Speaker 1: Keep questions what is the observer?
Speaker 2: What is the observer?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the thing. I mean, one of the old
Speaker 1: jokes is you know who's the observer? Is it your father?
Speaker 1: Was his father the observer? Is it passed down to it?
Speaker 1: It's a weird way in which you're talking technically, technically, technically,
Speaker 1: and then you say this thing, and it's like then
Speaker 1: the observer makes an observation and a measurement. Thinking how
Speaker 1: did a human get.
Speaker 2: Into that story.
Speaker 3: I am very excited because you know, we were talking.
Speaker 3: We've been good friends for a long time, and this
Speaker 3: guy who has this YouTube channel, uh said, Eric Weinstein
Speaker 3: is groundbreaking with his theory of everything. And I know
Speaker 3: you've been working on this quietly, we've talked about it,
Speaker 3: but this is kind of your first the first time
Speaker 3: you've been public publicly acknowledged. And before we get into anything,
Speaker 3: I will say that you're the physics community. I don't
Speaker 3: know about the math community, but the physics community is
Speaker 3: high school politics. I mean the amount of sort of
Speaker 3: like well, I mean, his theories you know, got holes
Speaker 3: in it. I mean I wouldn't really take it seriously.
Speaker 3: There's there's just so much back and forth and there's
Speaker 3: so much disagreement.
Speaker 2: There is there isn't no no, okay, no.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's in fact very interesting that very often
Speaker 1: what you get is you get a small number of
Speaker 1: views that get amplified, right, And so you know, it's
Speaker 1: a little bit the same thing with like what journalists do,
Speaker 1: is that a journalist will frame a story and then
Speaker 1: you'll watch the entire world see that thing through that frame, right.
Speaker 1: Or you know, if I if I were to tell you,
Speaker 1: I don't know, like a tell in somebody's speech, and
Speaker 1: I said, you know, every time he says uh twice,
Speaker 1: he's thinking about that guy he killed in the parking lot,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly the guy says uh uh and everybody
Speaker 1: has you know, he's doing it again. People are really
Speaker 1: bored and they're not actually dialed in and plugged in.
Speaker 1: So one of the things that I find fascinating is
Speaker 1: that the physics community has to figure out why it's
Speaker 1: not listening to anything other than in deepest research, quantum
Speaker 1: gravity research, and in particular one theory of quantum gravity
Speaker 1: above all, which has had forty years to ship a
Speaker 1: product and cannot and that's something called m theory or
Speaker 1: string theory, and The big sin in physics is that
Speaker 1: you've got a theory that has no rightful claim on
Speaker 1: being the only game in town, protected by this massive,
Speaker 1: sort of inexplicable support from I don't know, traditional media
Speaker 1: and from universities that write these press releases that any
Speaker 1: one of us would be embarrassed if our research, you know,
Speaker 1: were described that way. So you find somebody just done
Speaker 1: research and string theory and you bring up the press
Speaker 1: release that's lot you know, lauding it, and that person says, hey,
Speaker 1: it's the university. I can't stop them. They have to
Speaker 1: hype it. So there's a very weird situation in which
Speaker 1: that I don't even think we're having a physics conversation.
Speaker 1: I think that physics at its deepest level is almost dead.
Speaker 3: Really yeah, but so so string theory has nothing to.
Speaker 1: Show for itself. I wouldn't say that at all.
Speaker 3: Okay, but but you're saying that they were they were
Speaker 3: the ball hogs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I would say that.
Speaker 3: And anybody who had an alternative theory was kind of
Speaker 3: like side eyed and pushed out of the game.
Speaker 1: Let's imagine that you had one team in the NBA, Okay,
Speaker 1: that was different and it was called the referees, and
Speaker 1: the referees dressed in vertical black and white stripes and
Speaker 1: carried whistles around their necks, and they were the only
Speaker 1: people allowed to adjudicate their own games. Yeah, that's sort
Speaker 1: of the situation with string theories is that the appearance
Speaker 1: of a new team, a new kind of doing physics
Speaker 1: called the referees, and if you play them, you have
Speaker 1: to deal with their refereeing of your game against.
Speaker 2: Them, because they will attack you.
Speaker 1: What they they got control of sort of refereeing who's
Speaker 1: up and who's down.
Speaker 2: But how do they do that?
Speaker 3: So, so Mitya Kaku or any of these string theorists,
Speaker 3: they get the bulk of the grants. What is it
Speaker 3: that they're doing to keep other theories at well?
Speaker 1: First of all, my feeling about this is one of
Speaker 1: the things that they're doing is happening right here, right now.
Speaker 3: So I'm not a big supplement guy, but I've been
Speaker 3: drinking Vinia coffee and Vinia tea.
Speaker 2: What is that?
Speaker 3: Basically, vinya is a compound made from red grapes. Sounds crazy, right,
Speaker 3: but check this out. It is clinically proven to improve
Speaker 3: blood flow. Basically, vinya is basically a circulation superfood backed
Speaker 3: by real science. All Right, You've got sixty thousand miles
Speaker 3: of blood vessels in your body. That's enough to wrap
Speaker 3: around the moon. Okay, and your circulation system is like
Speaker 3: a highway system, and right now, a lot of people
Speaker 3: are stuck in traffic.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: So Vinya contains a powerful polyphenol found in red grapes
Speaker 3: that boosts your nitric oxide levels, and nitric oxide is
Speaker 3: what helps your blood vessels dilate.
Speaker 2: And vinya. Check this out.
Speaker 3: Vinya is clinically proven to increase that dilation by up
Speaker 3: to seventy percent. All right, and you you can check
Speaker 3: with anybody you want. That is a good thing. So
Speaker 3: the folks at Vinea are offering a ninety day risk
Speaker 3: ye trial. If you don't feel the difference in physical
Speaker 3: energy and mental sharpness, they will refund every penny and
Speaker 3: even cover the return postage.
Speaker 2: Here's the best news.
Speaker 3: Visit vinia dot com backslash calen to get vinias special
Speaker 3: buy two get one month free offer now for about
Speaker 3: a dollar a day, YouTube can experience vineas proven results
Speaker 3: plus get ten percent off any Vinea purchase when you
Speaker 3: click the link in the description. So go to Vinya
Speaker 3: v i Nia dot com slash callen. I've been taking it.
Speaker 3: I've been drinking the tea, I've been drinking the coffee,
Speaker 3: and I love it. And you know, all I got
Speaker 3: to hear is clinically proven and I'm in especially if
Speaker 3: it increases your nitric oxide levels. Either way, with all
Speaker 3: those blood vessels, I want dilation. And once again, Vinna
Speaker 3: is clinically improved to increase I valance back to seventy percent.
Speaker 3: So check it out, hit me in the comments section,
Speaker 3: let me know what you think. I'm curious. I want
Speaker 3: to know. So far, I'm loving it. So there it
Speaker 3: is Vinia dot com slash talent. And now back to
Speaker 3: the podcast.
Speaker 1: We're not having a discussion about physics. We're having a
Speaker 1: discussion about sociology. We're having a discussion with them at
Speaker 1: the center. So your first point is that this guy,
Speaker 1: Kurt John Mungle released a three hour I don't know
Speaker 1: what you call it, there's no precedent for it, documentary
Speaker 1: on my theory. And immediately we're talking about, well, what
Speaker 1: does the community say about it? The community is back
Speaker 1: and forth. No, it really isn't more or less the
Speaker 1: community has ignored it for forty years, and we're talking
Speaker 1: about it from the point of view, why is that?
Speaker 1: And it's a human thing. So instead of talking about
Speaker 1: the cool stuff that we should be talking about, which
Speaker 1: is what does the theory say that that's insane and
Speaker 1: why do you think it's true? And what do you
Speaker 1: think the support for it is, we're having a discussion
Speaker 1: about the sociology of peer review and refereeing and how
Speaker 1: fields get captured by dominant groups who can't produce. And
Speaker 1: so I'm just saying that whatever it is that they do,
Speaker 1: they've made everything about them. So I'm happy to come
Speaker 1: back to that because I think it's super interesting. But
Speaker 1: if you don't mind, did you see this video? What
Speaker 1: do you what do you make of it?
Speaker 3: I wanted to let you I don't make anything of
Speaker 3: it because I don't know enough. I guess what I
Speaker 3: would ask, is this about that video? What was it
Speaker 3: that he saw in that video that caused him to
Speaker 3: make that video? What was it about? Because I know
Speaker 3: you had met him, but what was the Because you've
Speaker 3: explained your theory of everything to me in Layman's terms
Speaker 3: over dinner a couple of times, but never without alcohol
Speaker 3: never without alcoholics, good red and white wines, and might
Speaker 3: I had some excellent food, whether it's be a Ventato
Speaker 3: or scopa. But can you can you tell me? Did
Speaker 3: he tell you what that Eureka moment was for him?
Speaker 3: Where he went this is I haven't heard this before.
Speaker 1: Oh this was crazy. He rings me up or sends
Speaker 1: me what's that message something, and he says, hey, if
Speaker 1: you have a little bit of time, there's something I
Speaker 1: really want to show you. So we get on a
Speaker 1: zoom call and he takes control of my screen and
Speaker 1: then he starts showing me his understanding of my theory.
Speaker 1: And it's been very strange because for forty years, more
Speaker 1: or less I've been inside my own head, and I
Speaker 1: have the opportunity to sort of break out little bits
Speaker 1: of the theory, but more or less nobody has an
Speaker 1: attention span. Imagine you're trying to tell somebody about the
Speaker 1: ring cycle, right, and they're.
Speaker 2: Pretty good at it. You do teach me some things, nobody.
Speaker 2: Just so you guys know, Eric will come to dinner
Speaker 2: and I'll have like somebody who's excited to meet him,
Speaker 2: and then he'll just come to dinner.
Speaker 3: And if he walks through that door with his head
Speaker 3: hung low. We're gonna have to there's gonna be a
Speaker 3: there's gonna be about a half hour where we've got
Speaker 3: to talk to Eric about what kind of problem he's
Speaker 3: dealing with in his head.
Speaker 2: And it's usually something.
Speaker 3: Like monumental, like the end of the world is coming
Speaker 3: and he's got to figure out a way to help.
Speaker 2: Us out of the Usually I just can't find parking,
Speaker 2: so just keep going.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: I just had to breaface that because this is the
Speaker 3: first time I've seen you not that way. This is
Speaker 3: really a big deal, because you know, you and me
Speaker 3: and Joe Rogan around a thread and you were like,
Speaker 3: you know, hey, this is kind of for the first time,
Speaker 3: I was really happy.
Speaker 1: This is the thing, like, what the hell's what the
Speaker 1: hell's wrong with everybody? It's funny. Imagine working on one
Speaker 1: thing for four decades and not being able to get
Speaker 1: people to sort of grasp what it is that you're proposing.
Speaker 1: It's you know, I don't think there's a parallel in
Speaker 1: most lives, and I believe it's totally consequential. I think
Speaker 1: when Elon Musk talks about going to Mars, he doesn't
Speaker 1: really want to go to Mars. Nobody's smart wants to
Speaker 1: go to the Moon or Mars as a humanity diversifying thing.
Speaker 1: I think he thinks that that's motivating to engineers. What
Speaker 1: he really wants to do is to go interstellar. And
Speaker 1: that's why he says ad Astra. And it's confusing because
Speaker 1: no chemical rocket company is going to get humans interstellar.
