Speaker 1: Welcome to the Gods I View Podcast. I am your host, Trevor.
Speaker 1: Everything sounds different, so hopefully the audio is coming through. Okay,
Speaker 1: got to start the show off with my routine disclaimer
Speaker 1: about the ghosts that live inside of my microphone. The
Speaker 1: settings look the same anyway, have a very exciting show
Speaker 1: lined up for you, guys, a unique show. Here's the situation.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna start you off with some personal anecdotes, hit
Speaker 1: you with the request for some advice, some much needed advice,
Speaker 1: a plea for advice, and then we're going to go
Speaker 1: into a continuation of the very long interview between Thomas
Speaker 1: Campbell and AJ Genteel. Hold on, I gotta let my
Speaker 1: dog out. If you guys, If you guys don't remember
Speaker 1: who Thomas Campbell is, He's a you know, former NASA scientist,
Speaker 1: physicist guy who basically believes that, you know, we are
Speaker 1: living inside of basically what amounts to a very realistic
Speaker 1: video game. I don't think you. I don't think you
Speaker 1: could have just heard what which is, hopefully you didn't
Speaker 1: hear what my son just said to me.
Speaker 2: He said, I have to go poop, but you're gonna
Speaker 2: have to wipe my butt.
Speaker 1: The life of a professional, professional podcaster. To make things
Speaker 1: even more ridiculous, I've positioned the microphone and in my
Speaker 1: computer in the kitchen so that while the clips are
Speaker 1: playing and I'm muted, I can cook my kids dinner.
Speaker 1: So I'm a renaissance man. I'm the modern man. I
Speaker 1: am the archetype, the modern Leonardo da Vinci. I've literally
Speaker 1: I painted today. I am Leonardo. I wrote today my wife.
Speaker 1: This is really how you know I'm a modern man.
Speaker 1: My wife is currently competing in a Pokemon tournament. She
Speaker 1: might win a thousand dollars. She's five and oh right now,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a wild episode. It will be
Speaker 1: a miracle if we get through it. But as of
Speaker 1: right now, this is scheduled to be a long episode.
Speaker 1: I want to start off with some personal personal issues.
Speaker 1: Personal issues. There we go. That sounds better, Personal issues
Speaker 1: that I think will be relevant to you all. I hope,
Speaker 1: I hope they'll sort of resonate with some of the
Speaker 1: challenges I'm dealing with. I used to be hyper obsessed
Speaker 1: with being successful, and I don't know if it was
Speaker 1: really success I wanted. I just liked the freedom and
Speaker 1: the creativity associated with being an entrepreneur. I remember being
Speaker 1: like seven or eight living in Michigan with my mom
Speaker 1: and my stepdad, and they purchased a you know, five
Speaker 1: dollars pepper plant, a Kyan pepper plant, cayenne pepper plant,
Speaker 1: and it was in our kitchen. There's a big window.
Speaker 1: It was there, and I saw these peppers growing and
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh my god, this is a gold mine.
Speaker 1: What am I doing? What are we doing?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 1: This is it? This is the answer.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: We were kind of not in like a crazy way,
Speaker 1: but you know, just everyone's always a little financially insecure,
Speaker 1: you know. So I'm like, this is it. This is
Speaker 1: our ticket out of here to the big time. And
Speaker 1: I had this idea. I was going to be called
Speaker 1: the Pepper Palace and we were going.
Speaker 3: To serve.
Speaker 1: I don't know what my kids are doing, good lord.
Speaker 1: We were going to serve you know, all sorts of
Speaker 1: spicy dishes and there'd be like a pepper tree farm
Speaker 1: on the property. And I had it all planned out. Now,
Speaker 1: as you might suspect that that didn't go anywhere, But
Speaker 1: throughout my life, I was just always I was obsessed,
Speaker 1: obsessed with how people made money, like our neighbor was
Speaker 1: a snap on tool salesman. I was like, oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 1: Our other neighbor owned a he was our rich the
Speaker 1: rich guy in the area. He owned a like Mike
Speaker 1: and Sons lawnmower repair shop, you know, and he was
Speaker 1: like the rich guy in town or in our neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Just been obsessed with it. And then you know, I
Speaker 1: kind of decided, you know, partly some influence from my dad,
Speaker 1: like yeah, business is cool, but go to school kind
Speaker 1: of a thing. And so I picked a career that
Speaker 1: seemed like really like a fool proof way to make
Speaker 1: like ninety to one hundred thousand dollars a year with
Speaker 1: minimal schooling, and that was to be a physical therapist. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I ended up hating it, switched careers, didn't do it professionally,
Speaker 1: but you know, during school, I built a boards because
Speaker 1: it's hard to pass boards, a board prep website, and
Speaker 1: I wrote a three hundred question test and hundreds of
Speaker 1: quizzes and one on one tutoring, and you know, made
Speaker 1: a little bit of money, a few thousand bucks or whatever.
Speaker 1: Abandoned it, started a wedding photo booth business with my wife.
Speaker 1: We would build these giant backdrops. Get in our one
Speaker 1: thousand dollars Ford Expedition drive all over southern California to
Speaker 1: be treated like the help by you know the people.
Speaker 1: You know, Nixon Library, this library, these gardens, this mansion,
Speaker 1: this beach, this that big floral thing in San Juan Capistrano,
Speaker 1: and lots of places in North County, San Diego, Orange County. Somehow,
Speaker 1: all these businesses involved tons of work, and I never
Speaker 1: make any money. Gave up on that. It's gone done.
Speaker 1: I don't even remember the reasons my wife started a business. Now,
Speaker 1: I might be the common denominator of failure here because
Speaker 1: my wife's business almost made it actually was really incredible.
Speaker 1: We had a big warehouse, three thousand square foot warehouse.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind, we're both working full time during all
Speaker 1: of these stories I'm telling. And she had her product
Speaker 1: in two hundred stores nationwide, and we were floating palettes
Speaker 1: and shipping them out. COVID happened. We just couldn't make
Speaker 1: it work. You know, all of our customers were retail stores,
Speaker 1: so they all shut down, and online sales were minimal.
Speaker 1: So we had three thousand a month warehouse rent and
Speaker 1: all this we were doing all the work ourselves. But
Speaker 1: that just folded done around the same time I got
Speaker 1: into fire. This is embarrassing. I think it's just because
Speaker 1: I hated my job so much. Listen, there's a reason
Speaker 1: for this long story.
Speaker 3: Bear with me.
Speaker 1: I just hated my job so much. I'm so miserable.
Speaker 1: I was like, I have to get out of this,
Speaker 1: and to me, the only escape seemed to be a business,
Speaker 1: because like I spent so much time in school, Like
Speaker 1: the idea of going back to school seemed ridiculous. It
Speaker 1: felt like admitting defeat. At this time, I was in
Speaker 1: healthcare administration and hating it with the passion felt evil
Speaker 1: every day in my life. And so then I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: real estate, real estate, that's my whole life. People always
Speaker 1: sy in real estate's the way to go. Real Estate's
Speaker 1: the way to go, and you know it probably is, honestly,
Speaker 1: But so basically got into like slum lording, not really,
Speaker 1: but kind of like basically buying property for like fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. I remember I bought a duplex for fifty thousand,
Speaker 1: a nicely property, not in a great area about of
Speaker 1: triplex abot this, but that all bad neighborhoods fix them up.
