Audio Player
✓ Using synced audio (timestamps accurate)
Starting at:
[Auxiliary] Gen Zed interviews Curt Jaimungal on the Simulation Hypothesis, Consciousness, and UFOs
July 18, 2022
•
1:27:38
•
undefined
Audio:
Download MP3
✓ Synced audio available: Click any timestamp to play from that point. Timestamps are accurate because we're using the original ad-free audio.
Transcript
Enhanced with Timestamps
217 sentences
14,305 words
Method: api-polled
Transcription time: 84m 44s
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.
Dave from Generation Z interviewed me, Kurt Jaimungal, regarding the simulation hypothesis, specifically why I don't give it much credence, the misuse of physics terminology in other domains, consciousness, and of course, the physics of UFOs. There's no sponsor for today's episode. Just rate this podcast on whichever platform you're listening to it from.
Links to Generation Z's, that is Dave's, podcast are in the description. If you'd like to donate to Theories of Everything, to the Toe Project, then visit patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal, as this is what I'm able to do full time thanks to your support. Thank you so much, and enjoy Generation Z interviewing Kurt Jaimungal.
Alright, good morning, good afternoon or good evening everyone. I am extremely honored, humbled, grateful and gracious to have with us Mr. Kurt Jaimungal, the one and only from Theories of Everything. Before we delve into all of this, brother, how are you today? Thank you so very much for coming on and how are things on your end?
I'm honored to be here. Thank you so much for the plaudits. I appreciate it. I'm doing moderately well. Nice. Very nice. Yeah. I figure even myself relative to everything going on in the world, it's to say moderately well is better than most in my opinion. But with that said, I do want to, I do have a handful of questions for you, sir, that you've been so gracious to come on and discuss and have answered. But first and foremost,
Relative to all the discussions you've had, the experiences you may or may not have had, whether it's talking with people, individuals, or whether it's interacting with your environment in your day-to-day life, specifically the UAP high strangeness type phenomenon, where do you stand currently as it pertains to the
I guess hypothesis or theory that you would subscribe to the most per se, at least at this moment. I want to be clear that, you know, even like myself, our perspectives change as new information is, is, you know, discovered and all of that. But in this current point in time, what do you reside with the most? For example, there are some that, you know, postulate electric universe theory, some that postulate many diff, you know, simulation theory, you name it game theory, all of that. Where would you land in that regard on that spectrum?
I think it would be better if you give me some options and I tell you yes or no on them. Sure. It's difficult for me to pull them out from the void. So you mentioned the electrical universe. Do you mind? Yeah, absolutely. The concept of quantum dielectric, you know, electromagnetism, all of that. They're sort of that everything that the core archetypal foundation of this universe or reality in which we are living in is comprised of. I guess we could say the perspective of
Okay, so much like yourself, my views on this change on a week to week, maybe month to month basis for sure. Right. And I would say no to the electric universe. I would say no to the simulation hypothesis. What other options are there?
There's quite a few, I mean there's so many different ones, but before we go on with a bit more of the list, just curious, why say no to the simulation hypothesis? I'm asking in a good faith manner, just trying to understand where you're coming from in that regard.
I don't think the simulation hypothesis is well formed. I think that if what one is doing as a proponent of those ideas are making a living by developing these extravagant ideas which are couched in scientific terminology so that they can earn an air of credibility among their peers and the public as being these sagacious inventive intellectuals, I see them as being about science fiction or philosophical musings which use physics terminology
don't bother to cite physics papers or provide a mechanism. I see them as masquerading as physics, but they're philosophical musings. There's so many assumptions that go into the simulation hypothesis. There's a variety of assumptions, and almost all of them are dubious. So an exponential curve that continues with some rate of progress. Well, let's say you made
I don't
I don't see why it would be the case that the second level of the simulation can develop a simulation. I can see that the first level made, but I don't see why the simulation can develop a simulation. I also don't see why one can't jump out of the simulation if it's all information.
I also don't see why the laws of physics are those that can be made computable in an algorithmic manner. In fact, there's some bounds on that that have been experimentally looked for, because there'd be certain symmetries that we broken certain rotational symmetries, and there's no evidence of it. So I'm unsure. I see it as the ideations of a godless people trying to find God.
Got you. Okay, so now just curious, and again, I ask with the utmost respect and in a good faith manner, would you apply this as well to the Electric Universe Theory, that same type of concept, not as much substantiation, not as many, too many sort of gaps or voids relative to the academic literature that can't substantiate this? I don't know. I just don't understand what the Electric Universe Theory is trying to say. So sometimes people will
We'll send theories and then they'll use certain terms like quantum and electric and dielectric and electro gravities, electro gravities and so on. But I don't understand what they mean when they say that. So they understand what they mean. And I just need to do some more research.
Okay, I see what you're saying because I want to I also want to make it clear for those that are going to be watching or listening to this later on pertaining to the we could say the the Ideological subscription of people wanting to check off those confirmation bias boxes and then making those leaps without actually having any type of evidentiary
would you be more open to such theories or proposals if there was more academic literature that would sort of fill those voids of the unexplained in your perspective?
I'm entirely open to it already. I just don't understand it. So I just need to learn more. It's a defect on my part, most likely. Oh, I got you. I mean, I'd give you more credit than you may be saying there, but I hear you, man. I hear you and I appreciate that a ton because I also, to your point, I know there's also a lot of instances where the terms, for example, quantum consciousness, they're thrown around quite often and it's like, you know,
Again, consciousness means one thing to a philosopher, whereas it means something else to a mathematician, to a physicist perhaps, right? From ontological and deontological perspectives, that seems to be something that everyone kind of throws around and it's like, okay, what precisely do we mean by that?
And with that said, I did want to ask as well to pertaining to just your overall thoughts on UAP, because I did want to go through some more list of theories if you will, but I think we can kind of go throughout the recording if that's all right, because it actually falls in line with a lot of the questions here. What are your thoughts currently on UAP? The potential, let's just say hypothetically, let's presume that there was a
There's a there there, if you will. Whether, you know, what is observed is something that is that of a physical substrate or something that is of a more of an optical epigenetic type observation. What do you personally, I guess we could say, lean towards at this point in time? And to be clear to the audience, perspectives can always change and adapt and what have you, but at least as of the day we're recording this. I think there's something physical about it.
Because they're a craft associated with it. By the way, Dave, for the first time, I've never seen a craft. And for the first time in my life, maybe an hour ago, I was looking at the moon in Toronto, because the moon is for whatever reason is visible right now. Yeah. And then I saw two what looked like craft.
And then I was getting my phone out and I couldn't film it. So when people say, hey, you should film these, it's extremely difficult to do so. But anyway, they turn out to be birds. I think they turn out to be birds because I saw some flapping at least in one and my wife was saying,
Right, right. Anyway, I just thought that that was a hilarious coincidence because I've never seen one in my entire life. At least I don't think so. Anyway, so if you don't mind repeating the question, what is behind the UAP? So something physical, I think so. And then some people say it's consciousness related. Yeah, that's a nebulous term. I think what they mean is that that they get injected with certain emotions or certain intents, intent. So not not intense, but
Well, the plural of intent, and apparently some people can summon them via some meditative technique like CE5. So I think that that's what people mean when they say that there's a consciousness-related aspect. I think that the world may not be... There's something called dualism, so there's mind and physical matter. I think that there may be something like trialism, or trichotomy, or a four, or a five, or a six, or multiple... Maybe it peaks at 12. There seems to be something special about the number 12.
So maybe all that we can interact with is just to the physical and the spiritual or the consciousness level. And maybe there are many other levels.
Now, this actually speaks to me about, speaking of going through different, you know, hypotheses and what have you, Professor Nicholas Gisson's thick time concept. And I was wondering your thoughts on that. Do you humbly dismiss that postulation, that hypothesis, or do you think there is something there? Because I think that there seems to be something pertaining to a different observational state, particularly, again, forgive me for being overly vague, but in a quantum
I've always used the example thanks to your interview with him.
If I say, Kurt, it's going to rain tomorrow, I'm either going to be correct or incorrect, but then we have a potentially third option, if you will, which is an indeterminate option. It has not yet to be decided, if you will. Now, to what extent is one making that decision? Forgive me for rambling, but that then speaks to Sir Roger Penrose's work of the difference between AI and consciousness, if you will.
Pertaining to sticking with Mr. Nicholas Jisson's thick time concept, what do you make of that personally?
So you asked me do I dismiss that idea and I would say no and virtually that would cause
be my answer for almost any idea you pose to me, I don't dismiss it. And the reason is that I've been shaken to my core from many beliefs that I used to think were quote unquote, obvious and solid that I no longer. I tend to not use those words, like obvious. Anyway. Okay. So the question was, what do I think of his thick time concept isn't
He admitted this. I mean, this is his own words. They're not specific yet. It's an avenue for exploration. So it comes from something called, and you don't need quantum mechanics in this. Classical physics is indeterminate, even though people don't like to think like that, but you don't need quantum mechanics. You just need something called intuitionist logic. So if you know the difference, people probably know what classical logic is, and that's the logic of Aristotle. It's what most people think of as logic. That is something is either true or not true.
Then you can have something called the explosion principle, where if you have a proposition that is both true and not true, then you can prove any other proposition. So if you think that it's going to both rain and not rain, then you can prove that there's a horse in front of you. Well, other than the fact that I have a large nose, there's something false about that there's a horse in front of you, or we would think so. So in intuitionist logic,
you remove what's called the law of the excluded middle so you no longer have the principle of explosion which means in mathematics you can't prove by contradiction which means many of the proofs that we do as students don't work but regardless the point is that when one uses intuitionist logic because physics is based in mathematics and mathematics is based in logic so what happens if you meddle with the logic okay well
We assumed it's classical logic, let's change it to intuitionist logic. You get different outcomes. So for example, you get that, that the time, like he called it, the time is, is thick, that the continuum is quote unquote viscous. And so one way of thinking about that is that I don't think this is the correct way of explaining it, but let's imagine that you had the number. This is difficult. Sorry, man. I don't mean to pose such questions. No, no, no, no. It's simple.
when explained from a certain vantage point. So let's say you have 2.01. Okay, so let's imagine that characterizes the present somehow, the number 2.01. But there are several 2.01s everywhere. So then are they all the same? Well, at the next level, 2.01 can be 2.012. And then for somewhere else, it could be 2.013. Right. So you would say they diverged when one point they were the same. And so you tried to pull out one point, but you managed to pull several points. And so the present
Technically, if someone knows mathematics, the present isn't measure zero. So we often think of the present as being a point, but he would say that the present doesn't have measure zero, which fits with our intuition. Actually, it fits with some of our intuition, but not the more Eastern spiritual intuitions, which suggest that all there is is the quote unquote now.
Nicholas would say that the now quote unquote is blurred. And I'm interested in taking Justin's concept a bit farther and suggesting not only is the future open, but the past is open too. So that's a bit strange because what does it mean? We often think that the past is fixed, but I think that automatically assumes something like physicalism or materialism. And I'm not sure if that's the correct foundation.
Hmm, so when you say the now is blurred or that's something that that Nicholas would would would postulate or propose That's interesting when you say blurred and I again I don't mean to put words in your mouth or professor gissens But would this speak to that of the concept of expansion and contraction so to speak that constant fluctuating I guess you could say sort of like an elastic band. The now is constantly
We could say expanding and contracting, if you will, relative to one's perception. If that makes sense. I don't know. So something interesting is that right now... Okay. You heard me say that I'm not a particular fan of the more new age types who like to use the word quantum and inject it and suggest that whatever mystical insight that they have can be
contingent on quantum field theory, for example. Sure. When, by the way, quantum field theory, it's a misnomer to call it a field. And then many times you'll hear waves and so on. And the whole universe is waves that irks me. But it shouldn't. That's just a bias of mine. Now here to help to justify their side, sometimes physicists have taken words that so I'm saying right now, I don't I'm not a fan of people who are on the spiritual side.
misappropriating quote-unquote misappropriating physics terms to prove quote-unquote their propositions because oftentimes they don't understand the physics and then they'll just use some flowery metaphor but pretend that it's it has some grounding in scientific in science because it's using scientific terminology. They'll throw an abstract in there type thing an abstract definition yeah yeah I'm sure you've seen this I'm sure you you know almost precisely what I'm referring to now
More specifically, I'm having a difficult time putting the words to the thoughts, which are nebulous. So what I'm saying is that there's the spiritual side who adopts the physics terminology in order to give some credence to what they're saying. I don't think that they should do that. And one of the reasons is that, well, what if quantum mechanics turns out to have a prosaic explanation, then are you going to abandon all of the
all of your ties to consciousness in it and the observer effect and so on. Well, what you're doing is you're grounding your spirituality in that. Well, what happens to me is like worshipping an idol and you should worship God. You're worshipping some instantiation.
okay anyway but the physicists have done the same where they've taken the word energy which used to mean something and then they have given it an explicit definition and then when some of the more new age types say well it's all energy or we have the same we're on the same quote unquote wavelength well then the physicists will say yeah but that doesn't fit the correct definition however the physicist is not realizing that they're the ones that have quote unquote stolen the word
So you've mentioned time stretching and so on. Well, when you think about the development or what time meant, time was clearly a word that was used prior to physics because physics is only a few centuries old, or let's say a few millennia old for if you want to abstract what physics means into natural philosophy. Okay, so time was something that was amorphous and voluminous even at its center. It's not precise. So our time can be
Expanded and contracted like you mentioned you wait in line and time feels like it's lasting for quite some time right and then when something fun is happening then you feel like time is occurring quickly and there are several definitions of time
And then the physicist quote unquote, the scientist quote unquote came along and said, let's capture one of those definitions of times. So the cycles of the earth around the sun. Okay. Then let's truncate that to the cycles of the seasons. Okay. Let's try truncate that to the cycles of the day. And let's truncate that further and further and further until you get seconds. And then what the operational definition of time is, which is a light clock. And then we say, that's the quote unquote definition of time, but our definition of time was contingent on something else. And then what you're saying is what you're,
suggesting this expanding and contracting is to go back to the original definition. And I'm a fan of that. Well, anyway, this is to justify some of the usage of extremely specific terms from physics in a different manner because physics is actually stolen in a sense, certain words. Gotcha. I see what you're saying. Okay. So with that said, I did to sort of add onto that and to lean into that, that sort of subject of prominence, what do you,
What is your take, Kurt, on this concept of, I guess we could say, randomness versus indeterminism, particularly the perspective held by Professor Sir Roger Penrose specifically, and please interject if I'm incorrect in what I'm about to state here because I may be wrong, but this concept of how
How consciousness, as Sir Roger Penrose states, is, in his humble perspective, non-computational, pertaining to the idea of I know about a month back, relative to the time we're recording this, Jordan Peterson had a conversation with him, and they talked about how, with respects of viewing randomness in particular,
You have to have a set of preset functions or outcomes, if you will, that are then put into, for example, a computer program that then selects the outcome afterwards. Whereas Sir Roger Penrose seems to be stating that he doesn't claim to know what consciousness is, but rather he seems to be leaning towards what he feels it isn't, if that makes sense. And he feels consciousness is not that, that there is not a preset
of outcomes that are going to be, regardless of what occurs, say there's five outcomes of any particular event relative to the dissemination of the consequences of the actions within that event. He believes that the idea of consciousness is coming from, forgive me for being overly vague here, elsewhere. Do you have any thoughts on that?
yeah to restate what you're saying it's please because if i messed up yeah so i don't know what the difference between indeterminacy and randomness other than perhaps a lack of knowledge so you can say that it's unclear whether or not someone will open the door behind you or to the side of you but it's in a sense it's determined it's just that you lack the knowledge so you can view it as if it's random so let's just say there's true randomness and then there's randomness which is
which comes as a result of our ignorance. So let's just talk about true randomness. Sure. Okay. Actually, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about computability and non-computability. So what's being referred to by Roger Penrose is that there seems to be an aspect of the human mind, which is non-computational. You'll hear plenty of people like Joscha Bach and Stephen Wolfram talk about that the universe, including our mind, because that's in their model, a subset of the universe, that the universe is algorithmic.
and moves and progresses forward in step by step fashion. What the algorithm is, who knows, but there existed. Now, Roger Penrose would say, if you look at something like Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which says, or one of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which says that for any first order logical system, which is quote unquote powerful enough to encode
The natural numbers. So this is all somewhat technical and then you have to what the heck doesn't mean powerful enough. Is that even a math term? But this can be made precise that there exists certain truths within that system that cannot be proved from within, sorry, certain truths of that first order logical system that cannot be proved from the set of axioms and the rules of inference and so on.
however we can see that it's true so then you wonder well how the heck can we see that it's true but it can't prove it well what if our minds are being generated by something like a computer well then what if we were able to see this the quote-unquote source code then we could find potentially some truth because it's a forced first-order logical system and there are extensions to this by the way it doesn't have to be first-order okay so there it's but let's just imagine it's a first-order logical system then
We can find a truth within our own source code that can't be proved within the system, yet we can see that it's true, but we're a part of the system. So one lies, one runs into a contradiction there, and that in Penrose's mind implies that the mind itself is not doing something computational. There's something non-computational about it. We can see truths about an algorithmic system that that system can't see. So thus, our minds can't be algorithmic. That system can't produce it.
