Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we are strapping in
for well, the ultimate existential.
Speaker 2: Road trip, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: We're not just, you know, debating a philosophical question from
an armchair. We are diving headfirst into an experiment that
claims to have physically demonstrated what could be the greatest
secret of our existence.
Speaker 2: Indeed, we are confronting the idea that everything you feel,
everything you touch, and everything you believe is real is
fundamentally a fabrication, a program, a program running on a
computer system so far beyond our comprehension it's almost laughable.
Speaker 1: The hook is just it, it's undeniable. What if the
entire physical world, the laws of motion, gravity, the very
architecture of time, is nothing more than code.
Speaker 2: And then what if someone says they've found a way
to see it exactly.
Speaker 1: An independent researcher, Danny Gaylor claims he has found a repeatable,
observable mechanism that allows human consciousness to look past the
rendering layer.
Speaker 2: That's the graphics card, so to speed.
Speaker 1: And see the actual source code of the reality.
Speaker 2: That is the radical claim we're dissecting today, and we're
pulling our source material from some fascinating excerpts from the
YouTube channel Eric case Swanson documentaries.
Speaker 1: Galor asserts this isn't science fiction anymore. He's saying, it
is a claimed observable phenomenon, and the methodology is it's
very precise.
Speaker 2: It is. It involves ingesting a powerful, naturally occurring psychedelic
dimethyl trip demean.
Speaker 1: DMT, and then, while under its influence, projecting a very
specific kind of.
Speaker 2: Light, a difracted laser, onto a matt's surface. The claim,
and it's a wild one, is that what appears is
a dynamic, self executing code of the universe.
Speaker 1: So our mission in this deep dive is to perform
a kind of surgical analysis of these claims.
Speaker 2: Right, we have to understand the ancient philosophical context that
has led us here, because this idea isn't new.
Speaker 1: Not at all. And then we have to examine the
astonishing subjective experiences shared by the participants, and.
Speaker 2: Maybe most importantly, we have to pressure test the massive
scientific and logical hurdles. I mean, how do you prove
reality is digital, especially when the required catalyst is chemically induced?
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. We're diving into a topic that
asks what is the true nature of reality? And can
we actually force the operating system of the cosmos to
show us its command line.
Speaker 2: It's a fascinating synthesis, isn't it. It blends the most profound,
ancient questions of being with some highly controversial, you know,
cutting edge independent research.
Speaker 1: So to give it the rigorous treatment it deserves, we
need to move beyond just saying wow or no way.
Speaker 2: Exactly, we have to truly understand the architecture of the
idea itself.
Speaker 1: To truly grasp the audacity of Danny Gahler's experiment, I mean,
he's essentially trying to find a physical glitch in the matrix,
we have to establish the intellectual foundation for sure.
Speaker 2: The idea of a false reality didn't start with Keanu Reeves.
Speaker 1: Not by a long shot. It's as old as civilization itself.
Speaker 2: Precisely, the tension between appearance and reality, that's the engine philosophy.
Millenniago Plato laid the groundwork with his famous allegory of
the Cave.
Speaker 1: And it remains just startlingly relevant today.
Speaker 2: It really does.
Speaker 1: You know. The classic setup, prisoners chained since birth, facing
a wall they can't turn.
Speaker 2: Their heads and behind them. There's a fire and people
are walking past it holding up objects.
Speaker 1: So all the prisoners see are the shadows of those
objects cast on the wall in front of them.
Speaker 2: And to these prisoners, those two dimensional shadows, that is reality.
It's the only reality they've ever known. They name the shadows,
they track their movements.
Speaker 1: They believe the shadows are fundamental. It'd probably have a
whole science based on shadow behavior.
Speaker 2: And this captures that core existential dread.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: What if our three dimensional sensory reality. What if it's
just the shadow of a much higher dimensional true reality.
Speaker 1: What if we are all just mistaking a projection for
the fundamental truth?
Speaker 2: That concept echoes globally and across vast stretches of time.
It's not just a Western idea. No.
Speaker 1: If you look to ancient China, there's the fame story
of the philosopher Guangschi.
Speaker 2: The butterfly dream exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Wan Shei woke up one day after this incredibly vivid
dream where he was a carefree butterfly just fluttering among
the flowers.
Speaker 2: And the moment of waking was confusing for him, deeply confusing.
Speaker 1: He had to ask himself, am I now a man
who had just dreamed you as a butterfly?