Speaker 1: You know, I felt like I was doing good work
Speaker 1: because we were improving the properties, taking good care of them.
Speaker 1: I didn't really like to gouge people. We found this
Speaker 1: This is I don't know if I want to tell
Speaker 1: this story. Hold on almost like Nash, give me one second, okay, Bun,
Speaker 1: I need to get to a reasonable stopping point before
Speaker 1: I can play a clip. We met like a property
Speaker 1: manager girl who was giving us insanely good deals on
Speaker 1: repairs like new water heater two hundred bucks, like paint
Speaker 1: the whole house three hundred bucks, Like I just didn't
Speaker 1: understand it. Well, it turned out she was I didn't
Speaker 1: even know this word at the time. She was polyamorous.
Speaker 1: Not attractive, mind you, she was polyamorous. She and she
Speaker 1: would become boyfriends with tradesmen. So she was like hooking
Speaker 1: up with a dry waller, hooking up with a painter,
Speaker 1: a plumber, an electrician. She had like a stable of
Speaker 1: dudes with skills that she was sleeping with. And it
Speaker 1: turns out that's why we were getting such good deals,
Speaker 1: because they were like doing it for her for free,
Speaker 1: which is insane, Like this is an insane story. This
Speaker 1: is something that's like only happens on Seinfeld or something. Anyway,
Speaker 1: one of her her bows, one of her men. I
Speaker 1: think the painter left a floor heater or you know,
Speaker 1: electric room heater plugged in overnight and it burned a
Speaker 1: house down. And the house was only fifteen thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: so we didn't get insurance on it because we were
Speaker 1: expecting to fix it up and flip it in like
Speaker 1: two months, just like paint it, fix the plumbing, and
Speaker 1: replace the crappy electrical burned down, so we're out fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand cash. Then COVID happens, all of the tenants stopped paying,
Speaker 1: try to sell, can't sell everything at a loss, ended
Speaker 1: up losing money. Every business I've ever done, I've lost money.
Speaker 1: So here's here's I gave it, basically gave up because
Speaker 1: then I got fired from my job right after that
Speaker 1: for reasons we've already discussed. So I just I finally
Speaker 1: had the ambition beaten out of me. It's like I'm done,
Speaker 1: I'm broke. So anyway, I figured out I managed to
Speaker 1: get into this new career which I actually really legitimately enjoy.
Speaker 1: But the lately I said, I just find myself like
Speaker 1: I want, I want to do more things. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm loving medical research. I feel like I'm having a
Speaker 1: positive impact. But I don't know. I want to like,
Speaker 1: I want to have a community, you know. I want
Speaker 1: a business or an organization or just something, just something
Speaker 1: where we're doing something, not slumlording, something good, something good
Speaker 1: for the world. You know, I don't know. So so
Speaker 1: this is my call, this is my plea. Give me
Speaker 1: some ideas. This is a ridiculous place. Maybe you have
Speaker 1: an idea, Maybe you need money, hit me up. That's
Speaker 1: a crazy thing to say on the internet. Ninety nine
Speaker 1: percent chance I will not be giving anyone any money.
Speaker 1: But you never know. We just got to got to talk.
Speaker 1: We've got my core. There's a core one hundred people
Speaker 1: that listen to the show. Some some episodes will get
Speaker 1: like five hundred downloads or a thousand, and it's because
Speaker 1: I put Diane Pasolka's name in the title or something.
Speaker 1: But there's about a one hundred of you who are
Speaker 1: a title agnostic. You listen to every episode. This to
Speaker 1: me means you're open minded and you're intelligent because you
Speaker 1: can entertain different ideas, sometimes contradictory ideas, and just think
Speaker 1: about them, like you just enjoy thinking. So I'm appealing
Speaker 1: to you, you Core one hundred. I need a name
Speaker 1: for you. I need a good name for you, whoever
Speaker 1: you know who you are. Just give me some ideas.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't even need It's not I don't really
Speaker 1: need care about making money, so I was wrong to
Speaker 1: say business. I just I need something, a group, a mission,
Speaker 1: you know. Till then we'll just stick to trying to
Speaker 1: figure out the nature of reality in life itself. And
Speaker 1: with that, I'm gonna play the clip.
Speaker 4: Against one more break. You've explained the big Toe a
Speaker 4: million times. I'm not gonna ask you to do it,
Speaker 4: but going into the break, maybe one sentence, what's what's
Speaker 4: the big theory of everything?
Speaker 3: Big theory of everything is based on consciousness being fundamental,
Speaker 3: and that means and the consciousness is an information system.
Speaker 3: Reality is information no more. There's nothing more real than information.
Speaker 3: And what that means is that this physical reality that's
Speaker 3: here is information that we are interpreting to be this
Speaker 3: physical stuff. Just like your World of Warcraft, your SIMS
Speaker 3: or whatever other virtual ated game you play, you get information.
Speaker 3: You light up a million pixels on your monitor. You
Speaker 3: look at those million pixels of light. Each one only
Speaker 3: has three things. It's it's color, its brightness, and its position.
Speaker 3: That's all. You get those three things for a million particles.
Speaker 3: You look at all those pieces of light and you say, oh,
Speaker 3: there's a river, there's a stream, there's my barbarian, there's
Speaker 3: you know whatever, there's my car. I got to get
Speaker 3: in to go to work, you know, and hey, I.
Speaker 1: Just spend on you for rend nice. Now I can
Speaker 1: instantly spend it whether I'm checking out online with Vimo.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that. I was managing chicken nuggets. Let's see,
Speaker 1: let's try to skip this aud bear with me.
Speaker 3: If you see it was of all of plasma set.
Speaker 4: Right, what's there for you in terms of demo dobt
Speaker 4: me slash that's t bimo check out not available with
Speaker 4: all merchants. Vemo MasterCard is issued by the bank or
Speaker 4: bank NA, and.
Speaker 3: Yeah it seems. But anyway you get that information and
Speaker 3: that stuff you see is what's there for you. So
Speaker 3: you know, the guy slides beer down, you know, down
Speaker 3: the down the bar in the SIMS game and if
Speaker 3: nobody catches it, it slides right off the end, glass breaks, slops,
Speaker 3: makes a mess. Because that's part of the rule set, right,
Speaker 3: and the rule set says, you know, there's gravity, there's
Speaker 3: this that they're trying to mimic the our physical world
Speaker 3: with the rule set, and we have the same thing.
Speaker 3: We have a rule set. That rule set was started
Speaker 3: with the you know, it was a all of plasma,
Speaker 3: high temperature, high pressure. And when the run button was hit,
Speaker 3: time started ticking and the initial conditions changed according to
Speaker 3: the rules. We call that the big bang. I call
Speaker 3: it the big digital bang. All happened?
Speaker 1: Do you guys see why I'm I'm playing this now.
