Audio Player
Starting at:
Chris Lehto interviews Curt Jaimungal on UAPs, Entropy, Extra Dimensions, and Keeping One’s Sanity While Studying Consciousness
August 22, 2022
•
1:32:54
•
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
216 sentences
15,329 words
Method: api-polled
Transcription time: 92m 1s
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.
This is Martian 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 touchdown to threes. And if you're right, 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,
Florida and Georgia. Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe and secure. Download the PricePix app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. PricePix. It's good to be right. Must be present in certain states. Visit PricePix.com for restrictions and details.
This is an auxiliary episode where Chris Leto, an F-16 pilot for 18 years, interviewed me for his channel, which is linked in the description. We talk about physics and mathematics, with the inclusion of specific terminology, entropy, extra dimensions, UAPs, and keeping one's sanity while studying consciousness. Visit Chris Leto's YouTube channel by clicking on the link in the description. A written review on whichever platform you're listening to this Theories of Everything episode from also helps a great deal.
Thank you, and enjoy this supplementary episode where Chris Leto interviews Kurt Jaimungal. Okay, sounds like what you're saying.
is that there are different levels, like the galactic level, the nation level, the interpersonal level, the financial level, then the cellular level, and then the atomic level, and so on. They have their own structure to them. They have their own laws. Maybe the laws are predictable going one layer up to one layer up, but we don't even need to go down that route. We can just say they seem to operate on their own laws, and that's what you're calling a different dimension when you go from one to the next.
That was Kurt Jaimungal explaining my own theory to me better than I could possibly say it. He's amazing. He's doing exactly what he does best. Welcome to the channel guys. I'm Chris Leto, retired F-16 pilot turned UFO investigator now. I was so happy to interface with Kurt Jaimungal. He has basically had a successful
YouTube channel called theories of everything and he's focused he talks actually in our in our discussion here how he's gone into the UFO field as well how he thinks it relates to consciousness I found the same I have my own theory of everything that actually is structure of the universe how it's based in the dimensions of life I go through that actual theory I relate it to
Kurt and get his take on it. And he does not disappoint. He fills in a key aspect for me, a really key point of my own theory. So I hope you guys enjoy it. I had to break this up into two parts. The interview was so long. So the first part of the interview, we go through basically entropy, theory, physics in general, down to basic assumptions, basic ideas of science. I hope you really enjoy it. I've really learned a ton learning from Kurt. And then the second part,
What your lease next week will basically be more into the emotional aspects of it on YouTubing competition, dealing with stress. And again, I learned an amazing amount. Thanks so much to Kurt for being on the show. And at the end, actually, he has a pitch for a video. He's actually helping young YouTubers, so YouTubers with less than 15,000 subscribers. He recommends 40 of them in a new video. Just a great guy, Kurt. So happy to have to have actually talked to them. I hope you guys enjoy it.
If you do like this content, smash that like button and it really helps the algorithm. And then subscribe for future videos. Okay, I don't always do interview videos. I hope you appreciate this one. And then if you want to support the channel, go to patreon.com. This video is actually a live stream only for patrons, so you can get behind the scenes access. Come to Patreon, support the channel at patreon.com forward slash Chris Lado. Now let's get to Kurt Jaimungal.
Chris Leto, welcome to LetoFiles. All right, welcome guys. This will be live for patrons. I have the famous Kurt Jaimungal here from Theories of Everything, theoretical physicist and a filmmaker from Toronto. That's awesome. Thanks for inviting me onto your prestigious platform, man. It's an honor. No, thank you, man. Thanks for being here. I'm a huge fan. I try and catch all
I don't publish so technically I'm not a theoretical physicist but I understand what you mean and just so you know I generally don't have much to say I know almost nothing about any subject so my resounding answer will be I don't know to most of your questions and much of it will be relegated to a little more than an expression of bafflement
Yeah, and that works. I mean, yeah, you've done so many interviews, though, you know, you've talked to so many interesting people in this kind of higher stress environment, you know, under a lot more pressure. And so, yeah, I think it's just I'm excited just to get your viewpoint. You know, what do you think? Because for me, this topic is just super difficult. And every day, it seems like I go through it'll be like one day like today. This morning, I watched aerial phenomena. Have you seen that movie?
the aerial phenomena of Zimbabwe. No, I keep being told that I need to watch it. Yeah, same for me. So I finally, I finally made the time today. And yeah, I mean, it's amazingly compelling. You know, you have 60 over 60 kids when they're young, give the same story, and then they get older. It's, it's quite compelling, you know, saw days like today where I'm like, it's obviously true, you know, and then, but then tomorrow,
It can go the other direction. It's such a difficult topic, so I'm excited to have you here and start discussing it. Well, the same happens with almost any insight. So for example, with psychedelics, if it's drastically far from your ordinary view, then initially you'll feel like this is it, this is the answer, I feel like I have it all. And then two weeks later, you're in complete doubt over what you experienced. And it's not to say that you shouldn't be. I feel it too with these deep
Kind of quantum or physics models, you know, any kind of these deep concepts. It's like I can get there over a period of hours, you know, I can watch several videos or be studying a topic and then I kind of understand it, right? Quantum mechanics is one of those, right? I'll get to some point where I can relate to some of your videos. You know, you made a recent video now where you go down and dial down into natural units, you know, kind of a physics lesson.
I really enjoy it because you went right down to base assumptions. And I find that in this topic, especially when it's so complex, I'll understand it for a little bit. But then a week later, it's gone. I can't access that information again. It's so complex.
Yeah, that's everyone, even Ed Witten, even Terry Tao. I mentioned this in the video itself, which is that you need to understand or you need to read on the top repeatedly. You also need to use it. That's another aspect that is missing because you need to manipulate the equations in order for you to have an understanding of them. But also if you take a look at Terry Tao or Ed Witten's background, their background where they have their office, they have multiple books on the same subject. That's because you need to see the same phenomenon from different perspectives.
I think that's so key, right? What you said is to use it. It's like languages, you know, if you don't, you can study all you want a language, but unless you go out and use it out in like the real world or it's dirty, you know, or there's a lot of noise, you know, you're just never gonna, it's never gonna sink in, you know, some neural network. It also may be okay.
There's this quote from Wheeler which says the point isn't to drink from the firehose but to get wet. Just think of what you're doing as getting wet and sure you may forget its explicit form but you have an implicit form that later becomes easier to relearn the same type of material and you can recognize intuitively different patterns. You may not understand why but you can see there's a connection here and here and that wouldn't have come about had you not initially learned even though you've forgotten the explicit form. Don't beat yourself up too bad, too much. Yeah it's the basis and that's why
I've really enjoyed being a YouTuber is having that depth, basically having the opportunity to talk to people like yourself that are so dedicated obviously to this, focused on it and then you're serious. I really like that, that you seem serious on finding the truth. I'll ask you a few questions just to kind of put you on the physics spot I guess because I've seen you mention before, I don't remember the exact podcast, I wrote it down but
Basically, you say that the particle wave duality of light, if we're talking about the double set experiments, etc. So quantum mechanics, particle wave duality of light, and you mentioned on one podcast, but you didn't go into it further, right? You're focused on the guest. But you said that there was basically a misunderstanding with the public, that light can't be both at the same time. And I guess just want to get your take on
I wanted to ask you to finish that thought, I guess. Why do you think, or first, do you think that the public has a misunderstanding? And then why do you think that is? How would you relate that? I saw that you emailed that, but I don't know what you're referring to. I don't remember saying that the public has a misunderstanding of it. Maybe what I said was that it's not a wave and a particle. It's a quantum mechanical object. And to properly understand it, you should know some functional analysis or linear algebra.
And you look at that and then it's misleading to say it's a wave and a particle. It's better to think of it as, do you know what R3 is or R2? So the real numbers and you cross the real numbers to get a plane. So like, look, you have an axis that's one copy of R, the real numbers, then you have another axis of the Y axis and the X axis. So that's technically called R2. Okay. So R2 is not the same as R1. So R1 is just one line. It's akin to saying,
Oh, wow, look at all these strange effects. Yeah, because you're thinking of it as just R1. But if you look at it from another perspective, if you understand what R2 is, then it's not so strange. There's also complex numbers where certain polynomials don't have roots in real numbers, but they do in complex numbers. And complex analysis is more, quote unquote, beautiful than real analysis. And it's because perhaps the better perspective is complex analysis when we're trying to view it from a real, quote unquote, real, not as in reality, but a real as in the
Non-complex mathematical. Yes, then you get some strange phenomenon. Perhaps what I meant was it's best viewed as a quantum mechanical object. And then what that is, it's something like a I'll just be throwing out terms if I continue speaking because it's difficult to explain like a separate complex separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space. So then you need to know what that is. And so what's separable? What's infinite dimensional? What's a Hilbert space? What's an inner product? What's a Banach space?
and all of these structures need to be explained in order to understand what a quantum mechanical object is and then you also need to know the axioms of quantum mechanics in order to interpret what the heck that object is and how do you use it what's an operator so sorry what's an observable and it's not explained and so it becomes the target of any mystical notion that one wants to project onto it because it's so
unclear. It's aggrandized and it's spoken about without precision. I think that's what I meant. If I said it's misunderstood, I misspoke. I meant that it's aggrandized and it's spoken about without precision. I see. And so what is your take then on like double slit experiment? You know, what do you think is going on with the original double slit experiment showing, you know, wave interference, but then when you supposedly measure it. So I guess the measurement problem is what I'm asking.
When you measure it, now you're affecting it into a particle where you can actually change the behavior. What is your take on the double slit experiments, the whole gamut of them? I'm not sure. There's different theories, so there's non-local hidden variables, that's Bohmian, in which case you have a particle and a wave, so that one would be correct to say. But it's not a particle-wave duality. I don't know why that's a duality. Anyway,
Because duality has a specific meaning in physics and math. Okay, regardless, there's different interpretations of quantum mechanics. So there's Bohmian, which is called the pilot wave theory, I believe. There's also orchestrated objective reduction, which is Penrose's theory, which integrates consciousness and quantum mechanics. So it says that once the once there's a sufficient distance of in some other space in some belief, he used something called a quote unquote, symplectic measure. But again, these are all just buzzwords that they mean nothing.
They mean something. Trust me, they mean something, but they mean nothing currently because I'm not explaining what they mean. So there's some metric that you can define the distance between two wave functions. Once that's of a quote-unquote sufficient distance, then it collapses. So that's orchestrated objective reduction, then there's cubism, which I would like to explore. But the point is, you ask, so what's my interpretation of the measurement problem? I don't know. There may not be a problem. Sabine Hassenfelder sees that there's a problem.
I don't see it necessarily as a problem, but I would like to catalog the different interpretations of quantum mechanics so that I can get a grasp of it. Yeah, it seems like there's, and you have the Mach interferometers. Yeah, it's very interesting. I went down a long rabbit hole of all those experiments, et cetera. But you mentioned one, you mentioned Penrose, but I was following Bernardo Castro for a while. I was watching a bunch of his analytical, analytic idealism,
and interview that he was on your show as well. Because you mentioned there about consciousness, maybe. And I did have one video based on experiments by Dean Radin, where basically they did an experiment at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where it's the double-slit experiment. And they have meditators, if you're not familiar with, they have meditators basically imagining which path the photon takes, right?
And they have statistical analysis saying that this affected actually the instruments, right? This is the actual experiment, which if true is remarkable, I think. But basically that goes back to what is your take on talking to Bernardo Castro, analytic idealism, consciousness as a base construct. What would that entail for physics in your mind?
For me, it doesn't entail much because physics is a branch of science and science, in my interpretation, is agnostic when it comes to metaphysical claims. It's instrumental and Bernardo also espouses this. He says that nothing about science will change from his interpretation. There's no need to throw out science. Maybe it's incorrect to say nothing will change, but one doesn't need to throw out the project or enterprise of science because science catalogs
and says if one measures this or if one operates like this on a system then here's what we're going to observe. Nothing about that changes. It's not clear to me what aspect of science needs to be altered if consciousness is fundamental or not. I guess my non-expert view on it would be basically the opposite of a materialism view. Basically our understanding, again I'll paraphrase,
is basically from Einstein is that you have space-time essentially, right? And gravity essentially comes from the curvature, if you will, of space-time. So it's basically like the physical effects come from the actual structure of the universe or the nature of it. So I guess in my mind, if it was consciousness as the basis, then that would underlay space-time. So basically, if space-time is your basis of what
We're seeing everything we're seeing. It's kind of like you're you're looking for the wrong thing, I guess. Or if you're looking for consciousness, you would do different experiments to try and test. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. So you're saying, look, it takes as an assumption, something called space time that seems to be mind, quote unquote, independent. Well, what if it was mind dependent, then space time derives from something that's like consciousness? Yeah, sure, sure.
It's already being looked at what is space time fundamentally. So there's I'm sure you're aware. Well, it goes down your natural units again, you know, your video you made on natural units really just, you know, diving down drilling down to really what is the base assumption that we kind of rely everything on. And I kind of feel like in physics, it's, it's at this, you know, Einstein, Einstein has this general space time paradigm, if you will, and it's
I would think it would be very difficult for anyone to say that they think Einstein could be incorrect on this. I think maybe physicists won't even mention it because now they would have to say just by proposing it that Einstein is wrong. They would have to accept some level of hubris or
I hear that mainly from Eric Weinstein. I don't see that as being true at all. Many physicists, firstly, physicists have huge egos. If anything, they're compelled to say that Einstein is incorrect. And you see this from, I'm sure you get plenty of PDFs sent to you saying, oh, Chris, I understand how UAPs are formulated or how they interact or how they have a propulsion mechanism that isn't reactionless and so on. And they say Einstein was wrong. People like to say Einstein was wrong.
So I don't see that. And also, almost all of physics today is outside of what Einstein... So I don't see this as being true that people are hesitant to say Einstein was wrong. I don't see that. I don't know where that's coming from. I know Eric Weinstein says that, but I just don't see that. And maybe he doesn't even say that. Maybe I'm incorrect. I guess it's my own limit, you know, if I go to say anything, especially not as like a scientist. You know, I studied material science. I have a degree in
Basically, chemistry, material science from 20 years ago. But if I go and say any, you know, I can't say Einstein's wrong as a non-scientist. You know, I can imagine if you're a scientist to say it. I don't know. It seems like it would just take a lot of gall to go and say it. I know I've been limited on my own channel to be labeled pseudoscience, which I'm sure already labeled. But, you know, to say that space time is incorrect as kind of the basis of reality and consciousness is, I think it's a, you know, paradigm shifting concept. That's all.
Coming up on the Toad channel, perhaps by the time this is released, is an interview with a physicist named Ashtakar. So he's responsible for loop quantum gravity and loop quantum cosmology. He's also mentioned by Salvatore Pius. He's highly respected by Salvatore Pius. In fact, I think that Sal said, Kurt, read Conversations on Quantum Gravity. It's a huge, it's a book that catalogs different interviews with physicists. Read all of them, except Ashtakar's and save his for last.
Because he thought that it was the best interview on that compilation. Okay, Ashdekar said something interesting, which I love, I agree with. He said that, and he's a spiritual person, which is rare to find a physicist or a mathematician who is. Actually, that may not be true, but it's rare to find a public, someone who will publicly admit it.
Ashtakar said, you'll find physicists, you'll find mathematicians who will say, look, Einstein was wrong. That's fine. But you will almost never find a spiritual person who will say Buddha was wrong. And that's what's different about science is that you're willing to say that the heroes of the past were incorrect. But it's rare to find someone who will say, well, the person who said that the ego was an illusion is incorrect or whatever it may be. People tend to just adopt it because it's been said by ancient people.
What is your take on James Webb? Is it going to allow us to peer through? Is there going to be a lot of changes in our theoretical physics?
I keep being told by someone who is interested in the Toll channel doing well that I need to cover the James Webb telescope because it gets plenty of views. I'm so uninterested in it. I don't see what the fascination is, but I haven't looked into it. So it looks to me it's like an upgrade of the Hubble telescope. So it's just a more high resolution telescope. That's as far as I can tell. Great. We get interesting images of the galaxy. I'm not a cosmologist. I'm not interested in astronomy. I'm not like Brian Keating would be more would be terribly interested in this.
I couldn't care less, but also I have an aversion to whatever is talked about in the news. Generally speaking, I feel like that I'd like to go under the, hmm, this is spiritual. Perhaps this is something I'm trying to do, but I'm not, to go under the waves into the ocean where it's calmer because on the surface it's transient. Yeah, definitely. So what does interest you? What do you do in your free time?
Are you studying UAPs all the time? Are you looking at cases or physics? You're reading theoretical physics? Almost all my time, if I'm not spending it with my wife, then I'm studying or I'm preparing for a podcast like this or a video or another podcast. It's just all studying or preparing. Excellent. Yeah, I took your physics lesson on natural units. So I had a question on there. I sent you this on email as well.
is I noticed that speed and entropy were both dimensionless constants, which I remember thinking this in growing up in university is how is it that it has no units? We're talking about a dimensionless constant. Do you think anything of speed and entropy, and I'll go on a little bit further to talk about entropy
But speed and entropy, both dimensionless constants, do you think there's anything to be taken from that about our universe or in general? When it comes to speed, it's because speed is then being referenced in relation to the speed of light. So it becomes dimensionless. That is a speed of 0.5 is 0.5 the speed of light. Whereas when it comes to entropy, entropy, it makes much more sense that it's dimensionless because it's like you're counting. So in the same way that
You're counting the number of cabinets here. It's just a number. Now also keep in mind that every physics quantity, everything that's measured is in fact dimensionless. So what do I mean by that? Well, if you say that, let's say 1.7 meters high, that's your height. Okay, what's meant by that? It means if you go to Paris, there's some meter somewhere.