Speaker 2: What is the difference?
Speaker 1: So if the nearest star is four light years away
Speaker 1: and you go the fastest humans have ever gone, I
Speaker 1: think it takes you one hundred thousand years to get there,
Speaker 1: and recorded history is pretty brief, so you know, no
Speaker 1: chance you're going to do it on a generationship. And
Speaker 1: then you find out there's no there's no nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the first star. Yeah, everything is very far away,
Speaker 1: and you know, my take on this is that this
Speaker 1: is hugely consequential. We don't recognize that everything is decided
Speaker 1: ultimately by the final layer, which is some version of
Speaker 1: math or physics. So my feeling, and this is the
Speaker 1: reason that there's a heaviness about me. It's not that
Speaker 1: I enjoy talking about depressing stuff. As you know, we
Speaker 1: like talking about wine and music and dance and art,
Speaker 1: and all sorts of things. If we don't get out
Speaker 1: of here and diversify onto many planets, I don't see
Speaker 1: long term survival of our species. And that means everything
Speaker 1: you love about this place, from Mangoes to Mozart, is
Speaker 1: under the control of a tiny number of human beings
Speaker 1: who should not have nuclear and biological weapons. So I
Speaker 1: was just over the moon that somebody, finally, you know,
Speaker 1: put in this kind of work. It's not like I
Speaker 1: agree with everything that he said, but it's clear that
Speaker 1: he understands a great deal of what it is that
Speaker 1: I'm saying more than anyone else's.
Speaker 3: That's amazing. And he's a physicist or is he he's
Speaker 3: a layman physicist.
Speaker 1: I think he's clearly got some technical background. Yeah, what's
Speaker 1: his name, Kurt Jaimungle And in his channel is yeah,
Speaker 1: theories of everything. And the genesis of this is that
Speaker 1: he and I wound up at this conference called ARC
Speaker 1: that Jordan Peterson I think asked me to come to
Speaker 1: and I wasn't speaking, so I was spending time just
Speaker 1: talking to people, and Kurt was there and we were
Speaker 1: sitting in the lobby and he says, what's going on? Man,
Speaker 1: I never really understood your theory, And I said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, in part we've stopped asking the really big
Speaker 1: questions in physics. Everything has become a question about do
Speaker 1: you have a renormalizable theory of gravity, which is not
Speaker 1: the main issue in physics at all. And I said,
Speaker 1: you know, the old questions are why are there three
Speaker 1: generations of particles? Why is there three copies of matter?
Speaker 1: You know, like think about it as plastic, wood and metal.
Speaker 1: Every particle comes in three varieties of lego if you will.
Speaker 1: Why is nature left right asymmetric because the weak force
Speaker 1: you knows it's left from its right, when the other
Speaker 1: forces don't. Why are there sixteen particles in a generation?
Speaker 1: Why do they have the properties they do? These are
Speaker 1: the old problems that before nineteen eighty four everybody viewed
Speaker 1: as the problems in physics, And then, mysteriously in the
Speaker 1: mid nineteen eighties on one individual completely reoriented the field
Speaker 1: and ed written, yeah, and everybody who came up afterwards
Speaker 1: it's sort of unaware that, like physics changed care it's
Speaker 1: just a discreete you remember when like in Bewitched, Darren
Speaker 1: gets replaced by become like Dick York, and Dick's sergeant.
Speaker 1: There are two different actors who were playing and there's
Speaker 1: no comment that something changed this, right I remember that, yes, right,
Speaker 1: it's very disturbing. Yes, yes, to see here.
Speaker 2: I think I think the original guy got sick.
Speaker 1: Maybe, but just to not comment on it. So the
Speaker 1: whole field changed character and became incapable.
Speaker 2: And what a great analogy.
Speaker 1: And so what I I don't know where that came from.
Speaker 2: But string theory never spoke to you? Did? Did? Did? Did?
Speaker 3: Did you ever learn about string theory? Do you want
Speaker 3: to do you have a rudimentary or a pretty intermediate
Speaker 3: understanding of strength theory or when.
Speaker 1: It came out? It's a funny, funny, bizarre story, which
Speaker 1: is that I changed my major in college from physics
Speaker 1: to math to avoid this thing, and I did not know.
Speaker 1: So the problem is is that I clearly do this
Speaker 1: change in my major between my freshmen and I think
Speaker 1: in my sophomore year, but it's as a response to
Speaker 1: something that hadn't happened yet. So I have a time
Speaker 1: inconsistency problem in my wordin story because the great breakthrough
Speaker 1: and string theory happens in nineteen eighty four, called the
Speaker 1: Green Schwartz anomaly, cancelation, and ed Witten gets very involved
Speaker 1: in this. Immediately afterwards, it gives a talk at Pen,
Speaker 1: and that talk convinces me that the physics community is
Speaker 1: about to collapse, like leaving Afghanistan to the Afghan Army
Speaker 1: and the Taliban is just instantly overruns.
Speaker 3: Everything, and in the sense that this is the new
Speaker 3: blood and everything you've learned up till there is a
Speaker 3: lie or not true.
Speaker 1: Just he gave one lecture at Penn that was so
Speaker 1: completely bewildering and brilliant and so confident, where he just
Speaker 1: told us everything that you've ever worried about here it
Speaker 1: is in string theory. It's in this line, it's in
Speaker 1: this term, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: You once took a piece of paper at dinner and
Speaker 3: wrote an equation down, and that was ed Witten's explanation.
Speaker 2: Of the universe.
Speaker 1: That may have been the string action. But the problem
Speaker 1: was that this happens later than I changed my major.
Speaker 1: And so one day I'm reading a book by a
Speaker 1: guy named Peter White called not Even Wrong. I'm on
Speaker 1: the toilet, and I've never really told the story about
Speaker 1: changing my major in response to ed Witten, because it's
Speaker 1: time inconsistent sort of reveals that I'm not telling the truth.
Speaker 1: And I see in the book it says Witten's first
Speaker 1: lecture in string theory actually was before the Green Schwartz
Speaker 1: cancelation and was delivered at a Grand Unification workshop. I said, Oh,
Speaker 1: my God, tell me that this didn't happen in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: at the University of Pennsylvania, at a conference I was
Speaker 1: organized by Paul Steinhardt. And I thought, oh my god.
Speaker 1: I accidentally, as a seventeen year old kid, was in
Speaker 1: the audience of Ed Winton's first string theory lecture before
Speaker 1: the flood, just totally by accident, and I see this thing.
Speaker 1: I was able to follow the fact that he paralyzed
Speaker 1: the entire auditorium one individual made everyone, all physicists probably
Speaker 1: everyone was terrified of this human being. Nobody had seen
Speaker 1: something give a lecture like this. This was not human
Speaker 1: jeezuz right. And so you've got the six foot four.
Speaker 2: Awkwards, well, right, just a brilliant guy, but he talks.
Speaker 1: About I appreciate your attempts to understand the theory of
Speaker 1: the universe, but I find you're intell like he's hunting.
Speaker 2: He's the kind of guy who laughs behind his fingers.
Speaker 2: He's like and he grow man.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, look, I don't want to make fun
Speaker 1: of the affectations because he's but he's been very aggressive.
Speaker 1: And the thing that he's really aggressive about that I
Speaker 1: can't stand and won't stand for is that he says
Speaker 1: that there are no other theories. He says that, oh
Speaker 1: absolutely wow, Like you can check out a podcast called
Speaker 1: the Universe Speaks in.
Speaker 2: He is Einstein. That's my little joke to the layment,
Speaker 2: because Einstein was very cocky. But keep going. What sound was?
Speaker 2: He was kind of arrogant. I said, if flight doesn't bend,
Speaker 2: God's wrong, something like that.
Speaker 1: I remember, Sorry, I don't have alcohol.
Speaker 2: I can't believe you're not writing the stuff I'm saying down. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I dig.
Speaker 1: A So yeah. Witten was on this podcast called the
Speaker 1: Universe Speaks in Numbers, and he's asked, well, were you
Speaker 1: ever tempted to buy other approaches? He says, I don't
Speaker 1: even know what you mean by other approaches. So the
Speaker 1: host is sort of flummixed and throws some things out.
Speaker 1: He says, those aren't other approaches, those are only words.
Speaker 1: There's just string theory. Everything else is just words, just
Speaker 1: like thinking, maybe you got sick the first day they
Speaker 1: taughtmedi remedial scientific ethics. You can't do that. As a
Speaker 1: leader of a field, you're not allowed to declare victory like.
Speaker 2: That, especially when there's nothing to show for it.
Speaker 1: Well, right, again, there's mathematics to show for it. But
Speaker 1: again here we are talking about strings, and it'll keep happening, right,
Speaker 1: And whether it's you or me, it doesn't matter. It
Speaker 1: was woven into the story. So another in order to
Speaker 1: get back to actual physics, we have to unweave the
Speaker 1: story of Edwin.
Speaker 3: And this is what Paul was saying about your theory
Speaker 3: of everything, Mungle.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, yeah, well, I think what he said at
Speaker 1: the end was well, I mean, he said something that
Speaker 1: would be embarrassing for me to say, but I could
Speaker 1: play it for you to give you an idea of
Speaker 1: what is assessment. Let me just say that this is
Speaker 1: more or less Kurt's assessment after having put in two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty hours into a three hour documentary.
Speaker 3: And by the way, just so you guys know, we're
Speaker 3: going to break down in Layman's terms, Eric Weinstein's theory
Speaker 3: of everything. But we're just this is just the appetizers. Okay,
Speaker 3: just the appetizers before the main course. Roll tape. Let's
Speaker 3: watch this.
Speaker 4: Thank you to Eric Weinstein. It's an avant garde and
Speaker 4: creative theory. Kurt here several months later. This has been
Speaker 4: so long in the making. G you have no idea anyhow.
Speaker 4: I wanted to say that. I mean what I just said.
Speaker 4: I may have said this before in the Iceberg, and
Speaker 4: if I haven't, I should have, because it bears repeating.
Speaker 4: I haven't seen a theory like this come from any
Speaker 4: single individual ever, not one that's this fleshed out or
Speaker 4: has this amount of unexampled connections within itself, as well
Speaker 4: as to what's known as the theoretical physics backbone that
Speaker 4: we talked about earlier. And by the way, this is
Speaker 4: what I do for a living. I interview people on
Speaker 4: what theory they have of reality, whether it's of consciousness
Speaker 4: or it's physics based or logic based or what have you.
Speaker 4: So again, thank you to Eric, and thank you to
Speaker 4: you for watching this.
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: Wow. And he's talked to a lot of physicists.
Speaker 1: In particular a lot of strength theories too. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: so you know, in part, I'm just in this very
Speaker 1: funny position where I now decide that I'm an entertainer,
Speaker 1: because here's a joe. What's the difference between a physic
Speaker 1: assistant an entertainer. An entertainer has legal rights?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: You you, I know, and I know you, and I
Speaker 3: love you and I one of the things we always
Speaker 3: talk about is you do live. It's a lonely existence
Speaker 3: because you live in your own head and you're dealing
Speaker 3: with ideas and things that very few people can really
Speaker 3: appreciate or understand, including the creativity as a comic. You know,
Speaker 3: I'm about to release my next special, thank you and
Speaker 3: and but but at least I'm always getting affirmation. I'm
Speaker 3: out there. They're laughing, I'm building it, They're laughing. You know,
Speaker 3: I do the special. I get I know how it's
Speaker 3: going to be received, at least a little bit, because
Speaker 3: I'm I'm getting that kind of appreciation, sure after four
Speaker 3: decades of working in relative solitude.
