.828,
"text": " I've been talking about the reality of self-simulation for years. You're going to have to cite me. I've looked at your paper. I don't see you mentioning me here. You've got some of the same ideas in there. Went back, quoted a lot of self-simulation quotes from me. The problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he was responsible. It was. And in my estimation, in some ways he's got it right, but in some ways he's lashing it"
},
{
"end_time": 9814.889,
"index": 365,
"start_time": 9785.538,
"text": " What about Joschak Bach and his ideas of consciousness?"
},
{
"end_time": 9845.742,
"index": 366,
"start_time": 9816.271,
"text": " Joschabach, like Daniel Dennett, is a physicalist. You cannot explain consciousness with physics or in a computational system. The CTMU makes use of a concept called proto-computation, which is even more general than quantum computation. There's a universal Turing machine, there's a quantum Turing machine. The CTMU actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a proto-computer, except that it's the entire CTMU."
},
{
"end_time": 9873.933,
"index": 367,
"start_time": 9846.067,
"text": " All of that structure has to go into this quantization. And then the universe is self-similar on that basis. Every part of it mirrors the whole. It's a metaphysical system. You cannot explain consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need. Your consciousness is coherent. You are a unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts. You feel"
},
{
"end_time": 9903.302,
"index": 368,
"start_time": 9874.718,
"text": " The Unity of Your Consciousness. That's what I mean by coherence. A machine is not coherent. It doesn't have that coherence. All right, you've got to figure out some way of getting that coherence in there, and that's a tall order. Okay, Joshua Bach doesn't have it. Daniel Dennett never had that. I mean, there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned. These guys, they have some good ideas. I mean, I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done. Everybody has remarkable insights."
},
{
"end_time": 9932.568,
"index": 369,
"start_time": 9903.695,
"text": " I think I'm a marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennett sometimes. He talks around things like a lot of philosophers do. I mean, that's a skill that they develop in academia. Joshua Bach is better than that. He actually tries, makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennett ever did, but still, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 9957.671,
"index": 370,
"start_time": 9933.541,
"text": " Still, he's not really getting to the root of what consciousness is in my opinion. And even if they're wrong, they're extremely inventive, both Joschabach and Daniel Dennett. I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points. These are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that they're trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem"
},
{
"end_time": 9970.93,
"index": 371,
"start_time": 9958.063,
"text": " and their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused the solutions to go awry. Can we talk about this proto-computer, this proto-computation you mentioned? So there's Turing machines as we"
},
{
"end_time": 10000.947,
"index": 372,
"start_time": 9971.288,
"text": " or classical machines as we ordinarily think of them, and then there's quantum computation, and then you're saying there's an even more general notion where different states of an infinite type are able to be used in the calculation simultaneously. I'm unsure, can you please explain that some more because I haven't encountered that in your work? Well, it means that basically a proto-computer is generative, which neither a universal Turing machine nor a quantum Turing machine are. The universal Turing machine is"
},
{
"end_time": 10031.084,
"index": 373,
"start_time": 10001.374,
"text": " That's Turing's original invention. Then you've got the quantum Turing machine, which I think was introduced by David Deutsch. They both resemble each other in certain respects. They're different. The nature of the tape is different. The nature of the storage module is different. The quantum Turing machine is more general and more powerful than the universal Turing machine. But what a theory of reality actually needs is generativity. In other words,"
},
{
"end_time": 10059.957,
"index": 374,
"start_time": 10031.92,
"text": " At the same time as new states are created, new medium has to be created to go with those states. The medium is constantly being generated. Space-time is constantly being generated. These people imagine that the medium of reality is some kind of fixed array, almost like a computer display, like the one I'm looking at right now and seeing your face. That's what they think reality is. They think it's kind of like a display screen."
},
{
"end_time": 10089.292,
"index": 375,
"start_time": 10060.094,
"text": " It's discretized and basically that doesn't work for a number of reasons, one of which is relativity. You don't have the proper kind of covariance and contravariance. It's very hard to make that work."
},
{
"end_time": 10114.48,
"index": 376,
"start_time": 10089.701,
"text": " If you've got discretized pixels, the Lorentz contractions and things like that would actually have to influence the number of pixels that are activated at any one time and that causes inconsistencies. But apparently these people don't realize there are also certain inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. But this idea of a discretized script, Dennett has the same damn thing."
},
{
"end_time": 10142.09,
"index": 377,
"start_time": 10116.596,
"text": " I'll withhold. Basically, Dunnett talks about a Cartesian theater, as I recall, and the Cartesian theater is something that he attempts to depart from. Nevertheless, he is a physicalist, and physicalists do have to have something like a discretized pixelated display, even if they describe it in terms of quantum mechanics, which is erroneous. You can't do it that way, really."
},
{
"end_time": 10172.227,
"index": 378,
"start_time": 10142.5,
"text": " Nevertheless, what reality actually needs is something that is generative and generates new space and time even as new states of matter are generated. That's one of the implications of triality. The medium has to change a lot. It's even an implication of Einstein's equation. You've got a stress energy tensor on one side and then you've got the metric tensor on the other. You see, the metric tensor being the medium and the stress energy tensor being the matter distribution"
},
{
"end_time": 10199.94,
"index": 379,
"start_time": 10172.602,
"text": " Okay, those two things actually have to be in sync. They've got to be coupled in a certain way. And these people are just not doing it. They're not approaching it in the correct way. Einstein, by the way, I can make a pretty good argument that relativity makes no sense outside of the CTN at all. The entire scenario, the way things are done there, the way things are coupled, the way space is coupled with time, for example,"
},
{
"end_time": 10228.251,
"index": 380,
"start_time": 10200.555,
"text": " And then the way he couples objects with space-time in Einstein's equation, these things actually don't work outside of CTM. So we need that. We need that generativity. We need we need tele-sys to be factored from the top down into space and time. And that's what neither of these other Turing machines, neither the UTM nor the QTM does. The CTM does do this, however, and it uses the entire structure of the metaphorical system"
},
{
"end_time": 10258.797,
"index": 381,
"start_time": 10229.343,
"text": " There are other models of discrete space. They wouldn't call it space time. Space time would emerge such as spin foam networks in loop quantum that still have the properties of being background free and Lorentz invariant and so on. So what about those? Would you say that those are also doomed? You've got to have a representation. You've got to have an observer immersed in a medium of representation."
},
{
"end_time": 10285.759,
"index": 382,
"start_time": 10259.411,
"text": " And I don't see right now how you can salvage any of those viewpoints. I think that they all need to be interpreted in the CTME in order for their good points to actually be valid. I think that as it stands right now, excessive claims are being made. I don't think they live up to those claims. I think that if I were questioning"
},
{
"end_time": 10312.056,
"index": 383,
"start_time": 10286.169,
"text": " Any of these people, I don't think that they would be able to justify their claims. There's just no damn way that you can have a non-generative display. Once again, we're referring to the reality self-simulation, which can be likened to a computer. There is an analogy. It's a little bit more involved than you might suspect, but nevertheless, you can separate the display from the processor."
},
{
"end_time": 10340.998,
"index": 384,
"start_time": 10312.705,
"text": " These people are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature of the processor. And usually what they're trying to do is confine everything to the display. And for various reasons, this is not allowed. You can't pull that off. All these guys are trying to do it. Bless their hearts. They've got a certain amount of good insight, but they're just not pulling it off. Let's get to the next one. How about Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity?"
},
{
"end_time": 10372.159,
"index": 385,
"start_time": 10342.244,
"text": " What are your thoughts on that? Eric Weinstein, okay, geometric unit. That's where he's got a triangle that has the Dirac equation spinners and spin one-half matter particles on one vertex. On the other vertex he's got general relativity and on the other vertex he's got the standard model with SU3 times SU2 times SU1 gauge theory."
},
{
"end_time": 10398.422,
"index": 386,
"start_time": 10372.483,
"text": " Okay. I think that Eric is actually, he seems like a very bright guy. I remember when he had his, I think, isn't he the guy who had the mathematics encyclopedia up for a long time on the web? I think it was Eric Ronstadt, some guy named Eric Ronstadt had a math encyclopedia up on the web. It was pretty impenetrable. If you didn't already know the math, you're not going to get anything out of this encyclopedia. Nevertheless, it was"
},
{
"end_time": 10422.108,
"index": 387,
"start_time": 10399.019,
"text": " It was good. But anyway, here's the strength of his approach, this geometric unity. Basically, he seems to be saying, it sort of occurs to me that what he's saying is, well, we're having a hard time putting together a TOE, a purely analytic algebraic TOE. So let's look at the geometry of these theories, of the Dirac equation and"
},
{
"end_time": 10452.056,
"index": 388,
"start_time": 10422.295,
"text": " and the standard model and general relativity. And let's see if we can put those geometries together. And if we can merge those geometries, then guess what? We're going to automatically just be able to match it with a global formal theory coupled with the geometry. Okay? And this is really kind of an innovative way to approach it. However, it's the way I've been approaching it for decades. The CTME is the Logico Geometric."
},
{
"end_time": 10479.718,
"index": 389,
"start_time": 10452.432,
"text": " It's a coupling of logic and geometry, but it's generative geometry, which is a fundamentally different kind than what I think Eric Weinstein is dealing with. Stephen Wolfram's theory of everything, the Wolfram Project. What are your opinions on that? Have you taken a look? Stephen Wolfram, he's obviously a very bright guy. He knows a lot about mathematics."
},
{
"end_time": 10509.258,
"index": 390,
"start_time": 10480.913,
"text": " It's kind of an adorable character. What he's done, what it seems to me that he's done is he's tried to identify certain basic elements and rules of assembly and then like a bunch of ticker toys, he's trying to assemble those into the overall structure of reality. I appreciate that and it's entertaining to read Stephen's writing about it and there's a lot of insight there."
},
{
"end_time": 10539.991,
"index": 391,
"start_time": 10510.077,
"text": " It doesn't work because if you're going to have a theory of everything, you need to start with everything. You're not going to take a subset of everything and then put it together and get something which is reality, which is more than the sum of its parts. You're not going to do that. You've got to start with everything, which means you've got to start with cognition and perception in general. You've got to logically induce your theory from that. That's the way to build a theory."
},
{
"end_time": 10565.452,
"index": 392,
"start_time": 10540.708,
"text": " But as far as Stephen's writing is concerned and the other aspects of what Stephen does, I think he's a very bright guy. I get a big kick out of reading what he writes. But this is more or less right up front for me. The fact that he's going about it in the wrong way. He hasn't seen the big picture. He doesn't understand all of the criteria that have to be satisfied in order to have a TOE."
},
{
"end_time": 10589.241,
"index": 393,
"start_time": 10566.152,
"text": " That's where you've got to start. You've got to start with everything. Nothing can be excluded, either implicitly or explicitly. You've got to have everything. You've got to have everything condensed or encapsulated somehow in some kind of process. And for us human beings, the process is cognition and perception. You start with those and then you build your reality out of that."
},
{
"end_time": 10621.169,
"index": 394,
"start_time": 10591.391,
"text": " What about Donald Hoffman? Have you taken a look at his theories on consciousness and conscious agents interacting and so on? Yes, I did. I think I watched a video with him and Deepak Chopra at one time and I found him interesting. He's saying that basically cognition is deceptive. He's a cognitive scientist as I recall. He's saying that some aspects of how we see the world"
},
{
"end_time": 10641.425,
"index": 395,
"start_time": 10621.578,
"text": " is actually quite deceptive but adaptive. It helps us adapt and survive to the world if we actually don't see it correctly. He's got this idea of a kind of a graphic user interface that actually allows us to have cognition that is deceptive but nevertheless adaptive."
},
{
"end_time": 10670.657,
"index": 396,
"start_time": 10641.886,
"text": " Basically, what Donald needs is an overall framework in which to insert his GUI, his graphic user interface. He needs the actual reality of self-simulation principle to make that work. He's a guy who is very much in need of the CTME. Of course, he's an academic, so he probably would have insisted it come from another academic. But if that would have happened, it would be called plagiarism. So I doubt that he's ever going to get to the true heart of things."
},
{
"end_time": 10697.568,
"index": 397,
"start_time": 10670.845,
"text": " Okay, how about David Bohm? So how your theory compares in contrast with David Bohm's theories, which I would like you to explain Implicit order to me because I haven't had the chance to look it up. And then there's someone named Henry Berkson, which is related to Bohm. I'm not sure how they differ."
},
{
"end_time": 10724.94,
"index": 398,
"start_time": 10698.797,
"text": " But you can elucidate me and the audience at the same time. Bergson is a great philosopher. He's one of the best. And as a matter of fact, some of what he had to say about manifolds, I find quite interesting because it very closely parallels what has to be done and what had to be done in the CTU creating the medium of reality. As far as David Bohm is concerned, his reputation precedes him."
},
{
"end_time": 10753.302,
"index": 399,
"start_time": 10725.435,
"text": " There was an early bomb and a late bomb. The early bomb was Bohmian mechanics and then later on he came up with something called the holo movements, the holographic universe. I think he wrote a book on the holographic universe with Vassel-Heile. Anyway, he has this thing that he calls the holo movement that basically takes an implicate order and kicks out an exponent."
},
{
"end_time": 10782.961,
"index": 400,
"start_time": 10754.07,
"text": " That is pure CTMU. That process is what the CTMU calls involution. It's just one aspect of the CTMU, but that aspect he actually captured very well with that polar movement, implicate and explicate order thing that he's doing with later bone. As far as the earlier bone mechanics is concerned, that's a little bit dicey. Hard to make that look."
},
{
"end_time": 10810.811,
"index": 401,
"start_time": 10784.445,
"text": " Would the implicate order be associated with descriptive containment and then the explicit is topological containment or there's no relation? Explicate order is the display, the terminal display or the CTMU semi-language LO and the other part is the CTMU semi-language LS which corresponds to the processor instead of the display. That's the implicate order."
},
{
"end_time": 10839.718,
"index": 402,
"start_time": 10811.135,
"text": " It's implicated, it's an implicate form there in the processor where things are actually getting non-locally combined and entangled and telons are working to actually determine overall causative patterns. That's where that's occurring. It's very, very interesting. Bohm actually matured as a thinker a very great deal in the course of his life. There are a couple of things I don't like. I mean, I think Bohm was a communist, wasn't he?"
},
{
"end_time": 10869.326,
"index": 403,
"start_time": 10841.323,
"text": " Right, and that may be one of the reasons why Bohmian mechanics came out of favor because it was as if you were supporting communism. Right. Well, let's... Communism is a very... Marxism is a very bad theory of philosophy. It's got a lot of holes in it. It's just awful in certain respects. So when you see a brilliant thinker like David Bohm grabbing a hold of it and embracing"
},
{
"end_time": 10898.268,
"index": 404,
"start_time": 10869.94,
"text": " This can't help his reputation. I think Bohm suffered a great deal because of that, but you can certainly understand why it happened. As far as Bohmian mechanics is concerned, he's basically trying to concretize everything. He's got a pilot field, he's got the Springer equation, but he's also got this, the pilot field is actually guiding the particle to its destination. But what is guiding the pilot field itself?"