Yeah. Okay, so what was the question, Dave, if you know what I'm repeating? Yeah, absolutely. Just your general perspective on Sir Roger Penrose's indeterminism versus randomness where he postulates that consciousness is non-computational.
And it seems, if I could add very quickly to what you just said, I don't want to add this to the question, but as a quick side commentary, and you're more than welcome to address this if you wish, I've been stating particularly on my channel as well with my audience that knows the show, we've been looking lately at, for example, the Tribonacci sequence, where it is a succession from the Fibonacci sequence. But what I find quite peculiar to your point, Kurt, is that the Tribonacci sequence is harder to produce than it is to prove.
And what's interesting is that that speaks to me from a set of contextually-based observations of what you were just saying, for example. We can see the result in which something would, if it were to be producible, would have, but when we try and put it into the computer, it can't be computed or produced. So just your overall take on, again, the idea of consciousness being non-computational and how we can maybe
Speculator hypothesizes a set of solutions relative to being able to, you know, move forward from that point because that seems to be quite a sticking point in which whether philosophers or physicists or even computer scientists seem to be, I don't want to say stuck on per se, but really taking a lot of time to analyze and I think rightfully so.
Like I mentioned, I'm not sure what Penrose meant when he said indeterminacy versus randomness. Sure. So I'll just speak on the hypothesis of the quote unquote strong AI. Have you heard of this? Yes. Yes. Yep. Okay. So if you don't mind, can you tell the audio or do you want me to tell the audience what the strong AI is? Please, if that's all right. Yes. Yes, please. Okay. So it's that if there's a computer that sufficiently emulates human behavior enough, like a Turing test, for example, then it is conscious. Hmm.
So there's some issues with that. Now, one issue is that let's imagine, Dave, we can place your entire brain into a book and it would be a huge, huge book. It'd be larger than this entire building and perhaps even a city block. But conceivably it could be placed, maybe, maybe not, but conceivably it could be placed in, in some finite space. Okay. Then what if in that book,
You can pose any question to that book, just like you can pose a question to a computer like Lambda, for example, or GPT-3 and so on. So you can pose a question to it and through following some careful leaf-lidding and going through the papers and instructions painfully slow, but you can do this, you can arrive at some answer.
Okay, let's imagine that. That's a thought experiment. That's an extremely slow version of a computer, but it's essentially what a computer is doing. Then what's conscious there? Is it the book that is conscious? So is Dave the book? If I asked it a question, I said, Hey, how's it going? Then you said, great, man. And then I said, so what are we talking about today? And then you said indeterminacy versus randomness and so on by leafletting through this.
Is the book conscious? Now, what happens if no one reads the book? Is the book then conscious? What happens if two people are reading the book at the same time? What happens if we don't read the book, but instead we transcribe it with x-rays? So we view it from some other planets and then we put it onto a computer there. Does that book become conscious? Does it know when it's being skimmed through? These sound like inane questions to
to the perhaps the average person, but people who believe in the strong AI view take this seriously and say that somehow the book is conscious, but it's not clear to me. When is it conscious under what conditions and, and what would happen if you replaced a page in that book, just one page in that book. Does it mean that that's an entirely new book? Is it an entirely new consciousness? So I would say that the strong AI position has this to contend with and many other thought experiments.
There's something interesting, so there's the Turing test, but to me, I don't see the Turing test as a, well, I see the Turing test as less of a test of the computer and more of a test of ourselves.
It's a test of our own model of our self-model. So for example, if you gave a Tamagotchi to a five-year-old, you would imagine that the five-year-old would think that the Tamagotchi is alive. But we don't think of that as a testament to the prowess of the computer in the Tamagotchi, but rather as a limitation to the five-year-old. So when people are saying someone, quote unquote, or some computer passes the Turing test, we could see that as that just means that we haven't developed an articulated enough self-model.
Thank you so much. On a personal note, I'm actually in that same sort of line of thought in that regard with you there. That idea of, again, to what extent if it was observed from different states of observability relative to where that computer is, if you will, to what extent can we even claim that it's conscious during the state or transition of the computation.
Thank you so much for that. Moving on, I did want to ask, I guess there may be a bit of a relation in this regard, depending to what extent we hypothesize and observe this at, but Mr. Salvatore Pays and the UFO Navy patents and all of this, first and foremost, is there anything that you took from that interview or conversation with Mr. Pays that sort of
I don't want to say enlightened you, but rather made you again, cause that's quite a vague term used these days, but it made you sort of re-observe or rethink a particular, I guess we could say a set of how physics is observed in certain ways per se pertaining to how he was, for example, he was saying Kurt, this, it keeps going back to this plank scale, this center point, if you will,
What, if anything, did you take from that? What were you thinking in real time, if you can recall, or even afterwards? What did you think after that conversation? In real time, what I was thinking was, I'm not sure what that means. I don't know what that means. I don't understand what that means. I don't know why you're using the terms in this manner. Now, what he's referring to is something called the Ashtakar bounce. Actually, I don't know if it's called that, but Ashtakar, who's a physicist who is
a brilliant physicist who should be on the ranks of Feynman and Wheeler, but people who are not a part of physics don't know his name, so hopefully that can change because I'll be interviewing him shortly. Ashdekar has this idea from loop quantum gravity, and apparently it just falls out of the equations. You don't require extra postulates. That when there's enough energy at the
When there's enough energy to create a black hole that somehow you no longer get an attractive force, but a repulsive one. And then in loop quantum cosmology, this means that the Big Bang wasn't actually the beginning of the universe, but was the contraction of a previous universe, which bounced to create ours. Because then when you have it contract, there's a force that then pushes it away.
There are ways of getting around the singularities of black holes because of this, because you wonder what is a black hole? Is it of infinite density? You get into problems of infinities in regular general relativity, but not in loop quantum gravity. So what he's referring to, what Pius is referring to, is Achtekar's idea of the bounce.
I need to, well, I am studying this, but I need to study it some more. That's my next interview. So I don't know if what, by the way, you want to know what did I take away from Sal's interview the most? What I took away most was about him as a person. He inspires me because he said, because he's so criticized, excoriated by so many people. And then he said,
I think he listed two or three actual critics, maybe Eric Davis was one of them, Hal Puthoff was another. And then I said, what do you think of them? Then he said, well, they don't think much of me, but I hope that they can get their work known. I don't think any less of them. And then you see this heartbreak in him. And I felt, firstly, I felt bad. And then I felt extremely touched that he could have an enemy, some enemy, let's say.
and show love and forgiveness to them. And that's not easy to do. So that inspired and inspires me. And that's what I took away most, despite all the physics in that episode. It was a heart. Right, right. I hear you a hundred percent on that. And one last thing before moving on from Mr. Paez and his work and obviously his very popular Navy patents and all of this. Do you find per se that when
He speaks on, for example, this sort of 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.
Again, forgive me if I'm making a bit too much of a leap here or a jump, but from the perspective of physics, when he talks about how the craft is voiding
the space-time metric. Do you find that to be, how can I say this, I don't want to say, not provable, but theoretically possible? Like tenable. Yeah, yeah. Again, I don't understand what's meant because from the papers that are read of his
He didn't use any space-time metric, is what it's called, space-time metric engineering. Now someone like Jack Sarfati does, and Hal Puthoff does, and I haven't had a chance to look into their work, at least not into any detail, so I wasn't sure if he was referring to their work, but recall,
Anyone can say anything. It's difficult in real time to assess someone's claims. It's difficult even when it's in a paper to assess one's claim. So my brother's a professor of my brother's a professor of mathematical finance in the University of Toronto right here. And for him, even a paper in his own field, which is extremely narrow within the field of mathematical finance is high algorithmic
high frequency algorithmic trading and something even within that, I don't even recall the subfield. Even within his subfield of a subfield, it takes him an hour or more, many several hours to go through a single paper. And that's something that's extremely rigorously defined. So when someone sends me or gives me a patent and says, well, what do you make of this? I don't know. I don't think anyone will patent assessors can
People who work at the patent office, they make an assessment, they make a judgment, but it's not irreficable, it's not undeniable, it's difficult. So especially when Sal is telling me something in real time about physics, I don't know, I need to see the equations and then I need to study them and then I need to think, is this not only mathematically consistent but then physically realizable?
Got you. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that a ton because there are many people that, without getting specific or anything like this, and no disrespect to anyone out there, but many that will just sort of jump to an immediate like, no, yes, or something like this, which is that state of duality, which I appreciate you making so prominent at the beginning of our conversation. Now, I did want to ask your take on
I know this may be quite a broad topic, but the concept of entropy per se, and this concept of scalability and contextual states of what's called chaos or randomness, not the legitimacy but the potentiality of entropy not being as random as we may think on the surface. What do you take away from that in any regard? I know entropy is quite a broad topic, so forgive me for not narrowing in.
Okay, firstly, let's think about what entropy is and then let's distinguish it from randomness. So when someone talks about randomness in mathematics, they have in mind a probability distribution. So you've seen bell curves and so on. Those are like probability distributions and associated with each probability distribution is an entropy.
What people tend to do, and again, this is something that I observe, is that people tend to take the word entropy and equate it with chaos and order and disorder. But I don't see that doesn't comport with the physical definition. And the reason is that if you pour milk into coffee and you see its turbulence, you think, well, that's extremely chaotic. And then you stir it and then you see it's uniform. Then you say, well, this is extremely ordered. Actually, that ordered state has the highest entropy.
And the turbulent flow has a bit of a lower entropy. Right. So this association between order and disorder and entropy is dubious and false much of the time. Conflated as well, potentially. Yes. The idea that cause... Hear that sound?
That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms.
There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone
of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase.
This does not need to necessarily come before effect. This idea of rearranging the order in which things are observed by us, if that makes sense.
I'm going to drop this pen. The cause is that I've had it here and the effect is that, again, it's going to go like this, it's going to drop. But the film Ten, it postulates theoretical physics, which speculates that say I put my hand here, the pen is now on the ground, but I think that I'm going to pick it up and then the pen zoops back into my hand.
Because cause didn't need to come before effect. That's just how we view it. And your thoughts on that overall. Inverting an object's entropy. So to me, this is a question about time. And my thoughts on time. I don't have many formulated thoughts on it. I can give some buzzwords for people who want to research this. Please. So there's someone called
Julian Barber and then John Petit, I don't recall his last name, that may be his first and middle name, who have developed this model called the Janus Point, which is an explanation for the arrow of time. And I'll be speaking to John and perhaps even Julian Barber at some point soon. So they suggest that, in a similar manner, that Ashtakar suggests that the universe came from a contraction and then
the singular point from the past is actually a middle point of two faces that are outward. Julian Barber would say that that's like the two, the twin faces of this, I think, not Julian Barber, I think this is John's, or Jean's, Petit's model. But then Julian Barber explicated it and that they're two Janus Greek gods, I believe they're Greek or Roman gods with faces that are pointed opposite directions. And they call the meeting point the Janus point. And so the Big Bang, what we call the Big Bang is actually the Janus point. Then there's Janus cosmology.
So I'll be researching that, and that has to do with time. And then one way to think about the low entropy, quote unquote, low entropy state of the universe prior, which gives rise to the arrow of time, is rather than thinking of it as a place of low entropy, to think of it as a place of a particular initial condition. OK, so what does that mean? Questions about entropy and time and what are called, again, another buzzword, closed timelike curves. And by the way, there are solutions to Einstein's equations. Closed timelike curves aren't
Excluded, they are permissible. So for example, Gödel has a metric which many people, which you're never taught, but Gödel has a spacetime metric solution. So a solution to the Einstein equations.
that incorporate a closed timelike curve. Anyway, I'm not averse to the thinking of different models of cause and effect. And by the way, when people think of cause in physics, just so you know, it's not a physical notion. The more that one examines physics, the more one thinks or gets the idea that cause is illusory. Now, I'm not one of those people.
It just means that it's not a physical model, at least not yet, or maybe it's not a physical concept, the concept of cause, even though we think so. The reason why is you just have a system, then you evolve it. So what's the cause of what? It's unclear. Virtually everything is the cause of... So when you drop that pen, the entire universe was the cause of that pen dropping, not just your hand, because there were preconditions to your hand and your thoughts and so on.
And then there were the influence of the air molecules and so on, and gravity which pulls it down and so on. Which is why I asked about the cost. Scalability, because to what extent? Yeah, yeah. Okay, now here's what's interesting.
Not talked about much, but there's something called Mach's Principle. Have you heard of Mach's Principle? No, but I'm very excited if you could explain. Okay, so Mach's Principle suggests that what happens locally is determined, or maybe determined is not the right word, but influenced by the global conditions. So for example, if you were to spin yourself around, just put your arms out and you spin yourself around and you look at the stars, you see the stars spinning,
But your, sorry, your arms are pulled apart. Your arms are pulled apart. But then you wonder, well, if everything is quote unquote relative, like Einstein suggests, and Galileo suggests, then what is it about, then how do you know that you're the one that's spinning, and it's not the stars that are spinning around you? Like, how do your arms know to fling outward? So Mach would say that you need in the local, that is you spinning your arms around, you actually need to incorporate the conditions of the entire distribution of stars.
Einstein thought about this tremendously, and that's part of what influenced general relativity, is that the space-time metric, you need to have a metric of the entire universe. You don't just measure one small part. Differentiable, I believe that's the term. Differentiable, implying the consistency of that metric.
I don't know. I apologize. Sorry. Sorry, man. I'm so sorry. That's all right. That's all right. That's all right. But regardless, so Einstein was heavily influenced by Mach's principle. So Mach's principle, again, suggests that something local is influenced by the global. And I watched a bit of your conversation with Dan, and Dan said something that I used to resonate with that I no longer do, which is that all truths that are said in many religions are like different viewpoints of the same elephant. And I even say this to myself.
I don't know if I believe that. I don't know if everything is true, though I do think that everything can be incorporated. In a sense, it's like an extension. It's a philosophical mocks principle that for some truth to be true here, you need to incorporate the other truths. It's not the same. They're not all true, right? They need to be incorporated in some manner. So the Toe project, which the Toe, the theories of everything channel in some senses is trying to do that. Though I never have articulated it in an unblurred manner like this.
Bringing all of those slices of the metaphorical pie or pizza in an attempted conjecture. Yes, like an attempted reconciliation between opposing practices, principles, and rituals even. So it's not just all propositional. It could be
procedural and perspectival and participatory. So that's a John Verbeckian term. We tend to think of beliefs as just propositional. I think the philosophical definition of beliefs is a proposition which one thinks is true. But I don't know if beliefs are not that I don't know. It's not in cognitive science. Beliefs aren't as simple as just propositions. Beliefs are also enacted. And so that means that one can be wrong about their beliefs. And that's why you hear someone like
Well, that's why you hear the claim that perhaps atheists aren't atheists because they suggest that they are with their words, but then with their bodies, they act differently. I don't know if I wholesale buy that I see it as true in some sense and not true in another, but the fact that I can see it as true in some sense means that there's a contradiction between the propositions and the procedural. This is thank you. Exactly. This is exactly where I'm at myself with respects to that idea of scalability.
Because it's like, okay, to what extent can something be observed within a confined state that is local and contextual to that state? And how does one even define the parameters of the event of that state? And then, again, zooming out on the macro, even zooming in on the micro, to what extent do the variables, if any, if at all, of that state begin or end?
two other points, sort of like a slinky.
It just looks like, for example, an aluminum metal cylinder, if you will. But if you walk closer to the slinky, you notice then the slinky is comprised of multiple rings. You pick up the slinky, you then expand the slinky and realize, oh wow, these rings are far more in depth, in detail than I thought, if that makes sense.
Yeah, you know what's super interesting that I, I find fun to think about is, so what you referred to there is, is like the difference between something that's higher dimensional being viewed from a different, in that sense, it was a bleary view from afar. Right. But then you can also think of it in terms of flat landers while they see a circle here, and then it's disappear circle here, circle here, circle here, circle here. Right. And so then one is doing in that scenario is thinking of
Something that has more information from a point of view where there's less access to that information. So 2D space viewing from the three dimensional or you from afar. And then you have to compress what you see and compress it as one continuous. What I think is interesting, and that's something that physicists do plenty with string theory, for example, and positing extra dimensions.
which I don't find that to be that absurd. I know many people do. I don't, I don't see why, but neither do I. Right. I don't care too much if the universe is 200 dimensional, right? That doesn't matter too much to me, but I understand that it matters to plenty of people. I find it fun, but I also find it more fun instead of thinking, how do we recover a four dimensional space from something which is higher than four dimensional? I think it's much more fun to think of how do we emerge a four dimensional space from what is less dimensional?