Speaker 1: I know you're probably listening and you're like, well, obviously, Trevor,
Speaker 1: this is where you get your ideas about stuff. I
Speaker 1: promise you that's not true. I promise you that's not true. Now,
Speaker 1: I will admit I became aware of Thomas Campbell while
Speaker 1: writing my book. The book was based done, and then
Speaker 1: I added a chapter that was basically about him. But
Speaker 1: this is I sort of arrived at these conclusions before
Speaker 1: I ever really listened to him, and my only exposure
Speaker 1: to him was one Joe Broken episode. Now I feel
Speaker 1: like I should say he is not necessarily like on paper,
Speaker 1: the world's most credible person. Like, yes, he did work
Speaker 1: at NASA, and yes he did work in missile defense,
Speaker 1: and yes I believe he does have some formal training
Speaker 1: in physics. I don't know what that is, a PhD
Speaker 1: or what, but still, I mean there is you know,
Speaker 1: with all due respect to people with PhDs, I'm one
Speaker 1: of them, it doesn't really mean that much, Like you
Speaker 1: don't actually really know that much. After you get a PhD.
Speaker 1: A subset of people who get PhDs will spend the
Speaker 1: rest of their lives doing signs, rigorously participating in peer review,
Speaker 1: writing papers, publishing papers, submitting grant requests, doing experiments, running
Speaker 1: a research lab. You know, people who've been doing this
Speaker 1: for thirty years. These are like highly credible people. Now again,
Speaker 1: I'm not like a credentialist guy, you know obviously because
Speaker 1: you guys listen to the show. But I do feel
Speaker 1: like I do have to give that disclaimer. Now that said,
Speaker 1: just listen to the ideas on their own, like let
Speaker 1: them stand or follow their own merits.
Speaker 3: In a computer. So this whole reality evolved, and it
Speaker 3: was evolved to be a place for consciousness to evolve
Speaker 3: in you evolve my making choices. Consciousness is nothing more
Speaker 3: than awareness with a choice simple definition of consciousness. You
Speaker 3: have awareness, and that awareness can make choice. Now by choice,
Speaker 3: of course, I mean.
Speaker 1: Oh no, what is going on with my podcast player?
Speaker 1: This is not good, This is not acceptable. Now would
Speaker 1: have been the good time to talk about my entrepreneurial issues.
Speaker 1: All right, we're at an hour thirty one fifty eight.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna close the app and reopen. Help me remember
Speaker 1: mentally transmit this number to me from the future, because
Speaker 1: this isn't live back in time to me use your
Speaker 1: quantum energies. What did I say?
Speaker 3: An hour?
Speaker 2: An hour thirty one fifty eight? Okay, our thirty one
Speaker 2: fifty eight. Okay, we're gonna hit play awareness.
Speaker 1: But okay, I think I might know why this show
Speaker 1: is not popular. What a ridiculous show this has been
Speaker 1: so far today. Okay, we're back that the app is running.
Speaker 1: I've pitched you all. I hope I've gotten your gears
Speaker 1: turning about my vague need for I don't know, to
Speaker 1: build a community. I don't know this is what everybody wants,
Speaker 1: isn't it? Like like minded people working towards some goal
Speaker 1: a tribe. So I don't know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: that looks like. But I'm counting on you, my core
Speaker 1: one hundred, to have some good ideas. All right, we're back.
Speaker 3: Let's listen with a choice. Simple definition of consciousness. You
Speaker 3: have awareness, and that awareness can make choice. Now by choice,
Speaker 3: of course, I mean a free will choice. If there's
Speaker 3: no free will, there is no choice. So you have awareness,
Speaker 3: free will choice. If you have those things, you know,
Speaker 3: that's consciousness, and that the system then evolved into this
Speaker 3: physical universe and give us opportunities to make choices, meaningful choices,
Speaker 3: life and death choices, choices toward love, choices toward fear.
Speaker 3: We make choices toward love, carrying, sharing, and all of that,
Speaker 3: we end up evolving our consciousness forward. Yeah, increasing the
Speaker 3: quality of our consciousness. If we make fear based choices
Speaker 3: so centered choices is all about me, what's in it
Speaker 3: for me, then we de evolve our consciousness. So this
Speaker 3: is a big enterpre reduction trainer that we're in.
Speaker 1: This is where he loses me a little bit. Now,
Speaker 1: I like the idea, I just you know, these different
Speaker 1: things he's saying have different degrees of like evidentiary support
Speaker 1: for them, you know, And when he starts to kind
Speaker 1: of like speculate about the reason for things. It's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't really like that as much,
Speaker 1: even though I speculate all the time. I think he
Speaker 1: should make a distinction, you know, because there there is
Speaker 1: some reasonable like both empirical evidence, but also just like
Speaker 1: you know, philosoph you know, philosophical thinking things through that
Speaker 1: sort of that's a weird way of saying it, but
Speaker 1: sort of supports this idea, and he'll he'll make he'll
Speaker 1: kind of propose some sort of quote unquote like proofs.
Speaker 1: Now they're not like mathematical proofs or empirical proofs, but
Speaker 1: more philosophical proofs. Like just just said, the way physics
Speaker 1: works seems like seems like these are rules inside of
Speaker 1: a creative system what you might call simulation or whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it.
Speaker 3: Learn to become love, make good choices, be helpful, be caring.
Speaker 3: And that's why it's here because without it, there was
Speaker 3: just a bunch of pieces of consciousness like in a
Speaker 3: big chat room, and there was no traction, really not
Speaker 3: any big meaningful things to do that made a really
Speaker 3: big difference to anybody. But here we got a rule set,
Speaker 3: and that rule set defines energy exchanges between everything and
Speaker 3: everything else, which means we're all interactive. What I affects
Speaker 3: what other people do, and what they do affects other people.
Speaker 3: And it's just this big miss match of people making choices,
Speaker 3: and we make choices for each other. And that's the
Speaker 3: whole point of being here, is to grow up and
Speaker 3: make your choices low entropy, high quality choices toward being love.
Speaker 3: So that's what it's all about, all right.
Speaker 4: When we come back, we'll learn about entropy and whether
Speaker 4: you're an NPC or not, we'll find out, good question.
Speaker 4: In two thousand and three, you finished the Earth eight
Speaker 4: hundred page home and sent it out to what eight
Speaker 4: hundred physicists? What came back?
Speaker 3: Well, I not to that many, but I did finish
Speaker 3: this book, and actually the first copy was almost a
Speaker 3: thousand pages. It's down to eight hundred something. I think
Speaker 3: they made it Fond a little smaller and the Margians
Speaker 3: a little smaller. They've got more on it. But anyway,
Speaker 3: I sent it out to about forty or fifty people
Speaker 3: that I thought would be really interested. I send it
Speaker 3: to people who were into artificial intelligence.
Speaker 4: Back in two thousand and three.
Speaker 3: Yeah, back in two thousand and three something, MI t
Speaker 3: I think there were you know, artificial intelligence people. I
Speaker 3: sent it out to physicists, I sent it, sent one
Speaker 3: out to you know, the guys who made the Down
Speaker 3: the Rabbit Hole movie. I sent it to most of
Speaker 3: those people, and I sent it to Edward Fredkin physicists
Speaker 3: to published a couple of papers on this being of
Speaker 3: virtual reality. I sent it to everybody I could think
Speaker 3: of that might you know, see it as it was interesting. Anyway,
Speaker 3: I can't think of the guy's name, but anyway, his
Speaker 3: assistant is go Getter. Came after me, and he wasn't
Speaker 3: really very nice, and he basically ordered me to send
Speaker 3: him two books for free. So I did. Okay, I
Speaker 3: was more interested in that have a lot of you going,
Speaker 3: and I was more interested in getting the books out.