},
{
"end_time": 10927.773,
"index": 405,
"start_time": 10899.445,
"text": " I mean, there are a number of philosophical questions that could be asked about Volm's theory that reveal that it is envelopably associated with the terminal side of the reality of self-simulation. So in other words, it's terminally confined in CTME terminology, which means that it's not really any kind of complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've been told I need to learn more about Volmian mechanics and Birx if I'm going to be investigating theories of everything."
},
{
"end_time": 10951.578,
"index": 406,
"start_time": 10928.268,
"text": " A lot of people really like Bohmian mechanics because of its strong components. It does have strong components, but it won't really do in a theory of everything. The theory of everything relies on Bohmian mechanics. It's toast. There's just not enough there to pull it off. As far as Bergson is concerned, it's like a fine philosophy."
},
{
"end_time": 10981.732,
"index": 407,
"start_time": 10953.763,
"text": " Okay, how about Douglas Hofstadter's Strange Loop idea of consciousness? You know, Gertl Escher Bach, I'm sure you've heard of that book. Yes, yeah. I think I was probably in my early 20s when I got a copy of that book. The Strange Loops and the Pushing and the Popping and all that stuff. Quite an intriguing book. Very much in fashion for a long time. Sort of a precursor to the reality of self-simulation."
},
{
"end_time": 11012.073,
"index": 408,
"start_time": 10982.551,
"text": " People ask me who do I want to interview most? Douglas Hofstadter is up there, Penrose is up there and even M&M. Roger Penrose is brilliant. Where do you see Douglas Hofstadter's theory lacking and what do you like most about it? So what dislikes and then likes pros then cons? Well, you know, he relies a lot on computational principles and I think he might be"
},
{
"end_time": 11042.739,
"index": 409,
"start_time": 11012.875,
"text": " You know, nevertheless, even though he's relying on a lot of advanced logic and, you know, powers of metal languages and levels of computation and so forth, he shows no sign of being anything but a physicalist in the sense that it's all computational and computation is a mechanical process. So it looks to me like it might be like his outlook may be basically mechanistic. Right. Right. Which, you know, I can't agree with because that's not what reality is."
},
{
"end_time": 11073.234,
"index": 410,
"start_time": 11043.831,
"text": " Now Penrose seems to agree with you in saying that there are many paradoxes associated with thinking that consciousness comes from something that's computational. Have you heard much about Penrose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction and so on with Hameroff? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hameroff is on a lot of these, or at least was on a lot of these distributions that I found myself on in the first one. And, you know, there is something to it. I mean, you know, Hameroff identified microtubules, cytoskeletons as being"
},
{
"end_time": 11103.507,
"index": 411,
"start_time": 11073.695,
"text": " as being a place where quantum coherence might actually be able to function in the brain. And there are other ways that quantum mechanics can serve itself in the neural processes as well. But, of course, he relies on Penrose for most of the physics and actually figuring out where it's all coming from. Penrose has this idea of a platonic realm or this platonic form of reality. It's a tripartite form of reality."
},
{
"end_time": 11133.08,
"index": 412,
"start_time": 11105.572,
"text": " These mathematical truths that exist as these fully formed mathematical objects in platonic realm. He doesn't have the CTME, Roger Penrose, doesn't have a fully formed theory of reality, but he's just very hard not to appreciate because he's so brilliant."
},
{
"end_time": 11162.363,
"index": 413,
"start_time": 11133.831,
"text": " He's brilliant, so I almost floor you sometimes when you read some of the things that he writes. Mathematically, he's a brilliant mathematician, he's a brilliant physicist, and this idea of his that basically, it's not just computation, that there's something that is undecidable going on in human thought. Basically, you know what Goodell theory implies? He says there's no"
},
{
"end_time": 11191.254,
"index": 414,
"start_time": 11162.978,
"text": " You've got a system, a system that actually is capable of trans-finite induction and is truly interesting. There are truths that cannot be derived from any finite set of axioms in such a system. Basically, what Penrose is saying is that human thought somehow generates undecidable theorems that are true on a metamathematical level but cannot be derived from any theory."
},
{
"end_time": 11220.947,
"index": 415,
"start_time": 11191.527,
"text": " This is exactly what the CTNU says. I started publishing in the same year, I think. He came out with a book, I think his biggest theoretical statement was The Emperor's New Mind. Recognize that title? That's correct. That was 1989, which is when I wrote The Resolution of Newton's Paradox. We started publishing at about the same time. He got a hell of a lot farther than I did in that amount of time. Then again, he wasn't cancer. Teaching at Oxford does a very great deal for me."
},
{
"end_time": 11250.23,
"index": 416,
"start_time": 11221.63,
"text": " when it comes to disseminating your work. How about Thomas Campbell and his My Big Toe? Have you heard of that? I've heard of My Big Toe, but let me defer to you. You probably know more about it than I do. What does it say exactly? It's a strange theory, essentially that there's another realm. When you mentioned that there are data points that come to us instantaneously in this non-terminal realm,"
},
{
"end_time": 11274.855,
"index": 417,
"start_time": 11250.964,
"text": " Thomas Campbell also says that that's the mechanism by which psychic phenomenon work, that it occurs to you instantaneously. We think that it has to travel some distance in the same way that it would have to travel in our space-time. And there's a finite speed, he says. Know that this other realm where consciousness operates is... He also has Aum. He calls it Aum, which you call unbounded teleesis."
},
{
"end_time": 11299.701,
"index": 418,
"start_time": 11275.196,
"text": " He has Aum, unbounded absolute oneness. Or absolute unbounded oneness. Is that supposed to sound like Aum? No, I just, well, as far as I know, it's a coincidence. Anyway, he says that that's the fundamental constituents, this place of complete potential. Yes, that's CDMEU-consistent, yes. Although he says this, which I disagree."
},
{
"end_time": 11326.937,
"index": 419,
"start_time": 11300.043,
"text": " He says that unrealized potential is trying to do is to create order and to decrease its entropy and I quibbled with him because I don't think that order and entropy are what people claim in common parlance entropy and order and disorder are not actually high entropy doesn't mean low order in the way that most people think and it's obvious because if you look at a coffee cup with some milk and you create some turbulence that looks completely disordered and then when you"
},
{
"end_time": 11355.162,
"index": 420,
"start_time": 11327.585,
"text": " That sounds like Maxwell's demon. That's Thomas Campbell's"
},
{
"end_time": 11385.469,
"index": 421,
"start_time": 11356.34,
"text": " It reminds me of yours, but yours is more rigorous. Yeah, I mean mine actually has structure, mathematical structure to it. But it sounds like he's coming up with some good ideas that are on the right track and can be successfully interpreted in a true theory. He also had out-of-body experiences and he would suggest that people who are younger are more naturally in tune, like you get out of tune as you get older, with"
},
{
"end_time": 11415.589,
"index": 422,
"start_time": 11385.862,
"text": " this other realm, and so you can go and what you think of as thought space is actually a real space, but it's another space. I wouldn't use the word dimension, but it's another realm, let's say, a primordial realm. Right, it's another terminal realm. Like I say, that's always a possibility. You can create terminal realms that are not identical to physical reality, and that may be related more or less tenuously to it, but aren't dependent."
},
{
"end_time": 11445.265,
"index": 423,
"start_time": 11415.776,
"text": " How about Noam Chomsky? What do you agree with him about and then disagree with him about? Back when I was first developing the CTMU, Chomsky was one of the people, I had a correspondence with him, it was very brief, maybe three or four emails, and he didn't understand a word I said. Even though I was using his theory of grammar, generative grammar hierarchy, nevertheless actually making a metaphysic out of that was something that Noam couldn't"
},
{
"end_time": 11475.418,
"index": 424,
"start_time": 11445.708,
"text": " I don't know whether it was because I was just explaining myself poorly or whatever, but Gnome was a big nothing burger for me. I couldn't even get a conversation started. He has a certain perspective on language and it's all about where does it come from, how do we get it, and that's his focus. When you try to broaden the focus, I think that sometimes"
},
{
"end_time": 11504.462,
"index": 425,
"start_time": 11475.828,
"text": " Noam just doesn't pick up on what I'm saying. He's a brilliant guy, but that was my experience with him. The other guy was John Wheeler, who pretty much loved the CTN view. He wanted to meet with me. He wanted to meet with me. He asked to meet with me at Princeton, but I had a couple of jobs and I couldn't get away. It was a mistake. I should have given up the damn jobs and just gone to see Wheeler anyway."
},
{
"end_time": 11528.046,
"index": 426,
"start_time": 11505.145,
"text": " With regards to Chomsky not understanding your theories, I think that you overestimate the intelligence of the average person trying to understand your theories and or you're too close to it and that leads to frustration on your part and the people trying to understand it. You think I overestimate their intelligence or underestimate? I think you overestimate."
},
{
"end_time": 11556.971,
"index": 427,
"start_time": 11528.473,
"text": " by thinking that it's simple and the reason i say that is eric weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory he doesn't seem to get that the way that he explains it is esoteric and i wouldn't call it office it's almost like obscurantism though he's not trying to be and i'm not accusing you of that please don't take this as any slight i'm just saying that i think you may be too close to it to"
},
{
"end_time": 11586.203,
"index": 428,
"start_time": 11557.79,
"text": " understand the frustration of people who actually want, they're not trolls, some of them are, but they genuinely want to understand and they feel like it's impenetrable. The reason I say this is because it's hard for me to understand too, and I actually have a contact on your side, speaking to him on a daily basis, so I'm lucky that I have some physics and math background, so it's easier for me than the average person, but I still had a difficult time with it. What is the name of the person with whom you've been communicating? His name is Sam Thompson."
},
{
"end_time": 11614.121,
"index": 429,
"start_time": 11587.329,
"text": " Yes, Sam is a mathematics student. He's actually pretty smart. Yeah, I love Sam. Me and Sam have been speaking almost each day. I actually had to get him on WhatsApp so I could speak. He's a big tall kid with red hair. I don't know if he's tall. I only spoke to him through webcam. But he's such a nervous person, but he's a sweetheart and he's extremely insightful and he understands your theories almost inside and out. He's a mathematician. He's smart."
},
{
"end_time": 11643.592,
"index": 430,
"start_time": 11615.316,
"text": " Okay, we'll get on to the next one. Jordan Peterson, where do you agree, disagree? So it could be with either his biblical interpretations, his psychological book called Maps of Meaning, Order versus Chaos, and so on. Well, you know, Jordan is a, I think he's managed to do some good. I think that a lot of people get a lot of insight out of Jordan. And so I think that he's, you know, he's actually doing some good things. But as far as a TOE is concerned, he doesn't have"
},
{
"end_time": 11672.671,
"index": 431,
"start_time": 11644.258,
"text": " As I recall, his position on the existence of God is, well, I'm not going to say whether he exists or whether he doesn't, but I will say this, it would be better if we all believed he did, which is kind of a cop-out. But I don't think that he has the kind of philosophical understanding that would enable him to put together a basic theory that actually serves as a foundation"
},
{
"end_time": 11698.422,
"index": 432,
"start_time": 11672.927,
"text": " for morality, for example. And Jordan is really kind of a moral philosopher, so he needs that kind of foundation. I don't think he has it. He probably knows who I am. I mean, he's a psychologist. He's a Canadian, he's a North American psychologist. He has certainly heard of me, but I've never heard from him. As a matter of fact, I think there was some guy, some agent who was trying to set up a meeting between"
},
{
"end_time": 11723.336,
"index": 433,
"start_time": 11699.002,
"text": " Remember we were going through this exercise of stating a seemingly complicated sentence with terminology that wasn't articulated to the audience and then articulating them specifically. So let's do that once more."
},
{
"end_time": 11751.596,
"index": 434,
"start_time": 11723.78,
"text": " Meta-causation and other metaphysical criteria require the standard physical conception of space-time be superseded by a more advanced metaphysical conceptualization that is a logical geometric dual to the linguistic structure of the triallic identity. Okay, so, before I move on to the next sentence, meta-causation, let's define that. Meta-causation is basically the... There's another dimension of time called meta-time,"
},
{
"end_time": 11781.391,
"index": 435,
"start_time": 11751.988,
"text": " that leads from the display to the processor of the reality of self-simulation and that is what we mean by meta-time and causation is pre-real, pre-causation that occurs in the processing section of the reality of self-simulation. In other words, meta-causation is really what causes things to happen. It's the real processing that is going on in causality. By the way, that can be mathematically demonstrated."
},
{
"end_time": 11810.23,
"index": 436,
"start_time": 11781.8,
"text": " Causality doesn't have much to it. The reason is the structure of the manifold of the ordinary fixed real manifold that physics uses or even the complex manifold or any ectomorphic manifold. That doesn't do the trick. You just said that it goes from the screen to the process. That's meta time. Does it not go from the process to the screen? Let me just put it like this. Causation is distinct from the concept of origination."
},
{
"end_time": 11839.667,
"index": 437,
"start_time": 11811.561,
"text": " When something is originated, it's originated from scratch. Causation, there always has to be a prior co-existence. You can go back in the infinite sequence. Origination means actually being able to originate something. That is what metacausation is. It's what ordinary people would call origination. This happens in a specific way in the CTMU. There's something called a distributed origin which exists everywhere in the non-terminal realm and that is where"
},
{
"end_time": 11868.439,
"index": 438,
"start_time": 11840.452,
"text": " This sounds like free will is associated here somewhere. Yes, it certainly is. Because it's the starting of a loop. Well, it's a loop, but it's not a loop that is fully resolved by physical law. There are gaps and holes in the causation. That's why there's something called"
},
{
"end_time": 11895.213,
"index": 439,
"start_time": 11868.677,
"text": " quantum uncertainty or quantum indeterminacy. The laws of physics are not sufficient to determine how a quantum wave function collapses. More is required. That's metacausation. There's a process called delic recursion that is actually a non-local feedback among the resources available in the semi-language LO, which allows causation to occur. It actually refines"
},
{
"end_time": 11921.903,
"index": 440,
"start_time": 11895.794,
"text": " Okay, then the next word is logical geometric dual. Okay, when I hear that, I can't help but think of stone duality like some generalization of it. Basically, basically it's the same thing. It's an intention extension duality between predicates and sets."
},
{
"end_time": 11950.162,
"index": 441,
"start_time": 11922.585,
"text": " It's Logico-geometric, it's right there in the name. Logic is being coupled with geometry. They're dual to each other. Therefore, you've got a self-duality when you couple those two things in every quantum of reality. In other words, where you view reality in terms of identification events involving syntactors, this is what you get."
},
{
"end_time": 11975.555,
"index": 442,
"start_time": 11950.538,
"text": " You get logico-geometric duality between the sides, between the syntactic data type and the input data type that you're accepting from the external environment. Physical input and then internal processing with internal metal states that go into your behavior. Okay, the last word is triolic identity. So what's meant by that? The identity of reality is triolic."
},
{
"end_time": 12006.032,
"index": 443,
"start_time": 11976.817,
"text": " The identity of reality, of course, we've been through that. That is called the global operator descriptor. It has basically, it has syntactic structure. Give me that term again. Trialic identity. It's triallic, which means that it serves as its own object, its own relation and relational structure and its own operational structure. It is at once an object, a relation and an operator. That's what triality is."
},
{
"end_time": 12035.794,
"index": 444,
"start_time": 12006.954,
"text": " Okay, it's as simple as that. You can also phrase it as, you know, it can be looked at in a couple of other ways as well, as basically the coincidence of space, time, and object. All of those things are everywhere combined. It can also be looked at as the combination of language, universe, and model. All right, which is, and that is implicit in the title of the CTMU, cognitive theory is a language, okay? Model is a model."