So that's the approach of loop quantum gravity, which is, you can think of it as one-dimensional chains on armor like chain link.
which are actually one-dimensional loops, but they've spanned a two-dimensional surface and even three-dimensional when you put it on. I think that's super interesting. How do you recover something four-dimensional from what was lower, rather than thinking how do you project down from a higher dimensional state down to a lower one? Sorry, right before, I don't mean to nerd out in this regard, but now that I can tell that we're speaking the same language here, you had someone on, forgive me, I believe a computer scientist, I may be incorrect, a handful of months ago where
he basically had his postulation possible I think so when he said that there cannot be in his humble view and I really took this into consideration with respects to that angle of scalability there cannot be a theory of everything or a unified field theory because once you've comprised the fundamental you know states of that theory if we were to metaphorically or literally zoom in what comprises those theories and then
What comprises those? And that to me, that speaks to that idea of scalability. And so he had said without putting words in his mouth, I think it was Mr. Wohlpar where he goes, there can't be a theory of everything in my view, Kurt, because then you have unexplained theories to then explain the theory that you've just explained. Do you see what I'm saying? And then you have to keep going, which speaks to the idea for me potentially of, you know, fractals, cymatics, you name it. But again, not to confuse, but yeah.
If I understand what David was, David Walpart, if it's even David Walpart, because if I understand it correctly, it could be my fault. No, no, no, most likely my fault. I don't recall. So many of our theories of the universe are developed from looking at it on the small scale and then extending to the large scale.
And it's unclear to me how much that can be extended. So for example, we think of the universe, well, we don't, there are different models, but one can think of the universe as a closed system. But then where do you get this idea of closed? Because closed is, is relative to an external part. So we have thermodynamics and generally to make the math and the physics simpler, one does thermodynamics and closed systems so that you don't have leakages of energy and so on.
And then you start to generalize and you say that, well, in a closed system, that's when entropy increases to its maximum. But why do you think you can apply what happens to a closed system to the entire universe? Why do you think you can apply what happens from a subset to the entire set? That's not clear to me. And additionally, Wohlpart suggests that the
to model the entire universe can't be done within a subset of the universe because the subset of the universe is a part of the universe and it would have to have a model of itself and in doing so it just can't predict it would be fractalized so you would be observing the universe in a fractalized state while simultaneously trying to comprise the entire composition of not just that state but the states even surrounding it if that makes sense
Yeah. Now this term fractal is used synonymously with self-similarity, but just so you know, and well, just so you know that a general fractal, most fractals aren't self-similar for there to be a fractal. You just need a certain dimension to be higher than another dimension. So topological dimension, which is what we refer to when we say one, two, three D 45 D has the, has to be lower than what's called the Hausdorff dimension, which is a technical term.
But as soon as you have that, you have a fractal and most fractals aren't self-similar. And I know that I'm just making that clear because I appreciate that interchangeably. Yeah. And if the universe was well, if the universe is fractal, like I don't, I don't know. I don't, I don't know what happens if you have two different, see, this is tricky, but if you have, so fractal has,
in a sense it has infinite so i was about to say let me just falsely say sure sure okay in a sense the fractal has infinite information to any finite volume because it's it's jagged at the edges when you zoom in there's more refinement and so on right right okay now that's false the reason that that's false is because it's generated by just a single line of code like all of this complexity is generated by a simple equation so the information there is actually just what is required to produce this
object. I see. But then, but what I was going to say is that, well, what happens when you have two different fractals interacting? Because then you have, then to me that would, but I haven't thought about this much, but then to me that would have to have some, that would have to have infinite information because at every single point and well, I don't know how to explain this, but if you can imagine zooming in, zooming in. Okay. Yep. I got you.
Okay, so then, so if the universe was fractal like, then it has to be unified as a fractal, unless there's infinite information, because then you have two different fractals interacting. So when people say that the universe is fractal, like, to me, that also implies that it's, it has to be just one fractal, simple equation, unless you have infinite information, and then you have black holes, and so on, which we don't seem to have around us. But I don't know, because I haven't formulated that I'm sure there are ways of
Speaking to that, are you familiar, by chance, Kurt, with Oliver Heaviside, Heinrich Hertz, and James Maxwell's interpretations of Mr. Maxwell's equations? The G variable rather representing potentials being removed after Mr. Maxwell's death?
Got you, got you. Okay.
With that said, I did have two more questions for you and hopefully a little bit easier on the mind. And I thank you so much for even entertaining and indulging me for the past hour on these type of topics. Your conversation with Mr. Jacques Vallee and Mr. Gary Nolan, two separate conversations, but very simply what you took away from, regardless of the order you want to address them in, what you took away from the conversations with those gentlemen.
Well, with Valet, it's simple. I don't remember much. Now, I keep saying this over and over. Well, partly that's because I tend to speak as precisely as I can, and I tend to follow this guy named Wittgenstein, who said, of what one cannot speak of precisely, one should be silent. So, partly that's just me. I appreciate that. I'm in agreement in that regard, too. If I don't know it, I won't say. So, yeah, right. That's partly me following his
following in the footsteps of him. But then it's also because whenever I interview someone, I prep generally I prep heavily. Now for the initial UFO interviews, I had such a paucity of data still do. It's not like the UFO scene is abound in data points. Right. Well, that's the whole
We think alike, man. By the way, the reason I'm laughing is not at you, it's that I think very similarly when I ponder these thoughts.
In some way, that's false. It's because one already has a paradigm of what constitutes evidence. So when someone says, let's just talk about consciousness, and someone says, well, consciousness is not physical, like we can feel it. And that's not entirely physics based. And then someone says, well, where's the evidence? And then you point to your own experience. And then they say, well, that's not, where's the physical evidence of it being non-physical? Well, what you've done is you've
circumscribed and then you said anything that's outside the circle doesn't count. So what's outside the circle? Then you're pointing to objects outside the circle to say, yeah, but that's not inside the circle. Right. So you just defined away the problem when it comes to evidence. Well, the analogy here is, well, what counts as evidence? Okay. Anyway, then with the unfledged nature of the initial UFO interviews, I don't and didn't feel bad about
How my knowledge is so limited in that domain, because I feel like there is still some contribution by asking what are sophomore work and cosmetic questions to an expert in the same way that asking about what are what's an undergraduate concept like a compact set or.
or a differential form to the top mathematician, his name is Terry Tao, asking him fairly vacuous questions like that actually lead to a different understanding of the objects because, and that's by the way, the whole reason that graduates are told to read the Feynman lectures on physics is not because they're arduous and formidable books, but because they're the rudimentary questions explained differently. So I don't mind too much that I'm asking people like Jacques Vallee or George Knapp or
Lou Alessando, so on, fairly fatuous questions because sometimes there's something that can be gleaned from this childlike perspective by asking an expert.
Actually, oftentimes that's the case. But anyway, that's not to justify it. The whole point was to say that. So I asked some fairly rudimentary questions to Jacques Valley and so on. Then you're asking me, what did I take away? Well, when I prepare for a podcast, I prep heavily like it's a test, I have it, and then I don't return to it. That's part of my problem. That's something that I'm solving right now is I need to then cohere all of the
This is difficult.
Okay, now as for Gary Nolan, what I took away from that as a meta level, just as podcasters between you and I, is that I tend to prefer those like the Gary Nolan, the Salvatore Pius and the Diana Pasocha interview, I consider to be my top UFO interviews. And the reason is that I'm doing them offline.
and I can think and I can relax and I don't have to take questions from the audience. I have my own questions and I'm there in real time and you can see me. It's like ping pong. It's like a tennis match between people. This is why do you think I wanted to do it like this? Yeah. With you. Yes, right. Rather than, rather than online. And then you're constantly checking the chat and having to ask questions and you're distracted and they're not entirely your own of your own creation. So in the future, I'll probably do that continually. So with Salvatore Pius, for example,
I have a plan to interview him in person at some point when he can. Right now he can't. And for Gary Nolan, I would like to speak to him again. It'll be offline. And what I took away most, much like the Sal interview, maybe you want to know more about the physics of the UFOs and so on. But what I took away was something from Sal's interview was something about heart. What I took away from Gary's interview was something about conducting podcasts, but also about the nature of speculation and science where most,
This is
It is on the precipice of different observational states of interpretation of different theories, proposals, hypotheses, postulations, you name it.
It's not too self-aggrandizing for you to say that again, if I can refer back to what I said earlier, you're doing, and this is also a compliment to yourself, brother, you're doing a fantastic job of bringing all the slices or as many as you could of that metaphorical pie or pizza together to be able to not particularly say, Hey guys, you know, to the world, if you will, this is a, for example, we've come up with so and so in this order chronologically, and this is a unified field theory, but rather to say, this is what
We can all interpret differently, which to me speaks philosophically to the joys in the journey. I said this to Elizondo and Mr. Cahill that you may have your text messaging app on the home page of your phone. I may have it on the bottom dock on the second row or something like this.
We both have different ways of getting there, but we still get to the same app nonetheless. And I think your show does a beautiful job of that. I really do. And so I don't think it's too self-aggrandizing for you to humbly, and knowing your personality as well, to humbly state that it's doing something of that sort, not particularly giving a definitive, solidified conclusion to anything, but rather opening up the possibilities of that speculative
potentiality, not proof, but potentiality, if that makes sense. Right. And I agree. And I also say that that's a deficit of the program. So what's it's pro is also it's con and that what I'm well, that speaks to duality. Yes. What Toa is not trying to do is to speak to a conservative center or to be a conservative center to make incremental steps. It's a liberal and not in the political sense, but in the cognitive sense, it's a liberal
examination of the boundaries. So Thomas Kuhn, I'm sure you've heard of, had this idea of paradigm shifts in science and that every decade or a few decades, there's a radical departure in what we thought of as the model of the world. And then you wonder, well, how does one get to that point? Well, to me, one gets to that by constantly... Pushing the confinements of those theories, perhaps? By following one's hunches and instincts.
and suggesting what
is ridiculous over and over and throwing paper at the wall, or I don't think paper is the right word, toilet paper that's wet, throwing objects at the wall and seeing what sticks. Oh, just seeing what sticks. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so that's how it's done on the bleeding edge. And so I would say that, but then there's obviously, like I mentioned, there's a deficit to that. There's a con to that. There's a detriment, sorry, to that, which is that you have to be careful because you can't be too unmoored. Otherwise you go off and there's extreme danger. And I think I've talked about this, at least for myself,
Psychologically, there's extreme danger in having an open mind, which hasn't been talked about by almost anyone that I've seen, at least not in the non-clinical setting. There should be warning signs. There should be danger signs to each TOA episode.
No, I appreciate that a ton. I really do because it speaks to this idea of really, and please forgive me, please tell me if you think I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but honing in on the very basic fundamental concepts and then
without making leaps and bounds without, again, I think this is also dangerous to make such leaps and bounds without any type of evidentiary basis of any kind, but to sort of... It's a fine line, I know what you mean, between just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks metaphorically and pushing the limits of, for example, a confined set of parameters that can in observable states be proven. I know what you're saying, it's a fine line.
Right, I agree. And I would also say that it also depends on what one considers to be evidence. Like you said, you're completely disentangled from the evidence. But dreams can count as evidence. Well, sorry, not evidence, but as directions to be pursued. That's why I think that the innovation will come from the fringes, but then be actually made explicit by the center, because you need the rigor.
So hopefully what i'm trying to do is a bit of a balance of both because you can't simply say that well consciousness is like a black hole i remember someone you know this to me and they're using these flowery metaphors and then i suggested well actually consciousness is like a white hole because the white hole is what it gives out and then they're like ah yes and then they made a whole
document suggesting it's a white hole. And then I thought, you know, and actually, no, the black hole fits more. And then they're like, yeah, actually black. So then almost any metaphor can work. Okay, now, when I was referring to the what counts as evidence, well, dreams in the sense of, in the sense of serving as the inspiration for exploring rigorously, that happened in the case of the Watson and Crick, I believe, or for the no for the benzene for the benzene molecule like the snake. There are many accounts of this. Romano, Romano Jan, who's a mathematician, was
inspired heavily and sometimes even solely by the god by goddesses and and meditative practices imbuing in him baroque mathematical formulas which then need to be proved but right at least they can serve as the inspiration so it depends on what one counts as as and so i want to say that it's entirely fruitless to be
disembroiled from the physical
Well, I'll say et cetera, the synonyms of that sign. I mean, sorry, Seinfeld, Einstein, Einstein, by the way, was criticized for modifying space and time too much. I don't know if you know this, but when he first came out with special relativity, someone named Lawrence, who I'm sure you've heard of in Lawrence contractions, Lawrence said that there must be a physical mechanism for the for space contraction, time dilation is don't modify space time. That's way too much of a step.
Like dial it back Einstein even in I think 1920s or so or 19 late 1910s. I forgot when Einstein earned his Nobel or was awarded the Nobel Prize. Even Max Planck wrote to the Nobel committee and said don't hold his views on space time against him like just awarded for the photoelectric effect. It's a bit off kilter when it comes to the modification of space time.
Oh, it turned out to be true. And then you could wonder, well, we have the luxury of hindsight to say, well, Einstein was correct in following his hunch. And it wasn't too much of a hunch because there was evidence. Yeah, but this trail toward evidence is a retro addiction. It's something that's made about the past.
Afterward, it's an inference made about the past. Right. And if I could say philosophically, that speaks to, and even in a visual sense, it speaks to this concept of, I mean, without getting too specific, like a toy road field, if you will, a constant cycling, a constant reoccurring or re re observation, um, re observing of that duality state, if you will, this idea of don't go too far, but at the same time, it's like, how do we not go too far while attempting to
Again, relative to the evidence and equations and knowledge of the time in a more solidified sense, push the limits, so to speak. But then even that, again, to your point, even I'm on the same page with you, that speaks to the
the idea of this confinement because, again, please forgive me if I'm incorrect here. I believe that Einstein in his theory of general relativity used the Levy-Cavita or Levy-Cavita metric in order to sort of postulate amongst many other things that sense of, again, like what you were just saying, expansion and meddling with the space-time metric and turns out it was correct. And so the question becomes, should there even be a sort of
said of dare I say observational standards to notify and or alert someone if you will when they're going quote unquote too far but then the question becomes to me even to what extent is what too far because then we go back to what you just said about how Einstein they were like don't take it seriously and then it turns out looking back holy shit he was right
Also, when just discussing these topics in an absence of physical evidence, many people, most people, most scientists would agree that finding microbial life on another planet would be one of the monumental discoveries of human existence, not just of the past decade or century. What if something much more profound is occurring? And then you wonder, well, there's no physical evidence. Well, how do we find the physical evidence without discussing this topic? And how do we motivate people to find it?
Right, right. Just curious, what would a, I know that you have to take off shortly and I promise this is the last question to that. What would be the rebuttal to what you just said there from professors, academics that seem to want to work within, which I'm not against, but work within a confined state of quote unquote provable, I guess you could say states or functions. What would their rebuttal be to, we can't go too far out there type thing, if that makes sense?
They would probably suggest something like, I think it was Kent, who suggested that morality should be what if, quote unquote, everyone did it, then it would still be okay. I think that they would say, well, what if everyone in science did
this extreme speculation and discussing of unfounded claims, then where would we be? I think that would be their claim. I think that would be their rebuttal. Well, then my rebuttal is, well, not everyone's doing that. There's a certain temperament that allows for that.
And channels like yours, channels like mine, we aren't speaking to the, I keep saying this, but I don't mean it in a political sense, the conservative center, we're not speaking to them. We're speaking to an open temperament, a liberal with regard to ideas, a liberal mindset. And the Neil deGrasse Tyson types would say that it's removed from replicable data and that this is not accessible to the public. And all of that's true.
Right. So, yeah. But at the same time, you have to think about where are they deriding the whole department of philosophy. Right. Almost all of the philosophical department has zero data to support their claims. Zero data.
right so then yeah so they already have a certain mindset they dislike and and i think that they just i think that much of it is extremely emotionally laden that they don't want to be seen as these backward religious hillbillies and that's at the back of their mind at any given point that they have a position on a social hierarchy in the the midst of the savants that they worship intellectually and they don't want to be seen as somewhere lower on that academic hierarchy it's a scholarly form of intellectual posturing
And to that, and wow, that was very well said, a scholarly form of intellectual posturing. So it would be the idea like, for example, again, I want to be clear to both yourself, sir, and to the audience that this is a purely hypothetical example, but say, you know, Kurt brings on to his great show, you know, a professor that's in there, say, let's just say hypothetically in their eighties in age,
and they spent multiple decades focusing on a particular set of theorems and postulating axioms within those theories and all that and all of a sudden you have, they're on your show, they're doing their thing, they're explaining their theory, their hypothesis and then here comes
Mr. Kurt Jaimungal, which please don't, I'm not trying to degrade you relative to this hypothetical person. You can degrade. No, not at all. I'm a masochist, so turn me on. Here comes 34-year-old Kurt Jaimungal poking a legitimate hole in 80-odd-year-old professor so-and-so's hypothesis that they've then spent their whole life on. And so to me that, again,
layman's terms of simplicity that speaks to ego very simply and and that's that that I I think I very slightly and maybe this is incorrect of me but I sympathize to a very slight extent because I want to put myself in their shoes of like they've they've spent decades pursuing particular paths but at the same time I hate to be like this because it sounds very I guess you could say narcissistic or conceited of me but if someone's proven wrong they're proven wrong you know
Regardless of how much time was put into that hypothesis, if you will. So my whole thing is, again, speaking to that intellectual posturing in the social hierarchy of things. It's like, to what extent are a handful of academics just going, no, this is incorrect because they feel threatened, if that makes sense.