Speaker 1: And abuse and abuse.
Speaker 3: And it's such an act of faith too, because when
Speaker 3: when you have a world where there's only when somebody
Speaker 3: like Ed Witten et cetera at all are saying that
Speaker 3: this is the only theory. Everything else is a lie.
Speaker 3: The act of faith it must take to continue on
Speaker 3: is because what if nobody ever sees it? That's why
Speaker 3: you get this guy like Kurt John Muncle who now
Speaker 3: takes all that time to actually understand it and highlight
Speaker 3: it and put it out there.
Speaker 2: How has that been received?
Speaker 1: Tell me? Yeah, you know, it's like the community doesn't
Speaker 1: want to react to it. And by react I mean
Speaker 1: something very special, like you saw this thing with Terrence
Speaker 1: Howard myself that Joe asked for.
Speaker 2: Yes, you were so nice to him. Maybe too nice,
Speaker 2: there was.
Speaker 1: I never want to critique somebody if I can't steal
Speaker 1: man them first. There's something wrong with the community that
Speaker 1: wants to pretend that a Harvard PhD in an MIT
Speaker 1: post doc can't be steel manned. Is this the first
Speaker 1: theory in the history mathematics and physics that can't be steelmanned?
Speaker 1: Like that's a really bizarre question. Yeah, so one second,
Speaker 1: think about it this way. What are the odds that
Speaker 1: somebody with my profile would work forty years and there's
Speaker 1: nothing to recommend what they work on? Like zero? There's
Speaker 1: nothing good that can be said about it. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that Terrence Howard's idea of sticking six pentagonal
Speaker 1: housings for propellers through the edges of a regular tetrahedron
Speaker 1: is an ingenious idea for a drone. I don't need
Speaker 1: Neil deGrasse Tyson to pat me on the back. I
Speaker 1: don't have to call up my friends in an aerospace department.
Speaker 1: I can say if nobody else has had that idea.
Speaker 1: He figured out that one hundred and eight degrees inside
Speaker 1: of a pentagon is almost one hundred and nine point
Speaker 1: four to seven, which is what you get for the
Speaker 1: interior angles of a tetrahedron. And he took that tiny discrepancy.
Speaker 1: He said that can be handled at an engineering level,
Speaker 1: and he built a drone with six degrees of freedom,
Speaker 1: so it has Pitcheon roll and it also has X,
Speaker 1: y and Z spanning something called the affine group. Now
Speaker 1: my feeling, yeah, I mean that's impressive. Yeah, And I'm
Speaker 1: going to catch all this nonsense off the internet, which
Speaker 1: is like, that's Charlotte and Terrence Howard, you were too nice,
Speaker 1: he had nothing, and another group of people is going
Speaker 1: to say you were such an arrogant brick win of course,
Speaker 1: but that's but my point is in neither of those things.
Speaker 1: There essentially are no theories that can't be Steelmann right, of.
Speaker 3: Course, a great author. The difference in a great novel.
Speaker 3: The reason that the Brothers Kara Monsov is a great
Speaker 3: novelist because Ivan, who is the atheist, is very hard
Speaker 3: to argue with. But The Grapes of Wrath great novel,
Speaker 3: but considered a good novel because you never get the
Speaker 3: point of view of the orange growers, the people that
Speaker 3: own the orange groves. We never see them. They're just
Speaker 3: these demons that are milking the poor dust pole migrants.
Speaker 3: But it would have been.
Speaker 1: A great Sinclair for me, for sure.
Speaker 2: I know this is actually Steinbecker.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but but but you mean the jungle, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 3: But it's the same thing. There's the bad guys, so bad,
Speaker 3: But any great movie is the bad guy gives you.
Speaker 2: A monologue and you get his point of view. Started
Speaker 2: out as a kid.
Speaker 1: This is this is my take on Sorkin's version of
Speaker 1: Good Men. Colonel Jessop has as good of a point
Speaker 1: as Lieutenant Caffe. All the Walls Well, it's but it's
Speaker 1: undone by a flaw, right, So he gives this final
Speaker 1: soliloquies like he says something about you sleep under the
Speaker 1: bank blanket of freedom that I provide, not that we provide.
Speaker 1: And so this is Moses's sin, where Moses takes responsibility
Speaker 1: for bringing water from the stone for which he's prohibited
Speaker 1: to enter Israel. And so, you know, in a weird way,
Speaker 1: we don't remember that the reason that A Few Good
Speaker 1: Men is a great film and in a brilliant play
Speaker 1: really is that Jessup and Kaffe are evenly matched. It's
Speaker 1: not that one has the right point, one has the right.
Speaker 3: Thing exactly right, and that's such a good point because
Speaker 3: we want we ultimately viscerally, I sided with Jessip. The
Speaker 3: man side of me was like, yeah, that guy's a bitch,
Speaker 3: you know, but hold on, he's still you killed him.
Speaker 1: And well, the thing is, I wanted somebody on that wall.
Speaker 1: I needed somebody on that wall that wasn't him.
Speaker 3: Yes, but but well I don't mind having Jessup on
Speaker 3: that wall. But you have to remember that the reason
Speaker 3: that we don't have a warrior class that takes presence
Speaker 3: over all the other classes is because the warrior class
Speaker 3: is there to protect a gentler spirits, the people that
Speaker 3: actually can't handle the hazing and things like that. I mean,
Speaker 3: you can't make the protectors the end all and be all.
Speaker 3: The protectors are there to allow for what would be
Speaker 3: considered I suppose civilian rule. The argument would be, you
Speaker 3: have the most powerful army in the world in some
Speaker 3: ways because you have a powerful and strong and creative culture.
Speaker 3: You can't have a powerful, strong, creative culture if it's
Speaker 3: just a spartan culture. You need Athens. You need Athens
Speaker 3: to protect You need Spartans to protect Athens. I suppose
Speaker 3: the way I looked at it.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you think of Jessip as likely to be a
Speaker 1: cultured man in a narrow vein where he probably read
Speaker 1: Marcus Aurelius, Like, there's no question in my mind that
Speaker 1: Jessop is a thinker. The weird thing is that he's
Speaker 1: cheated of war. He's forced to stay on this base
Speaker 1: in this tense situation that is not actually hot.
Speaker 3: I would say that I don't know that he's a
Speaker 3: cultured man, but I think that in order to be
Speaker 3: a warrior, you need not be confused about the gray
Speaker 3: area between right and wrong, good and evil. Your enemy
Speaker 3: is your enemy, and you're in the business of killing
Speaker 3: or imposing your will or neutralizing your enemy. It's a
Speaker 3: it's a nasty business. I think you need a born enforcer.
Speaker 1: I think the problem is he's cheated of war and
Speaker 1: he's in a military edging situation where he has to
Speaker 1: eat his breakfast within uh, you know, in the crosshairs
Speaker 1: of a Cuban who's trained to kill him, but nothing's
Speaker 1: actually happening.
Speaker 2: I would agree with that. I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: And so, in fact, part of the problem is he's saying, look,
Speaker 1: I know who I'm supposed to be, and there's just
Speaker 1: no war for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's It's kind of like a Ferrari engine
Speaker 3: with no racetrack, you know.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: But you know what Freud said about that. I think
Speaker 3: it was I can't remember. Freud was having a correspondence
Speaker 3: with I can't remember the flus and and he said, uh, God,
Speaker 3: who was it it was? I think fred said, if
Speaker 3: you don't allow man to go to war, he'll go
Speaker 3: to war on himself, you know, you you and and
Speaker 3: and then the idea was that men don't go to
Speaker 3: war for hate. They don't go to war because they
Speaker 3: hate the enemy. They go to war because they love
Speaker 3: what they're protecting. And if you want to get young
Speaker 3: men to fight valiantly, if you want to get young
Speaker 3: men to die for a cause, you need you need
Speaker 3: symbols for them to march under, You need slogans, you
Speaker 3: need that sort of you need something that they can
Speaker 3: get behind, and it's usually love of country.
Speaker 1: Or or well entertainment. And I think that one.
Speaker 2: Of the one of that sustains.
Speaker 1: It's a very interesting question. So PJ. Work has a
Speaker 1: beautiful passage where he says that someone experienced what used
Speaker 1: to be called the drunk delight of battle before we
Speaker 1: decided that war was a bad thing, the trunk the
Speaker 1: light of battle.
Speaker 2: Well that's what.
Speaker 3: But when when they the young men marched off to
Speaker 3: the Civil War and certainly World War One, not so
Speaker 3: much World War II, but certainly World War One, they
Speaker 3: were they it was they were they were dead plumes
Speaker 3: in their hats, and they were excited to go to war.
Speaker 3: It was valiant. There was something. You know, any young
Speaker 3: warrior thinks of themselves as on the side of right,
Speaker 3: and there's there's a there's a romance to of it.
Speaker 3: The problem is war mocks that when you when you
Speaker 3: when you used to talk to somebody who's been in war.
Speaker 3: War makes a mockery of whatever you thought was right
Speaker 3: and wrong or whatever you thought was good guys, bad
Speaker 3: guys kind of stuff. It certainly about honor and courage
Speaker 3: and all those things.
Speaker 1: So certain kinds of warfare are incredibly demoralizing. So the
Speaker 1: bouncing betty that was developed I think by the Germans
Speaker 1: was feared because of the kind of injury that inflicted.
Speaker 1: Something that would kill you would be different than something
Speaker 1: that named you in a particular way, and you know,
Speaker 1: in a weird way. I think the dueling in a
Speaker 1: way that was unlikely to be fatal, so the two
Speaker 1: people could fire at each other and experience the thrill
Speaker 1: of not of likely not dying, or you know, dueling
Speaker 1: to first blood.
Speaker 2: In fact, they used to shoot kind of over each
Speaker 2: other's you.
Speaker 1: Know, well, there's something called deloping. I mean, now that
Speaker 1: you bring it up, it's a word that I never
Speaker 1: get to use. Where you fire your shot into the ground,
Speaker 1: you throw it away saying I have no desire to
Speaker 1: kill you, but I have no desire to cower either. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's so, you know, this was well, this is and
Speaker 1: this is why the manly world of the manispheres all up,
Speaker 1: because in essence, we've got a bunch of people trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how to be men in a time
Speaker 1: that has had a lot of peace since nineteen forty five.
Speaker 3: Well, this is Texas, my friend, this is uh you
Speaker 3: know I trained these guys. Well, I mean, you moved
Speaker 3: to Texas. You've got a copy of the Constitution in
Speaker 3: your back pocket, you grow an aggressive beard, you get
Speaker 3: better at jiu jitsu, You've got a freezer full of
Speaker 3: game meat.
Speaker 1: And tell me something. Yeah, when a guy with an
Speaker 1: AR fifteen shows up in Valdi, what do the men
Speaker 1: do my guns?
Speaker 3: Well, in Texas, you're supposed to rehearse that scenario, and
Speaker 3: you rehearse it not just with her live rounds, but
Speaker 3: with dummy rounds. So if you get it, if something jams,
Speaker 3: you learn how to expel your magazine.
Speaker 1: What I'm trying to say is that a mom took
Speaker 1: off her heels to top defense and rescued her kids
Speaker 1: from an active shooter situation because Texas was in Texas, right.
