Audio Player
✓ Using synced audio (timestamps accurate)
Starting at:
Chris Langan on IQ, The Singularity, Free Will, Psychedelics, CTMU, and God
July 14, 2021
•
4:28:48
•
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
580 sentences
36,287 words
Method: api-polled
Transcription time: 262m 39s
The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze.
Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates.
Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toe listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount.
This is Martian Beast Mode Lynch. Prize pick is making sports season even more fun. On prize picks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, you'll always feel good to be ranked. Right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use. Pick two or more players. Pick more or less on their stat projections. Anything from touchdown to threes. And if you're right, you can win big. Mix and match players from
any sport on PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app. PrizePix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas,
All right. Hello, Toll listeners. Kurt here.
That silence is missed sales. Now, why? It's because you haven't met Shopify, at least until now.
Now that's success. As sweet as a solved equation. Join me in trading that silence for success with Shopify. It's like some unify field theory of business. Whether you're a bedroom inventor or a global game changer, Shopify smooths your path. From a garage-based hobby to a bustling e-store, Shopify navigates all sales channels for you. With Shopify powering 10% of all US e-commerce and fueling your ventures in over
One hundred and seventy countries. Your business has global potential and their stellar support is as dependable as a law of physics. So don't wait. Launch your business with Shopify. Shopify has award winning service and has the Internet's best converting checkout. Sign up for a one dollar per month trial period at Shopify dot com slash theories. All lowercase that's Shopify dot com slash theories.
Chris Langan is an autodidact who's known for having the highest recorded IQ in America and he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything called the cognitive theoretic model of the universe or the CTMU for short. This introduction will be fairly lengthy so feel free to skip to the timestamp here if you're uninterested and want to get straight to the podcast. My name is Kurt Jaimungal and I'm a filmmaker with a background in math and physics
As usual, this isn't meant as an introduction to the guest, but rather where one goes after they've done some research. In fact, the first hour can be rather technical. Most interviews with Chris are somewhat superficial and talk about his days as a bouncer, his experiences, what it's like to have a high IQ,
but we're interested in the topic of theories of everything and you're not afraid to get your hands dirty. I don't often like to give my opinion on the variegated theories that exist, but in Chris's case I have to say that
If I was to say that I'm impressed, that would be an extreme understatement. His theory is unfairly criticized by critics who have read his theory for approximately a day at most and who point to its supposed incoherence, but I found that critics tend to do this with virtually every theory that's self-proposed, like Eric Weinstein's or Stephen Wolfram's, though from my investigation of these, these theories are far from erroneous casuistry. It just takes plenty of difficult work to understand
It's far from nonsense, and the easiest way to tell is to ask the critic, can you explain their theory back to them in a manner that they would agree? Another way to think of this is that one field's technical achievement is word salad to someone who's outside that field. What we have in the case of Weinstein, Wolfram, and Chris Langan is that in
I highly recommend you check out CTMURadio.com and CTMU.org
to gain an overview of Chris's theories, as there are several in-depth PDFs containing some of the technical details and derivations. Another word on style. I may ask the same question to Chris in different ways multiple times because, like I said, his theory isn't exactly trivial, and so hearing the same phenomenon from different orientations often illuminate what was previously obscured. Now, a word on myself.
Preparing for this particular podcast took weeks and weeks. Usually I'm able to prep for multiple guests simultaneously, but this one was so involved that it consumed me and took a physical toll. I went through virtually each one of Chris's papers and even spoke to someone who is conversant in the CTMU, just so that I can make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly. That person's name is Sam Thompson, and he's a brilliant
Mathematically gifted humble soul who I dedicate this entire episode to since he put up with my naive pestering questions on a daily basis in fact it got to the point where I had to ask him if I could add him on whatsapp because texting takes far too long and it's much easier for me to send voice notes so almost every hour I would send him a voice note and then he would send me back and then I would
Ask him follow-up questions. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Because of this physical toll, like I mentioned, the pressure of releasing another podcast soon with the same quality as this one and the same quality as the others is a bit too much for me and I'm going to have to take a couple weeks off. Soon I'll be interviewed by ZDogg, the simulation podcast.
Coast to Coast AM and I'll be on someone else's podcast whose name is a fairly large name but I can't announce right now. Like I mentioned those aren't my podcast I'll be interviewed instead so I'll post the links to those on Twitter as they occur as well as
Perhaps put them on the iTunes Spotify audio version if you're interested. If you'd like to hear more conversations like these, then please do consider going to Patreon.com slash KurtGymungle. It may sound silly, but literally every dollar helps. And this is now thankfully what I get to do full time. It's absolutely encouraging to see that people care. And often the notes that I get when people donate are of the form. This is so that you don't have to worry so much about finances and you could spend time with your wife.
Thank you so much. I've recently opened up a crypto address, and PayPal is also an option. The plan is to have more conversations like this of the same quality approximately once per week, at least. At some point toward the end of the year, I also plan on interviewing some of the audience members who have sent me their well-articulated PDFs. People such as Steve Agnew, Tyler Goldstein, Steve Scully, and Jennifer Scharf. Links to their remarkable work are in the description. Again, I feel a bit icky saying this as I'm not a self-promoter.
But I've been told by some people who have donated that I need to be saying this a bit more as they wouldn't have donated if they didn't hear it to begin with. Please do consider donating or supporting it in any way that you can at patreon.com slash Kurt Deymungel. There are a couple sponsors of today's podcast. Algo is an end to end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps business users optimize sales and operations, planning to avoid stock outs, reduce returns and inventory write downs,
while reducing inventory investment. It's a supply chain AI that drives smart ROI headed by a bright individual by the name of Amjad Hussein, who's been a huge supporter of the podcast from its early days. The second sponsor is Brilliant. Brilliant illuminates the soul of math, science and engineering through bite sized interactive learning experiences. Brilliant's courses explore the laws that shape our world, elevating math and science from something to be feared to a delightful experience of guided discovery
more on them later. Thank you and enjoy one of the longest, most in-depth interviews with one of the brightest people on the planet, Chris Langan. If I look down or look angry, that's my thinking face. You're familiar with that. But if I look down, I'm making notes, so please don't think I'm not paying attention. You have my full attention. Bitchy resting face, right? Apparently I do. People tell me that I just look angry all the time.
How long does it take the average person to get through your theory such that they can grok it that's intuitive to them?
If it were me, I think I would catch on fairly quickly. But some people, I have a couple of groups and we occasionally hold conferences and they get to ask questions and I think that I bring a lot of them up to speed on the theory fairly quickly. The ones who have read the theory, there are people that read the 2002 paper for example, many of them and they're quite expert on it and they've done a lot of thinking about it and they know what it's about.
Why don't you give an overview of your theory for those who are uninitiated, a broad strokes view? Well, the CTMU is a theory of everything. There are two kinds of theory of everything. One of them is a physical theory.
Usually it's related to a unified field theory in some way, which means the forces of nature are supposed to be unified into one general force. But of course that's only part of reality and my theory is a theory of everything in the metaphysical sense. It actually has to conform to certain logical criteria which in philosophy and metaphysics govern what a theory of everything has to be. So I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself about itself.
It is a language. A language is an algebraic structure. This is a particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself and to make decisions regarding how it models itself, which is another way to say how it evolves. It can be modeled in many ways. You can actually look at it as an operator algebra or say quantization, a new kind of quantization of reality.
or reality self-simulation. You can look at it from the perspective of quantum mechanics as quantum metamechanics. I believe you must have read that paper or you mentioned having a matter thing, right? Once again, as a metaformal system, which is like a formal system, but it's a generalization of the formal system that goes deeply into the nature of language. Here's another way to describe CTW.
Basically, you've got a system, you've got this metaphorical system and it relates intelligence and intelligibility. Ontology and epistemology are coupled in this thing. Reality actually has to recognize itself and process itself.
It has to do both, so that's what it does. It relates intelligibility and intelligence, which are dual quantities in CTME, thusly defining both of them in the recursive sense. It's a mutual recursive definition of those two terms within this CTME structure. It can even be regarded as a theory of consciousness, for example. It says what consciousness is because the way it quantizes.
Let's start from what's most fundamental and then how you work your way up from there to derive your theory.
which is basically to be is to be perceived or to perceive. You start with perception and cognition. Then you develop the minimal model of how cognition and perception work. Then you induce an overall system that works by those processes. That's the way you get to the CTMU. It's called logical induction. I've been using that terminology for years. It's superior to empirical induction, by the way.
Let's get into some of the more technical questions
And for those who are listening, as a first pass, you don't have to understand all of the terminology. It's much better. I think Wheeler said this or Wigner, I'm not sure which one. He said that people are trying to drink from the firehose, but the point is to just get wet. And then another quote that I like is from Von Neumann who said, you're not supposed to understand math, you get used to it. So that's in a similar vein.
Don't worry if you don't understand all the terms or follow the logical steps in the first pass of this podcast. It's more about rewatching and then recontextualizing. For me, one of the greatest pleasures in life is that feeling after you're so confused and then all of a sudden you start to glean what you're supposed to and different connections are made and you comprehend and you push through that confusion. Okay, so push through the confusion, eventually some parts of it at least will make sense.
Is there a duality between syntax and semantics? Yes. Sorry, is the duality between syntax and semantics a generalization of stone duality? Yes. Well, all these dualities are related. There are all kinds of dualities out there. You know where the idea of duality originally comes from, right? Two points determine a line. Two lines determine a point. Where the lines intersect, you've got a point.
If you draw two points, put two points on a piece of paper, you can draw a line between them. That's a duality, basically. You permute your terms and you still have an invariant truth. The original form of the relation remains true. That's what a duality is. Anytime you can do that, anytime there is an invariant and you can switch things around within that invariant and the invariant stays true, that's a duality. There are many kinds of duality at the CTE.
So how are syntax and semantics related? Well, the syntax is intrinsic. If you take a look at the language, those are the absolute invariants that every intelligible statement is made from. You know, that grammar and non-terminals and how non-terminals are substituted cumulatively until they result in terminal expressions, right? That's basically what it is. If human cognitive syntax is syntactically covered by
Reality syntax, how can one meaningfully describe reality as humans? Well, as a language, when you talk about syntax and semantics, you are talking about a language. And as I say, syntax is the intrinsic structure of the language, whereas semantics is that involves things like definitions and interpretations. You have to define terms. All the terms, syntactic terms are supposed to be primitive, the non-terminals.
are cognitively primitive whereas when you get into semantics now you're combining those primitives to get defined terms to get definitions then you're combining those in certain ways and then once you form your expression now you have to interpret it or form a model of it in some other structure that you've got, right? And so it's a big process. Language is as I say the most general algebraic structure there is.
To see that, any other algebraic structure you can name is a language. When you write it down, you are writing it down in the form of language. So automatically you know language is the most general algebraic structure. Right, I heard you say that many people think that mathematics is extremely precise, has high fidelity, it's unequivocal, whereas language, natural language, is considered to be indistinct, opaque, dubious,
Is there a relationship between the inter-expansive
where syntactic operators are entangled and mutually absorbing. And so this inner expansion and love, is there a relationship between those two? Yes, there is. There's at least an analogy between the two. Because when things combine in the non-terminal domain via inner expansion, when they overlay each other, that they are more or less merging their identities. And that's what love is. Love is also a combination, a merger of identities.
that enhances the self-actualization or self-expression of the combined entity. In other words, it's synergistic. It's more than the sum of its parts. Now, of course, the syntactic merging that occurs due to inner expansion, that has to be actualized, and that actualization is semantically
The first is a syntactic process, the second is a semantic process and that's what causes what you as a physicist would call quantum wave function collapse or measurement events. Why is there no such thing as a literal interpretation? Is it because you mentioned before we move between models and to look at the symbols one must apply an interpretation on it and so to say literal interpretation is like saying uninterpreted interpretation and so it's oxymoronic
The meaning is very simple and that is that if I hand you a book written in Sanskrit, unless you understand Sanskrit, all you're going to see is little geometric shapes on the page and it is going to have no meaning whatsoever.
to extract any meaning whatsoever from those symbols. You first have to know the alphabet, the signature of the language. Then you've got to know the grammar and the syntax of the language. Then you've got to actually put things together, put all the terms and the expressions together. Then you've got to interpret those or model those in some framework that allows you to actually make sense of them. All of those steps are necessary. These are absolutely necessary steps of language. As a matter of fact,
As a preface to this, I thought it would be instructive to go through some of the sentences that are seemingly inscrutable to someone at first glance.
Standard physics is largely confined to the linear ectomorphic semi-model, which is retroscopic. That means looking backward, that means you're seeing the past, you're looking at it in the past.
What's a semi-model? The CTME consists of two semi-models.
Okay, and linear, why do you say that?
Standard physics is linear with respect to being a semi-model? Because particles and objects follow linear trajectories. And of course there are a number of other reasons that they're linear as well. Those are algebraic reasons. I'm sure you're familiar with most of those. But basically when I use that terminology, I'm referring to the fact that things follow lines through space. And what does ectomorphic mean?
Ectomorphic means basically when something is moving, it is projected to a point outside of itself. That's the ecto, that's the outside. So in other words, when a particle is moving, it's moving from here to there and the there is outside of the here. Whereas if the there was inside the here, then it would be endomorphic, special kind of endomorphism called a distributed endomorphism in the CTU.
Okay, now how does this ectomorphism relate to your issues with the Zeno's paradox or with its motion as standardly defined? Well, it relates to the fact that the real manifold, as we understand, is really kind of a paradoxical construct. Okay, you can't really, where is, if you take two adjacent points, obviously something has to move. You realize that a manifold consists of limit points or zero points or cuts, dedicant cuts.
And they have zero extent. Now, no matter how many times you add zero, what are you going to get as a sum? Zero. So how does a manifold have any extent? If it consists of zero dimensional points, when you add all those points up, it's nothing but zero itself. So you start with nothing and you get nothing. Okay, so it's a paradoxical constant, right? You've actually got to construct a manifold in a different way so that things actually so that no point leaves its predecessor.
So there's no jump that it has to make through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another. That's basically what I mean. Okay. Telek recursion, I imagine is the process by which a point makes some evolution. Yes. Yes. But it's a feedback between past and future. You've heard all about, you've heard all about, you know, retro causation is a very big term in physics today. You've already mentioned it, right? But this idea of
There was somebody named Costa de Beauregard who came up with these zigzags, you know, which are basically, you know, let's just try to simplify here. If you have a trajectory through space-time, it's going from the past to the future, right? But it's a correspondence and correspondence is symmetric. So there's got to be some kind of a symmetry thing going on between the cause and the effect. Where a certain particle is at one minute and where it is at a later time, there's got to be some kind of
Conspansive manifold is self-dual in the sense that it has both distributed endomorphic and linear ectomorphic
Simple as that. And those two things are absolutely dual, totally equivalent. If you can explain something adequately in the linear world, in the ectomorphic world of physics, for example, automatically it is guaranteed to have a dual in the distributed endomorphic semimodal. I'm going to call it a semimodal here. That's a bit of a liberty because I'm using the term now in a different sense than I used it before.
I have only so much terminology to go around, so I'm going to reuse it. Okay, we have this tele-recursive process which is associated with meta-time. And meta-time, as far as I understand from your theory, has a preferred arrow, whereas our time doesn't. But our experience is of unidirectionality. So what I'm wondering is, is there a way to take the preferred arrow from this meta-space and pull it back or push forward to our experience?
Yes. Basically, metatime and time are orthogonal. The reason they have to be orthogonal is because metatime distributes programming over time. You could think of it as being like programming. It's actually grammar. I call it SCSPL, grammar. But it's actually like distributing programmer over an entire timeline. So they have to be orthogonal for that reason. But you can actually restrict metatime so that it lies along the timeline.
In other words, people tend to talk about time as a before and after thing. It involves prepositions. Meta-time always terminates at an origin and that origin is not temporal in nature. It has to contain both past and future meta-simultaneously.
It's just, you know, simultaneity with a meta in front of it. But basically, things are simultaneous when you look at them and they're both in space and you're looking at them at the same time. Meta-simultaneity means that they're not only, you can not only see them at the same time in space, you can also see them at the same time in time. In other words, you can consider a past event and a future event to be simultaneous even though they're separated by a timeline. This is something that you have to do to use the concept of meta-time.
because if you write a computer program, you schedule events in the program. You see, you schedule one event has to happen here, then there's a sequence of other events, and then finally there's going to be event B is going to happen, right? But when you've got that program in front of you, both of those events are present, programmed at the same, in the same time, and you're looking at it simultaneous. Okay, that's meta-simultaneous. You see, they're separated in time when the program is run,
Okay, those two events are at different times. But when you're looking at the program itself, they're virtually simultaneous or meta-simultaneous. What's the assertion that what generates our experience or generates our world, this terminal world, is this meta-time world, this non-terminal world? Right. Where there's meta-simultaneousness. Right. Yeah. That's basically it, yes. The universe is closed.
There's nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect it. If it's real enough to affect reality, it's got to be real and it's got to be inside reality. So that's closure. So everything has to be closed. Everything has to be formulated in a reflexive way. In CTMU set theory, there's descriptive inclusion and I'm wondering if there's an analog of the axiom of foundation which states that elements of a non-empty set must be subsets thereof.
So is there an analog of the axiom of foundation in the set theory that CTMU has? Sure. Well, actually, when you're dealing with set theory, you're dealing with something called topological inclusion. Topological space is a point set. It's a set of points that relate to each other in certain areas. Whereas when you're looking at it, there is a dual to that. And it's because sets have intentions.
Consider the set of all red apples. Red apples is your intention. It's actually a property and you just choose elements which instantiate that property. The intention requires that you can't talk about topological inclusion with respect to the intention. You've instead got to talk about descriptive inclusion. In other words, you've got to talk about more specific properties that are included in the main overall intention of the set.
So you've got two kinds of inclusion, topological inclusion, which applies to sets, and you've got descriptive inclusion, which applies to properties. In set theory, the way that we understand it as mathematicians would be axiomatic. And yours, how would you describe it if not axiomatic? It's not based in a first order language. Well, first of all, it's not just a set theory, right? It's not even just category theory.
It's both. The metaphorical system is a foundational language. It's presented as a foundational language for mathematics, physics, the sciences, pretty much everything. Set theory can't pull that off and neither can category theory. But on the other hand, once you've defined the metaphorical system, you get to make use of both of those other languages as you see fit. You can pull anything out of them you want.
The important thing is that you have the Metaformal System, which is the very outside, idempotent meta-language that spans between these two so-called fundamental languages, Set Theory and Category Theory. Of course, they say there's already a blend between Set Theory and Category Theory called Topos Theory, but that too leaves something to be desired. There's a lot of missing structure there. It doesn't qualify as foundation language. How does your Metaformal System differ?
What is it? Describe it simply for people who are unacquainted. Sure, the Metaformal System is simply a language that is quantized not in terms of signs, but in terms of syntactors and identification events. Syntactor is an active sign. It's something that actually has two data types, a syntactic data type and an input data type. It can accept things from the external world, process them internally, which gives it an internal statement.
If you're a mathematician, you kind of forget about yourself and you look at things as though they're totally
That is not how reality is quantized in the CTMU. It has both a subjective and objective aspect. That's what syntactors and tellers or syntactic identification operators and telek identification operators are in the CTMU. And we would be an example of a teller. Yes. And what are some other examples? I heard God or God is the ultimate teller, then we're almost like a subset. Global operator description. And then fundamental fermions, let's say, are
So explain that, that there are three levels of syntactic operators or tellers. Okay. So why, first of all, why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means again, once more to be a syntactic operator? You know, they're just scales. There's scales of coherence in causation, in structure and causation. Just basically you've got to, you have the universe, the universe is closed. It is one unary entity. That's your primary quantum.
Okay? But now everything, it's got to be self-composed because there's nothing external of which it can be composed. It has to use itself as its primary, as its secondary and tertiary components. So it has to map itself internally by descriptive endomorphism or deendomorphism to tertiary syntactors and then those tertiary syntactors can agglomerate, can come together in organisms which then nucleate secondary quanta or telons.
which are necessary to complete causation. Because ordinary quantum particles don't have what it takes to actually decide on events and emerge in events. That takes telesis. You've got to have this other kind of quantum of causation, this secondary quantum of causation called telesis and that means that telesis is bound, that's the monic substrate of the universe. It must be bound by these things called telors. We are telors. We actually bind telesis
in this way so that causation can be completed, so that events can actually occur. All of this nonsense about well, quantum randomness and quantum indeterminacy. If something is totally random and indeterministic, there is no reason for it to occur and it won't occur. It's not just the principle of insufficient reason that I'm talking about here. I'm talking about something has to be distinguished from its logical complement. Basically, that act of distinction
It takes a certain amount of information to complete that. So we are the ones who provide that information, either directly or indirectly. What is meant when you say that TELUS is bound, that we bind it? Well, basically, we're quantifying it. We're logically binding it using something analogous to quantifiers and predicate logic, so that events occur. In other words, we're binding it into events. We're taking something that is basically conspensive
Intellic recursion, one of the ways I've heard it explained is that
It exists.
How, when we're operating with our free will, how are we looking back at all the decisions? So for example, right now, if I make a decision, I don't have perfect memory. But at the same time, in tele-recursion, it seems like all of the states are being considered. So am I only conscious of a few, but unconscious? You're locked into terminal consciousness. You have a form of consciousness that is appropriate to life in the terminal domain. Okay, what I'm talking about, tele-recursion occurs in the non-terminal domain. It involves a different form of consciousness.
In the Conspansive Manifold, it's own memory. It consists of layer upon layer upon layer of events that never disappear and never go away. They're right there. You don't even have to reach into storage and pull this information out. It's right there. That's one of the advantages of having a manifold structured in the way that CTME is structured. Everything is right there as it is needed. Of course, telons are adaptive. Telequikursion is adaptive.
When things happen that are not necessarily in accord with a certain telon, the telon adapts to the new set of resources at its disposal and comes together again approaching the same final outcome. Does one have to be adaptive if one is, let's say, incoherent, which I heard you equate evil to? Is that a possibility? I didn't equate evil to incoherence. I said evil is incoherent.
Basically, it's incoherent because evil is anti-existence. Basically, it hates existence and it wants to go out of existence. But when you take a bunch of evil and it won't recognize its own existence and it won't recognize the existence of anything else, it's very hard to coordinate. It can't be coordinated so it becomes incoherent. The only way that evil actually achieves any sort of reality
is it uses physical systems to do it. It nucleates physical systems and uses their structure, their power structures, their hierarchies, in order to be realized. But it has no coherence of its own. It's anti-coherent. In the CTMU there's this hierarchy of meta-languages and what I'm wondering is, is it possible for two sub-languages to be incomparable under ordering? In other words, can languages be arranged in a
Totally incomparable? No, that's a violation of syndipheniesis. In the CTMU, there's a universal relational structure called syndipheniesis. It means that syntax, something synetic is being distributed over different related or relapse, things that are related. The syntax distributes over them and makes them comparable, makes them that things are never totally incomparable.
Okay, so this gets into separate objects which you would argue doesn't exist. So let's say we have an apple and then we have a cup. They're, in your terms, diphyonic Rillens.
But then by the fact that I can point them out, I'm using a cognitive structure, and that cognitive structure distributes over both of them, which relates them. And so by pointing out that there are two separate objects, I'm also pointing out how these objects are the same. So by pointing out difference, I'm pointing out sameness. Is that correct? You don't have to point anything out. Basically, you're just distributing your awareness over both. Your awareness, the focus of your awareness is a logical property which you are distributing over both of those objects. That's Syndiphi and Ascension.
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
A conscious universe has to have that. It's the only possible relational structure it can have. Okay, so we have this conspensive manifold.
and it has an intrinsic background, or I assume that's related to what physicists may call background-free. It is its own background. That's closure. It's ontic closure. All real operations, real, relevant, valid operations basically start with reality and end with reality. It's complete closure. Nothing unreal ever really comes in for obvious reasons. This background-free place, does it consist of non-terminal symbols?
In this monic structure, how does one get differentiation from monism, from unity?
There are utility deficits. We have secondary telos. Utility deficits arise. You know what utility is? It's value. When you don't have any food, now you have a severe utility deficit because you place value on food. There's a hole in your value structure. That's a utility deficit. You automatically react to that by forming a telon designed to remove that deficit.
Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Excuse me? Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Leptogenesis? Yeah. You got me on that one. There's a disparity between matter and antimatter. And one of the propositions is there's something called leptogenesis, which accounts for this asymmetry. Right. Can the CTMU explain? Well, let's just put it this way. If it cannot be explained within the CTMU, then it cannot be explained.
Would you consider the CTMU to be more of a definition than a theory? It's both a definition and a theory. It's the self definition of reality. Reality must define itself.
Getting back to this background independent place, there's a question here about
If this coincides with Einstein and Mach had this idea of... Sorry, I'm sure you've heard of Mach's principle. Yes. Okay. What does the CTMU have to say about Mach's principle and is it related to this intrinsic background? Maybe I better ask what your formulation of Mach's principle. Sure, sure, sure. It's strange that we can feel rotation when we do so.
And it seems as if it's related by the distribution of matter far away, like there's an actual background. So now if there's an intrinsic background in the CTMU, does that serve as some basis for Mach's principle? Yes. Well, you're actually coupled with your background. That's one thing that you see in the theory of relativity. Basically, the medium is given some kind of separate structure, separate from the content of the medium.
But you actually have to couple those two things. Relativity would make no sense at all if you didn't. So as far as inertia and being able to feel, you talk about angular momentum and inertia, basically those two things are a function of that coupling, the way you are coupled to your environment. Like I said, this is how the CTME quantizes things, uses these dual couplings to do that.
And of course, but that's all intrinsic. I mean, keep in mind that's all intrinsic. There's nothing external to the universe. So if you're going to talk about the universe rotating in some external medium, that's not valid. Okay, the rotation for all rotation is intrinsic. And the way it can be intrinsic is because you're formulating it as a coupling of it and its content that you're actually making. You're actually introducing some kind of angular momentum between them. That's intrinsic. And of course, as you know,
I also heard you talk about the fact that the universe is expanding is it's a strange concept because what is expanding into however I think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding it's more about the metric is changing so now let's imagine
That's what the statement is. The metric is changing. So what's the problem with that statement and why does it need the CTMU to solve it? Because it's conspanding. It's basically when you say the metric is changing, you mean that the scale of the whole and its parts are changing with respect to each other. They're changing contravariantly. As the universe gets bigger, the parts, the little particles and objects embedded in it gets smaller relative to the universe.
I'm not understanding
Firstly, I'm not sure what the problem is. Explain to me once more. What is the problem with saying that the metric is expanding? I understand that there's a problem with saying that the universe is expanding because it implies that it's embedded in something higher. The metric isn't expanding. The metric is actually contracted. You know what co-moving coordinates are. Basically, as the universe expands, co-moving coordinates actually co-move with the universe itself.
Our metric means the metric that we use, the scale of distance that we use in the everyday world that exists between us and the objects that surrounds us.
I'm going to be jumping around quite a bit. Now that we're on the topic of how you
Thought of your theory and how you came up with it quite some time ago. I'm curious, what does the process of coming up with the CTMU look like? Practically speaking, do you have a whiteboard? Do you just sit alone with a pipe? Do you bounce it off your wife? Do you go for walks? How are you coming up with the theory? Just sort of comes to you. Sometimes you start thinking, okay,
I'm very good at recognizing paradoxes and inconsistencies. It's just a little thing that I'm good at. I noticed a lot of paradoxes and inconsistencies from an early age onward in the way people explain things. I'd ask them for explanations. They wouldn't be able to explain things to my satisfaction. I'd ask myself why doesn't this appear to make sense and I would find out there were certain things that didn't make sense. Then armed with those paradoxes, I would work on resolving
And from those resolutions came the CTMU. Let's give an example of a paradox that's been resolved by the CTMU. So Newcombe's paradox is one. Do you mind explaining the paradox of Newcombe and then also your solution to it? Well, so that's kind of a long paradox, but basically it's you've got this predictor who has never been wrong before.
and he's got this game that he plays where he shows you a box with a thousand dollars in it and tells you that you can take either one of these boxes, the opaque box, so you can take both boxes. But if you do not take this transparent box with a thousand dollars in it, I've put a million dollars, I already know what you're going to do, I've put a million dollars in the opaque box.
If you try to take both boxes and make that extra $1,000 that you can see right in front of your face here, if you've done that, I've left this opaque box empty. So you're going to get scum. You're going to get your $1,000 and you're going to have a nice dinner someplace and then that's going to be it. All right. That's Newcombe's paradox. Okay. But unfortunately, the subject, the one who he's running this game on, has to
strategies from which he has to choose and one of them is of course that well this predictor has never been wrong and so therefore I better do that. The other one says well wait a minute, nobody can actually predict the future. This is some kind of a lucky run that this guy has had.
A Million Plus 1000.
The $1,000 has enough value that he's going to take that instead. He's going to enrich himself more and thusly increase his utility. Of course, increasing your utility is the whole raison d'etre of economics. In economic theory, that's what you're always supposed to do, increase your utility.
So it's considered an important paradox because of its applicability to economics and causation in general. Is it possible to predict the future? Well, Newcomb's demon, which is what I call him, is analogous to the programmer of a simulation. He's already run this simulation in which you think you have free will, but he basically knows what your free will is in advance. So he has
That is what has allowed him to do this with the boxes. Okay, so that's the paradox. Now, how does the resolution come in? The resolution is nobody ever placed it in a simulation before. I was the only person to ever place it in a simulation back in 1989 by saying, okay, well, basically now we have to use the idea that reality may be a simulation and that Newcomb's Demon is somehow a programmer of this simulation.
This was the first application of the simulation hypothesis. Everybody talks about it now, but you'll never see my name mentioned in connection with it, but I was the first person to apply it, at least as far as I know. It could have been somebody else that did so, but I've actually looked and I can't find anything. As far as I know, you were the first with self-simulation. That too, absolutely. Self-simulation appears in a paper I wrote 20 years ago.
So basically, I'm Mr. Simulation. Unfortunately, nobody ever comes to me. They always ask Elon Musk, why the hell they ask Elon Musk? I don't know. Mr. Moneybags Elon Musk. And then there's another fellow named Nick Bostrom. I guess it's at Oxford or someplace. He's got something called the simulation argument.
How likely the simulation hypothesis used to be true on the basis of how humanity has evolved. How should we say, the species that is simulating reality for humanity has evolved. Do they have the technology to do it? Don't they have the technology to do it? That's what Bostrom's talking about. Now how does posing who comes paradox in a
It basically tells you that you might be in a simulation, so you better take a very close look at what Newcombe's Demon has actually succeeded in doing. It's got a long, arbitrarily long, sequence of correct predictions. You'd better give the demon its due, and you'd better take just the opaque box. That's the only way you're getting your milk.
Does that mean that the person being simulated doesn't have free will? No, it does not. Why would it? Just because the demon knows what he's going to choose that somehow deprives him of free will? Well, see, this is the problem that I had to solve by integrating this into the CTMU. You actually have a pre-geometric or non-terminal domain in which Newcomb's demon actually exists and in which he actually makes his prediction.
How does being in the non-terminal domain and being able to discern what this person's decision is going to be not violate free will for that person? For that person from their perspective are you saying they have free will but from another perspective they don't have free will or no matter what they have free will from both vantage points? Well you have free will
As I said, the universe is self-composed. You are a component of the universe, therefore you have inherited free will from the universe itself. Everything, even a quantum particle to some extent, has free will or freedom. It has degrees of freedom. It's not totally determined. From God's point of view, however, God knows – let's just put it this way. Let's forget about Newcomb's Demon for a second and talk about God. God can see reality as a whole.
You know what Einstein's block universe is, right? God sees the universe not as a block. He sees the universe through the eyes of its secondary fellows. That's how he's seeing. That's how he's looking and seeing the universe through our eyes, where God's sensor controls, which puts a whole different complexion on that. He waits for us to make up our minds before he knows what he's seeing. In other words, what we see is what we've decided on.
We see what we decide. Can you explain? When we decide to commit an event or commit an act, automatically we know we can see ourselves committing the act. That's what I mean. That doesn't mean that we determine everything that's going on around us.
It doesn't mean that we can see whatever we like. If I wished that there was no wall here, then I would see no wall. Does that mean that or are there limitations on my perception? Well, of course there are. There is a state of affairs, an external state of affairs that has been created by other Tellors. It's not entirely up to you. You are constrained in what you can see by the state of the external world.
When one does psychedelics, are they operating now in this geometric pre-in full cognition plane? Well, what the psychedelics do is they introduce a gap between the terminal and non-terminal realms and kind of allow you to see things that aren't really in the terminal realm. And that's what those hallucinations are. Okay, you still got one foot in the terminal realm, but the psychedelic has kind of, you know, opened up a gap there.
They've been finding out that basically all chemistry is quantum and they know, for example, that quantum mechanics
When one says hallucinations, usually they mean we're seeing apparitions that aren't actually there, that's not real. Now I know that you have a qualm with saying that anything is not real. Well it is, it's mentally real. I mean what I'm saying is
Realities are coupling of mind and physical reality with non-terminal and non-terminal reality. Therefore, there is such a thing as subjective existence. Syntax exists, for example. Any combination of syntax, you can put it together however you want to and that has mental existence. Is it realized in the terminal realm? Not necessarily. You don't find me a unicorn.
They have two levels, synetic and dipheonic. Do you mind explaining that? Well, all relations are syn-dipheonic. When you see two different things or even when you see yourself, you're distributing your own cognition over yourself. Therefore, you've got that synesis and dipheonesis. You've got basically a property and something instantiating the property. That's what that means.
You mentioned that there are three ways in which the syndepionic relationship is self-dual. There are three ways. But does it have to be three ways? Does it just happen to be that there are three ways, or is that a necessary component for them to exist somehow? I'm talking about general symmetries of the syndepionic relationship. You know what a Minkowski diagram is, right? It's got a space axis, horizontal space axis, and then temporal axes that are orthogonal to it to go up into the future and past.
And just imagine that you could rotate Minkowski space, right? Well, you can rotate a syndepionic relation in the same way, right? And because the time axis is ordinal, whereas the space axis is all about arity or the number of things that you're seeing in parallel out in the real world, you're actually making transformations between ordinality and arity.
in the relation and there are other kinds of duality as well. I could probably find more than three if I looked very hard. No, the line metatime axis that relates one to the other, that's ordinal.
You also mentioned that they're dual because they have an active and a passive interpretation. What do you mean by that? An active and passive interpretation? We recognize things, but have you ever heard of John Wheeler's observer participation thesis? No. John Wheeler had this idea called the observer participation thesis.
that when we see a quantum event, when we look at a far away star and a photon from that star hits our eye, we are somehow participating in that event. So that's what we're talking about. Basically, you cannot just watch something without actively participating. You're actually agreeing to it in some way. You're actually actively putting yourself by perceiving it. You are contributing your perception to it.
and because of the nature of telescopes it's impossible for you to stop yourself from becoming actively entangled with it. You can't just passively perceive things. Those things also have you and the thing that you're observing both have an impact on each other. That's the way it has to work because all of these you've got this causal symmetry in the CTMU and in other theories as well. How would that work?
On a more mundane level where there's a wall, let's say, whether I look at the wall or not, does that have any bearing to the wall? Does it exist or not exist when I look? Does it erode more when I look, for example? Yes, you are participating in the existence of the wall. Right. Can the wall not self perceive? Can it not perceive itself? The tertiary syntactors in the wall can and do perceive each other in a limited way. Yes.
But in terms of the secondary utility of the wall, what it's actually doing in the world, you're participating in that. As a matter of fact, human constructed walls wouldn't exist unless they were useful to tellers like you. You can't look at anything without participating in its existence.
That's what a measurement event is. When you measure the spin of a particle up or down, you are participating in that determination. That measurement is yours. You're the one who set up the measurement device. You're asking a yes or no question and your question is being answered. You impose the question on reality and reality is answering the question for you. There's this active passive symmetry in everything.
Let's get to one more of these abstract sentences. The maximal generality in brackets, universality, comprehensiveness, criterion of a reality, theoretic identity, or ontologically necessary and sufficient theory of everything means that a fully general formal structure must be selected as the skeletal identity of a toe framework. Okay, so let's break down some of these terms, term by term. Maximal generality. Comprehensive.
Okay, reality-theoretic identity. That means when you don't want an identity, that's something as which that thing exists, okay? Basically, that's its identity. You exist as a secondary teller, that's part of your identity and the property you can assign to yourself is part of your identity. Fully general formal structure, is that related to the metaphorical structure you mentioned earlier? Yes, sometimes I use formal for metaphorical because
The Metaformal System is intrinsically a Metaformal System by virtue of its description, but I have to write that description down in a formal way. It's got to be written on a piece of paper and you kind of add the Metaformality to it with your own understanding of what it's saying, but it's written down on a sheet of paper and that makes it formal.
Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal.
The Skeletal Identity Skeletal means that it's just a set of invariants.
in which without interfering with those invariants there's a lot of variability. Reality can vary, can change, can adapt without disturbing its essential invariants. So those essential invariants are skeletal reality. You flesh it out. Must a theory of everything explain mental activity? Yes.
To a certain extent, it's not going to determine mental activity. There's no such thing as a deterministic theory of reality, but it has to explain the wherewithal of mental activity. I'm trying to find out what ingredients, some people have different definitions of theories of everything, you mentioned this before, a grand unified one which is more of a physics term for gravity and so on, or one that explains consciousness or one that explains the explanations themselves.
The theory of everything has to explain all of those things, everything. It's to be taken literally. Anybody who doesn't take it literally is making a mistake. Do you have any thoughts as to the biological origins of life? Sure, life originated biologically, but it also originated metaphysically. It comes from the origin. It's part of the structure of the universe. It was inevitable.
to say that, well, there could have been a universe with no life where life just never got started, never formed. That's hogwash. There is basically no reason for such a universe to exist even for itself. That's an absurdity. It's a little bit like the anthropic principle, but it's the anthropic principle with utility.
Part of the reason the universe exists is because there are secondary tellers that derive utility from it. Otherwise, what is its reason to exist? The universe just simply exists and it has baked within it some teller, some purpose, and one of those purposes is to observe itself through secondary tellers. That's its structure. In order to exist, the universe must have certain aspects of structure.
Why is that inconsistent with the anthropic principle?
Why can't it just be that there are multiple universes and we can call that all the collection of universes one meta universe or one large universe and call that the true universe let's say? Well that's what the CTMU does. The CTMU incorporates something called a syntactic metaverse. But in terms of how do all those universes that you're talking about putting them all together and collecting them into a set, how do they come into existence? Why? It's the reason. You need to justify it otherwise
Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor
Schrodinger equation is deterministic and everything that all of those possibilities that exist in that equation should continue to exist without quantum collapse. So he converted quantum collapse events into a divergence of universes. In order for this to work, you need to have certain things, certain assumptions have to be in place. For example, you need a fixed array in order to parameterize all the events and identify all your particles and events.
in the universe so that you know just exactly how the eventualities are splitting. It turns out that these assumptions are not pathologically viable. Although Everett was correct in that there is a metaverse
He sort of mischaracterized it. It's not infinity upon infinity of the universes that are pointlessly diverging in every tiny little quantum event. That's ridiculous. But the idea of a metaverse of this universe that exists prior to, in some sense, the reality that we inhabit, that's a valid idea. So he sort of hit the nail on the head and then he kind of went off on a tangent.
In order to make his theory work, in order to get his interpretation of all of these, to interpret the multiverse or the metaverse as being this collection, this vast collection of pointlessly diverging universes. Because we have telec recursion, the way that I understand that is that at each expansion point in the manifold over time, somehow
The points are evolving and including their neighbors, and I recall you saying at the speed of light. Forget about at the speed of light because that can take us down another route. Regardless, the rate of conspansion is usually what I refer to. Okay, cool. So they're absorbing, and then that translates to a positive cosmological constant because the universe seems as if it's contracting from one point of view or expanding from another. Okay. Do you happen to have a prediction for... I know that your theory says
You're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics, consciousness, and the ostensible connection between the two. What's required to follow some of these arguments is facility with mathematics as well as discernment of
the underlying physical laws, and you may think that this is beyond you, but that's false. Brilliant provides polluted explanations of abstruse phenomenon such as quantum computing, general relativity, and even group theory. When you hear that the standard model is based on U1 cross SU2 cross SU3, that's group theory, for example. Now, this isn't just for neophytes either. For example, I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in these lessons to vastly aid my penetration
Okay, let's get to some philosophy. Alright. What's meant by existence is everywhere the choice to exist.
Well, that's that active passive duality that we were talking about before. In the CTMU, telors are basically secondary quantum and they've got to nucleate physical bodies. So they actually have to actively participate in their own birth. Do they do so of some proto-will or is it happenstance? They inherit the will of the universe. The will of the universe is to exist.
Therefore, in any part of the universe in the non-terminal domain, you've got things everywhere that are seeking to exist. The terminal domain provides them with resources that they can use to actualize themselves and this is what happens.
And you mean that they want to exist at the diphyonic level at this terminal level, or you mean to say that they want to exist at all? Because to me, as I hear that, when someone says this entity wants to exist, it implies that already exists. You need a physical in order to truly exist in the sense that most people mean you actually need this this form of content feedback.
In order to fully exist, things do require some kind of a terminal body. Where people get confused is they think that their terminal body can only be of a certain kind in a certain world. That's not necessarily true. There can be many different kinds of terminal realization.
All right? For example, there can be an afterlife, heaven or hell for example, in which you can exist and have another kind of terminal body which was generated just for that world or just for that heaven or hell. You see, it doesn't necessarily have to be right here. One way or another, you need those resources in order to fully instantiate your existence.
Otherwise, your existence never achieves full resolution. It is never fully actualized. The universe wants to actualize itself everywhere it can. That's why we have this profusion of life. That's why we have all these different species, all these different organisms. Telesis wants to actualize itself. It wants to exist and this world provides it with the resources to do so.
So is it akin to God wanting to exist? God wanting there to be more God? Yes, that's exactly right. That's why I say reality is closed. It has to be totally self justified. Existence is the will to exist. You've also heard me possibly use a term called triality. As the identity of reality, this global operator descriptor is not only
an object and a relationship, it's also a process or an operative. In other words, you can imagine that the universe is not just an object, it's an event. It's a creation of that. That's what the universe is a self-creation event or self-identification event. Everywhere in the universe, these self-creation or self-identification events are seeking to occur. They're trying to occur.