},
{
"end_time": 12064.735,
"index": 445,
"start_time": 12036.305,
"text": " Triality, another way to understand it is that there's dualities which people can understand. It's two notions that are dual to one another. Now you're saying that there's three. Is it as simple as extending two to three? All you have to do is put space and time together and now you've got two things. You've got one medium and one object, so your triality has become duality right there."
},
{
"end_time": 12090.469,
"index": 446,
"start_time": 12065.828,
"text": " There's no mystery about it. Basically, you've got space, time, and object, or object, relation, and operation, or universe, model, and language. You've got those three things, and those three things all have to be combined in every identity in reality. Every identity in reality is a coherent image of the global identity, which is a global operator descriptor."
},
{
"end_time": 12119.104,
"index": 447,
"start_time": 12091.613,
"text": " Okay, is that also related to Hologi, the concept of Hologi? Well, here's the thing. In the generative universe, you've got syntax. You've got a universal distributed form that is in every syntactor. That means that every point of reality is automatically covered by the UDF or by syntax as it is created. In other words, the UDF or the universal syntax of reality is invariant with respect to rescaling."
},
{
"end_time": 12142.312,
"index": 448,
"start_time": 12119.838,
"text": " Let's get to some audience questions and then we'll wrap up. We have an audience."
},
{
"end_time": 12171.903,
"index": 449,
"start_time": 12143.131,
"text": " There's no one here watching right now, but I've asked for questions. I posted your face before on my theories of everything community tab. I said, hey, I'm interviewing Chris Langan in a few weeks. Let me know what questions you have for him. Okay. Okay. So this person, his name is Dav. He actually translated your publication to French. He writes a question here. Dav says, I made a French translation of your two publications, CTMU and the introduction to CTMU."
},
{
"end_time": 12196.323,
"index": 450,
"start_time": 12172.21,
"text": " I plan to continue. What's the best way to stay in touch with you on this matter? Well, obviously, that would be through the Mega Foundation. What is our email address at the Mega Foundation, honey? What's that? info at megacenter.org"
},
{
"end_time": 12223.387,
"index": 451,
"start_time": 12197.312,
"text": " In the context of the afterlife processing the sum of information of an individual's consciousness, in your opinion, to what extent could the continuity"
},
{
"end_time": 12251.988,
"index": 452,
"start_time": 12223.985,
"text": " Yes, but you've got to have something that encodes your memories and will actually instantiate them. You've got to have something"
},
{
"end_time": 12276.135,
"index": 453,
"start_time": 12252.346,
"text": " Like a brain that serves as an antenna for the telor, it actually realizes cognition that is determined by telecrucrusion. The answer to your question is yes, but basically goes back to what I was saying about always having to have, aside from the telor, something approximating a terminal body that you use."
},
{
"end_time": 12304.65,
"index": 454,
"start_time": 12276.561,
"text": " which is why all of these religions talk about an afterlife and having a new body, a resurrection body, etc., a reincarnation. You always have some kind of terminal body for your italic aspect of your existence, for the purely metaphorical aspect of your existence to be instantiated in. Then you can have specific memories and things. Otherwise, you are a syntactic entity, a group of impulses"
},
{
"end_time": 12334.445,
"index": 455,
"start_time": 12304.991,
"text": " I haven't gotten to any questions on consciousness, but in your theory, how is consciousness defined and where does it fit in?"
},
{
"end_time": 12363.404,
"index": 456,
"start_time": 12335.572,
"text": " Every quantum of the universe is conscious because it's a syntactor. A syntactor is a generalization of a computational acceptor. It's a proto-computational generalization of what in computation theory is called an acceptor. An acceptor is just a processing unit that accepts input from the external environment, applies a kind of syntactic filter in it to decide what gets through and in what form, and then"
},
{
"end_time": 12393.387,
"index": 457,
"start_time": 12364.019,
"text": " processes it and returns it to the environment. That's basically what it comes down to. And if you take a look at the structure of the syntactor, because it's performing that recognition function, it has to be conscious. Every quantum of the universe is conscious. But it's a generic form of consciousness that it inherits from the global operator descriptor. We have a more complex form of consciousness"
},
{
"end_time": 12421.766,
"index": 458,
"start_time": 12393.66,
"text": " Because we have more inherent complexity in our terminal embodiments and more self-modeling capacity because of that. We have a very complex brain that encodes all of our memories and thoughts and everything else and allows us to separate and resolve them. Okay, so that's how that works. Dav also wants to know, have you heard of the work of Jonathan Mize, in particular tractatus, logical, syndephyonicus,"
},
{
"end_time": 12451.135,
"index": 459,
"start_time": 12422.295,
"text": " which proposes an exploration of CTMU in the manner of Wittgenstein's. Well, I've never met Jonathan, but I know who he is and I know he's done some writing on the CTMU. He's an intelligent fellow and he's actually written a book or two. And as far as I know, he's still a member of our groups, but it's like I said, I've never met him. We've had a few conferences. I would have liked Jonathan to come to a couple of them, but he did send me a copy of this book. Dav again."
},
{
"end_time": 12479.531,
"index": 460,
"start_time": 12451.391,
"text": " Yeah, I'm open to whatever you might have in mind, but there are a couple of people that are probably on your list of interviewees with whom I have had peripheral reactions or interactions in the past, and some of these people have"
},
{
"end_time": 12509.991,
"index": 461,
"start_time": 12480.094,
"text": " I think as I recall, Bernardo Kastrup was pretty darn persnickety. I think he was on one of Jack Sarfati's lists, and there was a kind of an antagonism going on there. And I made a couple of comments and got a couple of what I regarded as pretty persnickety responses out of Bernardo. And I remember being slightly rubbed the wrong way by it. But you know, that's water under the bridge, so sure. I participated in a discussion that Bernardo was in."
},
{
"end_time": 12528.029,
"index": 462,
"start_time": 12510.35,
"text": " Didn't he start writing for Scientific American or something? That atheistic rag? I don't know, but I do know that he's a sweetheart and I don't think, I think if he was picking a fight with you, then it's, I think you may be thinking of the wrong person. I don't think people would do that. No, I'm not."
},
{
"end_time": 12553.336,
"index": 463,
"start_time": 12529.497,
"text": " Stephen Nicolich"
},
{
"end_time": 12580.486,
"index": 464,
"start_time": 12554.121,
"text": " I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and operate equally regardless of substrate, that is, whether it's material or consciousness. Essentially, idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. Okay, that's not a question. Read the first part of that comment. I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary... Information and logical what?"
},
{
"end_time": 12608.66,
"index": 465,
"start_time": 12580.862,
"text": " Okay, so I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and they operate equally regardless of the substrate. So whether it's consciousness or material, information and logical rule set are primary. So then he's saying essentially that idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. So what are your thoughts on that? It's not a question. I just want to hear what occurs to you."
},
{
"end_time": 12636.015,
"index": 466,
"start_time": 12610.725,
"text": " Well, it is a false dichotomy in the sense that all of those things are coupled, information and logic. There is no information without a logical rule set. Language is the medium of information and language has syntax and that's a logical rule set, especially where your language includes the language of logic itself. Those two things are very closely coupled."
},
{
"end_time": 12664.292,
"index": 467,
"start_time": 12636.169,
"text": " You can't separate them dualistically and put one on one side and one on the other and say we've got a complete dichotomy here. In that sense, he's right about there being a false dichotomy. As far as reducing all of reality to just information and logical rule set, that omits a lot of structure that probably deserves mention, but it could just be that he didn't have the time to write it on down. What would be an example of a structure that's not captured in information or logical rule set?"
},
{
"end_time": 12692.722,
"index": 468,
"start_time": 12665.742,
"text": " Well, you've got all kinds of – read the CTNU papers. There are many, many pages of structure that are missing from that characterization. But one thing that can be said for it is that information mappings are also captured in these little quanta, these state transition events of syntactors, of syntactic operators and telecom operators. It can all be captured."
},
{
"end_time": 12723.046,
"index": 469,
"start_time": 12693.285,
"text": " Which of the major philosophers came the closest to discovering and expressing the true nature of reality? Came the closest?"
},
{
"end_time": 12752.244,
"index": 470,
"start_time": 12723.302,
"text": " Well, there were a number of very, very good ones. I mean, if you look back, there are just so many. Pythagoras came up with something that looked a little bit like Syndiphanes and Aristotle followed up on that. And Leibniz also had, there was much to be said for what he did. Whitehead with his process philosophy also very good. Bergson had some good ideas."
},
{
"end_time": 12780.026,
"index": 471,
"start_time": 12752.637,
"text": " There are just a number of philosophers out there that, you know, Plotinus had some good things going for him. Plato, of course, just all kinds of, I mean, Heraclitus. Sierran Dudley, same person, number two. As you know, Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that they apply to all sufficiently expressive formal systems. So why should one think Gödel's theorems don't apply to the CTMU?"
},
{
"end_time": 12808.677,
"index": 472,
"start_time": 12782.125,
"text": " They do apply to the CTMU. That's why the CTMU is formulated the way it is. To get around, that's why it's generative. You can generate new axioms in the CTMU. You don't need to derive everything in the CTMU from some finite set of axioms. Exactly what Gödel's theorem says. There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what the CTMU actually says. Can the generative grammar"
},
{
"end_time": 12838.234,
"index": 473,
"start_time": 12809.206,
"text": " Introduce an uncountably infinite amount of axioms? Yeah, it can introduce an infinite set of axioms if that's what you're asking. An uncountably infinite is what I'm wondering. Anything in which the elements can be distinguished is countable. You can count them one by one. Count, count, count. Okay? The fact of the matter is real numbers are uncountable because you never have to complete one of them. You never have to write out all the little decimal spaces."
},
{
"end_time": 12867.858,
"index": 474,
"start_time": 12838.473,
"text": " Timothy O'Brien asks,"
},
{
"end_time": 12896.254,
"index": 475,
"start_time": 12868.131,
"text": " Please ask him how Leibniz's monadology relates to the CTMU. Well, monads, it's an old Greek concept that goes back quite a ways and Leibniz, he had a good, there's actually some logical complexity to Leibniz's monadology that I could actually write a paper about it."
},
{
"end_time": 12924.428,
"index": 476,
"start_time": 12896.596,
"text": " What role do the requirements of the existence of difference relations play in the metaphorical reasoning of the CTMU?"
},
{
"end_time": 12956.698,
"index": 477,
"start_time": 12926.715,
"text": " The metaphysical requirements of difference relations, did you say? Yep. He has a bracket, which says... Well, that would be syndiphenesis, would be the metaphysical requirement of a difference relationship. That would be that the difference relationship be defined within a syndiphenic relation, which means that you need basically the CTNU to make sense of it. Steven Oles has a great question that's more general. Are there any arenas where"
},
{
"end_time": 12984.155,
"index": 478,
"start_time": 12957.159,
"text": " Sometimes I roll out of bed feeling pretty stupid about nearly everything. My mind is not always functioning in peak efficiency. There are times when I feel pretty much incompetent no matter what I do, but there are times when all the mirrors are cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on. Then I sometimes feel as though I can pretty much handle anything."
},
{
"end_time": 13012.176,
"index": 479,
"start_time": 12984.616,
"text": " So it just varies with the time of day, I guess you'd have to say. Have you done any meditation or taken nootropics like phenylparacetam or paracetam and seen any improvements? Is there anything that you can reveal? I don't really take nootropics. I drink coffee in the morning, you know, I often switch to tea later on if I need some kind of stimulant."
},
{
"end_time": 13041.101,
"index": 480,
"start_time": 13012.483,
"text": " How about psychedelics? I spent time on an Indian reservation when I was a kid. It was the Wind River Reservation."
},
{
"end_time": 13070.503,
"index": 481,
"start_time": 13042.073,
"text": " When we stayed there, it was usually in proximity to friends of the family, the Big Road family. There was a guy named Mark Big Road. He was a shaman, a Arapaho, I think. But he could have been Seward Shoshone, I don't rightly recall, but he was a shaman. And there would be meetings, prayer meetings on the North American church, Wepe, and one other kind of religion. But anyway, Mark's prayer meetings"
},
{
"end_time": 13098.114,
"index": 482,
"start_time": 13070.947,
"text": " were such that the attendees took mescaline at these prayer meetings. I suppose that probably got some of that, although certainly I don't do drugs. Have I ever done drugs? Yeah, I've experimented a little bit with drugs but I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to mess with drugs too much because"
},
{
"end_time": 13125.811,
"index": 483,
"start_time": 13098.609,
"text": " It interferes with what's going on up here and I don't like that. It's generally a feeling that bothers me in some respects. The psychedelics, I think that they have great potential for being beneficial, psychologically beneficial if they're used in the right way under the right circumstances. However, it's easy for them to get out of control. You can have a psychotic break on psychedelics."
},
{
"end_time": 13154.735,
"index": 484,
"start_time": 13126.271,
"text": " This is something that you always have to be careful of. There was a lot of this stuff going on. My family was involved in the counterculture, both in the beat generation, the beatniks, you know, that thing's when the whole thing started, the whole counterculture movement got started. And then with the hippie generation, we were the ones who actually there was a teepee. It was a big deal. There was an Indian teepee erected in Berkeley by a guy named Charlie Hartman. Your stepfather coined the term beatnik, correct?"
},
{
"end_time": 13184.821,
"index": 485,
"start_time": 13155.145,
"text": " Jack was running a bar called The Place in North Beach and Boob used to come in there because that's where you can rub elbows with Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy and"
},
{
"end_time": 13209.616,
"index": 486,
"start_time": 13185.589,
"text": " Alan Ginsburg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and all the rest of these beats, these beat figures, and Herb liked to do that. He was a columnist. He was staying au courant. He was actually rubbing elbows with the right people. Jack told a joke about how in a symphony, he said, Russia seems to be sending up satellites. Look, they've got Sputnik. All we seem to be able to produce is beatniks."
},
{
"end_time": 13239.292,
"index": 487,
"start_time": 13210.725,
"text": " Well, Herb heard that. It appeared like the next day in The Chronicle under Herb's byline. And I can remember my stepfather was furious. He was not the kind of guy you wanted to get furious around. But I remember it was a big deal. So that really pissed him off. But, you know, the place was the center of the culture in San Francisco. There was something called Blabbermouth Night that was invented by"
},
{
"end_time": 13268.677,
"index": 488,
"start_time": 13239.599,
"text": " Getting back to psychedelics you were mentioning, I was wondering, personally, did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight that you then took to the CTMU? What I can remember from my days on the reservation are a feeling of great affinity for the planet. I thought it was alive."
},
{
"end_time": 13299.258,
"index": 489,
"start_time": 13269.258,
"text": " I could look at it, and I could see it living. That's the thing that hit me, that becoming aware of the life of the Earth. They talk about the Gaia hypothesis, and they talk about Mother Earth. It hit me viscerally that the Earth needed to be saved."
},
{
"end_time": 13328.677,
"index": 490,
"start_time": 13299.65,
"text": " I feel pretty poorly about it. I think that a lot of it is unnecessary. A lot of it is very poorly done. But on the other hand, people have to live. The earth is overpopulated. We should not have so many people on it. We're encountering all kinds of problems because of it already. We're going to encounter many, many more if it continues. And we've got to start regulating our numbers and living coherently."