Speaker 2: That's right? Right, Yeah, So.
Speaker 1: We all, we all, we've all learned this way. Boy
Speaker 1: from from where I come from. You talk like that
Speaker 1: it's short ride. Well mostly that's that's TV. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that.
Speaker 3: I have a joke about that, which is, you know,
Speaker 3: carrying a gun, which I could do in Texas. Frankly,
Speaker 3: it's a little heavy. It's a little heavy, and it
Speaker 3: also digs into my my spleen when I'm sitting down.
Speaker 3: And also I'm not responsible, so I have a house
Speaker 3: full of children, and the joke, but it's true, as
Speaker 3: I within three days if I started carrying a gun,
Speaker 3: I would go where is my gun? You know, which
Speaker 3: is not a good question to ask when you've got
Speaker 3: kids in the house. So, you know, Texas, not Texas
Speaker 3: or most of us figure.
Speaker 2: It's just a lot to carry. It's just heavy.
Speaker 3: After a while, you've just become paranoid and chances are
Speaker 3: it's not going to come to that and stuff like that. Now, yes,
Speaker 3: I do practice shooting because in my mind, I want
Speaker 3: to be the guy who can be.
Speaker 2: Like, get down, excuse it's okay, everybody.
Speaker 3: Problem with that also is I've had a lot of
Speaker 3: warriors and police officers and guys who've been inoculated to
Speaker 3: distresses of combat. Tier one operators just say, hey, Brian,
Speaker 3: here's the problem. If you've got a gun and there's
Speaker 3: an actor shoot a situation and you're squeezing off around
Speaker 3: the cops going to shoot you thinking you're the guy.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of things that.
Speaker 1: You have never considered, and you're going to figure it
Speaker 1: out the first time you need it.
Speaker 3: Another guy did this to me. He said, I said, well,
Speaker 3: if I'm with my kids in a mall, I want
Speaker 3: to be able to what's a good gun to carry?
Speaker 3: And he just stopped and he said, if you're at
Speaker 3: the if you're with your kids at the mall, huh,
Speaker 3: what's a good gun?
Speaker 1: What do you?
Speaker 2: What do you?
Speaker 3: How do you see this plan out? I go, if
Speaker 3: I see a guy with a gun and I got
Speaker 3: my kids there, I want to I want to take
Speaker 3: him out before he takes me out. And he said, yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: we'll go ahead. Show me what you would do, and
Speaker 3: he I just I go, what do you mean? He goes,
Speaker 3: just draw and shoot. So I go to draw. He
Speaker 3: grabs both legs and he starts pulling both legs in
Speaker 3: two different directions. He said, your kids are going to
Speaker 3: be holding on you, pulling you one way, and the
Speaker 3: other kid's gonna be pulling the other other way, they're
Speaker 3: gonna be holding on you. You didn't think about that,
Speaker 3: did you?
Speaker 1: Of the drywall problem all of it? Yeah?
Speaker 3: And I and I went, oh, man, I never thought
Speaker 3: about that. He goes, yeah, you want to get serious
Speaker 3: about this. You got to train for it like anything.
Speaker 1: This is this is the this is the problem I think.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is why I'm really enthusiastic
Speaker 1: about this four Sun Force simmunition done it because they're
Speaker 1: actually converting your firearm into a de facto airsoft.
Speaker 3: You know, I haven't done the airsoft, but I did
Speaker 3: do a scenario where there are screens and they have
Speaker 3: an electric like literally a taser on your back and if.
Speaker 1: You get shot, you get penalty.
Speaker 3: Dude, my my cortisol. I got addicted to it though,
Speaker 3: because my cortisol, my adrenaline is through the roof.
Speaker 1: This is the problem with fetishes.
Speaker 3: All right, we've we've already digressed. I need to get
Speaker 3: back to Eric's theory of everything. So this guy makes
Speaker 3: this video. I want to know, can you give us
Speaker 3: Is there any way you can?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: Before because I know that my producer Dylan is chomping
Speaker 3: at the bit. He wants to know the secrets to.
Speaker 1: The in the chair. I say, screwed, Dylan. I love it.
Speaker 2: I love it. You're right, Okay, you free me, Eric,
Speaker 2: you are my wings.
Speaker 1: You complete me. Listen. What happened was that Kurt and
Speaker 1: I were sitting outside of this conference. Kurt would say, Okay,
Speaker 1: how does your theory handle the three generation problem? Why
Speaker 1: are the three copies that matter? I said, here it
Speaker 1: is in five minutes, so I gave him the answer.
Speaker 1: Then he said, how does it handle the cosmological constant problem?
Speaker 1: So I gave him the answer. He said, okay, why
Speaker 1: are there sixteen particles in a generation? Gave him the answer.
Speaker 1: Why SU three quest SU two questions? You won the groups,
Speaker 1: the symmetries that generate the forces. Everything was about five minutes,
Speaker 1: and so he's like, how is this possible? And I said,
Speaker 1: I don't honestly know what's going on. He clearly has
Speaker 1: background in mathematical physics, I think from the University of Toronto.
Speaker 1: He says that on his program, I don't know what.
Speaker 1: I don't think he has a PhD. He don't think
Speaker 1: he had an advisor. I also didn't have an advisor.
Speaker 1: I did have it. I did get a PhD. But
Speaker 1: I think he probably stopped before and then he got curious,
Speaker 1: and then he disappeared, and then out of nowhere he
Speaker 1: appears and he's got this mock up of my theory
Speaker 1: on his screen.
Speaker 2: So he took a couple of months to go down
Speaker 2: that rabbit hole.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, wow man, and then he just like he's like,
Speaker 1: holy cow, it checks out and now it's okay. So
Speaker 1: now you've got two non professors roaming around the internet
Speaker 1: who are seeing sort of the same thing. Two well
Speaker 1: me and him. Yeah, and the community still isn't listening.
Speaker 1: And you know, and I'm trying to say to the community,
Speaker 1: in some sense, you're in receivership. You're in intellectual receivership.
Speaker 1: Ever since you caught the quantum gravity flew, and you've
Speaker 1: been talking about nothing other than the one true theory,
Speaker 1: and there's no other game in town. We all have
Speaker 1: to quantize gravity because this is the Holy Girl. All
Speaker 1: of this is total nonsense. And it really began nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty three, eighty four with one individual who was just
Speaker 1: so intellectually dominant that he steered the entire field towards
Speaker 1: his set.
Speaker 2: Of questions with that one speech. University of Pennsvania.
Speaker 1: No, that was the I that was the thing where
Speaker 1: I look. I'm in my freshman year, I guess at Pendents,
Speaker 1: so it's very unusual. It's more unusual for a freshman
Speaker 1: to be in a physics seminar than it is for
Speaker 1: me to be sixteen or seventeen. But I'm young. I
Speaker 1: have no idea where I am. I'm going to seminar
Speaker 1: as thinking that this is like normal, which I guess
Speaker 1: it wasn't. And I see this thing where I you know,
Speaker 1: Edwin at the seminar famously says, as every quantum field
Speaker 1: theorist knows the operator product, expansion, this, that and the
Speaker 1: other thing. Blah blah blah. The guy next to me
Speaker 1: turns to me and he says, I've been a quantum
Speaker 1: field there is for forty years. I don't know any
Speaker 1: of this shit. That's how profound it was, right God,
Speaker 1: when he's still around, Oh yeah, where's he at? He's
Speaker 1: I think forcibly retired from the Institute for Advanced Study
Speaker 1: because they have a seven retirement age. At seventy. He
Speaker 1: has not been as dominant recently.
Speaker 2: Have you tried to contact him?
Speaker 1: You know? He and I had two and a half
Speaker 1: three conversations that really mattered, where each time we went
Speaker 1: up against each other and some bizarre thing happened because
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know a fraction of what that
Speaker 1: guy knows, and I can't do a fraction of what
Speaker 1: that guy can do. But I do know what I believe,
Speaker 1: and normally what he does is he he just says, well,
Speaker 1: you know, as every grade school child knows, and then
Speaker 1: he says something, and people don't want to look dumb,
Speaker 1: so they say, of course, and I say, no, that's
Speaker 1: not true, because I'm autistic. So in nineteen eighty five
Speaker 1: he tried to prove that something called a Kaluza c
Speaker 1: line theory couldn't exist because the weak forces asymmetry precludes
Speaker 1: it due to something called the ata Hartsbrook theorem. So
Speaker 1: I went to his office in eighty five. I had
Speaker 1: a conversation with him and I said, you know, everything
Speaker 1: was going great, great guns. I was going to go
Speaker 1: to Princeton become a student. And he said, what are
Speaker 1: you interested in? I said, well, you know you wrote
Speaker 1: this article on and I have an argument that you
Speaker 1: haven't contended with about why Cluza client theory can't exist
Speaker 1: and he completely blew his stack.
Speaker 2: Really yeah, interesting, that always feels like insecurity to me.
Speaker 2: Unclear clear as right, But but can.
Speaker 3: You what where do you deviate? What is it that
Speaker 3: you are saying that other physicists are not saying.
Speaker 1: Especially I'm an entertainer.
Speaker 3: I know you're a little more than that. Eric, You're
Speaker 3: a little more than that, but I appreciate it. But no,
Speaker 3: you're you're you're a little more than that, and you're.
Speaker 2: Just a theoretical mathematician dealing with things that are just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: So just trying to get mine just you're just.
Speaker 3: A guy from trying to get from point A to
Speaker 3: point b. He ever hear I think it was who
Speaker 3: was the Coburn, the old? The old played bad guys?
Speaker 3: James Cobert, and he said, I don't play bad guys.
Speaker 3: I just play a regular guy trying to get from
Speaker 3: point A to point B the best way I know how,
Speaker 3: And if I got to take a couple of shortcuts,
Speaker 3: so be great way to describe a bad guy. Right,
Speaker 3: So you're just trying to get from point A to
Speaker 3: point B. You're just an entertainer, can you of us?
Speaker 3: Is there any way to explain.
Speaker 1: This to us. Yea, there is the really where.
Speaker 3: I could understand it. Yeah, okay, can can you give
Speaker 3: me what your rebuttal is and then give me.
Speaker 1: Give me well, let me just sort of give you
Speaker 1: the main ideas. So I just gave a talk at
Speaker 1: U see San Diego in the Cosmology Physics seminar, and
Speaker 1: I gave a formula for the dark energy. Now, in
Speaker 1: Einstein's setting, he worked on something called the space of metrics.
Speaker 1: So imagine that you know who Einstein is, You know
Speaker 1: that general relativity is his great work, but you're probably confused.
Speaker 1: You think equals mc squared is his major innovation, which
Speaker 1: it isn't. No, there's something called the Einstein field equations,
Speaker 1: which looks like capital gmunu plus lambda times little gmunw
Speaker 1: equals some constant times tm nu. So if you've never
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, well, but that should be your first
Speaker 1: clue something. Well, but that's the first indication that if
Speaker 1: I say that and you have a reaction, because I
Speaker 1: view you as a very generally interested person, something has
Speaker 1: to have gone terribly wrong if you think E equals
Speaker 1: mc squared is Einstein's big deal. So just keep in
Speaker 1: mind that the things that I'm going to say after
Speaker 1: that have to do with the fact think about physics
Speaker 1: as a giant mansion in which we give people this
Speaker 1: really weirdo guided tour where we don't let them visit
Speaker 1: almost any rooms. So I can go into any airport
Speaker 1: in the United States and there'll be somebody talking about
Speaker 1: the multiverse and entanglement in Schrodinger's cat, but there won't
Speaker 1: be anyone talking about why is SU three the symmetry
Speaker 1: of the strong force, which is much more of an important,
Speaker 1: you know question in some ways. Then then you'd have
Speaker 1: any idea gathering from the fact that nobody talks about it,
Speaker 1: or the three generations of matter. You probably have never
Speaker 1: heard that there are three generations of matter. So this
Speaker 1: careful curation both inside the field where you're trying to
Speaker 1: tell everybody the only holy grail is to quantize gravity.