Particles are being created and annihilated everywhere in the universe because they're inheriting this will to exist from the universe itself and this is a criterion of existence. Without it, existence is impossible. You can't just exist for a second and then not be an operation that maintains your existence because that second is meaningless. It's got to be a permanent existence.
It's got to be, in some sense, atemporal or eternal. That's what God is. Basically, God is being equated to ultimate reality, so God is eternal in this sense. To get to Wittgensteinian, when you say eternal, do you mean infinite temporal length or timelessness? Basically, we're talking about atemporality, which is timelessness. In other words, it's prior to time. It's pre-temporal in a way.
Before we get further, some people may be turned off by the use of the word God, so I'd like you to define how you use it because you have a
Well, it comports with the general definition of God but it's more specific.
of the global operator descriptor. We find out that it has certain properties ordinarily attributed to God by people who have religious beliefs, usually monotheistic beliefs. That's the correct way to look at it. That's what I mean when I say God. I'm not saying well, I'm not necessarily the Christian God, the Muslim God, the Jewish God, whatever kind of God. I mean the global operator descriptor and it does have sentience. It is
All of the criteria that go into the basic religious definition of God, creating the universe, all the rest of that stuff, these can actually be validly interpreted in the CTME. The CTME models those properties. Therefore, God exists. These tertiary tellers come into existence because of their will to exist, at least from my understanding, but at the same time at the secondary level. Because of the universe's will to exist.
At our level, it seems like not everyone has a will to exist, which you also mentioned is equivalent to evil, or at least cognate with it. Is it possible for a particle to have an anti-will to exist? Most people who commit suicide basically have no will to exist, they're not anti-existent. Suicide is not necessarily evil in the sense of a mass murderer who tries to destroy civilization and the human species.
Can a particle commit suicide in a sense? A particle does not have sufficient self-modeling capacity to make that decision for itself. That's why we require secondary telos. They have the advanced self-modeling capacity to be able to make decisions of that complexity and only they can do it. That's why they're necessary. That's why we have to be coherent quanta in this universe. Can you talk about what good is defined as and what evil is defined as?
Good wants self-actualization and self-identification. That is what the universe is doing. It is one huge massive self-identification event. Everything in it.
All of the events are self-identification events that go into its self-actualization. What's meant by self-actualization? That's a term that some new HP people use and let's delineate it. Okay, well, a physicist would call it a quantum wave function collapse. The quantum wave function, you know, according to the Schrodinger equation,
You've got a quantum wave function, it expands, it's radiating out into space and then suddenly it collapses. That's inter-expansion and collapse. That's a conspansive meta-event. This is what the universe is made out of in the CTMU. You're no longer just looking at particles, you're looking at more advanced kinds of quanta that are much, much easier to tie together in the conspansive meta-event.
I tend to get bogged down in words, so I'm going to press you sometimes, and it may seem unduly persnickety, but when you say self-actualized, isn't it not the case that there is only self-actualization, not just actualization because the universe is itself? That's correct. That is correct. Everything is self-actualization of the universe, if not necessarily of you.
Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the human singularity versus the theological, sorry, versus the technological singularity? The tech singularity. Well, the human singularity, it's all about how, it's all about human destiny and how responsibility for human destiny is distributed. All right? If there's a tech singularity, if there's a human singularity, we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and where it's going and how to realize it. All right? That distributes.
The whole thing over humanity as a whole and no one gets left out. If we have a tech singularity, everything will be controlled by the people who own the technology. Those are mega corporations run by people who are not typically very nice or public spirited people. They're highly acquisitive. They tend to be narcissistic, Machiavellian,
When you put too many of them together, they start getting the idea that they're elite and they should be in charge.
and they start deciding that people are useless eaters. There are too many of them and for the good of the planet and really because they're a nuisance, we have to get rid of them. This kind of talk has been going on for centuries. A lot of people aren't aware of it, but the elite tend to form these ideations when left to their own devices. So if there is a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology, that technology will be used against the human species.
It's almost certain that is called a parasitic divergence where they become a parasitic subspecies of the human race and the rest of us become their boosts. Now the human singularity, it's one that you advocate for something that we should have instead of the techno. 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 Brooklinen. 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.
What is the human singularity? It's been laid out by others, for instance, Teilhard de Chardin. He was a Jesuit.
We're approaching this quickening of consciousness where we're going to realize what we are, who we are, our relationship with God in reality and fulfill our destiny. This is going to be this huge worldwide global event and it's going to save us and allow us to pass through the great filter and realize our destiny.
That's what it is. He used that term great filter or did you just come up with that great filter? No great filter is a term that's been around for a while. It's basically every species you know as it develops technology and starts killing itself with pollution and overpopulation all the rest of it. Every species comes to a point where it either has to grow up and live sanely and sustainably in its environment or it dies.
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.
Part of the technological singularity, one of the reasons why people are venerating it is because there's the potential for mines to be uploaded into
Why is it absurd? And let's imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to, but some other maybe quantum computer. Why is that outrageous? Because that's not the way reality is structured. Reality exists. It exists on other terms entirely. You're not going to build a machine. It is not mechanical.
It is metamechanical or protomechanical. You might be able to call it that, but you're not going to be able to use a universal Turing machine or for that matter, a quantum Turing machine to simulate it. It can't be done. All right. It does not satisfy the requirements for existence. There is no theory. There is no theory of transhumanism, how this whole thing is going to occur. All right. Unless you can point me to a theory. Now, if you can do that, I'll change my mind. I'm an open minded person.
I don't think there is such a theory. You just mentioned mechanical. Is this because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telek causation or is this unrelated to that? Telek causation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is. Mechanical causation is incoherent. You have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be bolted together in the right way as the machine works, performs a function the way it's supposed to, but they don't work coherently in the sense of quantum mechanics.
Do you have any thoughts?
Entanglement speed? So what I mean by that is some theories predict that there's a maximum speed of entanglement. Right now, as far as we can tell, there's no speed to it. It's just instantaneous. I'm curious if in your models, it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere simultaneously, or if there is also a speed associated with it. Well, you're just talking about some kind of terminal lag. In reality, entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain.
How does one solve the liar's paradox in your model?
The one that says this sentence is false. Right. Well, you simply exclude that kind of sentence from reality. You say, well, that is a pathologically construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain. Unless you can find me an instantiation. And I don't think you can because it's paradoxical. So it's akin to naive set theories moved to ZFC where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements of them.
It is a possibility. You just can't involve the negation product. You can't involve the self-negation product. You can have sets that are self-inclusive. We've got self-inclusion all over the place. Fractal geometry, there are all kinds of things. Consciousness itself. All kinds of things that are self-inclusive. But you can't allow this misuse of the negation factor
Okay, you can't allow that to intrude on them and render them paradoxical. That's what I'm saying.
It can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form which is sufficiently well formed that you can apprehend it or think you apprehend it, but in reality, it is incapable of instantiation. You can formulate it and then you can envision it in the non-terminal realm. You cannot, however, achieve an instantiation, an actualization on it because it violates the terms of existence in the terminal realm.
What happens after death? So there's a couple ways to interpret that. What I mean is, let's talk about what is death? What does it mean to die? That's the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this present time. When you are retracted from this reality, you go back up toward the origin of reality,
You can be provided with a substitute body, another kind of terminal body that allows you to keep on existing. These memories can be retrieved. Nothing goes out of existence in the conspensive method.
You're
So when people talk about heaven, which I know you have your own views of specific
Differentiated view. I haven't heard before as to what heaven is and even hell when people talk about heaven usually what they mean is something like a reinstantiation of this body with probably a better hairline than I have and You should see bernardo castra push. I should put you in touch with have you heard of bernardo castra? I've heard of it. I think I think he was on email distribution
One of Jack Sarfatti's email distributions. Who's that? Jack who? Jack Sarfatti? Yeah. Jack Sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics. Aha. Is he related to UFOs? Does he study UFOs? Yeah. As a matter of fact, I think he's working on, right now, he's working on metamaterials that will allow us to build spacecraft that emulate tic-tacs.
David Kaiser wrote a book called How the Hippies Saved Physics.
And these were the guys, these were non-locality and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes came from these guys. But in reality, they have a lot of very productive thoughts. And in a way, the world we're living in now is an outgrowth of some of what they were thinking and doing in those days. Some of these guys are still around. I mean, not just Jacques Zarfetti, but you've also got other guys like, I know Nick Herbert is still there, and I know that Wolf is still there, Sirag is still there. These guys are on email distributions that
I want to talk to Jack at some point. I heard that I should talk to Jack. What I've been exploring recently is the topic of UFOs, because like you know, this podcast is about theoretical physics, consciousness, free will and God. And it seems like UFOs from our observations of them break the laws of physics as we know. So a simple one is angular, sorry, a simple one is
Conservation of momentum. How can you move back and forth? We have to assume a certain mass is associated with the craft. Well, yes, and of course, mass amounts to inertia and that's a violation of inertia. You can't just suddenly turn on the turn light. Right, so that's what I've been exploring. Unless you're dealing with a projection. Right, right. That's also called spoofing, I believe. Have you heard that term? Yeah, I've heard the term spoofing, but you need a better theater.
What are your thoughts on UFOs in general as well as the recent disclosure movements? Is there anything about UFOs that you find convincing that they are in fact
Maybe us from the future may be associated with God or demons or angels or just an advanced civilization visiting us in the same way that we house people at zoos. I mean, animals. They could be any or all of those things. There could be different kinds, some kinds that come from the future, some kinds that come from another planet elsewhere in the universe. But they definitely, you've got too much reportage on them. There are too many people who are coming up with heartfelt stories
about them. They can't possibly all be fake. People aren't liars. If someone's going to risk his reputation and be called a nut by coming out and saying, I saw a UFO, you have to take that person a little bit seriously. Sure, there are scammers out there and people who are going to lie about it, but I don't think we could have this much reportage without actually having something to it.
You mentioned the word woo about five minutes ago. What I'm wondering is did you used to have a conception of what you thought was woo, so for example,
Well, I mean, I have had a number of paranormal experiences and began having them at a rather young age. And that's one of the reasons I had to develop the CTM, to develop an extended picture of reality that would actually accommodate alternate states of being, alternate states of mind.
And so that is rather than dismissing the experiences that I had in the past, I've actually become more comfortable with it. What are some of these paranormal experiences? Well, you know, psychokinesis, telepathy, lots of precognition in my case, out of body experiences, you name it. There's
I don't know the single kind of paranormal event that I haven't spontaneously experienced at one point or another. Have you witnessed any UFOs on your own? Well, yes I have. I was working for the U.S. Forest Service and I was up in central Montana, near Malmstrom Air Force Base by the way, where nobody has shown up. I saw something
in the sky and actually stood and watched it for 30 minutes until I got bored and drove away. I was driving a US Forest Service pickup truck, but literally stood there leaning against the back of the truck, looking directly at it for a long, long time. It was perfectly, it did not change shape. It did not change position. It was right up there in the sky over
It's very difficult to tell because getting a distance fix on something like that is very hard.
Could have been anywhere from 500 yards to five miles in diameter. I don't know, but it was huge. Was it one of the triangular UFOs or was it a more disc-like? It was oblate. It looked to me like an oblate spheroid. And one of the first things I thought was, well, this must be a lenticular cloud.
And so I kept on looking at it to find out if it was, you know, to see, okay, if it's a lenticular cloud, I'm going to see some sign of movement. There's going to be something there. It was nothing like that. This thing was totally solid metallic and it did not change. I kept on stirring directly at it to see if it would change. You know, if it doesn't change, change, you know, do something, but it wouldn't. So as I said, I stayed there for, you know,
Can you give me an example of another paranormal experience of yours, a specific one?
Nocturnal paralysis. That's why I was lying down. I woke up and I thought maybe I'll get up and go to the bathroom or something. So I tried to move and I could. Immediately, I started to panic. There was a wall next to me. So I figured what's going on. There's a bookshelf next to me on the wall right next to my head. That bookshelf was four feet above the ground.
Okay. In other words, somehow I must have risen above my body. I couldn't figure out how this to happen. But anyway, I thought, oh my God, am I dead? What time is it? How long have I, you know, if I'm dead, how long have I been dead? Suddenly I floated. I began to move. I floated in from the room that I was on into the kitchen of the house that I was in, turned a corner and looked directly at a clock that was on the stove there and saw the time.
And at that point I realized this is basically the middle of the night and I woke up back up in my body. It took me a little bit and I got control of my muscles and I walked back in and it was one minute later than it was when I looked at the clock. So of course now some people are very good at gauging time and figuring out what time it is but that was an exact estimate of the time after I've been asleep for some period of time.
Have you had any intimations of God speaking to you? Now you're getting a little bit, yes I have had religious caliber visions. Now I'm getting a little bit what? Now you're getting a little bit
Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor
And unfortunately, you know, I don't know if you know anything about me, but I've been cancelled, me and my ideas have been cancelled despite the fact that they're totally provable.
been canceled for
There is not an academic alive that can do a thing.
about anything that I've ever said or done. Nevertheless, I'm not invited to conferences or symposia. I'm not invited to do media appearances. There are ways that I should have been able to spread the word about my work and actually get it out there so that people could look at it. They would deny me. I don't like trolls.
I don't like people that talk out of turn about things they don't understand. And there are a lot of those people out there. And unfortunately, it would be fine, I guess, if most people were able to distinguish between a troll and someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Most people can't. If the troll uses a little bit of language, well, I work at a university and here's my opinion, it's all nonsense, then people think, well, he says he's from a university, maybe he really is.
All right. And this is the problem. People can't distinguish between truth and false, especially when it's, you know, when it takes the form of intermittent noise. What I find is that people don't go... Honey, can you get me something to drink, please? Pardon me, Craig. That's okay. My mouth is getting dry. Yeah, no problem. No problem. What I find is that people dismiss intellectuals like Stephen Wolf from Eric Weinstein yourself.
without delving into the papers, maybe they'll watch, they'll do a cursory glance at their work, quote some of it, so that if they want to look like they've read, they'll quote a few paragraphs here and there. I've seen criticisms of yours, but they're not, they're not, they haven't, see, I'll tell you, my difficulty is when I'm going into your theories or anyone else's, it takes sometimes weeks
And I tried to put myself in the position where not only am I understanding it at an intellectual level, but I'm realizing it. And what I mean by realizing is I'm trying to see what you're saying. How can I model it such that I see it completely obvious? That's how I know I've internalized a theory. And I don't see anyone who criticizes you as attempting that. That's correct. Yeah.
They claim that it's so abstract and abstruse that they can't visualize it and that it's impossible to visualize. That's the usual line. I visualize all of it. It's not hard for me. For some reason, I think it's intellectual laziness. I think it's the idea that they don't want to become involved with something that might prove them wrong, mistaken about something. There are a number of psychological factors that go into it.
Well, Chris, if I can do something about getting you more notoriety, I will, man. If I can uncancel you, I do plan on having you on again at some once I've
I'm going to go through your theories more, which will take some months because I don't have only your theory. Now, I've only been studying yours for the past couple of weeks, but now I have to move on to someone's the best one. Right, right. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about that because I can get to that question right now. What I'm wondering is, I want to make sure that what I'm doing is honest and open and for the good. And I want to make a claim that I
Thank you. However, here's where it gets bad. You mentioned that your theory is the only one of God that is correct. And then what I'm wondering is, does that mean
Only if they claim they've got a true theory of everything that's totally comprehensive. Otherwise, the possibility exists that their theories or their viewpoints can be interpreted in such a theory and a true theory of everything. For example, these other guys that you mentioned and you asked me questions about other thinkers, if
To the extent that their ideas can be interpreted in mind, of course they're not correct, but my idea is called a super tautology. It cannot be broken. The conditions for intelligibility are realized by it, which means that if you try to come up with a counter example, it will be unintelligible and inadmissible. My theory cannot be broken. Although these other guys don't, I'm the only person with a super tautology.
Another way for people to understand what you've just said is that think of set theory as the basis by which physics comes up with their theories. Now that's not exactly true. They don't axiomatize from set theory onward. No, it's empirical induction. Think of it like that.
What Chris is saying is that underneath first-order languages, there's a meta-language, a super tautological language, such that other theories are interpretable, almost like with physics, whatever the equation is that governs the grand unification. Let's imagine it's just a single equation. Well, that's based in axiomatic set theory. Okay, then you can take it a step back and say, what would a theory of everything at all have to look like in all of it? In its outline, it's the problem this way.
The important thing is that it be comprehensive and not exclude anything that's true. Nobody can present a complete theory of everything that explains every detail of the universe right up front. The universe doesn't work that way. It is not deterministic. So there is no such theory. What you need is you need the outline, the very generic form in which anything that is true that actually occurs in the universe or is relevant to the universe can be expressed.
If you've got that, then you've got a TOE. I'm the only person that has a TOE with that description. So even though it's not yet a unified field theory in the sense that most physicists would mean, unifying general relativity and gauge theory and quantum mechanics, although it comes pretty close actually. Once I start getting into it, if I were to give all the detail, it does come close in some respects to something like that, but that's not the way I present it.
I'm presenting it as a super tautology, as the logical form of a theory of everything that cannot be broken, can't get up, there is no escape, nobody gets over. I'm actually writing a book, maybe it's just for myself for now, on theories of everything. I have a chapter on yours, so as I've been studying for yours, I'm writing it, that's partly how I understand it.
At one point, I'll send it to you. Thank you. I would love to take a look at your chart. Yeah, for sure. It'll be maybe six pages long. So I have to condense what is about 300 pages down to five as well as what I'm trying to do is relate different theories of everything. And the reason I'm doing that is you yourself, you notice, I'm sure you've gone through this where you start to make connections between what you say. Let's take an example where you
There are ways, if you have a general framework that is super tautological and you know it's a fact, all you have to do is worry about interpreting these different religions so that they are consistent within this framework.
So that's why I call it a meta-religion. They take all these other religions that are usually at each other's throats because they don't know how to interpret their doctrines and what they pull out of scriptural documents. They don't know how to interpret that, so they end up imagining these conflicts. Those conflicts usually don't have to exist. If you have an overall framework in which the scripture and doctrine could be interpreted, they can be avoided. Why is it that intellect is associated with atheism?
Now you may disagree, but what I mean is, in academia, there's obviously an association with intellect there. That's a danger zone phenomenon. Just assume that proposition is correct. You know what I'm referring to. Why is it that most smart people now think that it's smart or it's intellectual to eschew God? They're dummies. They think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. That's the problem. The geniuses throughout history, if you want to look at the real geniuses throughout history,
Most of them believed in God. Most of them admitted that there was a higher power, that there had to be a higher power. The people who occupy universities, I'd say your average Harvard instructor, Harvard is a very good university of course, I'd say your average Harvard instructor might go 135, 140 max in terms of IQ. That's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God, especially when you've got people like Isaac Newton,
The counter would be obviously that if we go back far enough in time, let's say 250 years in prior, almost everyone believed in God.
Both what you call dummy quote unquote and intellectual. So to say that the higher end of the IQ spectrum believed in God previous to 250 years ago. Well, almost everyone did. So then we have to look at modern thinkers. Now, you're obviously someone who has someone who's extremely bright as an understatement.
Is there a correlation between those on the extreme end of the IQ spectrum who believe in God, but then those who are of higher intelligence that don't? So almost like a Dunning-Kruger where the middle doesn't believe, you're that smart aleck teenager. But then if you gain a bit more insight, there's this false quote, I'm sure you've heard it, that says something like, the first sip of science makes you an atheist, but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer in God.
It's true, even if it's false, there's something to it. You've got to have depth. The intelligence has to have a lot of penetration and you've got to get the big picture before you understand that there must be a God out there. A lot of people don't have that. You mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, people imagining that they're much smarter and more competent than they are.
Okay, it's usually associated with stupid people. Stupid people tend to have Dunning-Kruger, right? But there is a higher IQ version of that. It's called the danger zone effect. We've been talking about it for years. People who range in IQ between like 130 and 150, you would ordinarily think, well, it's extremely high IQ, almost up to genius range, so these people must actually have something going for them. Well, basically, it works against them because
But they're right so often compared to the ordinary person, they almost always turn out to be smarter. This gives them the idea that they're intellectually infallible. They start to lose sight of their own intellectual limitations and believe that they're really what they've cracked themselves up to be and they become insufferable at this point. This is the danger zone phenomenon. People would tend to exhibit this when they're within a certain IQ range that we call the danger zone.
Like I said, it's like, you know, a two standard, you know, two standard deviation range, right around where I said it was, you know, maybe I said 130, maybe it's like 120, 150, whatever. What you're saying is that some people, because they're so smart, they, and let's just say it's two standard deviations, they're above their peer group when they grow up and then they think they're the smartest in the room. So then they extrapolate that and say, I'm the smartest in the world at 150.
Exactly, they were smartest in the room, but they were in a small room. Then they get out there in the real world where there are people smarter, and suddenly it's like they were scolded. I must still be the smartest person, so they start belittling and denigrating people who are smarter than they are. This describes a lot of people who are regarded as very intelligent, especially in academia. They regard each other as intelligent. It's kind of a club. Well, anybody who's not in our club has no intelligence whatsoever.
Speaking on intellect, I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Jay Gould. He has some criticisms of the concept of IQ. Non-overlapping magisteria.
He was obviously a smart guy but he had certain
Maybe he was a danger zone person who decided that all those people who scored better than he did on IQ tests must be really a bunch of nincompoops compared to him. And that's where he got his ideas from. But he seemed to be largely motivated by ego. He got the impression that Stephen Jay Gould was a guy who thought very highly of himself and his own perspective, but couldn't really justify it. In other words, I saw him as a danger zone kind of person. Right? That's largely where, you know, a lot of this stuff
It's not that IQ is all that special. IQ is by no means the whole of intelligence. People like Gould are right about that, but it does correlate with intelligence to a certain extent. It's an aspect of intelligence. You can't just totally dismiss it and say, well, this person, despite the fact that he's got a measured IQ of 65, is just as smart as this guy with the 150 IQ over here. You can't make a statement like that, but that's what these people want to do.
Everybody's equal, even intellectually equal. They don't really believe that because they believe they're super smart. But when it comes to you, you can't be any smarter. It's ridiculous. What I wonder, people who dislike the concept of IQ, mainly they dislike it because it has connotations with respect to race and then they think eugenics is going to come out from conversations about it. Or they're not happy with their IQ or they're afraid to find out their own IQ.
because it may be lower than they think. And they actually unconsciously attribute plenty to it. So there's this great quote which is, we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for but don't obtain. It's from Aesop's Fables. I put that in this movie that I was directing called Better Left Unsaid. It's about, you've heard of the radical left, I'm sure you've
You're familiar with them, so it's about what makes extremism real. It's obvious what extremism is on the right when it comes to ethnonationalism and so on. It's easy to identify, but it's not easy to identify what extremism is on the left because it's couched in terms of diversity and compassion and so on. Usually these days, though, it's also couched in terms of Marxism, which is a very flawed philosophy.
What I would like is for someone who doesn't think the concept of IQ is important at all to say okay well I give them a pool of people here's a pool that has people who are measured IQ 80 to 90 and then people who have 150 to 160 okay are you telling me if you're running a company you would choose equally from them okay then take the 80s take the
Take the 90s. I don't think that they actually would do so. I don't think when push comes to shove, they would put their money where their mouth is. Unless they're practicing some form of affirmative action or have to abide by some kind of racial quota system. All right, then all bets are off. I mean, I remember when I was in New York, you know, I needed money in New York, the rents were pretty high. So I was constantly looking for a better job.
The Civil Service exam at the time that I was in New York, which was during the 1980s, 1990s, they spotted certain racial minorities, 30 points on that test. In other words, someone like to go in and score 100, but if you belong to one of these privileged minorities, you could score a 70 and get the job. That's because of a basically affirmative action racial quota system.
It's obviously not very good for our society because you get a lot of people that really can't handle the jobs that they're given and because of that society deteriorates. I mean, I feel for people that are denied work, for example, because they have a low IQ, but that is not a reason to destroy a society. You can't pretend that you're being compassionate and pretend, oh, we can't hurt anybody else's feelings and then ask them to do things to be
You can't expect them to perform functions like that because you feel compassionate toward them or because you don't want to hurt their feelings. There has to be a point at which reality cuts in. That's what we have to remember. It's not that these people are bad people or that they're not as good as other people. They certainly can be as good as other people.
Some people are capable or better at certain things than others. IQ is a good measure for some of those things. Employers should be able to put a certain amount of weight on IQ. They don't because the academic system, Academia Incorporated, has more or less shoved IQ off the stage and replaced it with having a college degree. So now what they're looking at is
Does this person have a college degree? If he has a college degree, he's smart, and if he doesn't, he's a dummy. He's one of those high school dropouts. Forget about him because he's a bum. That is a disservice to the world, that kind of thing, because anybody at this point can get a college education. Sometimes I think that I have a dog who if I paid the money,
I see from both sides because there is, like you mentioned, there is
It's a correlation. IQ is a correlation, which is important. It's one of the highest correlates with success in terms of money, in terms of even happiness and health. Well, up to a certain point. That doesn't extend into the genius or super genius range, but it goes up to a certain level. It also correlates very highly with academic success, which of course correlates with materials. But it does not correlate with morality. So for example, there's a psychometric.
A dark triad is the closest to amoralistic behavior. It's not correlated with IQ. You may think, well, the smarter you are, the more you can take advantage of people and you'd actually be more harmful to society. It turns out there's zero correlation, which is great because that means that the smarter you are doesn't make you a good person. And people tend to associate intellect with moral worth or with even human worth. I'm not sure if you do that. I see that as a dangerous game.
And I also understand that if one belongs to like, I understand the controversy with IQ and race, because if you belong to a race that has been demonstrated to have a low IQ or supposedly demonstrate to have a low IQ, that's debilitating to be part of that group. It's, it's not a fun field. That's because you're identifying with the group. You know, everybody has a right to be taken, you know, as an individual.
You have a high IQ, I don't care what color you are, what race you belong to, you deserve to be recognized for that. But if you feel that, well, but I'm not really me, I'm a member of this group. 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.
Go to Shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in Shopify.com slash theories. Okay. And because this group has a low mean IQ, because it has that statistic, that statistic must apply to me. No, that's not true. Never was true. Okay. But the whole identity politics thing that we've fallen into leads people to take that attitude.
That's one of my questions was with regard to IQ and race, or just IQ in general, if you're told that you have a low IQ, let's imagine that you're an individual who has taken an IQ test, so forget that you're inferring by membership of a group, and you have an IQ of 190 or whatever it may be, how do you avoid crushing someone's spirits by that
You tell them the truth about intelligence. There's a lot more to intelligence than just IQ. We have examples. You take Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ of approximately 125, which sure isn't high enough to be a genius physicist in the estimate of most people, but it was high enough for him.
Intelligence comes from another place. IQ is being able to focus all of your mental energy on specifically well-defined tasks within a certain time period. That's what it is. Intelligence need not be focused that way. Intelligence is something that can be spread out over much larger areas of space and time. People that produce works of genius don't necessarily have to produce a work of genius every time they take an IQ test.
Intelligence is much more than IQ and this is something that I think if people understood this and I'll try to help them understand this, if they understood it they wouldn't feel so bad about some kid who scores better on an IQ test than they do. They wouldn't even necessarily feel bad about belonging to a group that has a low mean IQ. There are differences between people. We're all good at certain things. We're all bad at certain things. Everybody's different.
As long as we learn to accommodate those differences, but also allowing for the way those differences affect our performance at certain tasks in real life, when we can do that, we'll be much better. Sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself. Imagine that morality could also be placed on a spectrum much like IQ is. Would you take a decrement to your IQ for an increment in morality? I call it moral intelligence. I actually conflate the two.
You mentioned the dark tetrad, the ponderological tetrad of sociopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, sadism. A lot of the elite have that dark tetrad too. They've also got a lot of them have danger zone intelligence and I'm entirely convinced that there might not be a little bit of a correlation in that range between those two things.
Hello, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, yes, I can hear you. This looks like the Blair Witch Project. Do you have another... Do you have another... What? Who thinks this looks like the Blair Witch Project? What, Thea? With the light... Yeah, do you have a more powerful light? Uh, well, this is a more powerful light. It's got several adjustments.
I have a light. Jeannie, could you put this on? Just one more light. One more light. People need to see your beautiful face, man. Hold on. No, no, no. I don't have a beautiful face. You're a hairline that rivals mine. Matter of fact, I would like less of my face through this. You're like darkening. What? We have this or... It's fine. It's fine. That or that? No, that looks awful. That looks awful. Okay. Do you want me to try opening the garage door?
Missouri is big on pugs. What? Do you want me to try opening the door to see if that helps with the backlight? I don't think it will, honey. It's fine. Don't worry about it. Let her know it's fine. Also, can you thank her for me? Because she's extremely assiduous. She puts so much energy and effort into... Kurt wants to thank you, honey, for your punctilious attention to all of the details. She's a sweetheart. She told me that you're a pussycat and to not be afraid of you.
When I first emailed her. When I'm in a good mood. Yeah. Because from what I've seen, you were probably being interviewed by people who either you didn't like or they conveyed that they didn't like you. And so you were in a more disagreeable mood. Well, with me or not, I'm happy. The Errol Morris video? I don't remember. Well, are you talking about the? Well, no, I don't know which one.
I don't know which one, but I'm just saying that I thought that you'd be a combative person. She assured me you weren't and I'm happy that you're not. No, I'm actually a very easy to get along with person. Although I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book in which I was one of the people. It was called Outliers and he attributed to me zero social intelligence. So that may be where a lot of people get that impression.
I'm actually rather easy to get along with, but I was a bar bouncer for 25 years and my background even before that was such that I don't suffer fools gladly. So if someone wants to be an idiot, it rapidly changes my mood. And perhaps I'm not so easy to get along with. What? You don't have the ass kissing gene. I don't. There's no ass kissing gene inside of me.
I mean, I love to be nice to people and make people feel good, but once it becomes evident to me that someone expects to get his ass kissed, then there's a problem. Is there a personal story about that that stands out to you, like you have one in mind? There's all kinds. It lasted from when I was about five years old to when I was well out of high school. I was
We came from a disciplinarian household, shall we say, where physical abuse was the norm to a certain extent and that sort of got me going along a certain trajectory. And then we were usually the poorest folks in town, the poorest family in town, which caused us to get into fights with other kids so I had to learn how to fight at a young age and I didn't necessarily want to be bothered with that.
It's just the way things went for us, so that's what I had to do. And then, you know, when I went to get a, you know, I started working out, working for the forest service, working construction, things like that. Ultimately, I figured out that it was, there was a better way to make a living, paid almost as much, but wasn't so grinding and I could actually think about my work and things that I was interested in while I was doing it. It was bar bouncing. I worked in about 50,
There are about 50 night clubs over the course of 25 years or so in the greater New York area. It's probably the best-known bar in New York for a long time. Physical altercation is more or less a way of life. You meet a lot of people, but some of them are not especially easy to get along with, especially when they get drunk, so altercations arise.
How did you choose your wife? How did you know she was the one? Well, she was actually a member of the super high IQ community.
such as it was back in the 1980s and 90s. And so I met her through one of those groups. And we, you know, gradually, you know, we corresponded a little bit and things just grew from there. So I got myself a very intelligent woman. Beautiful too. Was there something about her that stood out to you compared to the other women of the high IQ range?
I've always been attracted to intelligent women. To me, intelligence is sexy. It makes a woman more of a woman. Not that a woman who is not so intelligent can't be sexy. I mean, that's far from the case, but it's always something to which I was attracted in a female. So that's one of the reasons that I held out for her. I mean, I was single for most of my life.
My temper gets a little bit short sometimes. That's always something I'm trying to improve. I have a
Weakness for certain kinds of snacks or candies like licorice. I mean, I just can't stop eating You know, I literally have to hide it from myself after a certain point because You know, I just eat bag after bag. I'm the same way man Yeah, I know it may not look like it but trust me. No, no, you're actually a pounds greater than I am I'm seriously my wife. I pig out like you wouldn't I expand my it hurts and I'm like, okay, that's the that's the beginning and
Let me keep eating and then I have to fast for a day or two days so that alternate between extreme. I don't know if it's great for my liver. I talked to my doctor about it. She said that your liver seems to be fine, but I go. Yeah, but it's just that it takes sometimes days to let your digestive system catch up to everything that you put in your mouth. If you just keep on eating, I find myself getting in trouble if I just keep on stuffing myself for a week or two at a time.
I got to stop eating almost entirely for the same amount of time before I'm back to normal. I see the workout, the weights behind you, I see the gym set. Oh, anytime if you ever make it to this area, definitely you're welcome to enjoy the gym as much as you want to. I like working out. It helps keep you young. After a certain point, you've got to have resistance exercise, your muscles deteriorate. You start losing muscle mass and that's something that fortunately I haven't lost any muscle mass at all.
And I'm probably as strong as an athletic 20-year-old. I do military press with over 200 pounds for reps, which is very good for someone of my age. How old are you? I'm 69. Good job, man. So you don't work out because you want to keep your IQ. You work out for other reasons. The IQ, too. Believe you me, there are a lot of reasons to work out.
You just keep yourself young, you keep your mind sharp, you keep up your motivation, your level of testosterone doesn't decrease, so you maintain the amount of mental aggression you need to attack difficult problems. These things are important to me, so I work on it. Okay, I wanted to get your thoughts on some other thinkers. One of the reasons I facetiously call it Viyomaki, which is like the battle of the gods, and the reason is that these are intellectual giants, and
I'm not sure about you, but for me, I glean plenty from seeing these giants disagree with one another. It's as if I pick up nuggets from the damage of their fight from the fallout. So what are your thoughts on new atheists like Sam Harris? So new atheism in general, you don't have to attack Sam Harris, although you're more than welcome to. I don't. Look, there was a, you know, back in the they started publicizing me. I had a chance to get heavily publicized. I was asked
to appear on TV shows as early as the late 1980s. I refused. I simply didn't want to be involved. Then in the late 1990s, I was around 1998 when I started getting publicized. And after that, I got a few media appearances of one sort or another. But then I started, because I mentioned during some of these appearances,
that there was a mathematical way to prove the existence of God, I began getting trolled by atheists. For a while, I was on a few sites that were supposedly religious sites that were dominated by Christians, people calling themselves Christians, and noticed that they weren't protecting me from these atheistic trolls. These atheistic trolls were saying an awful lot of bad things.
And there were some that actually attacked me personally. Name brand atheists who were nothing at the time but have since become, you know, the signatures of the new atheist movement. I'm not going to mention their names because that would be publicizing them, but they were nasty and I didn't get along with them at all. And then as I was trying to nevertheless get purchased for my theory, I found myself getting cancelled.
and there were several people, among them Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and who the hell was it? Not Chris Hitchens, but one of them. I don't know if it was Sam Harris or not, but they came up with this new policy of how to deal with people who believe in God, theists. You cancelled that. They must be refused to talk to
Right? We refuse to give them any sort of respect whatsoever and pretty soon nobody will pay attention to them at all. And so this is what they pulled on me and my theory and they pretty much managed to stop me dead for a long time. I'm not happy about it and I don't like those people. I think they're intellectually dishonest. I think the scumbags are great. Although I'm not saying that they're stupid people.
I mean, his theory is easy to pick apart. Richie Dawkins, there's nothing there. They're intelligent in a way, but on the other hand, they're not really. They don't have much penetration. They can't understand the inconsistencies in their own work. I just don't respect them very much. I've been on a couple of sites. They're just awful, the things they say about you, the things that they do.
They apparently have no moral grounding. They don't believe in God so they don't believe there's any sort of moral identity in the universe that can make them act or behave in any particular way that others find acceptable. So all bets are off. They think they can do whatever they want, say whatever they want about you and get away with it and that's what they have done repeatedly. They've been deplatformed. People will say things and I will
You can't run intellectual commerce under the watchful eyes of such people who are canceling you. All you have to do is mention the G word and they've got a problem with you.
Right? And so this is where we've gotten to today. And as far as I'm concerned, that policy of theirs where they simply refuse to converse with you, that is intellectual cowardice. I mean, you take people like Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dent, easily crushed by someone like me. I mean, they wouldn't last a minute, but they still won't talk.
It's an excuse for them to flee. Oh, well, he believes in God. What a dunce. So he's beneath our dignity. We won't cast any of our, shed any of our glory on him. So this entitles us to run away. And they hide in the shadows. You'll see them. I mean, they get out there in public, but not where they can really be dealt with by anybody who's smarter than they are. And that's not a very tall order at all. There are plenty of people smarter than they are.
Speaking of hiding in the shadows, you look like Russell Crowe. Is there another light? I want to prevent you from making the same mistake that people do toward you. So, for example, they'll make ad hominins. I don't think Daniel Dennett or Dawkins have a low IQ. I think they're extremely intelligent people. They may not have as high an IQ as you. Have you ever been personally insulted by them or their friends? Because until you have been, you know,
You haven't walked in my shoes. Don't worry, man. I'm on your side and I'll defend you. That's good. Thank you. I'm just saying that I think your animosity toward them is from being attacked. And if they were kinder to you, I don't think that you would denigrate their intelligence. It's been going on for 20 years. Certainly I would have been willing, you know, if they had just said, oh, well, you know, let's let's let's get together and I'll have a conversation. These people don't give an inch.
They're haters. They hate God. Richie Dawkins, if you listen to what he says, it becomes very evident that he doesn't really have an argument against God. He just hates God. This has been going on for 20 years in my case, and I've had it with the guy. He's misled a lot of people. This is something that you can go to hell for. Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me. He's got another thing coming. I'll just
Let's talk about the concept of hell. What is it? Some religions say that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations of Christianity is that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations is that it does exist or there's a place of purgatory and or
And then there's that hell is a place where you'll be tortured for a finite amount of time and then you'll be brought back and then there's some where it's an infinite amount of time. What is your idea of hell derived from the CTMU? Hell is simply the process of ceasing to exist, of being teleically unbound and having your identity destroyed because it is unacceptable to God. See, God in the CTMU is something called a stratified identity and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity.
the level that we all share with each other. We're all united in God. But God is good and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does. So if you deny God and you cut your, basically you're cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you and can no longer accept you into himself because he's totally consistent.
God is totally, completely self-consistent and will not tolerate his denial. It's just not something that God can afford to tolerate because something that is perfect cannot tolerate, cannot absorb or assimilate imperfection into himself. He can tolerate it for a while, but then after a while he's got to exclude it. All right, so this is what hell is. Basically your own highest level of identity.
is telling you, you can no longer exist because you're no longer in touch with me. You've cut your own identity in half. You've severed it. It's called the soul, the human soul. That's what these levels of stratified identity are. They're your soul and once you interdict that, once you sever it, you're cut off from God. That way your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you anymore.
It can't see you. So when you die and you beg on the deathbed, please take me back in. God can't hear you anymore. That's a terrible thing and I don't wish it on anybody. But if people understand this and understand the stratified identity and understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now, because that's a very unpleasant experience, everybody wants to cling to their identity in the end.
There's this phrase, I don't know where I got it from, but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside. That's correct. Well, that's a very good, very opposite quote. Is it a place of torture? Is it a place of torment? Is it a place of infinite heat?
You bring with it your own ideas of what hell is? That's correct. Where else would they come from? For someone like Dawkins, who doesn't believe in the concept of hell either, would he then experience nothingness?
Okay, well, you're right. I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. Because he rejects, he will create his own kind of hell and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him. He's no longer a big shot at Oxford University. He can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God. Nobody wants to listen to him anymore.
You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect and no one that I've met is perfect, so does that mean that none of us are going to heaven? None of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded teleisys?
The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time, things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. It's an oxymoron to think that God holds this against you. We all have to adapt. We all have to do what it takes to survive and God doesn't hate us for that.
That isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of ultimate reality and his own highest level of identity, which is God. It's wanting to undo, to unbind reality, to say the name of reality backwards. That's what evil is. That's what you get punished for. That's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing.
There's someone like Peterson who would come out and say that, Sam Harris, you say that you're an atheist but you say that with your words but you don't act like that with your body because you treat people with humanity, you are concerned with the world living and not dying, flourishing. Do you agree with Peterson saying that you can say that you're atheistic but not act it and thus does someone get saved even though they profess atheism?
Yes, basically the problem, however, is that once you professed atheism, now you've got to get God's attention again. Once you've severed your soul, once you've put a cut in your soul and you've actually cut God off, now you've got to heal that severance before God can see you again. It takes a long time. It's not going to have, oh, well, I've changed my mind. I've decided not to hate God anymore. That's not good enough.
It needs to go on for a long, long time and you've really got to try and you've got to cry like a babe in the woods until God finally hears you. Okay? So it's not easy. These people are hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that. Hey honey, is there a light over there? You know one of those lights, those food lights over there? Turn on that clamp light. I want to see how that influences the... This thing is getting in my eyes.
What I'm getting at is almost the opposite of not all those who cry Lord, Lord will be saved. So on the one end, even if you claim to be a Christian or you claim to believe in God, that's not enough. You have to also act it. And on the other end, one can say that even if one says that they're against God, but one acts kindly, one acts lovingly, then does that mean that they still can be saved? Peterson would say, now he doesn't talk about heaven or hell, but he would say that you believe in God with your body.
Father, deeds shall you move.
Would you say that he in your model will be going to heaven or hell assuming that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth? Unfortunately, your relationship with God cannot be faked. When somebody is doing good acts, it could be only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts. They want the moral approval of other human beings. That's not good enough.
Completely fine, can't hear a thing of the storm.
Pardon me, Kurt. Go ahead. Let's take a quote from someone who criticized you. You said, if someone denies the existence of God, then God will exclude them from reality. And then this person said, well, okay, how does Langen explain the continued existence of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins? Well, they have a physical body. They're basically co-hering to their physical body, and that's what's providing them with a continued identity. They've reduced themselves, however, to feel physical. There's not much left there.
If God could not have been otherwise, like with your model, there are these meta laws that govern the universe. So it sounds to me like there is a bound to God. God is his own bound, God is his own boundary.
Who is or was Jesus?
We cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that was written again in the Bible. But we know what Jesus is now. Jesus is the ideal of human perfection. Someone who was willing to lay down everything and sacrifice himself for mankind. All right, that's what Jesus is. He was the image of human perfection. It is through a Jesus-shaped gateway that we can approach God.
All right, we have to become perfect in order to unify with the perfection of God. So that's the way Jesus functions in the Christian religion and the way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our Christ too and far between if you know what I mean. In Buddhism, of course, Buddhism has another central figure who is Buddha, Gautama Buddha Siddhartha. He's basically another kind of cat and tiger.