Speaker 3: But that was the end of it. So they liked
Speaker 3: it enough that they needed to more. I gave him
Speaker 3: two more but I never heard another word from its.
Speaker 3: The only thing I got back was that somebody needed
Speaker 3: to more books for free. So that was very disappointing.
Speaker 3: I thought, well, people will read this and they'll say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: this is you know, this comes to the same conclusions
Speaker 3: that I've been kind of it, But it actually gives
Speaker 3: me more detail of how everything works. But it didn't
Speaker 3: work like that. So then I realized that you don't
Speaker 3: start at the top and work your way down, which
Speaker 3: is what I was trying to do. Go to the
Speaker 3: people who were in and out and more likely to
Speaker 3: be open minded and let that then get you where
Speaker 3: you want to go. Didn't work, so I said, no,
Speaker 3: you start at the bottom. You start with just every
Speaker 3: day people, and you talk to them, and if you
Speaker 3: tell them things that are helpful in their life, then
Speaker 3: they'll come back and want more. And that's when I
Speaker 3: started a you know, a YouTube and a website, and
Speaker 3: I had a forum at that time that people could
Speaker 3: come and talk on, and I spent hours and hours
Speaker 3: at the forum. I don't, of course do that anymore,
Speaker 3: but I just started with people and said the people
Speaker 3: will eventually.
Speaker 1: Should just point out here, I know this is kind
Speaker 1: of boring right now, it's going somewhere, but I should
Speaker 1: point out that a friend of the show, Jack was
Speaker 1: a big time participant in that forum and even interviewed
Speaker 1: some of the I think the moderators and stuff. So
Speaker 1: shout out to Jack.
Speaker 3: The physicists kicking and screaming into the future sure. You know,
Speaker 3: when it gets to be a big enough crowd, then
Speaker 3: they'll have to listen, But until then they're not interested.
Speaker 4: I mean, this was before Nick Bostroon's trilemma, before Elon
Speaker 4: Musk was talking about it.
Speaker 3: You were you were first, Yeah, pretty much.
Speaker 4: We frustrated or annoyed.
Speaker 3: Boston came along not that far after me. I think
Speaker 3: we were. We would almost say we were in around
Speaker 3: the same time.
Speaker 4: But he was more philosophy, give the science.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I didn't really care for his his his arguments. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: you can make those arguments, but I didn't find those
Speaker 3: very satisfying. You know, I'm I'm a scientist. I want
Speaker 3: you know, I want arguments based on facts. Well, his
Speaker 3: argument was that the technology is already the point that
Speaker 3: things that are animated look real, and at that time
Speaker 3: there really wasn't goggles and so on when Nick Bostrom
Speaker 3: did that, But he was just saying, the technology is
Speaker 3: going to get better where we won't be able to distinguished,
Speaker 3: you know, if we're in something real or not. And
Speaker 3: then is this big assumption then well, if we're doing this,
Speaker 3: then others are doing this too. And if you can
Speaker 3: simulate reality and we're in a you know, we're not
Speaker 3: in the oldest part of the universe. There's other things
Speaker 3: been around a whole lot longer than we have, like
Speaker 3: a billion years longer than we have. And he was
Speaker 3: saying that if simulated and real are equivalent, then the
Speaker 3: probability that we're in a simulation is higher than that
Speaker 3: we're not. Well, okay, there's some logic in that. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but this is not a very convincing argument to a physicist.
Speaker 4: What about Elon Musk's argument that this base reality is
Speaker 4: one in billions?
Speaker 3: Is that, oh, that this base reality, that.
Speaker 4: The odds that this that we're living in, the actual
Speaker 4: base reality, is one in billions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I would agree with that. The No, that's
Speaker 3: sort of the same thing. If everybody's out there making
Speaker 3: simulations and there's they're as good as real, then what's
Speaker 3: the probability that we are the base reality? Well, that's
Speaker 3: very unlikely. Again, we don't live an old part of
Speaker 3: the universe. We live in kind of a mediocre There's
Speaker 3: another part of the universe that's younger than us, but
Speaker 3: there's a whole lot of it that's a billion years
Speaker 3: older than us and a billionaeres is a long Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean I may even be nine or ten billion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just say a billion, that's enough. But yeah,
Speaker 3: billions of experiens. Yeah. So anyway, yes, you have that logic.
Speaker 1: But am I misunderstanding this point? It makes no sense
Speaker 1: to me. It's the point that sorry, I'm taste testing
Speaker 1: dino chicken nuggets that I'm cooking for my kids. Fancy
Speaker 1: or fancy over here?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 1: Anyway? Is he saying that because we're not in like
Speaker 1: that the older parts of the UNIVERSEO might be much
Speaker 1: more advanced civilizations that produced this simulation, But that doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense because we're all in it together. So
Speaker 1: whatever produces simulation has to exist outside of the universe,
Speaker 1: Like what what is it? Is there anything in like
Speaker 1: history that a conceptualization of a being or something a
Speaker 1: creator like being who exists outside of space and time? Hmmm,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know why these people are
Speaker 1: so reluctant to say this, like the obsession with technology
Speaker 1: and aliens? Like to me, this all points to God, right?
Speaker 1: Like is that not the much more parsimonious explanation? Like,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Anyway, let's keep going. Hopefully this is interesting.
Speaker 3: You know that to me is not a real solid argument.
Speaker 3: It's a it makes it a strong conjecture. But I'd
Speaker 3: call that a conjecture. You know, if this and if that,
Speaker 3: then probably this is the way it goes. It's that
Speaker 3: kind of a thing. It's not a you let go
Speaker 3: of the rock it falls down, you know, that's a
Speaker 3: that's a you know, there's not conjecture there, it's a thing.
Speaker 3: And so this was kind of conjecture based. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I was at it around that same time, and if
Speaker 3: I had known, I would have sent John Archibald Wheeler copy. Oh. Yes,
Speaker 3: but I didn't really know because he was he was there,
Speaker 3: he already understood that. He just didn't have the he
Speaker 3: didn't have the tools to develop it because he was
Speaker 3: really really old and kind of beyond you know, beyond
Speaker 3: new theories.
Speaker 4: When it from it was kind of late and it
Speaker 4: was Yeah, so.
Speaker 3: I don't know, he may have been too old and
Speaker 3: even read it. I'm not sure. But he died then
Speaker 3: a couple of years later, so he was at the
Speaker 3: last part of his life when virtual reality became a thing. Yeah,
Speaker 3: the idea that this is a virtual reality, I basic
Speaker 3: on two or three things. One the scientists themselves will
Speaker 3: tell you that this is an information based reality. Not
Speaker 3: all scientists. A lot of scientists still believe that this
Speaker 3: physical matter is what's at the bottom. Probably a majority
Speaker 3: of physicists probably believe that, sure, and non physicists. But
Speaker 3: all the people who are smashing atoms together and doing
Speaker 3: that sort of stuff, their own work, their experiments tell
Speaker 3: them that's not the case.