Speaker 1: Where're going to make Einstein submit to the will of war,
Speaker 1: that's the holy grail. That's a curation inside the field
Speaker 1: where we lead beginning graduate students through this particular mindset
Speaker 1: so that they won't be able to make progress for
Speaker 1: reasons that I don't understand. And then we do this
Speaker 1: other thing with the lay public which is that we
Speaker 1: talk ad nauseum about entanglement and the double slid experiment
Speaker 1: and things of that nature in Schrodinger's cat and as
Speaker 1: a result, nobody knows actually any physics. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to say things which will sound unfamiliar, But don't blame
Speaker 1: the messenger. I'm just telling you Einstein formulated his theory
Speaker 1: on something called the space of Lorentzian metrics. So I
Speaker 1: want you to think about that as as if we
Speaker 1: were in Italy and you're in Pisa. If you have
Speaker 1: a problem with a term in Einstein's equations, it's a
Speaker 1: little bit like your tower is leaning. If you see
Speaker 1: there as being a leaning tower of Pisa, you're likely
Speaker 1: to think, boy, they screwed up the tower. When you
Speaker 1: find out that there are other leaning all the towers
Speaker 1: in Pisa lean, you start to think, oh, maybe it's
Speaker 1: the soil. So what I'm proposing is that we move
Speaker 1: Einstein's structure away from this thing that you've never heard of,
Speaker 1: the space of Lorentzian space time metrics and put it
Speaker 1: somewhere else called the inhomogeneous gauge group. Now, because you
Speaker 1: didn't know about the space of Lorentzian metrics. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to be able to talk to you so easily
Speaker 1: about that. Way that really is is a choice. So
Speaker 1: every instant of time that has a place and a
Speaker 1: time is called a space time event. And at that
Speaker 1: space time event, I've got three rulers in space, one
Speaker 1: watch that tells me how fast time is going. So
Speaker 1: that's four instruments. And then I've got six protractors X
Speaker 1: versus y, X versus Z, why versus Z, and then
Speaker 1: weirdo protractors time versus X, time versus why time versus Z.
Speaker 1: And that set of ten objects, the three rulers, one watch,
Speaker 1: three regular protractress, and six that is a space time
Speaker 1: metric at a space time event.
Speaker 2: So that's its address.
Speaker 1: Einstein said, Okay, nature chooses one set of rulers, protractors,
Speaker 1: and watches according to this formula. And I'm saying no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I think nature is working over the space of all
Speaker 1: possible rulers, all possible watches, and all possible protractors. And
Speaker 1: that means that if you take our four dimensions that
Speaker 1: we think we're in, so the three that we into
Speaker 1: it the extra one of time that Einstein told us
Speaker 1: to add. And now we add three rulers, one watch,
Speaker 1: three normal protractors, and three weird time versus space protractors,
Speaker 1: you get fourteen. My claim is you and I are
Speaker 1: actually in a fourteen dimensional conversation. We don't perceive it
Speaker 1: that way.
Speaker 3: So you're adding three dimensions to Einstein's.
Speaker 1: I'm taking the four dimensions that Einstein gave us and
Speaker 1: instead which space, x, y, Z and T. So three
Speaker 1: of space, x, y and z and one of time.
Speaker 1: And I'm saying, now I want you to think about
Speaker 1: the instruments that we would use to measure those dimensions
Speaker 1: as dimensions themselves. So now you think about how do
Speaker 1: you'd want to go to alpha centuri. This table is
Speaker 1: probably a wood or pseudo wood table. However, it's possible
Speaker 1: that it could be a display screen, and if so,
Speaker 1: I would be able to do this. This was introduced
Speaker 1: and I think around two thousand and six, two thousand
Speaker 1: and three something like that. At a TED talk. You
Speaker 1: can hear the audience gasp and it's called multi touch gestures,
Speaker 1: and this particular one is called pinch to zoom. So,
Speaker 1: in part, my suspicion is that space time is a model.
Speaker 1: It's not the territory This is something psychonauts and people
Speaker 1: take a lot of psychedelic drugs talk about. The map
Speaker 1: is not the territory. So think about general relativity in
Speaker 1: the standard model is the map. And we've been so
Speaker 1: long in a world where the map of our physical
Speaker 1: world isn't changing that we now think we live in
Speaker 1: space time. We don't realize that space time is a
Speaker 1: model and that model is almost certainly not right.
Speaker 2: So it's a virtual reality way.
Speaker 1: It's a distortion of reality that is the best distortion
Speaker 1: that we can work with mathematically.
Speaker 2: This whole thing we're doing now, You and.
Speaker 1: I are doing a thing in the territory. But if
Speaker 1: you had to make a map of the territory, somebody
Speaker 1: would start talking about world lines through space times. Imagine
Speaker 1: Brian Callen was a point or whatever, and at that
Speaker 1: point you're idealizing things.
Speaker 3: I'm so I gotta tell you, I don't even know
Speaker 3: how you even started conceiving of this. I don't even
Speaker 3: know how you start with this. I can't fathom how
Speaker 3: your brain works so that you're fourteen dimensions. I just
Speaker 3: it's impossible for me to even understand how you got here.
Speaker 1: Ryan. If I started describing a problem in modern day Turkey. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know you very well, And what you do is
Speaker 1: you'd say, well, look, I think in many ways this
Speaker 1: problem has to do with the transition from the Ottoman
Speaker 1: Empire through Attiturk to a modern Muslim state in Asia
Speaker 1: Minor or whatever.
Speaker 2: And so you're starting with a model, a rudimentary.
Speaker 1: So I'm trying to say somebody starts with the problem, like,
Speaker 1: what are you curious about the physical world? You want
Speaker 1: to go to the stars?
Speaker 3: Personally, I don't concern myself with that stuff, but you know,
Speaker 3: but I'm curious about plenty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, but why are we talking? What do you
Speaker 1: think this place is? What do you think we're made of?
Speaker 3: That's the nostalgia for getting closer to the truth seems
Speaker 3: to be as human as it gets. We all none
Speaker 3: of us want to be lied to. We all want
Speaker 3: to get closer to.
Speaker 1: What's actually that's true, we do want to be lied.
Speaker 3: Well, probably probably because it's a lot more comfortable, but
Speaker 3: you're right about that, But really none of us like
Speaker 3: to be lied to. Really, I mean, at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, I'd like to be the one who knows.
Speaker 1: I mean, I want to find out that the truth
Speaker 1: loves me just as much as the lies that I.
Speaker 3: Wish yeah, or I'd like to know that the truth
Speaker 3: is something benevolent. Yeah, yeah, yes, sure, right, that there's
Speaker 3: there's a point to this. And when you talk about
Speaker 3: there there being a point to this, right, the point
Speaker 3: is something good at the end of that day.
Speaker 1: Well, so maybe you want to know God?
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So my claim is is that in general, you
Speaker 1: end when a child goes through that chain of why questions,
Speaker 1: they either accept a because as an answer or they
Speaker 1: become a theoretical physicist or a mathematician.
Speaker 2: Ah, that's great, that's so true. That's that. That is so.
Speaker 1: I think that the natural the natural state of a
Speaker 1: human is mathematics and physics, and everyone who is not
Speaker 1: a mathematician or physicist needs to explain when did this
Speaker 1: become an interesting to you?
Speaker 2: When did this become uninteresting?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Here you are in a miracle. You don't even
Speaker 1: know what you are. If I asked you, you know
Speaker 1: about and I won't, I promise, But if I asked you,
Speaker 1: like about the particles in your body, how much understanding
Speaker 1: do you have of the quarks, protons, the neutrons, the
Speaker 1: glue ones, none? So at some point you're like, too
Speaker 1: rich for my blood.
Speaker 2: I'm out.
Speaker 3: But but but the understanding, the meaningful difference between things.
Speaker 3: It is really the difference between being a person of
Speaker 3: knowledge and wisdom in a lot of ways. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, you you we knowing what the difference is.
Speaker 2: You have to work at that.
Speaker 3: Sometimes you have to have at least a rudimentary understanding
Speaker 3: of music to really appreciate Mozart and Beethoven, and the
Speaker 3: difference between Bach and and shumeh whoever it might be.
Speaker 1: Sure or whatever, Schubert, Schumann, Schubert.
Speaker 2: Like whatever it is.
Speaker 3: But you know what I mean, like the the like
Speaker 3: Stelonious Monk, why is he? Why was he such a
Speaker 3: great pianist? Why was coal trying?
Speaker 2: Well? Okay, so there you go. The you know, he
Speaker 2: was a great composer, Okay.
Speaker 3: And when you hear Leonard Bernstein break down Beethoven, it's
Speaker 3: fascinating because he says the same thing about him, nasty
Speaker 3: about Beethos. He's nasty, but he had this god given
Speaker 3: understanding of the form.
Speaker 2: And when you hear that, you go, oh.
Speaker 1: I didn't know you're familiar with it. It's like a
Speaker 1: crazy thing where He says basically that on all sorts
Speaker 1: of metrics, Beethoven.
Speaker 2: Is mess, rudimentary, He's he's rudimentary.
Speaker 1: And then it comes up with a mess. It comes
Speaker 1: up with some conclusion at the end that there's one
Speaker 1: thing that makes Beethoven special, which is like every note
Speaker 1: has a purpose.
Speaker 3: Or something, knowing what, knowing what that next perfect note
Speaker 3: is so so he hadn't understand the form of it
Speaker 3: was this instinct.
Speaker 1: Ever heard his crazy introduction of Glenn Gould No the
Speaker 1: Broms second Piano Concerto.
Speaker 2: No, But I've seen it. I've seen it.
Speaker 1: You've seen him discussing this no frightening.
Speaker 3: I've seen Gould, though, wrestle with that, I think, and
Speaker 3: maybe I heard him talking about that.
Speaker 1: I think it's recorded, and my recollection has.
Speaker 2: A documentary, and there's a documentary.
Speaker 1: On So apparently Bernstein comes out and says, you might
Speaker 1: want to know why I'm addressing the audience tonight. It's
Speaker 1: very rare that a conductor does this. But I have
Speaker 1: such respect for the soloist Glenn Gould, that I am
Speaker 1: here to tell you that I completely disagree with his
Speaker 1: interpretation of the piece.
Speaker 2: A seeming something else man.
Speaker 1: And then he says, now, the normal thing to do
Speaker 1: is to pretend to feign a conflict and allow a
Speaker 1: junior conductor to take over so that I don't have
Speaker 1: to be in conflict with my soloist. But so high
Speaker 1: is my esteem for mister Gould that I've decided to
Speaker 1: conduct this against my own better judgment in the fashion
Speaker 1: that he has specified. And I'll let you be the judge.
Speaker 1: What well, this is when things mattered, they mattered, right,
Speaker 1: and like you can imagine something, He's like words, get
Speaker 1: to the music.
