Speaker 1: Welcome to Next Level Soul, the place where we deep
Speaker 1: dive into the mysteries of existence, uncover hidden layers of consciousness,
Speaker 1: and explore the journey of the soul. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Alex Ferrari, and every week we sit down with the
Speaker 1: world's leading spiritual teachers, mystics, scientists, and truth seekers to
Speaker 1: illuminate the path towards awakening.
Speaker 2: Here we ask.
Speaker 1: Questions that truly matter. Why are we here, where are
Speaker 1: we going? And how do we elevate our lives, our purpose,
Speaker 1: and our consciousness to the next level. This is a
Speaker 1: space for transformation, a space for expansion, a space to
Speaker 1: remember who you really are. So take a deep breath,
Speaker 1: open your mind, and prepare to step into your next
Speaker 1: level soul. Now. If you're ready to take your spiritual
Speaker 1: journey to the next level, explore Next Level Soul TV,
Speaker 1: our streaming platform filled with exclusive movies, docs, original shows,
Speaker 1: transformative series, guided meditations, channel sessions, audiobooks, and deep spiritual
Speaker 1: teachings you won't find anywhere else. New content drops every week,
Speaker 1: helping you expand your consciousness and live from your highest potential.
Speaker 1: Start your journey today at Next Levelsoul dot TV. The
Speaker 1: views opinions and statements expressed by our guests are their
Speaker 1: own and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or positions
Speaker 1: of Next Level Soul, its host, or any of the
Speaker 1: companies they represent. Now let's dive in to today's episode.
Speaker 1: I like to welcome to the show, Don Hoffman.
Speaker 2: How you doing, Don?
Speaker 3: Very good? How about you, Alex? Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: My friend. I'm excited to talk to you about simulation theory,
Speaker 1: which is one of my favorite subjects in the world,
Speaker 1: to talk about spirituality, consciousness, quantum physics, all of it
Speaker 1: kind of mixed in a nice little big soup. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to start off with a very easy question.
Speaker 1: What is consciousness?
Speaker 3: One way to think about it is something that psychologists
Speaker 3: call ostensive definition. Okay, So when you're teaching a eighteen
Speaker 3: month old some words for they're just starting to learn words,
Speaker 3: what do you do So mom or Dad is sitting
Speaker 3: there with you know, Chris, eighteen month old Chris, and
Speaker 3: there's a cat on a mat and it's time for
Speaker 3: Chris to learn the word cat. And so how do
Speaker 3: you define the word cat to Chris? Well, what you
Speaker 3: do is you point at the cat and you say cat,
Speaker 3: and you then expect your baby Chris to look and
Speaker 3: get it. And it's a miracle. They do, they look
Speaker 3: and they get it. Now, it's a miracle because if
Speaker 3: you point at the cat on the mat, you could
Speaker 3: referring to the ear, the color of the fur, the
Speaker 3: texture of the fur, the left paw and the mat,
Speaker 3: the nose and the left the pa What is it
Speaker 3: that you're referring to, right, And yet they get it.
Speaker 3: So you're counting on there's some coordination between the parent
Speaker 3: and the child so that you can just point and
Speaker 3: say cat and they get it the first time. And
Speaker 3: and so this is called ostensive definition. And for someone
Speaker 3: who's never tasted cinnamon, how am I going to define
Speaker 3: cinnamon to them? The way I'm going to define cinnamon
Speaker 3: is I'm going to give them a piece of cinnamon,
Speaker 3: say taste it, and they say, my point and say
Speaker 3: that's cinnamon, and hope they get it right if they
Speaker 3: So that's how we define everything. We essentially define almost
Speaker 3: everything by pointing. Now, in mathematics, of course, once you
Speaker 3: have a certain number of pointers in mathematics, and then you
Speaker 3: can start to do formulas and so forth. But in general,
Speaker 3: we all the important stuff in life that we know
Speaker 3: about we got it by pointing and then learning by
Speaker 3: a sensive definition. So so what I'm going to do
Speaker 3: with consciousness is the same thing as the parent does
Speaker 3: with the cat. Right. I have to point at something
Speaker 3: and say do you get it? And if you get it,
Speaker 3: you get it, and if you don't, you don't. So
Speaker 3: that's how you define these kinds of concepts. So what
Speaker 3: I can say is pure consciousness. If you sit alone
Speaker 3: and it's dark, and it's absolutely quiet, and you let
Speaker 3: go of all thoughts and you're just aware, you're just
Speaker 3: sitting there and aware, but not aware of anything, just
Speaker 3: aware of being aware. That's my pointer to consciousness. And
Speaker 3: you either get it or you don't, right, just like
Speaker 3: you get cinnamon or rabbit or you don't. That's the point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting now, because but anyone who's meditated understands that.
Speaker 1: If who's meditated deeply or just understand has done it
Speaker 1: at a certain level, gets that. I mean, I understand
Speaker 1: exactly what you're saying. But for someone who hasn't meditated,
Speaker 1: how can you further point to another aspect of consciousness
Speaker 1: that they might grab onto.
Speaker 3: There's consciousness, and then there's the contents of consciousness. If
Speaker 3: you want to know consciousness, the contents are easy. If
Speaker 3: I say, you know the taste of mint, that's a
Speaker 3: conscious experience. The smell of garlic, that's a conscious experience.
Speaker 3: Everybody can get that. If you're asking what is consciousness,
Speaker 3: then I have to give you little instructions sort of
Speaker 3: like if you want to taste what coffee is like, well,
Speaker 3: you have to take these coffee beans, grind them up,
Speaker 3: put some hot water on them, put it in a
Speaker 3: cup and wait until it goes down. Then drink it
Speaker 3: and that'll be what we mean by the taste of coffee.
Speaker 3: And so there are certain procedures you have to go through.
Speaker 3: So for those who've never meditated, I think most people
Speaker 3: have had some point in their life where they're silent.
Speaker 3: But we can do that. If you haven't ever done that,
Speaker 3: you can just go in a dark room, turn out
Speaker 3: the lights, avoid all distractions, all sounds, sit there and
Speaker 3: let your thoughts go. And when you get to a
Speaker 3: space where there are no thoughts, even for just a
Speaker 3: second or two, it doesn't have to be a long time.
Speaker 3: Just you're sitting there and nothing's going through your head
Speaker 3: for just a second or two, and you're just aware
Speaker 3: of that. You're aware of the gap. You're aware of
Speaker 3: that gap, aware of the awareness gap. Then that's what
Speaker 3: I'm pointing to you by consciousness, that's the direct experience
Speaker 3: of it. Now as a scientist, I want to then
Speaker 3: go on and do mathematical models. Right, I'm just okay,
Speaker 3: that's the thing I'm modeling. It's just like if I say, like,
Speaker 3: for example, in physics, we have Euclidean models of space time,
Speaker 3: or we have Einstein's models of space time. Now those
Speaker 3: are mathematics, right. You know, there's Newton's Euclidean approach, there's
Speaker 3: Einstein's hyperbolics space time approach. But if you ask me
Speaker 3: what is space time? What is space and time? What
Speaker 3: is space time? I would say, okay, just here's my pointer.
Speaker 3: Look around you. There you see walls and furnisure, and
Speaker 3: so for what's between you and the walls and the furniture,
Speaker 3: that emptiness is what we mean by space or space
Speaker 3: time in Einstein's So that's going to be my direct
Speaker 3: pointer to you to say that's what we mean. And
Speaker 3: then you say, but well, that's not euclidion. I mean
Speaker 3: that there's no numbers. There, there's no hyper I mean,
Speaker 3: it's just my experience. Absolutely, your experience of space is
Speaker 3: your experience of space. What we do as scientist then
Speaker 3: is say, let's attach numbers to that experience and then
Speaker 3: see what we can do the And then you might say, well,
Speaker 3: but the experience is far deeper than the numbers. Absolutely,
Speaker 3: the experiences transcends the numbers. And yet what we find
Speaker 3: is when we start to assign numbers and structures to
Speaker 3: our experiences and start to do mathematics with them, we
Speaker 3: get we get someplace like Einstein, with his mathematics, predicted
Speaker 3: that there are black holes. I mean his mathematics predicted.
Speaker 3: He didn't like the prediction, but his mathematics predicted it
Speaker 3: even though he didn't like his own prediction. And so
Speaker 3: we find that even though the mathematics can only in
Speaker 3: some sense be a baby step in the direction of
Speaker 3: the reality that we that I pointed to, right, space
Speaker 3: or space time, whatever that is, is profound. Our mathematics
Speaker 3: is difficult, but it's not It scratches the surface of
Speaker 3: the profoundity of space time. And the same thing with
Speaker 3: our mathematical models of consciousness. So consciousness is very, very
Speaker 3: deep and profound, and but as scientists we have to
Speaker 3: humbly put down and say, well, here's here's my little
Speaker 3: my next baby step in the science of of of consciousness.
Speaker 2: Well, let me ask you this.
Speaker 1: Then quantum entanglement kind of throws space time out the
Speaker 1: window to my understanding. Please and please correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong with the concept of quantum entanglement. Where there
Speaker 1: is two you know, two atoms to neutrons too. I
Speaker 1: forgot what the actual two units were. But if one
Speaker 1: changes here a thousand miles away, the one is affected.
Speaker 1: Can you explain that from a mathematical standpoint or is
Speaker 1: there even an explanation, because now we're getting into the
Speaker 1: spooky physics that Einstein spoke about.
Speaker 3: So yes, if you have two photons, for example, they
Speaker 3: can get entangled, or just two particles, they can be entangled.
Speaker 3: Their states can be entangled. And what that means is
Speaker 3: that if you measure, say the spin of one particle
Speaker 3: and the other particle is you know, many many light
Speaker 3: years away, say that's entangled. You know it instantaneously what
Speaker 3: the spin of the other one was, even though it's
Speaker 3: could be millions of light years away, so if it
Speaker 3: were measured, that's what that is what it would be.
Speaker 3: And so there's that kind of non local in the
Speaker 3: sense of Einstein's space time requires that no signal propagates
Speaker 3: through space time faster than the speed of light three
Speaker 3: hundred thousand kilometers per second roughly.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: and now back to the show.
Speaker 3: And so this is an instantaneous connection, which Einstein didn't like, right,
Speaker 3: but it turns out that the entanglement is true. It
Speaker 3: really is true, and as you say, it does show
Speaker 3: that there are limitations to the structure of space time
Speaker 3: as being a fundamental structure. It suggests that as we
Speaker 3: probe into physics more deeply, we're going to be looking
Speaker 3: for things beyond space time. And there's another pointer in
Speaker 3: that direction, and that is that Einstein's own equations, together
Speaker 3: with those of quantum theory, so it's gravitational theory and
Speaker 3: quantum theory together entail that space time ceases to have
Speaker 3: any operational meaning at at about ten to the minus
Speaker 3: thirty three centimeters ten to the minus forty three seconds.
Speaker 3: But it means that if you try to use space
Speaker 3: time any further, you get nonsense. It just no experimental wall,
Speaker 3: and you run into a wall. You run into a wall.
Speaker 3: So space time and as not ten to the minus
Speaker 3: thirty three trillion centimeters, it's just ten to the minus
Speaker 3: thirty three centimeters. So we run into that wall where
Speaker 3: spacetime ceases to have any operational meaning at just ten
Speaker 3: to the minus thirty three centimeters. So many physicists now
Speaker 3: are saying space time is doomed. Like David Gross, who
Speaker 3: won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum chromodynamics,
Speaker 3: Amar Kanie Mettius at the Institute for Event Study, and
Speaker 3: many others have been saying, I think to them, it's
Speaker 3: just obvious. These are again all high energy theoretical physicists.