I know what you're saying. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. It's not by the way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Continue. Continue. No, I'm not looking even for an answer. Just throwing thoughts out at this point. But think about this. This is something I think about fairly frequently, let's say on a weekly basis. I think that if something turns out to be true about this UFO phenomenon,
I don't think that the UFO community will have any credit that's deserved to them. I think that they'll still be disparaged and disesteemed and sneered at by the likes of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson even though I'm just choosing his name. I don't think that he's as
Contamelius as I make him seem the reasoning goes like this. Let's imagine that Bigfoot turned out to be true. Let's just take the case of Bigfoot. Sure, people will forget about the tens of thousands of people who had experienced who had experiences with Bigfoot and they'll just focus on oh, there's evidence for Bigfoot now.
The community won't get an apology. It'll maybe get some recognition vaguely as, well, look, there were some historical people who believed in this. But it won't be some press conference where people say, yeah, you all were right for so much longer than we were. And we were too arrogant and supercilious to acknowledge it. And we apologize.
It would be seen as
Right.
Basically you don't see what's happening like for example if I could if I could very and I say this respectfully to Mr. Mr. Eric Weinstein he tweeted out a few a handful of months ago he said to the UFO community I'm sorry he blatantly came out and I respect that he came out and said I'm sorry I was for you know quite some time I was incorrect and I dismissed this field as something of nonsense or what have you he goes to all of you I apologize you but you're basically saying you don't see that happening if anything comes out of the UAP field relative to the rest of academia
Or a good chunk of academia. No, and you can also think of it like generally augers don't get the credit. So for example, Nietzsche doesn't get credit for predicting that there would be some disastrous effects of following a secular religion in the abandonment of God. And there are a few other people who said similar sentiments. So people who are historical, who have some insight, profound, deep insight, they don't get much credit.
Instead, what you say as an academic is, well, there are several thousands of people who made predictions. Some of them are going to be correct. You rarely get an admission of following an incorrect path from a scholar. That's what I see. Now, Eric Weinstein is an extreme exception to that, but Eric's an exception in many ways. So Eric's an interesting person.
Right, got you. Well, with that said, Kurt, I want to thank you so, so much, man, for your time. I want to thank you for coming on and for even entertaining such questions and exploring hypotheses and these different ideas. And please, I know that, again, I want to apologize if I phrased any of the questions in a way that just truly didn't make sense or anything like this. I apologize for not understanding them. And by the way, I also want to say that the people that comprise the UFO community,
They tend to not care too much about exoneration or punishment. Right. They just care about the quote unquote truth, as far as I can tell the majority of them. And that's not like myself, like I'm much more of a selfish person. So I'm projecting plenty of how I would feel dismayed and, and so on onto them, but they're much more selfless and kindhearted than myself. Gotcha. Much as much of what I said, maybe it doesn't matter to them.
Sure. There's a channel called Theories of Everything and what that channel is about. It's more of a project than a podcast. It's an attempt to understand the
Variegated landscape of toes. So theories of everything from a mathematical and physics based perspective. So that is the original conception of what a theory of everything is in the sense of unifying gravity and the standard model. But then also the theory of everything can be interpreted more broadly and philosophically as
Well, what are the laws that well, if one wants to be reductionist, what are the laws that that bring us here? I don't know if the reductionism is the correct frame, but let me just adopt that for now. So what are the laws such that what we see here at the large scale limit, they derive from something lower, whether consciousness is fundamental or whatever, maybe the podcast, the project, let's say is about explicating those. So making them explicit, and then
trying to understand them and relate them, as well as seeing, so there's physical toes, cognitive toes, like, let's say, John Vervecky, E. McGilchrist, I would consider them to be cognitive toes. And there are people who what I call rose. So, resoners of existence. I think this may be the first time that I'm saying that aloud. They're the people who have unexampled views of reality. They're metaphysical. They don't repudiate non-secular forms of spirituality.
Resonars of existence
film making or art in general which means to voice the central theme so I see them as as viewing this life if one can view this life as a play and trying to voice the central themes and the motifs and contend with existence yeah that's not sorry that I would say in my humble opinion I would I appreciate you differentiating that from reductionism because I I humbly think that they may not be the same but I certainly see precisely what you're saying
Yes, yes, that's right. I don't think that, for example, so I have a list here of the resonators of existence. And it's just fun for me, because to me, I think about there's something in mathematics called associativity. And then there's something called non associativity. So I see that the rows as a non associative philosophical rat pack. So
I love that, because I'm a big fan of Levin and particularly Friston's work, but I really appreciate how you asked Professor Friston, I believe, or Mr. Friston, how he sort of
We have a conversation coming up with Michael Levin and Karl Friston and we talk about this very topic. There's much that happened behind the scenes that I can't say aloud. One or more of them weren't comfortable with me sharing certain aspects, but it was
Great conversation. So I just want to read off a list of the resonators of existence before I got to get going, if you don't mind, please. So I would consider Chris Langan to be the one to be a Roe, Michael Levin, Thomas Campbell, Joscha Bach, Roger Penrose, who I haven't interviewed. So these aren't just people who are on the Toe channel, Greg Henriques, who I haven't interviewed. And much of the time people propose certain individuals for me to interview. And I think, yes, they have a Toe, but are they a Roe? Perhaps not, perhaps no.
That's awesome. You can think of the Toe Channel. So wrap this all up. The Toe Channel is there to explicate toes by interviewing Rose.
Awesome. Love it. I truly, truly appreciate it. And I want to thank everyone for coming out to either watch or listen to this. Of course, on my end, whether it's on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Podbean. So thank you so very much. As always, everyone who came out to watch or listen. And Kurt, brother, it's been an honor and it's been a very, very incredible conversation. And I thank you so very much from the bottom of my heart, man. Thank you.
Well, I thank you for inviting me, man. I appreciate that. And also, theories of everything is on Spotify. So I didn't say where you could find a YouTube and all the audio platforms as well. Yeah, man, I appreciate you inviting me out. I didn't know you're a fellow Canadian. Yeah, I didn't know your fellow Torontonian. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it's awesome to see, again, the similarities resonate in that regard. But thank you so much, man.
The podcast is now finished. If you'd like to support conversations like this, then do consider going to patreon.com slash c-u-r-t-j-a-i-m-u-n-g-a-l. That is Kurt Jaimungal. Its support from the patrons and from the sponsors that allow me to do this full time. Every dollar helps tremendously. Thank you.
▶ View Full JSON Data (Word-Level Timestamps)
{
"source": "transcribe.metaboat.io",
"workspace_id": "AXs1igz",
"job_seq": 9826,
"audio_duration_seconds": 5084.24,
"completed_at": "2025-12-01T01:32:33Z",
"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": 87.534,
"index": 3,
"start_time": 67.346,
"text": " Dave from Generation Z interviewed me, Kurt Jaimungal, regarding the simulation hypothesis, specifically why I don't give it much credence, the misuse of physics terminology in other domains, consciousness, and of course, the physics of UFOs. There's no sponsor for today's episode. Just rate this podcast on whichever platform you're listening to it from."
},
{
"end_time": 107.21,
"index": 4,
"start_time": 87.944,
"text": " Links to Generation Z's, that is Dave's, podcast are in the description. If you'd like to donate to Theories of Everything, to the Toe Project, then visit patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal, as this is what I'm able to do full time thanks to your support. Thank you so much, and enjoy Generation Z interviewing Kurt Jaimungal."
},
{
"end_time": 125.555,
"index": 5,
"start_time": 107.449,
"text": " Alright, good morning, good afternoon or good evening everyone. I am extremely honored, humbled, grateful and gracious to have with us Mr. Kurt Jaimungal, the one and only from Theories of Everything. Before we delve into all of this, brother, how are you today? Thank you so very much for coming on and how are things on your end?"
},
{
"end_time": 155.077,
"index": 6,
"start_time": 126.596,
"text": " I'm honored to be here. Thank you so much for the plaudits. I appreciate it. I'm doing moderately well. Nice. Very nice. Yeah. I figure even myself relative to everything going on in the world, it's to say moderately well is better than most in my opinion. But with that said, I do want to, I do have a handful of questions for you, sir, that you've been so gracious to come on and discuss and have answered. But first and foremost,"
},
{
"end_time": 175.435,
"index": 7,
"start_time": 155.384,
"text": " Relative to all the discussions you've had, the experiences you may or may not have had, whether it's talking with people, individuals, or whether it's interacting with your environment in your day-to-day life, specifically the UAP high strangeness type phenomenon, where do you stand currently as it pertains to the"
},
{
"end_time": 204.428,
"index": 8,
"start_time": 175.435,
"text": " I guess hypothesis or theory that you would subscribe to the most per se, at least at this moment. I want to be clear that, you know, even like myself, our perspectives change as new information is, is, you know, discovered and all of that. But in this current point in time, what do you reside with the most? For example, there are some that, you know, postulate electric universe theory, some that postulate many diff, you know, simulation theory, you name it game theory, all of that. Where would you land in that regard on that spectrum?"
},
{
"end_time": 233.473,
"index": 9,
"start_time": 205.623,
"text": " I think it would be better if you give me some options and I tell you yes or no on them. Sure. It's difficult for me to pull them out from the void. So you mentioned the electrical universe. Do you mind? Yeah, absolutely. The concept of quantum dielectric, you know, electromagnetism, all of that. They're sort of that everything that the core archetypal foundation of this universe or reality in which we are living in is comprised of. I guess we could say the perspective of"
},
{
"end_time": 257.022,
"index": 10,
"start_time": 234.428,
"text": " Okay, so much like yourself, my views on this change on a week to week, maybe month to month basis for sure. Right. And I would say no to the electric universe. I would say no to the simulation hypothesis. What other options are there?"
},
{
"end_time": 272.466,
"index": 11,
"start_time": 257.295,
"text": " There's quite a few, I mean there's so many different ones, but before we go on with a bit more of the list, just curious, why say no to the simulation hypothesis? I'm asking in a good faith manner, just trying to understand where you're coming from in that regard."
},
{
"end_time": 303.37,
"index": 12,
"start_time": 276.442,
"text": " I don't think the simulation hypothesis is well formed. I think that if what one is doing as a proponent of those ideas are making a living by developing these extravagant ideas which are couched in scientific terminology so that they can earn an air of credibility among their peers and the public as being these sagacious inventive intellectuals, I see them as being about science fiction or philosophical musings which use physics terminology"
},
{
"end_time": 325.043,
"index": 13,
"start_time": 303.575,
"text": " don't bother to cite physics papers or provide a mechanism. I see them as masquerading as physics, but they're philosophical musings. There's so many assumptions that go into the simulation hypothesis. There's a variety of assumptions, and almost all of them are dubious. So an exponential curve that continues with some rate of progress. Well, let's say you made"
},
{
"end_time": 349.77,
"index": 14,
"start_time": 326.493,
"text": " I don't"
},
{
"end_time": 365.145,
"index": 15,
"start_time": 350.538,
"text": " I don't see why it would be the case that the second level of the simulation can develop a simulation. I can see that the first level made, but I don't see why the simulation can develop a simulation. I also don't see why one can't jump out of the simulation if it's all information."
},
{
"end_time": 385.572,
"index": 16,
"start_time": 365.862,
"text": " I also don't see why the laws of physics are those that can be made computable in an algorithmic manner. In fact, there's some bounds on that that have been experimentally looked for, because there'd be certain symmetries that we broken certain rotational symmetries, and there's no evidence of it. So I'm unsure. I see it as the ideations of a godless people trying to find God."
},
{
"end_time": 412.807,
"index": 17,
"start_time": 386.749,
"text": " Got you. Okay, so now just curious, and again, I ask with the utmost respect and in a good faith manner, would you apply this as well to the Electric Universe Theory, that same type of concept, not as much substantiation, not as many, too many sort of gaps or voids relative to the academic literature that can't substantiate this? I don't know. I just don't understand what the Electric Universe Theory is trying to say. So sometimes people will"
},
{
"end_time": 429.991,
"index": 18,
"start_time": 413.285,
"text": " We'll send theories and then they'll use certain terms like quantum and electric and dielectric and electro gravities, electro gravities and so on. But I don't understand what they mean when they say that. So they understand what they mean. And I just need to do some more research."
},
{
"end_time": 448.951,
"index": 19,
"start_time": 430.708,
"text": " Okay, I see what you're saying because I want to I also want to make it clear for those that are going to be watching or listening to this later on pertaining to the we could say the the Ideological subscription of people wanting to check off those confirmation bias boxes and then making those leaps without actually having any type of evidentiary"
},
{
"end_time": 477.21,
"index": 20,
"start_time": 448.951,
"text": " would you be more open to such theories or proposals if there was more academic literature that would sort of fill those voids of the unexplained in your perspective?"
},
{
"end_time": 502.602,
"index": 21,
"start_time": 477.944,
"text": " I'm entirely open to it already. I just don't understand it. So I just need to learn more. It's a defect on my part, most likely. Oh, I got you. I mean, I'd give you more credit than you may be saying there, but I hear you, man. I hear you and I appreciate that a ton because I also, to your point, I know there's also a lot of instances where the terms, for example, quantum consciousness, they're thrown around quite often and it's like, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 520.367,
"index": 22,
"start_time": 502.602,
"text": " Again, consciousness means one thing to a philosopher, whereas it means something else to a mathematician, to a physicist perhaps, right? From ontological and deontological perspectives, that seems to be something that everyone kind of throws around and it's like, okay, what precisely do we mean by that?"
},
{
"end_time": 545.879,
"index": 23,
"start_time": 520.862,
"text": " And with that said, I did want to ask as well to pertaining to just your overall thoughts on UAP, because I did want to go through some more list of theories if you will, but I think we can kind of go throughout the recording if that's all right, because it actually falls in line with a lot of the questions here. What are your thoughts currently on UAP? The potential, let's just say hypothetically, let's presume that there was a"
},
{
"end_time": 571.015,
"index": 24,
"start_time": 547.073,
"text": " There's a there there, if you will. Whether, you know, what is observed is something that is that of a physical substrate or something that is of a more of an optical epigenetic type observation. What do you personally, I guess we could say, lean towards at this point in time? And to be clear to the audience, perspectives can always change and adapt and what have you, but at least as of the day we're recording this. I think there's something physical about it."
},
{
"end_time": 589.872,
"index": 25,
"start_time": 571.664,
"text": " Because they're a craft associated with it. By the way, Dave, for the first time, I've never seen a craft. And for the first time in my life, maybe an hour ago, I was looking at the moon in Toronto, because the moon is for whatever reason is visible right now. Yeah. And then I saw two what looked like craft."
},
{
"end_time": 602.688,
"index": 26,
"start_time": 590.401,
"text": " And then I was getting my phone out and I couldn't film it. So when people say, hey, you should film these, it's extremely difficult to do so. But anyway, they turn out to be birds. I think they turn out to be birds because I saw some flapping at least in one and my wife was saying,"
},
{
"end_time": 633.012,
"index": 27,
"start_time": 603.08,
"text": " Right, right. Anyway, I just thought that that was a hilarious coincidence because I've never seen one in my entire life. At least I don't think so. Anyway, so if you don't mind repeating the question, what is behind the UAP? So something physical, I think so. And then some people say it's consciousness related. Yeah, that's a nebulous term. I think what they mean is that that they get injected with certain emotions or certain intents, intent. So not not intense, but"
},
{
"end_time": 662.022,
"index": 28,
"start_time": 633.524,
"text": " Well, the plural of intent, and apparently some people can summon them via some meditative technique like CE5. So I think that that's what people mean when they say that there's a consciousness-related aspect. I think that the world may not be... There's something called dualism, so there's mind and physical matter. I think that there may be something like trialism, or trichotomy, or a four, or a five, or a six, or multiple... Maybe it peaks at 12. There seems to be something special about the number 12."
},
{
"end_time": 671.681,
"index": 29,
"start_time": 662.773,
"text": " So maybe all that we can interact with is just to the physical and the spiritual or the consciousness level. And maybe there are many other levels."
},
{
"end_time": 699.155,
"index": 30,
"start_time": 672.432,
"text": " Now, this actually speaks to me about, speaking of going through different, you know, hypotheses and what have you, Professor Nicholas Gisson's thick time concept. And I was wondering your thoughts on that. Do you humbly dismiss that postulation, that hypothesis, or do you think there is something there? Because I think that there seems to be something pertaining to a different observational state, particularly, again, forgive me for being overly vague, but in a quantum"
},
{
"end_time": 708.285,
"index": 31,
"start_time": 699.155,
"text": " I've always used the example thanks to your interview with him."