},
{
"end_time": 13357.858,
"index": 491,
"start_time": 13329.087,
"text": " living consistently with the environmental limitations of the planet. The planet is finite. The resources are finite, but human population is exponential. It's exponential. It's essentially governed by a logistic equation. But when we get to the peak of that equation, that can be influenced. Now it's being pushed way ahead so that when we have a collapse, it's going to be a doozy. We need to get out of that right away. That being said,"
},
{
"end_time": 13381.323,
"index": 492,
"start_time": 13358.319,
"text": " The way the elite, the oligarchs, the people who run the world who have all the money and power, the way they're handling this problem, the way they seem to be handling it sometimes is not the right way. We've got to put this in front of the human race and we've got to appeal to what is best in mankind to make mankind voluntarily and responsibly limit their own reproduction."
},
{
"end_time": 13411.937,
"index": 493,
"start_time": 13382.193,
"text": " That's what we've got to do. We've got to think about future generations. We've got to watch about transmitting genetic diseases or disabilities to them. People say, that's horrible because now you're talking about eugenics. Guess what? It's horrible to be born with a genetic disability. How can you sentence a child to that? We've got to do something about the reproductive situation. It is too easy for us to live too long on this planet at this point to be reproducing indiscriminately."
},
{
"end_time": 13442.449,
"index": 494,
"start_time": 13412.619,
"text": " Okay, this person named Snord Grimstad is a huge fan of yours. It looks like this person has read"
},
{
"end_time": 13470.06,
"index": 495,
"start_time": 13444.087,
"text": " Plenty of your work. Do you have any views? I'm going to paraphrase this question. Basically, he or she wants to know if the CTMU can concretely help someone who's going through a psychological disorder like schizophrenia or depersonalization or... He just mentions those two. Yes, it certainly can. As a matter of fact, we're going to be setting up a program"
},
{
"end_time": 13495.606,
"index": 496,
"start_time": 13470.503,
"text": " for people that can actually help them do this. The whole idea of a stratified identity and knowing the structure of reality as we do, we can make inroads in terms of psychological and sociological integration and that is something that we're going to be concentrating on. I already have plans for it. Does the concept of sinned feoness necessarily connect to a self-distributing top-down model of reality?"
},
{
"end_time": 13524.787,
"index": 497,
"start_time": 13496.459,
"text": " Is there a sense in which one still has to understand reality in an experiential sense?"
},
{
"end_time": 13547.295,
"index": 498,
"start_time": 13525.145,
"text": " Absolutely. Absolutely. You've got to understand reality by actually living in it. That's what's so dangerous about the predicament we're in today. The people who are running the world are filthy rich people that live in bubbles. These people have never worked an honest day in their lives. They don't know what it's like to miss a meal."
},
{
"end_time": 13570.418,
"index": 499,
"start_time": 13548.319,
"text": " You understand we can't have the world run by people who don't understand it and who don't understand what it feels like to actually live in it on the ground floor, absorbing its slings and arrows at all times. The people who are running the world are pampered, coddled elites that live in their own champagne colored, rose colored bubble of privilege."
},
{
"end_time": 13597.995,
"index": 500,
"start_time": 13570.742,
"text": " This has to stop. These people don't know what the world is. Not only don't they know what it is intellectually, they don't know what it's like to live it. And this is creating terrible, terrible problems for us. So what can we do as the general population besides understanding the CTMU? Let's just take that out of the bag as one of the potential solutions. What can we do to ameliorate this problem given to us by or inherited to us from the rich elite, as you put it?"
},
{
"end_time": 13624.718,
"index": 501,
"start_time": 13600.401,
"text": " Well, we have to engage in the political process to try to stop the elites from basically destroying our freedom, destroying freedom and human dignity and everything else that makes us human. We've got to stop that by engaging in the political process. We have to exercise civil disobedience when necessary."
},
{
"end_time": 13652.637,
"index": 502,
"start_time": 13626.254,
"text": " But aside from that, if that fails, we have to go back to the Constitution. The Constitution contains a certain amendment which says that we have to defend, we are entitled and have the duty to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If they're going to take human freedom and human dignity and validate the Constitution, they have no right to be here."
},
{
"end_time": 13681.886,
"index": 503,
"start_time": 13654.053,
"text": " Something that strikes me about your theory is it's derived logically. That made me wonder in keeping with this question where he was asking is there an experiential element to reality that's not captured in the CMTU. What I'm wondering is do you consider the CTMU to be or even yourself to be rationalist or do you have problems with the rationalists?"
},
{
"end_time": 13712.637,
"index": 504,
"start_time": 13683.08,
"text": " I have no problems with rationalists as long as they're competent, which a lot of them aren't. A lot of people criticize me because basically you're like those old medieval philosophers who used to pontificate on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. You're trying to derive everything from logic, but really the world is experiential. It is the logic of experience. To derive the CTME, you start with experience. You start with cogito and"
},
{
"end_time": 13742.039,
"index": 505,
"start_time": 13712.824,
"text": " You start with Descartes and Berkeley. You take cognition and experience, you logically induce the minimum model, the bare minimum that you need to make cognition and perception work, then you form an identity incorporating that potential and you have the CTNU if you do it right. A true rationalist knows how to do that right."
},
{
"end_time": 13772.159,
"index": 506,
"start_time": 13742.585,
"text": " There aren't very many of them. I love what you said. The logic of experience. I don't think I've heard that phrase before. Did you just come up with that on the spot or have you heard that before? First time I ever said it. What I'd like to know is how is science as it's currently formulated limited? Well, it's limited by the lack of an understanding of what a meta-language is. Back in the 19th century, for example, they thought there was something, physical theory contained something called the Limit of Receiver."
},
{
"end_time": 13799.019,
"index": 507,
"start_time": 13773.166,
"text": " And that was basically mapped into physical reality as a kind of a space filling substance, or perhaps the space itself. Then when Einstein came along with the theory of relativity, he changed physical theory so that luminous, luminous ether disappeared. It totally disappeared from the scene. So the truth value of"
},
{
"end_time": 13826.323,
"index": 508,
"start_time": 13799.684,
"text": " of luminiferous ether exists had to be changed from true in the 19th century to false in the 20th century. That involves the use of something called a meta-language where you attach truth values to physical attributions. Physicists did not understand and still do not understand the structure of the meta-language that they need to do things like that, and it's called metaphysics. In other words,"
},
{
"end_time": 13845.026,
"index": 509,
"start_time": 13826.732,
"text": " Businesses actually need metaphysics. They need a metaphysical metal language to actually make changes like this, to pass, to affix truth values to physical attributions, to change their theories, to correct their theories and things like that. The amazing thing is they don't realize this. They still don't realize it."
},
{
"end_time": 13873.319,
"index": 510,
"start_time": 13845.572,
"text": " They don't realize that physics has actually absorbed metaphysics of necessity. It needs metaphysical functionality in order to do this. But most physicists think that metaphysics is some kind of woo or some kind of quackery. And it's just what it is, is this logical ignorance. They're not trained properly in what a metal language is or what an object language is, but for that matter, how a universe relates to it. They don't know anything about model theory."
},
{
"end_time": 13902.688,
"index": 511,
"start_time": 13874.275,
"text": " Some of them may have taken a course in model theory, but they don't really know anything about it. Because of that, the CTMU is an advanced meta-language for science. It's a metaphysical meta-language, and it's absolutely logically necessary. You can't get by without it. So this is what's the matter with science. It doesn't understand the language in terms of which its theories are formulated or how they relate to the physical universe. It's kind of a hit and miss thing where"
},
{
"end_time": 13932.79,
"index": 512,
"start_time": 13902.944,
"text": " We're following the scientific method, we're empirically inducing theories, and we're sort of affixing them or gluing them onto observations in physical reality, but we don't know how or why that is happening. It's some kind of lucky break that we're getting, right? It's the unexpected efficiency of mathematics, of being able to actually use mathematical models on reality, right? They don't have a metal language whose structure actually tells them why that's occurring. So this is"
},
{
"end_time": 13958.677,
"index": 513,
"start_time": 13933.114,
"text": " This is bad news for science. It remains bad news. I'm trying to help them fix it. Some other ways people would say that are on the more eastern end, they may say that it doesn't incorporate enough experiential elements or that it's too mathematically defined. That's part of the problem, yes. They don't understand that there is actually a subjective as well as an objective aspect to reality."
},
{
"end_time": 13985.469,
"index": 514,
"start_time": 13959.326,
"text": " They need a metal language to actually put those two things together. That's the coupling. Metal language provides the coupling for a subject of an object of reality. And the lack of such a metal language means that they can't actually put those two things together. That's what we're trying to help fix with the CTMU. And we're getting a lot of bonuses. There are a lot of things that you can do with the CTMU. For example, physicists are trying to explain dark energy. They're never going to do it."
},
{
"end_time": 14010.879,
"index": 515,
"start_time": 13986.169,
"text": " until they have the CTMU. The CTMU offers the only viable explanation for dark energy. And there are other things, consciousness, there are all kinds of things that cannot be explained without this metal language, this metaphysical metal language, and the admission on the parts of scientists and physicists in particular, that metaphysics is already built into their discipline. How they could still be ignorant of it, I'm not quite sure."
},
{
"end_time": 14041.783,
"index": 516,
"start_time": 14012.415,
"text": " I recall you saying that the universe is not simply a sum of its parts. I'd like you to explain why. Well, it's synergistic, basically. If you put things together and you're basically doing so, it's like bolting a machine together. You're putting the parts together, you're putting in the little screws and they're all in the right place and then you turn the crank and the machine works. But if you take one of those little pieces out, well, the machine doesn't work anymore. It just sort of falls apart and there is no coherence to it."
},
{
"end_time": 14066.92,
"index": 517,
"start_time": 14042.039,
"text": " When you think, you know, the things that are going on in your mind, they're all connected to each other. You notice there's no division. There's no, there's no one thing is, you know, missing or anything like that. It's all there. Everything is coherent and machines don't function that way. Machines have a kind of mechanical coherence, but that's not sufficient. So what we need is higher order coherence. That's what the CTMU also brings to bear as it has higher order"
},
{
"end_time": 14095.503,
"index": 518,
"start_time": 14067.363,
"text": " quantum coherence, actually meta quantum coherence. And this is something else that we need to make a viable theory of reality. Yeah, you know, this idea that everything is just happening at random and it's just sort of all popping up at random and things sort of emerge at random. This is nonsense. Total nonsense. You can't build a theory of reality that way. You're just you're just trying to glue parts together and you will never get more than their sum. And the sum of parts is just a pile of parts. That's it."
},
{
"end_time": 14121.101,
"index": 519,
"start_time": 14096.305,
"text": " Everything has to work together. As a matter of fact, it has to work synergistically, and that is more than the sum of the parts. Why can't it be somewhat simple in Wolfram's theories he has, or in his classical theories, he had those cellular automaton with simple rules, adjacent neighbors signify whether you live or die, and then seemingly complex behaviors emerge from that. Why can't it be like that?"
},
{
"end_time": 14146.766,
"index": 520,
"start_time": 14122.005,
"text": " Emerge? Well, let's have a definition. Let's have Stephen's definition of emergence and how it occurs. Stephen doesn't have one, nor does anybody else. You have to have a theory of self-organization. It's one of the reasons I had to come up with it is because there are a lot of deficits and holes. For all of the inroads and advances that science has made, it's still full of holes. We have to try to patch some of"
},
{
"end_time": 14178.097,
"index": 521,
"start_time": 14149.462,
"text": " What would you have done differently in the development of your theory? So for example, you would have spent more time writing with a pen and a paper instead of going for walks. I'm speaking practically here. Or you would have taken more time off or taking less time off. Time off? I've never had a vacation in my life. You know, and I don't quite know what time off means. I think about the CTMU every day and I get up, I think about mistakes that I've made in the past. I'm constantly questioning myself."
},
{
"end_time": 14199.957,
"index": 522,
"start_time": 14178.626,
"text": " What would you have done differently if you could advise yourself, let's say, 30 years younger?"
},
{
"end_time": 14235.077,
"index": 523,
"start_time": 14206.561,
"text": " I had the CTMU in full form decades ago. Basically, if I had to advise myself of something, it would be how to present it and how to actually get people to pay attention to it. I'd advise myself to have actually tried to go to Princeton and meet with John Wheeler as I was invited to do, per example. That could have changed everything. But when you're raised like I am, like I was,"
},
{
"end_time": 14261.937,
"index": 524,
"start_time": 14235.503,
"text": " My family got kicked out of houses when we were kids, you know, we found ourselves in the street. And when I was in New York and I had these jobs and I, you know, I simply was afraid to lose, felt that I was going to be in the street again. So I didn't go and visit John Wheeler. You know, people think, well, you know, that's ridiculous. There's always a job and it's always a source of money. Not for all of us, there isn't. And the way I was raised, there wasn't, there wasn't anything. There was no one who was going to help you."
},
{
"end_time": 14292.346,
"index": 525,
"start_time": 14262.398,
"text": " There are people who are watching this who are developing their own theories and so it's almost like when I ask you what would you have done differently"
},
{
"end_time": 14321.681,
"index": 526,
"start_time": 14292.654,
"text": " It's also couched in well, what would you have done differently such that they can apply it? So when you say speak to John Wheeler, that's so that's extremely specific. First, they can't apply it. Second of all, not everyone was invited. So given that now, what is your answer? What would you have done differently? What would you advise your 30 year younger self to do or not to do? Basically, I would be you're kind of OK, I've already succeeded in finding what I want to"
},
{
"end_time": 14347.79,
"index": 527,
"start_time": 14322.773,
"text": " All right, so basically what I would try to do is make sure that I was not distracted and taken off the track. All right, one thing that you must bear in mind if you are a young person who's trying to figure reality out is that you cannot serve God and mammon. God is reality and reality is God. You don't like God, you're sunk. You're not going to get a true theory of reality. You can learn a lot of math, you can learn how to kind of put things together and"
},
{
"end_time": 14374.087,
"index": 528,
"start_time": 14348.08,
"text": " tack one mathematical theory onto another, but you're not really going to get to the identity of reality. And that's how we define the G O D. That's what I was telling you. Okay. Anyway, you can't serve the G O D and mammon. You want to be a big shot? You want to go out and be a hedge fund manager? Go ahead and do it, but you can forget about your aspirations to reality theory. There are all kinds of people out there, elites, you know, money bags of various kinds who think, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 14398.319,
"index": 529,
"start_time": 14374.377,
"text": " First of all, what I'm going to do is I'm going to get out there and I'm going to make a billion dollars. I'm going to make a lot of money. And then armed with that money, I'm going to save the world. No, you're not because you spent all your capital. It's hard to get money. Okay. It actually you really, it really does kind of knock you out. You've got to have the right connections. You've got to have the lucky breaks. If you immerse yourself in that goose chase,"
},
{
"end_time": 14427.261,
"index": 530,
"start_time": 14399.002,
"text": " If that's what you live for, by the time you get your money and you're sitting there and now you're a big billionaire and you're going to do this and you're going to do that, there's nothing left. All you can do is put on a show. This has been proven time and time and time again. You point me out a billionaire who's actually got some kind of big insight or some big idea about the nature of reality and that's nonsense."