Speaker 3: Physics is a very very broad field. The physicists who
Speaker 3: are saying space time is doomed are the experts in
Speaker 3: this particular area of physics who are the gurus of
Speaker 3: space time. High energy theore there's sort of the gurus
Speaker 3: of space time, and they're the ones that say it's over.
Speaker 3: We're looking for a deeper structure, and they're by the way,
Speaker 3: they're finding some We can talk about that if you want.
Speaker 3: They're finding instructure, So.
Speaker 1: That that was my next question is because space time
Speaker 1: is fundamental or was fundamental to our experience of this universe.
Speaker 1: I mean, between here and the moon, there is space,
Speaker 1: and it takes time to travel through that space. That's
Speaker 1: just fundamental in this materialistic world that we're.
Speaker 2: In right now.
Speaker 1: But now with quantum physics, it seems that the physics
Speaker 1: community in general is starting to there's so much evidence.
Speaker 1: Before it was a little bit here and there, but
Speaker 1: now the evidence is piling up so high that they
Speaker 1: can't ignore it anymore, and they're just like, no, this
Speaker 1: is over. We need to start looking for other areas.
Speaker 1: And from my understanding, they're starting to open themselves up
Speaker 1: to not to the word spirituality, but they're opening up
Speaker 1: to things that just didn't would never even been spoken
Speaker 1: about fifty years ago, twenty years ago even, And they're
Speaker 1: opening up to these ideas like consciousness. Having a conversation
Speaker 1: with the scientists about consciousness is fairly new, would you agree, Well.
Speaker 3: Yes, when I was a graduate student, it wasn't a
Speaker 3: kosher for us to talk about I was interested in it,
Speaker 3: but I knew I shouldn't talk about it.
Speaker 2: Don't ask it in class don't ask that question in class, that's.
Speaker 3: Right now, that would show that you weren't a serious
Speaker 3: scientist or thinker. But yeah, many high energy theoretical physicists
Speaker 3: are now saying we need to look beyond space time. Now.
Speaker 3: Most of them are looking for mathematical structures beyond space time,
Speaker 3: and they may have spiritual ideas as well, but there
Speaker 3: is actual rigorous work by these physicists being done where
Speaker 3: they're saying, Okay, space time is not fundamental. We need
Speaker 3: deeper structures beyond space time that then project back down
Speaker 3: to space time and give us back the physics that
Speaker 3: we know inside space time as a special case of
Speaker 3: a deeper physics. And they're finding they're succeeding in finding
Speaker 3: these new structures, so it's really quite impressive what they're doing.
Speaker 3: They found something called the amplitudhedron, which allows them to
Speaker 3: compute scattering amplitudes. But like when particles smash into each
Speaker 3: other at the large hadron colider and then go spraying out,
Speaker 3: they look for the probability amplitudes for all those things happening.
Speaker 3: And when you do it inside space time, the math
Speaker 3: is mess hundreds of pages, like two glu on smashing
Speaker 3: into each other. Four glu on spad spraying out or
Speaker 3: six glow on sprang out hundreds of pages of algebra
Speaker 3: for one event, hundreds of pages of algebra to compute
Speaker 3: the probability for one event. Do it outside of space
Speaker 3: time three or four terms you can compute by hand,
Speaker 3: and then you see new symmetries. So what they're discovering
Speaker 3: is if you let go of space time. I mean,
Speaker 3: space time is very useful, right, we use it all
Speaker 3: the time. I mean that's very very useful. But it's
Speaker 3: got limits ten to the minus thirty three cent readers
Speaker 3: and it's over. And when you then say, well, are
Speaker 3: there new structures not curled up inside space time? Not
Speaker 3: like string three, where these things are curled up inside
Speaker 3: extra dimensions of space time. Utterly outside of space time.
Speaker 3: We have to think outside of space time. And you
Speaker 3: might go, well, how in the world can you do that,
Speaker 3: And here's how you do it. Space time, I'll suggest,
Speaker 3: is just a VR headset. We're using it as a
Speaker 3: VR headset. And what science has been doing we thought
Speaker 3: we were st getting a theory of everything. We thought
Speaker 3: we were studying the final we're closing in on the
Speaker 3: theory of everything. What we've discovered is all this time
Speaker 3: we thought we were just going after the final reality.
Speaker 3: We were just studying our headset. We got really good
Speaker 3: at figuring out our headset, so good that then we
Speaker 3: figured out, holy smoke, space time is just a headset.
Speaker 3: It's not the truth, it's not the final reality. And
Speaker 3: so now now that we have all these tools, the
Speaker 3: rigors of science, no dogmatism, give me mathematical theories, make
Speaker 3: hard predictions, we go test them, no nonsense. That's brand new,
Speaker 3: like since Galileo roughly that we've had those credible tools
Speaker 3: and using those tools, they're so powerful that they told
Speaker 3: us that we're wrong about space time. We thought it
Speaker 3: was the final reality, and our own science told us,
Speaker 3: you're wrong. It's only a headset. So now we are.
Speaker 3: But now we have the tools, and so we can
Speaker 3: use those tools and step outside the headset. We can
Speaker 3: take the headset off, not literally because we're sort of
Speaker 3: saddled with this headset we need, but because we have
Speaker 3: mathematical tools and we can do experiments, we can, as
Speaker 3: scientists move outside the headset and start to find these
Speaker 3: new structures like the decorator permutations and the amplitohedron and
Speaker 3: other structures that they're finding. So and this is only
Speaker 3: in the last ten years, only in the last ten
Speaker 3: years that these new structures have been found outside where
Speaker 3: we really say, okay, we have to go outside space time.
Speaker 3: Hints of it. There's something in two thousand and five.
Speaker 3: They're something called the BCFW recursion relations that ed Written
Speaker 3: and his collaborators discovered, which were the big, big clue
Speaker 3: about these new structures outside space time. But we really,
Speaker 3: in some sense the real big first step was in
Speaker 3: twenty thirteen twenty fourteen with the publication of the amplitudhedron
Speaker 3: by Neimar Khaniehmet and his collaborators. So that's less than
Speaker 3: ten years. So this is all brand new stuff. And
Speaker 3: most physicists who are not high energy theoretical physicists don't
Speaker 3: know about this. They just don't know because this is
Speaker 3: a special branch of physics that focuses on this. So
Speaker 3: most quantum theorists don't.
Speaker 1: Know this, right, So that was my next question is
Speaker 1: that there is from my understanding, there's physicists and then
Speaker 1: there's quantum physicists, and many times neither of the two
Speaker 1: shall meet because they are once really locked into more materialism,
Speaker 1: which is you know, older dogma like this is just
Speaker 1: the way it is for the last four or five
Speaker 1: hundred years. And then when quantum physics showed up, they
Speaker 1: they were like, no, no, no, we can't, we can't
Speaker 1: go into that world because it's going to disprove all
Speaker 1: this stuff that we just know is real. And now
Speaker 1: it seems that there's even something higher than.
Speaker 2: Quantum physics, is what you're talking about, all these.
Speaker 1: Other things that they're discovering at this other branch of
Speaker 1: physics that is really working within quantum physics or at
Speaker 1: least aiming towards it, but it's it's at least moving
Speaker 1: it had quantum physics haven't even moved in eighty or
Speaker 1: ninety years.
Speaker 2: Really, is that? Is that a fair statement?
Speaker 3: Well, the of course, there's the foundations were laid long ago,
Speaker 3: and then we got to with Fineman and his and
Speaker 3: his you know contemporaries, we got quantum field theory. But
Speaker 3: now what what what Many of the high energy theoretical
Speaker 3: physicists are saying, like like Nemar Kneyhamed are saying that
Speaker 3: not only is space time doing, but quantum theory is don't.
Speaker 3: It's not fundamental either. It's not deep enough. And and
Speaker 3: what what he's looking for, and what many of them
Speaker 3: are looking for now, is a deeper framework in which space,
Speaker 3: time and quantum theory emerged together, joined together. And here's
Speaker 3: the idea. Is this if you when you look at
Speaker 3: quantum theory. Well, this is one idea. Now, what I'm
Speaker 3: about to say is my idea. I'm not putting this
Speaker 3: on anybody else. Okay, so this is well. I would
Speaker 3: say that Robert Specken's who's a physicist, is saying something
Speaker 3: very similar. But again, I'm not going to tire in
Speaker 3: front of these guys, you know, So if anything I
Speaker 3: say is stupid, it's on me, not on these guys. Okay,
Speaker 3: what I'm saying, And but I think that many other
Speaker 3: physicists would would agree, like Chris Fuchs who's cubism interpretations,
Speaker 3: is that all the weirdness of quantum theory, so the
Speaker 3: no cloning theorem, entanglement, superposition, and many of these properties
Speaker 3: are simply due to incomplete information.
Speaker 1: Be right back after a word from our sponsor, and
Speaker 1: now back to the show.
Speaker 3: And that ties into this headset idea. If all is
Speaker 3: space time is just a headset. What a headset only
Speaker 3: gives you incomplete information about what you're interacting with, right,
Speaker 3: Like when you play virtual reality games. I'm playing Grand
Speaker 3: theft thought on virtuality? What is the reality that I'm
Speaker 3: interacting with? Well, it's some supercomputer. How much information does
Speaker 3: my head my headset give you about that supercomputer? Not much.
Speaker 3: It's lost a ton of There's this whole complicated universe
Speaker 3: out there that I'm really interacting with, and I have
Speaker 3: no clue about that. If I'm a typical VR user,
Speaker 3: I have no clue about the gigabytes of software and
Speaker 3: the diodes and resistors and the voltages and magnetic fields
Speaker 3: that are all I have no idea about that. I'm
Speaker 3: just turning a steering wheel and hitting the gas pedal
Speaker 3: and that's all I see. So so quantum mechanics, all
Speaker 3: the weirdness of quantum mechanics is just the symptom of
Speaker 3: the fact that it's tied to space time and space
Speaker 3: time as a headset, and the headset loses information just
Speaker 3: that simple. So that's all the weird. So there's nothing
Speaker 3: really deep about the weirdness of econom mechanics except to say, well,
Speaker 3: you thought that you saw the truth, and you don't
Speaker 3: you see a headset which is giving you a veneer
Speaker 3: like a veneer sure over this complicated reality beyond it, Well,
Speaker 3: it's up to.
Speaker 2: But it's basically what's going on now.
Speaker 1: So if you take your headset off the reality we
Speaker 1: live in, there is so much more information in this
Speaker 1: room then can be jammed into that little that little
Speaker 1: headset that I have on. And if I walk out
Speaker 1: my door, then nature and this and you look up
Speaker 1: and there's so much processing power that would be needed
Speaker 1: to render all of this, which then brings me to
Speaker 1: my next question. I would love to hear your theory
Speaker 1: on simulation theory that we are all in this quote
Speaker 1: unquote matrix simulation. What is your theory behind that?