He didn't talk much about God. You can sort of infer a conscious higher reality from some of the things that Buddha said, but he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God. He was also a rich individual that was born into privilege and then went around traveling and meditating and ministering to the masses and so forth.
In several ways he doesn't quite measure up to the image of Jesus. Jesus was born poor. He didn't start out with any advantages at all. He lived like a normal man, like an ordinary human being, absorbing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at every turn, which is what we have to do. That's what we're expected to do. Therefore, Jesus is an exemplar for us.
Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from reality and have a meditative existence and never mention God. So there is a little bit of a difference between the two. Now, in the CTMU, we don't discriminate against Buddha because he lacks Jesus-like characteristics. Instead, we recognize him for his strengths
Let's get to some other intellectuals. Like I mentioned, for me I love hearing
Academic speak about other academics or intellectuals speak. For example, if Russell commented on Aristotle, it illuminates not only how Russell thinks, but it gives me a new perspective on Aristotle at the same time. So I'm going to bring up a few different giants, intellectual giants, even though you may not consider them to be so, and we'll see what you think of them. Have you heard of Clea Irwin? Yes. Are you presenting Clea as an intellectual giant?
Yes, I'm wondering what you think of Clea Erwin's theories. Clea Erwin has theories on quantum gravity. I'm unsure if you've taken a look, and as well as consciousness. So what do you think about them? Well, Clea seems like a smart person. I don't want to say anything bad about Clea, but I will say that Clea has a lot of ideas that are very CTM-yulite. And the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before Clea did.
And I actually had to force Klee to cite me in his most recent, it wasn't in that paper, the Reality of Self Simulation Hypothesis. Anyway, Klee has a theory. It's got a number of ingredients, some of which are questionable, some of which aren't. It's based on Garrett Leasey's E8 theory. It's a certain symmetry group that he uses.
But there are other aspects that are straight, pure CTA meter. I was simply not mentioned. I understand sometimes people don't know any better, but at one time I was on every major news network in the country. There are probably relatively few people who are above a certain age who never heard of me. A lot of them have forgotten that they heard of me, but nevertheless I was still there.
I think that a reasonable literature search should turn up something about the CTMU if you undertake it. If you're actually doing your job and looking for other ideas that are comparable to yours, you're probably going to bump into it. So Klee's theory is to the extent that it resembles the CTMU, it's great. Other parts of it are questionable, but the key part is
Klee is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self-simulation hypothesis and a reasonable TOE theory of everything. He's missing certain key ingredients that are built into CTME structure. His theory is not a supertautology. It has to be a supertautology in order to be a true theory of everything. He mentions language in his theory
He mentions a lot of things that I introduced with the CTMU, which was the first language-like theory of reality. He mentions a lot of things, but then they're kind of haphazardly glued together and it looks like you kind of made a snowball out of them and threw it up in the air to see what would happen. If he ever realizes this, he is going to realize that he has a CTMU clone.
that doesn't just differ from the CTMU, but is the CTMU a different language? That is where Klee is at. I don't want to detract from Klee. I think he probably thinks he's doing a good job. I do know that forcing him to cite me was not easy. I had a long string of correspondence. It originally happened. He introduced his paper, his new paper, and he put it up on RxEve, I guess. It was one of
is a email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known people. And he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his reality self-simulation hypothesis. And I'm like, what the hell? What is this? Because these people know me, they know who I am. So I said, wait a minute.
I've been talking about the reality of self-simulation for years. You're going to have to cite me. I've looked at your paper. I don't see you mentioning me here. You've got some of the same ideas in there. He went back, quoted a lot of self-simulation quotes from me. The problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he was responsible. It wasn't. In my estimation, in some ways he's got it right, but in some ways he's lashing it up.
What about Joschabach and his ideas of consciousness?
You should bark like Daniel Dennett. 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.
You cannot explain consciousness with physics or in a computational system. The CTME makes use of a concept called proto-computation, which is even more general than quantum computation. There's a universal Turing machine, there's a quantum Turing machine,
The CTMU actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a proto-computer, except that it's the entire CTMU. All of that structure has to go into this quantization. And then the universe is self-similar on that basis. Every part of it mirrors the whole. It's a metaphysical system. You cannot explain consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need.
Okay, your consciousness is coherent. You are a unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts. You feel the unity of your consciousness. That's what I mean by coherence. A machine is not coherent. It doesn't have that coherence. All right, you've got to figure out some way of getting that coherence in there, and that's a tall order. Okay, Joshua Bach doesn't have that. Daniel Dennett never had that. I mean, there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned.
These guys, they have some good ideas. I mean, I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done. Everybody has remarkable insights. Dennett writes well, I mean, but he writes like a philosopher, which is almost opaquely at times. He reads some of the stuff that people think I'm opaque. I think I'm a marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennett sometimes. He talks around things like a lot of philosophers do. I mean, that's a skill that they develop in academia.
Joshua Bach is better than that. He actually tries, makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennett ever did. But still, you know, still he's not really getting to the root of what consciousness is in my opinion. And even if they're wrong, they're extremely inventive, both Joshua Bach and Daniel Dennett. I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points. I'm not trying to, you know, these are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination.
It's just that they're trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem and their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused the solutions to go awry. Can we talk about this proto-computer, this proto-computation you mentioned? So there's Turing machines as we...
or classical machines as we ordinarily think of them, and then there's quantum computation, and then you're saying there's an even more general notion where different states of an infinite type are able to be used in the calculation simultaneously. I'm unsure, can you please explain that some more because I haven't encountered that in your work? Well, it means that basically a proto-computer is generative, which neither a universal Turing machine nor a quantum Turing machine, the universal Turing machine is
That's Turing's original invention. Then you've got the quantum Turing machine, which I think was introduced by David Deutsch. They both resemble each other in certain respects. They're different. The nature of the tape is different. The nature of the storage module is different. The quantum Turing machine is more general and more powerful than the universal Turing machine. But what a theory of reality actually needs is generativity. In other words,
At the same time as new states are created, new medium has to be created to go with those states. The medium is constantly being generated. Space-time is constantly being generated. These people imagine that the medium of reality is some kind of fixed array, almost like a computer display, like the one I'm looking at right now and seeing your face. That's what they think reality is. They think it's kind of like a display screen with little pixels in it.
Speaking once again about Clea Irwin, Clea Irwin thinks that he's actually stated that reality has little tetrahedral pixels in it. It doesn't work. It's discretized and basically that doesn't work. It doesn't work for a number of reasons, one of which is relativity. You don't have the proper kind of covariance and contravariance. It's very hard to make that work.
If you've got discretized pixels, Lorentz contractions and things like that would actually have to influence the number of pixels that are activated at any one time and that causes inconsistencies. But apparently these people don't realize there are also certain inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. But this idea of a discretized script, Dennett has the same damn thing.
I'll withhold. Basically, Dunnett talks about a Cartesian theater, as I recall, and the Cartesian theater is something that he attempts to depart from. Nevertheless, he is a physicalist, and physicalists do have to have something like a discretized pixelated display, even if they describe it in terms of quantum mechanics, which is erroneous. You can't do it that way, really.
Nevertheless, what reality actually needs is something that is generative and generates new space and time even as new states of matter are generated. That's one of the implications of triality. The medium has to change a lot. It's even an implication of Einstein's equation. You've got a stress energy tensor on one side and then you've got the metric tensor on the other. You see, the metric tensor being the medium and the stress energy tensor being the matter distribution
Okay, those two things actually have to be in sync. They've got to be coupled in a certain way. And these people are just not doing it. They're not approaching it in the correct way. Einstein, by the way, I can make a pretty good argument that relativity makes no sense outside of the CTN at all. The entire scenario, the way things are done there, the way things are coupled, the way space is coupled with time, for example,
and then the way he couples objects with space-time in Einstein's equation, these things actually don't work outside of the CTM. So we need that. We need that generativity. We need we need tele-sys to be factored from the top down into space and time. And that's what neither of these other Turing machines, neither the UTM nor the QTM does. The CTM does do this, however, and it uses the entire structure of the metaformal system
There are other models of discrete space. They wouldn't call it space time. Space time would emerge such as spin foam networks in loop quantum that still have the properties of being background free and Lorentz invariant and so on. So what about those? Would you say that those are also doomed? You've got to have a representation. You've got to have an observer immersed in a medium of representation.
And I don't see right now how you can salvage any of those viewpoints. I think that they all need to be interpreted in the CTME in order for their good points to actually be valid. I think that as it stands right now, excessive claims are being made. I don't think they live up to those claims. I think that if I were questioning
Any of these people, I don't think that they would be able to justify their claims. There's just no damn way that you can have a non-generative display. Once again, we're referring to the reality self-simulation, which can be likened to a computer. There is an analogy. It's a little bit more involved than you might suspect, but nevertheless, you can separate the display from the processor.
These people are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature of the processor. And usually what they're trying to do is confine everything to the display. And for various reasons, this is not polite. This cannot be, we can't pull that off. All these guys are trying to do it. Bless their hearts. They've got a certain amount of good insight, but they're just not pulling it off. Let's get to the next one. How about Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity?
What are your thoughts on that? Eric Weinstein, okay, geometric unity. That's where he's got a triangle that has the Dirac equation spinners and spin one and a half matter particles on one vertex. On the other vertex he's got general relativity and on the other vertex he's got the standard model with SU3 times SU2 times SU1 gauge theory.
Okay, I think that Eric is actually, he seems like a very bright guy. I remember when he had his, I think, isn't he the guy who had the mathematics encyclopedia up for a long time on the web? I think it was Eric Ronstadt. Some guy named Eric Ronstadt had a math encyclopedia up on the web. It was pretty impenetrable. If you didn't already know the math, I'm not going to get anything out of this encyclopedia.
It was good. But anyway, here's the strength of his approach, this geometric unity. Basically, he seems to be saying, it sort of occurs to me that what he's saying is, well, we're having a hard time putting together a purely analytic algebraic TOE. So let's look at the geometry of these theories.
of the Dirac equation and the standard model and general relativity. And let's see if we can put those geometries together. And if we can merge those geometries, then guess what? We're going to automatically just be able to match it with a global formal theory coupled with the geometry. And this is really kind of an innovative way to approach it. However, it's the way I've been approaching it for decades.
Stephen Wolfram's Theory of Everything, the Wolfram Project. What are your opinions on that? Have you taken a look? Stephen Wolfram, he's obviously a very bright guy. He knows a lot about mathematics.
is kind of an adorable character. What he's done, what it seems to me that he's done is he's tried to identify certain basic elements and rules of assembly and then like a bunch of ticker toys, he's trying to assemble those into the overall structure of reality.
and I appreciate that and it's entertaining to read Stephen's writing about it and there's a lot of insight there but it doesn't work because if you're going to have a theory of everything you need to start with everything. You're not going to take a subset of everything and then put it together and get something which is reality which is more than the sum of its parts.
You're not going to do that. You've got to start with everything, which means you've got to start with cognition and perception in general. You've got to logically induce your theory from that. And that's the way to build a theory. But as far as Stephen's writing is concerned and the other aspects of what Stephen does, I think he's a very bright guy. I get a big kick out of reading what he writes, but this is more or less
Right up front for me, the fact that he's going about it in the wrong way. He hasn't seen the big picture. He doesn't understand all of the criteria that have to be satisfied in order to have a TOE. That's where you've got to start. You've got to start with everything. Nothing can be excluded, either implicitly or explicitly. You've got to have everything. You've got to have everything condensed or encapsulated somehow in some kind of process. And for us human beings, the process is cognition and perception.
What about Donald Hoffman? Have you taken a look at his theories on consciousness and conscious agents interacting and so on?
He's saying that some aspects of how we see the world is actually quite deceptive but adaptive. In other words, it helps us adapt and survive to the world if we actually don't see it correctly. He's got this idea of a graphic user interface that actually allows us to have cognition that is deceptive but nevertheless adaptive.
Basically what Donald needs is, he needs an overall framework in which to insert his GUI, his graphic user interface. He needs the actual reality self-simulation principle to make that work. He's a guy who is very much in need of the CTME. Of course, he's an academic so he probably would have insisted it come from another academic, but if that would have happened it would be called plagiarism. So I doubt that he's ever going to get to the truth.
Okay, how about David Bohm? So how your theory compares and contrasts with David Bohm's theories, which I would like you to explain in implicate order to me because I haven't had the chance to look it up. And then there's someone named Henry Berkson, which is related to Bohm. I'm not sure how they differ.
As far as David Bohm is concerned, his reputation precedes him.
There was an early bomb and a late bomb. The early bomb was Bohmian mechanics and then later on he came up with something called the holo movements, the holographic universe. I think he wrote a book on the holographic universe with Vassel Haile. Anyway, he has this thing that he calls the holo movement that basically takes an implicate order and kicks out an exponent.
That is pure CTMU. That process is what the CTMU calls involution. It's just one aspect of the CTMU, but that aspect he actually captured very well with that polar movement, implicate and explicate order thing that he's doing with later bone. As far as the earlier bone mechanics is concerned, that's a little bit dicey. Hard to make that look.
Would the implicate order be associated with descriptive containment and then the explicit is topological containment or there's no relation? Explicate order is the display, the terminal display or the CTMU semilanguage LO and the other part is the CTMU semilanguage LS which corresponds to the processor instead of the display. That's the implicate order.
It's implicated, it's an implicate form there in the processor where things are actually getting non-locally combined and entangled and telons are working to actually determine overall causal patterns. That's where that's occurring. It's all extremely, it's very, very interesting. Bohm actually matured as a thinker a very great deal in the course of his life. There are a couple of things I don't like. I mean, I think Bohm was a communist, wasn't he?
Right, and that may be one of the reasons why Bohmian mechanics came out of favor because it was as if you were supporting communism. Right. Well, let's... Communism is a very... Marxism is a very bad theory of philosophy. It's got a lot of holes in it. It's just awful in certain respects. So when you see a brilliant thinker like David Bohm grabbing a hold of it and embracing
This can't help his reputation, you see, and I think Bohm suffered a great deal because of that, but you can certainly understand why it happened. As far as Bohmian mechanics is concerned, he's basically trying to concretize everything. He's got a pilot field, he's got the Springer equation, but he's also got this, the pilot field is actually guiding the particle to its destination. But what is guiding the pilot field itself?
I mean, there are a number of philosophical questions that could be asked about Bohm's theory that reveal that it is indelibly associated with the terminal side of the reality of self-simulation. So in other words, it's terminally confined in CTME terminology, which means that it's not really any kind of complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've been told I need to learn more about Bohmian mechanics and Birksen if I'm going to be investigating theories of everything.
A lot of people really like Bohmian mechanics because of its strong components. It does have strong components, but it won't really do in a theory of everything. The theory of everything relies on Bohmian mechanics. It's toast. There's just not enough there to pull it off. As far as Bergson is concerned, it's like a fine philosophy.
Okay, how about Douglas Hofstadter's Strange Loop idea of consciousness? You know, Gertrude Escher Bach, I'm sure you've heard of that book. Yes, yeah. I think I was probably in my early 20s when I got a copy of that book. The Strange Loops and the pushing and the popping and all that stuff. Quite an intriguing book. Very much in fashion for a long time. Sort of a precursor to the reality of self-simulation.
People ask me who do I want to interview most? Douglas Hofstadter is up there, Penrose is up there and even M&M. Roger Penrose is brilliant. Where do you see Douglas Hofstadter's theory lacking and what do you like most about it? So what dislikes and then likes pros then cons? Well, you know, he relies a lot on computational principles and I think he might be
You know, nevertheless, even though he's relying on a lot of advanced logic and, you know, powers of metal languages and levels of computation and so forth, he shows no sign of being anything but a physicalist in the sense that it's all computational and computation is a mechanical process. So it looks to me like it might be like his outlook may be basically mechanistic. Right. Right. Which, you know, I can't agree with because that's not what reality is in CTMU.
Now Penrose seems to agree with you in saying that there are many paradoxes associated with thinking that consciousness comes from something that's computational. Have you heard much about Penrose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction and so on with Hameroff? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hameroff is on a lot of these, or at least was on a lot of these distributions that I find myself on a huge one. And, you know, there is something to it. I mean, you know, Hameroff identified microtubules, cytoskeletons as being
as being a place where quantum coherence might actually be able to function in the brain. And there are other ways that quantum mechanics can serve itself in the neural processes as well. But, of course, he relies on Penrose for most of the physics and actually figuring out where it's all coming from. Penrose has this idea of a platonic realm or this platonic form of reality. It's a tripartite form of reality.
These mathematical truths that exist as these fully formed mathematical objects in platonic realm. He doesn't have the CTMU, Roger Penrose, doesn't have a fully formed theory of reality, but he's just very hard not to appreciate because he's so brilliant.
His brilliance was almost for you sometimes when you read some of the things that he writes. Mathematically, he's a brilliant mathematician. He's a brilliant physicist. This idea of his that basically it's not just computation, that there is something that is undecidable going on in human thought. Basically, you know what Goodell theory implies? He says there's no
You've got a system, a system that actually is capable of trans-finite induction and is truly interesting. There are truths that cannot be derived from any finite set of axioms in such a system. Basically, what Penrose is saying is that human thought somehow generates undecidable theorems that are true on a metamathematical level but cannot be derived
This is exactly what the CTNU says. I started publishing in the same year, I think. He came out with a book, I think his biggest theoretical statement was The Emperor's New Mind. Recognize that title? That's correct. That was 1989, which is when I wrote The Resolution of Newton's Paradox. We started publishing at about the same time. He got a hell of a lot farther than I did in that amount of time. Then again, he wasn't cancer.
How about Thomas Campbell and his My Big Toe? Have you heard of that? It's a strange theory
Essentially that there's another realm when you mentioned that there are thoughts and sorry that there are data points that come to us instantaneously in this non-terminal realm Thomas Campbell also says that that's the mechanism by which Psychic phenomenon work that it occurs to you instantaneously We think that it has to travel some distance in the same way that it would have to travel in our space-time and there's a finite speed he says know that this other realm where consciousness operates is
Well, that sounds very CTME consistent. He also has Aum. He calls it Aum, which you call unbounded talesis. He has Aum, unbounded absolute oneness, or absolute unbounded oneness. Is that supposed to sound like Aum? No, as far as I know, it's a coincidence. Anyway, he says that that's the fundamental constituents, this place of complete potential. Yes, that's CTME consistent, yes. Although he says this, which I disagree.
He says that unrealized potential is trying to do is to create order and to decrease its entropy and I quibbled with him because I don't think that order and entropy are what people claim in common parlance entropy and order and disorder are not actually high entropy doesn't mean low order in the way that most people think and it's obvious because if you look at a coffee cup with some milk and you create some turbulence that looks completely disordered and then when you
That's Thomas Campbell's
It reminds me of yours though, yours is more rigorous. Yeah, I mean mine actually has structure, mathematical structure to it, but it sounds like he's coming up with some good ideas that are on the right track and can be successfully interpreted in a true theory of thought. He also had out-of-body experiences and he would suggest that people who are younger are more in tune or more naturally in tune, like you get out of tune as you get older with
This other realm, and so you can go and what you think of as thought space is actually a real space, but it's another space. I wouldn't use the word dimension, but it's another realm, let's say a primordial realm. Right, it's another terminal realm. Like I say, that's always a possibility. You can create terminal realms that are not identical to physical reality, and that may be related more or less tenuously to it, but aren't dependent. Okay.
How about Noam Chomsky? What do you agree with him about and then disagree with him about? Back when I was first developing the CTMU, Chomsky was one of the people I had a correspondence with. It was very brief, maybe three or four emails. He didn't understand a word I said, even though I was using his theory of generative grammar hierarchy. Nevertheless, actually making a metaphysic out of that was something that Noam couldn't
I don't know whether it was because I was just explaining myself poorly or whatever, but Gnome was a big nothing burger for me. I couldn't even get a conversation started. It seemed to be he has a certain perspective on language and it's all about where does it come from, how do we get it, and that's his focus. When you try to broaden the focus, I think that sometimes
Noam just doesn't pick up on me in what I'm saying. He's a brilliant guy, but that was my experience with him. The other guy was John Wheeler, who pretty much loved the CT interview. He wanted to meet with me. He asked to meet with me at Princeton, but I had a couple of jobs and I couldn't get away. It was a mistake. I should have given up the damn jobs and just gone to see Wheeler anyway.
With regards to the Chomsky not understanding your theories, I think that you overestimate the intelligence of the average person trying to understand your theories and or you're too close to it and that leads to frustration on your part and the people trying to understand it. You think I overestimate their intelligence or underestimate? I think you overestimate.
by thinking that it's simple and the reason i say that is eric weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory he doesn't seem to get that the way that he explains it is esoteric and i wouldn't call it opposite it's almost like obscurantism though he's not trying to be and i'm not accusing you of that please don't take this as any slight i'm just saying that i think you may be too close to it to
understand the frustration of people who actually want, they're not trolls, some of them are, but they genuinely want to understand and they feel like it's impenetrable. The reason I say this is because it's hard for me to understand too, and I actually have a contact on your side, speaking to him on a daily basis, so I'm lucky that I have some physics and math background, so it's easier for me than an average person, but I still had a difficult time with it. What is the name of the person with whom you've been communicating? His name is Sam Thompson.
Yes, Sam is a mathematics student. He's actually pretty smart. Yeah, I love Sam. Me and Sam have been speaking almost each day. I actually had to get him on WhatsApp so I could speak. He's a big tall kid with red hair. I don't know if he's tall. I only spoke to him through webcam. But he's such a nervous person, but he's a sweetheart and he's extremely insightful and he understands your theories almost inside and out. He's a mathematician. He's smart.
Okay, we'll get on to the next one. Jordan Peterson, where do you agree, disagree? So it could be with either his biblical interpretations, his psychological book called Maps of Meaning, Order versus Chaos, and so on. Well, you know, Jordan is a, I think he's managed to do some good. I think that a lot of people get a lot of insight out of Jordan. And so I think that he's, you know, he's actually doing some good things. But as far as a TOE is concerned, he doesn't have
As I recall, his position on the existence of God is, well, I'm not going to say whether he exists or whether he doesn't, but I will say this, it would be better if we all believed he did, which is kind of a cop-out. But I don't think that he has the kind of philosophical understanding that would enable him to put together a basic theory that actually serves as a foundation
for morality, for example, and Jordan is really kind of a moral philosopher, so he needs that kind of foundation. I don't think he has it. He probably knows who I am. I mean, he's a psychologist, he's a Canadian, he's a North American psychologist. He has certainly heard of me, but I've never heard from him. As a matter of fact, I think there was some guy, some agent who was trying to set up a meeting between
Remember we were going through this exercise of stating a seemingly complicated sentence with terminology that wasn't articulated to the audience and then articulating them specifically. So let's do that once more.
Meta-causation and other metaphysical criteria require the standard physical conception of space-time be superseded by a more advanced metaphysical conceptualization that is a logical geometric dual to the linguistic structure of the triallic identity. Okay, so, before I move on to the next sentence, meta-causation, let's define that. Meta-causation is basically the... There's another dimension of time called meta-time,
that leads from the display to the processor of the reality of self-simulation and that is what we mean by meta-time and causation is pre-real, pre-causation that occurs in the processing section of the reality of self-simulation. Meta-causation is really what causes things to happen. It's the real processing that is going on in causality. By the way, that can be mathematically demonstrated.
Causation is distinct from the concept of origination.
When something is originated, it's originated from scratch. Causation, there always has to be a prior code. So you can go back in infinite sequence. Origination means actually being able to originate something. That is what metacausation is. It's what ordinary people would call origination and this happens in a specific way in the CTMU. There's something called a distributed origin which exists everywhere in the non-terminal realm and that is where
This sounds like free will is associated here somewhere. Yes, it certainly is. Because it's the starting of a loop. Well, it's a loop, but it's not a loop that is fully resolved by physical law. There are gaps and holes in the causation. That's why there's something called
quantum uncertainty or quantum indeterminacy. The laws of physics are not sufficient to determine how a quantum wave function collapses. More is required. That's metacausation. There's a process called delic recursion that is actually a non-local feedback among the resources available in the semi-language LO which allows causation to occur. It actually refines causation and resolves the holes and gaps
Okay, then the next word is logical geometric dual. Okay, when I hear that, I can't help but think of stone duality like some generalization of it. Basically, basically, basically, it's the same thing. It's an intention extension duality between predicates and sets.
It's Logico-geometric, it's right there in the name. Logic is being coupled with geometry. They're dual to each other. Therefore, you've got a self-duality when you couple those two things in every quantum of reality. In other words, where you view reality in terms of identification events involving syntactors, this is what you get.
You get logico-geometric duality between the sides, between the syntactic data type and the input data type that you're accepting from the external environment. Physical input and then internal processing with internal metal states that go into your behavior. Okay, the last word is triolic identity. So what's meant by that? The identity of reality is triolic.
The identity of reality, of course, we've been through that. That is called the global operator descriptor. Basically, it has syntactic structure. Give me that term again. Trialic identity. It's triallic, which means that it serves as its own object, its own relation and relational structure and its own operational structure. It is at once an object, a relation and an operator. That's what triality is.
Okay, it's as simple as that. You can also phrase it as, you know, neutrality can be looked at in a couple of other ways as well, as basically the coincidence of space, time, and object. All of those things are everywhere combined. It can also be looked at as the combination of language, universe, and model. All right, which is, and that is implicit in the title of the CTMU, cognitive theory is a language. Okay, model is a model.
Triality, another way to understand it is that there's dualities which people can understand. It's two notions that are dual to one another. Now you're saying that there's three. Is it as simple as extending two to three? All you have to do is put space and time together and now you've got two things. You've got one medium and one object, so your triality has become duality right there.
There's no mystery about it. Basically you've got space, time and object or object relation and operation or universe, model and language. You've got those three things and those three things all have to be combined in every identity in reality and every identity in reality is a coherent image of the global identity which is a global operator descriptor.
Okay, is that also related to Hologi, the concept of Hologi? Well, here's the thing. In the generative universe, you've got syntax. You've got a universal distributed form that is in every syntactor. That means that every point of reality is automatically covered by the UDF or by syntax as it is created. In other words, the UDF or the universal syntax of reality is invariant with respect to rescaling.
Let's get to some audience questions and then we'll wrap up. We have an audience? There's no one here watching right now, but
I've asked for questions. I posted your face before on my theories of everything community tab. I said, Hey, I'm interviewing Chris Langan in a few weeks. Let me know what questions you have for him. Oh, okay. Okay. So this person, his name is Dav. He actually translated your publication to French. He writes a question here. Dav says, I made a French translation of your two publications, CTMU and the introduction to CTMU. I plan to release, I plan to continue.
What's the best way to stay in touch with you on this matter? Well, obviously, that would be through the Mega Foundation. What is our email address at the Mega Foundation, honey? What's that? info at megacenter.org
In the context of the afterlife processing the sum of information of an individual's consciousness, in your opinion, to what extent could the continuity
Yes, but you've got to have something that encodes your memories and will actually instantiate them. You've got to have something
Like a brain that serves as an antenna for the telor and actually realizes cognition that is determined by telic recursion. The answer to your question is yes, but basically goes back to what I was saying about always having to have, aside from the telor, something approximating a terminal body that you use.
which is, you know, while these religions talk about an afterlife and having a new body, a resurrection body, etc., you know, reincarnation, you always have some kind of terminal body for your italic aspect of your existence, for the purely metaphorical aspect of your existence to be instantiated in, okay? Then you can have specific memories and things. Otherwise, you are a syntactic entity or a group of impulses. 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 Brooklinen. 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.
You're all of those things and you're an id, but you don't necessarily have specific memories unless you create a site for them and unless the site in which they can be coded.
So that's why this duality between your soul and your body exists. I haven't gotten to any questions on consciousness, but in your theory, how is consciousness defined and where does it fit in? Every quantum of the universe is conscious because it's a syntactor. A syntactor is a generalization of a computational acceptor. It's a proto-computational generalization of what in computation theory is called an acceptor. An acceptor is just a
processing unit that accepts input from the external environment, applies a kind of syntactic filter in it to decide what gets through and in what form, and then processes it and returns it to the environment. That's basically what it comes down to. If you take a look at the structure of the syntactor, because it's performing that recognition function, it has to be conscious. Every quantum of the universe
It's a generic form of consciousness that it inherits from the global operator descriptor. We have a more complex form of consciousness because we have more inherent complexity in our terminal embodiments and more self-modeling capacity because of that. We have a very complex brain that encodes all of our memories and thoughts and everything else and allows us to separate and resolve them.
I've never met Jonathan but I know who he is and I know he's done some writing on the CTMU. He's an intelligent fellow and he's actually written a book or two and as far as I know he's still a member of our
Yeah, I'm open to whatever you might have in mind, but there are, you know,
There are a couple of people that are probably on your list of interviewees with whom I have had, you know, peripheral reactions or interactions in the past. And some of these people, I think as I recall, Bernardo Castro was pretty darn persnickety. He was on, I think he was on one of Jack Sarfati's lists and there was a kind of an antagonism going on there. And I made a couple of comments and got a couple of what I regarded as pretty persnickety responses at Bernardo.
And I remember being slightly rubbed the wrong way by it. But you know, that's water under the bridge. So sure. I participated in a discussion that Bernardo was in. Didn't he start writing for Scientific American or something that he used to brag? I don't know. But I do know that he's a sweetheart. And I don't think I think if he was picking a fight with you, then it's I think you may be thinking of the wrong person. I don't think. No, I'm not. No, I'm not.
Stephen Nicolich
I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and operate equally regardless of substrate, that is, whether it's material or consciousness. Essentially, idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. Okay, that's not a question. Read the first part of that comment. I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary... Information and logical what?
Okay, so I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and they operate equally regardless of the substrate. So whether it's consciousness or material, information and logical rule set are primary. So then he's saying essentially that idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. So what are your thoughts on that? It's not a question. I just want to hear what occurs to you.
Well, it is a false dichotomy in the sense that all of those things are coupled, information and logic. There is no information without a logical rule set. Language is the medium of information and language has syntax and that's a logical rule set, especially where your language includes the language of logic itself. Those two things are very closely coupled.
You can't separate them dualistically and put one on one side, one on the other, and say we've got a complete dichotomy here. In that sense, he's right about there being a false dichotomy. As far as reducing all of reality to just information and logical rule set, that omits a lot of structure that probably deserves mention, but it could just be that he didn't have the time to write it all down. What would be an example of a structure that's not captured in information or logical rule set?
Well, you've got all kinds of – read the CTNU papers. There are many, many pages of structure that are missing from that characterization. But one thing that can be said for it is that information mappings are also captured in these little quanta, these state transition events of syntactors, of syntactic operators and telecom operators. It can all be captured.
Which of the major philosophers came the closest to discovering and expressing the true nature of reality? Came the closest?
Well, there were a number of very, very good ones. I mean, if you look back, just so many Pythagoras came up with something that looked a little bit like Syndiphanes and Aristotle followed up on that. And Leibniz also had, there was much to be said for what he did. Whitehead with his process philosophy also very good. Bergson had some good ideas.
There are just a number of philosophers out there that, you know, Plotinus had some good things going for him. Plato, of course, just all kinds of, I mean, Heraclitus. Sierran Dudley, same person, number two. As you know, Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that they apply to all sufficiently expressive formal systems. So why should one think Gödel's theorems don't apply to the CTMU?
They do apply to the CTMU. That's why the CTMU is formulated the way it is. To get around, that's why it's generative. You can generate new axioms in the CTMU. You don't need to derive everything in the CTMU from some finite set of axioms. It's exactly what Gödel's theorem says. There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what the CTMU actually says. Can the generative grammar
Introduce an uncountably infinite amount of axioms? Yeah, it can introduce an infinite set of axioms if that's what you're asking. An uncountably infinite is what I'm wondering. Anything in which the elements can be distinguished is countable. You can count them one by one. Count, count, count. Okay? The fact of the matter is real numbers are uncountable because you never have to complete one of them. You never have to write out all the little decimal spaces.
Timothy O'Brien asks,
Please ask him how Leibniz's monadology relates to the CTMU. Monads are an old Greek concept that goes back quite a ways. There's actually some logical complexity to Leibniz's monadology that I could actually write a paper about.
What role do the requirements of the existence of difference relations play in the metaphorical reasoning of the CTMU?
The metaphysical requirements of difference relations, did you say? Yep. He has a bracket, which says... Well, that would be syn-diffionesis, would be the metaphysical requirement of a difference relationship. That would be that the difference relationship be defined within a syn-diffionic relation, which means that you need basically the CTNU to make sense of it. Steven Oles has a great question that's more general.
Chris feels dumb or average? It all depends on it. Sometimes I roll out of bed feeling pretty stupid about nearly everything. My mind is not always functioning in peak efficiency. There are times when I feel pretty much incompetent no matter what I do, but there are times when all the mirrors are cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on. Then I sometimes feel as though I can pretty much handle anything.
So it just varies with the time of day, I guess you'd have to say. Have you done any meditation or taken nootropics, like phenol, paracetam, or paracetam, and seen any improvements? Is there anything that you can reveal? I don't really take nootropics. I drink coffee in the morning, you know, I often switch to tea later on if I need some kind of stimulant.
How about psychedelics? I spent time on an Indian reservation when I was a kid. It was the Wind River Reservation.
When we stayed there, it was usually in proximity to friends of the family, the Big Road family. There was a guy named Mark Big Road. He was a shaman, a Arapaho, I think. But he could have been Seward Shoshone, I don't rightly recall, but he was a shaman. And there would be meetings, prayer meetings on the North American church, Wepe, and one other kind of religion. But anyway, Mark's prayer meetings
were such that the attendees took mescaline at these prayer meetings. I suppose that probably got some of that, although certainly I don't do drugs. Have I ever done drugs? Yeah, I've experimented a little bit with drugs, but I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to mess with drugs too much because
It interferes with what's going on up here and I don't like that. It's generally a feeling that bothers me in some respects. The psychedelics, I think that they have great potential for being beneficial, psychologically beneficial if they're used in the right way under the right circumstances. However, it's easy for them to get out of control. You can have a psychotic break on psychedelics.
This is something that you always have to be careful. All right. There was a lot of this stuff going on that my family was involved in the counterculture, both in the in the beat generation, the beat next, you know, that things when the whole thing started, the whole counterculture movement got started. And then with the hippie generation, we were the ones who actually there was a teepee. It was a big deal. There was an Indian teepee erected in Berkeley by a guy named Charlie Hartman. You're still following the term beat in it, correct?
Jack was running a bar called The Place in North Beach and Boob used to come in there because that's where you can rub elbows with Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy and
and Alan Ginsburg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and all the rest of these beats, these beat figures, and Herb liked to do that. He was a columnist. He was staying au courant. He was actually rubbing elbows with the right people. And Jack told a joke about how in a symphony he said, Russia seems to be sending up satellites. Look, they've got Sputnik. All we seem to be able to produce is beatniks.
Well, Herb heard that. It appeared like the next day in The Chronicle under Herb's byline. And I can remember my stepfather was furious. He was not the kind of guy who wanted to get furious around, but I remember it was a big deal. So that really pissed him off. But, you know, the place was the center of the culture in San Francisco. There was something called Blabbermouth Night that was invented by
Getting back to psychedelics you were mentioning, I was wondering, personally, did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight that you then took to the CTMU? What I can remember from my days on the reservation are a feeling of great affinity for the planet. I thought it was alive.
Do you still carry that with you to this day? Yes. How do you feel about
I feel pretty poorly about it. I think that a lot of it is unnecessary, a lot of it is very poorly done. But on the other hand, people have to live. The earth is overpopulated. We should not have so many people on it. We're encountering all kinds of problems because of it already. We're going to encounter many, many more if it continues. And we've got to start regulating our numbers and living coherently.
living consistently with the environmental limitations of the planet. The planet is finite. The resources are finite, but human population is exponential. It's essentially governed by a logistic equation. But when we get to the peak of that equation, that can be influenced. Now it's being pushed way ahead so that when we have a collapse, it's going to be a doozy. We need to get out of that right away. That being said,
The way the elite, the oligarchs, the people who run the world who have all the money and power, the way they're handling this problem, the way they seem to be handling it sometimes is not the right way. We've got to put this in front of the human race and we've got to appeal to what is best in mankind to make mankind voluntarily and responsibly limit their own reproduction.
That's what we've got to do. We've got to think about future generations. We've got to watch about transmitting genetic diseases or disabilities to them. People say, that's horrible because now you're talking about eugenics. Guess what? It's horrible to be born with a genetic disability. How can you sentence a child to that? We've got to do something about the reproductive situation. It is too easy for us to live too long on this planet at this point to be reproducing indiscriminately.
Okay, this person named Snord Grimstad is a huge fan of yours. It looks like this person has read
Plenty of your work. Do you have any views? I'm going to paraphrase this question. Basically, he or she wants to know if the CTMU can concretely help someone who's going through a psychological disorder like schizophrenia or depersonalization or... He just mentions those two. Yes, it certainly can. As a matter of fact, we're going to be setting up a program
for people that can actually help them do this. The whole idea of the stratified identity and knowing the structure of reality, as we do, we can make inroads in terms of psychological and sociological integration. And that is something that we're going to be concentrating on. I already have plans for it. Does the concept of sinned fianesis necessarily connect to a self-distributing top-down model of reality?
Is there a sense in which one still has to understand reality in an experiential sense, even
Absolutely. Absolutely. You've got to understand reality by actually living in it. That's what's so dangerous about the predicament we're in today. The people who are running the world are filthy rich people that live in bubbles. These people have never worked an honest day in their lives. They don't know what it's like to miss a meal.
You understand we can't have the world run by people who don't understand it and who don't understand what it feels like to actually live in it on the ground floor, absorbing its slings and arrows at all times. The people who are running the world are pampered, coddled elites that live in their own champagne colored, rose colored bubble of privilege.
This has to stop. These people don't know what the world is. Not only don't they know what it is intellectually, they don't know what it's like to live it. And this is creating terrible, terrible problems for us. So what can we do as the general population besides understanding the CTMU? Let's just take that out of the bag as one of the potential solutions. What can we do to ameliorate this problem given to us by or inherited to us from the rich elite, as you put it?
Well, we have to utilize something called we have to engage in the political process to try to stop the elites from basically destroying our freedom, destroying freedom and human dignity and everything else that makes us human. We've got to stop that by engaging in the political process. We have to exercise civil disobedience when necessary. OK, and. Aside from that,
If that fails, we have to go back to the Constitution. The Constitution contains a certain amendment which says that we have to defend, we are entitled and have the duty to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If they're going to take human freedom and human dignity and validate the Constitution, they have no right to be here. If they want to go live someplace else, let them go live there.
Something that strikes me about your theory is it's derived logically. That made me wonder, in keeping with this question where he was asking, is there an experiential element to reality that's not captured in the CMTU? What I'm wondering is, do you consider the CTMU to be or even yourself to be rationalist or do you have problems with the rationalists? I have no problems with rationalists as long as they're competent, which a lot of them are.
A lot of people criticize me because basically you're like those old medieval philosophers who used to pontificate on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. You're trying to derive everything from logic but really the world is experiential. It is the logic of experience. To derive the CTME, you start with experience. You start with Cogito and Essie. You start with Descartes and Berkeley.
I love what you said, the logic of experience
Don't think I've heard that phrase before. Did you just come up with that on the spot or have you heard that before? First time I ever said it. I've never heard it. It's a wonderful phrase. What I'd like to know is how is science as it's currently formulated limited? Well, it's limited by the lack of an understanding of what a meta-language is. Back in the 19th century, for example, they thought there was something, physical theory contained something called the Limit of Receiver. And that was basically
mapped into physical reality as a kind of a space-filling substance, or perhaps as space itself. Then, when Einstein came along with the theory of relativity, he changed physical theory so that luminiferous ether disappeared. It totally disappeared from the scene. So the truth value of luminiferous ether exists had to be changed from true
in the 19th century to false in the 20th century. That involves the use of something called a meta language where you attach truth values to physical attributions. Physicists did not understand and still do not understand the structure of the meta language that they need to do things like that, and it's called metaphysics. In other words,
Businesses actually need metaphysics. They need a metaphysical metal language to actually make changes like this, to pass, to affix truth values to physical attributions, to change their theories, to correct their theories and things like that. The amazing thing is they don't realize this. They still don't realize it.
They don't realize that physics has actually absorbed metaphysics of necessity. It needs metaphysical functionality in order to do this. But most physicists think that metaphysics is some kind of woo or some kind of quackery. And it's just what it is, is this logical ignorance. They're not trained properly in what a metal language is or what an object language is, but for that matter, how a universe relates to it. They don't know anything about model theory
Some of them may have taken a course in model theory, but they don't really know anything about it. Because of that, the CTMU is an advanced meta-language for science. It's a metaphysical meta-language, and it's absolutely logically necessary. You can't get by without it. So this is what's the matter with science. It doesn't understand the language in terms of which its theories are formulated or how they relate to the physical universe. It's kind of a hit and miss thing where
We're following the scientific method, we're empirically inducing theories, and we're sort of affixing them or gluing them onto observations in physical reality, but we don't know how or why that is happening. It's some kind of lucky break that we're getting, right? It's the unexpected efficiency of mathematics, of being able to actually use mathematical models on reality, right? They don't have a metal language whose structure actually tells them why that's occurring. So this is
This is bad news for science. It remains bad news. I'm trying to help them fix it. Some other ways people would say that are on the more eastern end, they may say that it doesn't incorporate enough experiential elements or that it's too mathematically defined. That's part of the problem, yes. They don't understand that there is actually a subjective as well as an objective aspect to reality.
They need a metal language to actually put those two things together. That's the coupling. Metal language provides the coupling for a subject of an object of reality. And the lack of such a metal language means that they can't actually put those two things together. That's what we're trying to help fix with the CTMU. And we're getting a lot of bonuses. There are a lot of things that you can do with the CTMU. For example, businesses are trying to explain dark energy. They're never going to do it.
until they have the CTMU. The CTMU offers the only viable explanation for dark energy. And there are other things, consciousness, there are all kinds of things that cannot be explained without this metal language, this metaphysical metal language, and the admission on the parts of scientists and physicists in particular, that metaphysics is already built into their discipline. How they could still be ignorant of it, I'm not quite sure.