Speaker 2: Or am I a butterfly right now? Dreaming that I'm
a man?
Speaker 1: And a distinction just collapses. It instantly challenges the certainty
of your own identity of external reality based solely on
what your senses are telling you.
Speaker 2: And as we move into the modern era, you know,
post science revolution, that philosophical question gets a technological upgrade.
Speaker 1: It transitions into the brain in a vat thought experiment.
Speaker 2: This is the secular version of Plato's cave. You don't
need shadows or mystical dreams anymore.
Speaker 1: Right, we just ask, Yeah, what if your brain was
carefully removed, placed in a life support VAT and hooked
up to a.
Speaker 2: Supercomputer, and that computer is feeding it electrical signals perfectly
simulating all the sensations of living a human life, the
taste of coffee, the feeling of love, the pain of
a stub toe.
Speaker 1: You would have absolutely no way of knowing the difference.
Speaker 2: It's the exact technological premise for the matrix, but.
Speaker 1: The modern simulation hypothesis as explored by contemporary thinkers like
Nick Bostrom, it really moves this beyond just a fun
thought experiment.
Speaker 2: This is where it gets really compelling, even for people
in the hard sciences. It moves into the realm of
probability and statistics.
Speaker 1: Bostrom's argument reframes the question entirely. It doesn't ask is
it possible we're simulated?
Speaker 2: It asks statistically, are we likely to be simulated? Which
is a very different question.
Speaker 1: And to understand that, you have to get your head
around Bostrom's trilemma. It posits three propositions, and he argues
that at least one of them must be true.
Speaker 2: That's right. So the three propositions are, first, that the
human species is very likely to go extinct before we
ever reach what he calls a post human stage.
Speaker 1: A stage where we could run vast complex computer simulations
of our ancestors.
Speaker 2: The second proposition is that any post human civilization that
does arise is almost certain not to run a significant
number of these ancestor simulations. Maybe they find it unethical
or they're just not interested.
Speaker 1: And then there's the third option, the one that keeps
people up at.
Speaker 2: Night, the one that drives simulation theory proponents, that we
are almost certainly living in a computer simulation, and if.
Speaker 1: You look at the track record of our own technological advancement.
I mean, proponents argue that options one and two seem
pretty unlikely.
Speaker 2: They do. We're constantly seeking more computing power, and the
motivation to explore our own past through simulations seems almost
inherent to scientific curiosity. We do it already with climate models,
with economic models.
Speaker 1: We're always trying to simulate things.
Speaker 2: So if future civilizations can run simulations, and they do
run simulations, and they don't just run one or two,
they run billions upon billions.
Speaker 1: Of them, then we get into the really mind bending part.
Speaker 2: Yeah, nested simulations exactly. Imagine a true foundational base reality.
Let's call it reality A.
Speaker 1: The real deal, the real deal.
Speaker 2: Civilization A in that reality eventually develops the power to
run a massive simulation of its own past. That's reality B.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have a simulation running.
Speaker 2: But then civilization B inside the simulation evolves, it gains
post human power, and it creates its own simulation Reality
C and so.
Speaker 1: On, simulated universes all the way down.
Speaker 2: All the way down. This means there's only one true
foundational reality A, but there could be quintillions of simulated
realities BCD and so on, all nested within.
Speaker 1: So if you are an observer a consciousness just randomly
placed into any one of these realities.
Speaker 2: The probability of you landing in that single foundational reality
A is infinitesimally small. It's one in a billion a trillion.
Speaker 1: Who knows the probability of landing in one of the
billions of simulated realities is stistically speaking, near certainty.
Speaker 2: Which is why you hear that often quoted estimate that
there's at least a fifty to fifty chance, or maybe
much much higher, that we are simulated.
Speaker 1: It moves the conversation from the abstract dread of what
if to the statistical argument of we probably are.
Speaker 2: But this is where Danny Gohler introduces his crucial conceptual flip.
He calls it the matrix in reverse.
Speaker 1: This distinction is absolutely critical to understanding the motivation behind
his experiment.
Speaker 2: It is because in science fiction, like the matrix, the
computational world, the matrix itself is the.
Speaker 1: Fake one, right, It's the prison, and the goal is
to break free, to get back to the real physical
world of Zion.
Speaker 2: Goler sees it the other way around. He asserts that
the computational world is the larger, true reality.
Speaker 1: So the code is the real thing.
Speaker 2: The fundamental constituents of reality, he believes, are actually computational,
their information, our physical existence, what we call real is
just a tiny subset, a localized.