It's not technically like this anymore, but it doesn't matter that there's some stick somewhere that if you take that and you stack it 1.7 times, you get your height. So it's still a ratio, which ratios are dimensionless. Everything in physics is dimensionless. Oh, everything. Okay. Everything in physics is technically dimensionless, even when it comes with the units, because the units are just telling you a ratio. So relationship. No, it makes sense. It's a relationship.
So if you say something's five kilograms, then it means you've measured it such that the ratio of the weight of what you have here, which is five kilograms, to the kilogram in Paris, or wherever it is, I'm just saying Paris, it is technically the kilograms outside of Paris in a vault, for whatever reason. It's five of those. It's a ratio. Yeah, everything I guess is a ratio.
Well, try to think of something that's not. If you do, then you can convince yourself, oh, actually, I'm speaking about a ratio. I'm speaking about a dimensionless constant or dimensionless quantity or ratio. Yeah, it makes sense because it's also I consider how the brain works is basically it has to start from some anchor point. You know, base each thought actually has to start from somewhere is your base paradigm. And then it goes from there to somewhere else. You know, that's basically
Interesting. But for, I guess, back to entropy, I think of entropy and I relate it to my theory, essentially. I have a theory of everything, right? I think everybody does these days. But for entropy is basically a ratio, kind of what you mentioned, of disorder. And I kind of, I think of it in terms of chemistry. I know physics and chemistry define it, entropy slightly differently. I guess the way I would define it is
decreasing order, you know, if you have a chemical reaction, entropy is going to describe which direction the reaction goes, you know, the think of it as water flowing down gravity, you know, basically, it's the where your where your chemical process is going to go, because that is least entropy, right? It's kind of how we define all of our chemical reactions, at least in chemistry. So entropy is going to be
They say timeskeeper. Another way to think of it is if you look at a video of the planets, if you imagine you're just looking at the planets with their moons orbiting around the Sun, our solar system, and then you actually play that video backwards, no physical processes are actually broken. You couldn't tell, I guess is the way to think about it. You couldn't physically tell.
If it's going forward or backwards in time, whereas entropy, from my understanding, is the only really kind of thing, I guess, where it depends on time. You know, if you break the glass, you know, if I drop a glass off my table here and it shatters, now we play it backwards in time, you know, you'll know. Right. And so I guess so how I define that and I use it for definition of life is basically that life
does that, it orders matter in its local surroundings into the future. So if you look back at civilization, you would be able to sell which direction it goes, I guess. And so that's kind of how I define life and my theory of everything. And it's kind of a specific theory of everything, that life, we can identify it by ordering matter. And so when von Leeuwenhoek
You know, he's back in 1623. He's the Dutch guy, a Dutch scientist back in the 1600s. You know, Galileo made the telescope. So basically Galileo's trying to convince the kings, right, to look at the moons of Jupiter. Lou Owenhoek actually, he used this proprietary technology he invented to make little lenses to look microscopic. So he basically discovered microscopic life back in the early 1600s. And he discovered bacteria and sperm cells.
And I think, you know, thinking back to that is, you know, I think they would be surprised by the order that they saw, the little tiny machines, you know, little biological machines working at that little level. Whereas we would expect to see just like dust, you know, just dirt laying around or, you know, basically entropy gone wild, right? It's disordered, a disordered system. But when he looked down with a little microscope, you know, he saw ordered systems.
And so basically, that would be the argument for life is that it's at size dimensions. So we can physically see the dimensions, but it's size. So as we look down at microscopes, microbial life essentially, we're seeing order. And then if we look up now, potentially at the James Webb images, you ask why are people enthralled by it? For me, I kind of am seeing at a different scale, like a vastly different scale,
is like these little amoebas, you know, or there's some kind of order, there's like order going on out there at vastly different time scales, maybe from us in size. But could it maybe that could be life, you know, we're just surrounded by it's so obvious, or it's so ubiquitous, we don't expect it. So yeah, that's the whole theory of my whole theory of everything is that we're actually in a system in a living system.
Because if you look down at your cells in your body, right, there's little cells that born and die into your body all the time, they have little jobs, they fulfill their functions. But when we look up to our level of life, we stop here, right? We're like, okay, human is the largest form of life on our planet. But then you look at companies, organizations, nations, you know, my argument is the nation is actually a real living organism on the earth. It's made up of
Neural cells, humans are basically stem cells in a much larger organism. That is the whole essential theory of life there. It's ordered life, we can see the dimensions based on size, and that would imply some sort of frequency. If size is based on frequency of motion, then you could say that maybe it's smaller dimensions, you have higher energy, etc.
Maybe these UAP events could be tuning into some sort of frequencies. Maybe they can change your size, right? Imagine you're like Ant-Man. You know, if you want to get to the other side of the universe, what if you can change your frequency to go super big, right? And then you go super small again, some other part of the universe, you know, some other galaxy. I don't know. That's crazy stuff. But the general theory is I think you can see it clearly on the on at our level. If you look, it's just nations, right?
Nations act like organisms. They breed, they kill, they die, age, etc. Anyway, I'll stop talking at this point. That's my whole theory.
Could it be possible, Kurt? Could it be possible? Yeah. So when asking a question of is something possible, I would say generally the answer is yes. But unless one has a contradiction and you're using classical logic. But if what you're asking is, is it plausible? Well, that depends on a number of factors, including prior assumptions and so on. So I think it would be preferable if you explain in a bit greater detail. So let me ask you a couple of questions if you know my answer.
Okay, how is one defining order? Is it just you look and you have an intuitive notion of order or using entropy to define order? So it's entropy. So basically one example is the gravity. So the argument for dark matter, right? The argument for dark matter right now is that there's more
Mass, right? 75% mass or 77% more mass than we're expecting in galaxies. At the same point, you could be arguing that what we're seeing is we're seeing effects, right? We're seeing galaxies held together where we should expect them to be flying apart. So in that case, we're expecting
We're expecting disorder from all our math problems. All of our science shows us that these things should be flying off into space. The stars can't spin that quickly. So in that case, that would be order from what we're not expecting from our physical laws. So I define it with entropy.
Okay, so I don't know if you're aware, but this is something I've said quite a few times. It's not just me who says this, but entropy and order and disorder should be disembroiled. They're generally intertwined.
When we're speaking just you and I but technically if you take a look at coffee and then you pour milk into it and it looks turbulent initially and you say well that's more disordered then you stir it and then it's uniform then you say now it's ordered actually that state where it's ordered has the highest entropy whereas before with the turbulence it had a lower much lower entropy yes decreasing entropy so life decreases entropy
Okay. Locally, right? Locally. Yeah. Okay, but in that case there, was that life that decreased the entropy, or could that happen if it just sloshed around outside in a boat? Because then... Well, that's what we were expecting, right? I guess, so you're expecting when you mix... So in your example, you're expecting you mix the coffee with the milk, right? You're expecting it all to mix. You know, the same as the galaxy, we're expecting the galaxy to spin, just like we assume it will.
But what happens is the coffee goes to one side and the milk goes to the other. Or the coffee ends up making little neuronal structures inside the milk. Basically, that would be something we're not expecting.
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. Visit hensonshaving.com slash everything.
If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart. Plus 100 free blades when you head to H E N S O N S H A V I N G dot com slash everything and use the code everything. So the and this is where physics and chemistry have reversed their their entropy signs are reversed.
is from what I remember looking at the different the ways physics identifies. I know what you're saying. So there's something called free energy or Gibbs free energy and that's minimized. Yeah, they have negative or positive. What I'm saying is, yeah, you mix the milk with the coffee. So we're expecting based on our law of second law of thermodynamics that it's going to mix. So in this case, life would basically be the bacteria on the top.
that creates some scum or something or creates some other structure in there that we're not expecting. So bacteria would be perfect, right? Because I drink Nescafe, a really terrible coffee because it's fast. Oh, same with me. Yeah, I'm not a coffee snob at all and I don't want to be. I don't know about you, but it keeps me, I would lose all my money because it would all go to coffee. Coffee is fairly expensive.
I understand what you're saying. That's the general idea, is how I would define entropy and how life does it.
The point is life would be different in everything else in that we're kind of like timekeepers and we would be moving, providing some sort of order to our local area, local universe. Maybe that's just what life does. Okay. So here's some thoughts that occurred to me. So number one, earlier you said entropy depends on time.
That's not entirely clear. In fact, many think it's the other way around, that time is a macroscopic phenomenon that occurs because of the second law, rather than the second law being dependent on time. Okay, so that's what occurs. So what is it? Can you say that again? Sorry. Yeah, that arrow of time comes about because of the second law, rather than the second law being dependent on time. It's called the entropic arrow of time, entropic as in entropy.
I guess my issue is only with using the word order and entropy. That's my only issue is that I see this as a conflation that I don't think should occur.
I could talk about this for a while, but there's no point. It's known in physics that entropy and order don't necessarily correlate. So I can send you a video on that. Perhaps that means nothing to the theories. Perhaps it's just more poetic to say order, in which case that's fine. But to then give a concrete definition by tying it with entropy, well then don't even use the word order, because if you're not saying anything new, just use the word entropy and stick with that. Or don't even use the word entropy and stick with order.
Yeah, exactly. I tried to make it as clean as possible, so just picked entropy decreasing. But again, I'm not sure if that's even the correct way to consider it or if that's watertight by any means. Yeah, here's something else that occurs to me. So free will seems to contradict with determinism. However, I don't know, do you know what a finite probabilistic tree is? Imagine you have a
A graph. So you have some points, some points. So I'm trying to, I'm sorry, let me, let me think about how to explain. Okay. So if you have a, I'll just say the theorem and then I will try to explain it. Cool. So there's something called a finite probabilistic tree and there's information lost on loss on it. So if you have right here, there's, imagine this, this is a node and then my five fingers are, ah, yes. Okay. Let's imagine I have six fingers.
Each of them has a probability one sixth, one sixth, one sixth. This can, this can be, you roll a die, then it can land on any one of these. Cool. But you can easily imagine that there's other distributions. So maybe it's a weighted die and this one has five sixths of a probability and then the rest are distributed here. So this is a die that you use to cheat. Okay. So entropy is a way of taking a probability distribution.
and then assigning a single number to it. So you've taken a whole function, then you've given it one number. Anytime you have random data and you do deterministic processing of the random data, then you decrease entropy anytime that you do that. And so to me, if free will, which is associated with life, which is associated with non-determinism, it should mean that you increase entropy, but then it doesn't. The point of that was to say that you have life and I imagine life doesn't work in a deterministic way. If it does,
Then it would be obvious to me why it decreases entropy because any, like I said, deterministic processing of random data will decrease entropy. But then if there's an element of free will, well, then that goes against that. So that's just what occurs to me. There's not even a question there. I'm just telling you the thoughts that come to my mind. That's cool. I'll send you more information about that because it's not as complicated as I'm saying verbally. It's easy when you look at it, you'll be, ah, okay, I understand.
Yeah, I mean, I think it is using entropy. Yeah, I mean, obviously, it's key to the key to the argument, but it doesn't necessarily mean it defines it, you know, because the argument is that life organizes matter into new forms and replicates, you know, and replicates into the future. So, however, that can be defined. If you don't mind, I'm not trying to poke holes. I'm just telling you what occurs to me. No, I 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 Brooklyn. 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
My mind is generally the devil's advocate.
What's meant when you say that there are different dimensions? So are you saying that there's different scales or is the word dimension meaning something here? Yeah. So I guess you hear all these theories about, you know, string theories, multiverses, different dimensions. But I would relate it to, I think we can actually physically see other dimensions and we use lenses as our breakthrough technology, really.
to bend light, whatever this light stuff is that we're talking about, to actually bend it to peer into the other dimensions. So I guess another dimension would be at your level, the person that is you zoom down to one of your, imagine zooming down to one of your cells. It lives its little life. It's born into your body. It's trained in certain areas.
So you have your cardiovascular system that's pumping around, you have your waste system, your energy, your neural networks of your brain. So if you zoom down to that level of that cell, I consider that another dimension of life that is you or me, essentially. But it's at such another order of magnitude smaller than we could possibly imagine.
And I think the time also changes. The life cycle of yourselves is very fast. So as you move up in size, if you imagine size would be our dimension of life. So that's how I would relate it as dimensions. So at this dimension, I'm still born and die into a system. As soon as you're born, you have a social security number, you have a family, you have a job, you need to go fulfill certain requirements in the community.
So I think of that, if we can consider that as a possibility of another dimension of life, where we're actually inside of a larger living, actually breathing organism. If you think of any nation, I bring up Russia versus Ukraine. If you look at how the decision is made to actually invade Ukraine, I think it's an emotional one, like an animal. We even talk about it, Russia invaded Ukraine. We mentioned Putin.
right? But Putin not in that position, you don't care, right? It's, it's specifically that man in that position, right, who was created from that country. So you even look at our decision making processes, you know, in our in our Congresses, it's a neural network, essentially, you know, the brains, if you look at our roads, how we dispose of waste, if you look at our defenses, the permeable membrane of our borders. Yeah, so I think in that case, really, to think about Russia, Ukraine is this
living organism thinks it's going to die, right? I think this Ukraine is being removed from it. So it's just like an emotional, emotional response, you know, and we see it, we can't understand, you know, how could nations do this? You know, I think there are like non sentient organisms, you know, or, yeah, so that's part of my UAP society is just to try and get those nations to realize that we're here. And it hurts.
So that's the general what I see and then I try and put it down into a theory that I can relate or try and test. The idea is can we test for this stuff? Can you find statistical models for why nations, is there a nation life cycle? Is there any validity to it, to the theory? That's what I would like to test. To be able to define it and then actually try and test it as provable.
I don't proclaim that it's true. I think it could be true. Have you heard of group selection? Is that like herd theory for genetic evolution? I don't know what herd theory is. Yeah, I don't know. What's group selection? So group selection is saying
So Richard Dawkins would say that there's the selfish gene and that it's individual selection. So it's me against you. But then there's the group, which is that we're part of your Portugal. So then you can think of it in terms of countries. So groups of people are competing with other groups. And because of these dynamics, you have different selective pressures. Well, that may play a part in terms of the human species against other species or in terms of our planet against another planet, potentially.
or inside of our cells. So there seems to be cooperation here because well, our bodies seem to be group selected at some level because our livers don't just replicate or any cell in our body doesn't just replicate at the cost of the rest of the body. That's called cancer that would destroy all of it. So it noted recognizes when I say recognizes obviously maybe it's not sentient like you mentioned in the same way, but it recognizes
in terms of behavior, it recognizes that it's a part of something larger and so it plays its proper role. That's called group selection. It's controversial in evolutionary biology, but it's not, it's not
It seems to me to be quite clear that there's at least some element of group selection. David Sloan Wilson is someone who is a proponent of this. Anyhow, the reason I mention this is that it sounds like what you're referring to is akin to group selection. And so when you say that there are different dimensions, to me, let me just say some other buzzwords. In physics, there's something called an effective theory. So an effective theory is, well, there's
There's quantum mechanics, but then you don't predict how to build a cabinet from quantum mechanics. Instead, what you do is you have you say that quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics.
and then from that actually that's even false that's one path and then you can take quantum mechanics to chemistry and then to Newtonian mechanics and then you can build well you don't even use Newtonian mechanics to build this but essentially there are effective theories at which there are different layers of abstraction so we go down as a reductionist and we say okay what's the most fundamental is what we zoom into microscopically we say that's what builds the rest of the layers that we see
But then there are these different layers that seem to have their own laws that are not, well, maybe they're predictable, but they're not readily predictable from a lower layer. So again, an example would be chemistry. You don't predict chemistry from string theory. You go string theory to quantum mechanics, even that's dubious, who knows if that can be done, but you go string theory to quantum mechanics to then chemistry, and then you build up these emergent properties. Emergence is another word.
So these are some buzzwords that people can look up. Effective theory emergence. Okay, sounds like what you're saying.
is that there are different levels, like the galactic level, the nation level, the interpersonal level, the financial level, then the cellular level, and then the atomic level, and so on. They have their own structure to them. They have their own laws. Maybe the laws are predictable going one layer up to one layer up, but we don't even need to go down that route. We can just say they seem to operate on their own laws, and that's what you're calling a different dimension when you go from one to the next.
We'll stop it here right where Kurt basically just reads back my theory, understood everything, and added his own points. So amazing. We'll go further into that on part two of next week. So don't miss that. Kurt relays some emotional things he went through, some issues he's had, some difficulties lately. He goes through that. We talk about that as well.
as well as being YouTubers in our own competition. Like you mentioned, there are several creators. Well, almost every creator who's quote unquote larger than you will never mention you because they don't, they want to squash you and they want to bring themselves up. So it's competition. And I was seeing that firstly, I see that in myself, but I also know that I, I wish Joe Rogan or Lex Freeman or someone higher than me, maybe not them. Like they're way, way higher than me.
But someone higher than me, at least, would once or twice mention me. That would be great. And no one, almost, I don't think there's a single person who has. And so I thought, you know what, there are some creators that I like, that are in my space, my space as in consciousness, math, physics, even UFOs and so on, that have a small subscriber count, like 15,000 or less.
What's up, guys? Welcome to the channel. I'm Chris Leiter, retired F-16 pilot. This is a part two interview with Kurt Jaimungal.
He's a filmmaker from Toronto and for the past two years he's been running an amazing channel called Theories of Everything with Kurt Jaimungal and he's been delving deep long-form interviews with many physicists, scientists, people dedicated to consciousness.
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 Brooklyn. 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
Physics and from my point of view into UAPs, unidentified aerial phenomena. Like myself, Kurt has fallen into this rabbit hole of UAPs where it's just curious, man. We're just both very curious people.