},
{
"end_time": 733.524,
"index": 32,
"start_time": 708.541,
"text": " If I say, Kurt, it's going to rain tomorrow, I'm either going to be correct or incorrect, but then we have a potentially third option, if you will, which is an indeterminate option. It has not yet to be decided, if you will. Now, to what extent is one making that decision? Forgive me for rambling, but that then speaks to Sir Roger Penrose's work of the difference between AI and consciousness, if you will."
},
{
"end_time": 751.442,
"index": 33,
"start_time": 734.138,
"text": " Pertaining to sticking with Mr. Nicholas Jisson's thick time concept, what do you make of that personally?"
},
{
"end_time": 775.896,
"index": 34,
"start_time": 751.92,
"text": " So you asked me do I dismiss that idea and I would say no and virtually that would cause"
},
{
"end_time": 798.319,
"index": 35,
"start_time": 776.442,
"text": " be my answer for almost any idea you pose to me, I don't dismiss it. And the reason is that I've been shaken to my core from many beliefs that I used to think were quote unquote, obvious and solid that I no longer. I tend to not use those words, like obvious. Anyway. Okay. So the question was, what do I think of his thick time concept isn't"
},
{
"end_time": 830.128,
"index": 36,
"start_time": 800.196,
"text": " He admitted this. I mean, this is his own words. They're not specific yet. It's an avenue for exploration. So it comes from something called, and you don't need quantum mechanics in this. Classical physics is indeterminate, even though people don't like to think like that, but you don't need quantum mechanics. You just need something called intuitionist logic. So if you know the difference, people probably know what classical logic is, and that's the logic of Aristotle. It's what most people think of as logic. That is something is either true or not true."
},
{
"end_time": 856.101,
"index": 37,
"start_time": 830.845,
"text": " Then you can have something called the explosion principle, where if you have a proposition that is both true and not true, then you can prove any other proposition. So if you think that it's going to both rain and not rain, then you can prove that there's a horse in front of you. Well, other than the fact that I have a large nose, there's something false about that there's a horse in front of you, or we would think so. So in intuitionist logic,"
},
{
"end_time": 884.002,
"index": 38,
"start_time": 856.886,
"text": " you remove what's called the law of the excluded middle so you no longer have the principle of explosion which means in mathematics you can't prove by contradiction which means many of the proofs that we do as students don't work but regardless the point is that when one uses intuitionist logic because physics is based in mathematics and mathematics is based in logic so what happens if you meddle with the logic okay well"
},
{
"end_time": 914.104,
"index": 39,
"start_time": 884.838,
"text": " We assumed it's classical logic, let's change it to intuitionist logic. You get different outcomes. So for example, you get that, that the time, like he called it, the time is, is thick, that the continuum is quote unquote viscous. And so one way of thinking about that is that I don't think this is the correct way of explaining it, but let's imagine that you had the number. This is difficult. Sorry, man. I don't mean to pose such questions. No, no, no, no. It's simple."
},
{
"end_time": 944.462,
"index": 40,
"start_time": 914.872,
"text": " when explained from a certain vantage point. So let's say you have 2.01. Okay, so let's imagine that characterizes the present somehow, the number 2.01. But there are several 2.01s everywhere. So then are they all the same? Well, at the next level, 2.01 can be 2.012. And then for somewhere else, it could be 2.013. Right. So you would say they diverged when one point they were the same. And so you tried to pull out one point, but you managed to pull several points. And so the present"
},
{
"end_time": 964.991,
"index": 41,
"start_time": 945.282,
"text": " Technically, if someone knows mathematics, the present isn't measure zero. So we often think of the present as being a point, but he would say that the present doesn't have measure zero, which fits with our intuition. Actually, it fits with some of our intuition, but not the more Eastern spiritual intuitions, which suggest that all there is is the quote unquote now."
},
{
"end_time": 990.128,
"index": 42,
"start_time": 966.817,
"text": " Nicholas would say that the now quote unquote is blurred. And I'm interested in taking Justin's concept a bit farther and suggesting not only is the future open, but the past is open too. So that's a bit strange because what does it mean? We often think that the past is fixed, but I think that automatically assumes something like physicalism or materialism. And I'm not sure if that's the correct foundation."
},
{
"end_time": 1016.391,
"index": 43,
"start_time": 990.879,
"text": " Hmm, so when you say the now is blurred or that's something that that Nicholas would would would postulate or propose That's interesting when you say blurred and I again I don't mean to put words in your mouth or professor gissens But would this speak to that of the concept of expansion and contraction so to speak that constant fluctuating I guess you could say sort of like an elastic band. The now is constantly"
},
{
"end_time": 1046.305,
"index": 44,
"start_time": 1016.749,
"text": " We could say expanding and contracting, if you will, relative to one's perception. If that makes sense. I don't know. So something interesting is that right now... Okay. You heard me say that I'm not a particular fan of the more new age types who like to use the word quantum and inject it and suggest that whatever mystical insight that they have can be"
},
{
"end_time": 1074.104,
"index": 45,
"start_time": 1046.988,
"text": " contingent on quantum field theory, for example. Sure. When, by the way, quantum field theory, it's a misnomer to call it a field. And then many times you'll hear waves and so on. And the whole universe is waves that irks me. But it shouldn't. That's just a bias of mine. Now here to help to justify their side, sometimes physicists have taken words that so I'm saying right now, I don't I'm not a fan of people who are on the spiritual side."
},
{
"end_time": 1102.875,
"index": 46,
"start_time": 1074.974,
"text": " misappropriating quote-unquote misappropriating physics terms to prove quote-unquote their propositions because oftentimes they don't understand the physics and then they'll just use some flowery metaphor but pretend that it's it has some grounding in scientific in science because it's using scientific terminology. They'll throw an abstract in there type thing an abstract definition yeah yeah I'm sure you've seen this I'm sure you you know almost precisely what I'm referring to now"
},
{
"end_time": 1123.865,
"index": 47,
"start_time": 1103.268,
"text": " More specifically, I'm having a difficult time putting the words to the thoughts, which are nebulous. So what I'm saying is that there's the spiritual side who adopts the physics terminology in order to give some credence to what they're saying. I don't think that they should do that. And one of the reasons is that, well, what if quantum mechanics turns out to have a prosaic explanation, then are you going to abandon all of the"
},
{
"end_time": 1137.398,
"index": 48,
"start_time": 1124.906,
"text": " all of your ties to consciousness in it and the observer effect and so on. Well, what you're doing is you're grounding your spirituality in that. Well, what happens to me is like worshipping an idol and you should worship God. You're worshipping some instantiation."
},
{
"end_time": 1160.759,
"index": 49,
"start_time": 1137.961,
"text": " okay anyway but the physicists have done the same where they've taken the word energy which used to mean something and then they have given it an explicit definition and then when some of the more new age types say well it's all energy or we have the same we're on the same quote unquote wavelength well then the physicists will say yeah but that doesn't fit the correct definition however the physicist is not realizing that they're the ones that have quote unquote stolen the word"
},
{
"end_time": 1188.353,
"index": 50,
"start_time": 1160.759,
"text": " So you've mentioned time stretching and so on. Well, when you think about the development or what time meant, time was clearly a word that was used prior to physics because physics is only a few centuries old, or let's say a few millennia old for if you want to abstract what physics means into natural philosophy. Okay, so time was something that was amorphous and voluminous even at its center. It's not precise. So our time can be"
},
{
"end_time": 1202.79,
"index": 51,
"start_time": 1188.78,
"text": " Expanded and contracted like you mentioned you wait in line and time feels like it's lasting for quite some time right and then when something fun is happening then you feel like time is occurring quickly and there are several definitions of time"
},
{
"end_time": 1232.329,
"index": 52,
"start_time": 1204.07,
"text": " And then the physicist quote unquote, the scientist quote unquote came along and said, let's capture one of those definitions of times. So the cycles of the earth around the sun. Okay. Then let's truncate that to the cycles of the seasons. Okay. Let's try truncate that to the cycles of the day. And let's truncate that further and further and further until you get seconds. And then what the operational definition of time is, which is a light clock. And then we say, that's the quote unquote definition of time, but our definition of time was contingent on something else. And then what you're saying is what you're,"
},
{
"end_time": 1261.988,
"index": 53,
"start_time": 1232.841,
"text": " suggesting this expanding and contracting is to go back to the original definition. And I'm a fan of that. Well, anyway, this is to justify some of the usage of extremely specific terms from physics in a different manner because physics is actually stolen in a sense, certain words. Gotcha. I see what you're saying. Okay. So with that said, I did to sort of add onto that and to lean into that, that sort of subject of prominence, what do you,"
},
{
"end_time": 1282.5,
"index": 54,
"start_time": 1262.671,
"text": " What is your take, Kurt, on this concept of, I guess we could say, randomness versus indeterminism, particularly the perspective held by Professor Sir Roger Penrose specifically, and please interject if I'm incorrect in what I'm about to state here because I may be wrong, but this concept of how"
},
{
"end_time": 1301.954,
"index": 55,
"start_time": 1282.671,
"text": " How consciousness, as Sir Roger Penrose states, is, in his humble perspective, non-computational, pertaining to the idea of I know about a month back, relative to the time we're recording this, Jordan Peterson had a conversation with him, and they talked about how, with respects of viewing randomness in particular,"
},
{
"end_time": 1329.616,
"index": 56,
"start_time": 1301.954,
"text": " You have to have a set of preset functions or outcomes, if you will, that are then put into, for example, a computer program that then selects the outcome afterwards. Whereas Sir Roger Penrose seems to be stating that he doesn't claim to know what consciousness is, but rather he seems to be leaning towards what he feels it isn't, if that makes sense. And he feels consciousness is not that, that there is not a preset"
},
{
"end_time": 1352.875,
"index": 57,
"start_time": 1329.889,
"text": " of outcomes that are going to be, regardless of what occurs, say there's five outcomes of any particular event relative to the dissemination of the consequences of the actions within that event. He believes that the idea of consciousness is coming from, forgive me for being overly vague here, elsewhere. Do you have any thoughts on that?"
},
{
"end_time": 1379.855,
"index": 58,
"start_time": 1354.053,
"text": " yeah to restate what you're saying it's please because if i messed up yeah so i don't know what the difference between indeterminacy and randomness other than perhaps a lack of knowledge so you can say that it's unclear whether or not someone will open the door behind you or to the side of you but it's in a sense it's determined it's just that you lack the knowledge so you can view it as if it's random so let's just say there's true randomness and then there's randomness which is"
},
{
"end_time": 1409.838,
"index": 59,
"start_time": 1380.418,
"text": " which comes as a result of our ignorance. So let's just talk about true randomness. Sure. Okay. Actually, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about computability and non-computability. So what's being referred to by Roger Penrose is that there seems to be an aspect of the human mind, which is non-computational. You'll hear plenty of people like Joscha Bach and Stephen Wolfram talk about that the universe, including our mind, because that's in their model, a subset of the universe, that the universe is algorithmic."
},
{
"end_time": 1432.79,
"index": 60,
"start_time": 1410.179,
"text": " and moves and progresses forward in step by step fashion. What the algorithm is, who knows, but there existed. Now, Roger Penrose would say, if you look at something like Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which says, or one of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which says that for any first order logical system, which is quote unquote powerful enough to encode"
},
{
"end_time": 1455.265,
"index": 61,
"start_time": 1433.473,
"text": " The natural numbers. So this is all somewhat technical and then you have to what the heck doesn't mean powerful enough. Is that even a math term? But this can be made precise that there exists certain truths within that system that cannot be proved from within, sorry, certain truths of that first order logical system that cannot be proved from the set of axioms and the rules of inference and so on."
},
{
"end_time": 1484.514,
"index": 62,
"start_time": 1456.493,
"text": " however we can see that it's true so then you wonder well how the heck can we see that it's true but it can't prove it well what if our minds are being generated by something like a computer well then what if we were able to see this the quote-unquote source code then we could find potentially some truth because it's a forced first-order logical system and there are extensions to this by the way it doesn't have to be first-order okay so there it's but let's just imagine it's a first-order logical system then"
},
{
"end_time": 1515.691,
"index": 63,
"start_time": 1485.759,
"text": " We can find a truth within our own source code that can't be proved within the system, yet we can see that it's true, but we're a part of the system. So one lies, one runs into a contradiction there, and that in Penrose's mind implies that the mind itself is not doing something computational. There's something non-computational about it. We can see truths about an algorithmic system that that system can't see. So thus, our minds can't be algorithmic. That system can't produce it."
},
{
"end_time": 1532.176,
"index": 64,
"start_time": 1516.596,
"text": " Yeah. Okay, so what was the question, Dave, if you know what I'm repeating? Yeah, absolutely. Just your general perspective on Sir Roger Penrose's indeterminism versus randomness where he postulates that consciousness is non-computational."
},
{
"end_time": 1561.476,
"index": 65,
"start_time": 1532.722,
"text": " And it seems, if I could add very quickly to what you just said, I don't want to add this to the question, but as a quick side commentary, and you're more than welcome to address this if you wish, I've been stating particularly on my channel as well with my audience that knows the show, we've been looking lately at, for example, the Tribonacci sequence, where it is a succession from the Fibonacci sequence. But what I find quite peculiar to your point, Kurt, is that the Tribonacci sequence is harder to produce than it is to prove."
},
{
"end_time": 1588.677,
"index": 66,
"start_time": 1561.886,
"text": " And what's interesting is that that speaks to me from a set of contextually-based observations of what you were just saying, for example. We can see the result in which something would, if it were to be producible, would have, but when we try and put it into the computer, it can't be computed or produced. So just your overall take on, again, the idea of consciousness being non-computational and how we can maybe"
},
{
"end_time": 1611.015,
"index": 67,
"start_time": 1589.735,
"text": " Speculator hypothesizes a set of solutions relative to being able to, you know, move forward from that point because that seems to be quite a sticking point in which whether philosophers or physicists or even computer scientists seem to be, I don't want to say stuck on per se, but really taking a lot of time to analyze and I think rightfully so."
},
{
"end_time": 1640.435,
"index": 68,
"start_time": 1611.544,
"text": " Like I mentioned, I'm not sure what Penrose meant when he said indeterminacy versus randomness. Sure. So I'll just speak on the hypothesis of the quote unquote strong AI. Have you heard of this? Yes. Yes. Yep. Okay. So if you don't mind, can you tell the audio or do you want me to tell the audience what the strong AI is? Please, if that's all right. Yes. Yes, please. Okay. So it's that if there's a computer that sufficiently emulates human behavior enough, like a Turing test, for example, then it is conscious. Hmm."
},
{
"end_time": 1667.944,
"index": 69,
"start_time": 1641.954,
"text": " So there's some issues with that. Now, one issue is that let's imagine, Dave, we can place your entire brain into a book and it would be a huge, huge book. It'd be larger than this entire building and perhaps even a city block. But conceivably it could be placed, maybe, maybe not, but conceivably it could be placed in, in some finite space. Okay. Then what if in that book,"
},
{
"end_time": 1687.892,
"index": 70,
"start_time": 1668.814,
"text": " You can pose any question to that book, just like you can pose a question to a computer like Lambda, for example, or GPT-3 and so on. So you can pose a question to it and through following some careful leaf-lidding and going through the papers and instructions painfully slow, but you can do this, you can arrive at some answer."
},
{
"end_time": 1710.555,
"index": 71,
"start_time": 1689.258,
"text": " Okay, let's imagine that. That's a thought experiment. That's an extremely slow version of a computer, but it's essentially what a computer is doing. Then what's conscious there? Is it the book that is conscious? So is Dave the book? If I asked it a question, I said, Hey, how's it going? Then you said, great, man. And then I said, so what are we talking about today? And then you said indeterminacy versus randomness and so on by leafletting through this."
},
{
"end_time": 1739.189,
"index": 72,
"start_time": 1711.459,
"text": " Is the book conscious? Now, what happens if no one reads the book? Is the book then conscious? What happens if two people are reading the book at the same time? What happens if we don't read the book, but instead we transcribe it with x-rays? So we view it from some other planets and then we put it onto a computer there. Does that book become conscious? Does it know when it's being skimmed through? These sound like inane questions to"
},
{
"end_time": 1768.507,
"index": 73,
"start_time": 1740.35,
"text": " to the perhaps the average person, but people who believe in the strong AI view take this seriously and say that somehow the book is conscious, but it's not clear to me. When is it conscious under what conditions and, and what would happen if you replaced a page in that book, just one page in that book. Does it mean that that's an entirely new book? Is it an entirely new consciousness? So I would say that the strong AI position has this to contend with and many other thought experiments."
},
{
"end_time": 1778.131,
"index": 74,
"start_time": 1769.309,
"text": " There's something interesting, so there's the Turing test, but to me, I don't see the Turing test as a, well, I see the Turing test as less of a test of the computer and more of a test of ourselves."