Speaker 3: So Nick Bostrom and others are quite famous for this
Speaker 3: kind of theory and the assumption I should spell it
Speaker 3: out just a little bit what version I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: They typically will say, you know that you and I
Speaker 3: and the world we see around us, we think it's
Speaker 3: the truth, but it really isn't. It's just there's some
Speaker 3: computer programmer, some pimply head kid with their laptop in
Speaker 3: another reality that has programmed this all up and we're
Speaker 3: just a simulation in their little laptop. But then you
Speaker 3: can recurse that back. But that pimply head programmer is
Speaker 3: not the final reality, because there's another pimpley head programmer yet,
Speaker 3: a deeper reality with their laptop that's programming them. So
Speaker 3: we can go this all the way back, and you
Speaker 3: go all the way back, there's funny some laptop and
Speaker 3: some programmer at the fundamental reality. That's the start of
Speaker 3: this whole thing. So probably say the probability that worth
Speaker 3: the base, given that there could be thousands of these,
Speaker 3: probably that what are the ones at the base is zero,
Speaker 3: so we're probably in a simulation that's sort of the Now.
Speaker 3: What they say then is that the base reality they
Speaker 3: assume is a physical kind of space time reality, so
Speaker 3: there's still a physical framework, and they're assuming that a
Speaker 3: properly programmed computer can generate conscious experiences or the illusion
Speaker 3: of conscious experiences. And to date, many of my colleagues
Speaker 3: who are studying consciousness believe that. But when you ask them,
Speaker 3: then there are many many theorists. So there's integrated information theory,
Speaker 3: there's global workspace theory, orchestrated collapse of quantum states of
Speaker 3: neurono microtubules. There's attentional schema theories. They are higher order theories,
Speaker 3: first order theory. There's there's tons and tons of theories,
Speaker 3: but and all of them, in one way or another
Speaker 3: are saying, we can't if you give me certain functional properties,
Speaker 3: right kind of functional properties, there are certain kinds of
Speaker 3: physical systems, then I can give you conscious experience is
Speaker 3: out of that taste of chocolate, smell of garlic and
Speaker 3: so forth. Great. So that's that's what they claim that
Speaker 3: they can do. That we are scientific theories will start
Speaker 3: with some functional description of some system. And they're always
Speaker 3: thinking of some kind of physical system, maybe neurons or
Speaker 3: some circuits and an artificial intelligence system or something like that,
Speaker 3: and then we will give you conscious experiences emerging out
Speaker 3: of it, or the illusion of conscious experiences emerging out
Speaker 3: of it. So I I and these are my friends
Speaker 3: and colleagues, and they're brilliant, and they've been I mean,
Speaker 3: they are, they are brilliant. But when I ask them
Speaker 3: and these are my friends, you know that's okays. You know,
Speaker 3: like Stuart Hamrov with orchary collapse of quantum states of
Speaker 3: normal micro tuba's or julo Tononi for I t great,
Speaker 3: so been at it for several decades. So what what
Speaker 3: conscious experience have you been able to show? I mean
Speaker 3: the functional structure for like the taste of chocolate, or meant,
Speaker 3: can you get what which? Which one? Which one? There
Speaker 3: are millions of colors, millions. I presume by now you
Speaker 3: have hundreds of thousands of conscious experiences that you've given me.
Speaker 3: You've written down the functional thing that must be the
Speaker 3: taste of men, the functional thing that must be this
Speaker 3: shade of red. You must have hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 3: the So just give me one zero zero. Nobody has anything.
Speaker 3: So there are so the It's so bad that that
Speaker 3: Steven Pinker in his twenty eighteen book Enlightenment Now said,
Speaker 3: you know what we may have to do is just
Speaker 3: stipulate that, you know, there's this functional pattern he was
Speaker 3: talking about, I think the global workspace theory. We'll have
Speaker 3: to stipulate that this conscious experience it corresponds to this
Speaker 3: state of the global workspace. Well, latitude is you know,
Speaker 3: you're stipulating the conscious experiences, you're stipulating the physical stuff,
Speaker 3: you're stipulating the functional stuff. It's all stipulation. There's no
Speaker 3: explanation going on here. So I say all that to
Speaker 3: say that the now to get back to your question,
Speaker 3: the simulation theory is assuming that the computer and functional
Speaker 3: properties of the computer can actually give us conscious experiences
Speaker 3: or the illusion of conscious experiences. And there's not a
Speaker 3: shred of evidence in terms of successful scientific theories that
Speaker 3: that's feasible. There's nothing on the table that says you
Speaker 3: should believe that.
Speaker 1: Is there a world where in the future, maybe in
Speaker 1: your lifetime, maybe in mind, maybe in my kid's lifetime,
Speaker 1: where they'll be physicists and theorists that are going to
Speaker 1: be cross pollinated with spiritualists, because it's the only thing
Speaker 1: left to kind of go after. Because once you keep
Speaker 1: running into walls with these theories and math, math eventually
Speaker 1: also runs into walls because you haven't cracked it yet.
Speaker 2: But when you.
Speaker 1: Start getting into spirituality, which is what the ancients were
Speaker 1: talking about, and we can talk about the ancients in
Speaker 1: them in it about it seems that they are transcending reality.
Speaker 1: And there is proof of different types of transitions of realities.
Speaker 1: You know, there're psychedelics that take you into different realms,
Speaker 1: different realities. There's so many things that are unexplainable by physics,
Speaker 1: but yet there is something happening. So to find a
Speaker 1: physicist or theorist that can bridge between the two and
Speaker 1: finally open things up in a way that one or
Speaker 1: the other can't do by themselves. I think that's where
Speaker 1: we're all going.
Speaker 3: Would you agree, yes, I think that the spiritual traditions
Speaker 3: have been saying that space time isn't fundamental for thousands.
Speaker 2: Of years the beta tex, yeah, of course.
Speaker 3: And the scientists are coming to that party late. We're
Speaker 3: late to that party. But the high energy theoretical physicists
Speaker 3: are saying, yes, space time is not fundamental, space time
Speaker 3: is doomed. So I think that humanity we've had the
Speaker 3: spiritual traditions the scientific and they've tended since Galileo and
Speaker 3: his imprisonment and so forth by Church, there's been a
Speaker 3: little bit of antipathy between the two and distrust and
Speaker 3: so forth. Well, I think both have a piece of
Speaker 3: the picture and both have a problem. So the piece
Speaker 3: of the picture that the scientists have is the scientific
Speaker 3: method we know now to do. Mathematical models have hard
Speaker 3: nosed standards. No bs, give me an experiment, give me
Speaker 3: the math, we go test it and so forth. So
Speaker 3: that's that's that's important. They've assumed that space time is fundamental.
Speaker 3: They've been physicalists. That's been a useful hypothesis for a
Speaker 3: few centuries. But now it's over, and it's what most
Speaker 3: scientists don't know. It's over. It's high energy theoretical physicists
Speaker 3: who are spreading the word it's over and we need
Speaker 3: to go. So but now the spiritual traditions are there.
Speaker 3: They're saying, hey, we've been out there beyond space time
Speaker 3: for thousands of years. Welcome to the party. You know,
Speaker 3: your light comers. But now what the spiritual traditions tell us,
Speaker 3: they say, it's very very important. None of our writings
Speaker 3: are the truth. They're pointers to the truth, and they're
Speaker 3: very very careful to say that the taw to Ching says,
Speaker 3: the taw that can be spoken of is not the
Speaker 3: true taw. And if you understand that, then it's fine.
Speaker 3: It's to read the rest of the book. If you
Speaker 3: don't understand that, you'll think that you're seeing the truth. No,
Speaker 3: you're getting a pointer. Just like I started off with
Speaker 3: a sense of definition, and partly for this very reason,
Speaker 3: I pointed to consciousness in a certain way. I can't
Speaker 3: unless you don't If you don't know consciousness is yourself,
Speaker 3: I can't help you. If you've never tasted mint, I
Speaker 3: can't help you. I can give you a piece of
Speaker 3: mint and let you taste it and then say that
Speaker 3: is meant and I point to it. So that's in
Speaker 3: the sense that the spiritual traditions are pointing to the
Speaker 3: spiritual realm. If you don't experience it yourself, no word
Speaker 3: will get you there. But what the spiritual traditions are
Speaker 3: missing is mathematical precision in their pointers. They understand that
Speaker 3: their words are pointers, but the mathematical pointers tell you
Speaker 3: their limits.
Speaker 1: Will be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: and now back to the show.
Speaker 3: Einstein's mathematics for space time tells you that that pointer
Speaker 3: or the space time pointer, falls apart at ten to
Speaker 3: the minus thirty three centimeters and ten to the minus
Speaker 3: forty three seconds. That is an antidote to dogmatism, and
Speaker 3: it tells you you need a new and deeper pointer.
Speaker 3: We haven't had that in the spiritual traditions, and what's
Speaker 3: been the result dogmatism fighting to the death people of
Speaker 3: one religion killing people of another religion because your pointer
Speaker 3: I don't agree with your pointer. I believe my pointer
Speaker 3: is the final truth. Well wait, wait a minute, wait
Speaker 3: a minute. Your leader told you right up front, it's
Speaker 3: just a pointer. The Tao that can be spoken is
Speaker 3: not the true tao. It's not worth killing people over pointers.
Speaker 3: So that's where the spiritual traditions have failed. Their pointers
Speaker 3: are not rigorous, and so they lead to dogmatism. They
Speaker 3: invite dogmatism, not in the ad, not the leaders, but
Speaker 3: the followers who don't really understand that the pointers are pointers.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, look, we could you know, we
Speaker 1: don't have to get into the wars that are going
Speaker 1: on right now, but there are specific dogmaic traditions that
Speaker 1: are creating the wars that we that are going on
Speaker 1: as we speak. You know, I think it was Yogananda,
Speaker 1: the Great Yogi, who said about Jesus. I've said this
Speaker 1: so many times, I'll say it. I guess one of
Speaker 1: my favorite quotes. He goes Jesus died on the cross
Speaker 1: in one day, but his teachings have been crucified for
Speaker 1: the last two thousand years. And and it's so true
Speaker 1: that if you go back to the origin of any
Speaker 1: of these spiritual leaders, they are they say these things,
Speaker 1: they're pointers. But then it's the apostles, the followers, they
Speaker 1: are the ones that start constructing this dogmatic, you know, system,
Speaker 1: because they can't grasp at the level that they were at.
Speaker 1: They were at such a higher level of evolution or
Speaker 1: vibration or whatever you want to call it, that they
Speaker 1: just can't grab they can't grab on to these ideas.
Speaker 1: I mean, Jesus is a perfect example. But then so
Speaker 1: are many you know, from Buddha to Muhammad to so
Speaker 1: many different spiritual leaders from around the world. They all
Speaker 1: eventually go to dogma. And that's one thing I didn't
Speaker 1: understand when I was growing up.
Speaker 2: I'm like, so, we do you mean this?
Speaker 1: So I'm so, I'm the I'm right right, because I'm
Speaker 1: Catholic obviously, so I I mean, I'm a recovering Catholic
Speaker 1: by the way. So I was like, so, I'm like,
Speaker 1: but then even as a child, like, so the billion
Speaker 1: and a half Buddhists they're all going to Hell, or
Speaker 1: the Muslims are all going to Hell or tho zoe
Speaker 1: Aastrians are all going to Hell or God forbid. If
Speaker 1: how about there's some poorchemuck in the middle of the
Speaker 1: congo somewhere never.
Speaker 3: Heard of Jesus.
Speaker 1: Is he going to go to hell? Like it started
Speaker 1: to like just like your mathematics, like space time, it
Speaker 1: just starts to break apart. That doesn't make any sense,
Speaker 1: any logical sense. So then this other theory of everything
Speaker 1: that I've come now I haven't come up with, but
Speaker 1: that we're all one, that we're all part of a
Speaker 1: human consciousness, a quantum field, if you will. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people talking about the quantum field and
Speaker 1: how certain things are possible like entanglement theory possibly through
Speaker 1: the quantum field. That's space, that what's going on in
Speaker 1: that space, And I've seen models now I think it
Speaker 1: was Neil de grass Tyson was showing it in one
Speaker 1: of his interviews, that space around planets, it's like a
Speaker 1: flat space and the planet pulls down and that's the gravity.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like the ball going in like around.