I recall you saying that the universe is not simply a sum of its parts. I'd like you to explain why. Well, it's synergistic, basically. If you put things together and you're basically doing so, it's like bolting a machine together. You're putting the parts together, you're putting in the little screws and they're all in the right place and then you turn the crank and the machine works. But if you take one of those little pieces out, well, the machine doesn't work anymore. It just sort of falls apart and there is no coherence to it.
When you think, you know, the things that are going on in your mind, they're all connected to each other. You notice there's no division. There's no, there's no one thing is, you know, missing or anything like that. It's all there. Everything is coherent and machines don't function that way. Machines have a kind of mechanical coherence, but that's not sufficient. So what we need is higher order coherence. That's what the CTMU also brings to bear as it has higher order
quantum coherence, actually meta quantum coherence. And this is something else that we need to make a viable theory of reality. Yeah, you know, this idea that everything is just happening at random and it's just sort of all popping up at random and things sort of emerge at random. This is nonsense. Total nonsense. You can't build a theory of reality that way. You're just you're just trying to glue parts together and you will never get more than their sum. And the sum of parts is just a pile of parts. That's it.
Everything has to work together. As a matter of fact, it has to work synergistically and that is more than the sum of the parts. Why can't it be somewhat simple in Wolfram's theories he has, or in his classical theories, he had those cellular automaton with simple rules, adjacent neighbors signify whether you live or die, and then seemingly complex behaviors emerge from that. Why can't it be like that?
Emerge? Well, let's have a definition. Let's have Stephen's definition of emergence and how it occurs. Stephen doesn't have one, nor does anybody else. You have to have a theory of self-organization. It's one of the reasons I had to come up with it is because there are a lot of deficits and holes. For all of the inroads and advances that science has made, it's still full of holes. We have to try to patch some of
What would you have done differently in the development of your theory? So for example, you would have spent more time writing with a pen and a paper instead of going for walks. I'm speaking practically here. Or you would have taken more time off or taking less time off. Time off? I've never had a vacation in my life. You know, and I don't quite know what time off means. I think about the CTMU every day. You know, I get up, I think about mistakes that I've made in the past. I'm constantly questioning myself.
What would you have done differently if you could advise yourself, let's say, 30 years younger?
I had the CTMU in full form decades ago. Basically, if I had to advise myself of something, it would be how to present it and how to actually get people to pay attention to it. I'd advise myself to have actually tried to go to Princeton and meet with John Wheeler as I was invited to do, for example. That could have changed everything. But when you're raised like I am, like I was,
My family got kicked out of houses when we were kids, you know, we found ourselves in the street. And when I was in New York and I had these jobs and I, you know, I simply was afraid to lose, felt that I was going to be in the street again. So I didn't go and visit John Wheeler. You know, people think, well, you know, that's ridiculous. There's always a job and it's always a source of money. Not for all of us, there isn't. And the way I was raised, there wasn't, there wasn't anything. There was no one who was going to help you.
There are people who are watching this who are developing their own theories and so it's almost like when I ask you what would you have done differently
It's also couched in well, what would you have done differently such that they can apply it? So when you say speak to John Wheeler, that's that's extremely specific. First, they can't apply it. Second of all, not everyone was invited. So given that now, what is your answer? What would you have done differently? What would you advise your 30 year younger self to do or not to do? Basically, I would be you're kind of OK, I've already succeeded in finding what I want to
All right, so basically what I would try to do is make sure that I was not distracted and taken off the track. All right, one thing that you must bear in mind if you are a young person who's trying to figure reality out is that you cannot serve God and men. God is reality and reality is God. You don't like God, you're sunk. You're not going to get a true theory of reality. You can learn a lot of math, you can learn how to kind of put things together and
There are all kinds of people out there, elites, money bags of various kinds, who think, well,
First of all, what I'm going to do is I'm going to get out there and I'm going to make a billion dollars. I'm going to make a lot of money. And then armed with that money, I'm going to save the world. No, you're not because you spent all your capital. It's hard to get money. Okay. It actually you really, it really does kind of knock you out. You've got to have the right connections. You've got to have the lucky breaks. If you immerse yourself in that goose chase,
If that's what you live for, by the time you get your money and you're sitting there and now you're a big billionaire and you're going to do this and you're going to do that, there's nothing left. All you can do is put on a show. This has been proven time and time and time again. You point me out a billionaire who's actually got some kind of big insight or some big idea about the nature of reality and that's nonsense.
Anyway, go ahead, try it. You know of any billionaires that really have any good ideas about reality? Well, anyway, that's what I would remind myself of. Don't chase money. Okay? Don't... There is a cost for that. People sell their soul for it. And that has a very literal interpretation in the CTNU. Okay? You're actually subscribing to a telon that is designed to get you money, and that telon now controls your thoughts. It's not going to let any distractions through,
by way of reality theory. You're not going to be able to keep those things in mind anymore because it's all about getting money, furthering the interests of the corporation, not running afoul of corporate culture. All of these things are going to occupy your attention and you're not going to be the big genius you thought you were going to be. You make up your mind. You're either going to be a genius or you're going to be a money bag.
What if someone says, I want to be a philanthropist like Bill Gates?
Yeah, they think Bill's a philanthropist, do you? I spent a large amount of time. Okay. When I was a kid, you know, one would think, well, you know, why wasn't Lang, and if he's a big genius, why wasn't he involved in the computer revolution? And why didn't, why wasn't he Bill Gates? Well, it was very easy. You know, I can explain that. Basically, there was a, there was one, there was a computer at Montana State University.
And I think it was called the Sigma seven. It was, uh, I don't know if it was an IBM 360 or what the hell it was, but, uh, but, uh, anyway, it was, you know, a marvel of the time, you know, in the sixties here in the, in the, in the mid sixties, they've actually got a computer up there that people can program. So they offered to have a cooperative, you know, class, uh, you know, in high school, you know, where they could let high school kids program this computer.
I believe I mentioned that my family wasn't very popular in town. Well, as it happened, when I went to this computer class to actually sign up and learn how to program using Fortran, to program this university computer, I was recognized by Mr. Chandler, who taught the course, as someone that he didn't particularly like. He said, well, I count 31 students. I only have 30 textbooks.
I'll just hand them out. And then when I run out, well, then that person will have to double up with somebody else. I was the person who didn't get, he walks around the classroom, you know, following this trajectory and I'm the person, the last person. And he looks down at me and says, I'm sorry, you'll have to double up with somebody else. But when you're the least popular kid in class, nobody wants to double up with you. I just got up and walked out of this class. All right. So this is what can happen. You get a couple of bad breaks.
No. All right. Then I eventually bought a computer, an Atari computer, and started programming in basic. But that was a problem because then Atari went out of business and I needed an IBM type Bill Gates computer. They were all $2,000. For me, that was four months rent. I could not afford it. So by the time it got around to where I could afford to get all the equipment that I needed to be a big computer hotshot, it was too late.
I'm not going to waste my time on it now. There are too many kids out there. There are apps, this and apps and programs that I'm going to be in the next big shot. They have connections, their families have money. I'm not Bill Gates, whose father was a millionaire and got his own little computer and was able to do it. He had everything handed to him and most of these people do. Show me the billionaire who's self-made and I'll show you a BS artist. There's simply no doubt about it. Is there such a thing as philanthropy?
Yes, of course there is. Unfortunately, most of these people, to be a philanthropist, you not only got to have a lot of money, you've got to know to whom you should give that money. Who should be the object of your charity? Who would you say is a good philanthropist? I don't know of any. I mean, there are organizations that give grants, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, other people that give grants that someone like me should be eligible for.
Every time I have gone to fill out the application for one of these charitable organizations, the first thing you fill out an application and they want to know what institution you're affiliated with, namely what university you're affiliated with. So if you're not a professional academic, you're just out. That's it. They ignore you. This is not philanthropy. This is a circle journey.
Okay. And it's an unbroken circle. Everybody links their arms and nobody gets in from the side. Okay. So that's what it is. And that is, that is what these philanthropists are all about. You know, the only people they will give to are people that come out of their own indoctrination mills, right? That's, that's it. Nobody else is eligible for their charity. And basically what they're doing is they're just choosing the people, you know, that are going to tell them what they want to hear. And they're doing it in such a way that they get maximum credit for it.
that they look especially good. For example, the American Cancer Society donate to the American Cancer Society and you look good for doing that. Bill Gates has done a lot of that kind of donating, but now we find out that Bill Gates has parlayed that into an amazing amount of control over the world health system. So it's not as though it was just charity, is it? Okay. Bill has now got himself, you know, he has wangled a leading position in the, you know, I mean,
You know what this amounts to. This entire vaccine thing was more or less previewed by Bill Gates. What was that? Event 201? Was that what it was called? I mean, this guy has known what was happening all along. It's as though it was planned, previewed, rehearsed in advance, and Bill Gates is right in the middle of that. Now, I can't point the finger at Bill and say he's definitely guilty. He definitely did this. He definitely did that.
The last question is from me. What advice do you have for me? Basically, I'm on this mission to understand different theories of everything. It's autodidactic for various reasons, so it's similar to yourself in that manner.
I am making sure that I'm not closing my doors. I'm trying to be open to non- I used to be like, as you would understand, the standard academic who was materialistic and despised everything that even resembled mysticism. But now I'm opening myself up to what people would ordinarily call woo, like free will, consciousness, God, even UAPs. So what advice do you have for me as I go on this mission, other than Kurt, just read the CTMU?
You've got to stick with it and you can't become discouraged. Obviously, I'm going to tell you, you have to read the CTMU and you have to try to grok it. You have to try to deeply understand it. Remain open-minded, but don't allow yourself to be unduly influenced by people just because they are persuasive. There are a lot of very persuasive people out there who will try to convince you that they have the correct perspective on reality, but in reality, they do not. But a lot of people say, well,
This person is so intelligent and they seem so confident what they're telling me about reality. There's got to be something to it. It must be true. Meanwhile, they're talking out of the other side of their mouths disparaging. You don't want to let that happen. Maintain a certain amount of skepticism regarding whatever anyone is telling you. I think that what I've succeeded in doing during this interview is actually answering questions and actually making sense of some of this for you. I don't know how successful I've been, but at least I've tried. There is
I don't know of anyone you can actually push to ground, you can actually tree like this and get straight answers about the overall structure of reality from. As far as I know, I'm the only person like that. So just don't listen to anybody who disparages me or my work. That's my main piece of advice and also just stick with it.
You need to know. Remember, when you study reality, when you're looking at the structure of reality, you're looking for the structure of your own ultimate identity. That's what you get at the top. That's what it all boils down to in the end. If you correctly understand that, then you can be salvaged. The universal identity will keep you alive forever. But you need to find it. You need to come to grips with it.
And you need to keep on traveling up that ladder as far as you can get. All right. Most people become discouraged. I'm tired of this. I'm so tired. I can't do this anymore. My mind just won't handle it. This is well, it's death for a person like you, someone who really needs to know, who really wants to look in. It's a lifelong thing. You've got to stick with it no matter what.
Thank you, man. You know, when I ask that question, I'm actually also asking on behalf of the audience because many of them are on a similar journey of explicating tolls. That's the whole point of this channel. So, from what I understand, read the CTMU. Okay, I have and I will continue to do so. Second, don't listen to people who appear to have cogency or persuasive relevance, but
The criteria that you listed was if they disparage you, so I'm going to ask you what is an alternate criteria, not just that, because some people have made no comment about you, and also someone could just be simply mistaken. So for the people who are listening, who are also on a similar journey of self-exploration, trying to understand the universe, which seems to be intimately tied to understanding oneself, they're on this journey. What other advice do you have for them besides reading the CTMU, which I advise everyone who's listening or watching to do,
Sometimes, clues come from the most
remarkable places. I find that when I'm trying to understand the structure of reality, things are given to me, are put in my proximity that would be very easy to ignore or to miss. You must be attuned to them. You must be aware at all times of how reality may give you clues about what you're looking for. That is a piece of advice that I think is very important.
for everybody to understand. Remain in a state of awareness. Guard your awareness. Life is very distracting. It's easy to get distracted and to just bumble from one mental state to another. Don't do that. Maintain, persevere, maintain focus, maintain awareness. Remember, reality is always trying to show you things. Let it show you things. Pay attention
In the morning when I wake up, I'm thinking about something. I might reach over and I might grab my
My iPad or whatever kind of pad it is, I'm going to take it and look at it. There might be a page there and I might go to my email and without even pressing the email thing, under the page I'll see a bunch of stories that are listed there by some mainstream outlet like Google or something and then I'll look down the list of stories and there's something that catches my eye and I know there's something in there that I should pay attention to.
So I click and invariably I find that it's there. It's a gut instinct I have. I can tell when there's something there that I can use. I know when reality wants to show me something and I can follow those little bread trails, those little trails of crumbs that leads for me with great accuracy. This is a special, this is a skill you need to develop.
It's not something that everybody knows how to do right away, but it's definitely there. If you're looking for understanding, this is what you've got to do. This is your state of mind. You're like an antenna and you are attuned to what reality is trying to show you. It's a whole new way of life. That being said, we're entering very troubling times and you've got to be willing to get in there
Roll up your sleeves and develop some mental and physical muscle and deal with the problems we have. We've got some terrible problems and they're very distracting too. It's going to be tearing our minds away from what reality is but there's one thing you have to know about reality and that is that existing in reality means that you're free. You're an individual. You cannot allow yourself to be enslaved. You can't allow yourself to be mechanized and programmed.
Chris, man, thank you so much. You're very welcome, Kurt.
It's been a pleasure. I think that there should be enough there that you can get a good, I don't know how long are most of your interviews when you get done? This one's going to be four hours. How long have we been sitting here? Four hours. Four and a half. It doesn't seem like that long. Actually, you've made it very pleasurable, so I thank you for that.
Man, Chris, honestly, I was nervous going into this, like I mentioned, because firstly, I've been looking you up for a little while, for at least a few weeks, and I've known about you for years, though I haven't researched you for years. And I heard that you were a pussycat, but at the same time, from my, from hearing, that's from your wife. And then I thought that you may be combative, irritable, choleric. But from my experience with you, you've been such a pleasure, man.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer these questions and I hope you understand that there is a difference
Chris, have a great night, eat some food, get some rest, drink some beer, whatever you got to do man.
▶ View Full JSON Data (Word-Level Timestamps)
{
"source": "transcribe.metaboat.io",
"workspace_id": "AXs1igz",
"job_seq": 11474,
"audio_duration_seconds": 15759.4,
"completed_at": "2025-12-01T02:22:42Z",
"segments": [
{
"end_time": 20.896,
"index": 0,
"start_time": 0.009,
"text": " The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze."
},
{
"end_time": 36.067,
"index": 1,
"start_time": 20.896,
"text": " Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates."
},
{
"end_time": 64.514,
"index": 2,
"start_time": 36.34,
"text": " Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toe listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount."
},
{
"end_time": 94.718,
"index": 3,
"start_time": 66.152,
"text": " This is Martian Beast Mode Lynch. Prize pick is making sports season even more fun. On prize picks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, you'll always feel good to be ranked. Right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use. Pick two or more players. Pick more or less on their stat projections. Anything from touchdown to threes. And if you're right, you can win big. Mix and match players from"
},
{
"end_time": 104.599,
"index": 4,
"start_time": 94.718,
"text": " any sport on PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app. PrizePix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas,"
},
{
"end_time": 129.206,
"index": 5,
"start_time": 104.821,
"text": " All right. Hello, Toll listeners. Kurt here."
},
{
"end_time": 136.681,
"index": 6,
"start_time": 130.52,
"text": " That silence is missed sales. Now, why? It's because you haven't met Shopify, at least until now."
},
{
"end_time": 163.439,
"index": 7,
"start_time": 137.398,
"text": " Now that's success. As sweet as a solved equation. Join me in trading that silence for success with Shopify. It's like some unify field theory of business. Whether you're a bedroom inventor or a global game changer, Shopify smooths your path. From a garage-based hobby to a bustling e-store, Shopify navigates all sales channels for you. With Shopify powering 10% of all US e-commerce and fueling your ventures in over"
},
{
"end_time": 187.705,
"index": 8,
"start_time": 163.439,
"text": " One hundred and seventy countries. Your business has global potential and their stellar support is as dependable as a law of physics. So don't wait. Launch your business with Shopify. Shopify has award winning service and has the Internet's best converting checkout. Sign up for a one dollar per month trial period at Shopify dot com slash theories. All lowercase that's Shopify dot com slash theories."
},
{
"end_time": 213.234,
"index": 9,
"start_time": 189.804,
"text": " Chris Langan is an autodidact who's known for having the highest recorded IQ in America and he's conceived of an extremely inventive theory of everything called the cognitive theoretic model of the universe or the CTMU for short. This introduction will be fairly lengthy so feel free to skip to the timestamp here if you're uninterested and want to get straight to the podcast. My name is Kurt Jaimungal and I'm a filmmaker with a background in math and physics"
},
{
"end_time": 234.65,
"index": 10,
"start_time": 213.234,
"text": " As usual, this isn't meant as an introduction to the guest, but rather where one goes after they've done some research. In fact, the first hour can be rather technical. Most interviews with Chris are somewhat superficial and talk about his days as a bouncer, his experiences, what it's like to have a high IQ,"
},
{
"end_time": 247.176,
"index": 11,
"start_time": 235.009,
"text": " but we're interested in the topic of theories of everything and you're not afraid to get your hands dirty. I don't often like to give my opinion on the variegated theories that exist, but in Chris's case I have to say that"
},
{
"end_time": 275.23,
"index": 12,
"start_time": 247.773,
"text": " If I was to say that I'm impressed, that would be an extreme understatement. His theory is unfairly criticized by critics who have read his theory for approximately a day at most and who point to its supposed incoherence, but I found that critics tend to do this with virtually every theory that's self-proposed, like Eric Weinstein's or Stephen Wolfram's, though from my investigation of these, these theories are far from erroneous casuistry. It just takes plenty of difficult work to understand"
},
{
"end_time": 293.985,
"index": 13,
"start_time": 275.23,
"text": " It's far from nonsense, and the easiest way to tell is to ask the critic, can you explain their theory back to them in a manner that they would agree? Another way to think of this is that one field's technical achievement is word salad to someone who's outside that field. What we have in the case of Weinstein, Wolfram, and Chris Langan is that in"
},
{
"end_time": 313.029,
"index": 14,
"start_time": 293.985,
"text": " I highly recommend you check out CTMURadio.com and CTMU.org"
},
{
"end_time": 338.916,
"index": 15,
"start_time": 313.029,
"text": " to gain an overview of Chris's theories, as there are several in-depth PDFs containing some of the technical details and derivations. Another word on style. I may ask the same question to Chris in different ways multiple times because, like I said, his theory isn't exactly trivial, and so hearing the same phenomenon from different orientations often illuminate what was previously obscured. Now, a word on myself."
},
{
"end_time": 363.473,
"index": 16,
"start_time": 339.275,
"text": " Preparing for this particular podcast took weeks and weeks. Usually I'm able to prep for multiple guests simultaneously, but this one was so involved that it consumed me and took a physical toll. I went through virtually each one of Chris's papers and even spoke to someone who is conversant in the CTMU, just so that I can make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly. That person's name is Sam Thompson, and he's a brilliant"
},
{
"end_time": 385.828,
"index": 17,
"start_time": 363.473,
"text": " Mathematically gifted humble soul who I dedicate this entire episode to since he put up with my naive pestering questions on a daily basis in fact it got to the point where I had to ask him if I could add him on whatsapp because texting takes far too long and it's much easier for me to send voice notes so almost every hour I would send him a voice note and then he would send me back and then I would"
},
{
"end_time": 406.34,
"index": 18,
"start_time": 386.203,
"text": " Ask him follow-up questions. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Because of this physical toll, like I mentioned, the pressure of releasing another podcast soon with the same quality as this one and the same quality as the others is a bit too much for me and I'm going to have to take a couple weeks off. Soon I'll be interviewed by ZDogg, the simulation podcast."
},
{
"end_time": 419.667,
"index": 19,
"start_time": 406.34,
"text": " Coast to Coast AM and I'll be on someone else's podcast whose name is a fairly large name but I can't announce right now. Like I mentioned those aren't my podcast I'll be interviewed instead so I'll post the links to those on Twitter as they occur as well as"
},
{
"end_time": 448.933,
"index": 20,
"start_time": 420.299,
"text": " Perhaps put them on the iTunes Spotify audio version if you're interested. If you'd like to hear more conversations like these, then please do consider going to Patreon.com slash KurtGymungle. It may sound silly, but literally every dollar helps. And this is now thankfully what I get to do full time. It's absolutely encouraging to see that people care. And often the notes that I get when people donate are of the form. This is so that you don't have to worry so much about finances and you could spend time with your wife."
},
{
"end_time": 479.411,
"index": 21,
"start_time": 449.77,
"text": " Thank you so much. I've recently opened up a crypto address, and PayPal is also an option. The plan is to have more conversations like this of the same quality approximately once per week, at least. At some point toward the end of the year, I also plan on interviewing some of the audience members who have sent me their well-articulated PDFs. People such as Steve Agnew, Tyler Goldstein, Steve Scully, and Jennifer Scharf. Links to their remarkable work are in the description. Again, I feel a bit icky saying this as I'm not a self-promoter."
},
{
"end_time": 509.206,
"index": 22,
"start_time": 480.794,
"text": " But I've been told by some people who have donated that I need to be saying this a bit more as they wouldn't have donated if they didn't hear it to begin with. Please do consider donating or supporting it in any way that you can at patreon.com slash Kurt Deymungel. There are a couple sponsors of today's podcast. Algo is an end to end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps business users optimize sales and operations, planning to avoid stock outs, reduce returns and inventory write downs,"
},
{
"end_time": 539.258,
"index": 23,
"start_time": 509.445,
"text": " while reducing inventory investment. It's a supply chain AI that drives smart ROI headed by a bright individual by the name of Amjad Hussein, who's been a huge supporter of the podcast from its early days. The second sponsor is Brilliant. Brilliant illuminates the soul of math, science and engineering through bite sized interactive learning experiences. Brilliant's courses explore the laws that shape our world, elevating math and science from something to be feared to a delightful experience of guided discovery"
},
{
"end_time": 568.114,
"index": 24,
"start_time": 539.633,
"text": " more on them later. Thank you and enjoy one of the longest, most in-depth interviews with one of the brightest people on the planet, Chris Langan. If I look down or look angry, that's my thinking face. You're familiar with that. But if I look down, I'm making notes, so please don't think I'm not paying attention. You have my full attention. Bitchy resting face, right? Apparently I do. People tell me that I just look angry all the time."
},
{
"end_time": 596.613,
"index": 25,
"start_time": 568.473,
"text": " How long does it take the average person to get through your theory such that they can grok it that's intuitive to them?"
},
{
"end_time": 625.981,
"index": 26,
"start_time": 597.142,
"text": " If it were me, I think I would catch on fairly quickly. But some people, I have a couple of groups and we occasionally hold conferences and they get to ask questions and I think that I bring a lot of them up to speed on the theory fairly quickly. The ones who have read the theory, there are people that read the 2002 paper for example, many of them and they're quite expert on it and they've done a lot of thinking about it and they know what it's about."
},
{
"end_time": 651.817,
"index": 27,
"start_time": 626.51,
"text": " Why don't you give an overview of your theory for those who are uninitiated, a broad strokes view? Well, the CTMU is a theory of everything. There are two kinds of theory of everything. One of them is a physical theory."
},
{
"end_time": 680.981,
"index": 28,
"start_time": 651.971,
"text": " Usually it's related to a unified field theory in some way, which means the forces of nature are supposed to be unified into one general force. But of course that's only part of reality and my theory is a theory of everything in the metaphysical sense. It actually has to conform to certain logical criteria which in philosophy and metaphysics govern what a theory of everything has to be. So I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself about itself."
},
{
"end_time": 706.613,
"index": 29,
"start_time": 681.186,
"text": " It is a language. A language is an algebraic structure. This is a particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself and to make decisions regarding how it models itself, which is another way to say how it evolves. It can be modeled in many ways. You can actually look at it as an operator algebra or say quantization, a new kind of quantization of reality."
},
{
"end_time": 735.316,
"index": 30,
"start_time": 707.773,
"text": " or reality self-simulation. You can look at it from the perspective of quantum mechanics as quantum metamechanics. I believe you must have read that paper or you mentioned having a matter thing, right? Once again, as a metaformal system, which is like a formal system, but it's a generalization of the formal system that goes deeply into the nature of language. Here's another way to describe CTW."
},
{
"end_time": 752.5,
"index": 31,
"start_time": 735.964,
"text": " Basically, you've got a system, you've got this metaphorical system and it relates intelligence and intelligibility. Ontology and epistemology are coupled in this thing. Reality actually has to recognize itself and process itself."
},
{
"end_time": 778.968,
"index": 32,
"start_time": 753.609,
"text": " It has to do both, so that's what it does. It relates intelligibility and intelligence, which are dual quantities in CTME, thusly defining both of them in the recursive sense. It's a mutual recursive definition of those two terms within this CTME structure. It can even be regarded as a theory of consciousness, for example. It says what consciousness is because the way it quantizes."
},
{
"end_time": 808.575,
"index": 33,
"start_time": 780.179,
"text": " Let's start from what's most fundamental and then how you work your way up from there to derive your theory."
},
{
"end_time": 837.637,
"index": 34,
"start_time": 809.258,
"text": " which is basically to be is to be perceived or to perceive. You start with perception and cognition. Then you develop the minimal model of how cognition and perception work. Then you induce an overall system that works by those processes. That's the way you get to the CTMU. It's called logical induction. I've been using that terminology for years. It's superior to empirical induction, by the way."
},
{
"end_time": 860.333,
"index": 35,
"start_time": 838.114,
"text": " Let's get into some of the more technical questions"
},
{
"end_time": 886.749,
"index": 36,
"start_time": 861.271,
"text": " And for those who are listening, as a first pass, you don't have to understand all of the terminology. It's much better. I think Wheeler said this or Wigner, I'm not sure which one. He said that people are trying to drink from the firehose, but the point is to just get wet. And then another quote that I like is from Von Neumann who said, you're not supposed to understand math, you get used to it. So that's in a similar vein."
},
{
"end_time": 914.104,
"index": 37,
"start_time": 887.295,
"text": " Don't worry if you don't understand all the terms or follow the logical steps in the first pass of this podcast. It's more about rewatching and then recontextualizing. For me, one of the greatest pleasures in life is that feeling after you're so confused and then all of a sudden you start to glean what you're supposed to and different connections are made and you comprehend and you push through that confusion. Okay, so push through the confusion, eventually some parts of it at least will make sense."
},
{
"end_time": 943.507,
"index": 38,
"start_time": 915.503,
"text": " Is there a duality between syntax and semantics? Yes. Sorry, is the duality between syntax and semantics a generalization of stone duality? Yes. Well, all these dualities are related. There are all kinds of dualities out there. You know where the idea of duality originally comes from, right? Two points determine a line. Two lines determine a point. Where the lines intersect, you've got a point."
},
{
"end_time": 971.084,
"index": 39,
"start_time": 943.865,
"text": " If you draw two points, put two points on a piece of paper, you can draw a line between them. That's a duality, basically. You permute your terms and you still have an invariant truth. The original form of the relation remains true. That's what a duality is. Anytime you can do that, anytime there is an invariant and you can switch things around within that invariant and the invariant stays true, that's a duality. There are many kinds of duality at the CTE."
},
{
"end_time": 1001.664,
"index": 40,
"start_time": 972.432,
"text": " So how are syntax and semantics related? Well, the syntax is intrinsic. If you take a look at the language, those are the absolute invariants that every intelligible statement is made from. You know, that grammar and non-terminals and how non-terminals are substituted cumulatively until they result in terminal expressions, right? That's basically what it is. If human cognitive syntax is syntactically covered by"
},
{
"end_time": 1029.548,
"index": 41,
"start_time": 1001.852,
"text": " Reality syntax, how can one meaningfully describe reality as humans? Well, as a language, when you talk about syntax and semantics, you are talking about a language. And as I say, syntax is the intrinsic structure of the language, whereas semantics is that involves things like definitions and interpretations. You have to define terms. All the terms, syntactic terms are supposed to be primitive, the non-terminals."
},
{
"end_time": 1055.742,
"index": 42,
"start_time": 1030.043,
"text": " are cognitively primitive whereas when you get into semantics now you're combining those primitives to get defined terms to get definitions then you're combining those in certain ways and then once you form your expression now you have to interpret it or form a model of it in some other structure that you've got, right? And so it's a big process. Language is as I say the most general algebraic structure there is."
},
{
"end_time": 1083.729,
"index": 43,
"start_time": 1056.391,
"text": " To see that, any other algebraic structure you can name is a language. When you write it down, you are writing it down in the form of language. So automatically you know language is the most general algebraic structure. Right, I heard you say that many people think that mathematics is extremely precise, has high fidelity, it's unequivocal, whereas language, natural language, is considered to be indistinct, opaque, dubious,"
},
{
"end_time": 1113.217,
"index": 44,
"start_time": 1085.026,
"text": " Is there a relationship between the inter-expansive"
},
{
"end_time": 1141.118,
"index": 45,
"start_time": 1113.575,
"text": " where syntactic operators are entangled and mutually absorbing. And so this inner expansion and love, is there a relationship between those two? Yes, there is. There's at least an analogy between the two. Because when things combine in the non-terminal domain via inner expansion, when they overlay each other, that they are more or less merging their identities. And that's what love is. Love is also a combination, a merger of identities."
},
{
"end_time": 1167.483,
"index": 46,
"start_time": 1141.647,
"text": " that enhances the self-actualization or self-expression of the combined entity. In other words, it's synergistic. It's more than the sum of its parts. Now, of course, the syntactic merging that occurs due to inner expansion, that has to be actualized, and that actualization is semantically"
},
{
"end_time": 1198.217,
"index": 47,
"start_time": 1168.49,
"text": " The first is a syntactic process, the second is a semantic process and that's what causes what you as a physicist would call quantum wave function collapse or measurement events. Why is there no such thing as a literal interpretation? Is it because you mentioned before we move between models and to look at the symbols one must apply an interpretation on it and so to say literal interpretation is like saying uninterpreted interpretation and so it's oxymoronic"
},
{
"end_time": 1213.609,
"index": 48,
"start_time": 1198.968,
"text": " The meaning is very simple and that is that if I hand you a book written in Sanskrit, unless you understand Sanskrit, all you're going to see is little geometric shapes on the page and it is going to have no meaning whatsoever."
},
{
"end_time": 1243.251,
"index": 49,
"start_time": 1214.241,
"text": " to extract any meaning whatsoever from those symbols. You first have to know the alphabet, the signature of the language. Then you've got to know the grammar and the syntax of the language. Then you've got to actually put things together, put all the terms and the expressions together. Then you've got to interpret those or model those in some framework that allows you to actually make sense of them. All of those steps are necessary. These are absolutely necessary steps of language. As a matter of fact,"
},
{
"end_time": 1268.183,
"index": 50,
"start_time": 1243.558,
"text": " As a preface to this, I thought it would be instructive to go through some of the sentences that are seemingly inscrutable to someone at first glance."
},
{
"end_time": 1290.384,
"index": 51,
"start_time": 1268.575,
"text": " Standard physics is largely confined to the linear ectomorphic semi-model, which is retroscopic. That means looking backward, that means you're seeing the past, you're looking at it in the past."
},
{
"end_time": 1318.234,
"index": 52,
"start_time": 1290.606,
"text": " What's a semi-model? The CTME consists of two semi-models."
},
{
"end_time": 1340.555,
"index": 53,
"start_time": 1318.541,
"text": " Okay, and linear, why do you say that?"
},
{
"end_time": 1362.108,
"index": 54,
"start_time": 1340.964,
"text": " Standard physics is linear with respect to being a semi-model? Because particles and objects follow linear trajectories. And of course there are a number of other reasons that they're linear as well. Those are algebraic reasons. I'm sure you're familiar with most of those. But basically when I use that terminology, I'm referring to the fact that things follow lines through space. And what does ectomorphic mean?"
},
{
"end_time": 1391.271,
"index": 55,
"start_time": 1363.183,
"text": " Ectomorphic means basically when something is moving, it is projected to a point outside of itself. That's the ecto, that's the outside. So in other words, when a particle is moving, it's moving from here to there and the there is outside of the here. Whereas if the there was inside the here, then it would be endomorphic, special kind of endomorphism called a distributed endomorphism in the CTU."
},
{
"end_time": 1418.131,
"index": 56,
"start_time": 1391.63,
"text": " Okay, now how does this ectomorphism relate to your issues with the Zeno's paradox or with its motion as standardly defined? Well, it relates to the fact that the real manifold, as we understand, is really kind of a paradoxical construct. Okay, you can't really, where is, if you take two adjacent points, obviously something has to move. You realize that a manifold consists of limit points or zero points or cuts, dedicant cuts."
},
{
"end_time": 1446.766,
"index": 57,
"start_time": 1419.002,
"text": " And they have zero extent. Now, no matter how many times you add zero, what are you going to get as a sum? Zero. So how does a manifold have any extent? If it consists of zero dimensional points, when you add all those points up, it's nothing but zero itself. So you start with nothing and you get nothing. Okay, so it's a paradoxical constant, right? You've actually got to construct a manifold in a different way so that things actually so that no point leaves its predecessor."
},
{
"end_time": 1476.92,
"index": 58,
"start_time": 1447.398,
"text": " So there's no jump that it has to make through some kind of hyperspace to get from one point to another. That's basically what I mean. Okay. Telek recursion, I imagine is the process by which a point makes some evolution. Yes. Yes. But it's a feedback between past and future. You've heard all about, you've heard all about, you know, retro causation is a very big term in physics today. You've already mentioned it, right? But this idea of"
},
{
"end_time": 1505.316,
"index": 59,
"start_time": 1477.346,
"text": " There was somebody named Costa de Beauregard who came up with these zigzags, you know, which are basically, you know, let's just try to simplify here. If you have a trajectory through space-time, it's going from the past to the future, right? But it's a correspondence and correspondence is symmetric. So there's got to be some kind of a symmetry thing going on between the cause and the effect. Where a certain particle is at one minute and where it is at a later time, there's got to be some kind of"
},
{
"end_time": 1528.558,
"index": 60,
"start_time": 1505.794,
"text": " Conspansive manifold is self-dual in the sense that it has both distributed endomorphic and linear ectomorphic"
},
{
"end_time": 1556.852,
"index": 61,
"start_time": 1529.923,
"text": " Simple as that. And those two things are absolutely dual, totally equivalent. If you can explain something adequately in the linear world, in the ectomorphic world of physics, for example, automatically it is guaranteed to have a dual in the distributed endomorphic semimodal. I'm going to call it a semimodal here. That's a bit of a liberty because I'm using the term now in a different sense than I used it before."
},
{
"end_time": 1586.988,
"index": 62,
"start_time": 1557.398,
"text": " I have only so much terminology to go around, so I'm going to reuse it. Okay, we have this tele-recursive process which is associated with meta-time. And meta-time, as far as I understand from your theory, has a preferred arrow, whereas our time doesn't. But our experience is of unidirectionality. So what I'm wondering is, is there a way to take the preferred arrow from this meta-space and pull it back or push forward to our experience?"
},
{
"end_time": 1618.609,
"index": 63,
"start_time": 1588.78,
"text": " Yes. Basically, metatime and time are orthogonal. The reason they have to be orthogonal is because metatime distributes programming over time. You could think of it as being like programming. It's actually grammar. I call it SCSPL, grammar. But it's actually like distributing programmer over an entire timeline. So they have to be orthogonal for that reason. But you can actually restrict metatime so that it lies along the timeline."
},
{
"end_time": 1644.923,
"index": 64,
"start_time": 1619.411,
"text": " In other words, people tend to talk about time as a before and after thing. It involves prepositions. Meta-time always terminates at an origin and that origin is not temporal in nature. It has to contain both past and future meta-simultaneously."
},
{
"end_time": 1674.667,
"index": 65,
"start_time": 1645.538,
"text": " It's just, you know, simultaneity with a meta in front of it. But basically, things are simultaneous when you look at them and they're both in space and you're looking at them at the same time. Meta-simultaneity means that they're not only, you can not only see them at the same time in space, you can also see them at the same time in time. In other words, you can consider a past event and a future event to be simultaneous even though they're separated by a timeline. This is something that you have to do to use the concept of meta-time."
},
{
"end_time": 1704.206,
"index": 66,
"start_time": 1675.333,
"text": " because if you write a computer program, you schedule events in the program. You see, you schedule one event has to happen here, then there's a sequence of other events, and then finally there's going to be event B is going to happen, right? But when you've got that program in front of you, both of those events are present, programmed at the same, in the same time, and you're looking at it simultaneous. Okay, that's meta-simultaneous. You see, they're separated in time when the program is run,"
},
{
"end_time": 1729.974,
"index": 67,
"start_time": 1704.582,
"text": " Okay, those two events are at different times. But when you're looking at the program itself, they're virtually simultaneous or meta-simultaneous. What's the assertion that what generates our experience or generates our world, this terminal world, is this meta-time world, this non-terminal world? Right. Where there's meta-simultaneousness. Right. Yeah. That's basically it, yes. The universe is closed."
},
{
"end_time": 1759.77,
"index": 68,
"start_time": 1730.52,
"text": " There's nothing outside of reality that is real enough to affect it. If it's real enough to affect reality, it's got to be real and it's got to be inside reality. So that's closure. So everything has to be closed. Everything has to be formulated in a reflexive way. In CTMU set theory, there's descriptive inclusion and I'm wondering if there's an analog of the axiom of foundation which states that elements of a non-empty set must be subsets thereof."
},
{
"end_time": 1783.814,
"index": 69,
"start_time": 1760.384,
"text": " So is there an analog of the axiom of foundation in the set theory that CTMU has? Sure. Well, actually, when you're dealing with set theory, you're dealing with something called topological inclusion. Topological space is a point set. It's a set of points that relate to each other in certain areas. Whereas when you're looking at it, there is a dual to that. And it's because sets have intentions."
},
{
"end_time": 1811.852,
"index": 70,
"start_time": 1783.985,
"text": " Consider the set of all red apples. Red apples is your intention. It's actually a property and you just choose elements which instantiate that property. The intention requires that you can't talk about topological inclusion with respect to the intention. You've instead got to talk about descriptive inclusion. In other words, you've got to talk about more specific properties that are included in the main overall intention of the set."
},
{
"end_time": 1837.619,
"index": 71,
"start_time": 1812.619,
"text": " So you've got two kinds of inclusion, topological inclusion, which applies to sets, and you've got descriptive inclusion, which applies to properties. In set theory, the way that we understand it as mathematicians would be axiomatic. And yours, how would you describe it if not axiomatic? It's not based in a first order language. Well, first of all, it's not just a set theory, right? It's not even just category theory."
},
{
"end_time": 1863.507,
"index": 72,
"start_time": 1838.046,
"text": " It's both. The metaphorical system is a foundational language. It's presented as a foundational language for mathematics, physics, the sciences, pretty much everything. Set theory can't pull that off and neither can category theory. But on the other hand, once you've defined the metaphorical system, you get to make use of both of those other languages as you see fit. You can pull anything out of them you want."
},
{
"end_time": 1890.896,
"index": 73,
"start_time": 1864.036,
"text": " The important thing is that you have the Metaformal System, which is the very outside, idempotent meta-language that spans between these two so-called fundamental languages, Set Theory and Category Theory. Of course, they say there's already a blend between Set Theory and Category Theory called Topos Theory, but that too leaves something to be desired. There's a lot of missing structure there. It doesn't qualify as foundation language. How does your Metaformal System differ?"
},
{
"end_time": 1918.541,
"index": 74,
"start_time": 1891.51,
"text": " What is it? Describe it simply for people who are unacquainted. Sure, the Metaformal System is simply a language that is quantized not in terms of signs, but in terms of syntactors and identification events. Syntactor is an active sign. It's something that actually has two data types, a syntactic data type and an input data type. It can accept things from the external world, process them internally, which gives it an internal statement."
},
{
"end_time": 1948.592,
"index": 75,
"start_time": 1918.882,
"text": " If you're a mathematician, you kind of forget about yourself and you look at things as though they're totally"
},
{
"end_time": 1978.285,
"index": 76,
"start_time": 1949.241,
"text": " That is not how reality is quantized in the CTMU. It has both a subjective and objective aspect. That's what syntactors and tellers or syntactic identification operators and telek identification operators are in the CTMU. And we would be an example of a teller. Yes. And what are some other examples? I heard God or God is the ultimate teller, then we're almost like a subset. Global operator description. And then fundamental fermions, let's say, are"
},
{
"end_time": 2008.029,
"index": 77,
"start_time": 1978.643,
"text": " So explain that, that there are three levels of syntactic operators or tellers. Okay. So why, first of all, why do you split them up into three and then explain what it means again, once more to be a syntactic operator? You know, they're just scales. There's scales of coherence in causation, in structure and causation. Just basically you've got to, you have the universe, the universe is closed. It is one unary entity. That's your primary quantum."
},
{
"end_time": 2037.773,
"index": 78,
"start_time": 2009.053,
"text": " Okay? But now everything, it's got to be self-composed because there's nothing external of which it can be composed. It has to use itself as its primary, as its secondary and tertiary components. So it has to map itself internally by descriptive endomorphism or deendomorphism to tertiary syntactors and then those tertiary syntactors can agglomerate, can come together in organisms which then nucleate secondary quanta or telons."
},
{
"end_time": 2067.193,
"index": 79,
"start_time": 2038.012,
"text": " which are necessary to complete causation. Because ordinary quantum particles don't have what it takes to actually decide on events and emerge in events. That takes telesis. You've got to have this other kind of quantum of causation, this secondary quantum of causation called telesis and that means that telesis is bound, that's the monic substrate of the universe. It must be bound by these things called telors. We are telors. We actually bind telesis"
},
{
"end_time": 2096.118,
"index": 80,
"start_time": 2067.568,
"text": " in this way so that causation can be completed, so that events can actually occur. All of this nonsense about well, quantum randomness and quantum indeterminacy. If something is totally random and indeterministic, there is no reason for it to occur and it won't occur. It's not just the principle of insufficient reason that I'm talking about here. I'm talking about something has to be distinguished from its logical complement. Basically, that act of distinction"
},
{
"end_time": 2125.418,
"index": 81,
"start_time": 2096.766,
"text": " It takes a certain amount of information to complete that. So we are the ones who provide that information, either directly or indirectly. What is meant when you say that TELUS is bound, that we bind it? Well, basically, we're quantifying it. We're logically binding it using something analogous to quantifiers and predicate logic, so that events occur. In other words, we're binding it into events. We're taking something that is basically conspensive"
},
{
"end_time": 2154.07,
"index": 82,
"start_time": 2125.708,
"text": " Intellic recursion, one of the ways I've heard it explained is that"
},
{
"end_time": 2179.787,
"index": 83,
"start_time": 2156.049,
"text": " It exists."