Speaker 2: For all you anti semitis at there by the way, Uh,
Speaker 2: Goold and Bernstein were juice and so's this guy. So
Speaker 2: you guys are so smart. It must be you know what.
Speaker 1: Actually I changed my name. I changed my name for
Speaker 1: McConnell for business reason.
Speaker 2: Eric McConnell. I don't know if he's that Scottish. This
Speaker 2: is weird.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, the fix is in. Uh that's that. And
Speaker 3: one of the things that bothered Beethoven is he couldn't
Speaker 3: compose a feud. I guess he was just always falling
Speaker 3: short of composing that feud.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he wanted to compose a fight. He and he
Speaker 3: felt like he was always falling. Yeah, YouTube Bernstein breaking
Speaker 3: Beethoven down. It's so great and it's so worth it.
Speaker 3: And I took what I loved about it is I'm
Speaker 3: constantly I'm editing my special now, and I mean, I can't.
Speaker 3: I just hate myself in general. I walk around feeling
Speaker 3: I was walking. I was in Austin, and I was
Speaker 3: walking around hating myself and feeling kind of shitty about myself.
Speaker 3: And and I'm with my wife and we're walking by
Speaker 3: this guy. I'm admiring his guitar. They're playing right there,
Speaker 3: and I'm walking on Sixth Street and in the middle
Speaker 3: of his playing, he gets off stage, walks up to me,
Speaker 3: stops playing, so it's all packed house, and he just goes,
Speaker 3: you are my favorite comic. You make me laugh. And
Speaker 3: I was admiring him and feeling bad about myself, walking
Speaker 3: with my head down with the posture of a jumbo shrimp.
Speaker 3: And this guy comes off and shakes my hand. He's
Speaker 3: all full of sweat, gives me a kind of a
Speaker 3: bro hug, and I just went, you know, man, you
Speaker 3: know I'll never complain about a damn thing life because
Speaker 3: I here, I am just hating everything.
Speaker 2: I do and this, and I and.
Speaker 3: This guy got off stage to say in the middle
Speaker 3: of his playing, so at least I'm moving some people.
Speaker 1: It just happened to me at a place called the
Speaker 1: Recording Club with a fabled drummer whose last name I
Speaker 1: can't say without butchering in Vinnie Cayuta, whose name checked
Speaker 1: on Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage, and legendary drummer because of
Speaker 1: his I think polyrhythmic and odd time signature ability. And
Speaker 1: I went into this to this recording club and somebody said,
Speaker 1: you know Vinnie's drumming right now. You've got to be kidding.
Speaker 1: And I said, can I see? He says sure. So
Speaker 1: I go into the actual studio. Now there's something about
Speaker 1: interrupting somebody when they're recording and actually walking into their
Speaker 1: sonic space. And Vinnie sees me, and there's an intruder
Speaker 1: in his space and he throws down the drumsticks and
Speaker 1: he gets up and like, I have screwed up so badly.
Speaker 1: I am the worst worm in human history. It comes
Speaker 1: over and he says, Eric Weinstein, I said, you have
Speaker 1: any idea who I am? I said, you're Vinnie Ga.
Speaker 1: And he's like doing. I'm just like, dude, you're you.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just and it's it's weird because when
Speaker 1: when you appreciate niche people like I'm very devoted, for example,
Speaker 1: to this guy Ryan Williams, who's a scooter trick guy
Speaker 1: does a stuff off rams.
Speaker 2: Yeah you know right, Yeah, he did our he did
Speaker 2: our podcast.
Speaker 1: Oh you know when we went to when Joe invited
Speaker 1: us for the UFC.
Speaker 2: Week, Yeah, he did our podcast Fighter and kid.
Speaker 1: Like him, Kyle Lenny, all of these death defying athletes.
Speaker 1: I just I want to say thank you for making me.
Speaker 3: I've got to do and Stump's podcast. Have you seen
Speaker 3: Andy Stump? Have you seen what he does in that
Speaker 3: squirrel suit? His royal record was just broken.
Speaker 1: I hate and love and hate and why don't you
Speaker 1: take a.
Speaker 2: Look at his po v as he's as he's diving
Speaker 2: through dude the ground, you will you will.
Speaker 3: Get a nasty carpet burn that you're not going to
Speaker 3: walk away from.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, one or two people survive their
Speaker 1: collisions with with.
Speaker 3: Yeah, one or two, and they're never the same. One
Speaker 3: guy got caught in a tree and enjoy that sh.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, okay, okay with that back to Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: the fascinating thing about this is that the reason that
Speaker 1: you don't start this sport is that you recognize that
Speaker 1: once once you've tried skydiving, you need to do a
Speaker 1: squirrel suit. Once you do a squirrel suit, you need
Speaker 1: to fly closer and do proximity flying. Once you do
Speaker 1: proximity flying, you're trying out new courses under weirder conditions,
Speaker 1: and effective your hedonic tread keeps.
Speaker 2: You got to keep the the the juice going. You
Speaker 2: got to keep upping the ante.
Speaker 1: And that's that's what I think kills people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that sport it is, and they die. Go back
Speaker 2: to we've been we've we've this the trump weave. Let's go.
Speaker 3: Let me take you back for a second. You have
Speaker 3: so your your the delineation between your theory and Einstein's theory,
Speaker 3: and he was working on the theory of everything before
Speaker 3: he died, is that there are fourteen points, not eleven points.
Speaker 1: I'm taking Einstein more seriously than Einstein, and I'm saying
Speaker 1: that what he called space time is a four dimensional
Speaker 1: sliver of a fourteen dimensional space, and that something that
Speaker 1: he used to generate his equations, which was actually technically
Speaker 1: discovered by David Hilbert, which is like a penalty function
Speaker 1: for how good or bad a configuration of physical states
Speaker 1: is called a Lagrangian or an action, and he used
Speaker 1: this thing called now the Einstein Hilbert action. And my
Speaker 1: claim is is that it's much closer to a combination
Speaker 1: between that action and something called the Churn Simon's action.
Speaker 1: Churn Simon's action is trapped in dimension three. It only
Speaker 1: works in dimension three, really, And I'm making the argument
Speaker 1: that Einstein showed us how to take a four manifold
Speaker 1: and make it behave as if it were a three
Speaker 1: dimensional space, so in a weird way which unfortunately without
Speaker 1: a whiteboard, I can't really explain it. He figured out
Speaker 1: how to take curvature and feed it back into the
Speaker 1: space of derivative operators using something called a contraction. Years later,
Speaker 1: SS Churn and Jim Simon's of Renaissance Hedge Fund fame
Speaker 1: figured out how to take in dimension three curvature and
Speaker 1: feed it back into derivative operators using something else called
Speaker 1: a Hodge Star operator. And in fact, what you need
Speaker 1: to do is you need to take the churn Simon's idea,
Speaker 1: but also the Einsteinian contraction idea and marry the two
Speaker 1: ideas in order to get the right gravity theory. So effectively,
Speaker 1: what I've said is, look, the problem isn't the equation
Speaker 1: so much per se. It's not the tower. It's Pisa,
Speaker 1: that's the problem. It's the soil, not the engineering. And
Speaker 1: so I've tried to lift this thing and put it
Speaker 1: down in a new home, and in the process, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sort of down selling it. I am changing the equations,
Speaker 1: I'm changing the Leagrangians. This is new. It's not something
Speaker 1: that we already know, but it's not disconnected from our history.
Speaker 1: And for whatever reason, the community can't sit still to
Speaker 1: steal man it before figuring out what it wants to
Speaker 1: say is wrong. And I just don't I genuinely don't
Speaker 1: grasp how Kurt Jaimungle can have spent two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty hours producing a three hour documentary and nobody in
Speaker 1: the official nobody in the priestly community can figure out
Speaker 1: word one as to what to say.
Speaker 3: Well, it's complicated, is stuff, and you've got to have
Speaker 3: a real background, you know, as you're talking, I'm wondering,
Speaker 3: is one of the instruments that you are taking into
Speaker 3: account the observer consciousness.
Speaker 1: It has no consciousness questions. What is the observer?
Speaker 2: What is the observer?
Speaker 1: Who? Well, that's the thing. I mean, one of the
Speaker 1: old jokes is you know who's the observer? Is that
Speaker 1: your father was his father the observer is it passed
Speaker 1: down to her. It's a weird way in which you're
Speaker 1: talking technically, technically, technically, and then you say this thing.
Speaker 1: It's like then the observer makes an observation and a measurement,
Speaker 1: thinking how did a human get into that story?
Speaker 3: Well, the observers are difficult. I mean, let's just dissect
Speaker 3: that for a second. Because you have the ability as
Speaker 3: an individual to actually observe yourself.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're you're airly.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, one of the things that meditators of
Speaker 3: the Vedanta and you know these kinds of things practice
Speaker 3: is observing what is happening. So their meditation would be
Speaker 3: something like I'm going to sit quietly and I'm going
Speaker 3: to just see what happens. So I'm going to watch
Speaker 3: the thoughts come into my mind. I'm going to I'm
Speaker 3: going to watch my emotions, my body go through its emotions. Something,
Speaker 3: my face will get hot, my heart will beat faster.
Speaker 3: I'm going to observe my physical body in this as
Speaker 3: a cloud of sensation, which you can do, and you
Speaker 3: can get very very good at stepping out of that
Speaker 3: and watching all of that phenomenon. So if you have anxiety,
Speaker 3: you can treat it almost like the same thing as
Speaker 3: when you burn your finger a little bit. It's just data.
Speaker 3: You just interpret the raw data of said thing. Now,
Speaker 3: then the question becomes who's doing the observing. And we
Speaker 3: tie our identity so closely to our emotions, our physical body,
Speaker 3: and our minds, our thoughts, our memories. But what if
Speaker 3: there's somebody else watching all of that? And in fact
Speaker 3: there is, and if you have any doubts about the
Speaker 3: power of that kind of exercise. C. Nineteen sixty three,
Speaker 3: when that Buddhist monk was protesting I think his name
Speaker 3: was the President of South Vietnam, who was a staunch
Speaker 3: Catholic and protesting that president's treatment of Buddhists in his
Speaker 3: own country. And he lit himself on fire, perfectly still
Speaker 3: and didn't move. And I think it was David halberts
Speaker 3: Stand from the New York Times who said he just
Speaker 3: keeled over. I just heard the air expel from his
Speaker 3: lungs and as his acolytes were crying. But that's a
Speaker 3: guy who had already left his body. That's a guy
Speaker 3: who was watching himself and had already left behind this avatar.
Speaker 3: So back to the observer, that's a hard thing to
Speaker 3: tear down.
Speaker 1: That's a really beautiful illustration of a very tough point.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever heard that.
Speaker 2: Well, that's this is where we get into this sort
Speaker 2: of the conversation about the observer.
Speaker 1: Well, see the problem is that they're different kinds of observation.
Speaker 1: So the next problem that I'm going to hit you
Speaker 1: with is, Okay, so you have a robot, you aren't
Speaker 1: a robot. You have something that has a metacognitive perch,
Speaker 1: and you observe your robot the breathing, that, how flush
Speaker 1: your cheeks feel, etc. From your meticognitive perch. But now
Speaker 1: the question is can you now observe your process from
Speaker 1: that perch and do the same trick that you did
Speaker 1: to your cheeks or does that thing resist observation. That
Speaker 1: something I've discussed with Sam Altman, whether or not consciousness
Speaker 1: beyond large language models, has to do with defeating a
Speaker 1: recursion property, where how do you observe the observer observing
Speaker 1: the observer observing. You know, that's a huge problem because
Speaker 1: if that doesn't self terminate, it's.