Speaker 1: That's how the gravity. So space is not space. It's
Speaker 1: a feel that's being manipulated by gravity and other things.
Speaker 2: It stutch it.
Speaker 3: It makes your head hurt, Donald, Right, So I agree
Speaker 3: that what you said about the pointers of the religious
Speaker 3: groups that typically the originators of you know of Christianity
Speaker 3: or Buddhism and so forth, we're at a different level.
Speaker 3: They were not dogmatic. They understood that the talent it
Speaker 3: can be spoken of and is not the true talent.
Speaker 3: But the rest of us typically don't get that. We
Speaker 3: get dogmatic about it. And what science brings to the
Speaker 3: table is a language language of mathematics, where the mathematics
Speaker 3: itself tells you this only goes to ten to the
Speaker 3: minus thirty three cent and then it stops, and then
Speaker 3: you have to look for something else. So don't get
Speaker 3: dogmatic about space time it tells you.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: Of course, scientists are people. They are as inclined to
Speaker 3: be dogmatic as anybody else. Science as a social institution
Speaker 3: and the demand for mathematically precise theories is the antidote
Speaker 3: to dogmatism. So that's what I think science can offer
Speaker 3: to the spiritual traditions is a mathematically precise thing. Now,
Speaker 3: the notion of quantum fields turns out the high energy
Speaker 3: theoretical physicists who are going beyond space time are saying
Speaker 3: quantum field theory was, of course an important breakthrough, and
Speaker 3: very you know what, Fimen in his contemporaries gave us
Speaker 3: a great gift, and it's been useful for several decades
Speaker 3: for you know, eighty years or so. Well, yeah, I
Speaker 3: guess nineteen twenty, well that was new quantum feld filemen.
Speaker 3: Probably in the forties, nineteen forties, forties, fifties worth the
Speaker 3: quantum field theory came out, so, you know, almost age
Speaker 3: seventy or eighty years. But it turns out that the
Speaker 3: quantum fields introduce unnecessary redundancy. And no one's ever seen
Speaker 3: a field a quantum field. We see particles. Fields are
Speaker 3: a construct to try to help us compute things like
Speaker 3: scattering opportunites. But Nemar Kani Med for example, is saying, basically,
Speaker 3: quantum fields are you know, sort of a clue. They're
Speaker 3: they're the fields. Probably they're getting in the way when
Speaker 3: you use these fields in space time. They make the
Speaker 3: mathematics unnecessarily complicated. Two glu ons in for six gluons out,
Speaker 3: hundreds of pages algebra, you don't need all that. That's
Speaker 3: that's because we're using quantum fields. It's a bad computational apparatus. Time.
Speaker 3: It had its place, but we've we've gone beyond it.
Speaker 3: Now we can do that computation in three or four terms.
Speaker 3: And see symmetries that are true of the scattering data
Speaker 3: that you can't see in space time. So I mean
Speaker 3: quantum fields were a necessary step in our growing pains
Speaker 3: to try to get to a better theory. But I
Speaker 3: think frankly that the notion of fields will fall by
Speaker 3: the wayside, and a certainly as an ontologically interesting thing
Speaker 3: that fields just but the idea of things beyond space
Speaker 3: time and connections beyond space time that's going to stay.
Speaker 3: So that's the sense in which I think you were
Speaker 3: using fields talking about some kind of connections. Absolutely, but
Speaker 3: quantum fields are a clue and the notion of connections
Speaker 3: beyond space time that can still hold. And that I
Speaker 3: agree with you when you said we're all deeply one.
Speaker 2: I mean that's at the end of the day. That
Speaker 2: is the truth.
Speaker 1: That is the one truth.
Speaker 2: That's not a point that I agree, that's not a pointer.
Speaker 2: That is the truth. We are all one.
Speaker 1: If you look at the planet from space, you could
Speaker 1: just see we're all in this together. We are all one.
Speaker 1: You know what's really interesting to me is I've been
Speaker 1: seeing what's going on with AI in translations, and I
Speaker 1: just saw when I started to see the power of
Speaker 1: what's coming up, and it's already here. But really we're
Speaker 1: probably about six months to a year of this conversation
Speaker 1: where translations will be so easy to do to video
Speaker 1: that it's going to open up this world in a
Speaker 1: way that we really don't understand yet. But then I
Speaker 1: just came back from Europe where I was using an
Speaker 1: app to communicate with my Uber driver and have full
Speaker 1: conversations with my Uber driver with a Google Translate. But
Speaker 1: then I was like, well, wait a minute, in my lifetime,
Speaker 1: there will be a little machine that will put in
Speaker 1: my ear and that as soon as I speak, it
Speaker 1: will come out out in the language through the speaker
Speaker 1: of the person I'm hearing, and I would hear it
Speaker 1: will be instantaneous to the point where we are all
Speaker 1: becoming one this limitation of language and not culture. Culture
Speaker 1: of course is still you know, everyone has their culture,
Speaker 1: but this globalization that we've been eching towards, and you know,
Speaker 1: from where we were in the twenties of last of
Speaker 1: the nineteenth century to where we are in the twenties now,
Speaker 1: how much more globalized we are, that we are really
Speaker 1: dependent on each other, and the Internet really opened that
Speaker 1: all up for all of US. I do see that
Speaker 1: that's going to be a world where language is not
Speaker 1: going to be an issue anymore and the miscommunications won't
Speaker 1: be as as prevalent as they are now. Would you agree, No.
Speaker 3: No, I absolutely agree. I think that the technology is
Speaker 3: moving will probably have that within a few years, and
Speaker 3: it'll it will help bridge the gap. I think that
Speaker 3: will do something to help us understand each other better
Speaker 3: and not discriminate against each other. It's hard when you
Speaker 3: can understand somebody at all. It's much easier to sort
Speaker 3: of put them off and say they're unlike me and
Speaker 3: and and not treat them as an equal. But when
Speaker 3: you actually start to hear very human things coming back
Speaker 3: to you from them, then you realize, oh, no, that's
Speaker 3: another person of feelings just like me, and maybe different
Speaker 3: beliefs than me.
Speaker 1: But we'll be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: and now back to the show. And you know what,
Speaker 1: as you you know, and the thing I think this
Speaker 1: is only from someone who can travel a little bit
Speaker 1: outside of.
Speaker 2: Their own home country.
Speaker 1: I mean you could travel within the country, and there's
Speaker 1: very different people within our country, the US, without question,
Speaker 1: you know, from different area and different regions. But when
Speaker 1: you start to go around the world a bit and
Speaker 1: start going to different countries, you just start to realize,
Speaker 1: like they they just want happiness for their kids, They
Speaker 1: want to be safe, they just want they want to
Speaker 1: be happy in general. They want to live their lives
Speaker 1: in peace. I mean, we all have this in common,
Speaker 1: and it's getting I think that that those walls are
Speaker 1: starting to come down and more and more.
Speaker 2: Again, the Internet.
Speaker 1: Opened us up in a way that was a model
Speaker 1: I always I always said that. I always said this,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure I'm not the first to say it
Speaker 1: that the Internet is kind of the big, the rudimentary,
Speaker 1: kind of barbaric example of what the ancients called the
Speaker 1: Akashak records, where all information is all connected at all time. We're,
Speaker 1: you know, right now, we're starting to get close to
Speaker 1: being able to just say, hey, Siri, what is quantum physics?
Speaker 1: Can you explain it to me as a three year
Speaker 1: old and just oh chat a jat chipet, can you
Speaker 1: explain it to me? We're starting to get to that place.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this question, though, what is your
Speaker 1: what is your understanding of the Acastak records Akashak field
Speaker 1: if you will, because I had doctor Irwin Alaslow Noble
Speaker 1: Well nominee on who's written multiple books about the Akashak records,
Speaker 1: the Acacak field and how that is, what that connects
Speaker 1: us all. I'd love to hear if you have any
Speaker 1: points on that.
Speaker 3: Right. So, as a scientist, what I want are mathematical
Speaker 3: models about as much as I can about the one
Speaker 3: connecting consciousness. And I've got a paper called Fusions of Consciousness.
Speaker 3: It came out in January, so people, it's free. So
Speaker 3: if you just google Fusions of Consciousness, you can get
Speaker 3: the paper for free and look at our mathematical model.
Speaker 3: And but this gets back now to the start of
Speaker 3: our conversation, which is even the mathematics, precise mathematics and
Speaker 3: all the things that we can prove, and it's a
Speaker 3: lot is just a baby step. It's trivial. What I've done,
Speaker 3: what my team has done, what all of us who
Speaker 3: are doing mathematical models the consciousness have done, is trivial
Speaker 3: compared to the real thing, right, And and it's it's
Speaker 3: in principle, we can ever get a theory of everything
Speaker 3: in science. Science says the best pointer is that mankind
Speaker 3: has ever come up with. But it's obvious that a
Speaker 3: scientific theory says, grant me these assumptions. If you grant
Speaker 3: me these assumptions, then I can explain all this wonderful stuff.
Speaker 3: But if you don't give me those assumptions, then I
Speaker 3: can't explain anything. And notice the theory doesn't explain its assumptions.
Speaker 3: It assumes the assumptions. It doesn't explain them, it assumes them,
Speaker 3: so it doesn't explain everything we say. But of course
Speaker 3: I can get a deeper theory that explains those assumptions.
Speaker 3: Yes you can. And that deeper theory has its own
Speaker 3: assumptions that it doesn't explain. So there is no theory
Speaker 3: of everything, and there can never be. And in fact,
Speaker 3: science in a technical sense will only know probability zero
Speaker 3: of the truth. But it's very important what we're doing.
Speaker 3: We should continue to do it even though it's measured zero.
Speaker 3: It's clear that we do get insights, and some theories
Speaker 3: are better than others. Einience theory is better than Newton's,
Speaker 3: and Newton's theory is better than almost anything that you
Speaker 3: and I could come up with. Right, that's fair enough.
Speaker 3: So it's clear that even though there's no scientific theory
Speaker 3: of everything, not all theories are created equal, some are
Speaker 3: better than others, and we should put our efforts in
Speaker 3: to get good scientific theories and to be completely humble
Speaker 3: and say, our best scientific theories are trivial compared to
Speaker 3: the reality, to the deep acatic field, if you will,
Speaker 3: the deep one consciousness. If you want to know that
Speaker 3: deep one consciousness intellectually, yes, our mathematical models might be
Speaker 3: the best thing that you can come up with right now.
Speaker 3: If you want to know it more deeply, then my
Speaker 3: pointer is this, You are that consciousness, and so am I.
Speaker 3: And the way to understand know it is to let
Speaker 3: go of any conceptions of who I am. If you
Speaker 3: sit in silence and in darkness and the goal of
Speaker 3: all thoughts, and just ask yourself the question who am I?
Speaker 3: And then let go of any thoughts, no answers, and
Speaker 3: just sit there. That's your answer. You are and being.
Speaker 3: But it's a nonconceptual knowledge. You know it directly, just
Speaker 3: like you know the taste of mint by tasting mint.
Speaker 3: You know the deep, profound truth of reality just by
Speaker 3: sitting in silence and tasting it, so to speak, by
Speaker 3: being it.