Speaker 1: High resolution program, running within a much larger foundational computational space.
Speaker 2: So, in his his we aren't trapped in a lie.
We're simply living in a subreality, a smaller program within
a vastly more fundamental digital reality.
Speaker 1: And his research stems not from the premise of thinking
maybe we are, but from a place of certainty. He
talked about absolute knowing.
Speaker 2: He's not trying to prove if we're in a simulation.
He's trying to find the doorway into that larger informational domain.
Speaker 1: Okay, so, if reality is computational and we are operating
in a subprogram, how does a human being constrained by
our own laws of physics and chemistry find the entrance
to the operating system.
Speaker 2: Well, Gohler's research focuses intensely on that very question, the
connection between consciousness and matter.
Speaker 1: He started with a really profound question about his own
subjective experiences, particularly with psychedelics.
Speaker 2: Right, He asked, is the psychedelic space real or not?
Speaker 1: And He didn't mean, did I have a hallucination? That's
a different question.
Speaker 2: No, he meant, does that other domain, the one you
perceive when chemically altered, does it have its own rules,
its own geometry as it exists outside of my brain
even when I'm not actively experiencing it.
Speaker 1: If that space is real and independent, he reasoned, it
must operate by rules.
Speaker 2: And since he experiences this other space with his eyes,
he logically concluded that light must somehow be involved in
accessing it.
Speaker 1: The challenge then became finding the precise chemical and optical
key to unlock that door.
Speaker 2: And that key, he believes, is demethyl triptamine, or DMT,
a molecule that has fascinated science for decades.
Speaker 1: DMT is chemically simple, but just fascinating because it's a
neuromodulator our own bodies make naturally.
Speaker 2: That's the part that's so intriguing. It's metabolic function in
the human brain isn't fully understood yet, but the subjective
experience when you ingest it at high doses is often
described as perceiving more of what reality.
Speaker 1: Is like more channels open up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there's even speculation way out on the fringes
that it might be responsible for perception itself well.
Speaker 1: Gives this molecule such you know, gravitational weight, even for
mainstream scientists, is the evidence showing its fundamental biological.
Speaker 2: Role, And for that we have to look at the
work of doctor John Deane, who conducted some really important
research involving rats.
Speaker 1: This finding is what makes the claim about DMT being
fundamental so much harder to just dismiss out at hand.
Speaker 2: It is doctor Dean discovered that rats have comparable amounts
of DMT in their intracranial liquid the serabrospinal fluid to
other major known neurotransmitters.
Speaker 1: We're talking about dopamine and serotonin.
Speaker 2: The big ones during waking hours.
Speaker 1: Think about that for a moment. Dopamine and serotonin are
the major players. They dictate mood, movement reward, essentially a
huge chunk of our baseline experience in the world.
Speaker 2: And to find that DMT, the chemical that causes the
most profound alteration of consciousness known to man, is present
in the same average amount.
Speaker 1: It suggests it plays a fundamental, active, and essential role
in our day to day baseline perception, not just.
Speaker 2: As a transient, occasional hallucinogen. It implies DMT is part
of the very architecture of perception itself.
Speaker 1: That is a staggering realization. If DMT is an active
ingredient in the recipe of consciousness, it's logical to believe
that manipulating its concentration could momentarily lift the hood on
our operating system.
Speaker 2: Of course, we have to provide some important context here.
DMT is a potent hallucinogen, a psychedelic right, and in.
Speaker 1: The United States it is classified as a schedule eye
controlled substance.
Speaker 2: Which means it's considered to have a high potential for
abuse and no currently accepted medical use. That designation obviously
creates immense logistical and legal hurdles for mainstream, university led research.
Speaker 1: Despite that classification, it is the subject of current scientific studies.
People are looking at its rapid acting and profound therapeutic
benefits for treating complex conditions like anxiety and depression.
Speaker 2: And its history is of course far far older than
modern pharmacology.
Speaker 1: Its most famous and traditional application is as the psychoactive
ingredient in aahuasca, the South American.
Speaker 2: Brew, traditionally administered by shamans or currinderos. This practice has
been used for spiritual visions and healing for thousands of years.
Speaker 1: And the users consistently report traveling to other realms and
encountering highly structured entities or beings.
Speaker 2: And these ancient consistent reports of entering structured non physical
realms were the exact data points that solidified goler hypothesis.