Speaker 3: Like, well, you know, sam Alman studies Vedanta, So sam
Speaker 3: Alman is very much in this camp. And and if
Speaker 3: you your guru, your goodbye or whatever is, will tell
Speaker 3: you that later on, as you start to cultivate the observer,
Speaker 3: I think it's called socty you you will then you
Speaker 3: will then very subtly start practicing observing the observer.
Speaker 2: All right, this is where to your point?
Speaker 1: Well, so my claim is is that either you're going
Speaker 1: to do something, which is to introduce something called a
Speaker 1: recursion limit, which.
Speaker 2: Is what stops we get to the point where the mirrors.
Speaker 1: Well, if I ask you what is one divided by
Speaker 1: three to infinite precision as a as a fraction, as
Speaker 1: sorry as a decimal, you're supposed to say, I've given
Speaker 1: you twelve digits and it's enough already. Otherwise the computer
Speaker 1: breaks now that or you could try to say, look,
Speaker 1: I'm going to observe the process of generating that fraction
Speaker 1: and let that be the observation. So I don't know
Speaker 1: how this gets settled, but ultimately there's there are multiple
Speaker 1: problems of observation in human life, and some of them
Speaker 1: are biochemical, some of them are physical. And my claim
Speaker 1: is that gravity is the observer. That is, yeah, that
Speaker 1: a choice, an Einsteinian choice of three rulers, one watch,
Speaker 1: and six protractors is the act of observing the fourteen
Speaker 1: dimensional space.
Speaker 2: The choice of using those.
Speaker 1: You may not know which ones you've chosen, but you
Speaker 1: see one, Well, how is that gravity? So imagine that
Speaker 1: Einstein has already convinced the world who follows general relativity
Speaker 1: that the choice of a Lorenzian metric is what generates gravity.
Speaker 1: That's something that you can blame me for not being
Speaker 1: a good explainer, but that is what's in the world currently.
Speaker 1: My claim is, if you think about this room, you
Speaker 1: might be led into air saying, what's the temperature in
Speaker 1: the room? Oh, it's sixty eight degrees fahrenheit? Well, is
Speaker 1: it sixty eight degrees fahrenheit everywhere in the room? How
Speaker 1: would you sample the various temperatures that are in the room.
Speaker 1: So imagine that you had, for example, a string of thermometers,
Speaker 1: and you had the string somehow arrayed through the room.
Speaker 1: You'd get a different reading at every point. There might
Speaker 1: there'd be some variation. Maybe you'd have a sheet of thermometers,
Speaker 1: and depending upon how high low bent curved, you'd get
Speaker 1: a bunch of readings across the sheet. Well, that's effectively
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is that you have some four dimensional
Speaker 1: object which seems to generate the universe, and then you
Speaker 1: have a choice of how to attach three watches, three rulers,
Speaker 1: one watch, and six protractors to that.
Speaker 2: You have a choice of how to measure it.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, now, how to get a collection of measuring devices?
Speaker 1: You have different measuring like this could be a foot,
Speaker 1: this could be a foot. You have to decide what
Speaker 1: a foot is in the ex direction, what a foot
Speaker 1: is in the wide erect.
Speaker 3: But when you write a script, you've got to decide
Speaker 3: what point of the story do you want to start? Yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know if that's an analogy, but did You've
Speaker 3: got to kind of say, why on this day have
Speaker 3: we started the story?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: You know? Okay? Well, if you wanted to do it
Speaker 1: in screenwriting, you might say that, according to Save the Cat,
Speaker 1: there are forty beats in a film on average, and
Speaker 1: each beat is a measure of the change in the
Speaker 1: emotional cadence of a screenplay.
Speaker 3: I just you're just such a polymath and I can't
Speaker 3: believe you read Save the Cat. You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: The guy just knows, like literally, you want to talk
Speaker 3: about anything, and he's Blake Schneider and yeah, by the way,
Speaker 3: Save the Cat.
Speaker 1: That's your Well, I'm just trying to meet you where
Speaker 1: you are.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I know, and I get it, I
Speaker 2: get it, but but but.
Speaker 1: So som gravity Let's go back to gravity is a
Speaker 1: choice of rulers, watches, and protractors. And I'm saying, no, no,
Speaker 1: look at all of the rulers, all of the watches,
Speaker 1: all of the protractors on the four dimensional space. Take
Speaker 1: them in their totality, not just the ones that Einstein's
Speaker 1: they get picked up by the equation.
Speaker 2: How do you choose all those?
Speaker 1: How do you?
Speaker 2: I mean, where are they? Why did you come up
Speaker 2: with all a bunch of different ones?
Speaker 1: Well, this is what I'm trying to say about your
Speaker 1: temperature reading, is that if you look at your nest
Speaker 1: thing on the wall and it says sixty eight degrees,
Speaker 1: where's that sensor?
Speaker 2: You're suggesting that there are different temperatures in this room.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, So it's a little weird that we've chosen one.
Speaker 3: But you figured out a way, at least according to
Speaker 3: your equations, to measure all the temperatures in the room.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I'm saying first of all, that the particles
Speaker 1: that we are are not dancing on a four dimensional stage.
Speaker 1: They're dancing on a fourteen dimensional stage. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you and I both go to a we both
Speaker 1: take our daughters to see Taylor Swift. Okay, I'm behind
Speaker 1: a post and you've got floor seats.
Speaker 2: Yeah that's right, damn right. Sorry.
Speaker 3: I just like to assert dominance because I don't like
Speaker 3: how smart. So if anywhere I can get a little edge,
Speaker 3: but keep going.
Speaker 2: I'm right there. Yeah, she's waving to me.
Speaker 1: Probably. So you asked me, how is the show like lousy?
Speaker 1: How is the show awesome? Same show? But somehow we
Speaker 1: sampled that show from two very different places?
Speaker 3: Or for example, it's a great way to put it,
Speaker 3: because if I'm in a plane flying over Belize versus
Speaker 3: being on the ground in Belize, right, it's just two
Speaker 3: very different I mean, it's just when I look at
Speaker 3: a piano, it's a box until it's touched the right
Speaker 3: way and then it's a piano.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you could think about another version of this,
Speaker 1: the Matrix I think it was during maybe it was
Speaker 1: the Matrix first sequel. You had the computer composed the
Speaker 1: scenes with enough three dimensional information that they could then
Speaker 1: try lots of different virtual cameras going through the scene.
Speaker 1: So the scene always happened the same way, but there
Speaker 1: were so many different possibilities for how to record it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and so in effect, it's where you're standing in
Speaker 3: the question you're asking right.
Speaker 1: Well, that the claim is is that that scene existed
Speaker 1: with three dimensions worth of information, and the final cut
Speaker 1: of the film was one choice of a traveling path
Speaker 1: of a camera of a virtual camera. So effectively we've
Speaker 1: been blinded from our fourteen dimensional reality, if I'm correct,
Speaker 1: by the fact that this appears all wheeze as four dimensions.
Speaker 1: So if you imagine that you're in a let's say
Speaker 1: you're in a submarine and you've got a periscope. The
Speaker 1: periscope is a device from taking data from the above
Speaker 1: the surface world and creating a two dimensional image that
Speaker 1: you can see, so you can point out a polar bear,
Speaker 1: maybe there's an orchi dorsal fin and there's a ice
Speaker 1: glacier calving or whatever. All of those things are choices
Speaker 1: about how to point the periscope. We don't know what's
Speaker 1: making this choice effectively, but I believe that what's going
Speaker 1: on is that you and I are dancing in fourteen
Speaker 1: dimensions and we're taking some four dimensional slice and saying
Speaker 1: that's reality.
Speaker 3: And is that because of our limited visual and sensory apparatus.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think it's fundamentally, it's.
Speaker 2: Fundamental mat So what I'm saying is.
Speaker 1: That we are the composite of a four and a
Speaker 1: fourteen dimensional space.
Speaker 2: We are a composite of that.
Speaker 1: But then, first of all, when I say we, I'm
Speaker 1: there's a general issue that I have with physics which
Speaker 1: I don't know how to get around, which is that
Speaker 1: I believe that we get very narcissistic when it comes
Speaker 1: to physics. We want physics to be about us at
Speaker 1: a deep level, and I see no indication that physics
Speaker 1: is about us. So we experience it, we are made
Speaker 1: of it. It is everything that we know, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to deeply care about us. And so what
Speaker 1: I'm claiming is that the mathematics that lead to this world.
Speaker 1: As I understand it, it starts off with four dimensions,
Speaker 1: but with no rulers, no protractors, and no watches. And
Speaker 1: then it grows the space of all possible rulers, watches,
Speaker 1: and protractors. So four begets fourteen out of itself. So
Speaker 1: I call this indogenous dimensions. It's not extra dimensions you're
Speaker 1: slapping on. The four dimensions contain the blueprint for the fourteen.
Speaker 1: So think about it.
Speaker 2: It's almost a model for the fourteen.
Speaker 1: Would you say that a fertilized egg is almost a
Speaker 1: model for a blastosphere? And then would you say that
Speaker 1: a blastosphere is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a Well, it's a little bit like I
Speaker 3: could take a piano and scatter it on the ground
Speaker 3: and call it a piano. Technically it is, but it's
Speaker 3: not until it's just it's in its form and it
Speaker 3: knows how to be touched the right way.
Speaker 1: I guess there's very few things that construct themselves.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 3: Aerosol said that if something about if wood making was
Speaker 3: in nature, then ships would occur in nature. I mean,
Speaker 3: if the wood making was inherent to the wood, then
Speaker 3: ships would exist.
Speaker 1: Well, this is why the unmoved mover is like a
Speaker 1: boundary condition, right, And so what I'm claiming is I'm
Speaker 1: not here to solve or try to solve, or pretend
Speaker 1: to solve. Why is there something rather than nothing that's
Speaker 1: way above my pay grade? My quest was, what is
Speaker 1: the minimal something that one has to assume to get everything?
Speaker 2: What is the minimal something?
Speaker 1: Yes, the minimal something appears to be four degrees of freedom,
Speaker 1: so roughly speaking, treble, mid base and reverb or salty, sweet,
Speaker 1: sour and bitter. Any four degrees of freedom, you know,
Speaker 1: let's get more john on a little bit less ringo.
Speaker 2: Isn't that sort of Francis Bacon's thing? Though?
Speaker 3: Wasn't Bret Bacon's contribution the idea that you can understand
Speaker 3: the universe using models, using rudimentary models. So if this
Speaker 3: works this way on this small scale, that's probably how
Speaker 3: the entire universe works. I mean, wasn't that the beginning
Speaker 3: of that?
Speaker 2: Or is that? Am I off? I don't really know? Okay, good, good, Eric,
Speaker 2: I'll educate you. Francis Bacon. But models models is a
Speaker 2: jew I have to avoid me. And that's a good point.
Speaker 2: But modeling and models, oh, it's delicious, it's very Listen,
Speaker 2: I'm going to force some bacon down you throw. I'll
Speaker 2: disguise as a sushi, you know.
Speaker 3: But that's that's uh, that is sort of You've got
Speaker 3: to start with a model to explain how the rest
Speaker 3: of the whole shebang works.