Speaker 4: I've had them in this room.
Speaker 3: You're right, yeah, that's not the case. And we had
Speaker 3: a little discussion earlier. But I'll tell your people, and
Speaker 3: that is that the people who smash these atoms together,
Speaker 3: if they assume that, say, an electron is a little
Speaker 3: piece of mass with a charge, they cannot get the
Speaker 3: right answer. That's where they start from. The way they
Speaker 3: get right answers, which actually tells them what's going to
Speaker 3: happen when they smash these particles together, is they assume
Speaker 3: that an electron is a point with the attributes of
Speaker 3: mass and the attribute of charge. That's just information. A
Speaker 3: point with information of attributes is the way you model
Speaker 3: an electron in a computer. So they know that this
Speaker 3: is not a physical world, this is an information based world,
Speaker 3: but they won't take the next step If you take
Speaker 3: the next logical step, you could say, well, what would
Speaker 3: that mean that reality is information based? Well, there's only
Speaker 3: one answer to that, and that is it's computable. Right,
Speaker 3: computer is an information system, creates information manipulation. This is
Speaker 3: information based. Then it's computable. Well what does that mean?
Speaker 3: That is computable? That means that it could be computed.
Speaker 3: All right, let's say it could be. What are the
Speaker 3: other possibilities None, there aren't any other possibilities that gives
Speaker 3: you a computed reality other than and this reality. This
Speaker 3: reality is computed. So this reality you have to assume
Speaker 3: that particles are information. They're not really chunks of mass
Speaker 3: attributes particles with attributes. So if that's the way this
Speaker 3: reality is, then coming to the giant step of a
Speaker 3: conclusion that this is a virtual reality is no giant
Speaker 3: step at all. Is a teeny weeny step, and it
Speaker 3: takes The reason that they don't take that step is
Speaker 3: because that step requires courage, because the next thing if
Speaker 3: you say this is a virtual reality, somebody's going to say, well,
Speaker 3: who's the programmer? Of course, you know who's the programmer,
Speaker 3: and you know, why is this reality program? What's the point,
Speaker 3: what's the purpose? Well, the physicists can't answer those questions,
Speaker 3: so they don't bing bing.
Speaker 1: That's it, buddy, that is the obvious question. And you
Speaker 1: know what, everybody knows it. That's why I think like
Speaker 1: folks who entertain these ideas, even if they are atheists themselves,
Speaker 1: or you know, oftentimes they'll be like Buddhists or something,
Speaker 1: they should still be encouraged because I think it's it's
Speaker 1: tough in a reputation business to like stick to a
Speaker 1: new idea. Now listen, maybe not for Thomas Campbell, He's
Speaker 1: making good money off his book, I'm sure, but there
Speaker 1: are others, and there are other fairly mainstream scientists kind
Speaker 1: of exploring these ideas, and so they should be lauded.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think it makes any sense to
Speaker 1: be anti science. There's good people and bad people in
Speaker 1: every profession, you know what I mean. So I think
Speaker 1: it's it's brave to entertain ideas like this, and I
Speaker 1: know where they're going to lead, you know, if they
Speaker 1: end up being proven true, I know where it goes.
Speaker 1: It's going to God man like, there is no other explanation,
Speaker 1: and the critics know it. The people who still insist
Speaker 1: on you know, a god's eye view, a third person
Speaker 1: perspective that exists in the absence of us or any creatures.
Speaker 1: The people who insist on you know that there is
Speaker 1: such a thing as a smallest indivisible piece of matter,
Speaker 1: and it is a real thing that exists always. The
Speaker 1: reason they feel that way is because it is the
Speaker 1: scientific worldview position. It's like believing in the multiverse. It's
Speaker 1: like believing in an eternal universe without a cause. This
Speaker 1: is why Einstein didn't like the Big Bang theory that
Speaker 1: has supported God. And so the people who don't like
Speaker 1: these theories, I can almost guarantee you I know their
Speaker 1: their worldview, their hype, you know, their materialist reductionists, atheists always.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's almost probably almost always true.
Speaker 3: Want to trigger that because then it's I don't know,
Speaker 3: And of course you don't seem smart when you say
Speaker 3: I don't know. So they don't go there because they
Speaker 3: don't have any answers. If they had any answer at all,
Speaker 3: they'd say, that's outside of physics. You know, we don't
Speaker 3: we don't do that. If it's not this, it's not
Speaker 3: about this physical reality, then it's not physics. So it's
Speaker 3: out of our realm. Now you're in theology or psychology
Speaker 3: or some other space, but that's outside of physics. So
Speaker 3: we don't do that. We just deal with this subjective universe.
Speaker 3: So rather, you know, they don't want to go there,
Speaker 3: so they just stick quiet. They know that this reality
Speaker 3: is information based, and you don't have to be very
Speaker 3: clever to realize there's only one answer to that, and
Speaker 3: that is that it's computed.
Speaker 4: Tell me about Lawrence Krause and his papers say saying
Speaker 4: that this can't be a simulation, and then I think
Speaker 4: you had a rebuttal paper about LCS.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, physicists of every four or five years we
Speaker 3: get a paper that says this can't possibly be a
Speaker 3: simulation because they're trying to distance themselves from that because
Speaker 3: if you're a materialist, that's very anti materialist. So if
Speaker 3: you're a materialist, and unfortunately, physics has almost become, you know,
Speaker 3: a religion, materialism has become like a religion to them.
Speaker 3: It's a very deep based belief that they have a
Speaker 3: really hard time getting around. So one of the arguments
Speaker 3: that this couldn't possibly be a simulation is that if
Speaker 3: you started at the bottom and you simulated you know,
Speaker 3: you computed all the tiniest particles, and from those you'd
Speaker 3: make up bigger particles, and from those who make up
Speaker 3: you know, maybe neutrons and protons and electrons, and from
Speaker 3: that you make up atoms or atoms, yes, and from
Speaker 3: atoms you make up molecules. And if you start at
Speaker 3: the bottom and do all this, which would be necessary
Speaker 3: of course, otherwise you wouldn't know what was going to
Speaker 3: happen next, then it's impossible because there's just too many
Speaker 3: particles and too many things and too many calculations, and
Speaker 3: the calculation necessary to run reality that way would just
Speaker 3: be ridiculous.
Speaker 4: That's not how simulations work.
Speaker 3: So that's not how simulations now at all. Nobody does
Speaker 3: simulations like that, except in very small problems that are
Speaker 3: well defined. So anyway, that's that's one. And there's another
Speaker 3: ridiculous thing that they go into. They say that they
Speaker 3: try to that they know that reality is non local.
Speaker 3: They know there's things happen that aren't supposed to happen.
Speaker 3: There's you know, there's entanglement that this changes in a
Speaker 3: zillion light years away, that changes. So they know these things,
Speaker 3: so they want to make a physics that can address
Speaker 3: those they can't, and they can't without being really silly.