I've been a huge fan of his Theories of Everything YouTube channel, learned so much from there, and I've been wanting to communicate with him just to interface with him, and we finally were able to make it happen, and he did not disappoint. If you haven't checked out part one, go ahead and check that out. Otherwise, for this one, we talked through group selection theory, basically get Kurt's idea on my own theory of everything. He brings out some other great points I didn't know about quantum mechanics, theoretical
Thanks for being here. Smash that like button if you do like this content and consider subscribing to get notifications in the future. Now onto Kurt Jaimungal.
Chris Lado, welcome to Lado Files. Is there any validity to it, to the theory? That's what I would like to test. To be able to define it and then actually try and test it as provable. I don't proclaim that it's true. I think it could be true. Have you heard of group selection?
Is that like herd theory for genetic evolution? I don't know what herd theory is. What's group selection? Group selection is saying
So Richard Dawkins would say that there's the selfish gene and that it's individual selection. So it's me against you. But then there's the group, which is that we're part of your Portugal. So then you can think of it in terms of different countries. So groups of people are competing with other groups. And because of these dynamics, you have different selective pressures. Well, that may play a part in terms of the human species against other species or in terms of our planet against another planet, potentially.
or inside of our cells. There seems to be cooperation here because our bodies seem to be group selected at some level because our livers don't just replicate or any cell in our body doesn't just replicate at the cost of the rest of the body. That's called cancer that would destroy all of it. So it noted it recognizes when I say recognizes obviously maybe it's not sentient like you mentioned in the same way, but it recognizes
In terms of behavior, it recognizes that it's a part of something larger. And so it plays its proper role. That's called group selection. It's controversial in evolutionary biology, but it's not obscene. It seems to me to be quite clear that there's at least at least some elements of group selection. David Sloan Wilson is someone who is a proponent of this. Anyhow, the reason I mentioned this is that it sounds like what you're referring to is akin to group selection. And so when you say that there are different dimensions to me, let me just
say some other buzzwords in physics there's something called an effective theory so an effective theory is there's quantum mechanics but then you don't predict how to build a cabinet from quantum mechanics instead what you do is you have you say that quantum mechanics reduces to newtonian mechanics
and then from that actually that's even false that's one path and then you can take quantum mechanics to chemistry and then to Newtonian mechanics and then you can build well you don't even use Newtonian mechanics to build this but essentially there are effective theories at which there are different layers of abstraction so we go down as a reductionist and we say okay what's the most fundamental is what we zoom into microscopically we say that's what builds the rest of the layers that we see
but then there are these different layers that seem to have their own laws that are not well maybe they're predictable but they're not readily predictable from a lower layer so again an example would be chemistry you don't predict chemistry from string theory you go string theory to quantum mechanics even that's dubious who knows if that can be done but you go string theory to quantum mechanics to then chemistry
And then you build up these emergent properties. Emergence is another word. So these are some buzzwords that people can look up. Effective theory emergence. Okay, sounds like what you're saying.
is that there are different levels, like the galactic level, the nation level, the interpersonal level, the financial level, then the cellular level, and then the atomic level, and so on. They have their own structure to them. They have their own laws. Maybe the laws are predictable going one layer up to one layer up, but we don't even need to go down that route. We can just say they seem to operate on their own laws, and that's what you're calling a different dimension when you go from one to the next.
Is that correct or? Yeah, you hit it right on basically. Yeah. Okay. All right. Just wondering if Yeah, excellent. Okay. Yeah, that's it group theory group selection. Yeah, I was he I'm a huge Richard Dawkins fan And I was kind of disappointed to see that he doesn't believe in it. It seems like he's like he mentioned not like this David Sloan Yeah, Dawkins seemed to think that it's just based on the selfish gene Stops there doesn't go on to pass much past phenotypes
Yeah, exactly. You hit it right on. And the idea is if you, you know, if you can look back through history, I kind of imagine like the first tribes of humans, if you imagine a like a microbe, you know, it's just a single cell, basic, just one family of humans, you know, if you imagine little humans going out and gaining resources from the environment, and then you just fast forward, right, a civilization, the organisms, like you say, grow, keep growing. Now we have
Giant nation states cover the whole earth made of many organelles. If you look at Walmart, Walmart is never going to die on its own. Somebody would have to kill Walmart and you're not going to kill it. There's a lot of people wanting to keep Walmart alive at all costs. That's the idea is that everything we see around us is life. We dictate nature as something separate from ourselves but I guess I've always just looked at it as
as a part of it. Yeah, the size dimension is exactly like you said. And then the final point would be, it is based on size. And then if we can go down to, if you're based off consciousness or something like that, then essentially it's all frequencies. If you can imagine size is some way, it's also frequency. So now, could it just be frequencies of relation? And that is, but what we see is we perceive it as different size dimensions.
So here's some thoughts. So one is when it comes to these different dimensions, are the dimensions clear cut or do they bleed into one another? I think it must bleed. And you mentioned it well is one theory based on this model would be as you get further and further away, like you mentioned, as you go one level up, one level down, it's close enough
But I kind of think is there like, you know, when you look in a pool and there's a refraction index, you know, do you just get so far away in dimensions that you just can't get there from here? So so it's actually maybe the world of quantum, the quantum world is not necessarily so different. It's just our our view of it. Our perception is so different that we can't even relate, you know, that it's unrelatable or we see such different physical effects.
Yeah, I do think that much of the mystery with quantum mechanics, I don't want to say overplayed, but perhaps overemphasized, maybe overplayed and then tied to consciousness because there is, you know, I don't like the more Richard Dawkins, sorry, not Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson's and Michael Shermers, who would say, well, look, mystery is quantum mechanics, the mystery is consciousness, therefore they're connected. Yeah, that's a that's a fool's errand. Yeah, that's a straw man of theirs.
There is some correctness to that. And the reason why I say that is imagine if there are some banal theories of quantum mechanics that don't have any of these strange properties to them. Now, let's imagine they turn out to be correct. Let's imagine that just like the photoelectric effect, which seemed who the heck knows what's going on here.
at the time, maybe not only lasted a few years, but whatever. Imagine it lasted 200 years, and then people started tying consciousness to that. And then the photoelectric effect was, oh well, actually there are photons.
Okay, well, perhaps you don't want to tie it so closely to quantum mechanics because of quantum mechanics turns out to have some insipid interpretation or some pedestrian interpretation. Then the point is that
There is, so for example, you don't need complex numbers in quantum mechanics. Some people think so, but it turns out there are real formulations of quantum mechanics. So there's something called the real geometric algebraic formulation.
And then there's the Hilbert Schmidt construction instead of the standard. Again, these are just buzzwords for they sound like buzzwords because no one unless someone who's interested and wants to look it up. The point is that there are other formulations of quantum mechanics that aren't so mysterious. So, for example, classical mechanics is based on something called symplectic geometry, quote unquote, symplectic geometry. It turns out you can formulate quantum mechanics symplectically as a geometric theory.
And there's a paper that I have actually I was reading it or starting to read it. Yeah, I sent you a question on that of because you mentioned your paths while you're looking that up. You mentioned the Newtonian physics, basically, and then you can branch off of that with quantum mechanics and you can branch off of classical theories. And I saw that and again, I wanted to ask you and it sounds like it wasn't correct. But that the idea was that
imaginary numbers useful for math right cosine and sine you can do shortcuts that it was the only way to describe quantum mechanics that essentially the argument is quantum mechanics doesn't work unless imaginary numbers can be used unless you can use the square root of negative one but it sounds like that's not correct no no
It turns out that it makes certain aspects extremely simple if one uses imaginary numbers. But then there are other constructions. So again, I don't know how to explain this without being pedantic mathematically, in which case I'll have to then say some terms which are extremely unfamiliar. But many people are interested, so if you like I could go into it, but then it would just be almost like gibberish. How long does it take?
If you get rid of the complex numbers, it turns out there's still something called a complex structure that lurks underneath. There's a mathematical definition of what's called an almost complex structure, and then you get a complex structure that still lurks underneath, at least in the Hilbert Schmidt construction. But then there's geometric
algebra which I haven't looked into but apparently there's a geometric algebraic approach which makes the complex numbers look like a crutch and that is much simpler if one looks at it from a real geometric algebraic construction I don't know it I need to look it up what's generally done for people who are interested is that you have a space of observables okay and then you take that space of observables and you turn it into what's called a C star algebra
And then you represent it with linear operators on a complex Hilbert space that I think is called the Neimark-Gelfand construction. That's one way and then you get the states are complex wave functions or density operators. But then the other way is to take the
space of observables and keep them as real and give them a certain structure called the Jordan algebraic structure or Lee Jordan algebraic structure. And that's called the Hilbert Schmidt construction that I keep referencing. Okay. And that needs no complex numbers at all. No, no. Okay. So the reason why that you'll see that people who are the popularizers of science, they like to, they like to keep certain aspects of physics at a mystical or mystifying esoteric level. And I don't,
What I like about your show is that you try to, or you would try and succeed at breaking down engineering and physics so that people can understand. And I see that people, and I keep picking on this one person poorly. I feel bad, Neil deGrasse Tyson. But I feel like, Neil, if you're watching this, please, I'm just using you as a scapegoat.
that I feel like they just want to be mind blowing and evoke awe and show that the world of physics is inscrutable and it makes no sense. And one of the hidden reasons, I think the unconscious reason is because then you look at them and you think, wow, you study what's so abstruse while you must be extremely intelligent. So I think it's that smart people were only rewarded for their intelligence and astuteness and generally not because they're physically strong,
And so later on in life, that's all they know for status. And so they try to keep that. And I think that's an unconscious motivator for why the public is baffled. It's like a magic trick. So you unconsciously and ineluctably ascribe status and intelligence to someone who's doing a magic trick. So whether it's ledger domain or some unfathomable theory, you unconsciously ascribe sagaciousness or
I really liked how you went down to the base assumptions in your physical. That really resonated with me. I've been looking into
I actually wrote a book a few years ago. It was a fitness book, but in it, I went into the science of calories, which I think I'll just mention quickly is if you look at our current calorie system is we determine how much calories are in food by burning it in an at what bomb calorimeter, you know, essentially they burn it. But if you look at just basic biochemistry, you know, your body is at room temperature.
You know, there's no combustion, there's no combustion products, etc. Well, there is combustion, right? But what it uses the Krebs cycle, the respiration cycle, right, which uses ATP. The whole point is it's this very different process. You know, your body does not burn food, you know, we don't burn calories. And I just think that is as a base assumption that our society has,
And yet we can't determine diets, and we can't determine calories, and we have many people out of shape and fat, obviously overweight. There's some issue with the food system, but our base assumption on this is just so wrong. I think basically you have just too wide a pattern of what can happen. If your base assumption goes wrong, you're starting out already on the wrong foot. So I really respected that you went to those numbers.
And maybe now is a great point to bring up your channel that you wanted to bring up about how to actually. Ah, yeah, yeah. So this is being announced here first on Chris's show. Sure. There's a mathematician or a mathematics channel called 3Blue1Brown, if people want to look that up, 3Blue1Brown. What that is, is it's a math explainer video, sorry, math explainer channel, where this
creator, his name is Grant Sanderson, made these beautiful illustrations of ordinarily extremely academic and abstruse mathematical concepts that are difficult to understand, but then he animates them and shows you something that's, let's say, at a third year level, but explains it to you in high school.
And then last year he came up with a contest called the Summer of Math Exposition and said, hey, if anyone else wants to do something similar, there's already creators, but hey, if you're on the fence and you've wanted to do something, explain some mathematical concept,
But you have no, you need some extra motivation, then submit to the Summer of Math Exposition and you may win a prize. But the point is simply to get more exposition of mathematics out there. And he had about a thousand submissions. So I contacted Grant and I said, I love what you did with that contest and I would like to do something similar, but for physics and consciousness.
I don't want you to feel like I'm copying you, though I am, but I don't want to take away from your views or if you don't want me to do it for whatever reason, let me know. He said, just go for it. So I managed to get a sponsor and they'll be giving some cash prizes, the same exact sponsor, the same exact amount as grants, three blue, one brown. So that is it's a thousand dollars to the top five people each. So it's five thousand in total. So one thousand to each of the top five. And then you also get recognition from the theories of everything platform and maybe some other platforms to
If you do a physics explainer video, so you take some intricate physics concept, like let's say, what is Yang-Mills theory? Hopefully they're more advanced. I would like it to be at the upper year undergrad or graduate level because the rest are just explained ad nauseum. Then submit. There will be some link at some point or consciousness. So let's say you want to talk about Donald Hoffman's theories, but do so a bit more rigorously. Then this contest is coming up and I think there's about 50 days or so from this point between
I think it'll be mid September when the contest will finalize. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Like, well, thanks for allowing this to be the platform where that's announced first. Oh, that's great, man. Thanks for announcing it. So basically competition, they have 50 days. Is there a length account? What's the length of these? Yeah, it's about the contest rules. Yeah. Oh, do you mean like the duration of the video? How long is that supposed to be? Or is it a video? Yeah, what is it? Yeah, all of them have to be YouTube videos. All of them have to be YouTube videos.
So that's unlike grants. Grants allowed blogs. I just want it to just be YouTube videos. Okay, cool. I don't know, I might have to make a submission or something. Sounds like it's going to be pretty rigorous.
Yeah, feel free and also use it as an opportunity to flesh out your own ideas. Like if you're watching this and you have some toe, you're welcome to submit your own toe. Don't thrust your toe. That's like a saying on the toe challenge. The stereotypical vegan quote unquote thrusts their veganism. So basically don't be that for your toe. It's okay. Explain your toe and trust your toe, but don't thrust it.
Or explain Wolfram's physics, if you're interested in Wolfram's physics project, and you want to take one aspect of it to understand it some more. So what does it say about black holes? Or how are particles akin to quote unquote black holes in branchial space? What is branchial space? You can make a video just on that.
I didn't think it'd be crazy to have a toe or something of my theory or some analysis of it or some angle
Yeah, and I was thinking of this, I'll keep here with you, Chris. I was thinking, should I do it physics, consciousness and UFOs? But to me, the Toe channel is not about UFOs. It's tangentially about UFOs, because UFOs are related to physics and consciousness, at least they seem to be. So it could be that later I do a contest for UFOs.
Just specifically. So if you want to do, for example, Panda Koala, Red Panda Koala has a beautiful dog. Like that guy would just win. I'm sorry. Red Panda is the winning all if ever there's UFO submissions. His work is pristine. Like I just got turned on him today. Actually, I didn't really. Yeah, he should be hired by by Nebula or some stream or Disney Plus or some. It's professional. I'm surprised it's free anyway.
I may do something where if you want to give your theory as to how UFOs are moving, but do so in a nice animated way and please keep some rigor in it. That's one of the criteria is rigor. So show equations, no hand waving and, and Deepak Chopra usage of the word quantum just to place quantum in there and give it some scientific readings. None of that. Anyway, that's that. That's the contest. That's cool, man.
Thank you for being a place where it can be announced. I remember right when I got turned on to your show, you had made some post. It was some questioning post that really made me think. I can't remember. I think it was on LinkedIn even. I like these things you're doing to bring out the discussion and it's cool. I'm focusing more on just trying to get hard data, how to organize our UAP society. It's an NFT project.
I was telling you about trying to get hard data. So with the few minutes we have left, I have to ask, I already mentioned I change all the time. What is your impression of the UFO phenomena at this point? Just a general impression, are you leading any direction? Do you think it's real? Do you think it's fake? What is your impression on UFOs, the phenomena?
I don't know. I think that it's real in the sense that there's something to it that isn't simply bokeh, or isn't simply a lens flare. And also, I was speaking to Mick, this is nothing against Mick, by the way, I know many people have his extreme opinions of him, and I feel bad. But anyway, Mick said that his analysis of the gimbal video, or I mixed them up, there's two, there's the, there's what? You have the gimbal, the go fast, the flare one is the old one from the Nimitz.
The one that looks akin to what you have where it says little files. That's a gimbal. Yeah, that's the gimbal. The glare, you know. So he said that that's a glare. To me, that doesn't matter if it's a glare. To me, what matters is what's behind the glare. I assume that what I'm seeing is not the actual shape of the craft. So he said, yeah, I'm not speculating as to what's behind the glare or what's precipitating it. I'm just saying that what's being shown is a glare. I'm like, okay, cool. People are calling that a debunking. I don't consider that a debunking, at least
Well, I don't. So I think that there's something there. As for what it is, I don't know. Is it a projection? Like a hologram? I don't think it's a hologram. I think there's something that you can knock on personally. Is it something from a government? I don't know. I don't know. I hope so. Personally, I hope it is. And then is it something else? Well, who knows? Who knows? I imagine in 50 years, we'll know. I imagine within 50 years, we'll know. I don't think they're all hoaxes. You think it's noble. You think the phenomena is a noble thing.
Well, as noble as anything else, so as noble as knowing that there are leopards. Like, well, what the heck is a leopard? There's still many mysteries in biology and what's a species classified as, and are leopards consciousness? There'll be many question marks that will still appear. But we feel like we have a handle on what a leopard is or what a river is. So it would be akin to that, maybe perhaps nowhere near to the same level. Maybe like a giant squid, like we see them every once in a while, but we feel like they're there, okay.
They make sense in this framework. It may also be that there's a radical change that happens in all of science, but I still feel like we will have an understanding of it, an understanding, quote unquote, within 50 years, like a drastic, whether it's disclosure or whatever it is, discloses itself rather than the government doing so. I don't think that, well, yes, maybe our conceptions of what's physical or what's banal or what's terrain needs a transformation.
But maybe not. I don't know. I really like on your channel too is you also are not afraid to go for the woo or at least to interact with it, you know, to find out, you know, because I get a lot of people writing me and saying, you know, stay away from the woo, you know, your nuts and bolts, the fighter pilot angle. And I appreciate that you just go in there.