},
{
"end_time": 14458.592,
"index": 531,
"start_time": 14428.865,
"text": " Anyway, go ahead, try it. You know of any billionaires that really have any good ideas about reality? Well, anyway, that's what I would remind myself of. Don't chase money. Okay? Don't... There is a cost for that. People sell their soul for it. And that has a very literal interpretation in the CTMU. You're actually subscribing to a telon that is designed to get you money, and that telon now controls your thoughts. It's not going to let any distractions through"
},
{
"end_time": 14487.193,
"index": 532,
"start_time": 14458.951,
"text": " by way of reality theory. You're not going to be able to keep those things in mind anymore because it's all about getting money, furthering the interests of the corporation, not running afoul of corporate culture. All of these things are going to occupy your attention and you're not going to be the big genius you thought you were going to be. You make up your mind. You're either going to be a genius or you're going to be a money big."
},
{
"end_time": 14517.91,
"index": 533,
"start_time": 14488.029,
"text": " What if someone says, I want to be a philanthropist like Bill Gates?"
},
{
"end_time": 14547.193,
"index": 534,
"start_time": 14518.302,
"text": " Yeah, they think Bill's a philanthropist, do you? I spent a large amount of time. Okay. When I was a kid, you know, one would think, well, you know, why wasn't Lang, and if he's a big genius, why wasn't he involved in the computer revolution? And why didn't, why wasn't he Bill Gates? Well, it was very easy, you know, I can explain that. Basically, there was a, there was one, there was a computer at Montana State University."
},
{
"end_time": 14576.34,
"index": 535,
"start_time": 14547.722,
"text": " And I think it was called the Sigma seven. It was, uh, I don't know if it was an IBM 360 or what the hell it was, but, uh, but, uh, anyway, it, uh, it was, you know, a marvel of the time, you know, in the sixties here in the, in the, in the mid sixties, they've actually got a computer up there that people can probe. I was, when I went to this computer class to actually, you know, sign up and learn how to program using Fortran, you have to program this, this, this university computer."
},
{
"end_time": 14603.763,
"index": 536,
"start_time": 14576.664,
"text": " I was recognized by Mr. Chandler, who taught the course, as someone that he didn't particularly like. He said, well, he said, I count 31 students. I only have 30 textbooks. So I'll just hand them out. And then when I run out, well, then that person will have to double up with somebody else. I was the person who didn't get, he walks around the classroom, you know, following this trajectory. And I'm the person, the last person. And he looks down at me and says, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 14632.108,
"index": 537,
"start_time": 14604.189,
"text": " I'm sorry, you'll have to double up with somebody else. But when you're the least popular kid in class, nobody wants to double up with you. I just got up and walked out of this class. All right. So this is what can happen. You get a couple of bad breaks. No. All right. Then, you know, I got eventually bought a computer, an Atari computer, and started programming in BISP. Okay. But that was a problem because then Atari went out of business and I needed"
},
{
"end_time": 14660.333,
"index": 538,
"start_time": 14632.483,
"text": " an IBM type Bill Gates computer. They were all $2,000. For me, that was four months rent. I could not afford it. So by the time it got around to where I could afford to get all the equipment that I needed to be a big computer hotshot, it was too late. I'm not going to waste my time on it now. There are too many kids out there. There are apps this and apps and programs that. I'm going to be in the next big shot. They have connections. Their families have money."
},
{
"end_time": 14689.548,
"index": 539,
"start_time": 14660.606,
"text": " I'm not Bill Gates, whose father was a millionaire and got his own little computer and was able to do it. He had everything handed to him and most of these people do. Show me the billionaire who's self-made and I'll show you a BS artist. There's simply no doubt about it. Is there such a thing as philanthropy? Yes, of course there is. Unfortunately, most of these people, to be a philanthropist, you not only got to have a lot of money, you've got to know to whom you should give that money."
},
{
"end_time": 14717.056,
"index": 540,
"start_time": 14690.418,
"text": " Who should be the object of your charity? Who would you say is a good philanthropist? I don't know of any. There are organizations that give grants, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, other people that give grants that someone like me should be eligible for. Well, every time I have gone to fill out the application for one of these charitable organizations,"
},
{
"end_time": 14740.52,
"index": 541,
"start_time": 14718.063,
"text": " First thing, you fill out an application and they want to know what institution you're affiliated with, namely what university you're affiliated with. If you're not a professional academic, you're just out. That's it. They ignore you. This is not philanthropy. This is a circle jerk. It's an unbroken circle. Everybody links their arms and nobody gets in from the side."
},
{
"end_time": 14768.131,
"index": 542,
"start_time": 14741.186,
"text": " Okay, so that's what it is. And that is that is what these philanthropists are all about. You know, the only people they will give to are people that come out of their own indoctrination mills. Right? That's that's it. Nobody else is eligible for their charity. And basically, what they're doing is they're just choosing the people, you know, that are going to tell them what they want to hear. And they're doing it in such a way that they get maximum credit for that they look especially good, for example,"
},
{
"end_time": 14794.053,
"index": 543,
"start_time": 14768.456,
"text": " the American Cancer Society, donate to the American Cancer Society and you look good for doing that. Bill Gates has done a lot of that kind of donating, but now we find out that Bill Gates has parlayed that into an amazing amount of control over the world health system. So it's not as though it was just charity, is it? Okay. Bill has now got himself, you know, has wangled a leading position in the, you know, I mean,"
},
{
"end_time": 14822.585,
"index": 544,
"start_time": 14795.794,
"text": " You know what this amounts to. This entire vaccine thing was more or less previewed by Bill Gates. What was that? Event 201? Was that what it was called? I mean, this guy has known what was happening all along. It's as though it was planned, previewed, rehearsed in advance, and Bill Gates is right in the middle of it. Now, I can't point the finger at Bill and say, he's definitely guilty. He definitely did this. He definitely did that."
},
{
"end_time": 14851.715,
"index": 545,
"start_time": 14822.841,
"text": " The last question is from me. What advice do you have for me? Basically, I'm on this mission to understand different theories of everything. It's autodidactic for various reasons, so it's similar to yourself in that manner."
},
{
"end_time": 14879.65,
"index": 546,
"start_time": 14852.108,
"text": " I am making sure that I'm not closing my doors. I'm trying to be open to non. I used to be like, as you would understand, the standard academic who was materialistic and despised everything that even resembled mysticism. But now I'm opening myself up to what people would ordinarily call woo, like free will, consciousness, God, even UAPs. So what advice do you have for me as I go on this mission? Other than Kurt, just read the CTMU."
},
{
"end_time": 14913.063,
"index": 547,
"start_time": 14884.599,
"text": " You've got to stick with it and you can't become discouraged. Obviously, I'm going to tell you, you have to read the CTMU and you have to try to grok it. You have to try to deeply understand it. Remain open minded, but don't allow yourself to be unduly influenced by people just because they are persuasive. There are a lot of very persuasive people out there who will try to convince you that they have the correct perspective on reality, but in reality, they do not. But a lot of people say, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 14941.323,
"index": 548,
"start_time": 14913.234,
"text": " This person is so intelligent and they seem so confident. What they're telling me about reality, there's got to be something to it. It must be true. Meanwhile, they're talking out of the other side of their mouths, disparaging. You don't want to let that happen. Maintain a certain amount of skepticism regarding whatever anyone is telling you. I think that what I've succeeded in doing during this interview is actually answering questions and actually making sense of some of this for you. I don't know how successful I've been, but at least I've tried. There is"
},
{
"end_time": 14962.483,
"index": 549,
"start_time": 14941.698,
"text": " I don't know of anyone you can actually push to ground, you can actually tree like this and get straight answers about the overall structure of reality from. As far as I know, I'm the only person like that. So just don't listen to anybody who disparages me or my work. That's my main piece of advice and also just stick with it, man."
},
{
"end_time": 14987.637,
"index": 550,
"start_time": 14962.91,
"text": " You need to know, remember, when you study reality, when you're looking at the structure of reality, you're looking for the structure of your own ultimate identity. That's what you get at the top. That's what it all boils down to in the end. If you correctly understand that, then you can be salvaged. The universal identity will keep you alive forever. All right?"
},
{
"end_time": 15015.077,
"index": 551,
"start_time": 14988.063,
"text": " But you need to find it. You need to come to grips with it. And you need to keep on traveling up that ladder as far as you can get. All right. Most people become discouraged. I'm tired of this. I'm so tired. I can't do this anymore. My mind just won't handle it. This is, well, it's death for a person like you, someone who really needs to know, who really wants to look in. It's a lifelong thing, Kurt. You've got to stick with it no matter what."
},
{
"end_time": 15042.961,
"index": 552,
"start_time": 15016.817,
"text": " Thank you, man. You know, when I ask that question, I'm actually also asking on behalf of the audience because many of them are on a similar journey of explicating toes. That's the whole point of this channel. So from what I understand, read the CTMU. Okay, I have and I will continue to do so. Second, don't listen to people who appear to have cogency or persuasive relevance, but"
},
{
"end_time": 15071.578,
"index": 553,
"start_time": 15043.422,
"text": " The criteria that you listed was if they disparage you, so I'm going to ask you what is an alternate criteria, not just that, because some people have made no comment about you, and also someone could just be simply mistaken. So for the people who are listening, who are also on a similar journey of self-exploration, trying to understand the universe, which seems to be intimately tied to understanding oneself, they're on this journey. What other advice do you have for them besides reading the CTMU, which I advise everyone who's listening or watching to do,"
},
{
"end_time": 15100.009,
"index": 554,
"start_time": 15071.937,
"text": " Sometimes clues come from the most"
},
{
"end_time": 15128.473,
"index": 555,
"start_time": 15100.725,
"text": " I find that when I'm trying to understand structure of reality, things are given to me, are put in my proximity that would be very easy to ignore or to miss. You must be attuned to them. You must be aware at all times of how reality may give you clues about what you're looking for. That is a piece of advice that I think is very important."
},
{
"end_time": 15154.667,
"index": 556,
"start_time": 15128.865,
"text": " for everybody to understand. Remain in a state of awareness. Guard your awareness. Life is very distracting. It's easy to get distracted and to just bumble from one mental state to another. Don't do that. Maintain, persevere, maintain focus, maintain awareness. Remember, reality is always trying to show you things. Let it show you things. Pay attention"
},
{
"end_time": 15181.869,
"index": 557,
"start_time": 15155.776,
"text": " I'm not just talking about paying attention to the spectacular things or the things that interest you or guzzling a beer and watching a football game. I'm not talking about that kind of awareness and perception. I'm talking about subtlety. Give an example if you don't mind. For example, in the morning when I wake up I'm thinking about something. I might reach over and I might grab my"
},
{
"end_time": 15211.186,
"index": 558,
"start_time": 15182.568,
"text": " My iPad or whatever kind of pad it is, I might take it and look at it. There might be a page there and I might go to my email and without even pressing the email thing I'll see under the page I'll see a bunch of stories that are listed there by some mainstream outlet like Google or something and then I'll look down the list of stories and there's something that catches my eye and I know there's something in there that I should pay attention to."
},
{
"end_time": 15236.357,
"index": 559,
"start_time": 15211.647,
"text": " So I click and invariably I find that it's there. It's a gut instinct I have. I can tell when there's something there that I can use. I know when reality wants to show me something and I can follow those little bread trails, those little trails of crumbs that leads for me with great accuracy. This is a special, this is a skill you need to develop."
},
{
"end_time": 15266.783,
"index": 560,
"start_time": 15236.954,
"text": " It's not something that everybody knows how to do right away, but it's definitely there. If you're looking for understanding, this is what you've got to do. This is your state of mind. You're like an antenna and you are attuned to what reality is trying to show you. It's a whole new way of life. That being said, we're entering very troubling times and you've got to be willing to get in there,"
},
{
"end_time": 15295.111,
"index": 561,
"start_time": 15267.466,
"text": " Roll up your sleeves and develop some mental and physical muscle and deal with the problems we have. We've got some terrible problems and they're very distracting too. It's going to be tearing our minds away from what reality is but there's one thing you have to know about reality and that is that existing in reality means that you're free. You're an individual. You cannot allow yourself to be enslaved. You can't allow yourself to be mechanized and programmed."
},
{
"end_time": 15325.35,
"index": 562,
"start_time": 15295.486,
"text": " Chris, man, thank you so much. You're very welcome."
},
{
"end_time": 15339.582,
"index": 563,
"start_time": 15325.708,
"text": " It's been a pleasure. That now concludes the full interview with Chris Langan. Now the episode featuring Chris Langan and Bernardo Kastrup in the Theo Locution discussion on the CTMU. Can computers be conscious and God?"
},
{
"end_time": 15367.978,
"index": 564,
"start_time": 15340.503,
"text": " Chris Langan is an autodidact who has the highest reported IQ in America. And he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything, based in language or meta-language and logic or meta-logic, called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, or the CTMU for short. The link to Chris's CTMU YouTube channel, as well as other links, are in the description. Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of the Essencia Foundation. Bernardo is one of the most cogent champions of metaphysical idealism."
},
{
"end_time": 15381.971,
"index": 565,
"start_time": 15367.978,
"text": " That is the notion that reality is essentially mental and he puts this forward with analytical precision. The link to Bernardo's YouTube page and other links are in the description as well. In this podcast, Bernardo and Christ both expound on their views on consciousness, on"
},
{
"end_time": 15399.07,
"index": 566,
"start_time": 15382.363,
"text": " Computation and whether materialism or idealism is most coherent. My name is Kurt Jaimungal. I'm a Torontonian filmmaker with a background in mathematical physics dedicated to the explication of the variegated terrain of theories of everything that is primarily from a physics perspective"
},
{
"end_time": 15426.578,
"index": 567,
"start_time": 15399.07,
"text": " Nice to meet you, Chris. Nice to meet you too, Bernardo."
},
{
"end_time": 15452.108,
"index": 568,
"start_time": 15427.398,
"text": " Plenty of people are excited"
},
{
"end_time": 15475.947,
"index": 569,
"start_time": 15453.302,
"text": " Why don't we start? Just so you know, we'll talk about metaphysics, consciousness and computation. Those are the general themes for today. We'll start with the substrate independence of consciousness, quote unquote. So Lambda, I'm sure you've heard of this computer or this algorithm or this AI called Lambda. Some people claim it's indeed conscious. Why or why not? And we'll start with you, Bernardo, if you don't mind."
},
{
"end_time": 15505.708,
"index": 570,
"start_time": 15476.903,
"text": " Certainly not. When we say something is conscious, what we normally mean is that something has private conscious inner life that is separate from yours, from mine and from the rest of nature. So to be conscious is to have private experience, private phenomenality, another way to put it. And I think we have absolutely no reason to think that a silicon mechanism"
},
{
"end_time": 15533.797,
"index": 571,
"start_time": 15506.152,
"text": " has private inner life of its own. Is it in consciousness? Absolutely. Everything is in consciousness. Everything begins, unfolds and ends in a field of subjectivity that underlies all nature, in my view. So lambda is in consciousness. That doesn't mean that it is conscious in and of itself. I think what nature is telling us empirically all the time"
},
{
"end_time": 15548.183,
"index": 572,
"start_time": 15534.189,
"text": " is that private conscious in your life correlates with life metabolism, protein folding, DNA transcription, ATP burning, all that good stuff. This is"
},
{
"end_time": 15567.21,
"index": 573,
"start_time": 15548.524,
"text": " a far from trivial process, metabolism, it uniquely separates biology from everything else in the universe and it ties all biology together despite the tremendous differences between say an amoeba swimming in my toilet and me."