Speaker 3: And one of the silly things is many worlds. Yes,
Speaker 3: they say, okay, now you know since there isn't anyone
Speaker 3: in charge, because that's not physics. It has to do
Speaker 3: so every particle, every particle, So just say every electron
Speaker 3: in the universe, not just here in the planet Earth,
Speaker 3: and in the whole universe. If one particle, say an electron,
Speaker 3: goes from a spin up to spin down, we need
Speaker 3: a whole new universe where it did. Where did the opposite?
Speaker 4: A whole new universe, not just the opposite, but everything
Speaker 4: in superposition, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 3: So what happens is that if every time something moves,
Speaker 3: I raise this arm, there's someplace else that I didn't
Speaker 3: raise that arm. I raised this arm, and there's someplace
Speaker 3: else that I did this, and someplace else that I
Speaker 3: did that, and every one of those me just doing
Speaker 3: this this, This just spawned off a zillion new physical
Speaker 3: universes just like this one, but different. And so we
Speaker 3: have everything that could possibly happen, and the probability.
Speaker 1: Bro If any anybody wants to try to tell me
Speaker 1: that believing in a creator is like the most ridiculous
Speaker 1: position you can hold. They've never met someone who believes
Speaker 1: in the many worlds a solution to the uncertainty principle, well,
Speaker 1: not to the uncertaining principle, but to superposition the idea
Speaker 1: that any quantum system can be described by a wave
Speaker 1: function of probability, and so like each time you observe
Speaker 1: that system or measure the system, you're sort of doing
Speaker 1: a draw of the probabilistic outcomes. It implies that when
Speaker 1: the system is not being measured, it sort of exists
Speaker 1: in all possible outcomes or is just not rendered into
Speaker 1: a definite place in time, which is sort of the
Speaker 1: Copenhagen interpretation, which, by the way, we should remind everyone
Speaker 1: this is the def I mean the Copenhagen interpretation. That's
Speaker 1: the default position of physics. So this is not like
Speaker 1: woo woo stuff. It's only relatively recently that they've been
Speaker 1: trying to sort of displace the Copenhagen interpretation with these
Speaker 1: other ideas like many worlds and so anyway, it's it's
Speaker 1: not crazy. Don't feel crazy if you if this is
Speaker 1: like if you don't buy the many worlds, no first
Speaker 1: cause universe, like, it doesn't make any sense. I don't
Speaker 1: care if it is the consensus.
Speaker 3: That's my database. You see my my database that I
Speaker 3: talk about. You know, this probable future, that's that really Yeah,
Speaker 3: And the probable is the future turns into the present
Speaker 3: of the past. That's that. But they can't do it
Speaker 3: without creating physical worlds.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't buy it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you shouldn't buy it. I think it's ridiculous. It's
Speaker 3: just as ridiculous as doing the little particles. And you know,
Speaker 3: you have to model everything in the universe from the
Speaker 3: ground up. That's ridiculous. The many worlds is ridiculous.
Speaker 4: Copenhagen interpret work, Copenhagen interpretation is right on, right on.
Speaker 3: Those guys at Copenhaguen and knew what they were doing,
Speaker 3: and you know every one of those And if any
Speaker 3: of your listeners want to verify this, I have a
Speaker 3: I have a video on YouTube called Breakthrough and it
Speaker 3: starts with Copenhagen and every one of those guys said,
Speaker 3: consciousness is at the root consciousness. I think it was
Speaker 3: what plant. You know, you can't get behind consciousness, there's
Speaker 3: nothing else behind it.
Speaker 1: This was my point in the book, and I had
Speaker 1: a lot of people sort of have a visceral reaction
Speaker 1: because in like the sort of fringe community, like the
Speaker 1: Copenhagen interpretation is sort of treated as like mainstream bs,
Speaker 1: you know, people are like more attracted to like Tesla ideas.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that's that's fair at all. The
Speaker 1: Copenhagen interpretation is like deeply mystical. Tesla actually criticized it criticized.
Speaker 1: It is basically being woo woo. You know, he said,
Speaker 1: he said, these guys are metaphysicians, you know, talk about Einstein.
Speaker 1: Tesla is actually much more I guess what you might
Speaker 1: call like a materialist. He just but but he saw
Speaker 1: the world in terms of you know, frequency and vibrations
Speaker 1: and energy in a way that now looking back, sort
Speaker 1: of makes him seem like mystical. And I actually think
Speaker 1: he was probably right about a ton of stuff. I'm not,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm not taking any sides here. My point
Speaker 1: is just like Copenhagen interpretation, although it is sort of
Speaker 1: the established interpretation that mainly underlies quantum physics today, it's
Speaker 1: pretty nuts. It's pretty nuts. So so it's a it's
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's it's cool though that is still
Speaker 1: probably the dominant position. Now I called many worlds the
Speaker 1: consensus position. It isn't. I'm sorry that was incorrect. This
Speaker 1: is a consensus position among people who really are really
Speaker 1: taken with atheism, who just really reject the idea of creation.
Speaker 1: They sort of have to subscribe to the mini worlds
Speaker 1: theory to avoid the obvious implications that's fundamental.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So they all came to that conclusion, and later
Speaker 3: physicist said, well, well they just were confused, you know,
Speaker 3: and they brushed that aside. But they were probably the
Speaker 3: best physicists, you know, of the twentieth century, still probably
Speaker 3: the best physicists of the twentieth and the twenty first century.
Speaker 3: They really had open minds. They could go places that
Speaker 3: nobody had gone before. They weren't into physicality as a religion.
Speaker 3: They were just really good scientists and they went where
Speaker 3: the data took them.
Speaker 4: I think they were the first ones to say that
Speaker 4: consciousness is what creates matter and not way right.
Speaker 3: Every one of them said conscious is fundamental. Consciousness is
Speaker 3: at the route matter is derivative from consciousness. But they
Speaker 3: didn't know how that's possible. You know, we even had
Speaker 3: Einstein came late to that part, you know, He rejected
Speaker 3: it at first, but he came late to the party.
Speaker 3: But there's a letter between him and David Baum, and
Speaker 3: it says, yes, I know that consciousness has to be
Speaker 3: at the route, but I don't have any idea how
Speaker 3: to put that into equations or how to deal with
Speaker 3: that in any way that makes sense. I know it's true,
Speaker 3: but I doesn't know what to do with it. And
Speaker 3: those people never heard of virtual reality, so that was
Speaker 3: not in their not in their set of possibilities that
Speaker 3: they could think of. That's true, So they just didn't
Speaker 3: have a way to Oh, yeah, that could be computed.
Speaker 3: You know, the computers weren't really available then either, so
Speaker 3: the ideas of virtu reality and computing were just not available.
Speaker 3: Otherwise they'd all been right on that, because that would
Speaker 3: have solved their problem with this being information based reality.
Speaker 3: So yes, I you know, once you understand that consciousness
Speaker 3: is fundamental, and you really understand how consciousness works and
Speaker 3: why it works, then you can understand everything else. You know.
Speaker 3: That's why I end up with a toe with the
Speaker 3: theory of everything. If you understand consciousness, everything else comes
Speaker 3: out of consciousness. Everything else is derived from consciousness. So
Speaker 3: if you really do understand consciousness by default, without being
Speaker 3: very clever, you can understand everything else because that's just
Speaker 3: the way the world.