I think we should write a science as I think science should be unbiased, right? Open minded to any possible solution. But as you've gone in there, you know, do you have a line? You know, do you know where the Wu line is? Oh, I don't have a line. I have a mental stability line that mental stability. Yeah, because it's absolutely not simple, not easy, not it's an arduous and confounding and terrifying process to study this. So someone was saying,
Yeah, it's like you go in guns blazing and I'm like, no, man, I explore toll or the theories of everything not like doom eternal. It's not like doom where you just go in. I explore like Dark Souls. I have my shield up and I'm inching forward extremely carefully.
So I am a coward and there may be towers, there may be vast lands that I'll never get to because I just can't. And I'm sorry. I say sorry to myself because I'm an extremely curious person and I want to know. But recently I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth sacrificing my sanity, my wife,
My relationship with society, it's not worth it. I also have a feeling that there's something about truth, capital T truth, not just facts, scientific facts, but some capital T truth. Okay, then the question is, well, what's the difference between those? We can get into that. I also have a feeling that capital T truth is in line in alignment with what's good and what's loving and also societal, a societal good. So then you would say, well, then someone not necessarily you, but then someone would say, well, isn't there that statement that there's nothing
healthy about functioning properly in a sick society. No, I think that statement's false. I think that there are some of these heroes like Nietzsche and Cantor who have went mad from studying. I can feel some of that. If I'm being honest, I can feel some of that. And I don't think there's anything romantic about that. I think that that's something that was a defect of theirs and we shouldn't venerate them.
I think that there's something about some people say well the story of Jesus is the story of a man in a corrupt society. I think every almost every single person Jesus interacted with loved him. It's just a few like Pharisees and some people in power not even everyone in power that despised him but I think there's something about capital T truth that is good and loving and so if I feel like what I'm studying is provoking extreme anxiety in me then I'm viewing it incorrectly so I also believe that.
I can completely relate, man. I feel the pressure. You also seem like a guy. I think you have a very high level of detail. You're not going to deliver a subpar product. When you publish, I think you probably put a lot of pressure just on yourself anyway. There's also the pressure coming from outside all the people and from supporters. I find that I get
You know, the haters, at least you know where it's coming from, but I also feel pressure from supporters to not let them down either. And then you're kind of alone, man. It's kind of like based on your subscriber count, basically, is what I found. You know, is it like, people at your level and below, you know, you can kind of relate to and talk to you, but then the higher levels like this other level, I don't know, it's very isolating. So now, man, I think it's a long term game like a marathon.
whatever sustainable you're doing a great job. I think you're kicking tons of ass. Thank you. I like that. I like that you said it's a long-term game. That's something I'm slowly shifting my mind toward because I have goals on a weekly, on a monthly basis. I need to have, well, I'm starting to have goals that are multi-year. So initially when I started toe theories of everything, I thought it was a two and a half year to three year project because I thought I could catalog all the toes by then. I was just thinking in terms of physics, like SL 10 or SL five and so on.
But then it turns out, well, it's much more vast than that. And now I've changed my estimate to seven years from this point. And so when I think in terms of that timeline, then if I miss a day, it's okay. If I need or want to spend time with my wife, I'm going to do so. I prioritize that now. Like she's, she saved my life, Chris. My wife has saved my life. Jeez. She's such a rock that if not for her, I would be adrift in
I wouldn't be here. Well, anyway. Yeah, I don't talk about my wife or family, but they're huge, you know, I mean, totally, completely. Yeah, well, dude, I would say anytime you reach out, I mean, there's not a lot of us in the YouTube game and it's extremely difficult topic.
I think that a part of me is that I'm extremely insecure. And I want to say to myself and to other people, look how seriously I take toll that I'm willing to risk my own mental stability. I think I romanticize that at an unconscious level, and I need to not do that because there's nothing that's not good. It's not good at all. And it also is not good. It's definitely not good for the capital G good.
Well, it probably isn't necessary either, you know, I mean, I think people underestimate what they can do in a long period of time, and we just overestimate what we can do in a short period of time. So I put plenty of pressure, much like yourself, I'm sure to Oh, yeah. And then you mentioned the patrons or people who are your supporters. Strangely enough, they support you because they're like, Hey, Chris, like,
I love what you're doing. Take some time off. I'm going to give you $10, $20 a month, $30 a month, $5, $1. And then for me, when people give some of their money, which they don't have to, then I feel like I need to work harder because otherwise I'm going to be squandering what you're giving me. So I get messages from people on the Patreon saying, please don't do that. But I can't help but feel like if I need to take a week off, which isn't even off, it's more like
Well, off from publishing, but I could be studying. I feel bad. I feel bad about that. And I feel like, man, I'm so far behind. All I have is I feel like I'm 15 years behind where I should be intellectually in terms of the knowledge that should be in my head. Far behind. But then there's some ego with that. Like, who the heck am I to think that? Wow, I should have known this when I was 20 or whatever it is. So there's so much conflict in me. Well, anyway, I'm tempering that slowly, even saying this out loud. Thank you, Chris. It's therapeutic.
I can totally relate, completely.
It's a super difficult topic. I think you're doing a great job, man. I'm jealous of your channel. I'm jealous of your knowledge. I'm looking through yours. I have almost no knowledge, Chris. So I was looking through your videos. You get like 20,000 hits regularly. That's difficult for me to get 20,000 hits. I get some spikes every once in a while. So you're doing better than myself, at least in terms of views. Like I'm jealous of that, man. I'm covetous. I'm a desirous person.
What's coming out later tomorrow, so Thursday or Friday, which should be out by the time this is public, is
Like you mentioned, there are several creators, well, almost every creator who's quote unquote larger than you will never mention you. And it's because they want to squash you and they want to bring themselves up. So it's competition. And I was seeing that, firstly, I see that in myself, but I also know that I wish Joe Rogan or Lex Friedman or someone higher than me, maybe not them, like they're way, way higher than me.
But someone higher than me, at least, would once or twice mention me. That'd be great. And no one, almost, I don't think there's a single person who has. And so I thought, you know what? There are some creators that I like, that are in my space, my space as in consciousness, math, physics, even UFOs and so on, that have a small subscriber count, like 15,000 or less.
Why don't I just do a video highlighting them? Because that's what I wish someone did for me. So that's coming out tomorrow. It's a list of 40 channels that if you like the theories of everything channel, if you like math, physics, UFOs, consciousness, here are some channels that are from small up and coming creators that maybe you would like to subscribe to. Yeah, that's awesome. And I would say it's human nature, dude. I don't think it's you. You're just you're the one honest enough to say it on on air.
You know, I think and to realize it, to realize it in yourself and then to say it on air because I think it's just human nature, man. I mean, we all work super hard, I think. And yeah, you know, it's it's a game. But I really appreciate that. Thanks for all your time, Kurt. Yeah, thank you. Take care, man. Yeah, man. Thanks for being here. And
It's an honor. Thank you. Amazing interview there with Kurt. I can't wait to do it again. I really hope to learn so much going back through and editing, adding all those little details, the words he brought up. I didn't know. I love that he added thoughts on free will, emergence theory. He answered my question on complex numbers. I was curious about that as well. So great discussion with Kurt. Hope it happens again. Thanks for being here. Smash that like button if you do like the content.
Consider subscribing and then support the channel on patreon.com forward slash Chris Lado. Patrons had live access to this interview actually, so if you want to take part in these backstage interviews, want to see what goes on behind the scenes, then consider signing up for patreon.com forward slash Chris Lado for the Patreon channel to support the channel. And if you want to take action and really get involved and get out there, then consider joining UEP Society. So we're out there. It's an NFT project.
Thank you for watching!
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? Jokes aside, Verizon has the most ways to save on phones and plants
So bring in your bill to your local Miami Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal.
▶ View Full JSON Data (Word-Level Timestamps)
{
"source": "transcribe.metaboat.io",
"workspace_id": "AXs1igz",
"job_seq": 9674,
"audio_duration_seconds": 5520.74,
"completed_at": "2025-12-01T01:30:06Z",
"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": 94.718,
"index": 3,
"start_time": 66.152,
"text": " This is Martian 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 touchdown to threes. And if you're right, you can win big. Mix and match players from"
},
{
"end_time": 104.599,
"index": 4,
"start_time": 94.718,
"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": 126.305,
"index": 5,
"start_time": 104.821,
"text": " Florida and Georgia. Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe and secure. Download the PricePix app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. PricePix. It's good to be right. Must be present in certain states. Visit PricePix.com for restrictions and details."
},
{
"end_time": 154.445,
"index": 6,
"start_time": 126.442,
"text": " This is an auxiliary episode where Chris Leto, an F-16 pilot for 18 years, interviewed me for his channel, which is linked in the description. We talk about physics and mathematics, with the inclusion of specific terminology, entropy, extra dimensions, UAPs, and keeping one's sanity while studying consciousness. Visit Chris Leto's YouTube channel by clicking on the link in the description. A written review on whichever platform you're listening to this Theories of Everything episode from also helps a great deal."
},
{
"end_time": 161.63,
"index": 7,
"start_time": 154.77,
"text": " Thank you, and enjoy this supplementary episode where Chris Leto interviews Kurt Jaimungal. Okay, sounds like what you're saying."
},
{
"end_time": 188.677,
"index": 8,
"start_time": 161.988,
"text": " is that there are different levels, like the galactic level, the nation level, the interpersonal level, the financial level, then the cellular level, and then the atomic level, and so on. They have their own structure to them. They have their own laws. Maybe the laws are predictable going one layer up to one layer up, but we don't even need to go down that route. We can just say they seem to operate on their own laws, and that's what you're calling a different dimension when you go from one to the next."
},
{
"end_time": 218.609,
"index": 9,
"start_time": 188.677,
"text": " That was Kurt Jaimungal explaining my own theory to me better than I could possibly say it. He's amazing. He's doing exactly what he does best. Welcome to the channel guys. I'm Chris Leto, retired F-16 pilot turned UFO investigator now. I was so happy to interface with Kurt Jaimungal. He has basically had a successful"
},
{
"end_time": 241.015,
"index": 10,
"start_time": 218.882,
"text": " YouTube channel called theories of everything and he's focused he talks actually in our in our discussion here how he's gone into the UFO field as well how he thinks it relates to consciousness I found the same I have my own theory of everything that actually is structure of the universe how it's based in the dimensions of life I go through that actual theory I relate it to"
},
{
"end_time": 270.213,
"index": 11,
"start_time": 241.271,
"text": " Kurt and get his take on it. And he does not disappoint. He fills in a key aspect for me, a really key point of my own theory. So I hope you guys enjoy it. I had to break this up into two parts. The interview was so long. So the first part of the interview, we go through basically entropy, theory, physics in general, down to basic assumptions, basic ideas of science. I hope you really enjoy it. I've really learned a ton learning from Kurt. And then the second part,"
},
{
"end_time": 300.64,
"index": 12,
"start_time": 270.708,
"text": " What your lease next week will basically be more into the emotional aspects of it on YouTubing competition, dealing with stress. And again, I learned an amazing amount. Thanks so much to Kurt for being on the show. And at the end, actually, he has a pitch for a video. He's actually helping young YouTubers, so YouTubers with less than 15,000 subscribers. He recommends 40 of them in a new video. Just a great guy, Kurt. So happy to have to have actually talked to them. I hope you guys enjoy it."
},
{
"end_time": 327.927,
"index": 13,
"start_time": 300.964,
"text": " If you do like this content, smash that like button and it really helps the algorithm. And then subscribe for future videos. Okay, I don't always do interview videos. I hope you appreciate this one. And then if you want to support the channel, go to patreon.com. This video is actually a live stream only for patrons, so you can get behind the scenes access. Come to Patreon, support the channel at patreon.com forward slash Chris Lado. Now let's get to Kurt Jaimungal."
},
{
"end_time": 361.783,
"index": 14,
"start_time": 333.183,
"text": " Chris Leto, welcome to LetoFiles. All right, welcome guys. This will be live for patrons. I have the famous Kurt Jaimungal here from Theories of Everything, theoretical physicist and a filmmaker from Toronto. That's awesome. Thanks for inviting me onto your prestigious platform, man. It's an honor. No, thank you, man. Thanks for being here. I'm a huge fan. I try and catch all"
},
{
"end_time": 390.418,
"index": 15,
"start_time": 362.193,
"text": " I don't publish so technically I'm not a theoretical physicist but I understand what you mean and just so you know I generally don't have much to say I know almost nothing about any subject so my resounding answer will be I don't know to most of your questions and much of it will be relegated to a little more than an expression of bafflement"
},
{
"end_time": 421.749,
"index": 16,
"start_time": 391.971,
"text": " Yeah, and that works. I mean, yeah, you've done so many interviews, though, you know, you've talked to so many interesting people in this kind of higher stress environment, you know, under a lot more pressure. And so, yeah, I think it's just I'm excited just to get your viewpoint. You know, what do you think? Because for me, this topic is just super difficult. And every day, it seems like I go through it'll be like one day like today. This morning, I watched aerial phenomena. Have you seen that movie?"
},
{
"end_time": 446.63,
"index": 17,
"start_time": 421.92,
"text": " the aerial phenomena of Zimbabwe. No, I keep being told that I need to watch it. Yeah, same for me. So I finally, I finally made the time today. And yeah, I mean, it's amazingly compelling. You know, you have 60 over 60 kids when they're young, give the same story, and then they get older. It's, it's quite compelling, you know, saw days like today where I'm like, it's obviously true, you know, and then, but then tomorrow,"
},
{
"end_time": 477.005,
"index": 18,
"start_time": 447.619,
"text": " It can go the other direction. It's such a difficult topic, so I'm excited to have you here and start discussing it. Well, the same happens with almost any insight. So for example, with psychedelics, if it's drastically far from your ordinary view, then initially you'll feel like this is it, this is the answer, I feel like I have it all. And then two weeks later, you're in complete doubt over what you experienced. And it's not to say that you shouldn't be. I feel it too with these deep"
},
{
"end_time": 506.954,
"index": 19,
"start_time": 477.483,
"text": " Kind of quantum or physics models, you know, any kind of these deep concepts. It's like I can get there over a period of hours, you know, I can watch several videos or be studying a topic and then I kind of understand it, right? Quantum mechanics is one of those, right? I'll get to some point where I can relate to some of your videos. You know, you made a recent video now where you go down and dial down into natural units, you know, kind of a physics lesson."
},
{
"end_time": 527.227,
"index": 20,
"start_time": 507.5,
"text": " I really enjoy it because you went right down to base assumptions. And I find that in this topic, especially when it's so complex, I'll understand it for a little bit. But then a week later, it's gone. I can't access that information again. It's so complex."
},
{
"end_time": 557.329,
"index": 21,
"start_time": 527.824,
"text": " Yeah, that's everyone, even Ed Witten, even Terry Tao. I mentioned this in the video itself, which is that you need to understand or you need to read on the top repeatedly. You also need to use it. That's another aspect that is missing because you need to manipulate the equations in order for you to have an understanding of them. But also if you take a look at Terry Tao or Ed Witten's background, their background where they have their office, they have multiple books on the same subject. That's because you need to see the same phenomenon from different perspectives."
},
{
"end_time": 577.108,
"index": 22,
"start_time": 558.404,
"text": " I think that's so key, right? What you said is to use it. It's like languages, you know, if you don't, you can study all you want a language, but unless you go out and use it out in like the real world or it's dirty, you know, or there's a lot of noise, you know, you're just never gonna, it's never gonna sink in, you know, some neural network. It also may be okay."
},
{
"end_time": 606.971,
"index": 23,
"start_time": 577.585,
"text": " There's this quote from Wheeler which says the point isn't to drink from the firehose but to get wet. Just think of what you're doing as getting wet and sure you may forget its explicit form but you have an implicit form that later becomes easier to relearn the same type of material and you can recognize intuitively different patterns. You may not understand why but you can see there's a connection here and here and that wouldn't have come about had you not initially learned even though you've forgotten the explicit form. Don't beat yourself up too bad, too much. Yeah it's the basis and that's why"
},
{
"end_time": 637.295,
"index": 24,
"start_time": 607.398,
"text": " I've really enjoyed being a YouTuber is having that depth, basically having the opportunity to talk to people like yourself that are so dedicated obviously to this, focused on it and then you're serious. I really like that, that you seem serious on finding the truth. I'll ask you a few questions just to kind of put you on the physics spot I guess because I've seen you mention before, I don't remember the exact podcast, I wrote it down but"
},
{
"end_time": 664.889,
"index": 25,
"start_time": 638.029,
"text": " Basically, you say that the particle wave duality of light, if we're talking about the double set experiments, etc. So quantum mechanics, particle wave duality of light, and you mentioned on one podcast, but you didn't go into it further, right? You're focused on the guest. But you said that there was basically a misunderstanding with the public, that light can't be both at the same time. And I guess just want to get your take on"
},
{
"end_time": 694.718,
"index": 26,
"start_time": 665.196,
"text": " I wanted to ask you to finish that thought, I guess. Why do you think, or first, do you think that the public has a misunderstanding? And then why do you think that is? How would you relate that? I saw that you emailed that, but I don't know what you're referring to. I don't remember saying that the public has a misunderstanding of it. Maybe what I said was that it's not a wave and a particle. It's a quantum mechanical object. And to properly understand it, you should know some functional analysis or linear algebra."