},
{
"end_time": 15594.462,
"index": 574,
"start_time": 15567.568,
"text": " We are completely different, yet if you look down a microscope to the details of metabolism, we are identical. We all do protein folding, ATP burning, transcription and all that stuff. So nature is screaming to us that what private conscious inner life looks like is warm, moist biology, metabolism. And lambda is a silicon computer. Now, can it"
},
{
"end_time": 15613.473,
"index": 575,
"start_time": 15594.957,
"text": " emulate or simulate human cognitive processing very well. Well, I have little doubt that it does, but the simulation of a phenomenon is not the phenomenon. I mean, I can simulate kidney function on my computer accurately down to the molecular level."
},
{
"end_time": 15636.169,
"index": 576,
"start_time": 15613.933,
"text": " And yet my computer will not pee on my desk because a simulation of kidney function is not kidney function. So lambda is simulating human intelligence. That doesn't mean that it is conscious because a simulation is not the thing simulated. It's a primary logical mistake that unfortunately has been rendered seemingly plausible."
},
{
"end_time": 15666.169,
"index": 577,
"start_time": 15636.476,
"text": " Chris, what's your opinion on the same question? If you want, I can reread the question. Read the question again."
},
{
"end_time": 15688.951,
"index": 578,
"start_time": 15666.92,
"text": " I agree with everything that Bernardo said, but go ahead and read it again for me, please. So whether we basically want to know whether or not Lambda is indeed conscious, why or why not? Are you talking about the Lambda calculus of a program? Recently in the news, there was this AI from Google, which was much like a, like a talk, like a bot. A talk bot, yeah."
},
{
"end_time": 15711.63,
"index": 579,
"start_time": 15690.145,
"text": " I will probably explain it incorrectly. So, Bernardo, do you mind explaining what lambda is? It's a chat bot. That's what it is. Yeah. And it probably will pass the Turing test. Well, for what that means, I mean, as Bernardo pointed out, the Turing test isn't the end all be all. You've still got a machine simulator, even if it stimulates very, very well and convinces you that it's human. Nevertheless, it is not human."
},
{
"end_time": 15741.971,
"index": 580,
"start_time": 15711.988,
"text": " So basically, you're asking me, well, the lambda calculus is a construct. It's a computer program. It's a mathematical construct, which exists in something that can be likened to the syntax, the accepting syntax of something in computation theory that's called acceptor. You've got acceptors and processors that transduce information. They accept input and output from the external world, and then they process it internally. So we're talking about consciousness being the internal phase of that process. And the idea is, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 15772.415,
"index": 581,
"start_time": 15743.968,
"text": " Metaphysics, as far as metaphysics is concerned, as far as I'm concerned anyway, in my opinion, metaphysics is about putting the mental side of your existence in contact with the physical side. We understand the physical side quite well, thanks to the empirical sciences, and the mental side, we don't have such a firm grasp on. Kant, you know, came up and started talking about mental categories in terms of which we perceive phenomenal reality."
},
{
"end_time": 15801.135,
"index": 582,
"start_time": 15772.875,
"text": " And that gives us a clue as to what we're talking about. We are talking about something very much like accepting syntax with a computational acceptable. OK, the idea of putting those two things together requires something called all we have to do is we very simple operation. We basically say that cognition is akin to a cognitive identity language. It allows us to identify things. So it's a language. Then we say the physical universe is a manifold."
},
{
"end_time": 15830.725,
"index": 583,
"start_time": 15801.715,
"text": " space-time manifold out there in which things are happening. The idea then is to connect these two things. That takes a kind of metal language that spans both of these two object languages that we have, one of which deals with values, coordinate systems, and things like that. That's the manifold. And then you've got the other side, which is qualitative, more qualitative, more attribute, right? That's the metal side. So we're uniting those two things in one metaphorical language that has to be quantized in a certain way."
},
{
"end_time": 15857.517,
"index": 584,
"start_time": 15831.425,
"text": " and those identity operators that I was just talking about, that are a little bit like computational acceptors, those are the quanta. Okay, they're active signs. If you look at the linguistic aspect of what I'm talking about, they are active signs in the language, but they are also the points of the manifold or the universe that contains the content to which you refer with the language. Follow me? This is a mathematical, this is a, this is something that I, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 15886.271,
"index": 585,
"start_time": 15857.961,
"text": " I did 30 years ago and I more or less have my own way of talking about it. Let me know if I'm losing it. Sure. So I have a quick question and then Bernardo, please jump in if you're unsure or you have clarifying questions. So you said that there's a mental world and then there's something like the physical world, which you said is like a manifold. Well, they're both metaphorically coupled. You can't if you take a state, it consists of attributes and values for the attributes. You can't take those two things apart."
},
{
"end_time": 15916.954,
"index": 586,
"start_time": 15887.244,
"text": " What I'm saying is they're metaphorically coupled. You can deal with pure attributes, but you can't do that without instances or at any rate a cognitive identity operator to actually perform the mental functions involved. As far as the values are concerned, you take an object without attributes, that's an oxymoron. There is no object that is totally without attributes. You've pinned an attribute on it,"
},
{
"end_time": 15944.957,
"index": 587,
"start_time": 15917.159,
"text": " Chris jumped into probably more details of his theory, which I'm not acquainted with. So if I start asking questions now, you'll probably"
},
{
"end_time": 15971.937,
"index": 588,
"start_time": 15945.486,
"text": " speak for the next two hours just for me to understand something I should have understood by reading a paper which I haven't read so I'm not going to tax you with this Chris. Yeah well what I was trying to answer more or less was the idea of what metaphysics is and how consciousness relates to metaphysics. Okay so what I'm saying is that metaphysics has to be this metaphorical metal language and consciousness relates to it as a distributed property thereof."
},
{
"end_time": 16003.2,
"index": 589,
"start_time": 15973.916,
"text": " That would be your particular usage of the word metaphysics. Metaphysics is a word that has been used since the pre-Socratic, so there is a sort of a common meaning for the word in philosophy. Metaphysics, that which stands behind physics or the essence or the beingness of things as opposed to appearances and behavior. Precisely. I'm saying that has to take the form of a metaphorical metal language."
},
{
"end_time": 16030.145,
"index": 590,
"start_time": 16004.138,
"text": " of the metal and physical sides of reality. It's going to span between both of those things, building a bridge between them. That's the purpose of metaphysics. And I understand that many different people have defined it in many different ways. And the long and short of it is, although I respect people having their own ideas about things, I don't find that especially useful. You can go and look at everybody's definition and not come out with anything very stable that you can work with. So"
},
{
"end_time": 16055.486,
"index": 591,
"start_time": 16030.845,
"text": " I settled on a mathematical structure that I can work with to make sense of these concepts, these metaphysical concepts. Okay. So how about we talk about computation? So what does computation mean? What is reality's relationship to computation? Obviously that depends on one's definition of reality. Let me tell you the reason why I'm asking this question. It's because some people think that our"
},
{
"end_time": 16086.34,
"index": 592,
"start_time": 16056.749,
"text": " Conscious experience is generated by an algorithmic process. And then some people don't think that. So, for example, Penrose famously. And secondly, some people think reality is understood as or is equivalent to computation. So Wolfram, for example, again, the question is. What is computation and what is its relationship to reality in Bernardo? In its most generic definition, computation just means changes of state."
},
{
"end_time": 16104.394,
"index": 593,
"start_time": 16086.954,
"text": " When future state states depend on previous states, then you have a computation. It's the function by means of which you create future states based on past states. That's the most generic possible definition of computation. Some of the other things you brought up."
},
{
"end_time": 16129.974,
"index": 594,
"start_time": 16104.787,
"text": " attach more qualifications to the word computation. Wolfram considers the laws of physics to be emergent from cellular automata like computation. In other words, local computations based on simple rules. So now you're not seeing only computation. Now you're specifying more what kind of computation is involved. Then you have digital physics."
},
{
"end_time": 16156.237,
"index": 595,
"start_time": 16130.452,
"text": " in which the idea is that the laws of physics should be reducible to digital computations. So you're specifying what kind of computation there are analog. There has been analog computers in our history and less than 100 years ago. So computation is not only digital. So most people, when they say, well, nature is a computer, usually they mean something more than to just say computations happen."
},
{
"end_time": 16182.654,
"index": 596,
"start_time": 16156.237,
"text": " Because, yes, computations happen. The state of the universe is changing, so it's computing. By definition, there is nothing metaphysically polemical or complicated about it. It is when you add more qualifications to what you mean, that's where it gets tricky. When you say, for instance, that consciousness does not have a nontic reality of its own,"
},
{
"end_time": 16212.261,
"index": 597,
"start_time": 16183.029,
"text": " but is the result of a computation and therefore epiphenomenal in some sense. Now you're saying more than just that the universe computes. Now you're saying not only does the universe compute, sometimes it structures its computations in such a way that it produces an epiphenomenal result that we know as consciousness. Now you're saying something distinct and absolutely wrong and internally contradictory and incoherent and explanatory powerless."
},
{
"end_time": 16234.053,
"index": 598,
"start_time": 16212.517,
"text": " But at least you are saying something. Penrose would say that in orchestrated reduction together with Hameroff, they would say that it's when mass crosses a certain threshold that you have collapse and the moment of collapse is an experience. So they are saying a lot more than to just say the universe computes."
},
{
"end_time": 16247.039,
"index": 599,
"start_time": 16234.497,
"text": " So if you stick to the general thing, the universe computes, I would say, of course, because computational computation, generically speaking, just means that there are state transitions."
},
{
"end_time": 16271.323,
"index": 600,
"start_time": 16247.619,
"text": " And future states are based on prior states, which we know empirically is what's happening in the universe. The universe doesn't begin at every moment independently of what the state was before, otherwise it would be completely random. And it's not, it's predictable. So yes, there are computations, but that's a very generic and non-polemical thing to say. Chris, again, so the question is,"
},
{
"end_time": 16288.78,
"index": 601,
"start_time": 16272.432,
"text": " What is computation and what's reality's relationship to computation? And again, what's behind the question is some people think that the mind has to be non-algorithmic, like Penrose, and then some people think that reality itself is algorithmic or computational, like Wolfram."
},
{
"end_time": 16319.053,
"index": 602,
"start_time": 16290.947,
"text": " Okay, the problem with, you know, computations with a Turing machine does. A Turing machine can do its computations in one of two ways. It's got a, you know, recursive process, and it can either do things deterministically, like Bernardo was talking about, something in the past happens, then you've got causal efficacy within the machine, and then something else happens, or it can do it non-deterministically, which means that it's making random choices. In either case, those don't describe consciousness, because those random junctures, they're disconnects."
},
{
"end_time": 16347.329,
"index": 603,
"start_time": 16319.462,
"text": " Consciousness is something that we understand as a pretty much continuous process. Whereas if you take non-deterministic computation, there is this disconnect there. Whereas if it's deterministic, then consciousness is completely trivial. In other words, a deterministic process gives you no room for free will, doesn't allow you to make choices, doesn't allow you to realize your"
},
{
"end_time": 16374.667,
"index": 604,
"start_time": 16347.637,
"text": " your will, as Schopenhauer might put it. You see what I mean? So that's the main limitation of computation theory. The fact that you've got this pseudo causal dichotomy between determinacy and randomness. Now there's a third way to look at things and that is called self-determinacy. That is what occurs in the metaphorical system, which is why instead of using computation to model this whole thing, I use something called proto-computation."
},
{
"end_time": 16401.102,
"index": 605,
"start_time": 16375.452,
"text": " Because quantum Turing machine is a little bit like a classical Turing machine. Still got the tape, it's still got the processor. That tape, by the way, that's like a typographical array in formal systems. And this is, once again, inadequate. The reality is generative. It actually has a way of putting itself together from scratch. It originates things rather than causing them."
},
{
"end_time": 16412.533,
"index": 606,
"start_time": 16401.834,
"text": " So, that would be my answer to the shortfalls of computation modeling consciousness. If I if I can just comment on something."
},
{
"end_time": 16442.62,
"index": 607,
"start_time": 16413.695,
"text": " When I said the universe certainly computes, I didn't mean to restrict it to deterministic computation. I know that, Bernardo. There is indeterministic or non-deterministic computation. Quantum computers are not deterministic and yet they produce precise solutions to very complicated problems, solutions that you can test and see while they are really solutions. They do so mechanistically, right? By the word representation. So for Schopenhauer, the will is the inner essence of everything."
},
{
"end_time": 16472.637,
"index": 608,
"start_time": 16443.08,
"text": " It's what really exists. He equates that to Kant's noumena, the collection of noumenons that forms existence, that forms the universe. And the representation is just the outside appearance of the will. If I can quote him, the representation is how the will presents itself. Can you give me an analogy or an example? Combustion presents itself as flames."
},
{
"end_time": 16497.688,
"index": 609,
"start_time": 16473.898,
"text": " Combustion is the thing in itself, an oxidation process that releases energy, forms ions leading to a plasma, and what we call flames is how it looks like. It's what combustion looks like. So for Schopenhauer, all there is is will. In other words, endogenous conscious states. That's what he means. By using the word will, he means endogenous experiences."
},
{
"end_time": 16514.463,
"index": 610,
"start_time": 16497.994,
"text": " In other words, experiences that are not perceptual in nature, they are endogenous, they arise from within. And representation is how those experiences present themselves to external observation. So the world is will."
},
{
"end_time": 16543.113,
"index": 611,
"start_time": 16515.111,
"text": " And the world presents itself to us as the physical world, which is pure representation. And for Schopenhauer, causality as a concept applies only to representation. So only when you're talking about the language of representation can you talk about causality. The will behind it as the thing in itself precedes causality, but it is not random."
},
{
"end_time": 16569.805,
"index": 612,
"start_time": 16543.66,
"text": " because it follows certain archetypal templates and he goes on and compares that with Plato's ideal forms and so on. So in essence, Schopenhauer, I think, well, in spirit, Schopenhauer was a determinist with the important caveat that he was a subtle determinist. He would say he wouldn't say that causality is the whole thing. He would say causality is emergent. Causality is something"
},
{
"end_time": 16597.312,
"index": 613,
"start_time": 16570.06,
"text": " that applies to the language of appearances, not of the things in themselves. But the things in themselves are not purely random, they also unfold according to certain templates. So in that sense, the spirit of determinism is preserved in Schopenhauer, if not the latter. Yes, I would say that Schopenhauer was a metaphorical meta-determinist, and I would say that basically he was a semiotician."
},
{
"end_time": 16627.227,
"index": 614,
"start_time": 16597.723,
"text": " as well. I would say that he had this idea that there was something called will from which a semiotic representation emerged. Emergence is of course a concept that you've already mentioned. So in my system, in my system of metaphysics, telus is primary, will is primary, and then it factorizes itself. It actually fractionates or factors itself into two sides of representation, which is the sign and the thing signified by it."