Speaker 1: Right, if this space is real, it must be accessible
through a precise physical means.
Speaker 2: And that means for him, it has to involve light
and geometry. This belief led directly to the development of
the laser experiment protocol.
Speaker 1: So now we move to the practical side, the repeatable
experiment that Guller claims reveals the code. The protocol is
highly specific, almost almost ritualistic in its precise technical requirements.
Speaker 2: The required physical components are simple, but they have to
be exact. You have the subject, the DMT, and the
laser light.
Speaker 1: And crucially, the light must be a diffracted laser projected onto.
Speaker 2: A surface, and the surface itself is important. It needs
to be extremely matt a non to reflective material. In
some of the documented instances they used foam.
Speaker 1: The location of the testing is also pretty interesting. Gohler
and his partner Carter, they frequently conduct these experiments in
a place called Falcon Space.
Speaker 2: Which is in New Jersey laboratory that focuses on rather
unconventional research, specifically alternative propulsion methods, and.
Speaker 1: The recorded experiments detailed in the source material were set
up inside a far Day cage.
Speaker 2: Now that is a detail that cannot be dismissed as
just a coincidence. A far Day cage is an enclosure
used to block electromagnetic fields.
Speaker 1: It's a great setup for isolating electrical signals and interference.
Speaker 2: And think about the implication of that. If the phenomenon
were purely a hallucination, just something happening inside your brain,
then electrical interference would be irrelevant.
Speaker 1: But if the code is genuinely a computational signal from
a higher reality that might be susceptible to local electromagnetic
noise or static from our own reality.
Speaker 2: Then the Faraday cage becomes a crucial tool for achieving
visual clarity. It supports the idea that the code is
an objective external signal being perceived, not an internal one
being generated.
Speaker 1: So once the subject ingests the DMT and looks at
the difracted light on the mass surface within this isolated environment,
What exactly do they see?
Speaker 2: Gola refers to it as glimpsing the code of reality,
and the.
Speaker 1: Descriptions are astonishingly consistent. It's reported as a self executing
code of some sort.
Speaker 2: It's very digital in nature and manifests as an infinite
clock that runs these weird symbols in it.
Speaker 1: Let's focus on that term infinite clock. That suggests not
just static text on a screen.
Speaker 2: No it suggests a dynamic running process, a stream of
active information perpetually processing or calculating something, perhaps.
Speaker 1: Running the physics engine of our local reality.
Speaker 2: And what bolsters Golar's confidence that this phenomenon is fundamental
rather than just personal psychological noise is its consistency and independence.
Speaker 1: He emphasizes that the code doesn't really respond to anything
that people do.
Speaker 2: It doesn't care about the conditions of your mind, whether
you're calm or anxious. It doesn't care about the temperature,
the music playing specific frequencies, or even if.
Speaker 1: You introduce external magnetic fields.
Speaker 2: It's just doing what it's doing.
Speaker 1: This reported independence from the viewer's psychological or immediate physical
state is key.
Speaker 2: It is it suggests an objective structure that exists regardless
of the observer's expectations or any external noise, much like
observing the ticking of a running computer server. It's just there.
Speaker 1: Now, let's talk about this specific technique required to view
this code, because it's counterintuitive. You can't just stare at
the light.
Speaker 2: No, you have to diffuse your focus.
Speaker 1: And Goller uses this excellent analogy from the nineteen nineties,
the autostereogram.
Speaker 2: The magic eye posters exactly.
Speaker 1: To see that hidden three dimensional image inside the two
dimensional pattern, you had to look through the image, past
the lines, sort of blurring your focus until the death
just resolves itself.
Speaker 2: That diffusion of focus is the exact physical technique required here.
Speaker 1: Subjects have to look into the field past the surface
of the phone, letting their attention sort of convert closer.
They're trying to resolve these tiny moving things in that
glistening field that are initially almost microscopic.
Speaker 2: One participant, a guy named Tom, described the sheer phenomenal
depth he experienced. He said it was like looking into
a giant room or a window, a window at something
far far away. The light isn't just a reflection on
the surface, it's a projection onto a canvas that creates
a window into a deeper space.
Speaker 1: So the theory then is that the DMT removes the
brain's filter, allowing the consciousness to perceive this computational layer, and.
Speaker 2: The diffracted laser provides the necessary visual field. It might
be acting as a lens or a pointer to where
the rendering is thin.
Speaker 1: Without the DMT, you just see blurry speckles of light, but.