},
{
"end_time": 721.527,
"index": 27,
"start_time": 694.94,
"text": " And you look at that and then it's misleading to say it's a wave and a particle. It's better to think of it as, do you know what R3 is or R2? So the real numbers and you cross the real numbers to get a plane. So like, look, you have an axis that's one copy of R, the real numbers, then you have another axis of the Y axis and the X axis. So that's technically called R2. Okay. So R2 is not the same as R1. So R1 is just one line. It's akin to saying,"
},
{
"end_time": 751.886,
"index": 28,
"start_time": 722.005,
"text": " Oh, wow, look at all these strange effects. Yeah, because you're thinking of it as just R1. But if you look at it from another perspective, if you understand what R2 is, then it's not so strange. There's also complex numbers where certain polynomials don't have roots in real numbers, but they do in complex numbers. And complex analysis is more, quote unquote, beautiful than real analysis. And it's because perhaps the better perspective is complex analysis when we're trying to view it from a real, quote unquote, real, not as in reality, but a real as in the"
},
{
"end_time": 778.302,
"index": 29,
"start_time": 752.312,
"text": " Non-complex mathematical. Yes, then you get some strange phenomenon. Perhaps what I meant was it's best viewed as a quantum mechanical object. And then what that is, it's something like a I'll just be throwing out terms if I continue speaking because it's difficult to explain like a separate complex separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space. So then you need to know what that is. And so what's separable? What's infinite dimensional? What's a Hilbert space? What's an inner product? What's a Banach space?"
},
{
"end_time": 799.872,
"index": 30,
"start_time": 778.575,
"text": " and all of these structures need to be explained in order to understand what a quantum mechanical object is and then you also need to know the axioms of quantum mechanics in order to interpret what the heck that object is and how do you use it what's an operator so sorry what's an observable and it's not explained and so it becomes the target of any mystical notion that one wants to project onto it because it's so"
},
{
"end_time": 827.125,
"index": 31,
"start_time": 800.282,
"text": " unclear. It's aggrandized and it's spoken about without precision. I think that's what I meant. If I said it's misunderstood, I misspoke. I meant that it's aggrandized and it's spoken about without precision. I see. And so what is your take then on like double slit experiment? You know, what do you think is going on with the original double slit experiment showing, you know, wave interference, but then when you supposedly measure it. So I guess the measurement problem is what I'm asking."
},
{
"end_time": 850.913,
"index": 32,
"start_time": 827.602,
"text": " When you measure it, now you're affecting it into a particle where you can actually change the behavior. What is your take on the double slit experiments, the whole gamut of them? I'm not sure. There's different theories, so there's non-local hidden variables, that's Bohmian, in which case you have a particle and a wave, so that one would be correct to say. But it's not a particle-wave duality. I don't know why that's a duality. Anyway,"
},
{
"end_time": 878.626,
"index": 33,
"start_time": 851.596,
"text": " Because duality has a specific meaning in physics and math. Okay, regardless, there's different interpretations of quantum mechanics. So there's Bohmian, which is called the pilot wave theory, I believe. There's also orchestrated objective reduction, which is Penrose's theory, which integrates consciousness and quantum mechanics. So it says that once the once there's a sufficient distance of in some other space in some belief, he used something called a quote unquote, symplectic measure. But again, these are all just buzzwords that they mean nothing."
},
{
"end_time": 905.316,
"index": 34,
"start_time": 879.019,
"text": " They mean something. Trust me, they mean something, but they mean nothing currently because I'm not explaining what they mean. So there's some metric that you can define the distance between two wave functions. Once that's of a quote-unquote sufficient distance, then it collapses. So that's orchestrated objective reduction, then there's cubism, which I would like to explore. But the point is, you ask, so what's my interpretation of the measurement problem? I don't know. There may not be a problem. Sabine Hassenfelder sees that there's a problem."
},
{
"end_time": 932.654,
"index": 35,
"start_time": 905.316,
"text": " I don't see it necessarily as a problem, but I would like to catalog the different interpretations of quantum mechanics so that I can get a grasp of it. Yeah, it seems like there's, and you have the Mach interferometers. Yeah, it's very interesting. I went down a long rabbit hole of all those experiments, et cetera. But you mentioned one, you mentioned Penrose, but I was following Bernardo Castro for a while. I was watching a bunch of his analytical, analytic idealism,"
},
{
"end_time": 960.725,
"index": 36,
"start_time": 933.387,
"text": " and interview that he was on your show as well. Because you mentioned there about consciousness, maybe. And I did have one video based on experiments by Dean Radin, where basically they did an experiment at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where it's the double-slit experiment. And they have meditators, if you're not familiar with, they have meditators basically imagining which path the photon takes, right?"
},
{
"end_time": 990.094,
"index": 37,
"start_time": 961.425,
"text": " And they have statistical analysis saying that this affected actually the instruments, right? This is the actual experiment, which if true is remarkable, I think. But basically that goes back to what is your take on talking to Bernardo Castro, analytic idealism, consciousness as a base construct. What would that entail for physics in your mind?"
},
{
"end_time": 1016.971,
"index": 38,
"start_time": 990.742,
"text": " For me, it doesn't entail much because physics is a branch of science and science, in my interpretation, is agnostic when it comes to metaphysical claims. It's instrumental and Bernardo also espouses this. He says that nothing about science will change from his interpretation. There's no need to throw out science. Maybe it's incorrect to say nothing will change, but one doesn't need to throw out the project or enterprise of science because science catalogs"
},
{
"end_time": 1044.991,
"index": 39,
"start_time": 1017.227,
"text": " and says if one measures this or if one operates like this on a system then here's what we're going to observe. Nothing about that changes. It's not clear to me what aspect of science needs to be altered if consciousness is fundamental or not. I guess my non-expert view on it would be basically the opposite of a materialism view. Basically our understanding, again I'll paraphrase,"
},
{
"end_time": 1074.804,
"index": 40,
"start_time": 1045.657,
"text": " is basically from Einstein is that you have space-time essentially, right? And gravity essentially comes from the curvature, if you will, of space-time. So it's basically like the physical effects come from the actual structure of the universe or the nature of it. So I guess in my mind, if it was consciousness as the basis, then that would underlay space-time. So basically, if space-time is your basis of what"
},
{
"end_time": 1104.599,
"index": 41,
"start_time": 1075.384,
"text": " We're seeing everything we're seeing. It's kind of like you're you're looking for the wrong thing, I guess. Or if you're looking for consciousness, you would do different experiments to try and test. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. So you're saying, look, it takes as an assumption, something called space time that seems to be mind, quote unquote, independent. Well, what if it was mind dependent, then space time derives from something that's like consciousness? Yeah, sure, sure."
},
{
"end_time": 1133.558,
"index": 42,
"start_time": 1105.418,
"text": " It's already being looked at what is space time fundamentally. So there's I'm sure you're aware. Well, it goes down your natural units again, you know, your video you made on natural units really just, you know, diving down drilling down to really what is the base assumption that we kind of rely everything on. And I kind of feel like in physics, it's, it's at this, you know, Einstein, Einstein has this general space time paradigm, if you will, and it's"
},
{
"end_time": 1152.398,
"index": 43,
"start_time": 1134.36,
"text": " I would think it would be very difficult for anyone to say that they think Einstein could be incorrect on this. I think maybe physicists won't even mention it because now they would have to say just by proposing it that Einstein is wrong. They would have to accept some level of hubris or"
},
{
"end_time": 1181.527,
"index": 44,
"start_time": 1153.541,
"text": " I hear that mainly from Eric Weinstein. I don't see that as being true at all. Many physicists, firstly, physicists have huge egos. If anything, they're compelled to say that Einstein is incorrect. And you see this from, I'm sure you get plenty of PDFs sent to you saying, oh, Chris, I understand how UAPs are formulated or how they interact or how they have a propulsion mechanism that isn't reactionless and so on. And they say Einstein was wrong. People like to say Einstein was wrong."
},
{
"end_time": 1209.036,
"index": 45,
"start_time": 1181.715,
"text": " So I don't see that. And also, almost all of physics today is outside of what Einstein... So I don't see this as being true that people are hesitant to say Einstein was wrong. I don't see that. I don't know where that's coming from. I know Eric Weinstein says that, but I just don't see that. And maybe he doesn't even say that. Maybe I'm incorrect. I guess it's my own limit, you know, if I go to say anything, especially not as like a scientist. You know, I studied material science. I have a degree in"
},
{
"end_time": 1239.292,
"index": 46,
"start_time": 1209.497,
"text": " Basically, chemistry, material science from 20 years ago. But if I go and say any, you know, I can't say Einstein's wrong as a non-scientist. You know, I can imagine if you're a scientist to say it. I don't know. It seems like it would just take a lot of gall to go and say it. I know I've been limited on my own channel to be labeled pseudoscience, which I'm sure already labeled. But, you know, to say that space time is incorrect as kind of the basis of reality and consciousness is, I think it's a, you know, paradigm shifting concept. That's all."
},
{
"end_time": 1267.432,
"index": 47,
"start_time": 1239.906,
"text": " Coming up on the Toad channel, perhaps by the time this is released, is an interview with a physicist named Ashtakar. So he's responsible for loop quantum gravity and loop quantum cosmology. He's also mentioned by Salvatore Pius. He's highly respected by Salvatore Pius. In fact, I think that Sal said, Kurt, read Conversations on Quantum Gravity. It's a huge, it's a book that catalogs different interviews with physicists. Read all of them, except Ashtakar's and save his for last."
},
{
"end_time": 1286.101,
"index": 48,
"start_time": 1267.875,
"text": " Because he thought that it was the best interview on that compilation. Okay, Ashdekar said something interesting, which I love, I agree with. He said that, and he's a spiritual person, which is rare to find a physicist or a mathematician who is. Actually, that may not be true, but it's rare to find a public, someone who will publicly admit it."
},
{
"end_time": 1312.517,
"index": 49,
"start_time": 1287.295,
"text": " Ashtakar said, you'll find physicists, you'll find mathematicians who will say, look, Einstein was wrong. That's fine. But you will almost never find a spiritual person who will say Buddha was wrong. And that's what's different about science is that you're willing to say that the heroes of the past were incorrect. But it's rare to find someone who will say, well, the person who said that the ego was an illusion is incorrect or whatever it may be. People tend to just adopt it because it's been said by ancient people."
},
{
"end_time": 1334.77,
"index": 50,
"start_time": 1313.456,
"text": " What is your take on James Webb? Is it going to allow us to peer through? Is there going to be a lot of changes in our theoretical physics?"
},
{
"end_time": 1365.913,
"index": 51,
"start_time": 1337.534,
"text": " I keep being told by someone who is interested in the Toll channel doing well that I need to cover the James Webb telescope because it gets plenty of views. I'm so uninterested in it. I don't see what the fascination is, but I haven't looked into it. So it looks to me it's like an upgrade of the Hubble telescope. So it's just a more high resolution telescope. That's as far as I can tell. Great. We get interesting images of the galaxy. I'm not a cosmologist. I'm not interested in astronomy. I'm not like Brian Keating would be more would be terribly interested in this."
},
{
"end_time": 1394.48,
"index": 52,
"start_time": 1366.391,
"text": " I couldn't care less, but also I have an aversion to whatever is talked about in the news. Generally speaking, I feel like that I'd like to go under the, hmm, this is spiritual. Perhaps this is something I'm trying to do, but I'm not, to go under the waves into the ocean where it's calmer because on the surface it's transient. Yeah, definitely. So what does interest you? What do you do in your free time?"
},
{
"end_time": 1423.609,
"index": 53,
"start_time": 1395.077,
"text": " Are you studying UAPs all the time? Are you looking at cases or physics? You're reading theoretical physics? Almost all my time, if I'm not spending it with my wife, then I'm studying or I'm preparing for a podcast like this or a video or another podcast. It's just all studying or preparing. Excellent. Yeah, I took your physics lesson on natural units. So I had a question on there. I sent you this on email as well."
},
{
"end_time": 1452.807,
"index": 54,
"start_time": 1424.497,
"text": " is I noticed that speed and entropy were both dimensionless constants, which I remember thinking this in growing up in university is how is it that it has no units? We're talking about a dimensionless constant. Do you think anything of speed and entropy, and I'll go on a little bit further to talk about entropy"
},
{
"end_time": 1479.718,
"index": 55,
"start_time": 1452.995,
"text": " But speed and entropy, both dimensionless constants, do you think there's anything to be taken from that about our universe or in general? When it comes to speed, it's because speed is then being referenced in relation to the speed of light. So it becomes dimensionless. That is a speed of 0.5 is 0.5 the speed of light. Whereas when it comes to entropy, entropy, it makes much more sense that it's dimensionless because it's like you're counting. So in the same way that"
},
{
"end_time": 1501.22,
"index": 56,
"start_time": 1480.026,
"text": " You're counting the number of cabinets here. It's just a number. Now also keep in mind that every physics quantity, everything that's measured is in fact dimensionless. So what do I mean by that? Well, if you say that, let's say 1.7 meters high, that's your height. Okay, what's meant by that? It means if you go to Paris, there's some meter somewhere."
},
{
"end_time": 1528.114,
"index": 57,
"start_time": 1501.715,
"text": " It's not technically like this anymore, but it doesn't matter that there's some stick somewhere that if you take that and you stack it 1.7 times, you get your height. So it's still a ratio, which ratios are dimensionless. Everything in physics is dimensionless. Oh, everything. Okay. Everything in physics is technically dimensionless, even when it comes with the units, because the units are just telling you a ratio. So relationship. No, it makes sense. It's a relationship."
},
{
"end_time": 1554.77,
"index": 58,
"start_time": 1529.48,
"text": " So if you say something's five kilograms, then it means you've measured it such that the ratio of the weight of what you have here, which is five kilograms, to the kilogram in Paris, or wherever it is, I'm just saying Paris, it is technically the kilograms outside of Paris in a vault, for whatever reason. It's five of those. It's a ratio. Yeah, everything I guess is a ratio."
},
{
"end_time": 1585.111,
"index": 59,
"start_time": 1555.845,
"text": " Well, try to think of something that's not. If you do, then you can convince yourself, oh, actually, I'm speaking about a ratio. I'm speaking about a dimensionless constant or dimensionless quantity or ratio. Yeah, it makes sense because it's also I consider how the brain works is basically it has to start from some anchor point. You know, base each thought actually has to start from somewhere is your base paradigm. And then it goes from there to somewhere else. You know, that's basically"
},
{
"end_time": 1614.889,
"index": 60,
"start_time": 1586.425,
"text": " Interesting. But for, I guess, back to entropy, I think of entropy and I relate it to my theory, essentially. I have a theory of everything, right? I think everybody does these days. But for entropy is basically a ratio, kind of what you mentioned, of disorder. And I kind of, I think of it in terms of chemistry. I know physics and chemistry define it, entropy slightly differently. I guess the way I would define it is"
},
{
"end_time": 1642.056,
"index": 61,
"start_time": 1615.879,
"text": " decreasing order, you know, if you have a chemical reaction, entropy is going to describe which direction the reaction goes, you know, the think of it as water flowing down gravity, you know, basically, it's the where your where your chemical process is going to go, because that is least entropy, right? It's kind of how we define all of our chemical reactions, at least in chemistry. So entropy is going to be"
},
{
"end_time": 1671.084,
"index": 62,
"start_time": 1643.763,
"text": " They say timeskeeper. Another way to think of it is if you look at a video of the planets, if you imagine you're just looking at the planets with their moons orbiting around the Sun, our solar system, and then you actually play that video backwards, no physical processes are actually broken. You couldn't tell, I guess is the way to think about it. You couldn't physically tell."
},
{
"end_time": 1701.084,
"index": 63,
"start_time": 1672.193,
"text": " If it's going forward or backwards in time, whereas entropy, from my understanding, is the only really kind of thing, I guess, where it depends on time. You know, if you break the glass, you know, if I drop a glass off my table here and it shatters, now we play it backwards in time, you know, you'll know. Right. And so I guess so how I define that and I use it for definition of life is basically that life"
},
{
"end_time": 1729.889,
"index": 64,
"start_time": 1701.971,
"text": " does that, it orders matter in its local surroundings into the future. So if you look back at civilization, you would be able to sell which direction it goes, I guess. And so that's kind of how I define life and my theory of everything. And it's kind of a specific theory of everything, that life, we can identify it by ordering matter. And so when von Leeuwenhoek"
},
{
"end_time": 1758.2,
"index": 65,
"start_time": 1730.077,
"text": " You know, he's back in 1623. He's the Dutch guy, a Dutch scientist back in the 1600s. You know, Galileo made the telescope. So basically Galileo's trying to convince the kings, right, to look at the moons of Jupiter. Lou Owenhoek actually, he used this proprietary technology he invented to make little lenses to look microscopic. So he basically discovered microscopic life back in the early 1600s. And he discovered bacteria and sperm cells."
},
{
"end_time": 1788.746,
"index": 66,
"start_time": 1759.428,
"text": " And I think, you know, thinking back to that is, you know, I think they would be surprised by the order that they saw, the little tiny machines, you know, little biological machines working at that little level. Whereas we would expect to see just like dust, you know, just dirt laying around or, you know, basically entropy gone wild, right? It's disordered, a disordered system. But when he looked down with a little microscope, you know, he saw ordered systems."
},
{
"end_time": 1818.524,
"index": 67,
"start_time": 1789.155,
"text": " And so basically, that would be the argument for life is that it's at size dimensions. So we can physically see the dimensions, but it's size. So as we look down at microscopes, microbial life essentially, we're seeing order. And then if we look up now, potentially at the James Webb images, you ask why are people enthralled by it? For me, I kind of am seeing at a different scale, like a vastly different scale,"
},
{
"end_time": 1843.37,
"index": 68,
"start_time": 1819.462,
"text": " is like these little amoebas, you know, or there's some kind of order, there's like order going on out there at vastly different time scales, maybe from us in size. But could it maybe that could be life, you know, we're just surrounded by it's so obvious, or it's so ubiquitous, we don't expect it. So yeah, that's the whole theory of my whole theory of everything is that we're actually in a system in a living system."