},
{
"end_time": 2210.589,
"index": 84,
"start_time": 2180.913,
"text": " How, when we're operating with our free will, how are we looking back at all the decisions? So for example, right now, if I make a decision, I don't have perfect memory. But at the same time, in tele-recursion, it seems like all of the states are being considered. So am I only conscious of a few, but unconscious? You're locked into terminal consciousness. You have a form of consciousness that is appropriate to life in the terminal domain. Okay, what I'm talking about, tele-recursion occurs in the non-terminal domain. It involves a different form of consciousness."
},
{
"end_time": 2239.872,
"index": 85,
"start_time": 2210.896,
"text": " In the Conspansive Manifold, it's own memory. It consists of layer upon layer upon layer of events that never disappear and never go away. They're right there. You don't even have to reach into storage and pull this information out. It's right there. That's one of the advantages of having a manifold structured in the way that CTME is structured. Everything is right there as it is needed. Of course, telons are adaptive. Telequikursion is adaptive."
},
{
"end_time": 2266.442,
"index": 86,
"start_time": 2240.435,
"text": " When things happen that are not necessarily in accord with a certain telon, the telon adapts to the new set of resources at its disposal and comes together again approaching the same final outcome. Does one have to be adaptive if one is, let's say, incoherent, which I heard you equate evil to? Is that a possibility? I didn't equate evil to incoherence. I said evil is incoherent."
},
{
"end_time": 2296.783,
"index": 87,
"start_time": 2267.517,
"text": " Basically, it's incoherent because evil is anti-existence. Basically, it hates existence and it wants to go out of existence. But when you take a bunch of evil and it won't recognize its own existence and it won't recognize the existence of anything else, it's very hard to coordinate. It can't be coordinated so it becomes incoherent. The only way that evil actually achieves any sort of reality"
},
{
"end_time": 2326.749,
"index": 88,
"start_time": 2297.227,
"text": " is it uses physical systems to do it. It nucleates physical systems and uses their structure, their power structures, their hierarchies, in order to be realized. But it has no coherence of its own. It's anti-coherent. In the CTMU there's this hierarchy of meta-languages and what I'm wondering is, is it possible for two sub-languages to be incomparable under ordering? In other words, can languages be arranged in a"
},
{
"end_time": 2354.377,
"index": 89,
"start_time": 2327.739,
"text": " Totally incomparable? No, that's a violation of syndipheniesis. In the CTMU, there's a universal relational structure called syndipheniesis. It means that syntax, something synetic is being distributed over different related or relapse, things that are related. The syntax distributes over them and makes them comparable, makes them that things are never totally incomparable."
},
{
"end_time": 2382.073,
"index": 90,
"start_time": 2355.026,
"text": " Okay, so this gets into separate objects which you would argue doesn't exist. So let's say we have an apple and then we have a cup. They're, in your terms, diphyonic Rillens."
},
{
"end_time": 2411.067,
"index": 91,
"start_time": 2382.568,
"text": " But then by the fact that I can point them out, I'm using a cognitive structure, and that cognitive structure distributes over both of them, which relates them. And so by pointing out that there are two separate objects, I'm also pointing out how these objects are the same. So by pointing out difference, I'm pointing out sameness. Is that correct? You don't have to point anything out. Basically, you're just distributing your awareness over both. Your awareness, the focus of your awareness is a logical property which you are distributing over both of those objects. That's Syndiphi and Ascension."
},
{
"end_time": 2439.838,
"index": 92,
"start_time": 2411.732,
"text": " 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."
},
{
"end_time": 2459.667,
"index": 93,
"start_time": 2439.838,
"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."
},
{
"end_time": 2489.275,
"index": 94,
"start_time": 2459.667,
"text": " 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"
},
{
"end_time": 2513.49,
"index": 95,
"start_time": 2489.275,
"text": " A conscious universe has to have that. It's the only possible relational structure it can have. Okay, so we have this conspensive manifold."
},
{
"end_time": 2539.667,
"index": 96,
"start_time": 2513.814,
"text": " and it has an intrinsic background, or I assume that's related to what physicists may call background-free. It is its own background. That's closure. It's ontic closure. All real operations, real, relevant, valid operations basically start with reality and end with reality. It's complete closure. Nothing unreal ever really comes in for obvious reasons. This background-free place, does it consist of non-terminal symbols?"
},
{
"end_time": 2570.776,
"index": 97,
"start_time": 2541.34,
"text": " In this monic structure, how does one get differentiation from monism, from unity?"
},
{
"end_time": 2599.872,
"index": 98,
"start_time": 2571.408,
"text": " There are utility deficits. We have secondary telos. Utility deficits arise. You know what utility is? It's value. When you don't have any food, now you have a severe utility deficit because you place value on food. There's a hole in your value structure. That's a utility deficit. You automatically react to that by forming a telon designed to remove that deficit."
},
{
"end_time": 2630.179,
"index": 99,
"start_time": 2602.278,
"text": " Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Excuse me? Can the CTMU explain leptogenesis? Leptogenesis? Yeah. You got me on that one. There's a disparity between matter and antimatter. And one of the propositions is there's something called leptogenesis, which accounts for this asymmetry. Right. Can the CTMU explain? Well, let's just put it this way. If it cannot be explained within the CTMU, then it cannot be explained."
},
{
"end_time": 2661.084,
"index": 100,
"start_time": 2631.118,
"text": " Would you consider the CTMU to be more of a definition than a theory? It's both a definition and a theory. It's the self definition of reality. Reality must define itself."
},
{
"end_time": 2691.63,
"index": 101,
"start_time": 2661.732,
"text": " Getting back to this background independent place, there's a question here about"
},
{
"end_time": 2720.845,
"index": 102,
"start_time": 2692.056,
"text": " If this coincides with Einstein and Mach had this idea of... Sorry, I'm sure you've heard of Mach's principle. Yes. Okay. What does the CTMU have to say about Mach's principle and is it related to this intrinsic background? Maybe I better ask what your formulation of Mach's principle. Sure, sure, sure. It's strange that we can feel rotation when we do so."
},
{
"end_time": 2748.302,
"index": 103,
"start_time": 2721.323,
"text": " And it seems as if it's related by the distribution of matter far away, like there's an actual background. So now if there's an intrinsic background in the CTMU, does that serve as some basis for Mach's principle? Yes. Well, you're actually coupled with your background. That's one thing that you see in the theory of relativity. Basically, the medium is given some kind of separate structure, separate from the content of the medium."
},
{
"end_time": 2773.063,
"index": 104,
"start_time": 2748.626,
"text": " But you actually have to couple those two things. Relativity would make no sense at all if you didn't. So as far as inertia and being able to feel, you talk about angular momentum and inertia, basically those two things are a function of that coupling, the way you are coupled to your environment. Like I said, this is how the CTME quantizes things, uses these dual couplings to do that."
},
{
"end_time": 2800.862,
"index": 105,
"start_time": 2774.292,
"text": " And of course, but that's all intrinsic. I mean, keep in mind that's all intrinsic. There's nothing external to the universe. So if you're going to talk about the universe rotating in some external medium, that's not valid. Okay, the rotation for all rotation is intrinsic. And the way it can be intrinsic is because you're formulating it as a coupling of it and its content that you're actually making. You're actually introducing some kind of angular momentum between them. That's intrinsic. And of course, as you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 2830.282,
"index": 106,
"start_time": 2801.34,
"text": " I also heard you talk about the fact that the universe is expanding is it's a strange concept because what is expanding into however I think that physicists do a disservice by saying that the universe is expanding it's more about the metric is changing so now let's imagine"
},
{
"end_time": 2857.961,
"index": 107,
"start_time": 2830.691,
"text": " That's what the statement is. The metric is changing. So what's the problem with that statement and why does it need the CTMU to solve it? Because it's conspanding. It's basically when you say the metric is changing, you mean that the scale of the whole and its parts are changing with respect to each other. They're changing contravariantly. As the universe gets bigger, the parts, the little particles and objects embedded in it gets smaller relative to the universe."
},
{
"end_time": 2879.121,
"index": 108,
"start_time": 2858.456,
"text": " I'm not understanding"
},
{
"end_time": 2908.729,
"index": 109,
"start_time": 2879.684,
"text": " Firstly, I'm not sure what the problem is. Explain to me once more. What is the problem with saying that the metric is expanding? I understand that there's a problem with saying that the universe is expanding because it implies that it's embedded in something higher. The metric isn't expanding. The metric is actually contracted. You know what co-moving coordinates are. Basically, as the universe expands, co-moving coordinates actually co-move with the universe itself."
},
{
"end_time": 2931.903,
"index": 110,
"start_time": 2909.189,
"text": " Our metric means the metric that we use, the scale of distance that we use in the everyday world that exists between us and the objects that surrounds us."
},
{
"end_time": 2967.159,
"index": 111,
"start_time": 2937.739,
"text": " I'm going to be jumping around quite a bit. Now that we're on the topic of how you"
},
{
"end_time": 2994.633,
"index": 112,
"start_time": 2967.619,
"text": " Thought of your theory and how you came up with it quite some time ago. I'm curious, what does the process of coming up with the CTMU look like? Practically speaking, do you have a whiteboard? Do you just sit alone with a pipe? Do you bounce it off your wife? Do you go for walks? How are you coming up with the theory? Just sort of comes to you. Sometimes you start thinking, okay,"
},
{
"end_time": 3022.21,
"index": 113,
"start_time": 2994.906,
"text": " I'm very good at recognizing paradoxes and inconsistencies. It's just a little thing that I'm good at. I noticed a lot of paradoxes and inconsistencies from an early age onward in the way people explain things. I'd ask them for explanations. They wouldn't be able to explain things to my satisfaction. I'd ask myself why doesn't this appear to make sense and I would find out there were certain things that didn't make sense. Then armed with those paradoxes, I would work on resolving"
},
{
"end_time": 3046.971,
"index": 114,
"start_time": 3023.029,
"text": " And from those resolutions came the CTMU. Let's give an example of a paradox that's been resolved by the CTMU. So Newcombe's paradox is one. Do you mind explaining the paradox of Newcombe and then also your solution to it? Well, so that's kind of a long paradox, but basically it's you've got this predictor who has never been wrong before."
},
{
"end_time": 3073.575,
"index": 115,
"start_time": 3047.466,
"text": " and he's got this game that he plays where he shows you a box with a thousand dollars in it and tells you that you can take either one of these boxes, the opaque box, so you can take both boxes. But if you do not take this transparent box with a thousand dollars in it, I've put a million dollars, I already know what you're going to do, I've put a million dollars in the opaque box."
},
{
"end_time": 3099.548,
"index": 116,
"start_time": 3073.882,
"text": " If you try to take both boxes and make that extra $1,000 that you can see right in front of your face here, if you've done that, I've left this opaque box empty. So you're going to get scum. You're going to get your $1,000 and you're going to have a nice dinner someplace and then that's going to be it. All right. That's Newcombe's paradox. Okay. But unfortunately, the subject, the one who he's running this game on, has to"
},
{
"end_time": 3117.602,
"index": 117,
"start_time": 3100.64,
"text": " strategies from which he has to choose and one of them is of course that well this predictor has never been wrong and so therefore I better do that. The other one says well wait a minute, nobody can actually predict the future. This is some kind of a lucky run that this guy has had."
},
{
"end_time": 3142.022,
"index": 118,
"start_time": 3118.046,
"text": " A Million Plus 1000."
},
{
"end_time": 3163.166,
"index": 119,
"start_time": 3142.022,
"text": " The $1,000 has enough value that he's going to take that instead. He's going to enrich himself more and thusly increase his utility. Of course, increasing your utility is the whole raison d'etre of economics. In economic theory, that's what you're always supposed to do, increase your utility."
},
{
"end_time": 3191.288,
"index": 120,
"start_time": 3163.439,
"text": " So it's considered an important paradox because of its applicability to economics and causation in general. Is it possible to predict the future? Well, Newcomb's demon, which is what I call him, is analogous to the programmer of a simulation. He's already run this simulation in which you think you have free will, but he basically knows what your free will is in advance. So he has"
},
{
"end_time": 3219.326,
"index": 121,
"start_time": 3191.63,
"text": " That is what has allowed him to do this with the boxes. Okay, so that's the paradox. Now, how does the resolution come in? The resolution is nobody ever placed it in a simulation before. I was the only person to ever place it in a simulation back in 1989 by saying, okay, well, basically now we have to use the idea that reality may be a simulation and that Newcomb's Demon is somehow a programmer of this simulation."
},
{
"end_time": 3246.459,
"index": 122,
"start_time": 3219.616,
"text": " This was the first application of the simulation hypothesis. Everybody talks about it now, but you'll never see my name mentioned in connection with it, but I was the first person to apply it, at least as far as I know. It could have been somebody else that did so, but I've actually looked and I can't find anything. As far as I know, you were the first with self-simulation. That too, absolutely. Self-simulation appears in a paper I wrote 20 years ago."
},
{
"end_time": 3267.5,
"index": 123,
"start_time": 3247.551,
"text": " So basically, I'm Mr. Simulation. Unfortunately, nobody ever comes to me. They always ask Elon Musk, why the hell they ask Elon Musk? I don't know. Mr. Moneybags Elon Musk. And then there's another fellow named Nick Bostrom. I guess it's at Oxford or someplace. He's got something called the simulation argument."
},
{
"end_time": 3296.271,
"index": 124,
"start_time": 3268.558,
"text": " How likely the simulation hypothesis used to be true on the basis of how humanity has evolved. How should we say, the species that is simulating reality for humanity has evolved. Do they have the technology to do it? Don't they have the technology to do it? That's what Bostrom's talking about. Now how does posing who comes paradox in a"
},
{
"end_time": 3322.824,
"index": 125,
"start_time": 3296.783,
"text": " It basically tells you that you might be in a simulation, so you better take a very close look at what Newcombe's Demon has actually succeeded in doing. It's got a long, arbitrarily long, sequence of correct predictions. You'd better give the demon its due, and you'd better take just the opaque box. That's the only way you're getting your milk."
},
{
"end_time": 3352.841,
"index": 126,
"start_time": 3323.951,
"text": " Does that mean that the person being simulated doesn't have free will? No, it does not. Why would it? Just because the demon knows what he's going to choose that somehow deprives him of free will? Well, see, this is the problem that I had to solve by integrating this into the CTMU. You actually have a pre-geometric or non-terminal domain in which Newcomb's demon actually exists and in which he actually makes his prediction."
},
{
"end_time": 3378.319,
"index": 127,
"start_time": 3353.968,
"text": " How does being in the non-terminal domain and being able to discern what this person's decision is going to be not violate free will for that person? For that person from their perspective are you saying they have free will but from another perspective they don't have free will or no matter what they have free will from both vantage points? Well you have free will"
},
{
"end_time": 3408.473,
"index": 128,
"start_time": 3378.763,
"text": " As I said, the universe is self-composed. You are a component of the universe, therefore you have inherited free will from the universe itself. Everything, even a quantum particle to some extent, has free will or freedom. It has degrees of freedom. It's not totally determined. From God's point of view, however, God knows – let's just put it this way. Let's forget about Newcomb's Demon for a second and talk about God. God can see reality as a whole."
},
{
"end_time": 3434.684,
"index": 129,
"start_time": 3408.985,
"text": " You know what Einstein's block universe is, right? God sees the universe not as a block. He sees the universe through the eyes of its secondary fellows. That's how he's seeing. That's how he's looking and seeing the universe through our eyes, where God's sensor controls, which puts a whole different complexion on that. He waits for us to make up our minds before he knows what he's seeing. In other words, what we see is what we've decided on."
},
{
"end_time": 3462.159,
"index": 130,
"start_time": 3435.111,
"text": " We see what we decide. Can you explain? When we decide to commit an event or commit an act, automatically we know we can see ourselves committing the act. That's what I mean. That doesn't mean that we determine everything that's going on around us."
},
{
"end_time": 3489.804,
"index": 131,
"start_time": 3462.705,
"text": " It doesn't mean that we can see whatever we like. If I wished that there was no wall here, then I would see no wall. Does that mean that or are there limitations on my perception? Well, of course there are. There is a state of affairs, an external state of affairs that has been created by other Tellors. It's not entirely up to you. You are constrained in what you can see by the state of the external world."
},
{
"end_time": 3518.285,
"index": 132,
"start_time": 3491.783,
"text": " When one does psychedelics, are they operating now in this geometric pre-in full cognition plane? Well, what the psychedelics do is they introduce a gap between the terminal and non-terminal realms and kind of allow you to see things that aren't really in the terminal realm. And that's what those hallucinations are. Okay, you still got one foot in the terminal realm, but the psychedelic has kind of, you know, opened up a gap there."
},
{
"end_time": 3547.363,
"index": 133,
"start_time": 3518.66,
"text": " They've been finding out that basically all chemistry is quantum and they know, for example, that quantum mechanics"
},
{
"end_time": 3574.462,
"index": 134,
"start_time": 3547.637,
"text": " When one says hallucinations, usually they mean we're seeing apparitions that aren't actually there, that's not real. Now I know that you have a qualm with saying that anything is not real. Well it is, it's mentally real. I mean what I'm saying is"
},
{
"end_time": 3604.121,
"index": 135,
"start_time": 3574.889,
"text": " Realities are coupling of mind and physical reality with non-terminal and non-terminal reality. Therefore, there is such a thing as subjective existence. Syntax exists, for example. Any combination of syntax, you can put it together however you want to and that has mental existence. Is it realized in the terminal realm? Not necessarily. You don't find me a unicorn."
},
{
"end_time": 3632.637,
"index": 136,
"start_time": 3605.094,
"text": " They have two levels, synetic and dipheonic. Do you mind explaining that? Well, all relations are syn-dipheonic. When you see two different things or even when you see yourself, you're distributing your own cognition over yourself. Therefore, you've got that synesis and dipheonesis. You've got basically a property and something instantiating the property. That's what that means."
},
{
"end_time": 3659.804,
"index": 137,
"start_time": 3634.974,
"text": " You mentioned that there are three ways in which the syndepionic relationship is self-dual. There are three ways. But does it have to be three ways? Does it just happen to be that there are three ways, or is that a necessary component for them to exist somehow? I'm talking about general symmetries of the syndepionic relationship. You know what a Minkowski diagram is, right? It's got a space axis, horizontal space axis, and then temporal axes that are orthogonal to it to go up into the future and past."
},
{
"end_time": 3683.285,
"index": 138,
"start_time": 3660.247,
"text": " And just imagine that you could rotate Minkowski space, right? Well, you can rotate a syndepionic relation in the same way, right? And because the time axis is ordinal, whereas the space axis is all about arity or the number of things that you're seeing in parallel out in the real world, you're actually making transformations between ordinality and arity."
},
{
"end_time": 3703.131,
"index": 139,
"start_time": 3683.865,
"text": " in the relation and there are other kinds of duality as well. I could probably find more than three if I looked very hard. No, the line metatime axis that relates one to the other, that's ordinal."
},
{
"end_time": 3733.439,
"index": 140,
"start_time": 3704.548,
"text": " You also mentioned that they're dual because they have an active and a passive interpretation. What do you mean by that? An active and passive interpretation? We recognize things, but have you ever heard of John Wheeler's observer participation thesis? No. John Wheeler had this idea called the observer participation thesis."
},
{
"end_time": 3762.773,
"index": 141,
"start_time": 3733.848,
"text": " that when we see a quantum event, when we look at a far away star and a photon from that star hits our eye, we are somehow participating in that event. So that's what we're talking about. Basically, you cannot just watch something without actively participating. You're actually agreeing to it in some way. You're actually actively putting yourself by perceiving it. You are contributing your perception to it."
},
{
"end_time": 3790.06,
"index": 142,
"start_time": 3763.097,
"text": " and because of the nature of telescopes it's impossible for you to stop yourself from becoming actively entangled with it. You can't just passively perceive things. Those things also have you and the thing that you're observing both have an impact on each other. That's the way it has to work because all of these you've got this causal symmetry in the CTMU and in other theories as well. How would that work?"
},
{
"end_time": 3819.48,
"index": 143,
"start_time": 3790.418,
"text": " On a more mundane level where there's a wall, let's say, whether I look at the wall or not, does that have any bearing to the wall? Does it exist or not exist when I look? Does it erode more when I look, for example? Yes, you are participating in the existence of the wall. Right. Can the wall not self perceive? Can it not perceive itself? The tertiary syntactors in the wall can and do perceive each other in a limited way. Yes."
},
{
"end_time": 3844.138,
"index": 144,
"start_time": 3819.77,
"text": " But in terms of the secondary utility of the wall, what it's actually doing in the world, you're participating in that. As a matter of fact, human constructed walls wouldn't exist unless they were useful to tellers like you. You can't look at anything without participating in its existence."
},
{
"end_time": 3871.203,
"index": 145,
"start_time": 3844.872,
"text": " That's what a measurement event is. When you measure the spin of a particle up or down, you are participating in that determination. That measurement is yours. You're the one who set up the measurement device. You're asking a yes or no question and your question is being answered. You impose the question on reality and reality is answering the question for you. There's this active passive symmetry in everything."
},
{
"end_time": 3900.128,
"index": 146,
"start_time": 3872.108,
"text": " Let's get to one more of these abstract sentences. The maximal generality in brackets, universality, comprehensiveness, criterion of a reality, theoretic identity, or ontologically necessary and sufficient theory of everything means that a fully general formal structure must be selected as the skeletal identity of a toe framework. Okay, so let's break down some of these terms, term by term. Maximal generality. Comprehensive."
},
{
"end_time": 3931.681,
"index": 147,
"start_time": 3902.056,
"text": " Okay, reality-theoretic identity. That means when you don't want an identity, that's something as which that thing exists, okay? Basically, that's its identity. You exist as a secondary teller, that's part of your identity and the property you can assign to yourself is part of your identity. Fully general formal structure, is that related to the metaphorical structure you mentioned earlier? Yes, sometimes I use formal for metaphorical because"
},
{
"end_time": 3953.063,
"index": 148,
"start_time": 3932.09,
"text": " The Metaformal System is intrinsically a Metaformal System by virtue of its description, but I have to write that description down in a formal way. It's got to be written on a piece of paper and you kind of add the Metaformality to it with your own understanding of what it's saying, but it's written down on a sheet of paper and that makes it formal."
},
{
"end_time": 3964.087,
"index": 149,
"start_time": 3953.558,
"text": " Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal."
},
{
"end_time": 3995.384,
"index": 150,
"start_time": 3965.384,
"text": " The Skeletal Identity Skeletal means that it's just a set of invariants."
},
{
"end_time": 4021.101,
"index": 151,
"start_time": 3995.828,
"text": " in which without interfering with those invariants there's a lot of variability. Reality can vary, can change, can adapt without disturbing its essential invariants. So those essential invariants are skeletal reality. You flesh it out. Must a theory of everything explain mental activity? Yes."
},
{
"end_time": 4052.227,
"index": 152,
"start_time": 4022.466,
"text": " To a certain extent, it's not going to determine mental activity. There's no such thing as a deterministic theory of reality, but it has to explain the wherewithal of mental activity. I'm trying to find out what ingredients, some people have different definitions of theories of everything, you mentioned this before, a grand unified one which is more of a physics term for gravity and so on, or one that explains consciousness or one that explains the explanations themselves."
},
{
"end_time": 4078.985,
"index": 153,
"start_time": 4052.944,
"text": " The theory of everything has to explain all of those things, everything. It's to be taken literally. Anybody who doesn't take it literally is making a mistake. Do you have any thoughts as to the biological origins of life? Sure, life originated biologically, but it also originated metaphysically. It comes from the origin. It's part of the structure of the universe. It was inevitable."
},
{
"end_time": 4104.718,
"index": 154,
"start_time": 4079.633,
"text": " to say that, well, there could have been a universe with no life where life just never got started, never formed. That's hogwash. There is basically no reason for such a universe to exist even for itself. That's an absurdity. It's a little bit like the anthropic principle, but it's the anthropic principle with utility."
},
{
"end_time": 4131.544,
"index": 155,
"start_time": 4105.265,
"text": " Part of the reason the universe exists is because there are secondary tellers that derive utility from it. Otherwise, what is its reason to exist? The universe just simply exists and it has baked within it some teller, some purpose, and one of those purposes is to observe itself through secondary tellers. That's its structure. In order to exist, the universe must have certain aspects of structure."
},
{
"end_time": 4151.766,
"index": 156,
"start_time": 4132.125,
"text": " Why is that inconsistent with the anthropic principle?"
},
{
"end_time": 4178.166,
"index": 157,
"start_time": 4152.159,
"text": " Why can't it just be that there are multiple universes and we can call that all the collection of universes one meta universe or one large universe and call that the true universe let's say? Well that's what the CTMU does. The CTMU incorporates something called a syntactic metaverse. But in terms of how do all those universes that you're talking about putting them all together and collecting them into a set, how do they come into existence? Why? It's the reason. You need to justify it otherwise"
},
{
"end_time": 4200.725,
"index": 158,
"start_time": 4178.626,
"text": " Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor"
},
{
"end_time": 4231.049,
"index": 159,
"start_time": 4201.169,
"text": " Schrodinger equation is deterministic and everything that all of those possibilities that exist in that equation should continue to exist without quantum collapse. So he converted quantum collapse events into a divergence of universes. In order for this to work, you need to have certain things, certain assumptions have to be in place. For example, you need a fixed array in order to parameterize all the events and identify all your particles and events."
},
{
"end_time": 4251.51,
"index": 160,
"start_time": 4231.425,
"text": " in the universe so that you know just exactly how the eventualities are splitting. It turns out that these assumptions are not pathologically viable. Although Everett was correct in that there is a metaverse"
},
{
"end_time": 4280.742,
"index": 161,
"start_time": 4252.022,
"text": " He sort of mischaracterized it. It's not infinity upon infinity of the universes that are pointlessly diverging in every tiny little quantum event. That's ridiculous. But the idea of a metaverse of this universe that exists prior to, in some sense, the reality that we inhabit, that's a valid idea. So he sort of hit the nail on the head and then he kind of went off on a tangent."
},
{
"end_time": 4307.517,
"index": 162,
"start_time": 4281.869,
"text": " In order to make his theory work, in order to get his interpretation of all of these, to interpret the multiverse or the metaverse as being this collection, this vast collection of pointlessly diverging universes. Because we have telec recursion, the way that I understand that is that at each expansion point in the manifold over time, somehow"
},
{
"end_time": 4337.21,
"index": 163,
"start_time": 4307.841,
"text": " The points are evolving and including their neighbors, and I recall you saying at the speed of light. Forget about at the speed of light because that can take us down another route. Regardless, the rate of conspansion is usually what I refer to. Okay, cool. So they're absorbing, and then that translates to a positive cosmological constant because the universe seems as if it's contracting from one point of view or expanding from another. Okay. Do you happen to have a prediction for... I know that your theory says"
},
{
"end_time": 4364.565,
"index": 164,
"start_time": 4337.807,
"text": " You're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics, consciousness, and the ostensible connection between the two. What's required to follow some of these arguments is facility with mathematics as well as discernment of"
},
{
"end_time": 4392.619,
"index": 165,
"start_time": 4364.855,
"text": " the underlying physical laws, and you may think that this is beyond you, but that's false. Brilliant provides polluted explanations of abstruse phenomenon such as quantum computing, general relativity, and even group theory. When you hear that the standard model is based on U1 cross SU2 cross SU3, that's group theory, for example. Now, this isn't just for neophytes either. For example, I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in these lessons to vastly aid my penetration"
},
{
"end_time": 4422.466,
"index": 166,
"start_time": 4392.619,
"text": " Okay, let's get to some philosophy. Alright. What's meant by existence is everywhere the choice to exist."
},
{
"end_time": 4450.879,
"index": 167,
"start_time": 4423.66,
"text": " Well, that's that active passive duality that we were talking about before. In the CTMU, telors are basically secondary quantum and they've got to nucleate physical bodies. So they actually have to actively participate in their own birth. Do they do so of some proto-will or is it happenstance? They inherit the will of the universe. The will of the universe is to exist."
},
{
"end_time": 4469.104,
"index": 168,
"start_time": 4451.817,
"text": " Therefore, in any part of the universe in the non-terminal domain, you've got things everywhere that are seeking to exist. The terminal domain provides them with resources that they can use to actualize themselves and this is what happens."
},
{
"end_time": 4492.773,
"index": 169,
"start_time": 4469.855,
"text": " And you mean that they want to exist at the diphyonic level at this terminal level, or you mean to say that they want to exist at all? Because to me, as I hear that, when someone says this entity wants to exist, it implies that already exists. You need a physical in order to truly exist in the sense that most people mean you actually need this this form of content feedback."
},
{
"end_time": 4510.23,
"index": 170,
"start_time": 4493.114,
"text": " In order to fully exist, things do require some kind of a terminal body. Where people get confused is they think that their terminal body can only be of a certain kind in a certain world. That's not necessarily true. There can be many different kinds of terminal realization."
},
{
"end_time": 4532.517,
"index": 171,
"start_time": 4511.118,
"text": " All right? For example, there can be an afterlife, heaven or hell for example, in which you can exist and have another kind of terminal body which was generated just for that world or just for that heaven or hell. You see, it doesn't necessarily have to be right here. One way or another, you need those resources in order to fully instantiate your existence."
},
{
"end_time": 4555.179,
"index": 172,
"start_time": 4532.978,
"text": " Otherwise, your existence never achieves full resolution. It is never fully actualized. The universe wants to actualize itself everywhere it can. That's why we have this profusion of life. That's why we have all these different species, all these different organisms. Telesis wants to actualize itself. It wants to exist and this world provides it with the resources to do so."
},
{
"end_time": 4585.572,
"index": 173,
"start_time": 4556.596,
"text": " So is it akin to God wanting to exist? God wanting there to be more God? Yes, that's exactly right. That's why I say reality is closed. It has to be totally self justified. Existence is the will to exist. You've also heard me possibly use a term called triality. As the identity of reality, this global operator descriptor is not only"
},
{
"end_time": 4614.053,
"index": 174,
"start_time": 4586.425,
"text": " an object and a relationship, it's also a process or an operative. In other words, you can imagine that the universe is not just an object, it's an event. It's a creation of that. That's what the universe is a self-creation event or self-identification event. Everywhere in the universe, these self-creation or self-identification events are seeking to occur. They're trying to occur."
},
{
"end_time": 4641.391,
"index": 175,
"start_time": 4614.343,
"text": " Particles are being created and annihilated everywhere in the universe because they're inheriting this will to exist from the universe itself and this is a criterion of existence. Without it, existence is impossible. You can't just exist for a second and then not be an operation that maintains your existence because that second is meaningless. It's got to be a permanent existence."
},
{
"end_time": 4672.039,
"index": 176,
"start_time": 4642.073,
"text": " It's got to be, in some sense, atemporal or eternal. That's what God is. Basically, God is being equated to ultimate reality, so God is eternal in this sense. To get to Wittgensteinian, when you say eternal, do you mean infinite temporal length or timelessness? Basically, we're talking about atemporality, which is timelessness. In other words, it's prior to time. It's pre-temporal in a way."
},
{
"end_time": 4702.227,
"index": 177,
"start_time": 4672.773,
"text": " Before we get further, some people may be turned off by the use of the word God, so I'd like you to define how you use it because you have a"
},
{
"end_time": 4725.828,
"index": 178,
"start_time": 4703.234,
"text": " Well, it comports with the general definition of God but it's more specific."
},
{
"end_time": 4755.93,
"index": 179,
"start_time": 4726.544,
"text": " of the global operator descriptor. We find out that it has certain properties ordinarily attributed to God by people who have religious beliefs, usually monotheistic beliefs. That's the correct way to look at it. That's what I mean when I say God. I'm not saying well, I'm not necessarily the Christian God, the Muslim God, the Jewish God, whatever kind of God. I mean the global operator descriptor and it does have sentience. It is"
},
{
"end_time": 4784.701,
"index": 180,
"start_time": 4756.203,
"text": " All of the criteria that go into the basic religious definition of God, creating the universe, all the rest of that stuff, these can actually be validly interpreted in the CTME. The CTME models those properties. Therefore, God exists. These tertiary tellers come into existence because of their will to exist, at least from my understanding, but at the same time at the secondary level. Because of the universe's will to exist."
},
{
"end_time": 4815.759,
"index": 181,
"start_time": 4785.828,
"text": " At our level, it seems like not everyone has a will to exist, which you also mentioned is equivalent to evil, or at least cognate with it. Is it possible for a particle to have an anti-will to exist? Most people who commit suicide basically have no will to exist, they're not anti-existent. Suicide is not necessarily evil in the sense of a mass murderer who tries to destroy civilization and the human species."
},
{
"end_time": 4845.811,
"index": 182,
"start_time": 4816.22,
"text": " Can a particle commit suicide in a sense? A particle does not have sufficient self-modeling capacity to make that decision for itself. That's why we require secondary telos. They have the advanced self-modeling capacity to be able to make decisions of that complexity and only they can do it. That's why they're necessary. That's why we have to be coherent quanta in this universe. Can you talk about what good is defined as and what evil is defined as?"
},
{
"end_time": 4874.326,
"index": 183,
"start_time": 4847.295,
"text": " Good wants self-actualization and self-identification. That is what the universe is doing. It is one huge massive self-identification event. Everything in it."
},
{
"end_time": 4900.93,
"index": 184,
"start_time": 4875.145,
"text": " All of the events are self-identification events that go into its self-actualization. What's meant by self-actualization? That's a term that some new HP people use and let's delineate it. Okay, well, a physicist would call it a quantum wave function collapse. The quantum wave function, you know, according to the Schrodinger equation,"
},
{
"end_time": 4926.527,
"index": 185,
"start_time": 4901.271,
"text": " You've got a quantum wave function, it expands, it's radiating out into space and then suddenly it collapses. That's inter-expansion and collapse. That's a conspansive meta-event. This is what the universe is made out of in the CTMU. You're no longer just looking at particles, you're looking at more advanced kinds of quanta that are much, much easier to tie together in the conspansive meta-event."
},
{
"end_time": 4950.435,
"index": 186,
"start_time": 4927.125,
"text": " I tend to get bogged down in words, so I'm going to press you sometimes, and it may seem unduly persnickety, but when you say self-actualized, isn't it not the case that there is only self-actualization, not just actualization because the universe is itself? That's correct. That is correct. Everything is self-actualization of the universe, if not necessarily of you."
},
{
"end_time": 4978.848,
"index": 187,
"start_time": 4950.964,
"text": " Can you explain your thoughts on this, on the human singularity versus the theological, sorry, versus the technological singularity? The tech singularity. Well, the human singularity, it's all about how, it's all about human destiny and how responsibility for human destiny is distributed. All right? If there's a tech singularity, if there's a human singularity, we all get to participate in the decision about our destiny and where it's going and how to realize it. All right? That distributes."
},
{
"end_time": 5003.439,
"index": 188,
"start_time": 4979.343,
"text": " The whole thing over humanity as a whole and no one gets left out. If we have a tech singularity, everything will be controlled by the people who own the technology. Those are mega corporations run by people who are not typically very nice or public spirited people. They're highly acquisitive. They tend to be narcissistic, Machiavellian,"
},
{
"end_time": 5025.486,
"index": 189,
"start_time": 5003.882,
"text": " When you put too many of them together, they start getting the idea that they're elite and they should be in charge."
},
{
"end_time": 5054.548,
"index": 190,
"start_time": 5025.862,
"text": " and they start deciding that people are useless eaters. There are too many of them and for the good of the planet and really because they're a nuisance, we have to get rid of them. This kind of talk has been going on for centuries. A lot of people aren't aware of it, but the elite tend to form these ideations when left to their own devices. So if there is a technological singularity with them owning all of the technology, that technology will be used against the human species."
},
{
"end_time": 5072.739,
"index": 191,
"start_time": 5055.503,
"text": " It's almost certain that is called a parasitic divergence where they become a parasitic subspecies of the human race and the rest of us become their boosts. Now the human singularity, it's one that you advocate for something that we should have instead of the techno. Hear that sound."
},
{
"end_time": 5099.872,
"index": 192,
"start_time": 5073.746,
"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": 5125.981,
"index": 193,
"start_time": 5099.872,
"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": 5151.698,
"index": 194,
"start_time": 5125.981,
"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 Brooklinen. 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": 5174.48,
"index": 195,
"start_time": 5151.698,
"text": " What is the human singularity? It's been laid out by others, for instance, Teilhard de Chardin. He was a Jesuit."
},
{
"end_time": 5197.79,
"index": 196,
"start_time": 5174.991,
"text": " We're approaching this quickening of consciousness where we're going to realize what we are, who we are, our relationship with God in reality and fulfill our destiny. This is going to be this huge worldwide global event and it's going to save us and allow us to pass through the great filter and realize our destiny."
},
{
"end_time": 5224.991,
"index": 197,
"start_time": 5198.473,
"text": " That's what it is. He used that term great filter or did you just come up with that great filter? No great filter is a term that's been around for a while. It's basically every species you know as it develops technology and starts killing itself with pollution and overpopulation all the rest of it. Every species comes to a point where it either has to grow up and live sanely and sustainably in its environment or it dies."
},
{
"end_time": 5243.985,
"index": 198,
"start_time": 5226.135,
"text": " Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts, scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars Rover."
},
{
"end_time": 5272.449,
"index": 199,
"start_time": 5243.985,
"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": 5288.831,
"index": 200,
"start_time": 5272.449,
"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": 5316.067,
"index": 201,
"start_time": 5288.831,
"text": " Part of the technological singularity, one of the reasons why people are venerating it is because there's the potential for mines to be uploaded into"
},
{
"end_time": 5343.063,
"index": 202,
"start_time": 5316.596,
"text": " Why is it absurd? And let's imagine that it's not classical computers that one uploads their minds to, but some other maybe quantum computer. Why is that outrageous? Because that's not the way reality is structured. Reality exists. It exists on other terms entirely. You're not going to build a machine. It is not mechanical."
},
{
"end_time": 5372.892,
"index": 203,
"start_time": 5343.677,
"text": " It is metamechanical or protomechanical. You might be able to call it that, but you're not going to be able to use a universal Turing machine or for that matter, a quantum Turing machine to simulate it. It can't be done. All right. It does not satisfy the requirements for existence. There is no theory. There is no theory of transhumanism, how this whole thing is going to occur. All right. Unless you can point me to a theory. Now, if you can do that, I'll change my mind. I'm an open minded person."
},
{
"end_time": 5402.346,
"index": 204,
"start_time": 5373.285,
"text": " I don't think there is such a theory. You just mentioned mechanical. Is this because there's a difference between mechanical causation and telek causation or is this unrelated to that? Telek causation is far more primitive and generative than mechanical causation is. Mechanical causation is incoherent. You have a machine with a bunch of parts that happen to be bolted together in the right way as the machine works, performs a function the way it's supposed to, but they don't work coherently in the sense of quantum mechanics."
},
{
"end_time": 5425.435,
"index": 205,
"start_time": 5402.91,
"text": " Do you have any thoughts?"
},
{
"end_time": 5449.753,
"index": 206,
"start_time": 5425.742,
"text": " Entanglement speed? So what I mean by that is some theories predict that there's a maximum speed of entanglement. Right now, as far as we can tell, there's no speed to it. It's just instantaneous. I'm curious if in your models, it necessarily has to be the case that entanglement happens everywhere simultaneously, or if there is also a speed associated with it. Well, you're just talking about some kind of terminal lag. In reality, entanglement occurs in the non-terminal domain."
},
{
"end_time": 5477.432,
"index": 207,
"start_time": 5450.009,
"text": " How does one solve the liar's paradox in your model?"
},
{
"end_time": 5506.067,
"index": 208,
"start_time": 5477.824,
"text": " The one that says this sentence is false. Right. Well, you simply exclude that kind of sentence from reality. You say, well, that is a pathologically construction that is not instantiated in the terminal domain. Unless you can find me an instantiation. And I don't think you can because it's paradoxical. So it's akin to naive set theories moved to ZFC where they say we can't construct sets that aren't elements of them."
},
{
"end_time": 5532.875,
"index": 209,
"start_time": 5506.425,
"text": " It is a possibility. You just can't involve the negation product. You can't involve the self-negation product. You can have sets that are self-inclusive. We've got self-inclusion all over the place. Fractal geometry, there are all kinds of things. Consciousness itself. All kinds of things that are self-inclusive. But you can't allow this misuse of the negation factor"
},
{
"end_time": 5549.394,
"index": 210,
"start_time": 5533.541,
"text": " Okay, you can't allow that to intrude on them and render them paradoxical. That's what I'm saying."
},
{
"end_time": 5579.138,
"index": 211,
"start_time": 5550.026,
"text": " It can exist as a syntactically inconsistent form which is sufficiently well formed that you can apprehend it or think you apprehend it, but in reality, it is incapable of instantiation. You can formulate it and then you can envision it in the non-terminal realm. You cannot, however, achieve an instantiation, an actualization on it because it violates the terms of existence in the terminal realm."
},
{
"end_time": 5607.619,
"index": 212,
"start_time": 5579.394,
"text": " What happens after death? So there's a couple ways to interpret that. What I mean is, let's talk about what is death? What does it mean to die? That's the termination of your relationship with your particular physical body that you have at this present time. When you are retracted from this reality, you go back up toward the origin of reality,"
},
{
"end_time": 5633.746,
"index": 213,
"start_time": 5607.978,
"text": " You can be provided with a substitute body, another kind of terminal body that allows you to keep on existing. These memories can be retrieved. Nothing goes out of existence in the conspensive method."
},
{
"end_time": 5664.206,
"index": 214,
"start_time": 5634.206,
"text": " You're"
},
{
"end_time": 5693.814,
"index": 215,
"start_time": 5665.299,
"text": " So when people talk about heaven, which I know you have your own views of specific"
},
{
"end_time": 5723.166,
"index": 216,
"start_time": 5694.565,
"text": " Differentiated view. I haven't heard before as to what heaven is and even hell when people talk about heaven usually what they mean is something like a reinstantiation of this body with probably a better hairline than I have and You should see bernardo castra push. I should put you in touch with have you heard of bernardo castra? I've heard of it. I think I think he was on email distribution"
},
{
"end_time": 5750.247,
"index": 217,
"start_time": 5723.49,
"text": " One of Jack Sarfatti's email distributions. Who's that? Jack who? Jack Sarfatti? Yeah. Jack Sarfatti is one of the hippies who saved physics. Aha. Is he related to UFOs? Does he study UFOs? Yeah. As a matter of fact, I think he's working on, right now, he's working on metamaterials that will allow us to build spacecraft that emulate tic-tacs."