Speaker 1: And that is why these masters who walk the earth
Speaker 1: all almost always especially coming from the East, spoke about meditation,
Speaker 1: spoke about medication. Prayer is another example of meditation in
Speaker 1: many ways, just being silent, being quiet within yourself is
Speaker 1: something that I've seen again and again and again even
Speaker 1: in my own studies and experiences.
Speaker 3: Now, because you are the truth, you are the truth
Speaker 3: that transcends any statement of truth. That's what that's that's
Speaker 3: why that that's the case. And that's also the problem
Speaker 3: that we have is that we don't recognize everybody else
Speaker 3: as just the same truth as I am. I have
Speaker 3: my words, you have your words, and they're different, and
Speaker 3: so then we fight over the words. Where when you
Speaker 3: let go of the words and you realize I'm face
Speaker 3: to face with the reality that I am and you
Speaker 3: are the one reality.
Speaker 1: But Donald, we need a middleman to be between us
Speaker 1: and the ultimate consciousness, don't Well, yeah, that's augmatic right right.
Speaker 3: We neither Jesus or a priest or both between us.
Speaker 3: Whereas it's interesting in the Bible at one point, you know,
Speaker 3: the Pharisees, we're picking up stones to stone Jesus, and
Speaker 3: Jesus said, you know, why are you guys going to
Speaker 3: kill me with stones? And they said, well, because you
Speaker 3: claim to be the son of God. And Jesus said, well,
Speaker 3: in the Psalms it says I have said you are gods,
Speaker 3: and all of you are sons, are the most high.
Speaker 3: Jesus said, if if he calls them gods to whom
Speaker 3: the word of God came, why are you trying to
Speaker 3: stone me for just saying I'm the son of God.
Speaker 3: But what Jesus is saying is to each one of them,
Speaker 3: you are God. That's what he's saying, you are God.
Speaker 3: He couldn't have been clearer, and and he quoted from
Speaker 3: from the book of Psalms. So but but of course
Speaker 3: you don't get that. You know, my father was a
Speaker 3: Protestant Christian minister for for many years, by the way,
Speaker 3: you know, he was Protestant, so we all believe Catholics
Speaker 3: weren't going to make it to heaven, right, so it
Speaker 3: was there was.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously all this, all the different sects of
Speaker 1: Christianity is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: It is so of them, it was.
Speaker 3: And it's that kind of ridiculousness though, that that when
Speaker 3: you actually look at jesus words and he's basically saying
Speaker 3: all of us are children of God. What doesn't mean
Speaker 3: to be a child. A child of a human is human.
Speaker 3: A child of God is God, and and and so
Speaker 3: when we say we're children of God, what Jesus, what
Speaker 3: we're saying is all of us are God. What we
Speaker 3: are is God looking at itself through an avatar. There's yeah,
Speaker 3: my avatar, there's your avatar, there's Jesus avatar, there's Buddhas.
Speaker 3: These are all just avatars. It's the one infinite intelligence
Speaker 3: looking at itself through different avatars. So your little baby,
Speaker 3: your ten year old child, your wife, your husband, they're
Speaker 3: all the infinite intelligence looking at itself through an avatar.
Speaker 1: I I with the conversation of simulation theory. There's also
Speaker 1: game theory that gets tossed on there sometimes too. I've
Speaker 1: had some game theorists on the show talking about simulation
Speaker 1: theory through a gamer's point of view. And I always
Speaker 1: use the example of Link and Zelda. You know, like
Speaker 1: when back in the day, and that's when I gained
Speaker 1: the late eighties, early nineties. So you know, you are Link,
Speaker 1: Link is your avatar, and you continuously go through the game,
Speaker 1: and then when you turn the corner you get killed.
Speaker 1: Oh there was an orc there. But then the next
Speaker 1: time you go through, you know that there's going to
Speaker 1: be an orc there, so you're prepared for it. Well,
Speaker 1: that's just the evolution of the soul. That is the
Speaker 1: evolution of life you learn along the way. So and
Speaker 1: then even video games inherently proof reincarnation again and again
Speaker 1: because it's.
Speaker 2: Multiple lives to come back and keep trying the thing
Speaker 2: again and again and again.
Speaker 1: So but the question is, though, if that's the player,
Speaker 1: who is the one with the controller playing the game,
Speaker 1: because just like us when we're playing a video game,
Speaker 1: we really it's almost irrelevant what's happening in the game.
Speaker 1: Like our avatar can get ripped apart a thousand times
Speaker 1: by a boss of the level, and we're just like, oh,
Speaker 1: let's do it again. Yep, let's do it again. Oh
Speaker 1: let's figure it out. Oh let's do it again. But
Speaker 1: to that poor avatar, it really hurts.
Speaker 2: It's like it's a.
Speaker 1: Tortuous event, but for the player. So that would say
Speaker 1: then then when you look at that, like, well, what
Speaker 1: we're going through on this earth and this experience, there
Speaker 1: is an over soul. A player, the soul itself, the
Speaker 1: higher self, whatever words you want to call it, is
Speaker 1: not playing the game. But observing the game. I'd love
Speaker 1: to hear your thoughts on this kind of game theory idea.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: and now back to the show.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think that there is this infinite, timeless, one intelligence,
Speaker 3: one consciousness that is what you are, and that's what
Speaker 3: you actually tap into. When you go into silence and
Speaker 3: let go of all thoughts you are, you realize that
Speaker 3: that's what you really are. You really aren't just this
Speaker 3: this guy that we waste so much, has this color
Speaker 3: hair and lives and so and so those are just
Speaker 3: your avatar descriptions. And so there is the question why
Speaker 3: would the one timeless intelligence do this? Why? Why?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 3: What's the point of it? And why all these wars
Speaker 3: and fighting and and and religions where people are killing
Speaker 3: each other and dog wittism and the whole bit. What why? Why?
Speaker 3: Why does it do that? Why does it? And of
Speaker 3: course the answer is I don't know. But but here's
Speaker 3: one possibility is that in some sense, the one intelligence,
Speaker 3: the one ultimate consciousness is transcends any form. It's formless.
Speaker 3: But how how do you know yourself? How? How how
Speaker 3: some sense does it know itself? Well? It knows itself
Speaker 3: by taking different perspectives on itself. So, and that's what
Speaker 3: an avatar is. It's it's a projection of itself. It's saying, well,
Speaker 3: let me look at myself from this point of view,
Speaker 3: and let me actually get so wrapped up in that
Speaker 3: point of view that I don't even know it's a
Speaker 3: point of view. I think it's the truth. So then
Speaker 3: I really absorb that point of view, and then let
Speaker 3: me wake up. Then I'll wake up and realize, No,
Speaker 3: I spent seventy years of my life thinking I was
Speaker 3: just this body, and then I woke up and I
Speaker 3: but so I realized, I'm not that as complicated as
Speaker 3: this world is. And you know, the universe's billions of year.
Speaker 3: There's the moon, there's the sun. I mean, look at
Speaker 3: the planets and the flowers and incredible microbiology, all the
Speaker 3: sciences and all that stuff. And I completely transcend all
Speaker 3: of that. All of that is trivial compared to who
Speaker 3: I am. When you wake up, you realize all of
Speaker 3: that is complicated. I'm not that. I transcend that. So
Speaker 3: now I go, holy smoke, what am I I'm not?
Speaker 3: I mean, So that's what consciousness is up to. Putting
Speaker 3: on an avatar, allowing itself to get lost completely identified
Speaker 3: with the avatar, really absorbing that point of view, and
Speaker 3: then recognizing it's only a point of view and waking up.
Speaker 3: So that's my best guess about what's going on here.
Speaker 1: It's a very interesting point of view because, let me
Speaker 1: ask you, I've spoken to a lot of near death experiences, yes,
Speaker 1: probably over one hundred at this point in the game,
Speaker 1: also spiritual masters, yogis and so on, from all walks
Speaker 1: of life. This concept that I'm about to ask you
Speaker 1: about is a concept that was introduced to me on
Speaker 1: the show, and it's fascinated me, and I've asked all
Speaker 1: sorts of my guests, from near death experiences to channels
Speaker 1: to most to the spiritual masters I've had.
Speaker 2: On the show.
Speaker 1: Is that we've heard of the concept of reincarnation, that
Speaker 1: we have past lives, we have future lives, we have
Speaker 1: this current life, and that we die and we keep
Speaker 1: evolving and we keep coming back, and the concept of
Speaker 1: karm and all this kind of stuff. But the concept
Speaker 1: that was thrown to me, and I find it so fascinating,
Speaker 1: is that there is no past life, there is no
Speaker 1: future life, that all the lives are happening at the
Speaker 1: same time, because there is no time on the quote
Speaker 1: unquote other side this other realm that we're from, where
Speaker 1: this consciousness that you speak of lives, or is it
Speaker 1: lives like he has a house. But this concept of
Speaker 1: everything happening all at once, and that if I do
Speaker 1: something in this life, it quote unquote ripples back to
Speaker 1: my time as a Roman soldier, and it also ripples
Speaker 1: forward to my time as the president of a small
Speaker 1: country in twenty fifty twenty five fifty, all at the
Speaker 1: same time. When I say ripples, it's because rippling within
Speaker 1: my own soul's evolution. I'd love to hear your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this theory.
Speaker 3: Yes, we can actually make it sort of mathematically precise
Speaker 3: using the language in our paper Fusions of Consciousness. So
Speaker 3: and we actually talk about this your very point at
Speaker 3: the very end of that paper. And what we point
Speaker 3: out is that we have this mathematical model of the
Speaker 3: dynamics of consciousness outside of space time. And of course,
Speaker 3: the disclaimer, as always is, of course it's just a theory,
Speaker 3: is not the truth. It's just a baby step, but
Speaker 3: it's an interesting baby step in this mathematical model. There
Speaker 3: need be no arrow of time. So the era of
Speaker 3: time that we have is the erro of entropy. Entropy
Speaker 3: increases with time, right and always increases with time. Second,
Speaker 3: love therm dynamics. In our dynamics of conscious beyond space time,
Speaker 3: the mark of dynamics can be what's called a homogeneous
Speaker 3: markup chain, and the row there is entropy, but it
Speaker 3: doesn't increase, so there is no entropic air of time.
Speaker 2: But it's a theorem.
Speaker 3: If you look at that dynamics that's timeless from any
Speaker 3: projection you project it anyway, so you're losing little information.
Speaker 3: The projected dynamics will be a dynamics, but it will
Speaker 3: have an aero of time as an artifact of the projection.
Speaker 3: This the theorem. So in other words, what you were
Speaker 3: talking about informally, we can actually write it down as
Speaker 3: a theorem that you can prove in three or four
Speaker 3: lines and show that the aarrow of time that we
Speaker 3: experience now is not an insight at all into the
Speaker 3: nature of the reality beyond our avatar. It's entirely an artifact, completely,
Speaker 3: an artifact of the projection, not an insight at all
Speaker 3: into the truth beyond it now from an evolutionary point
Speaker 3: of view. Right here, you know evolution, organisms competing for
Speaker 3: limited resources, trying to mate and so forth. And these
Speaker 3: are limited resources. What's the most fundamental limited resource?
Speaker 2: Time?
Speaker 3: If I don't get food in time, I die. If
Speaker 3: I don't mate in time, I don't reproduce. If I
Speaker 3: don't get the next breath of air and time, I'm dead.