},
{
"end_time": 1805.811,
"index": 75,
"start_time": 1778.37,
"text": " It's a test of our own model of our self-model. So for example, if you gave a Tamagotchi to a five-year-old, you would imagine that the five-year-old would think that the Tamagotchi is alive. But we don't think of that as a testament to the prowess of the computer in the Tamagotchi, but rather as a limitation to the five-year-old. So when people are saying someone, quote unquote, or some computer passes the Turing test, we could see that as that just means that we haven't developed an articulated enough self-model."
},
{
"end_time": 1833.49,
"index": 76,
"start_time": 1808.336,
"text": " Thank you so much. On a personal note, I'm actually in that same sort of line of thought in that regard with you there. That idea of, again, to what extent if it was observed from different states of observability relative to where that computer is, if you will, to what extent can we even claim that it's conscious during the state or transition of the computation."
},
{
"end_time": 1859.428,
"index": 77,
"start_time": 1833.882,
"text": " Thank you so much for that. Moving on, I did want to ask, I guess there may be a bit of a relation in this regard, depending to what extent we hypothesize and observe this at, but Mr. Salvatore Pays and the UFO Navy patents and all of this, first and foremost, is there anything that you took from that interview or conversation with Mr. Pays that sort of"
},
{
"end_time": 1886.015,
"index": 78,
"start_time": 1859.565,
"text": " I don't want to say enlightened you, but rather made you again, cause that's quite a vague term used these days, but it made you sort of re-observe or rethink a particular, I guess we could say a set of how physics is observed in certain ways per se pertaining to how he was, for example, he was saying Kurt, this, it keeps going back to this plank scale, this center point, if you will,"
},
{
"end_time": 1915.247,
"index": 79,
"start_time": 1886.357,
"text": " What, if anything, did you take from that? What were you thinking in real time, if you can recall, or even afterwards? What did you think after that conversation? In real time, what I was thinking was, I'm not sure what that means. I don't know what that means. I don't understand what that means. I don't know why you're using the terms in this manner. Now, what he's referring to is something called the Ashtakar bounce. Actually, I don't know if it's called that, but Ashtakar, who's a physicist who is"
},
{
"end_time": 1940.265,
"index": 80,
"start_time": 1915.469,
"text": " a brilliant physicist who should be on the ranks of Feynman and Wheeler, but people who are not a part of physics don't know his name, so hopefully that can change because I'll be interviewing him shortly. Ashdekar has this idea from loop quantum gravity, and apparently it just falls out of the equations. You don't require extra postulates. That when there's enough energy at the"
},
{
"end_time": 1963.729,
"index": 81,
"start_time": 1940.657,
"text": " When there's enough energy to create a black hole that somehow you no longer get an attractive force, but a repulsive one. And then in loop quantum cosmology, this means that the Big Bang wasn't actually the beginning of the universe, but was the contraction of a previous universe, which bounced to create ours. Because then when you have it contract, there's a force that then pushes it away."
},
{
"end_time": 1983.746,
"index": 82,
"start_time": 1963.882,
"text": " There are ways of getting around the singularities of black holes because of this, because you wonder what is a black hole? Is it of infinite density? You get into problems of infinities in regular general relativity, but not in loop quantum gravity. So what he's referring to, what Pius is referring to, is Achtekar's idea of the bounce."
},
{
"end_time": 2011.186,
"index": 83,
"start_time": 1984.906,
"text": " I need to, well, I am studying this, but I need to study it some more. That's my next interview. So I don't know if what, by the way, you want to know what did I take away from Sal's interview the most? What I took away most was about him as a person. He inspires me because he said, because he's so criticized, excoriated by so many people. And then he said,"
},
{
"end_time": 2038.456,
"index": 84,
"start_time": 2012.381,
"text": " I think he listed two or three actual critics, maybe Eric Davis was one of them, Hal Puthoff was another. And then I said, what do you think of them? Then he said, well, they don't think much of me, but I hope that they can get their work known. I don't think any less of them. And then you see this heartbreak in him. And I felt, firstly, I felt bad. And then I felt extremely touched that he could have an enemy, some enemy, let's say."
},
{
"end_time": 2067.278,
"index": 85,
"start_time": 2038.746,
"text": " and show love and forgiveness to them. And that's not easy to do. So that inspired and inspires me. And that's what I took away most, despite all the physics in that episode. It was a heart. Right, right. I hear you a hundred percent on that. And one last thing before moving on from Mr. Paez and his work and obviously his very popular Navy patents and all of this. Do you find per se that when"
},
{
"end_time": 2090.725,
"index": 86,
"start_time": 2067.637,
"text": " He speaks on, for example, this sort of 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": 2119.189,
"index": 87,
"start_time": 2090.725,
"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": 2135.555,
"index": 88,
"start_time": 2119.189,
"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": 2164.77,
"index": 89,
"start_time": 2135.555,
"text": " Again, forgive me if I'm making a bit too much of a leap here or a jump, but from the perspective of physics, when he talks about how the craft is voiding"
},
{
"end_time": 2185.964,
"index": 90,
"start_time": 2165.111,
"text": " the space-time metric. Do you find that to be, how can I say this, I don't want to say, not provable, but theoretically possible? Like tenable. Yeah, yeah. Again, I don't understand what's meant because from the papers that are read of his"
},
{
"end_time": 2206.886,
"index": 91,
"start_time": 2186.323,
"text": " He didn't use any space-time metric, is what it's called, space-time metric engineering. Now someone like Jack Sarfati does, and Hal Puthoff does, and I haven't had a chance to look into their work, at least not into any detail, so I wasn't sure if he was referring to their work, but recall,"
},
{
"end_time": 2229.206,
"index": 92,
"start_time": 2207.5,
"text": " Anyone can say anything. It's difficult in real time to assess someone's claims. It's difficult even when it's in a paper to assess one's claim. So my brother's a professor of my brother's a professor of mathematical finance in the University of Toronto right here. And for him, even a paper in his own field, which is extremely narrow within the field of mathematical finance is high algorithmic"
},
{
"end_time": 2255.043,
"index": 93,
"start_time": 2230.009,
"text": " high frequency algorithmic trading and something even within that, I don't even recall the subfield. Even within his subfield of a subfield, it takes him an hour or more, many several hours to go through a single paper. And that's something that's extremely rigorously defined. So when someone sends me or gives me a patent and says, well, what do you make of this? I don't know. I don't think anyone will patent assessors can"
},
{
"end_time": 2276.749,
"index": 94,
"start_time": 2255.708,
"text": " People who work at the patent office, they make an assessment, they make a judgment, but it's not irreficable, it's not undeniable, it's difficult. So especially when Sal is telling me something in real time about physics, I don't know, I need to see the equations and then I need to study them and then I need to think, is this not only mathematically consistent but then physically realizable?"
},
{
"end_time": 2300.213,
"index": 95,
"start_time": 2277.841,
"text": " Got you. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that a ton because there are many people that, without getting specific or anything like this, and no disrespect to anyone out there, but many that will just sort of jump to an immediate like, no, yes, or something like this, which is that state of duality, which I appreciate you making so prominent at the beginning of our conversation. Now, I did want to ask your take on"
},
{
"end_time": 2328.404,
"index": 96,
"start_time": 2300.657,
"text": " I know this may be quite a broad topic, but the concept of entropy per se, and this concept of scalability and contextual states of what's called chaos or randomness, not the legitimacy but the potentiality of entropy not being as random as we may think on the surface. What do you take away from that in any regard? I know entropy is quite a broad topic, so forgive me for not narrowing in."
},
{
"end_time": 2349.616,
"index": 97,
"start_time": 2330.213,
"text": " Okay, firstly, let's think about what entropy is and then let's distinguish it from randomness. So when someone talks about randomness in mathematics, they have in mind a probability distribution. So you've seen bell curves and so on. Those are like probability distributions and associated with each probability distribution is an entropy."
},
{
"end_time": 2379.548,
"index": 98,
"start_time": 2350.23,
"text": " What people tend to do, and again, this is something that I observe, is that people tend to take the word entropy and equate it with chaos and order and disorder. But I don't see that doesn't comport with the physical definition. And the reason is that if you pour milk into coffee and you see its turbulence, you think, well, that's extremely chaotic. And then you stir it and then you see it's uniform. Then you say, well, this is extremely ordered. Actually, that ordered state has the highest entropy."
},
{
"end_time": 2396.869,
"index": 99,
"start_time": 2379.906,
"text": " And the turbulent flow has a bit of a lower entropy. Right. So this association between order and disorder and entropy is dubious and false much of the time. Conflated as well, potentially. Yes. The idea that cause... Hear that sound?"
},
{
"end_time": 2423.968,
"index": 100,
"start_time": 2397.875,
"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": 2450.077,
"index": 101,
"start_time": 2423.968,
"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": 2475.862,
"index": 102,
"start_time": 2450.077,
"text": " of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklynin. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase."
},
{
"end_time": 2500.435,
"index": 103,
"start_time": 2475.862,
"text": " This does not need to necessarily come before effect. This idea of rearranging the order in which things are observed by us, if that makes sense."
},
{
"end_time": 2521.408,
"index": 104,
"start_time": 2500.708,
"text": " I'm going to drop this pen. The cause is that I've had it here and the effect is that, again, it's going to go like this, it's going to drop. But the film Ten, it postulates theoretical physics, which speculates that say I put my hand here, the pen is now on the ground, but I think that I'm going to pick it up and then the pen zoops back into my hand."
},
{
"end_time": 2551.425,
"index": 105,
"start_time": 2522.125,
"text": " Because cause didn't need to come before effect. That's just how we view it. And your thoughts on that overall. Inverting an object's entropy. So to me, this is a question about time. And my thoughts on time. I don't have many formulated thoughts on it. I can give some buzzwords for people who want to research this. Please. So there's someone called"
},
{
"end_time": 2581.51,
"index": 106,
"start_time": 2552.568,
"text": " Julian Barber and then John Petit, I don't recall his last name, that may be his first and middle name, who have developed this model called the Janus Point, which is an explanation for the arrow of time. And I'll be speaking to John and perhaps even Julian Barber at some point soon. So they suggest that, in a similar manner, that Ashtakar suggests that the universe came from a contraction and then"
},
{
"end_time": 2611.613,
"index": 107,
"start_time": 2581.681,
"text": " the singular point from the past is actually a middle point of two faces that are outward. Julian Barber would say that that's like the two, the twin faces of this, I think, not Julian Barber, I think this is John's, or Jean's, Petit's model. But then Julian Barber explicated it and that they're two Janus Greek gods, I believe they're Greek or Roman gods with faces that are pointed opposite directions. And they call the meeting point the Janus point. And so the Big Bang, what we call the Big Bang is actually the Janus point. Then there's Janus cosmology."
},
{
"end_time": 2642.125,
"index": 108,
"start_time": 2612.159,
"text": " So I'll be researching that, and that has to do with time. And then one way to think about the low entropy, quote unquote, low entropy state of the universe prior, which gives rise to the arrow of time, is rather than thinking of it as a place of low entropy, to think of it as a place of a particular initial condition. OK, so what does that mean? Questions about entropy and time and what are called, again, another buzzword, closed timelike curves. And by the way, there are solutions to Einstein's equations. Closed timelike curves aren't"
},
{
"end_time": 2654.053,
"index": 109,
"start_time": 2642.346,
"text": " Excluded, they are permissible. So for example, Gödel has a metric which many people, which you're never taught, but Gödel has a spacetime metric solution. So a solution to the Einstein equations."
},
{
"end_time": 2674.258,
"index": 110,
"start_time": 2654.548,
"text": " that incorporate a closed timelike curve. Anyway, I'm not averse to the thinking of different models of cause and effect. And by the way, when people think of cause in physics, just so you know, it's not a physical notion. The more that one examines physics, the more one thinks or gets the idea that cause is illusory. Now, I'm not one of those people."
},
{
"end_time": 2696.954,
"index": 111,
"start_time": 2674.718,
"text": " It just means that it's not a physical model, at least not yet, or maybe it's not a physical concept, the concept of cause, even though we think so. The reason why is you just have a system, then you evolve it. So what's the cause of what? It's unclear. Virtually everything is the cause of... So when you drop that pen, the entire universe was the cause of that pen dropping, not just your hand, because there were preconditions to your hand and your thoughts and so on."
},
{
"end_time": 2708.541,
"index": 112,
"start_time": 2697.619,
"text": " And then there were the influence of the air molecules and so on, and gravity which pulls it down and so on. Which is why I asked about the cost. Scalability, because to what extent? Yeah, yeah. Okay, now here's what's interesting."
},
{
"end_time": 2734.138,
"index": 113,
"start_time": 2709.36,
"text": " Not talked about much, but there's something called Mach's Principle. Have you heard of Mach's Principle? No, but I'm very excited if you could explain. Okay, so Mach's Principle suggests that what happens locally is determined, or maybe determined is not the right word, but influenced by the global conditions. So for example, if you were to spin yourself around, just put your arms out and you spin yourself around and you look at the stars, you see the stars spinning,"
},
{
"end_time": 2762.79,
"index": 114,
"start_time": 2734.377,
"text": " But your, sorry, your arms are pulled apart. Your arms are pulled apart. But then you wonder, well, if everything is quote unquote relative, like Einstein suggests, and Galileo suggests, then what is it about, then how do you know that you're the one that's spinning, and it's not the stars that are spinning around you? Like, how do your arms know to fling outward? So Mach would say that you need in the local, that is you spinning your arms around, you actually need to incorporate the conditions of the entire distribution of stars."
},
{
"end_time": 2781.015,
"index": 115,
"start_time": 2763.439,
"text": " Einstein thought about this tremendously, and that's part of what influenced general relativity, is that the space-time metric, you need to have a metric of the entire universe. You don't just measure one small part. Differentiable, I believe that's the term. Differentiable, implying the consistency of that metric."
},
{
"end_time": 2810.981,
"index": 116,
"start_time": 2783.131,
"text": " I don't know. I apologize. Sorry. Sorry, man. I'm so sorry. That's all right. That's all right. That's all right. But regardless, so Einstein was heavily influenced by Mach's principle. So Mach's principle, again, suggests that something local is influenced by the global. And I watched a bit of your conversation with Dan, and Dan said something that I used to resonate with that I no longer do, which is that all truths that are said in many religions are like different viewpoints of the same elephant. And I even say this to myself."
},
{
"end_time": 2839.582,
"index": 117,
"start_time": 2811.323,
"text": " I don't know if I believe that. I don't know if everything is true, though I do think that everything can be incorporated. In a sense, it's like an extension. It's a philosophical mocks principle that for some truth to be true here, you need to incorporate the other truths. It's not the same. They're not all true, right? They need to be incorporated in some manner. So the Toe project, which the Toe, the theories of everything channel in some senses is trying to do that. Though I never have articulated it in an unblurred manner like this."
},
{
"end_time": 2854.838,
"index": 118,
"start_time": 2840.247,
"text": " Bringing all of those slices of the metaphorical pie or pizza in an attempted conjecture. Yes, like an attempted reconciliation between opposing practices, principles, and rituals even. So it's not just all propositional. It could be"
},
{
"end_time": 2879.65,
"index": 119,
"start_time": 2855.128,
"text": " procedural and perspectival and participatory. So that's a John Verbeckian term. We tend to think of beliefs as just propositional. I think the philosophical definition of beliefs is a proposition which one thinks is true. But I don't know if beliefs are not that I don't know. It's not in cognitive science. Beliefs aren't as simple as just propositions. Beliefs are also enacted. And so that means that one can be wrong about their beliefs. And that's why you hear someone like"
},
{
"end_time": 2905.435,
"index": 120,
"start_time": 2880.196,
"text": " Well, that's why you hear the claim that perhaps atheists aren't atheists because they suggest that they are with their words, but then with their bodies, they act differently. I don't know if I wholesale buy that I see it as true in some sense and not true in another, but the fact that I can see it as true in some sense means that there's a contradiction between the propositions and the procedural. This is thank you. Exactly. This is exactly where I'm at myself with respects to that idea of scalability."
},
{
"end_time": 2928.916,
"index": 121,
"start_time": 2905.828,
"text": " Because it's like, okay, to what extent can something be observed within a confined state that is local and contextual to that state? And how does one even define the parameters of the event of that state? And then, again, zooming out on the macro, even zooming in on the micro, to what extent do the variables, if any, if at all, of that state begin or end?"
},
{
"end_time": 2941.084,
"index": 122,
"start_time": 2930.094,
"text": " two other points, sort of like a slinky."
},
{
"end_time": 2961.852,
"index": 123,
"start_time": 2941.493,
"text": " It just looks like, for example, an aluminum metal cylinder, if you will. But if you walk closer to the slinky, you notice then the slinky is comprised of multiple rings. You pick up the slinky, you then expand the slinky and realize, oh wow, these rings are far more in depth, in detail than I thought, if that makes sense."