},
{
"end_time": 5776.271,
"index": 218,
"start_time": 5750.674,
"text": " David Kaiser wrote a book called How the Hippies Saved Physics."
},
{
"end_time": 5806.817,
"index": 219,
"start_time": 5777.108,
"text": " And these were the guys, these were non-locality and all the quantum woo you hear about sometimes came from these guys. But in reality, they have a lot of very productive thoughts. And in a way, the world we're living in now is an outgrowth of some of what they were thinking and doing in those days. Some of these guys are still around. I mean, not just Jacques Zarfetti, but you've also got other guys like, I know Nick Herbert is still there, and I know that Wolf is still there, Sirag is still there. These guys are on email distributions that"
},
{
"end_time": 5835.606,
"index": 220,
"start_time": 5807.176,
"text": " I want to talk to Jack at some point. I heard that I should talk to Jack. What I've been exploring recently is the topic of UFOs, because like you know, this podcast is about theoretical physics, consciousness, free will and God. And it seems like UFOs from our observations of them break the laws of physics as we know. So a simple one is angular, sorry, a simple one is"
},
{
"end_time": 5863.302,
"index": 221,
"start_time": 5836.135,
"text": " Conservation of momentum. How can you move back and forth? We have to assume a certain mass is associated with the craft. Well, yes, and of course, mass amounts to inertia and that's a violation of inertia. You can't just suddenly turn on the turn light. Right, so that's what I've been exploring. Unless you're dealing with a projection. Right, right. That's also called spoofing, I believe. Have you heard that term? Yeah, I've heard the term spoofing, but you need a better theater."
},
{
"end_time": 5880.674,
"index": 222,
"start_time": 5864.036,
"text": " What are your thoughts on UFOs in general as well as the recent disclosure movements? Is there anything about UFOs that you find convincing that they are in fact"
},
{
"end_time": 5910.572,
"index": 223,
"start_time": 5880.964,
"text": " Maybe us from the future may be associated with God or demons or angels or just an advanced civilization visiting us in the same way that we house people at zoos. I mean, animals. They could be any or all of those things. There could be different kinds, some kinds that come from the future, some kinds that come from another planet elsewhere in the universe. But they definitely, you've got too much reportage on them. There are too many people who are coming up with heartfelt stories"
},
{
"end_time": 5934.36,
"index": 224,
"start_time": 5911.032,
"text": " about them. They can't possibly all be fake. People aren't liars. If someone's going to risk his reputation and be called a nut by coming out and saying, I saw a UFO, you have to take that person a little bit seriously. Sure, there are scammers out there and people who are going to lie about it, but I don't think we could have this much reportage without actually having something to it."
},
{
"end_time": 5955.64,
"index": 225,
"start_time": 5935.077,
"text": " You mentioned the word woo about five minutes ago. What I'm wondering is did you used to have a conception of what you thought was woo, so for example,"
},
{
"end_time": 5985.179,
"index": 226,
"start_time": 5956.049,
"text": " Well, I mean, I have had a number of paranormal experiences and began having them at a rather young age. And that's one of the reasons I had to develop the CTM, to develop an extended picture of reality that would actually accommodate alternate states of being, alternate states of mind."
},
{
"end_time": 6011.886,
"index": 227,
"start_time": 5985.742,
"text": " And so that is rather than dismissing the experiences that I had in the past, I've actually become more comfortable with it. What are some of these paranormal experiences? Well, you know, psychokinesis, telepathy, lots of precognition in my case, out of body experiences, you name it. There's"
},
{
"end_time": 6041.937,
"index": 228,
"start_time": 6012.039,
"text": " I don't know the single kind of paranormal event that I haven't spontaneously experienced at one point or another. Have you witnessed any UFOs on your own? Well, yes I have. I was working for the U.S. Forest Service and I was up in central Montana, near Malmstrom Air Force Base by the way, where nobody has shown up. I saw something"
},
{
"end_time": 6068.66,
"index": 229,
"start_time": 6042.363,
"text": " in the sky and actually stood and watched it for 30 minutes until I got bored and drove away. I was driving a US Forest Service pickup truck, but literally stood there leaning against the back of the truck, looking directly at it for a long, long time. It was perfectly, it did not change shape. It did not change position. It was right up there in the sky over"
},
{
"end_time": 6097.483,
"index": 230,
"start_time": 6069.053,
"text": " It's very difficult to tell because getting a distance fix on something like that is very hard."
},
{
"end_time": 6123.712,
"index": 231,
"start_time": 6097.841,
"text": " Could have been anywhere from 500 yards to five miles in diameter. I don't know, but it was huge. Was it one of the triangular UFOs or was it a more disc-like? It was oblate. It looked to me like an oblate spheroid. And one of the first things I thought was, well, this must be a lenticular cloud."
},
{
"end_time": 6149.36,
"index": 232,
"start_time": 6124.326,
"text": " And so I kept on looking at it to find out if it was, you know, to see, okay, if it's a lenticular cloud, I'm going to see some sign of movement. There's going to be something there. It was nothing like that. This thing was totally solid metallic and it did not change. I kept on stirring directly at it to see if it would change. You know, if it doesn't change, change, you know, do something, but it wouldn't. So as I said, I stayed there for, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 6171.783,
"index": 233,
"start_time": 6149.855,
"text": " Can you give me an example of another paranormal experience of yours, a specific one?"
},
{
"end_time": 6198.746,
"index": 234,
"start_time": 6172.09,
"text": " Nocturnal paralysis. That's why I was lying down. I woke up and I thought maybe I'll get up and go to the bathroom or something. So I tried to move and I could. Immediately, I started to panic. There was a wall next to me. So I figured what's going on. There's a bookshelf next to me on the wall right next to my head. That bookshelf was four feet above the ground."
},
{
"end_time": 6228.285,
"index": 235,
"start_time": 6199.633,
"text": " Okay. In other words, somehow I must have risen above my body. I couldn't figure out how this to happen. But anyway, I thought, oh my God, am I dead? What time is it? How long have I, you know, if I'm dead, how long have I been dead? Suddenly I floated. I began to move. I floated in from the room that I was on into the kitchen of the house that I was in, turned a corner and looked directly at a clock that was on the stove there and saw the time."
},
{
"end_time": 6257.005,
"index": 236,
"start_time": 6228.933,
"text": " And at that point I realized this is basically the middle of the night and I woke up back up in my body. It took me a little bit and I got control of my muscles and I walked back in and it was one minute later than it was when I looked at the clock. So of course now some people are very good at gauging time and figuring out what time it is but that was an exact estimate of the time after I've been asleep for some period of time."
},
{
"end_time": 6285.981,
"index": 237,
"start_time": 6257.858,
"text": " Have you had any intimations of God speaking to you? Now you're getting a little bit, yes I have had religious caliber visions. Now I'm getting a little bit what? Now you're getting a little bit"
},
{
"end_time": 6309.428,
"index": 238,
"start_time": 6286.613,
"text": " Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor"
},
{
"end_time": 6318.148,
"index": 239,
"start_time": 6310.145,
"text": " And unfortunately, you know, I don't know if you know anything about me, but I've been cancelled, me and my ideas have been cancelled despite the fact that they're totally provable."
},
{
"end_time": 6340.23,
"index": 240,
"start_time": 6318.763,
"text": " been canceled for"
},
{
"end_time": 6368.097,
"index": 241,
"start_time": 6340.23,
"text": " There is not an academic alive that can do a thing."
},
{
"end_time": 6396.459,
"index": 242,
"start_time": 6368.541,
"text": " about anything that I've ever said or done. Nevertheless, I'm not invited to conferences or symposia. I'm not invited to do media appearances. There are ways that I should have been able to spread the word about my work and actually get it out there so that people could look at it. They would deny me. I don't like trolls."
},
{
"end_time": 6425.794,
"index": 243,
"start_time": 6396.886,
"text": " I don't like people that talk out of turn about things they don't understand. And there are a lot of those people out there. And unfortunately, it would be fine, I guess, if most people were able to distinguish between a troll and someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Most people can't. If the troll uses a little bit of language, well, I work at a university and here's my opinion, it's all nonsense, then people think, well, he says he's from a university, maybe he really is."
},
{
"end_time": 6454.206,
"index": 244,
"start_time": 6426.527,
"text": " All right. And this is the problem. People can't distinguish between truth and false, especially when it's, you know, when it takes the form of intermittent noise. What I find is that people don't go... Honey, can you get me something to drink, please? Pardon me, Craig. That's okay. My mouth is getting dry. Yeah, no problem. No problem. What I find is that people dismiss intellectuals like Stephen Wolf from Eric Weinstein yourself."
},
{
"end_time": 6481.203,
"index": 245,
"start_time": 6454.531,
"text": " without delving into the papers, maybe they'll watch, they'll do a cursory glance at their work, quote some of it, so that if they want to look like they've read, they'll quote a few paragraphs here and there. I've seen criticisms of yours, but they're not, they're not, they haven't, see, I'll tell you, my difficulty is when I'm going into your theories or anyone else's, it takes sometimes weeks"
},
{
"end_time": 6510.503,
"index": 246,
"start_time": 6481.476,
"text": " And I tried to put myself in the position where not only am I understanding it at an intellectual level, but I'm realizing it. And what I mean by realizing is I'm trying to see what you're saying. How can I model it such that I see it completely obvious? That's how I know I've internalized a theory. And I don't see anyone who criticizes you as attempting that. That's correct. Yeah."
},
{
"end_time": 6539.462,
"index": 247,
"start_time": 6511.169,
"text": " They claim that it's so abstract and abstruse that they can't visualize it and that it's impossible to visualize. That's the usual line. I visualize all of it. It's not hard for me. For some reason, I think it's intellectual laziness. I think it's the idea that they don't want to become involved with something that might prove them wrong, mistaken about something. There are a number of psychological factors that go into it."
},
{
"end_time": 6566.032,
"index": 248,
"start_time": 6540.64,
"text": " Well, Chris, if I can do something about getting you more notoriety, I will, man. If I can uncancel you, I do plan on having you on again at some once I've"
},
{
"end_time": 6595.52,
"index": 249,
"start_time": 6567.585,
"text": " I'm going to go through your theories more, which will take some months because I don't have only your theory. Now, I've only been studying yours for the past couple of weeks, but now I have to move on to someone's the best one. Right, right. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about that because I can get to that question right now. What I'm wondering is, I want to make sure that what I'm doing is honest and open and for the good. And I want to make a claim that I"
},
{
"end_time": 6625.265,
"index": 250,
"start_time": 6595.998,
"text": " Thank you. However, here's where it gets bad. You mentioned that your theory is the only one of God that is correct. And then what I'm wondering is, does that mean"
},
{
"end_time": 6654.582,
"index": 251,
"start_time": 6625.64,
"text": " Only if they claim they've got a true theory of everything that's totally comprehensive. Otherwise, the possibility exists that their theories or their viewpoints can be interpreted in such a theory and a true theory of everything. For example, these other guys that you mentioned and you asked me questions about other thinkers, if"
},
{
"end_time": 6683.285,
"index": 252,
"start_time": 6654.838,
"text": " To the extent that their ideas can be interpreted in mind, of course they're not correct, but my idea is called a super tautology. It cannot be broken. The conditions for intelligibility are realized by it, which means that if you try to come up with a counter example, it will be unintelligible and inadmissible. My theory cannot be broken. Although these other guys don't, I'm the only person with a super tautology."
},
{
"end_time": 6713.968,
"index": 253,
"start_time": 6684.121,
"text": " Another way for people to understand what you've just said is that think of set theory as the basis by which physics comes up with their theories. Now that's not exactly true. They don't axiomatize from set theory onward. No, it's empirical induction. Think of it like that."
},
{
"end_time": 6743.08,
"index": 254,
"start_time": 6714.224,
"text": " What Chris is saying is that underneath first-order languages, there's a meta-language, a super tautological language, such that other theories are interpretable, almost like with physics, whatever the equation is that governs the grand unification. Let's imagine it's just a single equation. Well, that's based in axiomatic set theory. Okay, then you can take it a step back and say, what would a theory of everything at all have to look like in all of it? In its outline, it's the problem this way."
},
{
"end_time": 6771.015,
"index": 255,
"start_time": 6743.336,
"text": " The important thing is that it be comprehensive and not exclude anything that's true. Nobody can present a complete theory of everything that explains every detail of the universe right up front. The universe doesn't work that way. It is not deterministic. So there is no such theory. What you need is you need the outline, the very generic form in which anything that is true that actually occurs in the universe or is relevant to the universe can be expressed."
},
{
"end_time": 6800.52,
"index": 256,
"start_time": 6771.664,
"text": " If you've got that, then you've got a TOE. I'm the only person that has a TOE with that description. So even though it's not yet a unified field theory in the sense that most physicists would mean, unifying general relativity and gauge theory and quantum mechanics, although it comes pretty close actually. Once I start getting into it, if I were to give all the detail, it does come close in some respects to something like that, but that's not the way I present it."
},
{
"end_time": 6825.043,
"index": 257,
"start_time": 6800.93,
"text": " I'm presenting it as a super tautology, as the logical form of a theory of everything that cannot be broken, can't get up, there is no escape, nobody gets over. I'm actually writing a book, maybe it's just for myself for now, on theories of everything. I have a chapter on yours, so as I've been studying for yours, I'm writing it, that's partly how I understand it."
},
{
"end_time": 6849.531,
"index": 258,
"start_time": 6826.374,
"text": " At one point, I'll send it to you. Thank you. I would love to take a look at your chart. Yeah, for sure. It'll be maybe six pages long. So I have to condense what is about 300 pages down to five as well as what I'm trying to do is relate different theories of everything. And the reason I'm doing that is you yourself, you notice, I'm sure you've gone through this where you start to make connections between what you say. Let's take an example where you"
},
{
"end_time": 6879.735,
"index": 259,
"start_time": 6849.991,
"text": " There are ways, if you have a general framework that is super tautological and you know it's a fact, all you have to do is worry about interpreting these different religions so that they are consistent within this framework."
},
{
"end_time": 6910.179,
"index": 260,
"start_time": 6880.52,
"text": " So that's why I call it a meta-religion. They take all these other religions that are usually at each other's throats because they don't know how to interpret their doctrines and what they pull out of scriptural documents. They don't know how to interpret that, so they end up imagining these conflicts. Those conflicts usually don't have to exist. If you have an overall framework in which the scripture and doctrine could be interpreted, they can be avoided. Why is it that intellect is associated with atheism?"
},
{
"end_time": 6940.128,
"index": 261,
"start_time": 6910.418,
"text": " Now you may disagree, but what I mean is, in academia, there's obviously an association with intellect there. That's a danger zone phenomenon. Just assume that proposition is correct. You know what I'm referring to. Why is it that most smart people now think that it's smart or it's intellectual to eschew God? They're dummies. They think they're a lot smarter than they actually are. That's the problem. The geniuses throughout history, if you want to look at the real geniuses throughout history,"
},
{
"end_time": 6966.937,
"index": 262,
"start_time": 6940.555,
"text": " Most of them believed in God. Most of them admitted that there was a higher power, that there had to be a higher power. The people who occupy universities, I'd say your average Harvard instructor, Harvard is a very good university of course, I'd say your average Harvard instructor might go 135, 140 max in terms of IQ. That's just not smart enough to be laughing at people who believe in God, especially when you've got people like Isaac Newton,"
},
{
"end_time": 6984.804,
"index": 263,
"start_time": 6967.415,
"text": " The counter would be obviously that if we go back far enough in time, let's say 250 years in prior, almost everyone believed in God."
},
{
"end_time": 7001.817,
"index": 264,
"start_time": 6985.299,
"text": " Both what you call dummy quote unquote and intellectual. So to say that the higher end of the IQ spectrum believed in God previous to 250 years ago. Well, almost everyone did. So then we have to look at modern thinkers. Now, you're obviously someone who has someone who's extremely bright as an understatement."
},
{
"end_time": 7026.715,
"index": 265,
"start_time": 7002.278,
"text": " Is there a correlation between those on the extreme end of the IQ spectrum who believe in God, but then those who are of higher intelligence that don't? So almost like a Dunning-Kruger where the middle doesn't believe, you're that smart aleck teenager. But then if you gain a bit more insight, there's this false quote, I'm sure you've heard it, that says something like, the first sip of science makes you an atheist, but it's that bottom gulp that makes you a believer in God."
},
{
"end_time": 7049.923,
"index": 266,
"start_time": 7027.005,
"text": " It's true, even if it's false, there's something to it. You've got to have depth. The intelligence has to have a lot of penetration and you've got to get the big picture before you understand that there must be a God out there. A lot of people don't have that. You mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, people imagining that they're much smarter and more competent than they are."
},
{
"end_time": 7079.735,
"index": 267,
"start_time": 7050.316,
"text": " Okay, it's usually associated with stupid people. Stupid people tend to have Dunning-Kruger, right? But there is a higher IQ version of that. It's called the danger zone effect. We've been talking about it for years. People who range in IQ between like 130 and 150, you would ordinarily think, well, it's extremely high IQ, almost up to genius range, so these people must actually have something going for them. Well, basically, it works against them because"
},
{
"end_time": 7108.729,
"index": 268,
"start_time": 7079.855,
"text": " But they're right so often compared to the ordinary person, they almost always turn out to be smarter. This gives them the idea that they're intellectually infallible. They start to lose sight of their own intellectual limitations and believe that they're really what they've cracked themselves up to be and they become insufferable at this point. This is the danger zone phenomenon. People would tend to exhibit this when they're within a certain IQ range that we call the danger zone."
},
{
"end_time": 7137.312,
"index": 269,
"start_time": 7109.326,
"text": " Like I said, it's like, you know, a two standard, you know, two standard deviation range, right around where I said it was, you know, maybe I said 130, maybe it's like 120, 150, whatever. What you're saying is that some people, because they're so smart, they, and let's just say it's two standard deviations, they're above their peer group when they grow up and then they think they're the smartest in the room. So then they extrapolate that and say, I'm the smartest in the world at 150."
},
{
"end_time": 7166.544,
"index": 270,
"start_time": 7137.637,
"text": " Exactly, they were smartest in the room, but they were in a small room. Then they get out there in the real world where there are people smarter, and suddenly it's like they were scolded. I must still be the smartest person, so they start belittling and denigrating people who are smarter than they are. This describes a lot of people who are regarded as very intelligent, especially in academia. They regard each other as intelligent. It's kind of a club. Well, anybody who's not in our club has no intelligence whatsoever."
},
{
"end_time": 7197.466,
"index": 271,
"start_time": 7167.739,
"text": " Speaking on intellect, I'm sure you've heard of Stephen Jay Gould. He has some criticisms of the concept of IQ. Non-overlapping magisteria."
},
{
"end_time": 7218.37,
"index": 272,
"start_time": 7198.029,
"text": " He was obviously a smart guy but he had certain"
},
{
"end_time": 7248.712,
"index": 273,
"start_time": 7218.814,
"text": " Maybe he was a danger zone person who decided that all those people who scored better than he did on IQ tests must be really a bunch of nincompoops compared to him. And that's where he got his ideas from. But he seemed to be largely motivated by ego. He got the impression that Stephen Jay Gould was a guy who thought very highly of himself and his own perspective, but couldn't really justify it. In other words, I saw him as a danger zone kind of person. Right? That's largely where, you know, a lot of this stuff"
},
{
"end_time": 7278.217,
"index": 274,
"start_time": 7249.121,
"text": " It's not that IQ is all that special. IQ is by no means the whole of intelligence. People like Gould are right about that, but it does correlate with intelligence to a certain extent. It's an aspect of intelligence. You can't just totally dismiss it and say, well, this person, despite the fact that he's got a measured IQ of 65, is just as smart as this guy with the 150 IQ over here. You can't make a statement like that, but that's what these people want to do."
},
{
"end_time": 7304.121,
"index": 275,
"start_time": 7278.49,
"text": " Everybody's equal, even intellectually equal. They don't really believe that because they believe they're super smart. But when it comes to you, you can't be any smarter. It's ridiculous. What I wonder, people who dislike the concept of IQ, mainly they dislike it because it has connotations with respect to race and then they think eugenics is going to come out from conversations about it. Or they're not happy with their IQ or they're afraid to find out their own IQ."
},
{
"end_time": 7326.135,
"index": 276,
"start_time": 7304.599,
"text": " because it may be lower than they think. And they actually unconsciously attribute plenty to it. So there's this great quote which is, we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for but don't obtain. It's from Aesop's Fables. I put that in this movie that I was directing called Better Left Unsaid. It's about, you've heard of the radical left, I'm sure you've"
},
{
"end_time": 7349.77,
"index": 277,
"start_time": 7326.715,
"text": " You're familiar with them, so it's about what makes extremism real. It's obvious what extremism is on the right when it comes to ethnonationalism and so on. It's easy to identify, but it's not easy to identify what extremism is on the left because it's couched in terms of diversity and compassion and so on. Usually these days, though, it's also couched in terms of Marxism, which is a very flawed philosophy."
},
{
"end_time": 7379.326,
"index": 278,
"start_time": 7350.094,
"text": " What I would like is for someone who doesn't think the concept of IQ is important at all to say okay well I give them a pool of people here's a pool that has people who are measured IQ 80 to 90 and then people who have 150 to 160 okay are you telling me if you're running a company you would choose equally from them okay then take the 80s take the"
},
{
"end_time": 7405.913,
"index": 279,
"start_time": 7379.787,
"text": " Take the 90s. I don't think that they actually would do so. I don't think when push comes to shove, they would put their money where their mouth is. Unless they're practicing some form of affirmative action or have to abide by some kind of racial quota system. All right, then all bets are off. I mean, I remember when I was in New York, you know, I needed money in New York, the rents were pretty high. So I was constantly looking for a better job."
},
{
"end_time": 7434.104,
"index": 280,
"start_time": 7406.63,
"text": " The Civil Service exam at the time that I was in New York, which was during the 1980s, 1990s, they spotted certain racial minorities, 30 points on that test. In other words, someone like to go in and score 100, but if you belong to one of these privileged minorities, you could score a 70 and get the job. That's because of a basically affirmative action racial quota system."
},
{
"end_time": 7463.677,
"index": 281,
"start_time": 7434.633,
"text": " It's obviously not very good for our society because you get a lot of people that really can't handle the jobs that they're given and because of that society deteriorates. I mean, I feel for people that are denied work, for example, because they have a low IQ, but that is not a reason to destroy a society. You can't pretend that you're being compassionate and pretend, oh, we can't hurt anybody else's feelings and then ask them to do things to be"
},
{
"end_time": 7491.323,
"index": 282,
"start_time": 7464.121,
"text": " You can't expect them to perform functions like that because you feel compassionate toward them or because you don't want to hurt their feelings. There has to be a point at which reality cuts in. That's what we have to remember. It's not that these people are bad people or that they're not as good as other people. They certainly can be as good as other people."
},
{
"end_time": 7521.118,
"index": 283,
"start_time": 7491.578,
"text": " Some people are capable or better at certain things than others. IQ is a good measure for some of those things. Employers should be able to put a certain amount of weight on IQ. They don't because the academic system, Academia Incorporated, has more or less shoved IQ off the stage and replaced it with having a college degree. So now what they're looking at is"
},
{
"end_time": 7548.234,
"index": 284,
"start_time": 7521.34,
"text": " Does this person have a college degree? If he has a college degree, he's smart, and if he doesn't, he's a dummy. He's one of those high school dropouts. Forget about him because he's a bum. That is a disservice to the world, that kind of thing, because anybody at this point can get a college education. Sometimes I think that I have a dog who if I paid the money,"
},
{
"end_time": 7575.964,
"index": 285,
"start_time": 7548.609,
"text": " I see from both sides because there is, like you mentioned, there is"
},
{
"end_time": 7606.169,
"index": 286,
"start_time": 7576.459,
"text": " It's a correlation. IQ is a correlation, which is important. It's one of the highest correlates with success in terms of money, in terms of even happiness and health. Well, up to a certain point. That doesn't extend into the genius or super genius range, but it goes up to a certain level. It also correlates very highly with academic success, which of course correlates with materials. But it does not correlate with morality. So for example, there's a psychometric."
},
{
"end_time": 7636.51,
"index": 287,
"start_time": 7607.261,
"text": " A dark triad is the closest to amoralistic behavior. It's not correlated with IQ. You may think, well, the smarter you are, the more you can take advantage of people and you'd actually be more harmful to society. It turns out there's zero correlation, which is great because that means that the smarter you are doesn't make you a good person. And people tend to associate intellect with moral worth or with even human worth. I'm not sure if you do that. I see that as a dangerous game."
},
{
"end_time": 7663.729,
"index": 288,
"start_time": 7637.534,
"text": " And I also understand that if one belongs to like, I understand the controversy with IQ and race, because if you belong to a race that has been demonstrated to have a low IQ or supposedly demonstrate to have a low IQ, that's debilitating to be part of that group. It's, it's not a fun field. That's because you're identifying with the group. You know, everybody has a right to be taken, you know, as an individual."
},
{
"end_time": 7675.64,
"index": 289,
"start_time": 7664.224,
"text": " You have a high IQ, I don't care what color you are, what race you belong to, you deserve to be recognized for that. But if you feel that, well, but I'm not really me, I'm a member of this group. Hear that sound?"
},
{
"end_time": 7702.688,
"index": 290,
"start_time": 7676.596,
"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": 7728.797,
"index": 291,
"start_time": 7702.688,
"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": 7754.565,
"index": 292,
"start_time": 7728.797,
"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": 7781.681,
"index": 293,
"start_time": 7754.565,
"text": " Go to Shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in Shopify.com slash theories. Okay. And because this group has a low mean IQ, because it has that statistic, that statistic must apply to me. No, that's not true. Never was true. Okay. But the whole identity politics thing that we've fallen into leads people to take that attitude."
},
{
"end_time": 7810.367,
"index": 294,
"start_time": 7782.278,
"text": " That's one of my questions was with regard to IQ and race, or just IQ in general, if you're told that you have a low IQ, let's imagine that you're an individual who has taken an IQ test, so forget that you're inferring by membership of a group, and you have an IQ of 190 or whatever it may be, how do you avoid crushing someone's spirits by that"
},
{
"end_time": 7836.51,
"index": 295,
"start_time": 7811.852,
"text": " You tell them the truth about intelligence. There's a lot more to intelligence than just IQ. We have examples. You take Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the 20th century, had an IQ of approximately 125, which sure isn't high enough to be a genius physicist in the estimate of most people, but it was high enough for him."
},
{
"end_time": 7864.172,
"index": 296,
"start_time": 7837.142,
"text": " Intelligence comes from another place. IQ is being able to focus all of your mental energy on specifically well-defined tasks within a certain time period. That's what it is. Intelligence need not be focused that way. Intelligence is something that can be spread out over much larger areas of space and time. People that produce works of genius don't necessarily have to produce a work of genius every time they take an IQ test."
},
{
"end_time": 7895.145,
"index": 297,
"start_time": 7865.589,
"text": " Intelligence is much more than IQ and this is something that I think if people understood this and I'll try to help them understand this, if they understood it they wouldn't feel so bad about some kid who scores better on an IQ test than they do. They wouldn't even necessarily feel bad about belonging to a group that has a low mean IQ. There are differences between people. We're all good at certain things. We're all bad at certain things. Everybody's different."
},
{
"end_time": 7924.428,
"index": 298,
"start_time": 7895.52,
"text": " As long as we learn to accommodate those differences, but also allowing for the way those differences affect our performance at certain tasks in real life, when we can do that, we'll be much better. Sometimes I do this thought experiment with myself. Imagine that morality could also be placed on a spectrum much like IQ is. Would you take a decrement to your IQ for an increment in morality? I call it moral intelligence. I actually conflate the two."
},
{
"end_time": 7951.237,
"index": 299,
"start_time": 7925.725,
"text": " You mentioned the dark tetrad, the ponderological tetrad of sociopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, sadism. A lot of the elite have that dark tetrad too. They've also got a lot of them have danger zone intelligence and I'm entirely convinced that there might not be a little bit of a correlation in that range between those two things."
},
{
"end_time": 7974.241,
"index": 300,
"start_time": 7954.735,
"text": " Hello, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, yes, I can hear you. This looks like the Blair Witch Project. Do you have another... Do you have another... What? Who thinks this looks like the Blair Witch Project? What, Thea? With the light... Yeah, do you have a more powerful light? Uh, well, this is a more powerful light. It's got several adjustments."
},
{
"end_time": 8000.111,
"index": 301,
"start_time": 7974.821,
"text": " I have a light. Jeannie, could you put this on? Just one more light. One more light. People need to see your beautiful face, man. Hold on. No, no, no. I don't have a beautiful face. You're a hairline that rivals mine. Matter of fact, I would like less of my face through this. You're like darkening. What? We have this or... It's fine. It's fine. That or that? No, that looks awful. That looks awful. Okay. Do you want me to try opening the garage door?"
},
{
"end_time": 8027.875,
"index": 302,
"start_time": 8000.213,
"text": " Missouri is big on pugs. What? Do you want me to try opening the door to see if that helps with the backlight? I don't think it will, honey. It's fine. Don't worry about it. Let her know it's fine. Also, can you thank her for me? Because she's extremely assiduous. She puts so much energy and effort into... Kurt wants to thank you, honey, for your punctilious attention to all of the details. She's a sweetheart. She told me that you're a pussycat and to not be afraid of you."
},
{
"end_time": 8054.77,
"index": 303,
"start_time": 8028.336,
"text": " When I first emailed her. When I'm in a good mood. Yeah. Because from what I've seen, you were probably being interviewed by people who either you didn't like or they conveyed that they didn't like you. And so you were in a more disagreeable mood. Well, with me or not, I'm happy. The Errol Morris video? I don't remember. Well, are you talking about the? Well, no, I don't know which one."
},
{
"end_time": 8083.012,
"index": 304,
"start_time": 8055.401,
"text": " I don't know which one, but I'm just saying that I thought that you'd be a combative person. She assured me you weren't and I'm happy that you're not. No, I'm actually a very easy to get along with person. Although I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book in which I was one of the people. It was called Outliers and he attributed to me zero social intelligence. So that may be where a lot of people get that impression."
},
{
"end_time": 8105.845,
"index": 305,
"start_time": 8083.473,
"text": " I'm actually rather easy to get along with, but I was a bar bouncer for 25 years and my background even before that was such that I don't suffer fools gladly. So if someone wants to be an idiot, it rapidly changes my mood. And perhaps I'm not so easy to get along with. What? You don't have the ass kissing gene. I don't. There's no ass kissing gene inside of me."
},
{
"end_time": 8133.507,
"index": 306,
"start_time": 8106.357,
"text": " I mean, I love to be nice to people and make people feel good, but once it becomes evident to me that someone expects to get his ass kissed, then there's a problem. Is there a personal story about that that stands out to you, like you have one in mind? There's all kinds. It lasted from when I was about five years old to when I was well out of high school. I was"
},
{
"end_time": 8164.053,
"index": 307,
"start_time": 8134.087,
"text": " We came from a disciplinarian household, shall we say, where physical abuse was the norm to a certain extent and that sort of got me going along a certain trajectory. And then we were usually the poorest folks in town, the poorest family in town, which caused us to get into fights with other kids so I had to learn how to fight at a young age and I didn't necessarily want to be bothered with that."
},
{
"end_time": 8192.927,
"index": 308,
"start_time": 8164.394,
"text": " It's just the way things went for us, so that's what I had to do. And then, you know, when I went to get a, you know, I started working out, working for the forest service, working construction, things like that. Ultimately, I figured out that it was, there was a better way to make a living, paid almost as much, but wasn't so grinding and I could actually think about my work and things that I was interested in while I was doing it. It was bar bouncing. I worked in about 50,"
},
{
"end_time": 8222.875,
"index": 309,
"start_time": 8193.712,
"text": " There are about 50 night clubs over the course of 25 years or so in the greater New York area. It's probably the best-known bar in New York for a long time. Physical altercation is more or less a way of life. You meet a lot of people, but some of them are not especially easy to get along with, especially when they get drunk, so altercations arise."
},
{
"end_time": 8253.2,
"index": 310,
"start_time": 8223.49,
"text": " How did you choose your wife? How did you know she was the one? Well, she was actually a member of the super high IQ community."
},
{
"end_time": 8280.623,
"index": 311,
"start_time": 8253.524,
"text": " such as it was back in the 1980s and 90s. And so I met her through one of those groups. And we, you know, gradually, you know, we corresponded a little bit and things just grew from there. So I got myself a very intelligent woman. Beautiful too. Was there something about her that stood out to you compared to the other women of the high IQ range?"
},
{
"end_time": 8308.848,
"index": 312,
"start_time": 8281.271,
"text": " I've always been attracted to intelligent women. To me, intelligence is sexy. It makes a woman more of a woman. Not that a woman who is not so intelligent can't be sexy. I mean, that's far from the case, but it's always something to which I was attracted in a female. So that's one of the reasons that I held out for her. I mean, I was single for most of my life."
},
{
"end_time": 8334.991,
"index": 313,
"start_time": 8309.582,
"text": " My temper gets a little bit short sometimes. That's always something I'm trying to improve. I have a"
},
{
"end_time": 8365.742,
"index": 314,
"start_time": 8336.084,
"text": " Weakness for certain kinds of snacks or candies like licorice. I mean, I just can't stop eating You know, I literally have to hide it from myself after a certain point because You know, I just eat bag after bag. I'm the same way man Yeah, I know it may not look like it but trust me. No, no, you're actually a pounds greater than I am I'm seriously my wife. I pig out like you wouldn't I expand my it hurts and I'm like, okay, that's the that's the beginning and"
},
{
"end_time": 8390.367,
"index": 315,
"start_time": 8365.981,
"text": " Let me keep eating and then I have to fast for a day or two days so that alternate between extreme. I don't know if it's great for my liver. I talked to my doctor about it. She said that your liver seems to be fine, but I go. Yeah, but it's just that it takes sometimes days to let your digestive system catch up to everything that you put in your mouth. If you just keep on eating, I find myself getting in trouble if I just keep on stuffing myself for a week or two at a time."
},
{
"end_time": 8419.155,
"index": 316,
"start_time": 8390.811,
"text": " I got to stop eating almost entirely for the same amount of time before I'm back to normal. I see the workout, the weights behind you, I see the gym set. Oh, anytime if you ever make it to this area, definitely you're welcome to enjoy the gym as much as you want to. I like working out. It helps keep you young. After a certain point, you've got to have resistance exercise, your muscles deteriorate. You start losing muscle mass and that's something that fortunately I haven't lost any muscle mass at all."
},
{
"end_time": 8449.087,
"index": 317,
"start_time": 8419.718,
"text": " And I'm probably as strong as an athletic 20-year-old. I do military press with over 200 pounds for reps, which is very good for someone of my age. How old are you? I'm 69. Good job, man. So you don't work out because you want to keep your IQ. You work out for other reasons. The IQ, too. Believe you me, there are a lot of reasons to work out."
},
{
"end_time": 8476.271,
"index": 318,
"start_time": 8449.565,
"text": " You just keep yourself young, you keep your mind sharp, you keep up your motivation, your level of testosterone doesn't decrease, so you maintain the amount of mental aggression you need to attack difficult problems. These things are important to me, so I work on it. Okay, I wanted to get your thoughts on some other thinkers. One of the reasons I facetiously call it Viyomaki, which is like the battle of the gods, and the reason is that these are intellectual giants, and"
},
{
"end_time": 8507.005,
"index": 319,
"start_time": 8477.125,
"text": " I'm not sure about you, but for me, I glean plenty from seeing these giants disagree with one another. It's as if I pick up nuggets from the damage of their fight from the fallout. So what are your thoughts on new atheists like Sam Harris? So new atheism in general, you don't have to attack Sam Harris, although you're more than welcome to. I don't. Look, there was a, you know, back in the they started publicizing me. I had a chance to get heavily publicized. I was asked"
},
{
"end_time": 8533.029,
"index": 320,
"start_time": 8507.637,
"text": " to appear on TV shows as early as the late 1980s. I refused. I simply didn't want to be involved. Then in the late 1990s, I was around 1998 when I started getting publicized. And after that, I got a few media appearances of one sort or another. But then I started, because I mentioned during some of these appearances,"
},
{
"end_time": 8561.425,
"index": 321,
"start_time": 8533.507,
"text": " that there was a mathematical way to prove the existence of God, I began getting trolled by atheists. For a while, I was on a few sites that were supposedly religious sites that were dominated by Christians, people calling themselves Christians, and noticed that they weren't protecting me from these atheistic trolls. These atheistic trolls were saying an awful lot of bad things."
},
{
"end_time": 8590.811,
"index": 322,
"start_time": 8561.92,
"text": " And there were some that actually attacked me personally. Name brand atheists who were nothing at the time but have since become, you know, the signatures of the new atheist movement. I'm not going to mention their names because that would be publicizing them, but they were nasty and I didn't get along with them at all. And then as I was trying to nevertheless get purchased for my theory, I found myself getting cancelled."
},
{
"end_time": 8616.118,
"index": 323,
"start_time": 8591.766,
"text": " and there were several people, among them Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and who the hell was it? Not Chris Hitchens, but one of them. I don't know if it was Sam Harris or not, but they came up with this new policy of how to deal with people who believe in God, theists. You cancelled that. They must be refused to talk to"
},
{
"end_time": 8645.333,
"index": 324,
"start_time": 8617.142,
"text": " Right? We refuse to give them any sort of respect whatsoever and pretty soon nobody will pay attention to them at all. And so this is what they pulled on me and my theory and they pretty much managed to stop me dead for a long time. I'm not happy about it and I don't like those people. I think they're intellectually dishonest. I think the scumbags are great. Although I'm not saying that they're stupid people."
},
{
"end_time": 8672.756,
"index": 325,
"start_time": 8645.742,
"text": " I mean, his theory is easy to pick apart. Richie Dawkins, there's nothing there. They're intelligent in a way, but on the other hand, they're not really. They don't have much penetration. They can't understand the inconsistencies in their own work. I just don't respect them very much. I've been on a couple of sites. They're just awful, the things they say about you, the things that they do."
},
{
"end_time": 8698.353,
"index": 326,
"start_time": 8673.029,
"text": " They apparently have no moral grounding. They don't believe in God so they don't believe there's any sort of moral identity in the universe that can make them act or behave in any particular way that others find acceptable. So all bets are off. They think they can do whatever they want, say whatever they want about you and get away with it and that's what they have done repeatedly. They've been deplatformed. People will say things and I will"
},
{
"end_time": 8728.387,
"index": 327,
"start_time": 8698.592,
"text": " You can't run intellectual commerce under the watchful eyes of such people who are canceling you. All you have to do is mention the G word and they've got a problem with you."
},
{
"end_time": 8754.923,
"index": 328,
"start_time": 8729.138,
"text": " Right? And so this is where we've gotten to today. And as far as I'm concerned, that policy of theirs where they simply refuse to converse with you, that is intellectual cowardice. I mean, you take people like Richie Dawkins, Daniel Dent, easily crushed by someone like me. I mean, they wouldn't last a minute, but they still won't talk."
},
{
"end_time": 8781.425,
"index": 329,
"start_time": 8755.094,
"text": " It's an excuse for them to flee. Oh, well, he believes in God. What a dunce. So he's beneath our dignity. We won't cast any of our, shed any of our glory on him. So this entitles us to run away. And they hide in the shadows. You'll see them. I mean, they get out there in public, but not where they can really be dealt with by anybody who's smarter than they are. And that's not a very tall order at all. There are plenty of people smarter than they are."
},
{
"end_time": 8811.476,
"index": 330,
"start_time": 8782.585,
"text": " Speaking of hiding in the shadows, you look like Russell Crowe. Is there another light? I want to prevent you from making the same mistake that people do toward you. So, for example, they'll make ad hominins. I don't think Daniel Dennett or Dawkins have a low IQ. I think they're extremely intelligent people. They may not have as high an IQ as you. Have you ever been personally insulted by them or their friends? Because until you have been, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 8838.558,
"index": 331,
"start_time": 8812.108,
"text": " You haven't walked in my shoes. Don't worry, man. I'm on your side and I'll defend you. That's good. Thank you. I'm just saying that I think your animosity toward them is from being attacked. And if they were kinder to you, I don't think that you would denigrate their intelligence. It's been going on for 20 years. Certainly I would have been willing, you know, if they had just said, oh, well, you know, let's let's let's get together and I'll have a conversation. These people don't give an inch."
},
{
"end_time": 8868.131,
"index": 332,
"start_time": 8839.07,
"text": " They're haters. They hate God. Richie Dawkins, if you listen to what he says, it becomes very evident that he doesn't really have an argument against God. He just hates God. This has been going on for 20 years in my case, and I've had it with the guy. He's misled a lot of people. This is something that you can go to hell for. Richie Dawkins thinks that he's able to deal with somebody like me. He's got another thing coming. I'll just"
},
{
"end_time": 8898.456,
"index": 333,
"start_time": 8868.473,
"text": " Let's talk about the concept of hell. What is it? Some religions say that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations of Christianity is that hell doesn't exist. Some interpretations is that it does exist or there's a place of purgatory and or"
},
{
"end_time": 8928.114,
"index": 334,
"start_time": 8898.763,
"text": " And then there's that hell is a place where you'll be tortured for a finite amount of time and then you'll be brought back and then there's some where it's an infinite amount of time. What is your idea of hell derived from the CTMU? Hell is simply the process of ceasing to exist, of being teleically unbound and having your identity destroyed because it is unacceptable to God. See, God in the CTMU is something called a stratified identity and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity."
},
{
"end_time": 8955.981,
"index": 335,
"start_time": 8928.422,
"text": " the level that we all share with each other. We're all united in God. But God is good and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does. So if you deny God and you cut your, basically you're cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you and can no longer accept you into himself because he's totally consistent."