Speaker 2: With the DMT, the brain processes those light speckles as
structured informational depth.
Speaker 1: We should also stress why the diffraction is likely important here.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, diffraction means the light is spread out into
a pattern. It breaks up that focused beam.
Speaker 1: So if reality operates like a low resolution digital screen shining,
a perfectly focused laser might just hit one pixel.
Speaker 2: But a diffracted laser spreads its energy across a vast
array of those pixels. It forces the simulation engine to
process a complex, structured visual input across a broad field.
Speaker 1: Perhaps exploding the edge cases of its own rendering algorithm.
Speaker 2: Precisely, you're forcing it to work in a way it
wasn't designed for.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's delve into the actual content of this alleged
source code. If we're looking at the digital language of existence,
what characters are participants reporting.
Speaker 2: Well, they report seeing millions of characters. It's an overwhelming
density of information.
Speaker 1: And the symbols themselves fall into two major categories.
Speaker 2: That's right, you have recognizable geometries and you have these
abstract informational characters that apparently resemble human language.
Speaker 1: For the language characters, the most common descriptions that they
look like Hebrew letters.
Speaker 2: Specific phrases or configurations are mentioned, things like kim shenray
a liif, but.
Speaker 1: Subjects also say they look like Japanese or Chinese characters.
The point is a clear structured alphabet, not just random,
static or swirling colors.
Speaker 2: This is a crucial point that demands a little clarity.
If we look at a phrase like kim shehn real lift,
it's a phonetic approximation of Hebrew letters, letters often associated
with kabbalistic or mystical teachings, but.
Speaker 1: It's not a direct recognized sequence of Hebrew words in
modern usage.
Speaker 2: So this implies one of two possibilities. Either the subjects
are culturally interpreting complex structured visual noise through the lens
of esoteric knowledge they already possess, or.
Speaker 1: The simulation's language being fundamental resonates with ancient linguistic and
spiritual concepts for.
Speaker 2: A reason, right, Whether the letters are truly Hebrew or
just structurally similar is maybe less important than the consistency
of reporting structured, dynamic texts a language, rather than the amorphous,
swirling colors typical of so many other hallucinatory experiences. The
brain is clearly processing information that looks informational.
Speaker 1: And beyond the language. Participants consistently report seeing highly organized
geometries that present themselves.
Speaker 2: These include common platonic solids like tetrahedrons, and more complex
structures like a field of bucket balls.
Speaker 1: You mean those geodesic cage like molecular structures.
Speaker 2: Exactly, And these geometries are vital to the verification process
that Danny and Carter use.
Speaker 1: They function as markers.
Speaker 2: They do since the subjects are chemically altered. The researchers
attempt to move the subjective experience toward objective verification by
triangulating reports on these specific, recognizable visual elements.
Speaker 1: So they can ask questions in real time.
Speaker 2: Right, questions like are you seeing this tetrahedron in this
specific position over here? Yes? Okay? Can you see the
distinct characters running across the field right next to it.
Speaker 1: Yes, matching the characters in geometries allows them to establish
a consistency to argue that the subjects are witnessing the
same objective, externally generated structure rather.
Speaker 2: Than just a unique individual psychological projection.
Speaker 1: That effort to establish objective verification is what elevates this
from simple anecdote.
Speaker 2: Bigoehler is very upfront about the limitations. It is not
a guaranteed success for every subject.
Speaker 1: No, he manages expectations. He notes that the results very
pretty significantly.
Speaker 2: Approximately six out of ten subjects see.
Speaker 1: The code the first time, and then another three out
of ten see it on their second.
Speaker 2: Or third try, which leaves one out of ten who
can never see it.
Speaker 1: And we see that in the documentary, Mark one of
the first subjects he didn't see it during his initial attempt.
Speaker 2: And this variable success rate brings us to the much
needed critical corner, embodied perfectly by one of the participants,
a guy named Jay.
Speaker 1: He provided the necessary pressure test. He raised all the
natural skeptical counter arguments you'd expect.
Speaker 2: Jay's hesitation was essential for the source material's credibility. He
flat out questioned if he was just tripping and seeing
shapes purely due to the chemical stimulus and his own expectation.
Speaker 1: Or if the phenomenon was genuinely happening out there independent
of his mind.
Speaker 2: He distilled the scientific dilemma down to its absolute core.
Speaker 1: Is a phenomenal depth described by Tom merely an optical
illusion augmented by the DMT? Or is it just a
reflection of a light being shown in my eyes?