},
{
"end_time": 2984.974,
"index": 124,
"start_time": 2961.852,
"text": " Yeah, you know what's super interesting that I, I find fun to think about is, so what you referred to there is, is like the difference between something that's higher dimensional being viewed from a different, in that sense, it was a bleary view from afar. Right. But then you can also think of it in terms of flat landers while they see a circle here, and then it's disappear circle here, circle here, circle here, circle here. Right. And so then one is doing in that scenario is thinking of"
},
{
"end_time": 3005.367,
"index": 125,
"start_time": 2985.333,
"text": " Something that has more information from a point of view where there's less access to that information. So 2D space viewing from the three dimensional or you from afar. And then you have to compress what you see and compress it as one continuous. What I think is interesting, and that's something that physicists do plenty with string theory, for example, and positing extra dimensions."
},
{
"end_time": 3033.183,
"index": 126,
"start_time": 3005.845,
"text": " which I don't find that to be that absurd. I know many people do. I don't, I don't see why, but neither do I. Right. I don't care too much if the universe is 200 dimensional, right? That doesn't matter too much to me, but I understand that it matters to plenty of people. I find it fun, but I also find it more fun instead of thinking, how do we recover a four dimensional space from something which is higher than four dimensional? I think it's much more fun to think of how do we emerge a four dimensional space from what is less dimensional?"
},
{
"end_time": 3038.456,
"index": 127,
"start_time": 3033.404,
"text": " So that's the approach of loop quantum gravity, which is, you can think of it as one-dimensional chains on armor like chain link."
},
{
"end_time": 3068.507,
"index": 128,
"start_time": 3038.831,
"text": " which are actually one-dimensional loops, but they've spanned a two-dimensional surface and even three-dimensional when you put it on. I think that's super interesting. How do you recover something four-dimensional from what was lower, rather than thinking how do you project down from a higher dimensional state down to a lower one? Sorry, right before, I don't mean to nerd out in this regard, but now that I can tell that we're speaking the same language here, you had someone on, forgive me, I believe a computer scientist, I may be incorrect, a handful of months ago where"
},
{
"end_time": 3097.841,
"index": 129,
"start_time": 3068.507,
"text": " he basically had his postulation possible I think so when he said that there cannot be in his humble view and I really took this into consideration with respects to that angle of scalability there cannot be a theory of everything or a unified field theory because once you've comprised the fundamental you know states of that theory if we were to metaphorically or literally zoom in what comprises those theories and then"
},
{
"end_time": 3126.425,
"index": 130,
"start_time": 3098.097,
"text": " What comprises those? And that to me, that speaks to that idea of scalability. And so he had said without putting words in his mouth, I think it was Mr. Wohlpar where he goes, there can't be a theory of everything in my view, Kurt, because then you have unexplained theories to then explain the theory that you've just explained. Do you see what I'm saying? And then you have to keep going, which speaks to the idea for me potentially of, you know, fractals, cymatics, you name it. But again, not to confuse, but yeah."
},
{
"end_time": 3150.23,
"index": 131,
"start_time": 3127.329,
"text": " If I understand what David was, David Walpart, if it's even David Walpart, because if I understand it correctly, it could be my fault. No, no, no, most likely my fault. I don't recall. So many of our theories of the universe are developed from looking at it on the small scale and then extending to the large scale."
},
{
"end_time": 3176.715,
"index": 132,
"start_time": 3151.561,
"text": " And it's unclear to me how much that can be extended. So for example, we think of the universe, well, we don't, there are different models, but one can think of the universe as a closed system. But then where do you get this idea of closed? Because closed is, is relative to an external part. So we have thermodynamics and generally to make the math and the physics simpler, one does thermodynamics and closed systems so that you don't have leakages of energy and so on."
},
{
"end_time": 3197.193,
"index": 133,
"start_time": 3178.063,
"text": " And then you start to generalize and you say that, well, in a closed system, that's when entropy increases to its maximum. But why do you think you can apply what happens to a closed system to the entire universe? Why do you think you can apply what happens from a subset to the entire set? That's not clear to me. And additionally, Wohlpart suggests that the"
},
{
"end_time": 3221.51,
"index": 134,
"start_time": 3197.807,
"text": " to model the entire universe can't be done within a subset of the universe because the subset of the universe is a part of the universe and it would have to have a model of itself and in doing so it just can't predict it would be fractalized so you would be observing the universe in a fractalized state while simultaneously trying to comprise the entire composition of not just that state but the states even surrounding it if that makes sense"
},
{
"end_time": 3250.657,
"index": 135,
"start_time": 3223.473,
"text": " Yeah. Now this term fractal is used synonymously with self-similarity, but just so you know, and well, just so you know that a general fractal, most fractals aren't self-similar for there to be a fractal. You just need a certain dimension to be higher than another dimension. So topological dimension, which is what we refer to when we say one, two, three D 45 D has the, has to be lower than what's called the Hausdorff dimension, which is a technical term."
},
{
"end_time": 3274.036,
"index": 136,
"start_time": 3251.067,
"text": " But as soon as you have that, you have a fractal and most fractals aren't self-similar. And I know that I'm just making that clear because I appreciate that interchangeably. Yeah. And if the universe was well, if the universe is fractal, like I don't, I don't know. I don't, I don't know what happens if you have two different, see, this is tricky, but if you have, so fractal has,"
},
{
"end_time": 3301.22,
"index": 137,
"start_time": 3274.514,
"text": " in a sense it has infinite so i was about to say let me just falsely say sure sure okay in a sense the fractal has infinite information to any finite volume because it's it's jagged at the edges when you zoom in there's more refinement and so on right right okay now that's false the reason that that's false is because it's generated by just a single line of code like all of this complexity is generated by a simple equation so the information there is actually just what is required to produce this"
},
{
"end_time": 3326.561,
"index": 138,
"start_time": 3301.476,
"text": " object. I see. But then, but what I was going to say is that, well, what happens when you have two different fractals interacting? Because then you have, then to me that would, but I haven't thought about this much, but then to me that would have to have some, that would have to have infinite information because at every single point and well, I don't know how to explain this, but if you can imagine zooming in, zooming in. Okay. Yep. I got you."
},
{
"end_time": 3352.824,
"index": 139,
"start_time": 3326.954,
"text": " Okay, so then, so if the universe was fractal like, then it has to be unified as a fractal, unless there's infinite information, because then you have two different fractals interacting. So when people say that the universe is fractal, like, to me, that also implies that it's, it has to be just one fractal, simple equation, unless you have infinite information, and then you have black holes, and so on, which we don't seem to have around us. But I don't know, because I haven't formulated that I'm sure there are ways of"
},
{
"end_time": 3371.527,
"index": 140,
"start_time": 3353.08,
"text": " Speaking to that, are you familiar, by chance, Kurt, with Oliver Heaviside, Heinrich Hertz, and James Maxwell's interpretations of Mr. Maxwell's equations? The G variable rather representing potentials being removed after Mr. Maxwell's death?"
},
{
"end_time": 3394.394,
"index": 141,
"start_time": 3373.029,
"text": " Got you, got you. Okay."
},
{
"end_time": 3424.497,
"index": 142,
"start_time": 3394.821,
"text": " With that said, I did have two more questions for you and hopefully a little bit easier on the mind. And I thank you so much for even entertaining and indulging me for the past hour on these type of topics. Your conversation with Mr. Jacques Vallee and Mr. Gary Nolan, two separate conversations, but very simply what you took away from, regardless of the order you want to address them in, what you took away from the conversations with those gentlemen."
},
{
"end_time": 3452.79,
"index": 143,
"start_time": 3425.384,
"text": " Well, with Valet, it's simple. I don't remember much. Now, I keep saying this over and over. Well, partly that's because I tend to speak as precisely as I can, and I tend to follow this guy named Wittgenstein, who said, of what one cannot speak of precisely, one should be silent. So, partly that's just me. I appreciate that. I'm in agreement in that regard, too. If I don't know it, I won't say. So, yeah, right. That's partly me following his"
},
{
"end_time": 3473.609,
"index": 144,
"start_time": 3453.285,
"text": " following in the footsteps of him. But then it's also because whenever I interview someone, I prep generally I prep heavily. Now for the initial UFO interviews, I had such a paucity of data still do. It's not like the UFO scene is abound in data points. Right. Well, that's the whole"
},
{
"end_time": 3491.374,
"index": 145,
"start_time": 3474.445,
"text": " We think alike, man. By the way, the reason I'm laughing is not at you, it's that I think very similarly when I ponder these thoughts."
},
{
"end_time": 3516.561,
"index": 146,
"start_time": 3491.869,
"text": " In some way, that's false. It's because one already has a paradigm of what constitutes evidence. So when someone says, let's just talk about consciousness, and someone says, well, consciousness is not physical, like we can feel it. And that's not entirely physics based. And then someone says, well, where's the evidence? And then you point to your own experience. And then they say, well, that's not, where's the physical evidence of it being non-physical? Well, what you've done is you've"
},
{
"end_time": 3544.838,
"index": 147,
"start_time": 3517.227,
"text": " circumscribed and then you said anything that's outside the circle doesn't count. So what's outside the circle? Then you're pointing to objects outside the circle to say, yeah, but that's not inside the circle. Right. So you just defined away the problem when it comes to evidence. Well, the analogy here is, well, what counts as evidence? Okay. Anyway, then with the unfledged nature of the initial UFO interviews, I don't and didn't feel bad about"
},
{
"end_time": 3566.015,
"index": 148,
"start_time": 3545.811,
"text": " How my knowledge is so limited in that domain, because I feel like there is still some contribution by asking what are sophomore work and cosmetic questions to an expert in the same way that asking about what are what's an undergraduate concept like a compact set or."
},
{
"end_time": 3595.316,
"index": 149,
"start_time": 3567.261,
"text": " or a differential form to the top mathematician, his name is Terry Tao, asking him fairly vacuous questions like that actually lead to a different understanding of the objects because, and that's by the way, the whole reason that graduates are told to read the Feynman lectures on physics is not because they're arduous and formidable books, but because they're the rudimentary questions explained differently. So I don't mind too much that I'm asking people like Jacques Vallee or George Knapp or"
},
{
"end_time": 3605.879,
"index": 150,
"start_time": 3595.93,
"text": " Lou Alessando, so on, fairly fatuous questions because sometimes there's something that can be gleaned from this childlike perspective by asking an expert."
},
{
"end_time": 3631.032,
"index": 151,
"start_time": 3606.886,
"text": " Actually, oftentimes that's the case. But anyway, that's not to justify it. The whole point was to say that. So I asked some fairly rudimentary questions to Jacques Valley and so on. Then you're asking me, what did I take away? Well, when I prepare for a podcast, I prep heavily like it's a test, I have it, and then I don't return to it. That's part of my problem. That's something that I'm solving right now is I need to then cohere all of the"
},
{
"end_time": 3649.48,
"index": 152,
"start_time": 3631.391,
"text": " This is difficult."
},
{
"end_time": 3668.029,
"index": 153,
"start_time": 3649.855,
"text": " Okay, now as for Gary Nolan, what I took away from that as a meta level, just as podcasters between you and I, is that I tend to prefer those like the Gary Nolan, the Salvatore Pius and the Diana Pasocha interview, I consider to be my top UFO interviews. And the reason is that I'm doing them offline."
},
{
"end_time": 3696.459,
"index": 154,
"start_time": 3668.353,
"text": " and I can think and I can relax and I don't have to take questions from the audience. I have my own questions and I'm there in real time and you can see me. It's like ping pong. It's like a tennis match between people. This is why do you think I wanted to do it like this? Yeah. With you. Yes, right. Rather than, rather than online. And then you're constantly checking the chat and having to ask questions and you're distracted and they're not entirely your own of your own creation. So in the future, I'll probably do that continually. So with Salvatore Pius, for example,"
},
{
"end_time": 3724.462,
"index": 155,
"start_time": 3697.125,
"text": " I have a plan to interview him in person at some point when he can. Right now he can't. And for Gary Nolan, I would like to speak to him again. It'll be offline. And what I took away most, much like the Sal interview, maybe you want to know more about the physics of the UFOs and so on. But what I took away was something from Sal's interview was something about heart. What I took away from Gary's interview was something about conducting podcasts, but also about the nature of speculation and science where most,"
},
{
"end_time": 3747.944,
"index": 156,
"start_time": 3725.026,
"text": " This is"
},
{
"end_time": 3766.681,
"index": 157,
"start_time": 3748.387,
"text": " It is on the precipice of different observational states of interpretation of different theories, proposals, hypotheses, postulations, you name it."
},
{
"end_time": 3794.906,
"index": 158,
"start_time": 3766.971,
"text": " It's not too self-aggrandizing for you to say that again, if I can refer back to what I said earlier, you're doing, and this is also a compliment to yourself, brother, you're doing a fantastic job of bringing all the slices or as many as you could of that metaphorical pie or pizza together to be able to not particularly say, Hey guys, you know, to the world, if you will, this is a, for example, we've come up with so and so in this order chronologically, and this is a unified field theory, but rather to say, this is what"
},
{
"end_time": 3813.404,
"index": 159,
"start_time": 3795.418,
"text": " We can all interpret differently, which to me speaks philosophically to the joys in the journey. I said this to Elizondo and Mr. Cahill that you may have your text messaging app on the home page of your phone. I may have it on the bottom dock on the second row or something like this."
},
{
"end_time": 3842.039,
"index": 160,
"start_time": 3813.882,
"text": " We both have different ways of getting there, but we still get to the same app nonetheless. And I think your show does a beautiful job of that. I really do. And so I don't think it's too self-aggrandizing for you to humbly, and knowing your personality as well, to humbly state that it's doing something of that sort, not particularly giving a definitive, solidified conclusion to anything, but rather opening up the possibilities of that speculative"
},
{
"end_time": 3870.794,
"index": 161,
"start_time": 3842.381,
"text": " potentiality, not proof, but potentiality, if that makes sense. Right. And I agree. And I also say that that's a deficit of the program. So what's it's pro is also it's con and that what I'm well, that speaks to duality. Yes. What Toa is not trying to do is to speak to a conservative center or to be a conservative center to make incremental steps. It's a liberal and not in the political sense, but in the cognitive sense, it's a liberal"
},
{
"end_time": 3899.531,
"index": 162,
"start_time": 3871.459,
"text": " examination of the boundaries. So Thomas Kuhn, I'm sure you've heard of, had this idea of paradigm shifts in science and that every decade or a few decades, there's a radical departure in what we thought of as the model of the world. And then you wonder, well, how does one get to that point? Well, to me, one gets to that by constantly... Pushing the confinements of those theories, perhaps? By following one's hunches and instincts."
},
{
"end_time": 3902.005,
"index": 163,
"start_time": 3899.906,
"text": " and suggesting what"
},
{
"end_time": 3930.35,
"index": 164,
"start_time": 3902.193,
"text": " is ridiculous over and over and throwing paper at the wall, or I don't think paper is the right word, toilet paper that's wet, throwing objects at the wall and seeing what sticks. Oh, just seeing what sticks. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so that's how it's done on the bleeding edge. And so I would say that, but then there's obviously, like I mentioned, there's a deficit to that. There's a con to that. There's a detriment, sorry, to that, which is that you have to be careful because you can't be too unmoored. Otherwise you go off and there's extreme danger. And I think I've talked about this, at least for myself,"
},
{
"end_time": 3943.439,
"index": 165,
"start_time": 3930.435,
"text": " Psychologically, there's extreme danger in having an open mind, which hasn't been talked about by almost anyone that I've seen, at least not in the non-clinical setting. There should be warning signs. There should be danger signs to each TOA episode."
},
{
"end_time": 3965.111,
"index": 166,
"start_time": 3944.241,
"text": " No, I appreciate that a ton. I really do because it speaks to this idea of really, and please forgive me, please tell me if you think I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but honing in on the very basic fundamental concepts and then"
},
{
"end_time": 3995.162,
"index": 167,
"start_time": 3965.708,
"text": " without making leaps and bounds without, again, I think this is also dangerous to make such leaps and bounds without any type of evidentiary basis of any kind, but to sort of... It's a fine line, I know what you mean, between just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks metaphorically and pushing the limits of, for example, a confined set of parameters that can in observable states be proven. I know what you're saying, it's a fine line."
},
{
"end_time": 4018.251,
"index": 168,
"start_time": 3995.486,
"text": " Right, I agree. And I would also say that it also depends on what one considers to be evidence. Like you said, you're completely disentangled from the evidence. But dreams can count as evidence. Well, sorry, not evidence, but as directions to be pursued. That's why I think that the innovation will come from the fringes, but then be actually made explicit by the center, because you need the rigor."