},
{
"end_time": 8984.428,
"index": 336,
"start_time": 8956.442,
"text": " God is totally, completely self-consistent and will not tolerate his denial. It's just not something that God can afford to tolerate because something that is perfect cannot tolerate, cannot absorb or assimilate imperfection into himself. He can tolerate it for a while, but then after a while he's got to exclude it. All right, so this is what hell is. Basically your own highest level of identity."
},
{
"end_time": 9010.094,
"index": 337,
"start_time": 8985.333,
"text": " is telling you, you can no longer exist because you're no longer in touch with me. You've cut your own identity in half. You've severed it. It's called the soul, the human soul. That's what these levels of stratified identity are. They're your soul and once you interdict that, once you sever it, you're cut off from God. That way your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you anymore."
},
{
"end_time": 9039.292,
"index": 338,
"start_time": 9010.572,
"text": " It can't see you. So when you die and you beg on the deathbed, please take me back in. God can't hear you anymore. That's a terrible thing and I don't wish it on anybody. But if people understand this and understand the stratified identity and understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won't punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now, because that's a very unpleasant experience, everybody wants to cling to their identity in the end."
},
{
"end_time": 9067.193,
"index": 339,
"start_time": 9040.213,
"text": " There's this phrase, I don't know where I got it from, but it says that hell is a prison locked from the inside. That's correct. Well, that's a very good, very opposite quote. Is it a place of torture? Is it a place of torment? Is it a place of infinite heat?"
},
{
"end_time": 9093.473,
"index": 340,
"start_time": 9068.097,
"text": " You bring with it your own ideas of what hell is? That's correct. Where else would they come from? For someone like Dawkins, who doesn't believe in the concept of hell either, would he then experience nothingness?"
},
{
"end_time": 9122.159,
"index": 341,
"start_time": 9093.677,
"text": " Okay, well, you're right. I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. Because he rejects, he will create his own kind of hell and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him. He's no longer a big shot at Oxford University. He can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God. Nobody wants to listen to him anymore."
},
{
"end_time": 9151.681,
"index": 342,
"start_time": 9122.91,
"text": " You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect and no one that I've met is perfect, so does that mean that none of us are going to heaven? None of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded teleisys?"
},
{
"end_time": 9181.374,
"index": 343,
"start_time": 9152.517,
"text": " The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time, things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. It's an oxymoron to think that God holds this against you. We all have to adapt. We all have to do what it takes to survive and God doesn't hate us for that."
},
{
"end_time": 9210.316,
"index": 344,
"start_time": 9181.613,
"text": " That isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of ultimate reality and his own highest level of identity, which is God. It's wanting to undo, to unbind reality, to say the name of reality backwards. That's what evil is. That's what you get punished for. That's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing."
},
{
"end_time": 9238.968,
"index": 345,
"start_time": 9211.067,
"text": " There's someone like Peterson who would come out and say that, Sam Harris, you say that you're an atheist but you say that with your words but you don't act like that with your body because you treat people with humanity, you are concerned with the world living and not dying, flourishing. Do you agree with Peterson saying that you can say that you're atheistic but not act it and thus does someone get saved even though they profess atheism?"
},
{
"end_time": 9267.807,
"index": 346,
"start_time": 9240.896,
"text": " Yes, basically the problem, however, is that once you professed atheism, now you've got to get God's attention again. Once you've severed your soul, once you've put a cut in your soul and you've actually cut God off, now you've got to heal that severance before God can see you again. It takes a long time. It's not going to have, oh, well, I've changed my mind. I've decided not to hate God anymore. That's not good enough."
},
{
"end_time": 9296.903,
"index": 347,
"start_time": 9268.968,
"text": " It needs to go on for a long, long time and you've really got to try and you've got to cry like a babe in the woods until God finally hears you. Okay? So it's not easy. These people are hurting themselves by cutting themselves off like that. Hey honey, is there a light over there? You know one of those lights, those food lights over there? Turn on that clamp light. I want to see how that influences the... This thing is getting in my eyes."
},
{
"end_time": 9327.056,
"index": 348,
"start_time": 9297.671,
"text": " What I'm getting at is almost the opposite of not all those who cry Lord, Lord will be saved. So on the one end, even if you claim to be a Christian or you claim to believe in God, that's not enough. You have to also act it. And on the other end, one can say that even if one says that they're against God, but one acts kindly, one acts lovingly, then does that mean that they still can be saved? Peterson would say, now he doesn't talk about heaven or hell, but he would say that you believe in God with your body."
},
{
"end_time": 9347.039,
"index": 349,
"start_time": 9327.5,
"text": " Father, deeds shall you move."
},
{
"end_time": 9376.886,
"index": 350,
"start_time": 9347.995,
"text": " Would you say that he in your model will be going to heaven or hell assuming that Sam Harris is a good person with his actions but professes atheism vehemently with his mouth? Unfortunately, your relationship with God cannot be faked. When somebody is doing good acts, it could be only because they want to be recognized by others as someone who does good acts. They want the moral approval of other human beings. That's not good enough."
},
{
"end_time": 9391.118,
"index": 351,
"start_time": 9377.534,
"text": " Completely fine, can't hear a thing of the storm."
},
{
"end_time": 9422.073,
"index": 352,
"start_time": 9393.507,
"text": " Pardon me, Kurt. Go ahead. Let's take a quote from someone who criticized you. You said, if someone denies the existence of God, then God will exclude them from reality. And then this person said, well, okay, how does Langen explain the continued existence of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins? Well, they have a physical body. They're basically co-hering to their physical body, and that's what's providing them with a continued identity. They've reduced themselves, however, to feel physical. There's not much left there."
},
{
"end_time": 9449.923,
"index": 353,
"start_time": 9422.346,
"text": " If God could not have been otherwise, like with your model, there are these meta laws that govern the universe. So it sounds to me like there is a bound to God. God is his own bound, God is his own boundary."
},
{
"end_time": 9480.947,
"index": 354,
"start_time": 9451.254,
"text": " Who is or was Jesus?"
},
{
"end_time": 9512.739,
"index": 355,
"start_time": 9484.36,
"text": " We cannot possibly know what Jesus was because historical methodology prevents us from validating everything that was written again in the Bible. But we know what Jesus is now. Jesus is the ideal of human perfection. Someone who was willing to lay down everything and sacrifice himself for mankind. All right, that's what Jesus is. He was the image of human perfection. It is through a Jesus-shaped gateway that we can approach God."
},
{
"end_time": 9541.374,
"index": 356,
"start_time": 9513.404,
"text": " All right, we have to become perfect in order to unify with the perfection of God. So that's the way Jesus functions in the Christian religion and the way he can function in every religion because Jesus is our Christ too and far between if you know what I mean. In Buddhism, of course, Buddhism has another central figure who is Buddha, Gautama Buddha Siddhartha. He's basically another kind of cat and tiger."
},
{
"end_time": 9569.155,
"index": 357,
"start_time": 9542.039,
"text": " He didn't talk much about God. You can sort of infer a conscious higher reality from some of the things that Buddha said, but he didn't actually acknowledge the existence of God. He was also a rich individual that was born into privilege and then went around traveling and meditating and ministering to the masses and so forth."
},
{
"end_time": 9592.227,
"index": 358,
"start_time": 9569.855,
"text": " In several ways he doesn't quite measure up to the image of Jesus. Jesus was born poor. He didn't start out with any advantages at all. He lived like a normal man, like an ordinary human being, absorbing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at every turn, which is what we have to do. That's what we're expected to do. Therefore, Jesus is an exemplar for us."
},
{
"end_time": 9622.125,
"index": 359,
"start_time": 9592.688,
"text": " Whereas Buddha, technically, is an exemplar to people who are born with privilege and then want to withdraw from reality and have a meditative existence and never mention God. So there is a little bit of a difference between the two. Now, in the CTMU, we don't discriminate against Buddha because he lacks Jesus-like characteristics. Instead, we recognize him for his strengths"
},
{
"end_time": 9645.162,
"index": 360,
"start_time": 9622.671,
"text": " Let's get to some other intellectuals. Like I mentioned, for me I love hearing"
},
{
"end_time": 9671.544,
"index": 361,
"start_time": 9645.384,
"text": " Academic speak about other academics or intellectuals speak. For example, if Russell commented on Aristotle, it illuminates not only how Russell thinks, but it gives me a new perspective on Aristotle at the same time. So I'm going to bring up a few different giants, intellectual giants, even though you may not consider them to be so, and we'll see what you think of them. Have you heard of Clea Irwin? Yes. Are you presenting Clea as an intellectual giant?"
},
{
"end_time": 9701.067,
"index": 362,
"start_time": 9672.892,
"text": " Yes, I'm wondering what you think of Clea Erwin's theories. Clea Erwin has theories on quantum gravity. I'm unsure if you've taken a look, and as well as consciousness. So what do you think about them? Well, Clea seems like a smart person. I don't want to say anything bad about Clea, but I will say that Clea has a lot of ideas that are very CTM-yulite. And the problem with that is that I got to these ideas a long time before Clea did."
},
{
"end_time": 9728.353,
"index": 363,
"start_time": 9701.954,
"text": " And I actually had to force Klee to cite me in his most recent, it wasn't in that paper, the Reality of Self Simulation Hypothesis. Anyway, Klee has a theory. It's got a number of ingredients, some of which are questionable, some of which aren't. It's based on Garrett Leasey's E8 theory. It's a certain symmetry group that he uses."
},
{
"end_time": 9758.558,
"index": 364,
"start_time": 9729.155,
"text": " But there are other aspects that are straight, pure CTA meter. I was simply not mentioned. I understand sometimes people don't know any better, but at one time I was on every major news network in the country. There are probably relatively few people who are above a certain age who never heard of me. A lot of them have forgotten that they heard of me, but nevertheless I was still there."
},
{
"end_time": 9784.923,
"index": 365,
"start_time": 9758.814,
"text": " I think that a reasonable literature search should turn up something about the CTMU if you undertake it. If you're actually doing your job and looking for other ideas that are comparable to yours, you're probably going to bump into it. So Klee's theory is to the extent that it resembles the CTMU, it's great. Other parts of it are questionable, but the key part is"
},
{
"end_time": 9814.582,
"index": 366,
"start_time": 9786.323,
"text": " Klee is missing essential structure that you need to have a working reality self-simulation hypothesis and a reasonable TOE theory of everything. He's missing certain key ingredients that are built into CTME structure. His theory is not a supertautology. It has to be a supertautology in order to be a true theory of everything. He mentions language in his theory"
},
{
"end_time": 9844.974,
"index": 367,
"start_time": 9815.094,
"text": " He mentions a lot of things that I introduced with the CTMU, which was the first language-like theory of reality. He mentions a lot of things, but then they're kind of haphazardly glued together and it looks like you kind of made a snowball out of them and threw it up in the air to see what would happen. If he ever realizes this, he is going to realize that he has a CTMU clone."
},
{
"end_time": 9874.309,
"index": 368,
"start_time": 9846.101,
"text": " that doesn't just differ from the CTMU, but is the CTMU a different language? That is where Klee is at. I don't want to detract from Klee. I think he probably thinks he's doing a good job. I do know that forcing him to cite me was not easy. I had a long string of correspondence. It originally happened. He introduced his paper, his new paper, and he put it up on RxEve, I guess. It was one of"
},
{
"end_time": 9894.855,
"index": 369,
"start_time": 9874.462,
"text": " is a email distribution that I was on with 60 or 70 pretty well-known people. And he introduced it there as though it was just entirely his reality self-simulation hypothesis. And I'm like, what the hell? What is this? Because these people know me, they know who I am. So I said, wait a minute."
},
{
"end_time": 9924.07,
"index": 370,
"start_time": 9895.179,
"text": " I've been talking about the reality of self-simulation for years. You're going to have to cite me. I've looked at your paper. I don't see you mentioning me here. You've got some of the same ideas in there. He went back, quoted a lot of self-simulation quotes from me. The problem was that he was trying to present it as a completely new idea for which he was responsible. It wasn't. In my estimation, in some ways he's got it right, but in some ways he's lashing it up."
},
{
"end_time": 9954.258,
"index": 371,
"start_time": 9924.889,
"text": " What about Joschabach and his ideas of consciousness?"
},
{
"end_time": 9960.589,
"index": 372,
"start_time": 9955.623,
"text": " You should bark like Daniel Dennett. Hear that sound?"
},
{
"end_time": 9987.705,
"index": 373,
"start_time": 9961.561,
"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": 10013.78,
"index": 374,
"start_time": 9987.705,
"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": 10039.548,
"index": 375,
"start_time": 10013.78,
"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": 10068.439,
"index": 376,
"start_time": 10039.548,
"text": " You cannot explain consciousness with physics or in a computational system. The CTME makes use of a concept called proto-computation, which is even more general than quantum computation. There's a universal Turing machine, there's a quantum Turing machine,"
},
{
"end_time": 10094.821,
"index": 377,
"start_time": 10068.814,
"text": " The CTMU actually quantizes reality in terms of what might be called a proto-computer, except that it's the entire CTMU. All of that structure has to go into this quantization. And then the universe is self-similar on that basis. Every part of it mirrors the whole. It's a metaphysical system. You cannot explain consciousness using physics because it doesn't have the coherence that it would need."
},
{
"end_time": 10123.968,
"index": 378,
"start_time": 10095.469,
"text": " Okay, your consciousness is coherent. You are a unified entity when you perceive reality around you and when you have thoughts. You feel the unity of your consciousness. That's what I mean by coherence. A machine is not coherent. It doesn't have that coherence. All right, you've got to figure out some way of getting that coherence in there, and that's a tall order. Okay, Joshua Bach doesn't have that. Daniel Dennett never had that. I mean, there's one of the new atheists that I mentioned."
},
{
"end_time": 10152.944,
"index": 379,
"start_time": 10124.394,
"text": " These guys, they have some good ideas. I mean, I don't want to totally dismiss what they've done. Everybody has remarkable insights. Dennett writes well, I mean, but he writes like a philosopher, which is almost opaquely at times. He reads some of the stuff that people think I'm opaque. I think I'm a marvel of clarity compared to Daniel Dennett sometimes. He talks around things like a lot of philosophers do. I mean, that's a skill that they develop in academia."
},
{
"end_time": 10181.92,
"index": 380,
"start_time": 10154.172,
"text": " Joshua Bach is better than that. He actually tries, makes an effort to explain what he's doing better than Daniel Dennett ever did. But still, you know, still he's not really getting to the root of what consciousness is in my opinion. And even if they're wrong, they're extremely inventive, both Joshua Bach and Daniel Dennett. I'm sure that they definitely have their strong points. I'm not trying to, you know, these are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination."
},
{
"end_time": 10201.254,
"index": 381,
"start_time": 10182.449,
"text": " It's just that they're trying to solve problems without having properly recognized the problem and their non-recognition of certain aspects of the problem has caused the solutions to go awry. Can we talk about this proto-computer, this proto-computation you mentioned? So there's Turing machines as we..."
},
{
"end_time": 10231.254,
"index": 382,
"start_time": 10201.596,
"text": " or classical machines as we ordinarily think of them, and then there's quantum computation, and then you're saying there's an even more general notion where different states of an infinite type are able to be used in the calculation simultaneously. I'm unsure, can you please explain that some more because I haven't encountered that in your work? Well, it means that basically a proto-computer is generative, which neither a universal Turing machine nor a quantum Turing machine, the universal Turing machine is"
},
{
"end_time": 10261.408,
"index": 383,
"start_time": 10231.698,
"text": " That's Turing's original invention. Then you've got the quantum Turing machine, which I think was introduced by David Deutsch. They both resemble each other in certain respects. They're different. The nature of the tape is different. The nature of the storage module is different. The quantum Turing machine is more general and more powerful than the universal Turing machine. But what a theory of reality actually needs is generativity. In other words,"
},
{
"end_time": 10292.005,
"index": 384,
"start_time": 10262.244,
"text": " At the same time as new states are created, new medium has to be created to go with those states. The medium is constantly being generated. Space-time is constantly being generated. These people imagine that the medium of reality is some kind of fixed array, almost like a computer display, like the one I'm looking at right now and seeing your face. That's what they think reality is. They think it's kind of like a display screen with little pixels in it."
},
{
"end_time": 10319.616,
"index": 385,
"start_time": 10292.09,
"text": " Speaking once again about Clea Irwin, Clea Irwin thinks that he's actually stated that reality has little tetrahedral pixels in it. It doesn't work. It's discretized and basically that doesn't work. It doesn't work for a number of reasons, one of which is relativity. You don't have the proper kind of covariance and contravariance. It's very hard to make that work."
},
{
"end_time": 10344.787,
"index": 386,
"start_time": 10320.026,
"text": " If you've got discretized pixels, Lorentz contractions and things like that would actually have to influence the number of pixels that are activated at any one time and that causes inconsistencies. But apparently these people don't realize there are also certain inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. But this idea of a discretized script, Dennett has the same damn thing."
},
{
"end_time": 10372.398,
"index": 387,
"start_time": 10346.92,
"text": " I'll withhold. Basically, Dunnett talks about a Cartesian theater, as I recall, and the Cartesian theater is something that he attempts to depart from. Nevertheless, he is a physicalist, and physicalists do have to have something like a discretized pixelated display, even if they describe it in terms of quantum mechanics, which is erroneous. You can't do it that way, really."
},
{
"end_time": 10402.534,
"index": 388,
"start_time": 10372.807,
"text": " Nevertheless, what reality actually needs is something that is generative and generates new space and time even as new states of matter are generated. That's one of the implications of triality. The medium has to change a lot. It's even an implication of Einstein's equation. You've got a stress energy tensor on one side and then you've got the metric tensor on the other. You see, the metric tensor being the medium and the stress energy tensor being the matter distribution"
},
{
"end_time": 10430.265,
"index": 389,
"start_time": 10402.927,
"text": " Okay, those two things actually have to be in sync. They've got to be coupled in a certain way. And these people are just not doing it. They're not approaching it in the correct way. Einstein, by the way, I can make a pretty good argument that relativity makes no sense outside of the CTN at all. The entire scenario, the way things are done there, the way things are coupled, the way space is coupled with time, for example,"
},
{
"end_time": 10458.592,
"index": 390,
"start_time": 10430.879,
"text": " and then the way he couples objects with space-time in Einstein's equation, these things actually don't work outside of the CTM. So we need that. We need that generativity. We need we need tele-sys to be factored from the top down into space and time. And that's what neither of these other Turing machines, neither the UTM nor the QTM does. The CTM does do this, however, and it uses the entire structure of the metaformal system"
},
{
"end_time": 10489.121,
"index": 391,
"start_time": 10459.667,
"text": " There are other models of discrete space. They wouldn't call it space time. Space time would emerge such as spin foam networks in loop quantum that still have the properties of being background free and Lorentz invariant and so on. So what about those? Would you say that those are also doomed? You've got to have a representation. You've got to have an observer immersed in a medium of representation."
},
{
"end_time": 10516.084,
"index": 392,
"start_time": 10489.735,
"text": " And I don't see right now how you can salvage any of those viewpoints. I think that they all need to be interpreted in the CTME in order for their good points to actually be valid. I think that as it stands right now, excessive claims are being made. I don't think they live up to those claims. I think that if I were questioning"
},
{
"end_time": 10542.381,
"index": 393,
"start_time": 10516.476,
"text": " Any of these people, I don't think that they would be able to justify their claims. There's just no damn way that you can have a non-generative display. Once again, we're referring to the reality self-simulation, which can be likened to a computer. There is an analogy. It's a little bit more involved than you might suspect, but nevertheless, you can separate the display from the processor."
},
{
"end_time": 10571.305,
"index": 394,
"start_time": 10543.029,
"text": " These people are all making assumptions about the nature of the display and the nature of the processor. And usually what they're trying to do is confine everything to the display. And for various reasons, this is not polite. This cannot be, we can't pull that off. All these guys are trying to do it. Bless their hearts. They've got a certain amount of good insight, but they're just not pulling it off. Let's get to the next one. How about Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity?"
},
{
"end_time": 10602.449,
"index": 395,
"start_time": 10572.551,
"text": " What are your thoughts on that? Eric Weinstein, okay, geometric unity. That's where he's got a triangle that has the Dirac equation spinners and spin one and a half matter particles on one vertex. On the other vertex he's got general relativity and on the other vertex he's got the standard model with SU3 times SU2 times SU1 gauge theory."
},
{
"end_time": 10628.729,
"index": 396,
"start_time": 10602.807,
"text": " Okay, I think that Eric is actually, he seems like a very bright guy. I remember when he had his, I think, isn't he the guy who had the mathematics encyclopedia up for a long time on the web? I think it was Eric Ronstadt. Some guy named Eric Ronstadt had a math encyclopedia up on the web. It was pretty impenetrable. If you didn't already know the math, I'm not going to get anything out of this encyclopedia."
},
{
"end_time": 10649.701,
"index": 397,
"start_time": 10629.343,
"text": " It was good. But anyway, here's the strength of his approach, this geometric unity. Basically, he seems to be saying, it sort of occurs to me that what he's saying is, well, we're having a hard time putting together a purely analytic algebraic TOE. So let's look at the geometry of these theories."
},
{
"end_time": 10678.916,
"index": 398,
"start_time": 10649.923,
"text": " of the Dirac equation and the standard model and general relativity. And let's see if we can put those geometries together. And if we can merge those geometries, then guess what? We're going to automatically just be able to match it with a global formal theory coupled with the geometry. And this is really kind of an innovative way to approach it. However, it's the way I've been approaching it for decades."
},
{
"end_time": 10708.899,
"index": 399,
"start_time": 10679.394,
"text": " Stephen Wolfram's Theory of Everything, the Wolfram Project. What are your opinions on that? Have you taken a look? Stephen Wolfram, he's obviously a very bright guy. He knows a lot about mathematics."
},
{
"end_time": 10730.947,
"index": 400,
"start_time": 10709.326,
"text": " is kind of an adorable character. What he's done, what it seems to me that he's done is he's tried to identify certain basic elements and rules of assembly and then like a bunch of ticker toys, he's trying to assemble those into the overall structure of reality."
},
{
"end_time": 10757.21,
"index": 401,
"start_time": 10731.903,
"text": " and I appreciate that and it's entertaining to read Stephen's writing about it and there's a lot of insight there but it doesn't work because if you're going to have a theory of everything you need to start with everything. You're not going to take a subset of everything and then put it together and get something which is reality which is more than the sum of its parts."
},
{
"end_time": 10785.759,
"index": 402,
"start_time": 10757.688,
"text": " You're not going to do that. You've got to start with everything, which means you've got to start with cognition and perception in general. You've got to logically induce your theory from that. And that's the way to build a theory. But as far as Stephen's writing is concerned and the other aspects of what Stephen does, I think he's a very bright guy. I get a big kick out of reading what he writes, but this is more or less"
},
{
"end_time": 10815.998,
"index": 403,
"start_time": 10786.561,
"text": " Right up front for me, the fact that he's going about it in the wrong way. He hasn't seen the big picture. He doesn't understand all of the criteria that have to be satisfied in order to have a TOE. That's where you've got to start. You've got to start with everything. Nothing can be excluded, either implicitly or explicitly. You've got to have everything. You've got to have everything condensed or encapsulated somehow in some kind of process. And for us human beings, the process is cognition and perception."
},
{
"end_time": 10846.237,
"index": 404,
"start_time": 10816.561,
"text": " What about Donald Hoffman? Have you taken a look at his theories on consciousness and conscious agents interacting and so on?"
},
{
"end_time": 10871.749,
"index": 405,
"start_time": 10846.391,
"text": " He's saying that some aspects of how we see the world is actually quite deceptive but adaptive. In other words, it helps us adapt and survive to the world if we actually don't see it correctly. He's got this idea of a graphic user interface that actually allows us to have cognition that is deceptive but nevertheless adaptive."
},
{
"end_time": 10899.138,
"index": 406,
"start_time": 10872.193,
"text": " Basically what Donald needs is, he needs an overall framework in which to insert his GUI, his graphic user interface. He needs the actual reality self-simulation principle to make that work. He's a guy who is very much in need of the CTME. Of course, he's an academic so he probably would have insisted it come from another academic, but if that would have happened it would be called plagiarism. So I doubt that he's ever going to get to the truth."
},
{
"end_time": 10927.875,
"index": 407,
"start_time": 10899.616,
"text": " Okay, how about David Bohm? So how your theory compares and contrasts with David Bohm's theories, which I would like you to explain in implicate order to me because I haven't had the chance to look it up. And then there's someone named Henry Berkson, which is related to Bohm. I'm not sure how they differ."
},
{
"end_time": 10955.265,
"index": 408,
"start_time": 10929.121,
"text": " As far as David Bohm is concerned, his reputation precedes him."
},
{
"end_time": 10983.609,
"index": 409,
"start_time": 10955.759,
"text": " There was an early bomb and a late bomb. The early bomb was Bohmian mechanics and then later on he came up with something called the holo movements, the holographic universe. I think he wrote a book on the holographic universe with Vassel Haile. Anyway, he has this thing that he calls the holo movement that basically takes an implicate order and kicks out an exponent."
},
{
"end_time": 11013.285,
"index": 410,
"start_time": 10984.377,
"text": " That is pure CTMU. That process is what the CTMU calls involution. It's just one aspect of the CTMU, but that aspect he actually captured very well with that polar movement, implicate and explicate order thing that he's doing with later bone. As far as the earlier bone mechanics is concerned, that's a little bit dicey. Hard to make that look."
},
{
"end_time": 11041.135,
"index": 411,
"start_time": 11014.77,
"text": " Would the implicate order be associated with descriptive containment and then the explicit is topological containment or there's no relation? Explicate order is the display, the terminal display or the CTMU semilanguage LO and the other part is the CTMU semilanguage LS which corresponds to the processor instead of the display. That's the implicate order."
},
{
"end_time": 11070.026,
"index": 412,
"start_time": 11041.442,
"text": " It's implicated, it's an implicate form there in the processor where things are actually getting non-locally combined and entangled and telons are working to actually determine overall causal patterns. That's where that's occurring. It's all extremely, it's very, very interesting. Bohm actually matured as a thinker a very great deal in the course of his life. There are a couple of things I don't like. I mean, I think Bohm was a communist, wasn't he?"
},
{
"end_time": 11099.65,
"index": 413,
"start_time": 11071.647,
"text": " Right, and that may be one of the reasons why Bohmian mechanics came out of favor because it was as if you were supporting communism. Right. Well, let's... Communism is a very... Marxism is a very bad theory of philosophy. It's got a lot of holes in it. It's just awful in certain respects. So when you see a brilliant thinker like David Bohm grabbing a hold of it and embracing"
},
{
"end_time": 11128.592,
"index": 414,
"start_time": 11100.247,
"text": " This can't help his reputation, you see, and I think Bohm suffered a great deal because of that, but you can certainly understand why it happened. As far as Bohmian mechanics is concerned, he's basically trying to concretize everything. He's got a pilot field, he's got the Springer equation, but he's also got this, the pilot field is actually guiding the particle to its destination. But what is guiding the pilot field itself?"
},
{
"end_time": 11158.097,
"index": 415,
"start_time": 11129.77,
"text": " I mean, there are a number of philosophical questions that could be asked about Bohm's theory that reveal that it is indelibly associated with the terminal side of the reality of self-simulation. So in other words, it's terminally confined in CTME terminology, which means that it's not really any kind of complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've been told I need to learn more about Bohmian mechanics and Birksen if I'm going to be investigating theories of everything."
},
{
"end_time": 11181.886,
"index": 416,
"start_time": 11158.575,
"text": " A lot of people really like Bohmian mechanics because of its strong components. It does have strong components, but it won't really do in a theory of everything. The theory of everything relies on Bohmian mechanics. It's toast. There's just not enough there to pull it off. As far as Bergson is concerned, it's like a fine philosophy."
},
{
"end_time": 11212.039,
"index": 417,
"start_time": 11184.087,
"text": " Okay, how about Douglas Hofstadter's Strange Loop idea of consciousness? You know, Gertrude Escher Bach, I'm sure you've heard of that book. Yes, yeah. I think I was probably in my early 20s when I got a copy of that book. The Strange Loops and the pushing and the popping and all that stuff. Quite an intriguing book. Very much in fashion for a long time. Sort of a precursor to the reality of self-simulation."
},
{
"end_time": 11242.398,
"index": 418,
"start_time": 11212.875,
"text": " People ask me who do I want to interview most? Douglas Hofstadter is up there, Penrose is up there and even M&M. Roger Penrose is brilliant. Where do you see Douglas Hofstadter's theory lacking and what do you like most about it? So what dislikes and then likes pros then cons? Well, you know, he relies a lot on computational principles and I think he might be"
},
{
"end_time": 11273.046,
"index": 419,
"start_time": 11243.2,
"text": " You know, nevertheless, even though he's relying on a lot of advanced logic and, you know, powers of metal languages and levels of computation and so forth, he shows no sign of being anything but a physicalist in the sense that it's all computational and computation is a mechanical process. So it looks to me like it might be like his outlook may be basically mechanistic. Right. Right. Which, you know, I can't agree with because that's not what reality is in CTMU."
},
{
"end_time": 11303.541,
"index": 420,
"start_time": 11274.138,
"text": " Now Penrose seems to agree with you in saying that there are many paradoxes associated with thinking that consciousness comes from something that's computational. Have you heard much about Penrose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction and so on with Hameroff? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hameroff is on a lot of these, or at least was on a lot of these distributions that I find myself on a huge one. And, you know, there is something to it. I mean, you know, Hameroff identified microtubules, cytoskeletons as being"
},
{
"end_time": 11333.814,
"index": 421,
"start_time": 11304.019,
"text": " as being a place where quantum coherence might actually be able to function in the brain. And there are other ways that quantum mechanics can serve itself in the neural processes as well. But, of course, he relies on Penrose for most of the physics and actually figuring out where it's all coming from. Penrose has this idea of a platonic realm or this platonic form of reality. It's a tripartite form of reality."
},
{
"end_time": 11363.422,
"index": 422,
"start_time": 11335.879,
"text": " These mathematical truths that exist as these fully formed mathematical objects in platonic realm. He doesn't have the CTMU, Roger Penrose, doesn't have a fully formed theory of reality, but he's just very hard not to appreciate because he's so brilliant."
},
{
"end_time": 11392.688,
"index": 423,
"start_time": 11364.138,
"text": " His brilliance was almost for you sometimes when you read some of the things that he writes. Mathematically, he's a brilliant mathematician. He's a brilliant physicist. This idea of his that basically it's not just computation, that there is something that is undecidable going on in human thought. Basically, you know what Goodell theory implies? He says there's no"
},
{
"end_time": 11420.589,
"index": 424,
"start_time": 11393.302,
"text": " You've got a system, a system that actually is capable of trans-finite induction and is truly interesting. There are truths that cannot be derived from any finite set of axioms in such a system. Basically, what Penrose is saying is that human thought somehow generates undecidable theorems that are true on a metamathematical level but cannot be derived"
},
{
"end_time": 11447.517,
"index": 425,
"start_time": 11421.015,
"text": " This is exactly what the CTNU says. I started publishing in the same year, I think. He came out with a book, I think his biggest theoretical statement was The Emperor's New Mind. Recognize that title? That's correct. That was 1989, which is when I wrote The Resolution of Newton's Paradox. We started publishing at about the same time. He got a hell of a lot farther than I did in that amount of time. Then again, he wasn't cancer."
},
{
"end_time": 11470.606,
"index": 426,
"start_time": 11447.807,
"text": " How about Thomas Campbell and his My Big Toe? Have you heard of that? It's a strange theory"
},
{
"end_time": 11498.78,
"index": 427,
"start_time": 11470.998,
"text": " Essentially that there's another realm when you mentioned that there are thoughts and sorry that there are data points that come to us instantaneously in this non-terminal realm Thomas Campbell also says that that's the mechanism by which Psychic phenomenon work that it occurs to you instantaneously We think that it has to travel some distance in the same way that it would have to travel in our space-time and there's a finite speed he says know that this other realm where consciousness operates is"
},
{
"end_time": 11530.009,
"index": 428,
"start_time": 11500.691,
"text": " Well, that sounds very CTME consistent. He also has Aum. He calls it Aum, which you call unbounded talesis. He has Aum, unbounded absolute oneness, or absolute unbounded oneness. Is that supposed to sound like Aum? No, as far as I know, it's a coincidence. Anyway, he says that that's the fundamental constituents, this place of complete potential. Yes, that's CTME consistent, yes. Although he says this, which I disagree."
},
{
"end_time": 11557.244,
"index": 429,
"start_time": 11530.35,
"text": " He says that unrealized potential is trying to do is to create order and to decrease its entropy and I quibbled with him because I don't think that order and entropy are what people claim in common parlance entropy and order and disorder are not actually high entropy doesn't mean low order in the way that most people think and it's obvious because if you look at a coffee cup with some milk and you create some turbulence that looks completely disordered and then when you"
},
{
"end_time": 11585.469,
"index": 430,
"start_time": 11557.892,
"text": " That's Thomas Campbell's"
},
{
"end_time": 11615.794,
"index": 431,
"start_time": 11586.647,
"text": " It reminds me of yours though, yours is more rigorous. Yeah, I mean mine actually has structure, mathematical structure to it, but it sounds like he's coming up with some good ideas that are on the right track and can be successfully interpreted in a true theory of thought. He also had out-of-body experiences and he would suggest that people who are younger are more in tune or more naturally in tune, like you get out of tune as you get older with"
},
{
"end_time": 11645.913,
"index": 432,
"start_time": 11616.186,
"text": " This other realm, and so you can go and what you think of as thought space is actually a real space, but it's another space. I wouldn't use the word dimension, but it's another realm, let's say a primordial realm. Right, it's another terminal realm. Like I say, that's always a possibility. You can create terminal realms that are not identical to physical reality, and that may be related more or less tenuously to it, but aren't dependent. Okay."
},
{
"end_time": 11675.589,
"index": 433,
"start_time": 11646.101,
"text": " How about Noam Chomsky? What do you agree with him about and then disagree with him about? Back when I was first developing the CTMU, Chomsky was one of the people I had a correspondence with. It was very brief, maybe three or four emails. He didn't understand a word I said, even though I was using his theory of generative grammar hierarchy. Nevertheless, actually making a metaphysic out of that was something that Noam couldn't"
},
{
"end_time": 11705.845,
"index": 434,
"start_time": 11676.032,
"text": " I don't know whether it was because I was just explaining myself poorly or whatever, but Gnome was a big nothing burger for me. I couldn't even get a conversation started. It seemed to be he has a certain perspective on language and it's all about where does it come from, how do we get it, and that's his focus. When you try to broaden the focus, I think that sometimes"
},
{
"end_time": 11734.787,
"index": 435,
"start_time": 11706.135,
"text": " Noam just doesn't pick up on me in what I'm saying. He's a brilliant guy, but that was my experience with him. The other guy was John Wheeler, who pretty much loved the CT interview. He wanted to meet with me. He asked to meet with me at Princeton, but I had a couple of jobs and I couldn't get away. It was a mistake. I should have given up the damn jobs and just gone to see Wheeler anyway."
},
{
"end_time": 11758.37,
"index": 436,
"start_time": 11735.469,
"text": " With regards to the Chomsky not understanding your theories, I think that you overestimate the intelligence of the average person trying to understand your theories and or you're too close to it and that leads to frustration on your part and the people trying to understand it. You think I overestimate their intelligence or underestimate? I think you overestimate."
},
{
"end_time": 11787.295,
"index": 437,
"start_time": 11758.78,
"text": " by thinking that it's simple and the reason i say that is eric weinstein also does something similar with how he explains his theory he doesn't seem to get that the way that he explains it is esoteric and i wouldn't call it opposite it's almost like obscurantism though he's not trying to be and i'm not accusing you of that please don't take this as any slight i'm just saying that i think you may be too close to it to"
},
{
"end_time": 11816.527,
"index": 438,
"start_time": 11788.097,
"text": " understand the frustration of people who actually want, they're not trolls, some of them are, but they genuinely want to understand and they feel like it's impenetrable. The reason I say this is because it's hard for me to understand too, and I actually have a contact on your side, speaking to him on a daily basis, so I'm lucky that I have some physics and math background, so it's easier for me than an average person, but I still had a difficult time with it. What is the name of the person with whom you've been communicating? His name is Sam Thompson."
},
{
"end_time": 11844.411,
"index": 439,
"start_time": 11817.637,
"text": " Yes, Sam is a mathematics student. He's actually pretty smart. Yeah, I love Sam. Me and Sam have been speaking almost each day. I actually had to get him on WhatsApp so I could speak. He's a big tall kid with red hair. I don't know if he's tall. I only spoke to him through webcam. But he's such a nervous person, but he's a sweetheart and he's extremely insightful and he understands your theories almost inside and out. He's a mathematician. He's smart."
},
{
"end_time": 11873.916,
"index": 440,
"start_time": 11845.64,
"text": " Okay, we'll get on to the next one. Jordan Peterson, where do you agree, disagree? So it could be with either his biblical interpretations, his psychological book called Maps of Meaning, Order versus Chaos, and so on. Well, you know, Jordan is a, I think he's managed to do some good. I think that a lot of people get a lot of insight out of Jordan. And so I think that he's, you know, he's actually doing some good things. But as far as a TOE is concerned, he doesn't have"
},
{
"end_time": 11902.944,
"index": 441,
"start_time": 11874.582,
"text": " As I recall, his position on the existence of God is, well, I'm not going to say whether he exists or whether he doesn't, but I will say this, it would be better if we all believed he did, which is kind of a cop-out. But I don't think that he has the kind of philosophical understanding that would enable him to put together a basic theory that actually serves as a foundation"
},
{
"end_time": 11928.729,
"index": 442,
"start_time": 11903.268,
"text": " for morality, for example, and Jordan is really kind of a moral philosopher, so he needs that kind of foundation. I don't think he has it. He probably knows who I am. I mean, he's a psychologist, he's a Canadian, he's a North American psychologist. He has certainly heard of me, but I've never heard from him. As a matter of fact, I think there was some guy, some agent who was trying to set up a meeting between"
},
{
"end_time": 11953.643,
"index": 443,
"start_time": 11929.326,
"text": " Remember we were going through this exercise of stating a seemingly complicated sentence with terminology that wasn't articulated to the audience and then articulating them specifically. So let's do that once more."
},
{
"end_time": 11981.92,
"index": 444,
"start_time": 11954.087,
"text": " Meta-causation and other metaphysical criteria require the standard physical conception of space-time be superseded by a more advanced metaphysical conceptualization that is a logical geometric dual to the linguistic structure of the triallic identity. Okay, so, before I move on to the next sentence, meta-causation, let's define that. Meta-causation is basically the... There's another dimension of time called meta-time,"
},
{
"end_time": 12011.698,
"index": 445,
"start_time": 11982.295,
"text": " that leads from the display to the processor of the reality of self-simulation and that is what we mean by meta-time and causation is pre-real, pre-causation that occurs in the processing section of the reality of self-simulation. Meta-causation is really what causes things to happen. It's the real processing that is going on in causality. By the way, that can be mathematically demonstrated."
},
{
"end_time": 12040.538,
"index": 446,
"start_time": 12012.125,
"text": " Causation is distinct from the concept of origination."
},
{
"end_time": 12069.991,
"index": 447,
"start_time": 12041.886,
"text": " When something is originated, it's originated from scratch. Causation, there always has to be a prior code. So you can go back in infinite sequence. Origination means actually being able to originate something. That is what metacausation is. It's what ordinary people would call origination and this happens in a specific way in the CTMU. There's something called a distributed origin which exists everywhere in the non-terminal realm and that is where"
},
{
"end_time": 12098.729,
"index": 448,
"start_time": 12070.759,
"text": " This sounds like free will is associated here somewhere. Yes, it certainly is. Because it's the starting of a loop. Well, it's a loop, but it's not a loop that is fully resolved by physical law. There are gaps and holes in the causation. That's why there's something called"
},
{
"end_time": 12129.002,
"index": 449,
"start_time": 12099.002,
"text": " quantum uncertainty or quantum indeterminacy. The laws of physics are not sufficient to determine how a quantum wave function collapses. More is required. That's metacausation. There's a process called delic recursion that is actually a non-local feedback among the resources available in the semi-language LO which allows causation to occur. It actually refines causation and resolves the holes and gaps"
},
{
"end_time": 12152.21,
"index": 450,
"start_time": 12129.224,
"text": " Okay, then the next word is logical geometric dual. Okay, when I hear that, I can't help but think of stone duality like some generalization of it. Basically, basically, basically, it's the same thing. It's an intention extension duality between predicates and sets."
},
{
"end_time": 12180.503,
"index": 451,
"start_time": 12152.892,
"text": " It's Logico-geometric, it's right there in the name. Logic is being coupled with geometry. They're dual to each other. Therefore, you've got a self-duality when you couple those two things in every quantum of reality. In other words, where you view reality in terms of identification events involving syntactors, this is what you get."
},
{
"end_time": 12205.879,
"index": 452,
"start_time": 12180.845,
"text": " You get logico-geometric duality between the sides, between the syntactic data type and the input data type that you're accepting from the external environment. Physical input and then internal processing with internal metal states that go into your behavior. Okay, the last word is triolic identity. So what's meant by that? The identity of reality is triolic."
},
{
"end_time": 12236.34,
"index": 453,
"start_time": 12207.125,
"text": " The identity of reality, of course, we've been through that. That is called the global operator descriptor. Basically, it has syntactic structure. Give me that term again. Trialic identity. It's triallic, which means that it serves as its own object, its own relation and relational structure and its own operational structure. It is at once an object, a relation and an operator. That's what triality is."
},
{
"end_time": 12266.101,
"index": 454,
"start_time": 12237.278,
"text": " Okay, it's as simple as that. You can also phrase it as, you know, neutrality can be looked at in a couple of other ways as well, as basically the coincidence of space, time, and object. All of those things are everywhere combined. It can also be looked at as the combination of language, universe, and model. All right, which is, and that is implicit in the title of the CTMU, cognitive theory is a language. Okay, model is a model."
},
{
"end_time": 12295.043,
"index": 455,
"start_time": 12266.613,
"text": " Triality, another way to understand it is that there's dualities which people can understand. It's two notions that are dual to one another. Now you're saying that there's three. Is it as simple as extending two to three? All you have to do is put space and time together and now you've got two things. You've got one medium and one object, so your triality has become duality right there."
},
{
"end_time": 12320.794,
"index": 456,
"start_time": 12296.152,
"text": " There's no mystery about it. Basically you've got space, time and object or object relation and operation or universe, model and language. You've got those three things and those three things all have to be combined in every identity in reality and every identity in reality is a coherent image of the global identity which is a global operator descriptor."