},
{
"end_time": 1872.193,
"index": 69,
"start_time": 1844.292,
"text": " Because if you look down at your cells in your body, right, there's little cells that born and die into your body all the time, they have little jobs, they fulfill their functions. But when we look up to our level of life, we stop here, right? We're like, okay, human is the largest form of life on our planet. But then you look at companies, organizations, nations, you know, my argument is the nation is actually a real living organism on the earth. It's made up of"
},
{
"end_time": 1902.056,
"index": 70,
"start_time": 1872.619,
"text": " Neural cells, humans are basically stem cells in a much larger organism. That is the whole essential theory of life there. It's ordered life, we can see the dimensions based on size, and that would imply some sort of frequency. If size is based on frequency of motion, then you could say that maybe it's smaller dimensions, you have higher energy, etc."
},
{
"end_time": 1931.578,
"index": 71,
"start_time": 1903.319,
"text": " Maybe these UAP events could be tuning into some sort of frequencies. Maybe they can change your size, right? Imagine you're like Ant-Man. You know, if you want to get to the other side of the universe, what if you can change your frequency to go super big, right? And then you go super small again, some other part of the universe, you know, some other galaxy. I don't know. That's crazy stuff. But the general theory is I think you can see it clearly on the on at our level. If you look, it's just nations, right?"
},
{
"end_time": 1944.923,
"index": 72,
"start_time": 1932.261,
"text": " Nations act like organisms. They breed, they kill, they die, age, etc. Anyway, I'll stop talking at this point. That's my whole theory."
},
{
"end_time": 1976.254,
"index": 73,
"start_time": 1947.039,
"text": " Could it be possible, Kurt? Could it be possible? Yeah. So when asking a question of is something possible, I would say generally the answer is yes. But unless one has a contradiction and you're using classical logic. But if what you're asking is, is it plausible? Well, that depends on a number of factors, including prior assumptions and so on. So I think it would be preferable if you explain in a bit greater detail. So let me ask you a couple of questions if you know my answer."
},
{
"end_time": 2002.108,
"index": 74,
"start_time": 1977.312,
"text": " Okay, how is one defining order? Is it just you look and you have an intuitive notion of order or using entropy to define order? So it's entropy. So basically one example is the gravity. So the argument for dark matter, right? The argument for dark matter right now is that there's more"
},
{
"end_time": 2026.152,
"index": 75,
"start_time": 2002.961,
"text": " Mass, right? 75% mass or 77% more mass than we're expecting in galaxies. At the same point, you could be arguing that what we're seeing is we're seeing effects, right? We're seeing galaxies held together where we should expect them to be flying apart. So in that case, we're expecting"
},
{
"end_time": 2043.899,
"index": 76,
"start_time": 2026.681,
"text": " We're expecting disorder from all our math problems. All of our science shows us that these things should be flying off into space. The stars can't spin that quickly. So in that case, that would be order from what we're not expecting from our physical laws. So I define it with entropy."
},
{
"end_time": 2056.715,
"index": 77,
"start_time": 2044.377,
"text": " Okay, so I don't know if you're aware, but this is something I've said quite a few times. It's not just me who says this, but entropy and order and disorder should be disembroiled. They're generally intertwined."
},
{
"end_time": 2082.21,
"index": 78,
"start_time": 2057.517,
"text": " When we're speaking just you and I but technically if you take a look at coffee and then you pour milk into it and it looks turbulent initially and you say well that's more disordered then you stir it and then it's uniform then you say now it's ordered actually that state where it's ordered has the highest entropy whereas before with the turbulence it had a lower much lower entropy yes decreasing entropy so life decreases entropy"
},
{
"end_time": 2111.715,
"index": 79,
"start_time": 2082.995,
"text": " Okay. Locally, right? Locally. Yeah. Okay, but in that case there, was that life that decreased the entropy, or could that happen if it just sloshed around outside in a boat? Because then... Well, that's what we were expecting, right? I guess, so you're expecting when you mix... So in your example, you're expecting you mix the coffee with the milk, right? You're expecting it all to mix. You know, the same as the galaxy, we're expecting the galaxy to spin, just like we assume it will."
},
{
"end_time": 2128.302,
"index": 80,
"start_time": 2112.773,
"text": " But what happens is the coffee goes to one side and the milk goes to the other. Or the coffee ends up making little neuronal structures inside the milk. Basically, that would be something we're not expecting."
},
{
"end_time": 2147.602,
"index": 81,
"start_time": 2129.821,
"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": 2176.084,
"index": 82,
"start_time": 2147.602,
"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, so that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence."
},
{
"end_time": 2192.449,
"index": 83,
"start_time": 2176.084,
"text": " 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. Visit hensonshaving.com slash everything."
},
{
"end_time": 2218.882,
"index": 84,
"start_time": 2192.449,
"text": " If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart. Plus 100 free blades when you head to H E N S O N S H A V I N G dot com slash everything and use the code everything. So the and this is where physics and chemistry have reversed their their entropy signs are reversed."
},
{
"end_time": 2248.063,
"index": 85,
"start_time": 2220.213,
"text": " is from what I remember looking at the different the ways physics identifies. I know what you're saying. So there's something called free energy or Gibbs free energy and that's minimized. Yeah, they have negative or positive. What I'm saying is, yeah, you mix the milk with the coffee. So we're expecting based on our law of second law of thermodynamics that it's going to mix. So in this case, life would basically be the bacteria on the top."
},
{
"end_time": 2275.657,
"index": 86,
"start_time": 2248.729,
"text": " that creates some scum or something or creates some other structure in there that we're not expecting. So bacteria would be perfect, right? Because I drink Nescafe, a really terrible coffee because it's fast. Oh, same with me. Yeah, I'm not a coffee snob at all and I don't want to be. I don't know about you, but it keeps me, I would lose all my money because it would all go to coffee. Coffee is fairly expensive."
},
{
"end_time": 2302.602,
"index": 87,
"start_time": 2276.118,
"text": " I understand what you're saying. That's the general idea, is how I would define entropy and how life does it."
},
{
"end_time": 2327.193,
"index": 88,
"start_time": 2303.029,
"text": " The point is life would be different in everything else in that we're kind of like timekeepers and we would be moving, providing some sort of order to our local area, local universe. Maybe that's just what life does. Okay. So here's some thoughts that occurred to me. So number one, earlier you said entropy depends on time."
},
{
"end_time": 2356.288,
"index": 89,
"start_time": 2328.183,
"text": " That's not entirely clear. In fact, many think it's the other way around, that time is a macroscopic phenomenon that occurs because of the second law, rather than the second law being dependent on time. Okay, so that's what occurs. So what is it? Can you say that again? Sorry. Yeah, that arrow of time comes about because of the second law, rather than the second law being dependent on time. It's called the entropic arrow of time, entropic as in entropy."
},
{
"end_time": 2382.244,
"index": 90,
"start_time": 2357.875,
"text": " I guess my issue is only with using the word order and entropy. That's my only issue is that I see this as a conflation that I don't think should occur."
},
{
"end_time": 2409.48,
"index": 91,
"start_time": 2382.961,
"text": " I could talk about this for a while, but there's no point. It's known in physics that entropy and order don't necessarily correlate. So I can send you a video on that. Perhaps that means nothing to the theories. Perhaps it's just more poetic to say order, in which case that's fine. But to then give a concrete definition by tying it with entropy, well then don't even use the word order, because if you're not saying anything new, just use the word entropy and stick with that. Or don't even use the word entropy and stick with order."
},
{
"end_time": 2435.776,
"index": 92,
"start_time": 2410.759,
"text": " Yeah, exactly. I tried to make it as clean as possible, so just picked entropy decreasing. But again, I'm not sure if that's even the correct way to consider it or if that's watertight by any means. Yeah, here's something else that occurs to me. So free will seems to contradict with determinism. However, I don't know, do you know what a finite probabilistic tree is? Imagine you have a"
},
{
"end_time": 2461.596,
"index": 93,
"start_time": 2436.271,
"text": " A graph. So you have some points, some points. So I'm trying to, I'm sorry, let me, let me think about how to explain. Okay. So if you have a, I'll just say the theorem and then I will try to explain it. Cool. So there's something called a finite probabilistic tree and there's information lost on loss on it. So if you have right here, there's, imagine this, this is a node and then my five fingers are, ah, yes. Okay. Let's imagine I have six fingers."
},
{
"end_time": 2488.626,
"index": 94,
"start_time": 2462.517,
"text": " Each of them has a probability one sixth, one sixth, one sixth. This can, this can be, you roll a die, then it can land on any one of these. Cool. But you can easily imagine that there's other distributions. So maybe it's a weighted die and this one has five sixths of a probability and then the rest are distributed here. So this is a die that you use to cheat. Okay. So entropy is a way of taking a probability distribution."
},
{
"end_time": 2517.858,
"index": 95,
"start_time": 2489.241,
"text": " and then assigning a single number to it. So you've taken a whole function, then you've given it one number. Anytime you have random data and you do deterministic processing of the random data, then you decrease entropy anytime that you do that. And so to me, if free will, which is associated with life, which is associated with non-determinism, it should mean that you increase entropy, but then it doesn't. The point of that was to say that you have life and I imagine life doesn't work in a deterministic way. If it does,"
},
{
"end_time": 2545.077,
"index": 96,
"start_time": 2518.114,
"text": " Then it would be obvious to me why it decreases entropy because any, like I said, deterministic processing of random data will decrease entropy. But then if there's an element of free will, well, then that goes against that. So that's just what occurs to me. There's not even a question there. I'm just telling you the thoughts that come to my mind. That's cool. I'll send you more information about that because it's not as complicated as I'm saying verbally. It's easy when you look at it, you'll be, ah, okay, I understand."
},
{
"end_time": 2575.64,
"index": 97,
"start_time": 2546.527,
"text": " Yeah, I mean, I think it is using entropy. Yeah, I mean, obviously, it's key to the key to the argument, but it doesn't necessarily mean it defines it, you know, because the argument is that life organizes matter into new forms and replicates, you know, and replicates into the future. So, however, that can be defined. If you don't mind, I'm not trying to poke holes. I'm just telling you what occurs to me. No, I hear that sound."
},
{
"end_time": 2602.739,
"index": 98,
"start_time": 2576.63,
"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": 2628.848,
"index": 99,
"start_time": 2602.739,
"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": 2652.176,
"index": 100,
"start_time": 2628.848,
"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 Brooklyn. 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": 2670.111,
"index": 101,
"start_time": 2652.176,
"text": " My mind is generally the devil's advocate."
},
{
"end_time": 2697.978,
"index": 102,
"start_time": 2671.015,
"text": " What's meant when you say that there are different dimensions? So are you saying that there's different scales or is the word dimension meaning something here? Yeah. So I guess you hear all these theories about, you know, string theories, multiverses, different dimensions. But I would relate it to, I think we can actually physically see other dimensions and we use lenses as our breakthrough technology, really."
},
{
"end_time": 2727.363,
"index": 103,
"start_time": 2698.49,
"text": " to bend light, whatever this light stuff is that we're talking about, to actually bend it to peer into the other dimensions. So I guess another dimension would be at your level, the person that is you zoom down to one of your, imagine zooming down to one of your cells. It lives its little life. It's born into your body. It's trained in certain areas."
},
{
"end_time": 2755.009,
"index": 104,
"start_time": 2727.688,
"text": " So you have your cardiovascular system that's pumping around, you have your waste system, your energy, your neural networks of your brain. So if you zoom down to that level of that cell, I consider that another dimension of life that is you or me, essentially. But it's at such another order of magnitude smaller than we could possibly imagine."
},
{
"end_time": 2786.596,
"index": 105,
"start_time": 2756.596,
"text": " And I think the time also changes. The life cycle of yourselves is very fast. So as you move up in size, if you imagine size would be our dimension of life. So that's how I would relate it as dimensions. So at this dimension, I'm still born and die into a system. As soon as you're born, you have a social security number, you have a family, you have a job, you need to go fulfill certain requirements in the community."
},
{
"end_time": 2816.852,
"index": 106,
"start_time": 2787.244,
"text": " So I think of that, if we can consider that as a possibility of another dimension of life, where we're actually inside of a larger living, actually breathing organism. If you think of any nation, I bring up Russia versus Ukraine. If you look at how the decision is made to actually invade Ukraine, I think it's an emotional one, like an animal. We even talk about it, Russia invaded Ukraine. We mentioned Putin."
},
{
"end_time": 2846.561,
"index": 107,
"start_time": 2817.176,
"text": " right? But Putin not in that position, you don't care, right? It's, it's specifically that man in that position, right, who was created from that country. So you even look at our decision making processes, you know, in our in our Congresses, it's a neural network, essentially, you know, the brains, if you look at our roads, how we dispose of waste, if you look at our defenses, the permeable membrane of our borders. Yeah, so I think in that case, really, to think about Russia, Ukraine is this"
},
{
"end_time": 2871.766,
"index": 108,
"start_time": 2847.142,
"text": " living organism thinks it's going to die, right? I think this Ukraine is being removed from it. So it's just like an emotional, emotional response, you know, and we see it, we can't understand, you know, how could nations do this? You know, I think there are like non sentient organisms, you know, or, yeah, so that's part of my UAP society is just to try and get those nations to realize that we're here. And it hurts."
},
{
"end_time": 2901.544,
"index": 109,
"start_time": 2872.039,
"text": " So that's the general what I see and then I try and put it down into a theory that I can relate or try and test. The idea is can we test for this stuff? Can you find statistical models for why nations, is there a nation life cycle? Is there any validity to it, to the theory? That's what I would like to test. To be able to define it and then actually try and test it as provable."
},
{
"end_time": 2922.944,
"index": 110,
"start_time": 2902.142,
"text": " I don't proclaim that it's true. I think it could be true. Have you heard of group selection? Is that like herd theory for genetic evolution? I don't know what herd theory is. Yeah, I don't know. What's group selection? So group selection is saying"
},
{
"end_time": 2948.422,
"index": 111,
"start_time": 2923.524,
"text": " So Richard Dawkins would say that there's the selfish gene and that it's individual selection. So it's me against you. But then there's the group, which is that we're part of your Portugal. So then you can think of it in terms of countries. So groups of people are competing with other groups. And because of these dynamics, you have different selective pressures. Well, that may play a part in terms of the human species against other species or in terms of our planet against another planet, potentially."
},
{
"end_time": 2976.783,
"index": 112,
"start_time": 2949.019,
"text": " or inside of our cells. So there seems to be cooperation here because well, our bodies seem to be group selected at some level because our livers don't just replicate or any cell in our body doesn't just replicate at the cost of the rest of the body. That's called cancer that would destroy all of it. So it noted recognizes when I say recognizes obviously maybe it's not sentient like you mentioned in the same way, but it recognizes"
},
{
"end_time": 2989.053,
"index": 113,
"start_time": 2977.176,
"text": " in terms of behavior, it recognizes that it's a part of something larger and so it plays its proper role. That's called group selection. It's controversial in evolutionary biology, but it's not, it's not"
},
{
"end_time": 3016.118,
"index": 114,
"start_time": 2989.787,
"text": " It seems to me to be quite clear that there's at least some element of group selection. David Sloan Wilson is someone who is a proponent of this. Anyhow, the reason I mention this is that it sounds like what you're referring to is akin to group selection. And so when you say that there are different dimensions, to me, let me just say some other buzzwords. In physics, there's something called an effective theory. So an effective theory is, well, there's"
},
{
"end_time": 3027.278,
"index": 115,
"start_time": 3016.544,
"text": " There's quantum mechanics, but then you don't predict how to build a cabinet from quantum mechanics. Instead, what you do is you have you say that quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics."
},
{
"end_time": 3051.135,
"index": 116,
"start_time": 3027.329,
"text": " and then from that actually that's even false that's one path and then you can take quantum mechanics to chemistry and then to Newtonian mechanics and then you can build well you don't even use Newtonian mechanics to build this but essentially there are effective theories at which there are different layers of abstraction so we go down as a reductionist and we say okay what's the most fundamental is what we zoom into microscopically we say that's what builds the rest of the layers that we see"
},
{
"end_time": 3078.2,
"index": 117,
"start_time": 3051.135,
"text": " But then there are these different layers that seem to have their own laws that are not, well, maybe they're predictable, but they're not readily predictable from a lower layer. So again, an example would be chemistry. You don't predict chemistry from string theory. You go string theory to quantum mechanics, even that's dubious, who knows if that can be done, but you go string theory to quantum mechanics to then chemistry, and then you build up these emergent properties. Emergence is another word."
},
{
"end_time": 3083.951,
"index": 118,
"start_time": 3078.695,
"text": " So these are some buzzwords that people can look up. Effective theory emergence. Okay, sounds like what you're saying."
},
{
"end_time": 3111.254,
"index": 119,
"start_time": 3084.411,
"text": " is that there are different levels, like the galactic level, the nation level, the interpersonal level, the financial level, then the cellular level, and then the atomic level, and so on. They have their own structure to them. They have their own laws. Maybe the laws are predictable going one layer up to one layer up, but we don't even need to go down that route. We can just say they seem to operate on their own laws, and that's what you're calling a different dimension when you go from one to the next."
},
{
"end_time": 3139.394,
"index": 120,
"start_time": 3111.254,
"text": " We'll stop it here right where Kurt basically just reads back my theory, understood everything, and added his own points. So amazing. We'll go further into that on part two of next week. So don't miss that. Kurt relays some emotional things he went through, some issues he's had, some difficulties lately. He goes through that. We talk about that as well."
},
{
"end_time": 3165.111,
"index": 121,
"start_time": 3139.77,
"text": " as well as being YouTubers in our own competition. Like you mentioned, there are several creators. Well, almost every creator who's quote unquote larger than you will never mention you because they don't, they want to squash you and they want to bring themselves up. So it's competition. And I was seeing that firstly, I see that in myself, but I also know that I, I wish Joe Rogan or Lex Freeman or someone higher than me, maybe not them. Like they're way, way higher than me."