Speaker 3: My heart doesn't beat in time, I'm dead. So time
Speaker 3: is the fundamental limited resource. Now, evolution of nancial selection
Speaker 3: is an incredibly beautiful theory. I think it's I mean,
Speaker 3: I published papers on it. I've worked on evolutionary game theory.
Speaker 3: It's incredible. Inside our spacetime headset, there is no better
Speaker 3: theory about biological systems in biological evolution than the theory
Speaker 3: of evolution of natural selection. But space time is just
Speaker 3: a headset, It's just a virtual reality. Is not the truth,
Speaker 3: and that includes the theory of evolution. Evolution is the
Speaker 3: best theory inside the headset. Nothing can beat it right now.
Speaker 3: But all of evolution of natural selection is an artifact
Speaker 3: of the projection from outside. None of it is a
Speaker 3: deep insight into the nature of reality. So there's this timeless,
Speaker 3: infinite intelligence. The consciousness looking at itself from a projection,
Speaker 3: and when it sees itself from the projection, it looks
Speaker 3: like evolution of natural selection. It looks like all this
Speaker 3: competition fighting for resources looks like an hero of time,
Speaker 3: and all of that is not true of the deeper reality.
Speaker 3: All of it is mathematically in an artifact of the projection.
Speaker 1: So, if I may again quote Paramahansa Yogananda, he said
Speaker 1: so eloquently, since she were saying projection, He's like that
Speaker 1: we are all so focused on the screen and all
Speaker 1: of the violence and the action and the love and
Speaker 1: the drama of it all, like you were just saying.
Speaker 1: He goes, but the point is not to focus on
Speaker 1: the screen, is to look behind you and focus where
Speaker 1: the light is coming from the projector. That's right, eloquently
Speaker 1: in his.
Speaker 2: Yoga yoga ways.
Speaker 1: Such an eloquent explanation for a lot of what you
Speaker 1: were just saying. Would you agree?
Speaker 3: I think that that's an excellent metaphor to get the
Speaker 3: idea across that you're not the video on the screen.
Speaker 3: You are the screen and the light that can show
Speaker 3: any possible video. My laptop, I'm looking at you on
Speaker 3: right now, I see a video on it, but the
Speaker 3: laptop itself could show countless different images, countless, not just
Speaker 3: the one I'm showing. And that's who you are. You
Speaker 3: are the infinite potential that could see anything.
Speaker 1: I heard an explanation of this idea of everything happening
Speaker 1: all at once, which was so beautiful, and it was television,
Speaker 1: he goes. I think it was he or she said
Speaker 1: to me, Well, if you're looking at a television screen
Speaker 1: right now, you turn on your TV and you're watching
Speaker 1: the football game, Well, even if you just stay in
Speaker 1: the realm of the football game, you know that there's
Speaker 1: twenty six other games being played at the same time
Speaker 1: on but you can't see them, but they're happening. And also,
Speaker 1: but there's also episodes of Seinfeld reruns. There's also episodes
Speaker 1: of Friends. There's also episodes of All in the Family,
Speaker 1: There's the Sopranos. There's all these other shows going on
Speaker 1: and movies going on, all at the same times. But
Speaker 1: your focus is on that game right now. But you
Speaker 1: have to understand that all this other stuff is happening
Speaker 1: at the exact same moment that you are watching this.
Speaker 1: So I was like, well, that makes that makes a
Speaker 1: lot of sense. Would you agree, We'll be right back
Speaker 1: after a word from our sponsor and now back to
Speaker 1: the show.
Speaker 3: That that's right. It makes sense if we're stuck with
Speaker 3: our little headset that has an erow of time. When
Speaker 3: we transcend that, then they just all exist, right, It's
Speaker 3: just that's right. The very notion of time and simultaneity
Speaker 3: then then away, and which is really quite quite interesting.
Speaker 3: So we you talked about incarnate reincarnation. So I've I've
Speaker 3: incarnated into this body, and coustouness is incarnated into your body.
Speaker 3: But also it incarnates into religious doctrines. Because if I'm
Speaker 3: willing to kill you for my Protestantism where you're Catholic,
Speaker 3: Catholicism or whatever, I've identified myself with that doctrine. So
Speaker 3: we and then you know, every time I get involved
Speaker 3: in something else and give it, you know, sort of
Speaker 3: identify with it, I've reincarnated into that. So we're we're
Speaker 3: incarnating ourselves all the time into stuff when we we
Speaker 3: don't realize that we're the consciousness that transcends any thing
Speaker 3: that we see, anything that we believe we are.
Speaker 1: You know what's really interesting when you said that something
Speaker 1: just popped into my head is that throughout history known
Speaker 1: history that we that we have records of, is that
Speaker 1: there is these these these dogmatic ideologies that have been
Speaker 1: throughout humanity, throughout just throughout time, where at a moment,
Speaker 1: I would have killed you if you didn't believe in Raw,
Speaker 1: I would have killed you, if you didn't believe in Zeus,
Speaker 1: I would have killed you, if you didn't believe in
Speaker 1: the and but those kind of go away and we
Speaker 1: evolved to something else. Even the dogma, even the ideologies
Speaker 1: are evolving.
Speaker 2: So like Raw.
Speaker 1: Not that I'm an expert on Raw, this on god
Speaker 1: or or I forgot the other Egyptian before Raw, there
Speaker 1: was the other Egyptian gods, Horace, and not so on.
Speaker 2: I'm not an expert in any of them.
Speaker 1: But it seems that with these newer meaning within the
Speaker 1: last two thousand years, they seem to be attached to
Speaker 1: more spirituality, that there was an actual person that was
Speaker 1: preaching these ideas, whether it Buddha, Jesus, you know, even
Speaker 1: the Yogananda and so on and so forth, that these ideas.
Speaker 1: It seems that even those things are evolving, and humanity
Speaker 1: is starting to let go of the things that that
Speaker 1: doesn't serve them anymore. Maybe one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: we are going through this uprising of war now and
Speaker 1: of hate, and it's been going on for the last
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen years. Really, it's been going on for
Speaker 1: a long time, but it really seems to have been
Speaker 1: bubbling up over the last decade more so than it
Speaker 1: was when I was growing up. It was just different
Speaker 1: when I was growing up. And it's like maybe the
Speaker 1: final hopefully the final realization of humanity to just go
Speaker 1: that doesn't serve us anymore.
Speaker 2: We don't want to do this anymore.
Speaker 1: We need to evolve beyond this.
Speaker 3: Would you agree, Yeah, I would say that. Well, there's
Speaker 3: a couple of parts to it. I would agree that
Speaker 3: our purpose is to wake up, and waking up involves
Speaker 3: realizing that the people I hate are in fact myself,
Speaker 3: and that you know, in Christianity, Jesus said love your
Speaker 3: neighbor as yourself. Well, that's because your neighbor is yourself,
Speaker 3: and true love is recognizing that fact that you don't
Speaker 3: really love until you really understand that the person in
Speaker 3: front of you is you, not like you, is you
Speaker 3: being a different avatar. When you really understand that that
Speaker 3: is you, your neighbor is yourself. That's the foundation of
Speaker 3: real love. Now, whether it seems to be getting worse now.
Speaker 3: Stephen Pinker at Harvard has data suggesting that there are
Speaker 3: bumps in the road, but humanity's homicide rate has been declining.
Speaker 3: It was far higher per capita back in aboriginal times
Speaker 3: than it is. You've got clear data. So we are
Speaker 3: experiencing a terrible bump right now, and you know, but
Speaker 3: but there's been a decline. I think that my own
Speaker 3: experience is that there are a lot of people who
Speaker 3: are waking up, but it is still still a tiny,
Speaker 3: tiny fraction. But my hope is that we see right
Speaker 3: now still the scientific paradigm is a physicalist one, and
Speaker 3: in the popular mind and in most of most scientists mind,
Speaker 3: the space time physicalist framework of reality is still what
Speaker 3: is dominating most people when science so no spiritual tragism
Speaker 3: is saying no, that's not right. Physicalism is fault. But
Speaker 3: they've not had the beef, right, they've not. I mean,
Speaker 3: what technology can they make. It's the scientists who gave
Speaker 3: us the laptops and the technology that you I are
Speaker 3: using no spiritual form, but in physical form, in the
Speaker 3: first form. But that's what's going to you know, really
Speaker 3: persuade people. Right, the scientists can give us all this technology,
Speaker 3: right of course, Well, scientists are the ones who then
Speaker 3: realize space time is doomed and actually start getting mathematical
Speaker 3: models of a reality beyond space time that starts to
Speaker 3: smell like consciousness. I think that will really be the
Speaker 3: stepping stone for a lot more people to wake up.
Speaker 3: And when scientists then actually start going after that with
Speaker 3: mathematical precision, I think the wake up process will so
Speaker 3: then there'll be more they'll give more tools now to
Speaker 3: the spiritual traditions. They'll all of a sudden have these
Speaker 3: pointers that are much more clear. And also I think
Speaker 3: that some of the pointers that spiritual diditions have are
Speaker 3: are wrong, and we'll find them. We'll actually be able
Speaker 3: to find them and say that that's just a bad pointer.
Speaker 3: These are that's a good pointer over here, and that's
Speaker 3: but we can actually evolve that pointer. So I see
Speaker 3: a back and forth between science and spirituality that will
Speaker 3: not in the next decade, not maybe not in the
Speaker 3: next maybe not in my lifetime, but but but I
Speaker 3: see it coming. Where scientists realize spacetime is doomed, there's
Speaker 3: a realm beyond space time, and as we study that,
Speaker 3: we begin to realize, oh, we're actually just discovering ourselves
Speaker 3: and we're just avatars here in space time.
Speaker 1: Well let me I would argue with you though, that
Speaker 1: that the spiritual space, the spiritual traditions, especially the Eastern
Speaker 1: traditions that are older, much much older than the Western,
Speaker 1: that their technology that they gave us was more of
Speaker 1: inner technologies.
Speaker 3: Sure, sure, the.
Speaker 1: Meditation, yoga, talte, ching, these ideas, these philosophies are inner
Speaker 1: technologies where science has given us amazing outer technologies. But
Speaker 1: that's right, they both can't come be. You can't do
Speaker 1: one without the other in many ways. There in many ways.
Speaker 1: So there I wanted to clarify that, and I want
Speaker 1: I don't know if you would agree with me or not.
Speaker 3: Well, absolutely, the Yeah, the meditation in particular is an
Speaker 3: incredibly important technology. So I was just using the technology
Speaker 3: in terms of what would persuade people. Right, I've got
Speaker 3: I've got my iPad because of the scientists and their physicalists.
Speaker 3: So maybe physicalism is better than this religious stuff is
Speaker 3: sort of the idea pointing too. But I agree that
Speaker 3: there's meditation is an important technology, But when the scientists
Speaker 3: who are giving you iPads and iPhones are also saying,
Speaker 3: our science seems to say that space time isn't fundamental
Speaker 3: and maybe consciousness is. Then people will go, well, shoot,
Speaker 3: the scientists are saying, so well, maybe I better check
Speaker 3: into this, Maybe I should try meditation.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: And the point, yeah, I see your point, because I
Speaker 1: completely see your point. I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: two different kinds of wake up calls. I think the
Speaker 1: the person who is more physically inclined is going to
Speaker 1: wait for those cues, and the people who are more
Speaker 1: spiritual inclinent are going to wake up from the more
Speaker 1: spiritual cues. I think you're right, though, I think both thought.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking it's one pill for both. I think it's
Speaker 1: gonna be multiple, multiple different areas. And by the way,
Speaker 1: in this and it's not even gonna be two. I
Speaker 1: mean a movie like The Matrix, I mean that movie
Speaker 1: Woke Up.