},
{
"end_time": 16656.271,
"index": 615,
"start_time": 16627.533,
"text": " Okay, plus something called thirdness, which of course is, is the interpreter of the sign. And all of these things, the three things are combined in the CTMU, in the Metaformal System, by something called Triality, which means that any object can be regarded as a relation, or an operation, or a process. You can take all of those things and everywhere combine them. So that's, that's, that's very good. Yes, I think that this is something that"
},
{
"end_time": 16680.707,
"index": 616,
"start_time": 16656.596,
"text": " Schopenhauer was trying to formulate, but he didn't have the mathematics at the time. He lived a long time ago and they didn't have most of these concepts out there, so he was unable to marshal them all and scrape them together and build the system. So that's what I'm trying to make up for, is lost time due to insufficient mathematical understanding of what was going on with these concepts."
},
{
"end_time": 16712.04,
"index": 617,
"start_time": 16686.135,
"text": " The reference to semiotics, well, semiotics is language related. It's something that has to do with language. That's the word semiotics. That's what it means. Actually, they're separated, used language and semiotics. Semiotics is the pure science, the pure representational information mappings that mediate between science and the reference. Whereas language is something that takes those signs and puts them together in higher order combinations."
},
{
"end_time": 16740.06,
"index": 618,
"start_time": 16713.03,
"text": " So I think for Schopenhauer, the wheel in itself would not be related to signs or language. Signs and language would be the paradigm of the appearances, of the representations, the Vorstellung, not anything inherent in the wheel itself. The wheel for Schopenhauer was beyond time and space."
},
{
"end_time": 16768.387,
"index": 619,
"start_time": 16740.332,
"text": " and therefore the distinctions that are presupposed by semiotics wouldn't be there in the will in itself. Those distinctions would only appear in the appearances in the representations and then language could be applied or semiotics at first. And in Schopenhauer you would even have to get to what he called abstract representations"
},
{
"end_time": 16792.723,
"index": 620,
"start_time": 16769.002,
"text": " which was his old fashioned word for what we today would call meta cognition. It's when you take a sign, in other words, an appearance, and then you cognitively process that sign. You think about the thought or you think about the perception. And that would be an abstract representation in Schopenhauer's language."
},
{
"end_time": 16822.568,
"index": 621,
"start_time": 16793.318,
"text": " language would require that first. It would require not only representations, but abstract representations. In other words, representations of representations. And now we are talking about the world of semantics, you know, signs and their meanings and how those meanings are put together in a linguistic structure. So I'm not contradicting what you said, Chris, but we are talking about Schopenhauer and I feel"
},
{
"end_time": 16851.527,
"index": 622,
"start_time": 16823.217,
"text": " a responsibility for adding more color and nuance to Schopenhauer? Yeah, no problem whatsoever. Yeah, I'm just saying that basically, I do think that Schopenhauer was, although he may not have realized it completely, he was a, he was a monist. He believed in a monarch theory in which, in which it's not, the, the, tell us this or, or will and representation are not just dualistically linked and separate."
},
{
"end_time": 16879.41,
"index": 623,
"start_time": 16852.193,
"text": " I say that on some level he understood that the representations have to be coming from the will. Will has some kind of metacausal privacy and that's more or less what I'm talking about. I'm saying that that representation is a binary mapping or a binary relation and I'm saying that it's like cellular mitosis. I'm saying that telus has to split into those two things."
},
{
"end_time": 16897.21,
"index": 624,
"start_time": 16880.043,
"text": " while meanwhile forming itself from the bottom up by two things coming together in a physical event, two particles whack into each other or something of this nature. And that's basically the metaphorical concept I'm getting at. And Schopenhauer is useful in this regard because that's what I think he was trying to get at too."
},
{
"end_time": 16924.94,
"index": 625,
"start_time": 16898.336,
"text": " People today who think that Schopenhauer was in some sense a dualist or a dual aspect monist, I can only say they haven't read Schopenhauer. They didn't even begin to read Schopenhauer because the man couldn't have been more unambiguous, more explicit than he was. In the world as well in representation, particularly from the second edition on when he added twice the material, he kept the original but then doubled it."
},
{
"end_time": 16955.043,
"index": 626,
"start_time": 16925.316,
"text": " He repeats himself so many times. He says the same thing in so many different ways, as though to make sure that he couldn't be misunderstood. Other than he was being paid by the word. Yeah, it's just it's surreal. In Wikipedia, the other day, it was still listing Schopenhauer as a dual aspect theorist. And even the world's supposed greatest scholar in Schopenhauer,"
},
{
"end_time": 16983.61,
"index": 627,
"start_time": 16955.35,
"text": " character from the UK called Christopher Janeway. The man just doesn't understand Schopenhauer. I mean, I'm sure he has studied Schopenhauer a lot, but, you know, intensity of study does not guarantee understanding and the guy doesn't even begin to understand Schopenhauer. He thinks Schopenhauer is a crass materialist and it's absurd. I think I read some of your comments on Janeway in an essay he wrote about, I know you wrote a book on Schopenhauer."
},
{
"end_time": 17013.729,
"index": 628,
"start_time": 16984.309,
"text": " Okay, let's talk about free will. It seems like that's what is at the core here. So I'll do so by reading a question which is directed toward Chris."
},
{
"end_time": 17043.03,
"index": 629,
"start_time": 17014.154,
"text": " But then obviously, if you pull something out, even though it has some terminology that's specific to the CTMU, Bernardo, please comment on it as well. Okay. Hey Kurt, I'm reposting this from YouTube. It's for Chris on the topic of free will derived from the CTMU. If you can ask this, you'll forever be my hero. You once said, I believe he's referring to you, Chris. Chris, you said that the universe, that because the universe has only itself to define itself, everything in it must exemplify its elementary freedom."
},
{
"end_time": 17069.088,
"index": 630,
"start_time": 17043.541,
"text": " I think I understand from your defining reality as all real influence that reality cannot be abbreviated, because if you were able to simplify it with no loss, whatever was removed could not logically have been real. I understand where to take this to imply that reality could not have come from anything simpler than its full definition, and what can't be simplified must be contributory throughout."
},
{
"end_time": 17098.78,
"index": 631,
"start_time": 17069.428,
"text": " That said, you've still maintained a strong distinction between tertiary syntactors, objects, and secondary syntactors slash tellers, life forms, read life forms, in terms of the amount that they are determinative. Considering that you've shown that reality is a mind, could we liken the distinction to the difference between ideas of objects and ideas of self, where just like ideas, all objects have some significance specific to them, however, seemingly banal, but only tellers"
},
{
"end_time": 17127.688,
"index": 632,
"start_time": 17099.104,
"text": " as ideas of self would be self-modeling and therefore truly take on self-awareness. That's why they're called tellers. That's why self-type identity operators are called tellers, whereas tertiary identity operators are fermionic, more or less, and they are inanimate, or at least usually considered to be inanimate. But basically they're embedded in secondary tellers and therefore they take that higher-order meta-causation, that ability to self-model from the secondary tellers."
},
{
"end_time": 17157.705,
"index": 633,
"start_time": 17128.234,
"text": " So I assume you're answering the question right now, but Chris, I didn't understand the question. So can you explain the question back to myself and then answer it? Well, states, you know, there's no such thing as a state in isolation. States are always relatively defined. That's why we have theories of relativity and things like that. But what must the state be defined relative to? Well, to completely define any state in the universe, you need to refer to every other state in the universe because it parameterizes"
},
{
"end_time": 17187.414,
"index": 634,
"start_time": 17158.2,
"text": " that state. Okay, and you don't get a complete parameterization unless you have the full matter distribution and the full metric. Okay, so that's what it takes. Can I see if I can I make an analogy? There's a duality between a set and the complement of a set, assuming that the set is within some other large set that you can call. So let's say the large set is S, you have a subset U, then there's a duality between you and you with a C, which is a complement of it, the tell or and the environment, right? Exactly. Self and non-self."
},
{
"end_time": 17207.227,
"index": 635,
"start_time": 17188.252,
"text": " Okay, sorry, continue. Okay, well, the environment, of course, is just the medium minus the Tellur. In other words, it's external to the medium, but it's outside the boundary of the Tellur. And so you get this basically the self dual construct, which is a Tellur environment coupling."
},
{
"end_time": 17236.17,
"index": 636,
"start_time": 17208.113,
"text": " Okay, and this Taylor environment coupling is very important to the CTME because that's kind of a metaphorical quantum. It's one way of expressing CTME quantization. Okay, you have to put the medium together with the object. The object is its own medium through this process called expansion, which is the operation through which the universe evolves on the global level. Now, in order to get semantic meaning out of that, you know, basically, basically, it's called cosmic expansion."
},
{
"end_time": 17263.559,
"index": 637,
"start_time": 17237.21,
"text": " Chris, it's been almost a year since I studied the CTMU. And when I did, I didn't go back to it, which means I've forgotten so much of it. So much of the terminology as I would have done myself. Okay. So much of the terminology, it goes through me. So tell it recursion. I have a vague recollection that it's where"
},
{
"end_time": 17292.533,
"index": 638,
"start_time": 17263.797,
"text": " the universe exercises free will, it looks at some generalized utility state, and then makes a decision. That's where TELOR is self-configured. That's where secondary identity operators or TELOR is self-configured. They actually become the medium. And I know that Bernardo actually embraces something like this in his analytic idealism, I think is what he calls it. Basically, you've got to have that going."
},
{
"end_time": 17320.094,
"index": 639,
"start_time": 17293.934,
"text": " Okay, so let me be blunt. So free will in your theory, in your model, Chris exists. And Bernardo, if I'm correct, you're against the idea of free will, at least currently. Well, let me tell you what free will is first before Bernardo gets gone. Okay. Yes. As I said, there is no typographical array in the metaphorical system. Okay. You can't use the parameter as a state, you cannot just use a"
},
{
"end_time": 17347.262,
"index": 640,
"start_time": 17320.537,
"text": " fixed array, fixed array, the array has to be changing geometric, geometric dynamically, is the term that the followers of Einstein came up with to describe what must be going on, it's happening behind the scenes. Okay, free will happens because things are determined metacausally, you know, and metaphorically, which means that, that, that things have to be coupled or factorized."
},
{
"end_time": 17374.121,
"index": 641,
"start_time": 17348.455,
"text": " Right. In other words, it's just not this linear process, this causal process, but it's this higher order process called meta medicalization that is a curve. And this is free will. If we look at a conspensive cycle in the CTMU, it's an alpha omega cycle. In other words, it starts at an origin and ends with the boundary. And those two things are in advanced and retarded communication with each other. Right."
},
{
"end_time": 17403.541,
"index": 642,
"start_time": 17374.564,
"text": " Free will is in determining one of those conspensive cycles, regardless of what its size is. So in other words, there is a way to define free will that gets out of this pseudo causal dichotomy between determinacy and indeterminacy that we were talking about earlier. In other words, you're creating the medium. You're actually creating space-time as you create a new state. When you bring that new mental state into your head, you've actually done it by creating space-time."
},
{
"end_time": 17434.035,
"index": 643,
"start_time": 17405.213,
"text": " This is kind of a very profound, very weird way of looking at it. I understand that it sounds weird, but it's the only way, in my opinion, things can work. I will comment more generically because I'm not familiar with Chris's terminology, so it's impossible for me to go into the details of that. But you offered, Kurt, that I am currently against free will. There's a lot of nuance to this, so let me try to clarify this."
},
{
"end_time": 17462.688,
"index": 644,
"start_time": 17434.293,
"text": " The question of free will is linked to a materialist metaphysics, like people worrying that if my choices are determined by the patterns of brain activity in my brain, then I don't have free will. Well, on that account, I think people need not be afraid because I don't think physiological patterns of brain activity cause your choices. I think they are what your choices look like."
},
{
"end_time": 17492.79,
"index": 645,
"start_time": 17463.234,
"text": " In Schopenhauer's terminology, they are appearances, representations. The thing in itself is your choice. So no, your choices are not determined by your brain activity. Your brain activity is what the process of making choices look like. And then you would say, well, then I am endorsing free will. But now we have now to understand what people mean by free will. What people mean by it is that their choices are determined by that which they identify themselves with."
},
{
"end_time": 17519.275,
"index": 646,
"start_time": 17493.44,
"text": " as opposed to being determined by something that they don't identify with and most people don't identify with their brain activity they never get to see it they don't identify with it that's why when when a physicalist says well your choices are determined by your brain activity people feel that as a violation of their free will because they identify with their own mental processes the the flow of their consciousness not with"
},
{
"end_time": 17546.34,
"index": 647,
"start_time": 17519.77,
"text": " physical patterns of brain activity inside their skull, which they never saw in their lives. Now, let's think about the mind of nature. The mind of nature is the only thing there is. So need and will are the same thing. There is nothing. I mean, I have to work, right? I'm forced by my society to work. So my choice to work is not freely determined by me."
},
{
"end_time": 17572.09,
"index": 648,
"start_time": 17546.715,
"text": " It's a need imposed on me by the society and I don't identify with the rest of the society. So my free will has been cut short in that regard. But if you are the mind of nature, there is no society. There is no world outside of you. There's nothing beyond you. So whatever choices you make as the mind of nature are free in the sense that they are determined, but they are determined by you."
},
{
"end_time": 17600.76,
"index": 649,
"start_time": 17572.773,
"text": " The need and the choice are one and the same. There is no semantic difference between determinism and free will at the level of the mind of nature. Because yes, the choices are determined. Even people who believe in free will, they are not saying that their choices are random. They are saying that their choices are determined by their preferences, their tastes. They are determined by them."
},
{
"end_time": 17629.531,
"index": 650,
"start_time": 17601.426,
"text": " At the level of the mind of nature, every choice is determined by the mind of nature because there is nothing beyond the universal mind, the universal consciousness. So even the question of free will disappears. There is a semantic space for it. It doesn't make sense to talk about it, but the choices are still determined in the sense that they are not random. The choices of the mind of nature are determined by what the mind of nature is."
},
{
"end_time": 17650.64,
"index": 651,
"start_time": 17630.195,
"text": " its characteristics, its properties, determine the choices it makes. It cannot abstract of itself. Otherwise, the choices would be completely random. And that's incoherent to say that. I would merely add that what we have to do is we have to distinguish free will what's happening there from determinacy and non-determinacy."
},
{
"end_time": 17680.656,
"index": 652,
"start_time": 17651.102,
"text": " Okay, so it is useful to talk about free will just to distinguish it from what we usually mean by causation. And once we do that, then we find out that we can describe it in a certain way, right, in terms of this expansion and telepercursion thing that I was talking about earlier. I think ultimately everything is determined. Even your choices are determined by your tastes, by your dispositions, your opinions. Can I ask you a question? Imagine"
},
{
"end_time": 17708.814,
"index": 653,
"start_time": 17681.016,
"text": " just imagine the origin of reality. What determined the structure of reality? In other words, there was nothing outside, according to general relativity, basically, reality is optically and geometrically closed. Okay, so there's nothing outside, there's no there's no extrinsic causation that could have caused the universe to take any particular form. So aren't we talking about the universe taking its own form, somehow deciding within itself, what form it should take"
},
{
"end_time": 17725.861,
"index": 654,
"start_time": 17709.82,
"text": " Deciding within itself can only happen if that decision is determined by what it is."