Speaker 1: I just want to point out that this is not
Speaker 1: true and like, no no offense to Thomas obviously, but
Speaker 1: consciousness perhaps provides an explanation.
Speaker 3: For how.
Speaker 1: We interact with this whatever, this is, the simulation, this
Speaker 1: created universe, whatever you want to call it. Consciousness is
Speaker 1: a sort of phenomenon that occurs inside of our minds,
Speaker 1: inside of our brains, and maybe it can exist outside
Speaker 1: of our brains. I don't know. But the point is
Speaker 1: there is the information is somewhere, you know. The consciousness
Speaker 1: doesn't create the information, it renders it, just like your
Speaker 1: CPU does not create the video game. It renders it.
Speaker 1: It pulls it out of storage and displays it to
Speaker 1: you in a way that you can interpret. So saying
Speaker 1: consciousness is everything is an overstatement. I think it leads
Speaker 1: to like a collective unconsciousness, like like the you know,
Speaker 1: the the mind like like that, you know, like a
Speaker 1: lot of these people who are afraid to use the
Speaker 1: word god, like a lot of TV shows. You know,
Speaker 1: that sort of points to like a a bright white light,
Speaker 1: which is just the source of everything. You know, maybe,
Speaker 1: but consciousness is not that. Consciousness is the experience we
Speaker 1: have inside of our heads. And it does seem like
Speaker 1: when you point to your perceptual field at something, you
Speaker 1: render it. But the question still is where did that
Speaker 1: information come from? Where did the system come from that
Speaker 1: the consciousness is operating within, It's almost as if someone
Speaker 1: made it. Who exists outside of it?
Speaker 3: Works?
Speaker 4: Let me ask you then, so unifying relativity with quantum mechanics.
Speaker 4: Everyone asks you about double slit. How does relativity fit
Speaker 4: in to your theory of everything?
Speaker 3: Well, relativity, one of the main components of relativity is
Speaker 3: the fact that's the speed of light is a constant.
Speaker 1: Okay, oh no, just as I took a bite, this
Speaker 1: is like the best part. I just want to play
Speaker 1: this and we'll be done. So we got to remember
Speaker 1: one fifty one twenty the speed of light. I had
Speaker 1: not heard this before, and it actually is a great
Speaker 1: frickin' explanation. Please mind, the Amateur Hour podcast were normally
Speaker 1: better than this. Give me one break. Okay, no, you
Speaker 1: guys give me a ton of breaks.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Anyway, back to the speed of.
Speaker 3: Light worth thing and special relativity, then relativity went general.
Speaker 3: And when it went general, it basically it took the
Speaker 3: same kind of things that they had in special relativity
Speaker 3: but expanded them to include gravity and space time. And
Speaker 3: then the space time is warped and it causes you know, gravity,
Speaker 3: it's like balls rolling down in a hole.
Speaker 4: And you're still on board with that.
Speaker 3: No way, well on board, not on board. That is
Speaker 3: just an idea, it's a theory, it's a concept. Oh,
Speaker 3: we can describe gravity as stretched space time, well you can.
Speaker 3: You could also describe gravity as masses all attract each other. Sure,
Speaker 3: that was Newton's viewpoint, right, All masses attract other masses,
Speaker 3: and the formula for that is the force between them
Speaker 3: is ge a gravitational constant time mass one times mass
Speaker 3: who are divided by the square of the distance between
Speaker 3: their centers. Yes, okay, and that's what sent man to
Speaker 3: the moon, you know, that's what MASSA still uses those
Speaker 3: because that's simpler to deal with. And unless they're doing
Speaker 3: things that evolve a necessity to get into time dilation
Speaker 3: and that if they have a real long mission and
Speaker 3: it's going high speeds, then they have to deal with relativity.
Speaker 3: But if they're just going to go up in orbit
Speaker 3: something or whatever. Relativity is not they're not going that.
Speaker 4: Fast that it makes sense timelation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sure they did that. The proof that Einstein was
Speaker 3: right was they put a caesium clock ye, and it
Speaker 3: spun it around the Earth a few times on a
Speaker 3: saturll night and brought it back and sure enough it
Speaker 3: was a little behind. Then it's partner that it had
Speaker 3: separated from those and yeah, so they showed that those
Speaker 3: are really true. You know, the time dilation, the mass goes,
Speaker 3: you know, the length and tracts and so on with
Speaker 3: the things going speed. Well, what that little special relativity
Speaker 3: did is it set all those things out, and it
Speaker 3: set it out in a way such as you ended
Speaker 3: up with space time where space had time and its variables.
Speaker 3: You know, if you have space equals and there's time
Speaker 3: in that variable and time equals and there's space over
Speaker 3: there in that variable, that space and time were connected
Speaker 3: in some way and that cost us space time, right,
Speaker 3: and then gravity just came out of putting space time
Speaker 3: warp and change is according to masses and so on.
Speaker 3: So the key there is the speed of light is
Speaker 3: a constant. That's the only thing that created the special relativity.
Speaker 3: Just the speed of light's a constant. Therefore you have
Speaker 3: the time violation, the mass grown, you have all these
Speaker 3: things happening just because the speed of light is always
Speaker 3: a constant, Which means if you have a source of
Speaker 3: light going half the speed of light and then you
Speaker 3: turn on a flashlight, you don't get one and a
Speaker 3: half time to speed light. You just get the speed
Speaker 3: of light. Yes, and it doesn't matter which way it's
Speaker 3: going or anything else, it always travels the same speed.
Speaker 3: So that is the fundamental mystery behind relativity. So all
Speaker 3: the relativity is kind of driven by that fact. Now,
Speaker 3: because special relativity was shown to be true, we kind
Speaker 3: of know that the light that's true, it doesn't go
Speaker 3: it doesn't speed up, it doesn't slow down. It's either
Speaker 3: going sea or it's not going anywhere at all. Right,
Speaker 3: And that's a little odd because we usually think think
Speaker 3: of particles de accelerating that it's anyway, So light particles
Speaker 3: are a little different that way. So why is this
Speaker 3: speed light a constant? It's a virtual reality. In a
Speaker 3: virtual reality, the highest speed that you can go contiguously,
Speaker 3: you know, not teleporting around, but just going is one
Speaker 3: delta x one pixel of distance or one pixel of time.
Speaker 3: That's it. If you mean every time you update with
Speaker 3: another pixel of time, then you can't move more than one.
Speaker 3: If you move two in a pixel of time, you've
Speaker 3: just teleported, right, You've disappeared here and you've appeared over here.
Speaker 3: But for contiguous space, that means continuous motion one pixel
Speaker 3: of distance for one pixel of time.
Speaker 1: I don't know I'm taking with this. This does it
Speaker 1: for me some maybe some physicists out there. I know
Speaker 1: there are some. I know there are engineers and physicists
Speaker 1: who listen to the show because I've emailed with you
Speaker 1: tell me why this is dumb? Because to me, this
Speaker 1: is like, this is it, buddy, It's like, oh, man,
Speaker 1: if only, if only there was experimental evidence that there
Speaker 1: was such a thing as like a pixel of space
Speaker 1: and a pixel of time. Well, there are there are these.