Speaker 2: It's the difference between a neurological artifact and a physical
window into reality's structure.
Speaker 1: This internal versus external debate is really the Gordian Knot
of psychedelic science.
Speaker 2: It is you have to ask, if three thousand people
see the exact same purple unicorn, is that objective proof
of a unicorn's existence?
Speaker 1: Or is this subjective proof of a shared neurological response
to the same chemical trigger.
Speaker 2: And that is the point we have to debate. Even
if the reported structures, the Hebrew letters, the bucket balls
are consistent across three thousand people, if they're all experiencing
a powerful chemical filter being removed, isn't that still scientifically
a collective hallucination.
Speaker 1: Where the common structure just reflects the underlying shared architecture
of the human brain when it's exposed to DMT.
Speaker 2: It's a compelling counterpoint. However, the complexity and the structure
reported here are highly specific.
Speaker 1: It's not just a vague feeling or a color.
Speaker 2: No, a typical mass hallucination might involve shared emotional states
or you know, vague shapes. The reporting of consistent self
executing characters that resemble language and specific geometric solids like
tecahedrons and bucket balls, that suggests something else.
Speaker 1: It suggests either an unbelievably complex shared operating system of
the subconscious.
Speaker 2: Or an external informational structure that's being perceived. If it
were truly internal, you have to wonder why would the
chemical consistently generate structured, external informational code rather than, say,
deeply personal memories or abstract emotions.
Speaker 1: That's the monumental question, isn't it. It forces us to
investigate what DMT is truly revealing.
Speaker 2: Because if the structure is internal, we've stumbled upon the
language of the subconscious, and.
Speaker 1: If the structure is external, we've found the matrix.
Speaker 2: And either answer fundamentally changes our understanding of reality.
Speaker 1: If seeing the source code is extraordinary, The next claim
moves this experiment into the well, the truly unbelievable realm.
Speaker 2: We have to discuss the reported occasional appearance of intelligent
entities within the diffracted light field.
Speaker 1: Gohler takes this possibility so seriously that he actually pre
briefs participants. He tells them there's a non zero percent
chance that an entity will appear in the.
Speaker 2: Light itself, and he provides a theoretical mechanism for this
appearance as suggesting it's actually accidental.
Speaker 1: Accidental.
Speaker 2: How So, if the light is truly shining into the
larger computational domating the operating system, it might be shining
into what he calls these entities office or their house.
Speaker 1: So we're like shining a flashlight into their living room.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. He theorizes that when these entities notice
this disruptive beam of light, they show interest, suggesting awareness
and maybe even curiosity about the sudden spotlight.
Speaker 1: Gohler himself claimed he saw Hebrew letters appearing, and his
takeaway was visceral. He said, there's definitely someone in there,
someone lives in here. This is someone's home.
Speaker 2: This immediately shifts the stakes. I mean, if there are
entities the simulation isn't just an unattended deterministic computer program.
Speaker 1: No, it's actively managed or occupied, or at least monitored
by intelligent life forms residing in the computational reality that.
Speaker 2: Surrounds us, and this connects directly to broader, highly influential
psychedelic reports. The late psychedelic philosopher Terrence McKenna famously describe
encountering the machinelves.
Speaker 1: Right and McKenna described these entities as self transforming elf
machines which were constructed not of biological matter, but of
syntax driving light, which aligns perfectly with the idea of
intelligent beings existing fundamentally with than a computational or digital realm,
beings made of information and language.
Speaker 2: Goler takes the identification of these beings even further. While
many people report encountering various beings in the DMT space,
Gohler describes specific species or classifications he believes he's encountered.
He details the insectoids, and he claims to understand them
as the specific species are responsible for weaving our physical reality.
Speaker 1: So they're the programmers, the developers.
Speaker 2: It suggests a conscious, intelligent agency in the architecture of
our existence. Using the very code he sees to render
our world. He posits that there are many other species,
but the insectoids appear to be the system administrators.
Speaker 1: And this realization that reality is managed came not just
from observation, but from a deeply personal, pivotal vision that
moved Goler from intellectual curiosity to absolute knowing.
Speaker 2: This vision needs to be narrated because it was the
emotional crucible for his research. Goehler described a vision where
an enormous apparatus gigantic satellite dish like structures covered in
symbols identical to the code he now sees in the laser,
rose up in front of him.
Speaker 1: He said it was as solid and real as any physical.