},
{
"end_time": 17750.691,
"index": 655,
"start_time": 17726.236,
"text": " Something exists that cannot be explained in terms of anything else. We cannot explain one thing in terms of another forever. It doesn't matter what metaphysics one subscribes to, one cannot keep on reducing forever. Otherwise, eventually you will go back to the beginning and it will be circular reasoning. Unless it's idempotent, unless it's idempotent, that actually applies to themselves. You don't get to the top of the ladder, you just keep on going from run to wrong, and each wrong is identical to the last wrong."
},
{
"end_time": 17781.408,
"index": 656,
"start_time": 17751.816,
"text": " You're going the other way around now. I'm thinking about the reduction. I'm going down to the bottom. There has to be something at the bottom that simply is. It simply is what it is."
},
{
"end_time": 17810.707,
"index": 657,
"start_time": 17781.697,
"text": " For something to exist, it needs to have properties. To say that something is an object means that it has properties. So to be is to have properties. I agree with you there. To be is to have properties. Whatever it is that you are, you are one thing and not another. In other words, there are properties associated to your beingness. Now, whatever there is at the end of the chain of reduction, the bottom line of nature, it just is and therefore it has properties."
},
{
"end_time": 17832.994,
"index": 658,
"start_time": 17811.426,
"text": " everything that it does is then determined by its properties. It's determined by what it is as opposed to what it is not or to what it could have been. So even the mind of nature is a mind that has properties. I mean we're not attaching any, you're not attaching any properties to this ultimate reduction that you're talking about."
},
{
"end_time": 17859.088,
"index": 659,
"start_time": 17833.523,
"text": " so and that but you're saying and yet everything that the universe is is somehow determined by it i don't think that's you know quite kosher i think that we have to actually try to attach some properties to it in order to derive attaching i just said to be is to have properties so whatever there is at the bottom level of the chain of reduction it has properties now we may not know directly self-assigned properties right"
},
{
"end_time": 17885.725,
"index": 660,
"start_time": 17860.025,
"text": " Not self-assigned. It's intrinsic to the beingness of the thing. To be is to have properties. But against what background are we distinguishing those properties? The background of what could have been. So the laws of nature are what they are. So gravity makes objects fall. We could live in a universe in which gravity pulls objects up. It's a repellent as opposed to an attractor. Now, that's not what is."
},
{
"end_time": 17906.287,
"index": 661,
"start_time": 17886.117,
"text": " The laws of nature are what they are, as opposed to what they could have been in our imagination. So whatever nature is, it has properties, and that's why objects fall and static electricity is produced when you rub amber to a cloth."
},
{
"end_time": 17936.63,
"index": 662,
"start_time": 17907.277,
"text": " I understand everything that you're saying. Okay, but if it had properties, then those properties had negations, and something had to distinguish those properties from their negations. Otherwise, it is useless to talk about them having properties at all. There's got to be the property, there's got to be the logical complement of that property, and something has to be doing the logic of it all for us to, for reality itself, for ultimate reality, to perceive what its properties are, or to act as though those properties exist."
},
{
"end_time": 17964.6,
"index": 663,
"start_time": 17937.176,
"text": " You follow me? That something is us and our ability to conceive of nature being different than what it is. And we are parts of reality where sensor control is for reality as a whole. So that's our function. To conceive of what could have been in theory or in principle. Right. And then after conceiving of that to conceive of what is. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm trying to speak of something even much simpler than we are getting to right now. What I'm trying to say is the following."
},
{
"end_time": 17993.113,
"index": 664,
"start_time": 17964.975,
"text": " wherever there is at the chain of reduction, it has properties, and its behavior is determined by the properties it has. In other words, the behavior of nature is determined by what nature is, as opposed to anything else we could conceive nature to be. So ultimately, everything is determined, it ought to be determined. Otherwise, we just throw science down the toilet. Right, but that's a tautology."
},
{
"end_time": 18020.691,
"index": 665,
"start_time": 17993.508,
"text": " You're not actually we're looking for something when you say determined, I'm looking for a causal dependency, I'm looking for a cause and an effect of some kind. Okay, that's what we're talking about the same. Right, right. Okay. So that what we're talking about, however, is a tautology. Everything is intrinsic. Yes, it is. It's not anything is intrinsic, because reality is optically closed. There is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect reality."
},
{
"end_time": 18035.299,
"index": 666,
"start_time": 18021.596,
"text": " It's a logical contradiction to disagree with. What I said is not a tautology. It's not a tautology. What I'm saying is that of all things that nature could conceivably have been, it is what it is and not anything else."
},
{
"end_time": 18055.879,
"index": 667,
"start_time": 18035.691,
"text": " and what it is entails properties and those properties determine what happens. So the universe expands as opposed to collapsing because the properties of the universe are such that they cause the universe to expand. I agree. So you can speak of causation in the language of representation in that sense without being tautological."
},
{
"end_time": 18085.367,
"index": 668,
"start_time": 18055.879,
"text": " And if we speak of minds, then we have to abandon, well, we have to set aside the language. Yes, I'm trying to get down to the properties that you are ascribing to ultimate reality. Reality is what it is, as you say, you're 100% right about that. But what are its properties and how do things happen because of those properties? So I'm trying to get to that. So we've been speaking with the language of Schopenhauer's representations, the physical world and science and causation,"
},
{
"end_time": 18111.97,
"index": 669,
"start_time": 18085.605,
"text": " But you and I agree that at the end of the day, there is only one mind, one consciousness. So what is the language of the will? How do we describe what I'm saying in the language of the will of the thing in itself? Well, Jung gave us the language. Jung talked about the archetypes, which are these intrinsic primordial templates of mental behavior. And those templates are intrinsic. They are there because mind is what it is."
},
{
"end_time": 18141.852,
"index": 670,
"start_time": 18112.328,
"text": " And if nature is a mind, then the archetypes of nature are those properties. So you don't think the mind is conditioned to have those properties? You don't think there's any capital? No. You think the mind just is what it is? To be is to have properties. And I'm saying those properties are the archetypes in Jungian psychology applied to the collective unconscious, applied to a mind that is not an individual mind. OK, so you realize you are assigning a property"
},
{
"end_time": 18163.951,
"index": 671,
"start_time": 18143.303,
"text": " But that's what I'm saying, Chris. I'm saying that to be is to have properties. Yes, I would agree with that. And it's also to have values or instances. So that way it's self-dual. You don't have to separate the instances from the properties. Okay. And if you can call reality an instance of itself, and that's the tautology that I'm talking about."
},
{
"end_time": 18194.463,
"index": 672,
"start_time": 18164.906,
"text": " Okay, so I call it a super tautology. I don't know why you're saying this. I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. I don't know what you're talking about. Instances of itself. Reality is what it is to be, to have properties. Those properties are what we could call archetypes, templates of behavior of mind, and that's why nature behaves the way it does, because it has whatever archetypes it does have by virtue of existing. Nature instantiates those properties. You're assigning or distributing properties to nature, and then nature is instantiating the properties. Am I right?"
},
{
"end_time": 18224.48,
"index": 673,
"start_time": 18195.52,
"text": " If you want to speak the language of mathematics, you can speak that way. I'm not sure how helpful it is to the audience. It's very helpful because that's what a super tautology is. It's something that is its own properties and its own instances. Why do we speak of instances if there is only one thing? I don't think this language is helpful at all. It's obscurantism. Well, with all due respect, it's not just obscurantism. There are instances of properties out there."
},
{
"end_time": 18251.51,
"index": 674,
"start_time": 18225.316,
"text": " You are an instance of the properties that make up Bernardo. An instance of the properties that make up Chris and likewise for Kurt. Yeah, but Chris and Bernardo exist in a broader context, but the mind of nature is what there is. There is nothing else. So why to speak of instances? I'm not arguing against you there. I'd be the last person in the world to argue with you about that. I'm just trying to pin down some of these properties that we're ascribing to ultimate or basic reality."
},
{
"end_time": 18280.111,
"index": 675,
"start_time": 18251.748,
"text": " Once you get all the way down to the bottom of the reduction, as you said, then there's got to be something there. What is it? So now we are we're stuck, you see, we have to say, OK, well, whatever it is, it's part of reality. Therefore, reality goes in a circle. It's this big self-defined loop. Right. That's so that's my point. You follow that? Fair enough. OK, fair enough. Now, do we know what those properties are directly? Of course not. We know"
},
{
"end_time": 18292.602,
"index": 676,
"start_time": 18280.707,
"text": " What results from those properties, the behavior of the universe results from those properties or those archetypes, whatever those intrinsic properties are."
},
{
"end_time": 18313.508,
"index": 677,
"start_time": 18293.098,
"text": " It turns out that the behavior of nature is regular, fairly predictable. So I would say that they are determined by those properties, which we don't know directly, but we can infer that they exist because nature behaves in a fairly regular and predictable way. Do you think that we have anything to do with determining any of those properties?"
},
{
"end_time": 18344.24,
"index": 678,
"start_time": 18314.99,
"text": " the properties are what they are by virtue of the fact that the universe is what it is and we are part of the universe so we don't determine them we are determined by them well could there be reciprocity there i mean could there be they determine us and then we determine them back i don't think so i think if you're talking about the most innate properties then they are the properties of what there is they are what they are because the universe is what it is now we could"
},
{
"end_time": 18367.928,
"index": 679,
"start_time": 18344.82,
"text": " We could determine the matter properties or we could play a role in the causal unfolding that derives from those properties. Yes, that we could do. But I don't think there we go. And by participating in that unfold, you mean we're just like passive things that allow properties to emerge through us but have nothing to do with creating the properties themselves."
},
{
"end_time": 18392.5,
"index": 680,
"start_time": 18368.404,
"text": " I'm talking about the fundamental properties. Now you could talk about properties at many levels that are not fundamental. Of course. Like human beings have properties, but those are not the fundamental properties of the universe. Or black holes have properties, but those are not the fundamental properties of the universe at the bottom of the chain of causation. And you don't see yourself as implicated at all in actually configuring those larger properties."
},
{
"end_time": 18414.805,
"index": 681,
"start_time": 18392.756,
"text": " Yes, those secondary derivative properties. Yes, of course, we are part of the unfolding dynamics of the universe. So now if you detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon, we will change the properties of the moon. Yeah, we can influence that. That's trivial, trivially so. But I was talking about the bottom level fundamental properties of existence."
},
{
"end_time": 18442.586,
"index": 682,
"start_time": 18415.111,
"text": " I don't think we can change those for the same reason that a human being can't change his or her own mental archetypes. Those are inherent to the beingness of the universe. I agree. I agree with almost everything you said, except for you seem to be saying, okay, it just is, that's it. And I'm saying, maybe we can actually reach in there and induce some properties, some actual specific properties that lead to this whole thing being structured the way it is."
},
{
"end_time": 18468.78,
"index": 683,
"start_time": 18443.78,
"text": " Well, I commented on that already, so I think it's clear, hopefully. OK, well, you seem to be saying the universe is meta-deterministic or super-deterministic. I don't know what you mean by that, so I cannot say yes or no, but maybe, maybe. Well, you say that the structure of the universe is determined by what it is and what its properties are, right? What it is and what its properties are, are the same thing."
},
{
"end_time": 18498.354,
"index": 684,
"start_time": 18469.02,
"text": " Well, yes, but there's also an extension with the intention. The intention is the properties, and then we need the instances as well. Those are the things that the properties intersect. If you could talk about a red heavy object, and then you could pick a cannonball and paint it red, that's an instance instantiating both of those properties. The properties don't refer to each other. Heavy isn't red and red isn't heavy, but if we have instances, then we can make the properties interact."
},
{
"end_time": 18527.62,
"index": 685,
"start_time": 18499.121,
"text": " Are Jesus and Buddha attempting to answer the same problem but from different perspectives? Are they answering different problems? Are their answers, their teachings, whatever they may be, are they commensurate? Though on the surface, at least to me, they contradict."
},
{
"end_time": 18558.148,
"index": 686,
"start_time": 18528.303,
"text": " There's quite a few questions there. Bernardo, if you don't mind starting that off. I'm not a religious studies specialist, so you have to take anything and everything I'm about to say with an enormous grain of salt, maybe a whole bag of it. I have a good friend who is a specialist, Jeffrey Kripal. If Jeff is listening to this, I hope he will not cringe with what I'm about to say. I think they are."
},
{
"end_time": 18586.682,
"index": 687,
"start_time": 18558.729,
"text": " they were trying to answer the same question. And I think if you penetrate beyond the surface of appearances and different metaphors and symbols and the different languages they spoke, there is a difference of 500 years between them and the difference in geographies as well. So if you can penetrate beyond all that and look at the essence of their answers, I think it was essentially the same answer."
},
{
"end_time": 18612.705,
"index": 688,
"start_time": 18587.021,
"text": " Actually, there are serious studies and there's a serious academic opinion that Christianity, in fact, may be derived from Buddhism. There is even speculation about where Jesus might have been during that time between his 12th year and his 30th year. You mean Vedism? Or do you really mean that Christianity was derived from Buddhism?"
},
{
"end_time": 18642.533,
"index": 689,
"start_time": 18613.422,
"text": " Christianity derived from Buddhism. That's one academic opinion that has been put forward. There's even speculation that Jesus was in India during that time of his life where the Bible says nothing about him. I think the fundamental question they were both trying to answer is, what is the relation between us as human beings and the universe at large? What is that relationship? Jung put it in the following words."
},
{
"end_time": 18668.404,
"index": 690,
"start_time": 18643.234,
"text": " Are we related to something transcendent, to something infinite or not? That is in the kazillion dollar question. Are we related to something infinite or not? And I think they both were trying to answer this question, that relationship between us as individuals and the universe at large, existence at large. What is that relationship? Because we take the cue for our behavior from our tentative"
},
{
"end_time": 18698.61,
"index": 691,
"start_time": 18669.07,
"text": " answer to that question, our inner narrative about what that relation is. And I would even go as far and to say that they gave the same answer. When Jesus talked of himself as the son of God, he was talking about a fundamental kinship between a human being and the divinity, a fundamental kinship. Now, the son of a father is of the same kind as the father."
},
{
"end_time": 18726.492,
"index": 692,
"start_time": 18699.104,
"text": " bare force, because it's something that came from the father. And he also emphasized the need to surrender the direction of our lives to a greater power. And if that's not Buddhism, what is it? Buddhism is the surrender of the ego is seen through the illusion of personal identity, individual identity. It is"
},
{
"end_time": 18755.98,
"index": 693,
"start_time": 18726.852,
"text": " connecting to a greater mental context, a greater cognitive context. So I think in essence, yes, they were both saying the same thing. And then 600 years later, a little bit more, there came the Prophet and said the same thing. And that's why Muslims bow to a greater power five times a day, which I think is a fantastic ritual. It's a daily reminder that our lives are not about us."
},
{
"end_time": 18780.486,
"index": 694,
"start_time": 18757.533,
"text": " The podcast is now concluded. If you'd like to support more conversations like this, then do consider visiting theories of everything dot org. Again, it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on that allow me to work on toe full time. You get early access to ad free audio episodes there as well. Every dollar helps far more than you may think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you."
},
{
"end_time": 18798.865,
"index": 695,
"start_time": 18783.984,
"text": " Raise a spoon to Grandma, who always took all the hungry cousins to McDonald's for McNuggets and the Play Play Slide. Have something sweet in her honor. Come to McDonald's and treat yourself to the Grandma McFlurry today. Ba da ba ba ba. And participate in McDonald's for a limited time."
}
]
}No transcript available.