Speaker 1: There are these distances that there simply cannot be divided anymore.
Speaker 1: It's called a plank length. There are units of time
Speaker 1: that are the smallest possible units of time. I actually
Speaker 1: don't know what that's called, but let's call it plank time,
Speaker 1: you know. And so there is a minimum distance we'll
Speaker 1: call that a pixel, and a minimum he's calling it
Speaker 1: a pixel of time. That's probably not the right thing
Speaker 1: to call it. Like we could call it like a
Speaker 1: refresh rate or like a minimum unit of just a unit,
Speaker 1: a minimum unit of time. And so of course it's
Speaker 1: a constant. You know. You pick this thing, this amazing
Speaker 1: thing called light, and you just set it to the
Speaker 1: maximum speed, and if it were to go any faster
Speaker 1: than that, the teleportation because it would have to jump
Speaker 1: from one pixel to another, and this would violate the
Speaker 1: rule set about a being about a bone. Man, this
Speaker 1: is it, Come on, this is it?
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: If we're those video game characters, if we're linked and
Speaker 1: we've set up our research physical research lab inside the
Speaker 1: legend of Zelda, you know, open world video game that
Speaker 1: we were created in, and somehow we were given consciousness
Speaker 1: and agency. This is a moment would where we'd be like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, we're inside of a simulation, like we're
Speaker 1: characters in the game and that is what we are, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, But here's the thing we have, what we
Speaker 1: bring all this modern baggage to language. We're products of
Speaker 1: our time, you know, and so we almost kind of
Speaker 1: we view this in like a hypertechnological way. But I mean,
Speaker 1: this is what, this is what Not just the Bible,
Speaker 1: but many ancient scriptures tell us about the nature of reality,
Speaker 1: that this is a created world that we are, you know,
Speaker 1: animated by a ghost or dust with spirit breathes into us.
Speaker 1: And when we die, we give up the ghost from dust.
Speaker 1: We came to dust, will return and will give up
Speaker 1: the ghost which comes from the Creator. And then two
Speaker 1: thousand years ago the word the creator, the logic of
Speaker 1: the system became flesh and dwelt among us. John Nada,
Speaker 1: right man, good lord, Come on, buddy, are you in
Speaker 1: join me? Join me, come to the light and abandon
Speaker 1: your scientism.
Speaker 3: Joined me.
Speaker 4: Here you go, those pixels that blank scale.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the pixel of distance is the plank length,
Speaker 3: and the pixel of time is plank time, and you
Speaker 3: divide the length by the time and you get the
Speaker 3: speed of light. Right, So as fast as you can
Speaker 3: go through this reality is one pixel.
Speaker 1: What are the chances of that? Buddy? Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I love it. I love it so much. Hopefully you
Speaker 1: made it through the Just the chaos of this episode,
Speaker 1: hearing the the oil sizzle in the background with the
Speaker 1: dino chicken nuggets cooking, Hearing my son ask if I
Speaker 1: could wipe his butt. Hearing me argue with my kids
Speaker 1: about whether or not they can have an ice cream sandwich,
Speaker 1: hearing my plea for community. Hopefully you made it to
Speaker 1: this moment, because this is so freaking cool.
Speaker 3: The world of warcraft has a speed limit. Sure, they've
Speaker 3: got a certain resolution. Is there delta ta You know,
Speaker 3: that's how you update a big model. You update it
Speaker 3: every delta T. You re draw where everything is.
Speaker 4: That's so that's sixty and twenty megats, yeah.
Speaker 3: Or whatever, So you you just update things. That's what
Speaker 3: refresh rate. Yeah, it's a refresh rate. So the refresh
Speaker 3: rate drives the action delta T. And the fastest you
Speaker 3: can move contiguously through any reality is one pixel of
Speaker 3: distance for one pixel of time. This sis has a
Speaker 3: speed limit. Every virtual reality has a speed limit. This
Speaker 3: is the way it is. If it's a virtual reality,
Speaker 3: it's pixelated. Time is pixelated, distance is pixelated. It's a
Speaker 3: virtual reality, it's computed. It's computed on a grid if
Speaker 3: you like distance and time. And that means that every
Speaker 3: virtual reality has a speed limit. Our speed limit is
Speaker 3: delta tea over at deth x over delta T.
Speaker 4: And there you go has entanglement work, then how does
Speaker 4: entanglement work?
Speaker 3: Well, entanglement is also a simple thing. It's a you
Speaker 3: have one system, and that one system stays one system.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave it on that cliffhanger. We'll be back
Speaker 1: next time to talk about his conception of entanglement. It's
Speaker 1: interesting because it's actually the same conception that like people
Speaker 1: who are really unwilling to believe in the new science
Speaker 1: of quantum mechanics and stuff. His view is kind of
Speaker 1: the same view, which is that there is no communication
Speaker 1: between the two photons. They are simply one system located
Speaker 1: in two different places, which would only be possible in
Speaker 1: a simulation. You know, it's just it's just, you know,
Speaker 1: think about think about like a puzzle, and like Legend
Speaker 1: of Zelda, there's I don't really remember the game that well.
Speaker 1: I played Ockarina of Time on n sixty four. The
Speaker 1: guy who does the muse for that, he's like a
Speaker 1: classical music guy, and so I started listening to classical
Speaker 1: music because I'm stressed out, and I'm like, this reminds
Speaker 1: me of something. Anyway, it was the guy who wrote
Speaker 1: the music for ocker Eno of Time. But there's like
Speaker 1: all these puzzles and things you can imagine, like you
Speaker 1: might need to flip a switch in a cave, and
Speaker 1: that moves a switch on a hillside, which is like
Speaker 1: some distance away from you. And so ask yourself a question.
Speaker 1: Is there a physical connection between those two switches?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Is there a radio signal that transmits between those two switches. No,
Speaker 1: this is one system described by code A in a
Speaker 1: virtual reality or in this case, in a virtual world.
Speaker 1: And so the only way to have entanglement like that
Speaker 1: without communication over distance is if the system is described
Speaker 1: by information and rendered. It's just so cool, man, It's
Speaker 1: so freaking cool. What a time to be alive. Embrace it,
Speaker 1: Embrace the weirdness. Don't let anybody shame you for your
Speaker 1: for your your thoughts on the nature of reality. Nobody knows.
Speaker 1: But this certainly seems to be a parsimonious explanation. Excuse me. Parsimonious,
Speaker 1: by the way means cheap, it means frugal. But it's
Speaker 1: used as like it's almost like an answer to Oakham's razor,
Speaker 1: Like what's the simplest explanation? So you might say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this is the most parsimonious explanation it's that it's the
Speaker 1: simplest theory that satisfies all the premises and this that's
Speaker 1: what he calls it, a theory of everything, and I
Speaker 1: think I think it's brilliant, man. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: love the astral projection stuff and the Mono Institute stuff
Speaker 1: because I think it takes away some credibility. But you
Speaker 1: know what, maybe that's all true too. Who knows. Anyway,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening. There's still an hour left of this interview,
Speaker 1: so we'll pick back up tomorrow. I hope you guys
Speaker 1: are doing good out there. Stay safe. Email me at
Speaker 1: God's I Viewbook at gmail dot com. God Bless