Speaker 2: Structure, and then, in a moment of just a visceral shock,
the entire physical world around him, the street, the cars,
the buildings, was stripped away, reduced to a wireframe grid.
Speaker 1: And the apparatus then went clunk and everything started performing
in zigzags.
Speaker 2: Cars, people, dogs just appearing out of nowhere as the
rendering snapped back into place.
Speaker 1: The emotional impact was not intellectual acceptance for him. He
described it as a deep spiritual wound.
Speaker 2: He said he felt profoundly gutted by the realization. His
immediate reaction was existential dread. He asked, wait, like, am
I a puppet? This is kind of meaningless.
Speaker 1: He thought that if he ever learned he was in
a simulation, he wouldn't care, much like knowing a knife
is real doesn't stop it from hurting you.
Speaker 2: But the reality of seeing the mechanism changed everything for him.
He realized that the lack of fundamental reaction made his
current experience feel hollow.
Speaker 1: But he subsequently reframed that shock by grasping the larger
picture the vision had provided.
Speaker 2: He concluded that the source of the rendering is ultimately irrelevant.
It fundamentally doesn't matter if your existence is rendered by
the unyielding laws of physics or by another civilization's hyper
advanced computer program.
Speaker 1: As long as you possess genuine consciousness and real experience,
real joy, real pain, that is what matters.
Speaker 2: His ultimate conclusion, it's simulations all the way up. Even
the civilization running our simulation might be simulated itself. The
computational nature is the most basic layer of reality.
Speaker 1: This acceptance of a computational architecture leads us to the
video game analogy. Used in the source material.
Speaker 2: Which offers the most compelling theoretical explanation for why the
laser experiment works as a glitch.
Speaker 1: The analogy relies on a fundamental need for any complex
system resource conservation.
Speaker 2: Exactly, if you're running a simulation of this complexity and
in higher universe, you cannot afford to render every single
particle or every line of code at maximum fidelity at
all times. It would be computationally impossible.
Speaker 1: In modern video games, the system can serves processing power
by only rendering assets that the player us can currently
see or interact with.
Speaker 2: Right if you're standing in a closed room, the complex
city environment outside the window isn't fully rendered. It's just
a low resolution placeholder until you open the door and
look at it.
Speaker 1: The theory suggests our simulation works in a similar way.
The fundamental source code the operational parameters are normally hidden
beneath the rendering layer of our physical reality to conserve resources.
Speaker 2: We're only supposed to see the physics engine's output, not
the code that's running it.
Speaker 1: So shining the difracted laser beam onto an obscure mat surface,
especially one position within the protective environment of a farretay
cage might be a glitch in the simulation or an.
Speaker 2: Easter egg left by the developers.
Speaker 1: The light hits the surface the simulation engine perhaps didn't optimize.
Speaker 2: For, and the active diffraction forces the engine to render
a complex, structured visual texture the code in an area
that is normally outside the primary focus of the simulation.
Speaker 1: It's like pointing the camera in a video game at
a spot that developers forgot to texture, and instead of
a wall, you see the binary underneath.
Speaker 2: It's an elegant theoretical explanation for why such a specific
physical interaction difracted light under the influence of DMT is
necessary to peer into the underlying digital structure.
Speaker 1: You're attempting to find the specific input sequence that causes
the system to expose its metadata.
Speaker 2: And that brings us to the biggest challenge of.
Speaker 1: All scientific validation. Danny Goehler's ultimate objective is to move
this beyond fringe research and subjective anecdote. He wants to
prove the simulation hypothesis scientifically, or.
Speaker 2: At least prove the reality of the code phenomenon itself.
Speaker 1: This is where the research faces its most formidable obstacles.
He says they're collaborating with physicists and engineers, trying to
create coherent.
Speaker 2: Trying to put something on paper that makes sense even
to a mainstream scientist. The challenge isn't just seeing the code,
it's describing it in reproducible, non subjective terms.
Speaker 1: But the massive hurdle, as we noted, is the DMT requirement.
Speaker 2: The reliance on a Schedule I controlled substance precludes a
lot of people from attempting it. It restricts mainstream scientific
involvement due to ethical review boards and legal limitations.
Speaker 1: You can't run a standardized, university funded double blind study
on the source code of the universe if the required
viewing key is illegal and chemically profound.
Speaker 2: This means the validation of the phenomenon relies almost entirely
on independent researchers and crucially on accumulating an overwhelming volume
of subjective witness testimony, which.