Speaker 2: It brought simulation theory with Kung Fu, but brought simulation.
Speaker 1: They brought simulation theory into the zeitgeist there, you know,
Speaker 1: And now Marvel is bringing the multiverse and parallel realities
Speaker 1: to billions of people around the world, where yes, those
Speaker 1: ideas have been around, even even in in general culture,
Speaker 1: but not the way it is now. I mean people
Speaker 1: are having conversations, deep conversations about multi the multiverse, and
Speaker 1: parallel realities and the Mendela effect and these kind of
Speaker 1: ideas because of these other these po culture or stories.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, if it wasn't for HG. Wells, I
Speaker 1: don't know if we would have gotten to the moon.
Speaker 1: You know how he inspired so many scientists to go
Speaker 1: into science because before HG. Wells, there was not really
Speaker 1: a conversation about those kind of things. I might be wrong,
Speaker 1: but generally speaking, he's one of the more popular ones
Speaker 1: that really brought it out of people. Would you agree.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: and now back to the show.
Speaker 3: Well I think that many people were the young people
Speaker 3: were stimulated by these imaginative novels or movies that they
Speaker 3: saw and know I was stimulated. I was thirteen years
Speaker 3: old when the first restaurnauts landed on the moon. Pobo
Speaker 3: thirteen follow blended on the moon and it completely inspired me.
Speaker 3: It made me want to be, you know, a scientist,
Speaker 3: and so forth, and so novels, movies, you know, real
Speaker 3: accomplishments by by brave people going to the moon risking
Speaker 3: their lives. The yeah, they wake up with a generation
Speaker 3: and say, oh, yeah, I want to do that too,
Speaker 3: or even like when President Kennedy said, you know, we
Speaker 3: want to by the end of this decade to send
Speaker 3: a man to the moon and bring them home safely.
Speaker 3: You know, absolutely, I mean that's a clarion call to
Speaker 3: a generation and makes you work real hard with nineteen
Speaker 3: sixties technology. Boy, those guys were brave.
Speaker 2: No no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: I've been I've been to I've been to the Kennedy
Speaker 1: Space Center, I've been to the Houston Space Center. And
Speaker 1: when you look at the stuff, you're like, are you
Speaker 1: out of your mind?
Speaker 3: Those guys had they they had.
Speaker 1: They were with pencils, they were doing the math with
Speaker 1: pencils and pens on paper, and they're just like, hold on,
Speaker 1: I got to get this this algebra equation done.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I think we could get him back if
Speaker 2: we do this. Like that is truly insane.
Speaker 3: They were incredibly brave and.
Speaker 2: Or stupid or stupid either one.
Speaker 3: Well then some of them died, yeah, exactly know.
Speaker 1: Many many died, but the line of insanity and genius
Speaker 1: are are very close together.
Speaker 3: That's right, and brave, but they someone had to be brave,
Speaker 3: godless to be John Glenn to do the first around
Speaker 3: the earth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about the poor dog that was sent
Speaker 1: or the monkey.
Speaker 2: The monkey, it's fascinating. Let me ask you this question.
Speaker 1: A lot of the things we're talking about have been
Speaker 1: to discuss in for example, the Vedic text or ancient
Speaker 1: text thousands and thousands of years, these theories, these ideas.
Speaker 1: Where do you think they got this information? I mean,
Speaker 1: because we just figured it out a little while ago
Speaker 1: in the West quote unquote, but these Eastern Vedic texts
Speaker 1: or older texts that are six seven thousand years old,
Speaker 1: we're talking about simulation theory, the idea of maya, the
Speaker 1: idea of the great illusion, the dream even well, I
Speaker 1: mean a little early, a little later like Plato and yeah,
Speaker 1: in the Cave, you Knowlry of the Cave, these ideas,
Speaker 1: but specifically even older that predates the West, with some
Speaker 1: of these Eastern traditions, where do you think this information
Speaker 1: came from? Because they didn't have the materialistic basis that
Speaker 1: the West has now.
Speaker 2: I would love to hear your thoughts.
Speaker 3: That's a good question. I think that they didn't have
Speaker 3: the technology, like right, right now, I can talk about
Speaker 3: a virtual reality headset and and people say, oh yeah,
Speaker 3: and you sort of get it. Plato had to use
Speaker 3: the cave and say, well, I've got a fire and
Speaker 3: I've got objects, and you're seeing the shadows of these
Speaker 3: objects against the cave wall, and people say, okay, I
Speaker 3: can yeah, I can see. The shadow is not the
Speaker 3: real object. It's just a shadow of the object. And
Speaker 3: so maybe what I'm perceiving is just shadows of reality.
Speaker 3: And I think that many people when they sit down
Speaker 3: and just when sometimes you do have illusions, right, visual
Speaker 3: illusions like if you stick a stick in water, look
Speaker 3: at the part above water and part in the water,
Speaker 3: it looks like the stick is broken, and as it
Speaker 3: bends right, and you go, well, okay, that's not right.
Speaker 3: The stick isn't broken, and yet I'm seeing it broken.
Speaker 3: And when you do so, I guess a lot of
Speaker 3: people may have seen those kinds of things. And then
Speaker 3: then or like if you're in Holland and you see
Speaker 3: a windmill turning from a distance, sometimes when you're looking
Speaker 3: at it all, all of a sudden stop and turn the
Speaker 3: other direction. If you're fine enough and you go whoa, whoa,
Speaker 3: how did that happen? And then you realize, no, that's
Speaker 3: just that's just an illusion. So it doesn't take too
Speaker 3: sensitive a person to then go, well, wait a minute.
Speaker 3: If I was wrong about the stick in the water,
Speaker 3: and I'm wrong about that wind meal, and can you
Speaker 3: find some other things that you're wrong.
Speaker 1: You take a pencil, you take a stick in your stick,
Speaker 1: and it all becomes because bendy.
Speaker 3: When you start doing it, it becomes bendy. That's right.
Speaker 3: And then you then you start doing things like you
Speaker 3: draw pictures like of a cube on a piece of paper,
Speaker 3: and it looks like it's three D, but you know
Speaker 3: that it was just a picture on a piece of paper.
Speaker 3: So then you go, okay, wait, wait a minute, I'm
Speaker 3: making up some of this stuff. Maybe I'm making up
Speaker 3: all of this stuff. Maybe, And then that's so I
Speaker 3: don't think it doesn't require too much genius to just go, whoa,
Speaker 3: I was I was wrong there, I was wrong there.
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm wrong everywhere. So that's my one guess about
Speaker 3: the maya kind of thing.
Speaker 1: In the idea though that imagine because you and I
Speaker 1: are talking about this in a very safe world in
Speaker 1: the sense that we can have these conversations publicly. But
Speaker 1: can you imagine being a Yogi eight thousand years ago
Speaker 1: and saying, you know, this whole thing not real? Can
Speaker 1: you imagine where that came from? My my, my interpretation
Speaker 1: of it is that they were at a spiritual level
Speaker 1: that was so much deeper than what we understand. That
Speaker 1: they went inwards and a lot of this information they
Speaker 1: might have tapped into what the truth was, and only
Speaker 1: someone who meditates understands that well.
Speaker 3: And I agree with that. I think that that's also
Speaker 3: in addition to the I was talking about, you know,
Speaker 3: just an average guy, but these Yogis that that are
Speaker 3: actually going very very deep. That's where I think the
Speaker 3: fact that they are the one, and just like you
Speaker 3: and I are the one, that they are the infinite intelligence.
Speaker 3: So they didn't have the technology that we have, but
Speaker 3: they had something even better. They have the infinite intelligence
Speaker 3: that that that that is you and me and that
Speaker 3: is also my my baby, four year old or whatever
Speaker 3: it might be. It's also infinite intelligence. It's just not
Speaker 3: yet expressed, right, So so yeah, I agree with you.
Speaker 1: Now, if we are in a simulation, and this is
Speaker 1: all a giant, you know, giant video game that we're
Speaker 1: all playing. Do we eventually break out? Do we eventually escape?
Speaker 1: Do we eventually stop playing this game?
Speaker 3: Yes, but there's infinitely many games to play, so yeah,
Speaker 3: we pop out of this one. But it's the one
Speaker 3: is so deep that there's a literally an infinity of
Speaker 3: different perspectives to be taken, literally infinity in some sense.
Speaker 3: If the one consciousness is up to understanding itself, you
Speaker 3: sort of self realization, who am I? Then I think that, Well,
Speaker 3: for example, there's a theorem that no system can ever
Speaker 3: fully understand itself. So if I have it, like a
Speaker 3: computer system, and I want that system to understand itself,
Speaker 3: well I could have that computer system like build a
Speaker 3: software model of itself and if it's interactions and so forth,
Speaker 3: it's parts. But now the system has changed because now
Speaker 3: it's got some software and it didn't have before. So
Speaker 3: now I need to model that new software edition to me.
Speaker 3: But as soon as you do that, I've got the
Speaker 3: fact that I have this new software edition that I've got.
Speaker 3: So in other words, you can never catch up. You
Speaker 3: can never get a full model of yourself. And so
Speaker 3: maybe the one infinite consciousness is forever quote unquote taking
Speaker 3: different perspectives because in principle, there is no end to
Speaker 3: the exploration of itself. It can never know itself completely,
Speaker 3: and so once we take it, once we step out
Speaker 3: of this headset, there's infinitely many more to step out.
Speaker 3: And one question for me then, is you know that
Speaker 3: I wonder about is does it allow itself to be
Speaker 3: completely reincarnated into the new headset and completely lose itself
Speaker 3: and have to wake up sometimes painfully right kicking and screaming,
Speaker 3: so to speak to its infinite nature and to realize, no,
Speaker 3: I'm not this project I'm not this avatar in this
Speaker 3: tiny little projection. My guess is yes.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's interesting because even with what you just said, this
Speaker 1: spiritual explanation for it, from my point of view and
Speaker 1: my experience, is that when you become an ascended master,
Speaker 1: like a yog Nanda, a Jesus, a Buddha, you choose
Speaker 1: to either come back or you choose to help others
Speaker 1: awaken through other ways. But there are ascended masters who
Speaker 1: leave and they're like, I'm good now, I don't need
Speaker 1: to come back to Earth. I don't need I've learned
Speaker 1: the lessons. Yeah, I could be a thousand other things,
Speaker 1: but I've learned all the lessons I need to learn here.
Speaker 1: I now want to go to the next video game.
Speaker 1: I want to go to the next game that PlayStation
Speaker 1: is putting out.
Speaker 2: I've been in the Xbox.
Speaker 1: I want now PlayStation. And then and you evolve to
Speaker 1: a higher level because it doesn't make sense for you
Speaker 1: vibrationally to be down here anymore. Because if you've heard
Speaker 1: these stories of the Yogis, even in the nineteen hundreds,
Speaker 1: when people got in front of the Maharashi, they just
Speaker 1: the energy that they felt there was something that they
Speaker 1: was intoxicating. Some couldn't stand too close because it was
Speaker 1: just too much and they would have to go back,
Speaker 1: like radiated thirty or fifty feet out or something like that.