},
{
"end_time": 3184.753,
"index": 122,
"start_time": 3165.35,
"text": " But someone higher than me, at least, would once or twice mention me. That would be great. And no one, almost, I don't think there's a single person who has. And so I thought, you know what, there are some creators that I like, that are in my space, my space as in consciousness, math, physics, even UFOs and so on, that have a small subscriber count, like 15,000 or less."
},
{
"end_time": 3214.241,
"index": 123,
"start_time": 3185.145,
"text": " What's up, guys? Welcome to the channel. I'm Chris Leiter, retired F-16 pilot. This is a part two interview with Kurt Jaimungal."
},
{
"end_time": 3232.483,
"index": 124,
"start_time": 3214.684,
"text": " He's a filmmaker from Toronto and for the past two years he's been running an amazing channel called Theories of Everything with Kurt Jaimungal and he's been delving deep long-form interviews with many physicists, scientists, people dedicated to consciousness."
},
{
"end_time": 3259.582,
"index": 125,
"start_time": 3233.49,
"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": 3285.64,
"index": 126,
"start_time": 3259.582,
"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": 3309.053,
"index": 127,
"start_time": 3285.64,
"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 Brooklyn. 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": 3336.032,
"index": 128,
"start_time": 3309.053,
"text": " Physics and from my point of view into UAPs, unidentified aerial phenomena. Like myself, Kurt has fallen into this rabbit hole of UAPs where it's just curious, man. We're just both very curious people."
},
{
"end_time": 3363.541,
"index": 129,
"start_time": 3336.647,
"text": " I've been a huge fan of his Theories of Everything YouTube channel, learned so much from there, and I've been wanting to communicate with him just to interface with him, and we finally were able to make it happen, and he did not disappoint. If you haven't checked out part one, go ahead and check that out. Otherwise, for this one, we talked through group selection theory, basically get Kurt's idea on my own theory of everything. He brings out some other great points I didn't know about quantum mechanics, theoretical"
},
{
"end_time": 3388.609,
"index": 130,
"start_time": 3363.968,
"text": " Thanks for being here. Smash that like button if you do like this content and consider subscribing to get notifications in the future. Now onto Kurt Jaimungal."
},
{
"end_time": 3421.067,
"index": 131,
"start_time": 3394.036,
"text": " Chris Lado, welcome to Lado Files. Is there any validity to it, to the theory? That's what I would like to test. To be able to define it and then actually try and test it as provable. I don't proclaim that it's true. I think it could be true. Have you heard of group selection?"
},
{
"end_time": 3435.52,
"index": 132,
"start_time": 3422.585,
"text": " Is that like herd theory for genetic evolution? I don't know what herd theory is. What's group selection? Group selection is saying"
},
{
"end_time": 3460.913,
"index": 133,
"start_time": 3436.118,
"text": " So Richard Dawkins would say that there's the selfish gene and that it's individual selection. So it's me against you. But then there's the group, which is that we're part of your Portugal. So then you can think of it in terms of different countries. So groups of people are competing with other groups. And because of these dynamics, you have different selective pressures. Well, that may play a part in terms of the human species against other species or in terms of our planet against another planet, potentially."
},
{
"end_time": 3486.561,
"index": 134,
"start_time": 3461.51,
"text": " or inside of our cells. There seems to be cooperation here because our bodies seem to be group selected at some level because our livers don't just replicate or any cell in our body doesn't just replicate at the cost of the rest of the body. That's called cancer that would destroy all of it. So it noted it recognizes when I say recognizes obviously maybe it's not sentient like you mentioned in the same way, but it recognizes"
},
{
"end_time": 3516.783,
"index": 135,
"start_time": 3486.971,
"text": " In terms of behavior, it recognizes that it's a part of something larger. And so it plays its proper role. That's called group selection. It's controversial in evolutionary biology, but it's not obscene. It seems to me to be quite clear that there's at least at least some elements of group selection. David Sloan Wilson is someone who is a proponent of this. Anyhow, the reason I mentioned this is that it sounds like what you're referring to is akin to group selection. And so when you say that there are different dimensions to me, let me just"
},
{
"end_time": 3533.319,
"index": 136,
"start_time": 3517.21,
"text": " say some other buzzwords in physics there's something called an effective theory so an effective theory is there's quantum mechanics but then you don't predict how to build a cabinet from quantum mechanics instead what you do is you have you say that quantum mechanics reduces to newtonian mechanics"
},
{
"end_time": 3556.647,
"index": 137,
"start_time": 3533.319,
"text": " and then from that actually that's even false that's one path and then you can take quantum mechanics to chemistry and then to Newtonian mechanics and then you can build well you don't even use Newtonian mechanics to build this but essentially there are effective theories at which there are different layers of abstraction so we go down as a reductionist and we say okay what's the most fundamental is what we zoom into microscopically we say that's what builds the rest of the layers that we see"
},
{
"end_time": 3578.797,
"index": 138,
"start_time": 3556.647,
"text": " but then there are these different layers that seem to have their own laws that are not well maybe they're predictable but they're not readily predictable from a lower layer so again an example would be chemistry you don't predict chemistry from string theory you go string theory to quantum mechanics even that's dubious who knows if that can be done but you go string theory to quantum mechanics to then chemistry"
},
{
"end_time": 3587.193,
"index": 139,
"start_time": 3578.916,
"text": " And then you build up these emergent properties. Emergence is another word. So these are some buzzwords that people can look up. Effective theory emergence. Okay, sounds like what you're saying."
},
{
"end_time": 3614.121,
"index": 140,
"start_time": 3587.585,
"text": " is that there are different levels, like the galactic level, the nation level, the interpersonal level, the financial level, then the cellular level, and then the atomic level, and so on. They have their own structure to them. They have their own laws. Maybe the laws are predictable going one layer up to one layer up, but we don't even need to go down that route. We can just say they seem to operate on their own laws, and that's what you're calling a different dimension when you go from one to the next."
},
{
"end_time": 3644.087,
"index": 141,
"start_time": 3614.121,
"text": " Is that correct or? Yeah, you hit it right on basically. Yeah. Okay. All right. Just wondering if Yeah, excellent. Okay. Yeah, that's it group theory group selection. Yeah, I was he I'm a huge Richard Dawkins fan And I was kind of disappointed to see that he doesn't believe in it. It seems like he's like he mentioned not like this David Sloan Yeah, Dawkins seemed to think that it's just based on the selfish gene Stops there doesn't go on to pass much past phenotypes"
},
{
"end_time": 3673.49,
"index": 142,
"start_time": 3645.401,
"text": " Yeah, exactly. You hit it right on. And the idea is if you, you know, if you can look back through history, I kind of imagine like the first tribes of humans, if you imagine a like a microbe, you know, it's just a single cell, basic, just one family of humans, you know, if you imagine little humans going out and gaining resources from the environment, and then you just fast forward, right, a civilization, the organisms, like you say, grow, keep growing. Now we have"
},
{
"end_time": 3703.148,
"index": 143,
"start_time": 3674.036,
"text": " Giant nation states cover the whole earth made of many organelles. If you look at Walmart, Walmart is never going to die on its own. Somebody would have to kill Walmart and you're not going to kill it. There's a lot of people wanting to keep Walmart alive at all costs. That's the idea is that everything we see around us is life. We dictate nature as something separate from ourselves but I guess I've always just looked at it as"
},
{
"end_time": 3733.148,
"index": 144,
"start_time": 3703.558,
"text": " as a part of it. Yeah, the size dimension is exactly like you said. And then the final point would be, it is based on size. And then if we can go down to, if you're based off consciousness or something like that, then essentially it's all frequencies. If you can imagine size is some way, it's also frequency. So now, could it just be frequencies of relation? And that is, but what we see is we perceive it as different size dimensions."
},
{
"end_time": 3761.237,
"index": 145,
"start_time": 3733.473,
"text": " So here's some thoughts. So one is when it comes to these different dimensions, are the dimensions clear cut or do they bleed into one another? I think it must bleed. And you mentioned it well is one theory based on this model would be as you get further and further away, like you mentioned, as you go one level up, one level down, it's close enough"
},
{
"end_time": 3791.323,
"index": 146,
"start_time": 3761.834,
"text": " But I kind of think is there like, you know, when you look in a pool and there's a refraction index, you know, do you just get so far away in dimensions that you just can't get there from here? So so it's actually maybe the world of quantum, the quantum world is not necessarily so different. It's just our our view of it. Our perception is so different that we can't even relate, you know, that it's unrelatable or we see such different physical effects."
},
{
"end_time": 3822.5,
"index": 147,
"start_time": 3793.933,
"text": " Yeah, I do think that much of the mystery with quantum mechanics, I don't want to say overplayed, but perhaps overemphasized, maybe overplayed and then tied to consciousness because there is, you know, I don't like the more Richard Dawkins, sorry, not Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson's and Michael Shermers, who would say, well, look, mystery is quantum mechanics, the mystery is consciousness, therefore they're connected. Yeah, that's a that's a fool's errand. Yeah, that's a straw man of theirs."
},
{
"end_time": 3843.251,
"index": 148,
"start_time": 3822.807,
"text": " There is some correctness to that. And the reason why I say that is imagine if there are some banal theories of quantum mechanics that don't have any of these strange properties to them. Now, let's imagine they turn out to be correct. Let's imagine that just like the photoelectric effect, which seemed who the heck knows what's going on here."
},
{
"end_time": 3853.336,
"index": 149,
"start_time": 3843.797,
"text": " at the time, maybe not only lasted a few years, but whatever. Imagine it lasted 200 years, and then people started tying consciousness to that. And then the photoelectric effect was, oh well, actually there are photons."
},
{
"end_time": 3874.394,
"index": 150,
"start_time": 3853.814,
"text": " Okay, well, perhaps you don't want to tie it so closely to quantum mechanics because of quantum mechanics turns out to have some insipid interpretation or some pedestrian interpretation. Then the point is that"
},
{
"end_time": 3887.602,
"index": 151,
"start_time": 3874.821,
"text": " There is, so for example, you don't need complex numbers in quantum mechanics. Some people think so, but it turns out there are real formulations of quantum mechanics. So there's something called the real geometric algebraic formulation."
},
{
"end_time": 3913.831,
"index": 152,
"start_time": 3887.961,
"text": " And then there's the Hilbert Schmidt construction instead of the standard. Again, these are just buzzwords for they sound like buzzwords because no one unless someone who's interested and wants to look it up. The point is that there are other formulations of quantum mechanics that aren't so mysterious. So, for example, classical mechanics is based on something called symplectic geometry, quote unquote, symplectic geometry. It turns out you can formulate quantum mechanics symplectically as a geometric theory."
},
{
"end_time": 3941.869,
"index": 153,
"start_time": 3914.957,
"text": " And there's a paper that I have actually I was reading it or starting to read it. Yeah, I sent you a question on that of because you mentioned your paths while you're looking that up. You mentioned the Newtonian physics, basically, and then you can branch off of that with quantum mechanics and you can branch off of classical theories. And I saw that and again, I wanted to ask you and it sounds like it wasn't correct. But that the idea was that"
},
{
"end_time": 3966.664,
"index": 154,
"start_time": 3942.449,
"text": " imaginary numbers useful for math right cosine and sine you can do shortcuts that it was the only way to describe quantum mechanics that essentially the argument is quantum mechanics doesn't work unless imaginary numbers can be used unless you can use the square root of negative one but it sounds like that's not correct no no"
},
{
"end_time": 3995.299,
"index": 155,
"start_time": 3967.176,
"text": " It turns out that it makes certain aspects extremely simple if one uses imaginary numbers. But then there are other constructions. So again, I don't know how to explain this without being pedantic mathematically, in which case I'll have to then say some terms which are extremely unfamiliar. But many people are interested, so if you like I could go into it, but then it would just be almost like gibberish. How long does it take?"
},
{
"end_time": 4026.408,
"index": 156,
"start_time": 3996.442,
"text": " If you get rid of the complex numbers, it turns out there's still something called a complex structure that lurks underneath. There's a mathematical definition of what's called an almost complex structure, and then you get a complex structure that still lurks underneath, at least in the Hilbert Schmidt construction. But then there's geometric"
},
{
"end_time": 4052.176,
"index": 157,
"start_time": 4026.766,
"text": " algebra which I haven't looked into but apparently there's a geometric algebraic approach which makes the complex numbers look like a crutch and that is much simpler if one looks at it from a real geometric algebraic construction I don't know it I need to look it up what's generally done for people who are interested is that you have a space of observables okay and then you take that space of observables and you turn it into what's called a C star algebra"
},
{
"end_time": 4071.732,
"index": 158,
"start_time": 4052.619,
"text": " And then you represent it with linear operators on a complex Hilbert space that I think is called the Neimark-Gelfand construction. That's one way and then you get the states are complex wave functions or density operators. But then the other way is to take the"
},
{
"end_time": 4102.295,
"index": 159,
"start_time": 4072.517,
"text": " space of observables and keep them as real and give them a certain structure called the Jordan algebraic structure or Lee Jordan algebraic structure. And that's called the Hilbert Schmidt construction that I keep referencing. Okay. And that needs no complex numbers at all. No, no. Okay. So the reason why that you'll see that people who are the popularizers of science, they like to, they like to keep certain aspects of physics at a mystical or mystifying esoteric level. And I don't,"
},
{
"end_time": 4124.241,
"index": 160,
"start_time": 4103.336,
"text": " What I like about your show is that you try to, or you would try and succeed at breaking down engineering and physics so that people can understand. And I see that people, and I keep picking on this one person poorly. I feel bad, Neil deGrasse Tyson. But I feel like, Neil, if you're watching this, please, I'm just using you as a scapegoat."
},
{
"end_time": 4153.404,
"index": 161,
"start_time": 4124.667,
"text": " that I feel like they just want to be mind blowing and evoke awe and show that the world of physics is inscrutable and it makes no sense. And one of the hidden reasons, I think the unconscious reason is because then you look at them and you think, wow, you study what's so abstruse while you must be extremely intelligent. So I think it's that smart people were only rewarded for their intelligence and astuteness and generally not because they're physically strong,"
},
{
"end_time": 4174.718,
"index": 162,
"start_time": 4153.626,
"text": " And so later on in life, that's all they know for status. And so they try to keep that. And I think that's an unconscious motivator for why the public is baffled. It's like a magic trick. So you unconsciously and ineluctably ascribe status and intelligence to someone who's doing a magic trick. So whether it's ledger domain or some unfathomable theory, you unconsciously ascribe sagaciousness or"
},
{
"end_time": 4202.824,
"index": 163,
"start_time": 4175.213,
"text": " I really liked how you went down to the base assumptions in your physical. That really resonated with me. I've been looking into"
},
{
"end_time": 4231.084,
"index": 164,
"start_time": 4203.507,
"text": " I actually wrote a book a few years ago. It was a fitness book, but in it, I went into the science of calories, which I think I'll just mention quickly is if you look at our current calorie system is we determine how much calories are in food by burning it in an at what bomb calorimeter, you know, essentially they burn it. But if you look at just basic biochemistry, you know, your body is at room temperature."
},
{
"end_time": 4255.555,
"index": 165,
"start_time": 4231.459,
"text": " You know, there's no combustion, there's no combustion products, etc. Well, there is combustion, right? But what it uses the Krebs cycle, the respiration cycle, right, which uses ATP. The whole point is it's this very different process. You know, your body does not burn food, you know, we don't burn calories. And I just think that is as a base assumption that our society has,"
},
{
"end_time": 4282.329,
"index": 166,
"start_time": 4256.305,
"text": " And yet we can't determine diets, and we can't determine calories, and we have many people out of shape and fat, obviously overweight. There's some issue with the food system, but our base assumption on this is just so wrong. I think basically you have just too wide a pattern of what can happen. If your base assumption goes wrong, you're starting out already on the wrong foot. So I really respected that you went to those numbers."
},
{
"end_time": 4309.821,
"index": 167,
"start_time": 4282.688,
"text": " And maybe now is a great point to bring up your channel that you wanted to bring up about how to actually. Ah, yeah, yeah. So this is being announced here first on Chris's show. Sure. There's a mathematician or a mathematics channel called 3Blue1Brown, if people want to look that up, 3Blue1Brown. What that is, is it's a math explainer video, sorry, math explainer channel, where this"
},
{
"end_time": 4332.756,
"index": 168,
"start_time": 4310.196,
"text": " creator, his name is Grant Sanderson, made these beautiful illustrations of ordinarily extremely academic and abstruse mathematical concepts that are difficult to understand, but then he animates them and shows you something that's, let's say, at a third year level, but explains it to you in high school."
},
{
"end_time": 4346.408,
"index": 169,
"start_time": 4333.933,
"text": " And then last year he came up with a contest called the Summer of Math Exposition and said, hey, if anyone else wants to do something similar, there's already creators, but hey, if you're on the fence and you've wanted to do something, explain some mathematical concept,"
},
{
"end_time": 4367.278,
"index": 170,
"start_time": 4346.681,
"text": " But you have no, you need some extra motivation, then submit to the Summer of Math Exposition and you may win a prize. But the point is simply to get more exposition of mathematics out there. And he had about a thousand submissions. So I contacted Grant and I said, I love what you did with that contest and I would like to do something similar, but for physics and consciousness."