Speaker 1: Brings up that foundational question of evidence.
Speaker 2: Gooler acknowledges this limitation when asked how he proves any
of this, He points to the limitations of human perception
even in a non altered state.
Speaker 1: He notes that our own court systems rely on human
witnesses and recollections which are notorious faulty.
Speaker 2: So his core question then is about critical mass. How
many witnesses is enough to say that this thing is
true or not true?
Speaker 1: At what point does mass subjective experience transition into objective data.
Speaker 2: And his current answer is profound in its scale. He
says they are up to about three thousand subjects who
have now seen the code, three thousand and Gohler states
that this volume is enough for me to move on
to other levels of experimentation.
Speaker 1: That volume of consistency three thousand individuals using the same
precise protocol, reporting the same complex structured, dynamic symbols, geometries
and languages, that is, in his framework, sufficient for a
preliminary scientific.
Speaker 2: Acceptance, even if definitive proof requires some kind of instrumentation
that can photograph the code without human intervention.
Speaker 1: And when Jay, the skeptical participant, challenge the very foundation
of the experiment is it a hallucination? Is its suggestion
as a just reflected light? Gaulla's response was less about
defending the methodology and.
Speaker 2: More about defending the principle of making the information public.
Speaker 1: He embraces skepticism. He knows that if the finding is
real it has to withstand intense scrutiny, and.
Speaker 2: He cited that famous Terence McKenna quote as his guiding principle.
If it's real, you can take the pressure.
Speaker 1: Gohler sees his job as facilitating the discovery and then
letting it go through the ringer of science.
Speaker 2: This leads us to our concluding analysis, which has to
be independent of whether we accept the simulation hypothesis itself.
We have to focus on the monumental significance of the
DMT consistency, regardless of whether the code is internal or external.
Speaker 1: Even if we adopt the most stringent skeptical materialist perspective
that the code phenomenon is solely attributable to a shared
chemical response or hallucination, the findings are still revolutionary for neuroscience.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. The fact that a naturally occurring chemical in the
human body can cause thousands of people to have similar,
highly structured, complex experiences involving code, language, and specific geometric
entities that demands intense scientific research.
Speaker 1: It suggests a hardwired, shared architecture of human perception that
is currently untapped and unexplained by conventional science.
Speaker 2: If the structure the tetrahedrons, the bucket balls the specific
characters is being generated internally, then DMT is effectively unlocking
the language of the deep subconscious.
Speaker 1: It's showing us how the brain processes reality at its
most fundamental geometrical level. When the filtering mechanism is disabled.
Speaker 2: It would mean our neurological system speaks in code and shapes, and.
Speaker 1: That in itself is a profound insight into what it
means to be human. Whether it's the operating system of
the cosmos or the operating system of the human mind.
We have to investigate what DMT is truly revealing. So
this deep dive has explored the tension between well the
ancient allegory of the cave, the modern statistical probability of simulation,
and the incredibly unique, repeatable, yet chemically induced observations of
the code of reality.
Speaker 2: The thought of an insectoid species weaving our physical world,
or just the sheer audacity of trying to find the
source code of existence in a diffracted laser beam. It's
profoundly thought provoking.
Speaker 1: The implications of that resource conservation analogy are perhaps the
most unsettling for me, the idea that our physical world
only fully renders when they're looking at it.
Speaker 2: That observation itself forces the cosmos to commit computational resources.
It recontextualizes the very act of existing.
Speaker 1: If the universe is fundamentally built on code, and the
only barrier to seeing that code is a neurochemical that
our own bodies produce naturally.
Speaker 2: Then humanity is much closer to its own operating system
than we ever imagined.
Speaker 1: The barrier to reality might be nothing more than a
chemical filter.
Speaker 2: So we'll leave you with this final provocative thought. Tom
All over, we've explored Gohler's premise that reality is fundamentally computational,
a simulated experience run by unknown entities.
Speaker 1: If your existence, your love, your pain, and your consciousness
are all experiences rendered by code, ode by a physics
engine set up by another civilization, does that change the
meaning or purpose of your life right now?
Speaker 2: Does a computational reality make your personal experience any less real?
Speaker 1: We want to hear from you. What do you think
is more likely that three thousand people are sharing a
remarkably consistent complex hallucination induced by a natural neuromodulator, or
that they are truly glimpsing the operating system of the cosmos.
Speaker 2: Leave us a comment with your thoughts on the architecture
of reality.