},
{
"end_time": 12349.428,
"index": 457,
"start_time": 12321.92,
"text": " Okay, is that also related to Hologi, the concept of Hologi? Well, here's the thing. In the generative universe, you've got syntax. You've got a universal distributed form that is in every syntactor. That means that every point of reality is automatically covered by the UDF or by syntax as it is created. In other words, the UDF or the universal syntax of reality is invariant with respect to rescaling."
},
{
"end_time": 12375.179,
"index": 458,
"start_time": 12350.145,
"text": " Let's get to some audience questions and then we'll wrap up. We have an audience? There's no one here watching right now, but"
},
{
"end_time": 12404.445,
"index": 459,
"start_time": 12375.384,
"text": " I've asked for questions. I posted your face before on my theories of everything community tab. I said, Hey, I'm interviewing Chris Langan in a few weeks. Let me know what questions you have for him. Oh, okay. Okay. So this person, his name is Dav. He actually translated your publication to French. He writes a question here. Dav says, I made a French translation of your two publications, CTMU and the introduction to CTMU. I plan to release, I plan to continue."
},
{
"end_time": 12426.63,
"index": 460,
"start_time": 12405.794,
"text": " What's the best way to stay in touch with you on this matter? Well, obviously, that would be through the Mega Foundation. What is our email address at the Mega Foundation, honey? What's that? info at megacenter.org"
},
{
"end_time": 12453.712,
"index": 461,
"start_time": 12427.619,
"text": " In the context of the afterlife processing the sum of information of an individual's consciousness, in your opinion, to what extent could the continuity"
},
{
"end_time": 12482.295,
"index": 462,
"start_time": 12454.309,
"text": " Yes, but you've got to have something that encodes your memories and will actually instantiate them. You've got to have something"
},
{
"end_time": 12506.442,
"index": 463,
"start_time": 12482.671,
"text": " Like a brain that serves as an antenna for the telor and actually realizes cognition that is determined by telic recursion. The answer to your question is yes, but basically goes back to what I was saying about always having to have, aside from the telor, something approximating a terminal body that you use."
},
{
"end_time": 12536.084,
"index": 464,
"start_time": 12506.903,
"text": " which is, you know, while these religions talk about an afterlife and having a new body, a resurrection body, etc., you know, reincarnation, you always have some kind of terminal body for your italic aspect of your existence, for the purely metaphorical aspect of your existence to be instantiated in, okay? Then you can have specific memories and things. Otherwise, you are a syntactic entity or a group of impulses. Hear that sound?"
},
{
"end_time": 12563.131,
"index": 465,
"start_time": 12537.039,
"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": 12589.258,
"index": 466,
"start_time": 12563.131,
"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": 12614.991,
"index": 467,
"start_time": 12589.258,
"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 Brooklinen. 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": 12642.824,
"index": 468,
"start_time": 12614.991,
"text": " You're all of those things and you're an id, but you don't necessarily have specific memories unless you create a site for them and unless the site in which they can be coded."
},
{
"end_time": 12673.131,
"index": 469,
"start_time": 12643.422,
"text": " So that's why this duality between your soul and your body exists. I haven't gotten to any questions on consciousness, but in your theory, how is consciousness defined and where does it fit in? Every quantum of the universe is conscious because it's a syntactor. A syntactor is a generalization of a computational acceptor. It's a proto-computational generalization of what in computation theory is called an acceptor. An acceptor is just a"
},
{
"end_time": 12703.882,
"index": 470,
"start_time": 12674.07,
"text": " processing unit that accepts input from the external environment, applies a kind of syntactic filter in it to decide what gets through and in what form, and then processes it and returns it to the environment. That's basically what it comes down to. If you take a look at the structure of the syntactor, because it's performing that recognition function, it has to be conscious. Every quantum of the universe"
},
{
"end_time": 12734.155,
"index": 471,
"start_time": 12704.343,
"text": " It's a generic form of consciousness that it inherits from the global operator descriptor. We have a more complex form of consciousness because we have more inherent complexity in our terminal embodiments and more self-modeling capacity because of that. We have a very complex brain that encodes all of our memories and thoughts and everything else and allows us to separate and resolve them."
},
{
"end_time": 12762.21,
"index": 472,
"start_time": 12734.616,
"text": " I've never met Jonathan but I know who he is and I know he's done some writing on the CTMU. He's an intelligent fellow and he's actually written a book or two and as far as I know he's still a member of our"
},
{
"end_time": 12788.968,
"index": 473,
"start_time": 12762.483,
"text": " Yeah, I'm open to whatever you might have in mind, but there are, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 12819.053,
"index": 474,
"start_time": 12790.333,
"text": " There are a couple of people that are probably on your list of interviewees with whom I have had, you know, peripheral reactions or interactions in the past. And some of these people, I think as I recall, Bernardo Castro was pretty darn persnickety. He was on, I think he was on one of Jack Sarfati's lists and there was a kind of an antagonism going on there. And I made a couple of comments and got a couple of what I regarded as pretty persnickety responses at Bernardo."
},
{
"end_time": 12849.326,
"index": 475,
"start_time": 12819.906,
"text": " And I remember being slightly rubbed the wrong way by it. But you know, that's water under the bridge. So sure. I participated in a discussion that Bernardo was in. Didn't he start writing for Scientific American or something that he used to brag? I don't know. But I do know that he's a sweetheart. And I don't think I think if he was picking a fight with you, then it's I think you may be thinking of the wrong person. I don't think. No, I'm not. No, I'm not."
},
{
"end_time": 12874.582,
"index": 476,
"start_time": 12850.759,
"text": " Stephen Nicolich"
},
{
"end_time": 12901.766,
"index": 477,
"start_time": 12875.418,
"text": " I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and operate equally regardless of substrate, that is, whether it's material or consciousness. Essentially, idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. Okay, that's not a question. Read the first part of that comment. I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary... Information and logical what?"
},
{
"end_time": 12929.94,
"index": 478,
"start_time": 12902.142,
"text": " Okay, so I've taken the view that information and logical rule set are the only necessary ontological components and they operate equally regardless of the substrate. So whether it's consciousness or material, information and logical rule set are primary. So then he's saying essentially that idealism slash materialism is a false dichotomy. So what are your thoughts on that? It's not a question. I just want to hear what occurs to you."
},
{
"end_time": 12957.193,
"index": 479,
"start_time": 12932.005,
"text": " Well, it is a false dichotomy in the sense that all of those things are coupled, information and logic. There is no information without a logical rule set. Language is the medium of information and language has syntax and that's a logical rule set, especially where your language includes the language of logic itself. Those two things are very closely coupled."
},
{
"end_time": 12985.538,
"index": 480,
"start_time": 12957.449,
"text": " You can't separate them dualistically and put one on one side, one on the other, and say we've got a complete dichotomy here. In that sense, he's right about there being a false dichotomy. As far as reducing all of reality to just information and logical rule set, that omits a lot of structure that probably deserves mention, but it could just be that he didn't have the time to write it all down. What would be an example of a structure that's not captured in information or logical rule set?"
},
{
"end_time": 13014.053,
"index": 481,
"start_time": 12987.022,
"text": " Well, you've got all kinds of – read the CTNU papers. There are many, many pages of structure that are missing from that characterization. But one thing that can be said for it is that information mappings are also captured in these little quanta, these state transition events of syntactors, of syntactic operators and telecom operators. It can all be captured."
},
{
"end_time": 13044.326,
"index": 482,
"start_time": 13014.531,
"text": " Which of the major philosophers came the closest to discovering and expressing the true nature of reality? Came the closest?"
},
{
"end_time": 13073.524,
"index": 483,
"start_time": 13044.565,
"text": " Well, there were a number of very, very good ones. I mean, if you look back, just so many Pythagoras came up with something that looked a little bit like Syndiphanes and Aristotle followed up on that. And Leibniz also had, there was much to be said for what he did. Whitehead with his process philosophy also very good. Bergson had some good ideas."
},
{
"end_time": 13101.288,
"index": 484,
"start_time": 13073.916,
"text": " There are just a number of philosophers out there that, you know, Plotinus had some good things going for him. Plato, of course, just all kinds of, I mean, Heraclitus. Sierran Dudley, same person, number two. As you know, Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that they apply to all sufficiently expressive formal systems. So why should one think Gödel's theorems don't apply to the CTMU?"
},
{
"end_time": 13129.974,
"index": 485,
"start_time": 13103.404,
"text": " They do apply to the CTMU. That's why the CTMU is formulated the way it is. To get around, that's why it's generative. You can generate new axioms in the CTMU. You don't need to derive everything in the CTMU from some finite set of axioms. It's exactly what Gödel's theorem says. There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what the CTMU actually says. Can the generative grammar"
},
{
"end_time": 13159.548,
"index": 486,
"start_time": 13130.486,
"text": " Introduce an uncountably infinite amount of axioms? Yeah, it can introduce an infinite set of axioms if that's what you're asking. An uncountably infinite is what I'm wondering. Anything in which the elements can be distinguished is countable. You can count them one by one. Count, count, count. Okay? The fact of the matter is real numbers are uncountable because you never have to complete one of them. You never have to write out all the little decimal spaces."
},
{
"end_time": 13189.138,
"index": 487,
"start_time": 13159.735,
"text": " Timothy O'Brien asks,"
},
{
"end_time": 13217.5,
"index": 488,
"start_time": 13189.411,
"text": " Please ask him how Leibniz's monadology relates to the CTMU. Monads are an old Greek concept that goes back quite a ways. There's actually some logical complexity to Leibniz's monadology that I could actually write a paper about."
},
{
"end_time": 13245.742,
"index": 489,
"start_time": 13217.875,
"text": " What role do the requirements of the existence of difference relations play in the metaphorical reasoning of the CTMU?"
},
{
"end_time": 13277.978,
"index": 490,
"start_time": 13247.978,
"text": " The metaphysical requirements of difference relations, did you say? Yep. He has a bracket, which says... Well, that would be syn-diffionesis, would be the metaphysical requirement of a difference relationship. That would be that the difference relationship be defined within a syn-diffionic relation, which means that you need basically the CTNU to make sense of it. Steven Oles has a great question that's more general."
},
{
"end_time": 13305.435,
"index": 491,
"start_time": 13278.422,
"text": " Chris feels dumb or average? It all depends on it. Sometimes I roll out of bed feeling pretty stupid about nearly everything. My mind is not always functioning in peak efficiency. There are times when I feel pretty much incompetent no matter what I do, but there are times when all the mirrors are cocked at the right angles and all the lights are on. Then I sometimes feel as though I can pretty much handle anything."
},
{
"end_time": 13333.456,
"index": 492,
"start_time": 13305.896,
"text": " So it just varies with the time of day, I guess you'd have to say. Have you done any meditation or taken nootropics, like phenol, paracetam, or paracetam, and seen any improvements? Is there anything that you can reveal? I don't really take nootropics. I drink coffee in the morning, you know, I often switch to tea later on if I need some kind of stimulant."
},
{
"end_time": 13362.398,
"index": 493,
"start_time": 13333.746,
"text": " How about psychedelics? I spent time on an Indian reservation when I was a kid. It was the Wind River Reservation."
},
{
"end_time": 13391.766,
"index": 494,
"start_time": 13363.336,
"text": " When we stayed there, it was usually in proximity to friends of the family, the Big Road family. There was a guy named Mark Big Road. He was a shaman, a Arapaho, I think. But he could have been Seward Shoshone, I don't rightly recall, but he was a shaman. And there would be meetings, prayer meetings on the North American church, Wepe, and one other kind of religion. But anyway, Mark's prayer meetings"
},
{
"end_time": 13419.377,
"index": 495,
"start_time": 13392.244,
"text": " were such that the attendees took mescaline at these prayer meetings. I suppose that probably got some of that, although certainly I don't do drugs. Have I ever done drugs? Yeah, I've experimented a little bit with drugs, but I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to mess with drugs too much because"
},
{
"end_time": 13447.09,
"index": 496,
"start_time": 13419.889,
"text": " It interferes with what's going on up here and I don't like that. It's generally a feeling that bothers me in some respects. The psychedelics, I think that they have great potential for being beneficial, psychologically beneficial if they're used in the right way under the right circumstances. However, it's easy for them to get out of control. You can have a psychotic break on psychedelics."
},
{
"end_time": 13475.981,
"index": 497,
"start_time": 13447.534,
"text": " This is something that you always have to be careful. All right. There was a lot of this stuff going on that my family was involved in the counterculture, both in the in the beat generation, the beat next, you know, that things when the whole thing started, the whole counterculture movement got started. And then with the hippie generation, we were the ones who actually there was a teepee. It was a big deal. There was an Indian teepee erected in Berkeley by a guy named Charlie Hartman. You're still following the term beat in it, correct?"
},
{
"end_time": 13506.101,
"index": 498,
"start_time": 13476.442,
"text": " Jack was running a bar called The Place in North Beach and Boob used to come in there because that's where you can rub elbows with Jack Kerouac and Neil Cassidy and"
},
{
"end_time": 13530.879,
"index": 499,
"start_time": 13506.749,
"text": " and Alan Ginsburg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and all the rest of these beats, these beat figures, and Herb liked to do that. He was a columnist. He was staying au courant. He was actually rubbing elbows with the right people. And Jack told a joke about how in a symphony he said, Russia seems to be sending up satellites. Look, they've got Sputnik. All we seem to be able to produce is beatniks."
},
{
"end_time": 13560.589,
"index": 500,
"start_time": 13532.005,
"text": " Well, Herb heard that. It appeared like the next day in The Chronicle under Herb's byline. And I can remember my stepfather was furious. He was not the kind of guy who wanted to get furious around, but I remember it was a big deal. So that really pissed him off. But, you know, the place was the center of the culture in San Francisco. There was something called Blabbermouth Night that was invented by"
},
{
"end_time": 13589.957,
"index": 501,
"start_time": 13560.879,
"text": " Getting back to psychedelics you were mentioning, I was wondering, personally, did your experimentation with psychedelics give you any insight that you then took to the CTMU? What I can remember from my days on the reservation are a feeling of great affinity for the planet. I thought it was alive."
},
{
"end_time": 13620.52,
"index": 502,
"start_time": 13590.538,
"text": " Do you still carry that with you to this day? Yes. How do you feel about"
},
{
"end_time": 13649.957,
"index": 503,
"start_time": 13620.93,
"text": " I feel pretty poorly about it. I think that a lot of it is unnecessary, a lot of it is very poorly done. But on the other hand, people have to live. The earth is overpopulated. We should not have so many people on it. We're encountering all kinds of problems because of it already. We're going to encounter many, many more if it continues. And we've got to start regulating our numbers and living coherently."
},
{
"end_time": 13679.138,
"index": 504,
"start_time": 13650.367,
"text": " living consistently with the environmental limitations of the planet. The planet is finite. The resources are finite, but human population is exponential. It's essentially governed by a logistic equation. But when we get to the peak of that equation, that can be influenced. Now it's being pushed way ahead so that when we have a collapse, it's going to be a doozy. We need to get out of that right away. That being said,"
},
{
"end_time": 13702.568,
"index": 505,
"start_time": 13679.599,
"text": " The way the elite, the oligarchs, the people who run the world who have all the money and power, the way they're handling this problem, the way they seem to be handling it sometimes is not the right way. We've got to put this in front of the human race and we've got to appeal to what is best in mankind to make mankind voluntarily and responsibly limit their own reproduction."
},
{
"end_time": 13733.217,
"index": 506,
"start_time": 13703.473,
"text": " That's what we've got to do. We've got to think about future generations. We've got to watch about transmitting genetic diseases or disabilities to them. People say, that's horrible because now you're talking about eugenics. Guess what? It's horrible to be born with a genetic disability. How can you sentence a child to that? We've got to do something about the reproductive situation. It is too easy for us to live too long on this planet at this point to be reproducing indiscriminately."
},
{
"end_time": 13763.712,
"index": 507,
"start_time": 13733.882,
"text": " Okay, this person named Snord Grimstad is a huge fan of yours. It looks like this person has read"
},
{
"end_time": 13791.323,
"index": 508,
"start_time": 13765.367,
"text": " Plenty of your work. Do you have any views? I'm going to paraphrase this question. Basically, he or she wants to know if the CTMU can concretely help someone who's going through a psychological disorder like schizophrenia or depersonalization or... He just mentions those two. Yes, it certainly can. As a matter of fact, we're going to be setting up a program"
},
{
"end_time": 13816.869,
"index": 509,
"start_time": 13791.8,
"text": " for people that can actually help them do this. The whole idea of the stratified identity and knowing the structure of reality, as we do, we can make inroads in terms of psychological and sociological integration. And that is something that we're going to be concentrating on. I already have plans for it. Does the concept of sinned fianesis necessarily connect to a self-distributing top-down model of reality?"
},
{
"end_time": 13846.067,
"index": 510,
"start_time": 13817.739,
"text": " Is there a sense in which one still has to understand reality in an experiential sense, even"
},
{
"end_time": 13868.575,
"index": 511,
"start_time": 13846.425,
"text": " Absolutely. Absolutely. You've got to understand reality by actually living in it. That's what's so dangerous about the predicament we're in today. The people who are running the world are filthy rich people that live in bubbles. These people have never worked an honest day in their lives. They don't know what it's like to miss a meal."
},
{
"end_time": 13891.698,
"index": 512,
"start_time": 13869.616,
"text": " You understand we can't have the world run by people who don't understand it and who don't understand what it feels like to actually live in it on the ground floor, absorbing its slings and arrows at all times. The people who are running the world are pampered, coddled elites that live in their own champagne colored, rose colored bubble of privilege."
},
{
"end_time": 13919.275,
"index": 513,
"start_time": 13892.005,
"text": " This has to stop. These people don't know what the world is. Not only don't they know what it is intellectually, they don't know what it's like to live it. And this is creating terrible, terrible problems for us. So what can we do as the general population besides understanding the CTMU? Let's just take that out of the bag as one of the potential solutions. What can we do to ameliorate this problem given to us by or inherited to us from the rich elite, as you put it?"
},
{
"end_time": 13948.387,
"index": 514,
"start_time": 13921.664,
"text": " Well, we have to utilize something called we have to engage in the political process to try to stop the elites from basically destroying our freedom, destroying freedom and human dignity and everything else that makes us human. We've got to stop that by engaging in the political process. We have to exercise civil disobedience when necessary. OK, and. Aside from that,"
},
{
"end_time": 13977.858,
"index": 515,
"start_time": 13948.66,
"text": " If that fails, we have to go back to the Constitution. The Constitution contains a certain amendment which says that we have to defend, we are entitled and have the duty to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If they're going to take human freedom and human dignity and validate the Constitution, they have no right to be here. If they want to go live someplace else, let them go live there."
},
{
"end_time": 14009.616,
"index": 516,
"start_time": 13981.698,
"text": " Something that strikes me about your theory is it's derived logically. That made me wonder, in keeping with this question where he was asking, is there an experiential element to reality that's not captured in the CMTU? What I'm wondering is, do you consider the CTMU to be or even yourself to be rationalist or do you have problems with the rationalists? I have no problems with rationalists as long as they're competent, which a lot of them are."
},
{
"end_time": 14040.128,
"index": 517,
"start_time": 14010.418,
"text": " A lot of people criticize me because basically you're like those old medieval philosophers who used to pontificate on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. You're trying to derive everything from logic but really the world is experiential. It is the logic of experience. To derive the CTME, you start with experience. You start with Cogito and Essie. You start with Descartes and Berkeley."
},
{
"end_time": 14068.439,
"index": 518,
"start_time": 14041.442,
"text": " I love what you said, the logic of experience"
},
{
"end_time": 14096.493,
"index": 519,
"start_time": 14068.951,
"text": " Don't think I've heard that phrase before. Did you just come up with that on the spot or have you heard that before? First time I ever said it. I've never heard it. It's a wonderful phrase. What I'd like to know is how is science as it's currently formulated limited? Well, it's limited by the lack of an understanding of what a meta-language is. Back in the 19th century, for example, they thought there was something, physical theory contained something called the Limit of Receiver. And that was basically"
},
{
"end_time": 14126.869,
"index": 520,
"start_time": 14097.278,
"text": " mapped into physical reality as a kind of a space-filling substance, or perhaps as space itself. Then, when Einstein came along with the theory of relativity, he changed physical theory so that luminiferous ether disappeared. It totally disappeared from the scene. So the truth value of luminiferous ether exists had to be changed from true"
},
{
"end_time": 14147.602,
"index": 521,
"start_time": 14127.005,
"text": " in the 19th century to false in the 20th century. That involves the use of something called a meta language where you attach truth values to physical attributions. Physicists did not understand and still do not understand the structure of the meta language that they need to do things like that, and it's called metaphysics. In other words,"
},
{
"end_time": 14166.305,
"index": 522,
"start_time": 14148.012,
"text": " Businesses actually need metaphysics. They need a metaphysical metal language to actually make changes like this, to pass, to affix truth values to physical attributions, to change their theories, to correct their theories and things like that. The amazing thing is they don't realize this. They still don't realize it."
},
{
"end_time": 14194.684,
"index": 523,
"start_time": 14166.834,
"text": " They don't realize that physics has actually absorbed metaphysics of necessity. It needs metaphysical functionality in order to do this. But most physicists think that metaphysics is some kind of woo or some kind of quackery. And it's just what it is, is this logical ignorance. They're not trained properly in what a metal language is or what an object language is, but for that matter, how a universe relates to it. They don't know anything about model theory"
},
{
"end_time": 14223.968,
"index": 524,
"start_time": 14195.538,
"text": " Some of them may have taken a course in model theory, but they don't really know anything about it. Because of that, the CTMU is an advanced meta-language for science. It's a metaphysical meta-language, and it's absolutely logically necessary. You can't get by without it. So this is what's the matter with science. It doesn't understand the language in terms of which its theories are formulated or how they relate to the physical universe. It's kind of a hit and miss thing where"
},
{
"end_time": 14254.07,
"index": 525,
"start_time": 14224.224,
"text": " We're following the scientific method, we're empirically inducing theories, and we're sort of affixing them or gluing them onto observations in physical reality, but we don't know how or why that is happening. It's some kind of lucky break that we're getting, right? It's the unexpected efficiency of mathematics, of being able to actually use mathematical models on reality, right? They don't have a metal language whose structure actually tells them why that's occurring. So this is"
},
{
"end_time": 14279.94,
"index": 526,
"start_time": 14254.377,
"text": " This is bad news for science. It remains bad news. I'm trying to help them fix it. Some other ways people would say that are on the more eastern end, they may say that it doesn't incorporate enough experiential elements or that it's too mathematically defined. That's part of the problem, yes. They don't understand that there is actually a subjective as well as an objective aspect to reality."
},
{
"end_time": 14306.732,
"index": 527,
"start_time": 14280.589,
"text": " They need a metal language to actually put those two things together. That's the coupling. Metal language provides the coupling for a subject of an object of reality. And the lack of such a metal language means that they can't actually put those two things together. That's what we're trying to help fix with the CTMU. And we're getting a lot of bonuses. There are a lot of things that you can do with the CTMU. For example, businesses are trying to explain dark energy. They're never going to do it."
},
{
"end_time": 14332.159,
"index": 528,
"start_time": 14307.449,
"text": " until they have the CTMU. The CTMU offers the only viable explanation for dark energy. And there are other things, consciousness, there are all kinds of things that cannot be explained without this metal language, this metaphysical metal language, and the admission on the parts of scientists and physicists in particular, that metaphysics is already built into their discipline. How they could still be ignorant of it, I'm not quite sure."
},
{
"end_time": 14363.063,
"index": 529,
"start_time": 14333.677,
"text": " I recall you saying that the universe is not simply a sum of its parts. I'd like you to explain why. Well, it's synergistic, basically. If you put things together and you're basically doing so, it's like bolting a machine together. You're putting the parts together, you're putting in the little screws and they're all in the right place and then you turn the crank and the machine works. But if you take one of those little pieces out, well, the machine doesn't work anymore. It just sort of falls apart and there is no coherence to it."
},
{
"end_time": 14388.2,
"index": 530,
"start_time": 14363.319,
"text": " When you think, you know, the things that are going on in your mind, they're all connected to each other. You notice there's no division. There's no, there's no one thing is, you know, missing or anything like that. It's all there. Everything is coherent and machines don't function that way. Machines have a kind of mechanical coherence, but that's not sufficient. So what we need is higher order coherence. That's what the CTMU also brings to bear as it has higher order"
},
{
"end_time": 14416.766,
"index": 531,
"start_time": 14388.643,
"text": " quantum coherence, actually meta quantum coherence. And this is something else that we need to make a viable theory of reality. Yeah, you know, this idea that everything is just happening at random and it's just sort of all popping up at random and things sort of emerge at random. This is nonsense. Total nonsense. You can't build a theory of reality that way. You're just you're just trying to glue parts together and you will never get more than their sum. And the sum of parts is just a pile of parts. That's it."
},
{
"end_time": 14442.363,
"index": 532,
"start_time": 14417.585,
"text": " Everything has to work together. As a matter of fact, it has to work synergistically and that is more than the sum of the parts. Why can't it be somewhat simple in Wolfram's theories he has, or in his classical theories, he had those cellular automaton with simple rules, adjacent neighbors signify whether you live or die, and then seemingly complex behaviors emerge from that. Why can't it be like that?"
},
{
"end_time": 14468.046,
"index": 533,
"start_time": 14443.285,
"text": " Emerge? Well, let's have a definition. Let's have Stephen's definition of emergence and how it occurs. Stephen doesn't have one, nor does anybody else. You have to have a theory of self-organization. It's one of the reasons I had to come up with it is because there are a lot of deficits and holes. For all of the inroads and advances that science has made, it's still full of holes. We have to try to patch some of"
},
{
"end_time": 14499.377,
"index": 534,
"start_time": 14470.725,
"text": " What would you have done differently in the development of your theory? So for example, you would have spent more time writing with a pen and a paper instead of going for walks. I'm speaking practically here. Or you would have taken more time off or taking less time off. Time off? I've never had a vacation in my life. You know, and I don't quite know what time off means. I think about the CTMU every day. You know, I get up, I think about mistakes that I've made in the past. I'm constantly questioning myself."
},
{
"end_time": 14521.22,
"index": 535,
"start_time": 14499.906,
"text": " What would you have done differently if you could advise yourself, let's say, 30 years younger?"
},
{
"end_time": 14556.357,
"index": 536,
"start_time": 14527.841,
"text": " I had the CTMU in full form decades ago. Basically, if I had to advise myself of something, it would be how to present it and how to actually get people to pay attention to it. I'd advise myself to have actually tried to go to Princeton and meet with John Wheeler as I was invited to do, for example. That could have changed everything. But when you're raised like I am, like I was,"
},
{
"end_time": 14583.2,
"index": 537,
"start_time": 14556.783,
"text": " My family got kicked out of houses when we were kids, you know, we found ourselves in the street. And when I was in New York and I had these jobs and I, you know, I simply was afraid to lose, felt that I was going to be in the street again. So I didn't go and visit John Wheeler. You know, people think, well, you know, that's ridiculous. There's always a job and it's always a source of money. Not for all of us, there isn't. And the way I was raised, there wasn't, there wasn't anything. There was no one who was going to help you."
},
{
"end_time": 14613.592,
"index": 538,
"start_time": 14583.677,
"text": " There are people who are watching this who are developing their own theories and so it's almost like when I ask you what would you have done differently"
},
{
"end_time": 14642.961,
"index": 539,
"start_time": 14613.933,
"text": " It's also couched in well, what would you have done differently such that they can apply it? So when you say speak to John Wheeler, that's that's extremely specific. First, they can't apply it. Second of all, not everyone was invited. So given that now, what is your answer? What would you have done differently? What would you advise your 30 year younger self to do or not to do? Basically, I would be you're kind of OK, I've already succeeded in finding what I want to"
},
{
"end_time": 14669.07,
"index": 540,
"start_time": 14644.053,
"text": " All right, so basically what I would try to do is make sure that I was not distracted and taken off the track. All right, one thing that you must bear in mind if you are a young person who's trying to figure reality out is that you cannot serve God and men. God is reality and reality is God. You don't like God, you're sunk. You're not going to get a true theory of reality. You can learn a lot of math, you can learn how to kind of put things together and"
},
{
"end_time": 14695.367,
"index": 541,
"start_time": 14669.36,
"text": " There are all kinds of people out there, elites, money bags of various kinds, who think, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 14719.599,
"index": 542,
"start_time": 14695.657,
"text": " First of all, what I'm going to do is I'm going to get out there and I'm going to make a billion dollars. I'm going to make a lot of money. And then armed with that money, I'm going to save the world. No, you're not because you spent all your capital. It's hard to get money. Okay. It actually you really, it really does kind of knock you out. You've got to have the right connections. You've got to have the lucky breaks. If you immerse yourself in that goose chase,"
},
{
"end_time": 14748.541,
"index": 543,
"start_time": 14720.282,
"text": " If that's what you live for, by the time you get your money and you're sitting there and now you're a big billionaire and you're going to do this and you're going to do that, there's nothing left. All you can do is put on a show. This has been proven time and time and time again. You point me out a billionaire who's actually got some kind of big insight or some big idea about the nature of reality and that's nonsense."
},
{
"end_time": 14779.838,
"index": 544,
"start_time": 14750.145,
"text": " Anyway, go ahead, try it. You know of any billionaires that really have any good ideas about reality? Well, anyway, that's what I would remind myself of. Don't chase money. Okay? Don't... There is a cost for that. People sell their soul for it. And that has a very literal interpretation in the CTNU. Okay? You're actually subscribing to a telon that is designed to get you money, and that telon now controls your thoughts. It's not going to let any distractions through,"
},
{
"end_time": 14808.49,
"index": 545,
"start_time": 14780.213,
"text": " by way of reality theory. You're not going to be able to keep those things in mind anymore because it's all about getting money, furthering the interests of the corporation, not running afoul of corporate culture. All of these things are going to occupy your attention and you're not going to be the big genius you thought you were going to be. You make up your mind. You're either going to be a genius or you're going to be a money bag."
},
{
"end_time": 14839.189,
"index": 546,
"start_time": 14809.275,
"text": " What if someone says, I want to be a philanthropist like Bill Gates?"
},
{
"end_time": 14868.473,
"index": 547,
"start_time": 14839.565,
"text": " Yeah, they think Bill's a philanthropist, do you? I spent a large amount of time. Okay. When I was a kid, you know, one would think, well, you know, why wasn't Lang, and if he's a big genius, why wasn't he involved in the computer revolution? And why didn't, why wasn't he Bill Gates? Well, it was very easy. You know, I can explain that. Basically, there was a, there was one, there was a computer at Montana State University."
},
{
"end_time": 14897.654,
"index": 548,
"start_time": 14869.002,
"text": " And I think it was called the Sigma seven. It was, uh, I don't know if it was an IBM 360 or what the hell it was, but, uh, but, uh, anyway, it was, you know, a marvel of the time, you know, in the sixties here in the, in the, in the mid sixties, they've actually got a computer up there that people can program. So they offered to have a cooperative, you know, class, uh, you know, in high school, you know, where they could let high school kids program this computer."
},
{
"end_time": 14925.606,
"index": 549,
"start_time": 14898.114,
"text": " I believe I mentioned that my family wasn't very popular in town. Well, as it happened, when I went to this computer class to actually sign up and learn how to program using Fortran, to program this university computer, I was recognized by Mr. Chandler, who taught the course, as someone that he didn't particularly like. He said, well, I count 31 students. I only have 30 textbooks."
},
{
"end_time": 14955.674,
"index": 550,
"start_time": 14926.101,
"text": " I'll just hand them out. And then when I run out, well, then that person will have to double up with somebody else. I was the person who didn't get, he walks around the classroom, you know, following this trajectory and I'm the person, the last person. And he looks down at me and says, I'm sorry, you'll have to double up with somebody else. But when you're the least popular kid in class, nobody wants to double up with you. I just got up and walked out of this class. All right. So this is what can happen. You get a couple of bad breaks."
},
{
"end_time": 14985.486,
"index": 551,
"start_time": 14955.93,
"text": " No. All right. Then I eventually bought a computer, an Atari computer, and started programming in basic. But that was a problem because then Atari went out of business and I needed an IBM type Bill Gates computer. They were all $2,000. For me, that was four months rent. I could not afford it. So by the time it got around to where I could afford to get all the equipment that I needed to be a big computer hotshot, it was too late."
},
{
"end_time": 15014.701,
"index": 552,
"start_time": 14986.22,
"text": " I'm not going to waste my time on it now. There are too many kids out there. There are apps, this and apps and programs that I'm going to be in the next big shot. They have connections, their families have money. I'm not Bill Gates, whose father was a millionaire and got his own little computer and was able to do it. He had everything handed to him and most of these people do. Show me the billionaire who's self-made and I'll show you a BS artist. There's simply no doubt about it. Is there such a thing as philanthropy?"
},
{
"end_time": 15046.561,
"index": 553,
"start_time": 15016.937,
"text": " Yes, of course there is. Unfortunately, most of these people, to be a philanthropist, you not only got to have a lot of money, you've got to know to whom you should give that money. Who should be the object of your charity? Who would you say is a good philanthropist? I don't know of any. I mean, there are organizations that give grants, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, other people that give grants that someone like me should be eligible for."
},
{
"end_time": 15071.664,
"index": 554,
"start_time": 15047.005,
"text": " Every time I have gone to fill out the application for one of these charitable organizations, the first thing you fill out an application and they want to know what institution you're affiliated with, namely what university you're affiliated with. So if you're not a professional academic, you're just out. That's it. They ignore you. This is not philanthropy. This is a circle journey."
},
{
"end_time": 15102.159,
"index": 555,
"start_time": 15072.824,
"text": " Okay. And it's an unbroken circle. Everybody links their arms and nobody gets in from the side. Okay. So that's what it is. And that is, that is what these philanthropists are all about. You know, the only people they will give to are people that come out of their own indoctrination mills, right? That's, that's it. Nobody else is eligible for their charity. And basically what they're doing is they're just choosing the people, you know, that are going to tell them what they want to hear. And they're doing it in such a way that they get maximum credit for it."
},
{
"end_time": 15130.606,
"index": 556,
"start_time": 15102.568,
"text": " that they look especially good. For example, the American Cancer Society donate to the American Cancer Society and you look good for doing that. Bill Gates has done a lot of that kind of donating, but now we find out that Bill Gates has parlayed that into an amazing amount of control over the world health system. So it's not as though it was just charity, is it? Okay. Bill has now got himself, you know, he has wangled a leading position in the, you know, I mean,"
},
{
"end_time": 15159.258,
"index": 557,
"start_time": 15132.346,
"text": " You know what this amounts to. This entire vaccine thing was more or less previewed by Bill Gates. What was that? Event 201? Was that what it was called? I mean, this guy has known what was happening all along. It's as though it was planned, previewed, rehearsed in advance, and Bill Gates is right in the middle of that. Now, I can't point the finger at Bill and say he's definitely guilty. He definitely did this. He definitely did that."
},
{
"end_time": 15188.251,
"index": 558,
"start_time": 15159.36,
"text": " The last question is from me. What advice do you have for me? Basically, I'm on this mission to understand different theories of everything. It's autodidactic for various reasons, so it's similar to yourself in that manner."
},
{
"end_time": 15216.203,
"index": 559,
"start_time": 15188.66,
"text": " I am making sure that I'm not closing my doors. I'm trying to be open to non- I used to be like, as you would understand, the standard academic who was materialistic and despised everything that even resembled mysticism. But now I'm opening myself up to what people would ordinarily call woo, like free will, consciousness, God, even UAPs. So what advice do you have for me as I go on this mission, other than Kurt, just read the CTMU?"
},
{
"end_time": 15249.582,
"index": 560,
"start_time": 15221.152,
"text": " You've got to stick with it and you can't become discouraged. Obviously, I'm going to tell you, you have to read the CTMU and you have to try to grok it. You have to try to deeply understand it. Remain open-minded, but don't allow yourself to be unduly influenced by people just because they are persuasive. There are a lot of very persuasive people out there who will try to convince you that they have the correct perspective on reality, but in reality, they do not. But a lot of people say, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 15277.875,
"index": 561,
"start_time": 15249.787,
"text": " This person is so intelligent and they seem so confident what they're telling me about reality. There's got to be something to it. It must be true. Meanwhile, they're talking out of the other side of their mouths disparaging. You don't want to let that happen. Maintain a certain amount of skepticism regarding whatever anyone is telling you. I think that what I've succeeded in doing during this interview is actually answering questions and actually making sense of some of this for you. I don't know how successful I've been, but at least I've tried. There is"
},
{
"end_time": 15299.019,
"index": 562,
"start_time": 15278.251,
"text": " I don't know of anyone you can actually push to ground, you can actually tree like this and get straight answers about the overall structure of reality from. As far as I know, I'm the only person like that. So just don't listen to anybody who disparages me or my work. That's my main piece of advice and also just stick with it."
},
{
"end_time": 15327.244,
"index": 563,
"start_time": 15299.48,
"text": " You need to know. Remember, when you study reality, when you're looking at the structure of reality, you're looking for the structure of your own ultimate identity. That's what you get at the top. That's what it all boils down to in the end. If you correctly understand that, then you can be salvaged. The universal identity will keep you alive forever. But you need to find it. You need to come to grips with it."
},
{
"end_time": 15351.647,
"index": 564,
"start_time": 15327.5,
"text": " And you need to keep on traveling up that ladder as far as you can get. All right. Most people become discouraged. I'm tired of this. I'm so tired. I can't do this anymore. My mind just won't handle it. This is well, it's death for a person like you, someone who really needs to know, who really wants to look in. It's a lifelong thing. You've got to stick with it no matter what."
},
{
"end_time": 15379.445,
"index": 565,
"start_time": 15352.79,
"text": " Thank you, man. You know, when I ask that question, I'm actually also asking on behalf of the audience because many of them are on a similar journey of explicating tolls. That's the whole point of this channel. So, from what I understand, read the CTMU. Okay, I have and I will continue to do so. Second, don't listen to people who appear to have cogency or persuasive relevance, but"
},
{
"end_time": 15408.131,
"index": 566,
"start_time": 15379.974,
"text": " The criteria that you listed was if they disparage you, so I'm going to ask you what is an alternate criteria, not just that, because some people have made no comment about you, and also someone could just be simply mistaken. So for the people who are listening, who are also on a similar journey of self-exploration, trying to understand the universe, which seems to be intimately tied to understanding oneself, they're on this journey. What other advice do you have for them besides reading the CTMU, which I advise everyone who's listening or watching to do,"
},
{
"end_time": 15436.544,
"index": 567,
"start_time": 15408.49,
"text": " Sometimes, clues come from the most"
},
{
"end_time": 15465.026,
"index": 568,
"start_time": 15437.261,
"text": " remarkable places. I find that when I'm trying to understand the structure of reality, things are given to me, are put in my proximity that would be very easy to ignore or to miss. You must be attuned to them. You must be aware at all times of how reality may give you clues about what you're looking for. That is a piece of advice that I think is very important."
},
{
"end_time": 15491.22,
"index": 569,
"start_time": 15465.418,
"text": " for everybody to understand. Remain in a state of awareness. Guard your awareness. Life is very distracting. It's easy to get distracted and to just bumble from one mental state to another. Don't do that. Maintain, persevere, maintain focus, maintain awareness. Remember, reality is always trying to show you things. Let it show you things. Pay attention"
},
{
"end_time": 15518.422,
"index": 570,
"start_time": 15492.329,
"text": " In the morning when I wake up, I'm thinking about something. I might reach over and I might grab my"
},
{
"end_time": 15547.739,
"index": 571,
"start_time": 15519.104,
"text": " My iPad or whatever kind of pad it is, I'm going to take it and look at it. There might be a page there and I might go to my email and without even pressing the email thing, under the page I'll see a bunch of stories that are listed there by some mainstream outlet like Google or something and then I'll look down the list of stories and there's something that catches my eye and I know there's something in there that I should pay attention to."
},
{
"end_time": 15572.91,
"index": 572,
"start_time": 15548.183,
"text": " So I click and invariably I find that it's there. It's a gut instinct I have. I can tell when there's something there that I can use. I know when reality wants to show me something and I can follow those little bread trails, those little trails of crumbs that leads for me with great accuracy. This is a special, this is a skill you need to develop."
},
{
"end_time": 15603.336,
"index": 573,
"start_time": 15573.507,
"text": " It's not something that everybody knows how to do right away, but it's definitely there. If you're looking for understanding, this is what you've got to do. This is your state of mind. You're like an antenna and you are attuned to what reality is trying to show you. It's a whole new way of life. That being said, we're entering very troubling times and you've got to be willing to get in there"
},
{
"end_time": 15631.664,
"index": 574,
"start_time": 15604.019,
"text": " Roll up your sleeves and develop some mental and physical muscle and deal with the problems we have. We've got some terrible problems and they're very distracting too. It's going to be tearing our minds away from what reality is but there's one thing you have to know about reality and that is that existing in reality means that you're free. You're an individual. You cannot allow yourself to be enslaved. You can't allow yourself to be mechanized and programmed."
},
{
"end_time": 15661.92,
"index": 575,
"start_time": 15632.039,
"text": " Chris, man, thank you so much. You're very welcome, Kurt."
},
{
"end_time": 15685.179,
"index": 576,
"start_time": 15662.261,
"text": " It's been a pleasure. I think that there should be enough there that you can get a good, I don't know how long are most of your interviews when you get done? This one's going to be four hours. How long have we been sitting here? Four hours. Four and a half. It doesn't seem like that long. Actually, you've made it very pleasurable, so I thank you for that."
},
{
"end_time": 15710.469,
"index": 577,
"start_time": 15686.476,
"text": " Man, Chris, honestly, I was nervous going into this, like I mentioned, because firstly, I've been looking you up for a little while, for at least a few weeks, and I've known about you for years, though I haven't researched you for years. And I heard that you were a pussycat, but at the same time, from my, from hearing, that's from your wife. And then I thought that you may be combative, irritable, choleric. But from my experience with you, you've been such a pleasure, man."
},
{
"end_time": 15732.244,
"index": 578,
"start_time": 15711.254,
"text": " Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer these questions and I hope you understand that there is a difference"
},
{
"end_time": 15759.36,
"index": 579,
"start_time": 15732.79,
"text": " Chris, have a great night, eat some food, get some rest, drink some beer, whatever you got to do man."
}
]
}No transcript available.