},
{
"end_time": 4397.073,
"index": 171,
"start_time": 4367.688,
"text": " I don't want you to feel like I'm copying you, though I am, but I don't want to take away from your views or if you don't want me to do it for whatever reason, let me know. He said, just go for it. So I managed to get a sponsor and they'll be giving some cash prizes, the same exact sponsor, the same exact amount as grants, three blue, one brown. So that is it's a thousand dollars to the top five people each. So it's five thousand in total. So one thousand to each of the top five. And then you also get recognition from the theories of everything platform and maybe some other platforms to"
},
{
"end_time": 4426.459,
"index": 172,
"start_time": 4397.79,
"text": " If you do a physics explainer video, so you take some intricate physics concept, like let's say, what is Yang-Mills theory? Hopefully they're more advanced. I would like it to be at the upper year undergrad or graduate level because the rest are just explained ad nauseum. Then submit. There will be some link at some point or consciousness. So let's say you want to talk about Donald Hoffman's theories, but do so a bit more rigorously. Then this contest is coming up and I think there's about 50 days or so from this point between"
},
{
"end_time": 4454.155,
"index": 173,
"start_time": 4427.108,
"text": " I think it'll be mid September when the contest will finalize. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Like, well, thanks for allowing this to be the platform where that's announced first. Oh, that's great, man. Thanks for announcing it. So basically competition, they have 50 days. Is there a length account? What's the length of these? Yeah, it's about the contest rules. Yeah. Oh, do you mean like the duration of the video? How long is that supposed to be? Or is it a video? Yeah, what is it? Yeah, all of them have to be YouTube videos. All of them have to be YouTube videos."
},
{
"end_time": 4466.049,
"index": 174,
"start_time": 4454.326,
"text": " So that's unlike grants. Grants allowed blogs. I just want it to just be YouTube videos. Okay, cool. I don't know, I might have to make a submission or something. Sounds like it's going to be pretty rigorous."
},
{
"end_time": 4487.381,
"index": 175,
"start_time": 4466.698,
"text": " Yeah, feel free and also use it as an opportunity to flesh out your own ideas. Like if you're watching this and you have some toe, you're welcome to submit your own toe. Don't thrust your toe. That's like a saying on the toe challenge. The stereotypical vegan quote unquote thrusts their veganism. So basically don't be that for your toe. It's okay. Explain your toe and trust your toe, but don't thrust it."
},
{
"end_time": 4506.374,
"index": 176,
"start_time": 4488.404,
"text": " Or explain Wolfram's physics, if you're interested in Wolfram's physics project, and you want to take one aspect of it to understand it some more. So what does it say about black holes? Or how are particles akin to quote unquote black holes in branchial space? What is branchial space? You can make a video just on that."
},
{
"end_time": 4533.37,
"index": 177,
"start_time": 4506.374,
"text": " I didn't think it'd be crazy to have a toe or something of my theory or some analysis of it or some angle"
},
{
"end_time": 4553.439,
"index": 178,
"start_time": 4534.002,
"text": " Yeah, and I was thinking of this, I'll keep here with you, Chris. I was thinking, should I do it physics, consciousness and UFOs? But to me, the Toe channel is not about UFOs. It's tangentially about UFOs, because UFOs are related to physics and consciousness, at least they seem to be. So it could be that later I do a contest for UFOs."
},
{
"end_time": 4580.23,
"index": 179,
"start_time": 4553.814,
"text": " Just specifically. So if you want to do, for example, Panda Koala, Red Panda Koala has a beautiful dog. Like that guy would just win. I'm sorry. Red Panda is the winning all if ever there's UFO submissions. His work is pristine. Like I just got turned on him today. Actually, I didn't really. Yeah, he should be hired by by Nebula or some stream or Disney Plus or some. It's professional. I'm surprised it's free anyway."
},
{
"end_time": 4607.944,
"index": 180,
"start_time": 4581.22,
"text": " I may do something where if you want to give your theory as to how UFOs are moving, but do so in a nice animated way and please keep some rigor in it. That's one of the criteria is rigor. So show equations, no hand waving and, and Deepak Chopra usage of the word quantum just to place quantum in there and give it some scientific readings. None of that. Anyway, that's that. That's the contest. That's cool, man."
},
{
"end_time": 4636.732,
"index": 181,
"start_time": 4608.592,
"text": " Thank you for being a place where it can be announced. I remember right when I got turned on to your show, you had made some post. It was some questioning post that really made me think. I can't remember. I think it was on LinkedIn even. I like these things you're doing to bring out the discussion and it's cool. I'm focusing more on just trying to get hard data, how to organize our UAP society. It's an NFT project."
},
{
"end_time": 4662.193,
"index": 182,
"start_time": 4637.193,
"text": " I was telling you about trying to get hard data. So with the few minutes we have left, I have to ask, I already mentioned I change all the time. What is your impression of the UFO phenomena at this point? Just a general impression, are you leading any direction? Do you think it's real? Do you think it's fake? What is your impression on UFOs, the phenomena?"
},
{
"end_time": 4693.302,
"index": 183,
"start_time": 4664.309,
"text": " I don't know. I think that it's real in the sense that there's something to it that isn't simply bokeh, or isn't simply a lens flare. And also, I was speaking to Mick, this is nothing against Mick, by the way, I know many people have his extreme opinions of him, and I feel bad. But anyway, Mick said that his analysis of the gimbal video, or I mixed them up, there's two, there's the, there's what? You have the gimbal, the go fast, the flare one is the old one from the Nimitz."
},
{
"end_time": 4723.387,
"index": 184,
"start_time": 4693.951,
"text": " The one that looks akin to what you have where it says little files. That's a gimbal. Yeah, that's the gimbal. The glare, you know. So he said that that's a glare. To me, that doesn't matter if it's a glare. To me, what matters is what's behind the glare. I assume that what I'm seeing is not the actual shape of the craft. So he said, yeah, I'm not speculating as to what's behind the glare or what's precipitating it. I'm just saying that what's being shown is a glare. I'm like, okay, cool. People are calling that a debunking. I don't consider that a debunking, at least"
},
{
"end_time": 4751.698,
"index": 185,
"start_time": 4724.138,
"text": " Well, I don't. So I think that there's something there. As for what it is, I don't know. Is it a projection? Like a hologram? I don't think it's a hologram. I think there's something that you can knock on personally. Is it something from a government? I don't know. I don't know. I hope so. Personally, I hope it is. And then is it something else? Well, who knows? Who knows? I imagine in 50 years, we'll know. I imagine within 50 years, we'll know. I don't think they're all hoaxes. You think it's noble. You think the phenomena is a noble thing."
},
{
"end_time": 4779.326,
"index": 186,
"start_time": 4752.039,
"text": " Well, as noble as anything else, so as noble as knowing that there are leopards. Like, well, what the heck is a leopard? There's still many mysteries in biology and what's a species classified as, and are leopards consciousness? There'll be many question marks that will still appear. But we feel like we have a handle on what a leopard is or what a river is. So it would be akin to that, maybe perhaps nowhere near to the same level. Maybe like a giant squid, like we see them every once in a while, but we feel like they're there, okay."
},
{
"end_time": 4808.422,
"index": 187,
"start_time": 4779.326,
"text": " They make sense in this framework. It may also be that there's a radical change that happens in all of science, but I still feel like we will have an understanding of it, an understanding, quote unquote, within 50 years, like a drastic, whether it's disclosure or whatever it is, discloses itself rather than the government doing so. I don't think that, well, yes, maybe our conceptions of what's physical or what's banal or what's terrain needs a transformation."
},
{
"end_time": 4833.387,
"index": 188,
"start_time": 4810.094,
"text": " But maybe not. I don't know. I really like on your channel too is you also are not afraid to go for the woo or at least to interact with it, you know, to find out, you know, because I get a lot of people writing me and saying, you know, stay away from the woo, you know, your nuts and bolts, the fighter pilot angle. And I appreciate that you just go in there."
},
{
"end_time": 4861.681,
"index": 189,
"start_time": 4833.797,
"text": " I think we should write a science as I think science should be unbiased, right? Open minded to any possible solution. But as you've gone in there, you know, do you have a line? You know, do you know where the Wu line is? Oh, I don't have a line. I have a mental stability line that mental stability. Yeah, because it's absolutely not simple, not easy, not it's an arduous and confounding and terrifying process to study this. So someone was saying,"
},
{
"end_time": 4878.37,
"index": 190,
"start_time": 4862.073,
"text": " Yeah, it's like you go in guns blazing and I'm like, no, man, I explore toll or the theories of everything not like doom eternal. It's not like doom where you just go in. I explore like Dark Souls. I have my shield up and I'm inching forward extremely carefully."
},
{
"end_time": 4902.892,
"index": 191,
"start_time": 4878.763,
"text": " So I am a coward and there may be towers, there may be vast lands that I'll never get to because I just can't. And I'm sorry. I say sorry to myself because I'm an extremely curious person and I want to know. But recently I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth sacrificing my sanity, my wife,"
},
{
"end_time": 4933.2,
"index": 192,
"start_time": 4903.49,
"text": " My relationship with society, it's not worth it. I also have a feeling that there's something about truth, capital T truth, not just facts, scientific facts, but some capital T truth. Okay, then the question is, well, what's the difference between those? We can get into that. I also have a feeling that capital T truth is in line in alignment with what's good and what's loving and also societal, a societal good. So then you would say, well, then someone not necessarily you, but then someone would say, well, isn't there that statement that there's nothing"
},
{
"end_time": 4956.357,
"index": 193,
"start_time": 4933.541,
"text": " healthy about functioning properly in a sick society. No, I think that statement's false. I think that there are some of these heroes like Nietzsche and Cantor who have went mad from studying. I can feel some of that. If I'm being honest, I can feel some of that. And I don't think there's anything romantic about that. I think that that's something that was a defect of theirs and we shouldn't venerate them."
},
{
"end_time": 4987.756,
"index": 194,
"start_time": 4958.046,
"text": " I think that there's something about some people say well the story of Jesus is the story of a man in a corrupt society. I think every almost every single person Jesus interacted with loved him. It's just a few like Pharisees and some people in power not even everyone in power that despised him but I think there's something about capital T truth that is good and loving and so if I feel like what I'm studying is provoking extreme anxiety in me then I'm viewing it incorrectly so I also believe that."
},
{
"end_time": 5016.63,
"index": 195,
"start_time": 4988.558,
"text": " I can completely relate, man. I feel the pressure. You also seem like a guy. I think you have a very high level of detail. You're not going to deliver a subpar product. When you publish, I think you probably put a lot of pressure just on yourself anyway. There's also the pressure coming from outside all the people and from supporters. I find that I get"
},
{
"end_time": 5046.92,
"index": 196,
"start_time": 5017.261,
"text": " You know, the haters, at least you know where it's coming from, but I also feel pressure from supporters to not let them down either. And then you're kind of alone, man. It's kind of like based on your subscriber count, basically, is what I found. You know, is it like, people at your level and below, you know, you can kind of relate to and talk to you, but then the higher levels like this other level, I don't know, it's very isolating. So now, man, I think it's a long term game like a marathon."
},
{
"end_time": 5074.224,
"index": 197,
"start_time": 5047.961,
"text": " whatever sustainable you're doing a great job. I think you're kicking tons of ass. Thank you. I like that. I like that you said it's a long-term game. That's something I'm slowly shifting my mind toward because I have goals on a weekly, on a monthly basis. I need to have, well, I'm starting to have goals that are multi-year. So initially when I started toe theories of everything, I thought it was a two and a half year to three year project because I thought I could catalog all the toes by then. I was just thinking in terms of physics, like SL 10 or SL five and so on."
},
{
"end_time": 5103.37,
"index": 198,
"start_time": 5074.77,
"text": " But then it turns out, well, it's much more vast than that. And now I've changed my estimate to seven years from this point. And so when I think in terms of that timeline, then if I miss a day, it's okay. If I need or want to spend time with my wife, I'm going to do so. I prioritize that now. Like she's, she saved my life, Chris. My wife has saved my life. Jeez. She's such a rock that if not for her, I would be adrift in"
},
{
"end_time": 5126.152,
"index": 199,
"start_time": 5104.445,
"text": " I wouldn't be here. Well, anyway. Yeah, I don't talk about my wife or family, but they're huge, you know, I mean, totally, completely. Yeah, well, dude, I would say anytime you reach out, I mean, there's not a lot of us in the YouTube game and it's extremely difficult topic."
},
{
"end_time": 5156.869,
"index": 200,
"start_time": 5127.688,
"text": " I think that a part of me is that I'm extremely insecure. And I want to say to myself and to other people, look how seriously I take toll that I'm willing to risk my own mental stability. I think I romanticize that at an unconscious level, and I need to not do that because there's nothing that's not good. It's not good at all. And it also is not good. It's definitely not good for the capital G good."
},
{
"end_time": 5181.323,
"index": 201,
"start_time": 5157.841,
"text": " Well, it probably isn't necessary either, you know, I mean, I think people underestimate what they can do in a long period of time, and we just overestimate what we can do in a short period of time. So I put plenty of pressure, much like yourself, I'm sure to Oh, yeah. And then you mentioned the patrons or people who are your supporters. Strangely enough, they support you because they're like, Hey, Chris, like,"
},
{
"end_time": 5211.305,
"index": 202,
"start_time": 5181.596,
"text": " I love what you're doing. Take some time off. I'm going to give you $10, $20 a month, $30 a month, $5, $1. And then for me, when people give some of their money, which they don't have to, then I feel like I need to work harder because otherwise I'm going to be squandering what you're giving me. So I get messages from people on the Patreon saying, please don't do that. But I can't help but feel like if I need to take a week off, which isn't even off, it's more like"
},
{
"end_time": 5240.572,
"index": 203,
"start_time": 5212.654,
"text": " Well, off from publishing, but I could be studying. I feel bad. I feel bad about that. And I feel like, man, I'm so far behind. All I have is I feel like I'm 15 years behind where I should be intellectually in terms of the knowledge that should be in my head. Far behind. But then there's some ego with that. Like, who the heck am I to think that? Wow, I should have known this when I was 20 or whatever it is. So there's so much conflict in me. Well, anyway, I'm tempering that slowly, even saying this out loud. Thank you, Chris. It's therapeutic."
},
{
"end_time": 5259.343,
"index": 204,
"start_time": 5241.032,
"text": " I can totally relate, completely."
},
{
"end_time": 5283.456,
"index": 205,
"start_time": 5259.599,
"text": " It's a super difficult topic. I think you're doing a great job, man. I'm jealous of your channel. I'm jealous of your knowledge. I'm looking through yours. I have almost no knowledge, Chris. So I was looking through your videos. You get like 20,000 hits regularly. That's difficult for me to get 20,000 hits. I get some spikes every once in a while. So you're doing better than myself, at least in terms of views. Like I'm jealous of that, man. I'm covetous. I'm a desirous person."
},
{
"end_time": 5309.07,
"index": 206,
"start_time": 5283.899,
"text": " What's coming out later tomorrow, so Thursday or Friday, which should be out by the time this is public, is"
},
{
"end_time": 5332.329,
"index": 207,
"start_time": 5309.48,
"text": " Like you mentioned, there are several creators, well, almost every creator who's quote unquote larger than you will never mention you. And it's because they want to squash you and they want to bring themselves up. So it's competition. And I was seeing that, firstly, I see that in myself, but I also know that I wish Joe Rogan or Lex Friedman or someone higher than me, maybe not them, like they're way, way higher than me."
},
{
"end_time": 5355.111,
"index": 208,
"start_time": 5332.602,
"text": " But someone higher than me, at least, would once or twice mention me. That'd be great. And no one, almost, I don't think there's a single person who has. And so I thought, you know what? There are some creators that I like, that are in my space, my space as in consciousness, math, physics, even UFOs and so on, that have a small subscriber count, like 15,000 or less."
},
{
"end_time": 5384.514,
"index": 209,
"start_time": 5355.657,
"text": " Why don't I just do a video highlighting them? Because that's what I wish someone did for me. So that's coming out tomorrow. It's a list of 40 channels that if you like the theories of everything channel, if you like math, physics, UFOs, consciousness, here are some channels that are from small up and coming creators that maybe you would like to subscribe to. Yeah, that's awesome. And I would say it's human nature, dude. I don't think it's you. You're just you're the one honest enough to say it on on air."
},
{
"end_time": 5406.493,
"index": 210,
"start_time": 5385.196,
"text": " You know, I think and to realize it, to realize it in yourself and then to say it on air because I think it's just human nature, man. I mean, we all work super hard, I think. And yeah, you know, it's it's a game. But I really appreciate that. Thanks for all your time, Kurt. Yeah, thank you. Take care, man. Yeah, man. Thanks for being here. And"
},
{
"end_time": 5437.517,
"index": 211,
"start_time": 5407.961,
"text": " It's an honor. Thank you. Amazing interview there with Kurt. I can't wait to do it again. I really hope to learn so much going back through and editing, adding all those little details, the words he brought up. I didn't know. I love that he added thoughts on free will, emergence theory. He answered my question on complex numbers. I was curious about that as well. So great discussion with Kurt. Hope it happens again. Thanks for being here. Smash that like button if you do like the content."
},
{
"end_time": 5467.807,
"index": 212,
"start_time": 5438.08,
"text": " Consider subscribing and then support the channel on patreon.com forward slash Chris Lado. Patrons had live access to this interview actually, so if you want to take part in these backstage interviews, want to see what goes on behind the scenes, then consider signing up for patreon.com forward slash Chris Lado for the Patreon channel to support the channel. And if you want to take action and really get involved and get out there, then consider joining UEP Society. So we're out there. It's an NFT project."
},
{
"end_time": 5482.244,
"index": 213,
"start_time": 5468.131,
"text": " Thank you for watching!"
},
{
"end_time": 5506.084,
"index": 214,
"start_time": 5490.708,
"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? Jokes aside, Verizon has the most ways to save on phones and plants"
},
{
"end_time": 5520.742,
"index": 215,
"start_time": 5507.022,
"text": " So bring in your bill to your local Miami Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal."
}
]
}No transcript available.