},
{
"end_time": 4035.657,
"index": 169,
"start_time": 4018.524,
"text": " So hopefully what i'm trying to do is a bit of a balance of both because you can't simply say that well consciousness is like a black hole i remember someone you know this to me and they're using these flowery metaphors and then i suggested well actually consciousness is like a white hole because the white hole is what it gives out and then they're like ah yes and then they made a whole"
},
{
"end_time": 4065.708,
"index": 170,
"start_time": 4036.049,
"text": " document suggesting it's a white hole. And then I thought, you know, and actually, no, the black hole fits more. And then they're like, yeah, actually black. So then almost any metaphor can work. Okay, now, when I was referring to the what counts as evidence, well, dreams in the sense of, in the sense of serving as the inspiration for exploring rigorously, that happened in the case of the Watson and Crick, I believe, or for the no for the benzene for the benzene molecule like the snake. There are many accounts of this. Romano, Romano Jan, who's a mathematician, was"
},
{
"end_time": 4094.599,
"index": 171,
"start_time": 4066.408,
"text": " inspired heavily and sometimes even solely by the god by goddesses and and meditative practices imbuing in him baroque mathematical formulas which then need to be proved but right at least they can serve as the inspiration so it depends on what one counts as as and so i want to say that it's entirely fruitless to be"
},
{
"end_time": 4108.183,
"index": 172,
"start_time": 4096.152,
"text": " disembroiled from the physical"
},
{
"end_time": 4136.8,
"index": 173,
"start_time": 4108.797,
"text": " Well, I'll say et cetera, the synonyms of that sign. I mean, sorry, Seinfeld, Einstein, Einstein, by the way, was criticized for modifying space and time too much. I don't know if you know this, but when he first came out with special relativity, someone named Lawrence, who I'm sure you've heard of in Lawrence contractions, Lawrence said that there must be a physical mechanism for the for space contraction, time dilation is don't modify space time. That's way too much of a step."
},
{
"end_time": 4159.326,
"index": 174,
"start_time": 4137.261,
"text": " Like dial it back Einstein even in I think 1920s or so or 19 late 1910s. I forgot when Einstein earned his Nobel or was awarded the Nobel Prize. Even Max Planck wrote to the Nobel committee and said don't hold his views on space time against him like just awarded for the photoelectric effect. It's a bit off kilter when it comes to the modification of space time."
},
{
"end_time": 4175.128,
"index": 175,
"start_time": 4159.872,
"text": " Oh, it turned out to be true. And then you could wonder, well, we have the luxury of hindsight to say, well, Einstein was correct in following his hunch. And it wasn't too much of a hunch because there was evidence. Yeah, but this trail toward evidence is a retro addiction. It's something that's made about the past."
},
{
"end_time": 4202.705,
"index": 176,
"start_time": 4175.555,
"text": " Afterward, it's an inference made about the past. Right. And if I could say philosophically, that speaks to, and even in a visual sense, it speaks to this concept of, I mean, without getting too specific, like a toy road field, if you will, a constant cycling, a constant reoccurring or re re observation, um, re observing of that duality state, if you will, this idea of don't go too far, but at the same time, it's like, how do we not go too far while attempting to"
},
{
"end_time": 4216.596,
"index": 177,
"start_time": 4203.473,
"text": " Again, relative to the evidence and equations and knowledge of the time in a more solidified sense, push the limits, so to speak. But then even that, again, to your point, even I'm on the same page with you, that speaks to the"
},
{
"end_time": 4243.353,
"index": 178,
"start_time": 4216.886,
"text": " the idea of this confinement because, again, please forgive me if I'm incorrect here. I believe that Einstein in his theory of general relativity used the Levy-Cavita or Levy-Cavita metric in order to sort of postulate amongst many other things that sense of, again, like what you were just saying, expansion and meddling with the space-time metric and turns out it was correct. And so the question becomes, should there even be a sort of"
},
{
"end_time": 4262.483,
"index": 179,
"start_time": 4244.121,
"text": " said of dare I say observational standards to notify and or alert someone if you will when they're going quote unquote too far but then the question becomes to me even to what extent is what too far because then we go back to what you just said about how Einstein they were like don't take it seriously and then it turns out looking back holy shit he was right"
},
{
"end_time": 4292.108,
"index": 180,
"start_time": 4264.855,
"text": " Also, when just discussing these topics in an absence of physical evidence, many people, most people, most scientists would agree that finding microbial life on another planet would be one of the monumental discoveries of human existence, not just of the past decade or century. What if something much more profound is occurring? And then you wonder, well, there's no physical evidence. Well, how do we find the physical evidence without discussing this topic? And how do we motivate people to find it?"
},
{
"end_time": 4322.312,
"index": 181,
"start_time": 4292.807,
"text": " Right, right. Just curious, what would a, I know that you have to take off shortly and I promise this is the last question to that. What would be the rebuttal to what you just said there from professors, academics that seem to want to work within, which I'm not against, but work within a confined state of quote unquote provable, I guess you could say states or functions. What would their rebuttal be to, we can't go too far out there type thing, if that makes sense?"
},
{
"end_time": 4343.387,
"index": 182,
"start_time": 4323.831,
"text": " They would probably suggest something like, I think it was Kent, who suggested that morality should be what if, quote unquote, everyone did it, then it would still be okay. I think that they would say, well, what if everyone in science did"
},
{
"end_time": 4361.357,
"index": 183,
"start_time": 4343.609,
"text": " this extreme speculation and discussing of unfounded claims, then where would we be? I think that would be their claim. I think that would be their rebuttal. Well, then my rebuttal is, well, not everyone's doing that. There's a certain temperament that allows for that."
},
{
"end_time": 4385.759,
"index": 184,
"start_time": 4361.357,
"text": " And channels like yours, channels like mine, we aren't speaking to the, I keep saying this, but I don't mean it in a political sense, the conservative center, we're not speaking to them. We're speaking to an open temperament, a liberal with regard to ideas, a liberal mindset. And the Neil deGrasse Tyson types would say that it's removed from replicable data and that this is not accessible to the public. And all of that's true."
},
{
"end_time": 4402.637,
"index": 185,
"start_time": 4387.244,
"text": " Right. So, yeah. But at the same time, you have to think about where are they deriding the whole department of philosophy. Right. Almost all of the philosophical department has zero data to support their claims. Zero data."
},
{
"end_time": 4429.906,
"index": 186,
"start_time": 4403.046,
"text": " right so then yeah so they already have a certain mindset they dislike and and i think that they just i think that much of it is extremely emotionally laden that they don't want to be seen as these backward religious hillbillies and that's at the back of their mind at any given point that they have a position on a social hierarchy in the the midst of the savants that they worship intellectually and they don't want to be seen as somewhere lower on that academic hierarchy it's a scholarly form of intellectual posturing"
},
{
"end_time": 4451.442,
"index": 187,
"start_time": 4430.35,
"text": " And to that, and wow, that was very well said, a scholarly form of intellectual posturing. So it would be the idea like, for example, again, I want to be clear to both yourself, sir, and to the audience that this is a purely hypothetical example, but say, you know, Kurt brings on to his great show, you know, a professor that's in there, say, let's just say hypothetically in their eighties in age,"
},
{
"end_time": 4467.858,
"index": 188,
"start_time": 4451.613,
"text": " and they spent multiple decades focusing on a particular set of theorems and postulating axioms within those theories and all that and all of a sudden you have, they're on your show, they're doing their thing, they're explaining their theory, their hypothesis and then here comes"
},
{
"end_time": 4496.8,
"index": 189,
"start_time": 4468.404,
"text": " Mr. Kurt Jaimungal, which please don't, I'm not trying to degrade you relative to this hypothetical person. You can degrade. No, not at all. I'm a masochist, so turn me on. Here comes 34-year-old Kurt Jaimungal poking a legitimate hole in 80-odd-year-old professor so-and-so's hypothesis that they've then spent their whole life on. And so to me that, again,"
},
{
"end_time": 4524.224,
"index": 190,
"start_time": 4497.142,
"text": " layman's terms of simplicity that speaks to ego very simply and and that's that that I I think I very slightly and maybe this is incorrect of me but I sympathize to a very slight extent because I want to put myself in their shoes of like they've they've spent decades pursuing particular paths but at the same time I hate to be like this because it sounds very I guess you could say narcissistic or conceited of me but if someone's proven wrong they're proven wrong you know"
},
{
"end_time": 4543.848,
"index": 191,
"start_time": 4524.394,
"text": " Regardless of how much time was put into that hypothesis, if you will. So my whole thing is, again, speaking to that intellectual posturing in the social hierarchy of things. It's like, to what extent are a handful of academics just going, no, this is incorrect because they feel threatened, if that makes sense."
},
{
"end_time": 4567.995,
"index": 192,
"start_time": 4546.869,
"text": " I know what you're saying. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. It's not by the way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Continue. Continue. No, I'm not looking even for an answer. Just throwing thoughts out at this point. But think about this. This is something I think about fairly frequently, let's say on a weekly basis. I think that if something turns out to be true about this UFO phenomenon,"
},
{
"end_time": 4587.722,
"index": 193,
"start_time": 4568.78,
"text": " I don't think that the UFO community will have any credit that's deserved to them. I think that they'll still be disparaged and disesteemed and sneered at by the likes of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson even though I'm just choosing his name. I don't think that he's as"
},
{
"end_time": 4603.677,
"index": 194,
"start_time": 4587.722,
"text": " Contamelius as I make him seem the reasoning goes like this. Let's imagine that Bigfoot turned out to be true. Let's just take the case of Bigfoot. Sure, people will forget about the tens of thousands of people who had experienced who had experiences with Bigfoot and they'll just focus on oh, there's evidence for Bigfoot now."
},
{
"end_time": 4623.097,
"index": 195,
"start_time": 4603.677,
"text": " The community won't get an apology. It'll maybe get some recognition vaguely as, well, look, there were some historical people who believed in this. But it won't be some press conference where people say, yeah, you all were right for so much longer than we were. And we were too arrogant and supercilious to acknowledge it. And we apologize."
},
{
"end_time": 4640.879,
"index": 196,
"start_time": 4623.097,
"text": " It would be seen as"
},
{
"end_time": 4656.8,
"index": 197,
"start_time": 4640.879,
"text": " Right."
},
{
"end_time": 4686.408,
"index": 198,
"start_time": 4657.312,
"text": " Basically you don't see what's happening like for example if I could if I could very and I say this respectfully to Mr. Mr. Eric Weinstein he tweeted out a few a handful of months ago he said to the UFO community I'm sorry he blatantly came out and I respect that he came out and said I'm sorry I was for you know quite some time I was incorrect and I dismissed this field as something of nonsense or what have you he goes to all of you I apologize you but you're basically saying you don't see that happening if anything comes out of the UAP field relative to the rest of academia"
},
{
"end_time": 4714.991,
"index": 199,
"start_time": 4686.408,
"text": " Or a good chunk of academia. No, and you can also think of it like generally augers don't get the credit. So for example, Nietzsche doesn't get credit for predicting that there would be some disastrous effects of following a secular religion in the abandonment of God. And there are a few other people who said similar sentiments. So people who are historical, who have some insight, profound, deep insight, they don't get much credit."
},
{
"end_time": 4736.032,
"index": 200,
"start_time": 4715.247,
"text": " Instead, what you say as an academic is, well, there are several thousands of people who made predictions. Some of them are going to be correct. You rarely get an admission of following an incorrect path from a scholar. That's what I see. Now, Eric Weinstein is an extreme exception to that, but Eric's an exception in many ways. So Eric's an interesting person."
},
{
"end_time": 4763.899,
"index": 201,
"start_time": 4736.869,
"text": " Right, got you. Well, with that said, Kurt, I want to thank you so, so much, man, for your time. I want to thank you for coming on and for even entertaining such questions and exploring hypotheses and these different ideas. And please, I know that, again, I want to apologize if I phrased any of the questions in a way that just truly didn't make sense or anything like this. I apologize for not understanding them. And by the way, I also want to say that the people that comprise the UFO community,"
},
{
"end_time": 4790.282,
"index": 202,
"start_time": 4764.224,
"text": " They tend to not care too much about exoneration or punishment. Right. They just care about the quote unquote truth, as far as I can tell the majority of them. And that's not like myself, like I'm much more of a selfish person. So I'm projecting plenty of how I would feel dismayed and, and so on onto them, but they're much more selfless and kindhearted than myself. Gotcha. Much as much of what I said, maybe it doesn't matter to them."
},
{
"end_time": 4813.063,
"index": 203,
"start_time": 4790.879,
"text": " Sure. There's a channel called Theories of Everything and what that channel is about. It's more of a project than a podcast. It's an attempt to understand the"
},
{
"end_time": 4830.657,
"index": 204,
"start_time": 4813.524,
"text": " Variegated landscape of toes. So theories of everything from a mathematical and physics based perspective. So that is the original conception of what a theory of everything is in the sense of unifying gravity and the standard model. But then also the theory of everything can be interpreted more broadly and philosophically as"
},
{
"end_time": 4853.336,
"index": 205,
"start_time": 4830.657,
"text": " Well, what are the laws that well, if one wants to be reductionist, what are the laws that that bring us here? I don't know if the reductionism is the correct frame, but let me just adopt that for now. So what are the laws such that what we see here at the large scale limit, they derive from something lower, whether consciousness is fundamental or whatever, maybe the podcast, the project, let's say is about explicating those. So making them explicit, and then"
},
{
"end_time": 4879.804,
"index": 206,
"start_time": 4853.729,
"text": " trying to understand them and relate them, as well as seeing, so there's physical toes, cognitive toes, like, let's say, John Vervecky, E. McGilchrist, I would consider them to be cognitive toes. And there are people who what I call rose. So, resoners of existence. I think this may be the first time that I'm saying that aloud. They're the people who have unexampled views of reality. They're metaphysical. They don't repudiate non-secular forms of spirituality."
},
{
"end_time": 4890.555,
"index": 207,
"start_time": 4879.991,
"text": " Resonars of existence"
},
{
"end_time": 4914.411,
"index": 208,
"start_time": 4891.032,
"text": " film making or art in general which means to voice the central theme so I see them as as viewing this life if one can view this life as a play and trying to voice the central themes and the motifs and contend with existence yeah that's not sorry that I would say in my humble opinion I would I appreciate you differentiating that from reductionism because I I humbly think that they may not be the same but I certainly see precisely what you're saying"
},
{
"end_time": 4935.691,
"index": 209,
"start_time": 4915.009,
"text": " Yes, yes, that's right. I don't think that, for example, so I have a list here of the resonators of existence. And it's just fun for me, because to me, I think about there's something in mathematics called associativity. And then there's something called non associativity. So I see that the rows as a non associative philosophical rat pack. So"
},
{
"end_time": 4946.118,
"index": 210,
"start_time": 4936.032,
"text": " I love that, because I'm a big fan of Levin and particularly Friston's work, but I really appreciate how you asked Professor Friston, I believe, or Mr. Friston, how he sort of"
},
{
"end_time": 4973.08,
"index": 211,
"start_time": 4946.476,
"text": " We have a conversation coming up with Michael Levin and Karl Friston and we talk about this very topic. There's much that happened behind the scenes that I can't say aloud. One or more of them weren't comfortable with me sharing certain aspects, but it was"
},
{
"end_time": 5003.387,
"index": 212,
"start_time": 4973.387,
"text": " Great conversation. So I just want to read off a list of the resonators of existence before I got to get going, if you don't mind, please. So I would consider Chris Langan to be the one to be a Roe, Michael Levin, Thomas Campbell, Joscha Bach, Roger Penrose, who I haven't interviewed. So these aren't just people who are on the Toe channel, Greg Henriques, who I haven't interviewed. And much of the time people propose certain individuals for me to interview. And I think, yes, they have a Toe, but are they a Roe? Perhaps not, perhaps no."
},
{
"end_time": 5010.282,
"index": 213,
"start_time": 5003.387,
"text": " That's awesome. You can think of the Toe Channel. So wrap this all up. The Toe Channel is there to explicate toes by interviewing Rose."
},
{
"end_time": 5040.384,
"index": 214,
"start_time": 5010.623,
"text": " Awesome. Love it. I truly, truly appreciate it. And I want to thank everyone for coming out to either watch or listen to this. Of course, on my end, whether it's on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Podbean. So thank you so very much. As always, everyone who came out to watch or listen. And Kurt, brother, it's been an honor and it's been a very, very incredible conversation. And I thank you so very much from the bottom of my heart, man. Thank you."
},
{
"end_time": 5063.012,
"index": 215,
"start_time": 5041.084,
"text": " Well, I thank you for inviting me, man. I appreciate that. And also, theories of everything is on Spotify. So I didn't say where you could find a YouTube and all the audio platforms as well. Yeah, man, I appreciate you inviting me out. I didn't know you're a fellow Canadian. Yeah, I didn't know your fellow Torontonian. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it's awesome to see, again, the similarities resonate in that regard. But thank you so much, man."
},
{
"end_time": 5084.241,
"index": 216,
"start_time": 5065.009,
"text": " The podcast is now finished. If you'd like to support conversations like this, then do consider going to patreon.com slash c-u-r-t-j-a-i-m-u-n-g-a-l. That is Kurt Jaimungal. Its support from the patrons and from the sponsors that allow me to do this full time. Every dollar helps tremendously. Thank you."
}
]
}No transcript available.