Speaker 1: Because it's fascinating, and I want to ask you one
Speaker 1: last question, because I mean, I could talk to you
Speaker 1: for another hour or two don with a question, but
Speaker 1: mentioned another question in regards to the concept of frequency.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: and now back to the show. In the spiritual traditions,
Speaker 1: they talk about that the higher the frequency, the closer
Speaker 1: you are to source, So hate, anger, prejudice, these are
Speaker 1: all very low, low frequency, very slow. But love service, kindness,
Speaker 1: these are higher frequencies in nature according to spirituality. But
Speaker 1: we have proven that there is frequency and that we
Speaker 1: all in many ways, the whole planet sings at different
Speaker 1: frequencies at all times. Hums almost at a different frequency
Speaker 1: at all at all times. And these and especially like
Speaker 1: I was just saying, with the maharashi, they were at
Speaker 1: a higher frequency that they couldn't even attract you know,
Speaker 1: a mugger. That's like like you don't see Yogi's getting
Speaker 1: mugged or you know, that's just not a thing you hear.
Speaker 1: You also never heard of the Yogi crusades where they
Speaker 1: were killing people for in the name of the source.
Speaker 1: Like right, so what is your what's your perspective on
Speaker 1: frequency and spiritual frequency and also just mathematical physics frequencies
Speaker 1: and is there a way that those two connect?
Speaker 3: Yes, And it ties in also with what you were
Speaker 3: saying about some yoga masters saying, God, I don't need
Speaker 3: to go with the stay at this level, go to
Speaker 3: to a higher level, don't have to come back here.
Speaker 3: So on that, I think the space time is a
Speaker 3: fairly cheap headset. It's only four dimensions, right, two, three
Speaker 3: dimensions of space, one dimension of time? Why not fifty dimensions?
Speaker 3: One a five billion? Why not a trillion dimensions? Why
Speaker 3: not having thirty thousand different dimensions of color instead of
Speaker 3: just three dimensions of color and so forth?
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: So well, you know of the hue the hue space,
Speaker 3: for example, there's saturation and brightness and all those. But
Speaker 3: so inther word, we have certain dimensions of color, why
Speaker 3: not have a trillion other dimensions of color that we
Speaker 3: you know? Why not? So we I think we have
Speaker 3: one of the cheaper headsets that the one can use
Speaker 3: to look at itself, and it falls apart at ten
Speaker 3: of the minus thirty three centimeters, So we're not in
Speaker 3: we're in one of the low frequency the low frequency models, right.
Speaker 3: But yes, in the mathematics that we're working on, there's
Speaker 3: Markovian dynamics of conscious agents, so that we talk about
Speaker 3: in the Fusions of Consciousness paper, and I talk about
Speaker 3: in my book The Case Against Reality. So I've talked
Speaker 3: about this in the very last chapter of my book
Speaker 3: The Case Against Reality. It's a Marcovian dynamics and it's
Speaker 3: all about frequencies. It's the but this is a mathematically
Speaker 3: precise theory about where these frequencies come from. And it
Speaker 3: turns out as you get more and more integrated systems,
Speaker 3: then the frequencies go up, so you get these larger
Speaker 3: and larger communication classes in the mark of communicating class
Speaker 3: gets more and more coherent and the as a result,
Speaker 3: we think what we call the momentum gets larger, and
Speaker 3: therefore the special frequency gets smaller, so the frequencies get fineries,
Speaker 3: you get higher, higher frequencies in this thing. So so yes,
Speaker 3: we actually have a mathematical model that I wasn't trying
Speaker 3: to model this kind of yogic idea of higher frequencies
Speaker 3: and so forth. It just came out of our mathematics.
Speaker 3: As you got more and more coherent, larger inter actions
Speaker 3: of conscious agents, the frequencies that correspond to it get higher.
Speaker 3: So yes, it's really it falls right out of the theory.
Speaker 3: But again I'm not putting our theory out of just
Speaker 3: the truth. It's a first baby step outside of space
Speaker 3: time towards understanding consciousness. Just the first first baby step.
Speaker 1: And that's what this show is all about. It is
Speaker 1: just trying to figure everything out as much as we
Speaker 1: possibly can, and going through different avenues to us. Why
Speaker 1: I talk to so many different kinds of people from
Speaker 1: so many different walks of life, Because in this conversation
Speaker 1: you've opened up my eyes to a bunch of different
Speaker 1: things I hadn't thought about before, and hopefully I've thrown
Speaker 1: a couple at you that you've thought about differently as well,
Speaker 1: because there's not a lot of quantum physicists talking to
Speaker 1: near death experiences, but there's some value there and vice versa,
Speaker 1: so hopefully we could all I'm trying to bridge the gap,
Speaker 1: don I'm trying to I'm doing the best I can
Speaker 1: to bridge the gap.
Speaker 2: Now, I'm going to ask you a few ques.
Speaker 1: Just ask all my guests, what is your definition of
Speaker 1: living a fulfilled life?
Speaker 3: I would say now that learning to let go of thought,
Speaker 3: being able to be in this moment without being lost
Speaker 3: in my thoughts, and just being present. That is what
Speaker 3: we're here for. That's what our purpose is is to
Speaker 3: wake up so you wake up when you can actually
Speaker 3: be washing the dishes and be present and not being
Speaker 3: grudging that you're washing the dishes, not being upset that
Speaker 3: you washing the dishes, would rather be doing nothing but
Speaker 3: literally in the moment, being present. And so that's a fulfilled,
Speaker 3: fulfilled and fulfilling life. If this moment, which is the
Speaker 3: only moment I can actually choose to do anything, I
Speaker 3: choose to not be lost in thought, but to actually
Speaker 3: be aware of my emotions, to be aware of the
Speaker 3: thoughts that are going on, not identified with the thoughts,
Speaker 3: but being just aware of the thoughts, looking at them
Speaker 3: without reincarnating into them. And then that is living that way.
Speaker 3: And I'm not saying I do that all the time.
Speaker 3: I do it occasionally. But I think that if you
Speaker 3: ask what is a fulfilled life, I think that is
Speaker 3: a fulfilled life. It's not getting rich, because everything that
Speaker 3: you get you're going to take the headset off. It's
Speaker 3: everything that you accumulate you're going to lose guaranteed fame, riches, cars, houses, followers,
Speaker 3: you're going to lose every bit of it, and you'll
Speaker 3: lose it within a few decades, probably sooner. So none
Speaker 3: of that. It'll make you happy for a few minutes,
Speaker 3: and then all of a sudden you're onto the next thing.
Speaker 3: That wasn't it? What is it when you become a billionaire,
Speaker 3: And that's not it. What is it that you need
Speaker 3: being present in this moment without thought and just then
Speaker 3: realizing who you are. You are the infinite intelligence, You're
Speaker 3: not the avatar. That's a fulfilled life.
Speaker 1: If you can go back in time and talk to
Speaker 1: little Don, what advice would you give him?
Speaker 3: Learn to be have internal silence. It's fine to go
Speaker 3: and pursue fun things, get an education, get a good job,
Speaker 3: as long as you realize you're going to walk away
Speaker 3: from all of it. So none of that is you
Speaker 3: don't identify with anything. It will always. So learn to
Speaker 3: go into complete inner silence and find out who you
Speaker 3: really are. The big question is who am I? If
Speaker 3: you know who you really are? And it's not my
Speaker 3: bank account, it's not my car, it's not my house,
Speaker 3: it's not my popularity, it's nothing. None of that is me.
Speaker 3: None of that is me. My body isn't me. So
Speaker 3: I would say, find out the answer to this question,
Speaker 3: who am I? That's what I would told myself.
Speaker 1: How do you define source or God?
Speaker 3: Again, only by a sense of definition. So we go
Speaker 3: right back to the very start of our conversation where
Speaker 3: I would have to say, if I try to just
Speaker 3: use words and give definitions, it won't work. But if
Speaker 3: I point, if I give you pointing instructions, like giving
Speaker 3: you a glass of wine and saying you've never had wine. Here,
Speaker 3: have a glass, takes it, that's wine. All I can
Speaker 3: say about source is, if you want to know what
Speaker 3: source is, sit in silence, turn out the light distractions,
Speaker 3: let go of thoughts. And when you're aware of the
Speaker 3: silence and nothing else, you had your first little taste
Speaker 3: of source, but just the first little taste. Now go
Speaker 3: into it further, Spend more time there, more time there.
Speaker 3: When you can start to spend hours there, then you're
Speaker 3: starting to really know a little bit more about the source.
Speaker 3: And yet you've only scratched the surface of the depths
Speaker 3: of who you are.
Speaker 1: And what is the ultimate purpose of life?
Speaker 3: Of our life here, I think is to wake up.
Speaker 3: I mean we're here to get lost, to not know
Speaker 3: who we are, to think that I need to compete
Speaker 3: with you, to be smarter than you, or more richer
Speaker 3: than you, or more popular than you, or faster than you,
Speaker 3: whatever it might be. And you see this, even the
Speaker 3: three or four year olds, right, they're already there. That's
Speaker 3: mine and mine's better than your, and so We're here
Speaker 3: to get lost, to identify with the avatar, and then
Speaker 3: to wake up and to walk away from that all
Speaker 3: and to realize we're going to take this headset off
Speaker 3: and nothing was lost.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 1: And now back to the show, and where can people
Speaker 1: find out more about you and the amazing work you're
Speaker 1: doing in the world.
Speaker 3: I have a book called The Case Against Reality. The
Speaker 3: subtitle is Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes,
Speaker 3: So it's more within the spacetime headset kind of framework
Speaker 3: where I'm talking about that. But then it's the last
Speaker 3: chapter I say, but now we've done all this stuff
Speaker 3: in evolution. Now it's time to let go of space
Speaker 3: time altogether. That includes letting go of evolution. So the
Speaker 3: book sort of goes through through that. So I would
Speaker 3: say that, and I've got a Twitter account, so at
Speaker 3: Donald D.
Speaker 1: Hoffmann, fair enough, and do you have any party messages
Speaker 1: for audience?
Speaker 2: Don Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Would just say this that there's been this tension between
Speaker 3: science and spirituality and it's not going to be necessary.
Speaker 3: That science is realizing that space time isn't fundamental, and
Speaker 3: it's bringing new tools to the table. The spiritual traditions
Speaker 3: have already said that. They've said that space time isn't fundamental.
Speaker 3: There's a spiritual realm outside of space time that's more fundamental,
Speaker 3: but they haven't had the as good pointers. So when
Speaker 3: science and spirituality meet, science can provide new pointers, and
Speaker 3: spirituality can provide thousands of years of meditation and the insights,
Speaker 3: and together, I think humanity can move forward with a
Speaker 3: scientific spirituality that is going to not only help us personally,
Speaker 3: but the technologies will be outside of space time and
Speaker 3: will be indistinguishable from magic.
Speaker 1: Don I appreciate you and everything you're doing in the world,
Speaker 1: my friend, Thank you so much for being on the show.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, appreciate it for the kind invitation.
Speaker 1: Thank you for spending this sacred time with us today.
Speaker 1: If you feel called to explore this conversation further, you'll
Speaker 1: find the show notes for this episode at Next levelsoul
Speaker 1: dot com Forward slash three six three, and if your
Speaker 1: soul is craving an even deeper journey, step into Next
Speaker 1: Level Soul TV, our streaming sanctuary for spiritual films, documentaries,
Speaker 1: original shows, guided meditations, channeling sessions, audiobooks, and transformative teachings.
Speaker 1: It's a space created to support your awakening, you're healing,
Speaker 1: and your return to the truth of who you really are.
Speaker 1: Begin your journey at Next levelsoul dot tv Until next time,
Speaker 1: Keep expanding, keep seeking, and keep walking your path towards
Speaker 1: the next level of your soul.