Speaker 2: It's all we have.
Speaker 1: Well to be blunt about it. I don't know where
Speaker 1: this is going to end up. Assume that I've made
Speaker 1: a terrible, catastrophic error and I'm boring your audience with
Speaker 1: what is effectively a bizarre ahab like tale of chasing
Speaker 1: a whale. You know. Then it's interesting because it's interesting
Speaker 1: that a guy can spend forty years avoiding all sorts
Speaker 1: of things that would have brought, you know, much more
Speaker 1: advantage to his family just to do this. Let's assume
Speaker 1: for the moment that it's actually sane. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's a comparable experience. Most things have a precedent, So
Speaker 1: you'll notice that nobody searches for land masses anymore. It
Speaker 1: was very interesting that in Gilligan's Island, the theme song says,
Speaker 1: the ship sunk ground on the shores of this uncharted
Speaker 1: desert isle. What do you mean uncharted desert Isle. So
Speaker 1: the last land mass? I love this question, and maybe
Speaker 1: I've used it on podcasts before, but do you know
Speaker 1: what the last land mass to be found was?
Speaker 2: I don't think so.
Speaker 1: And that interesting question. Do you know when? I mean?
Speaker 3: My guess would be something like Antarctica, which is an ocean.
Speaker 1: Early twentieth century. Yeah, and it's some island, some sizable
Speaker 1: island off the coast of Siberia.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So certain games come to an end. Nobody thinks I
Speaker 1: am going to be the first person to find new
Speaker 1: land on Earth. This hasn't happened yet. One of the
Speaker 1: problems with coming up trying to do a theory of everything,
Speaker 1: which again is not a theory of everything. The technical
Speaker 1: trade name theory of everything refers to a complete set
Speaker 1: of rules for the universe, not a knowledge of what
Speaker 1: can be done with those rules. So imagine that you're
Speaker 1: learning chess by observing people and you've never seen, for example,
Speaker 1: a an ompissant move. You know, wait a minute, I
Speaker 1: didn't know that the pond could do that. And then
Speaker 1: you try it again, You're like, no, no, no, it
Speaker 1: only can do that if it hasn't moved previously, or
Speaker 1: something like this, then you see castling like what is
Speaker 1: up with this crazy stuff? And then you see somebody, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, game time out because two people haven't captured
Speaker 1: a piece and they've just been chasing each other around
Speaker 1: the chessboard. So you learn more and more rules, and
Speaker 1: they get more and more exotic as you go out.
Speaker 1: When you finally know the last rule of chess, so
Speaker 1: that you're not going to be surprised, every top player
Speaker 1: knows all the rules of chess, and there are even
Speaker 1: these things I don't know if you ever know about
Speaker 1: chess jokes. Chess jokes are when there's a badly specified
Speaker 1: rule and somebody will make up a position to show
Speaker 1: that that rule isn't clear enough. When you finally know
Speaker 1: all the rules of chess, you have a theory of
Speaker 1: everything for chess. It doesn't mean you can play chess
Speaker 1: at all, and you might be lousy, but at least
Speaker 1: you're not going to be surprised. Wait, you move two
Speaker 1: pieces at once, Well, that's just castling.
Speaker 3: In fighting that they talk about that like a veteran
Speaker 3: seen all the looks he's seen every look Like you've
Speaker 3: got your trips, you've got your judo, you've got your sambo.
Speaker 3: You've got your greco, you've got your freestyle wrestling, you've
Speaker 3: got your striking, you've got your kicking. You know, you've
Speaker 3: got your muy Thai, you've got your Dutch kickboxing. You've
Speaker 3: seen a lot of looks. You're not going to fool
Speaker 3: a veteran, not all that fancy.
Speaker 1: It isn't going to work well.
Speaker 2: But look, it doesn't mean to be a champion, but you.
Speaker 1: Can highly unlikely, but imagine that somebody says, oh, you've
Speaker 1: never seen the spinning nose before, you've seen elbows. Yeah, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's a gopher broke move. It's very very rare.
Speaker 2: That's right, right, It's called the woodpecker exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So don't tell me. We got to wrap this up,
Speaker 3: but I could talk forever. You should do that, I mean,
Speaker 3: because I want to get you know, because you said
Speaker 3: a long time ago to me, you teased me and ruin,
Speaker 3: You ruined the whole evening. We're having dinner, and uh, well, Eric,
Speaker 3: what's your theory or anything? And you said something like, well,
Speaker 3: singularity might already be here, we might already be rep
Speaker 3: self represented machine.
Speaker 1: With all due respect, you are conflating many dinners you're
Speaker 1: turning me into Look, whenever you invite Eric, it's thirty
Speaker 1: minutes of heavy depression and then he's exiting. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: comforted enough. You're always.
Speaker 3: I've never had you go to dinner where my guests
Speaker 3: didn't say, I want more of that guy.
Speaker 1: So you're very kind. Let's have another session where we
Speaker 1: actually talk more about this thing. What it's import is,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry if I was digressive. I would like to
Speaker 1: just say one thing, which is that both you and
Speaker 1: I have talked about feeling that neither the Democratic machinery
Speaker 1: nor the Trump machinery represents most Americans and what most
Speaker 1: people want for the country, ourselves and our future. And
Speaker 1: I just think it's very dangerous that in part whatever
Speaker 1: just happened politically polarized the country to such an extent
Speaker 1: that that shared concept of America is almost nowhere to
Speaker 1: be found, because these sort of two camps drain all
Speaker 1: of the oxygen in the room from anything moderate and
Speaker 1: decent that isn't focused on some sort of purity whatever,
Speaker 1: And that right now you and I are leae sort
Speaker 1: of in a world in which the podcasting thing that
Speaker 1: we both do is playing an outsized role. Very helpful
Speaker 1: for correcting the systemic distortions of mainstream and legacy media,
Speaker 1: but incredibly dangerous in terms of not presenting the forefront
Speaker 1: of thought that effectively, you'll have choices that we make.
Speaker 1: And you know, one of the things that I see
Speaker 1: and you see is that we know tons of people
Speaker 1: who are super interesting that aren't on the podcast circuit,
Speaker 1: with points of view that, if they were on the
Speaker 1: podcast circuit, you know, might chain the world. But by
Speaker 1: virtue of the fact that you see the same people
Speaker 1: interviewed over and over again and on the same topics,
Speaker 1: somehow somebody has to figure out how to use podcasting
Speaker 1: to explore the great unspoken for.
Speaker 2: That's the goal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I want to do. I'd love to
Speaker 3: do it with you, you know, because your guidance would
Speaker 3: be you know, it's not guidance.
Speaker 1: We're two guys fumbling around. I mean. One of the
Speaker 1: things that I just very much appreciate is that when
Speaker 1: I moved back to Los Angeles after thirty seven years away,
Speaker 1: you took it on yourself to be the one man
Speaker 1: welcoming committee. And one of the things that you wanted
Speaker 1: to indicate to me is just how intellectually dynamic that
Speaker 1: supposedly vapid City is, which is an old belief of
Speaker 1: mine that basically it's posing as the entertainment capital, but
Speaker 1: entertainment has to hire all sorts of geeks to get
Speaker 1: everything right. Plus it's an aerospace city built on an
Speaker 1: oil field, and people just don't see the actual city
Speaker 1: that has Caltech UCLA and all of these just wonders here.
Speaker 1: So it would be great fun to explore that with you.
Speaker 3: I agree with Eric because I think the liability of
Speaker 3: podcasts is that it's very hard for a regular comedian,
Speaker 3: whoever it might be, myself and everything, to know when
Speaker 3: they're being fed a lie or something that's been rebutted
Speaker 3: by the mass consensus of science or whatever it might be.
Speaker 3: So you allow that person to continue to talk after
Speaker 3: they've made a claim, and we kind of accept that
Speaker 3: claim without saying, hey, I know about this, Sorry, I
Speaker 3: got to stop you. Where'd you come up with that conclusion? Well,
Speaker 3: that bucks against everything, and that's where expertise actually does matter.
Speaker 1: Well, and just to riff, there's that. But now there's
Speaker 1: like a new, really significant problem that I don't know
Speaker 1: how to discuss, which is experts have allowed themselves to
Speaker 1: lie in relatively narrow areas. Of consequence, and the finding
Speaker 1: out that experts have this division between the esoteric and
Speaker 1: the exoteric. The exoteric is what they show the world,
Speaker 1: and the esoteric is what they privately believe. So, for example,
Speaker 1: scientists who were focused on COVID exoterically did not contradict
Speaker 1: the public health apparatus, and in particular the attempt to
Speaker 1: localize the origin of COVID to the wet market rather
Speaker 1: than to the one institute of virology. Why because in general,
Speaker 1: everybody knew that their funding was potentially dependent on them
Speaker 1: falling in line. So you have these experts who are
Speaker 1: made precarious. There's a fad for saying, oh, a bunch
Speaker 1: of cowards. Okay, well, if you're willing to take your
Speaker 1: kids out of school and to not make your mortgage
Speaker 1: payments like these boys do not play nice and they
Speaker 1: don't mess around, they will just destroy your life and
Speaker 1: your ability to function. And what we've done is we've
Speaker 1: allowed our scientists to lie to the public in a
Speaker 1: very narrow area to support the sort of out of
Speaker 1: control national security complex or this very large agreements on
Speaker 1: public health and all of these things and in that world,
Speaker 1: we don't realize. No, the experts are much less confused,
Speaker 1: but they are being squeezed. You don't realize how precarious
Speaker 1: a virologists is. And by making our scientific class, which
Speaker 1: I considered to be our deadly ninja priests, precarious, they
Speaker 1: are no longer able to serve the public interest. What
Speaker 1: we've done right now with the Trump people coming in
Speaker 1: is that they have the attitude of what scientists. Well,
Speaker 1: Fauci showed us that science is bullshit, and I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a tremendous amount of baby and very little bathwater.
Speaker 1: And do I agree that the bath water is feted
Speaker 1: and horrific. Yeah, it's terrible. And the way that you
Speaker 1: got there is that you allowed previous administrations to make
Speaker 1: science a worse and worse and worse career path for
Speaker 1: Americans who would stand up, who would be courageous, and
Speaker 1: who would say no. And so one of the things
Speaker 1: that I'm dying to do is to stop the idea
Speaker 1: that either there's no problem with our experts. Clearly there's
Speaker 1: a problem with our experts. And the issue of are
Speaker 1: there no experts? Are you stupid? Do you really believe
Speaker 1: there are no experts. You really believe that wealth and
Speaker 1: power doesn't get the best diagnostician when a family member
Speaker 1: is sick. Do you not believe that these guys know
Speaker 1: who to hire if their family member is kidnapped overseas? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are experts everywhere, and you have a claim on
Speaker 1: them as an ordinary podcast listener, And you're being driven
Speaker 1: to hate your own experts who serve you so that
Speaker 1: you will punish them and punish them, and then they
Speaker 1: will just say, screw the pots.
Speaker 2: But I'm worried about them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3: I'm worried about the demonization of big pharma. Big Pharma
Speaker 3: is they do a lot of things that are unethical.
Speaker 3: But you got to know you can't attack these things
Speaker 3: with a blunt instrument. You need to know how these
Speaker 3: things these You need to know how the US government
Speaker 3: actually works. It's a very complicated organism. So you can
Speaker 3: take a sledgehammer to it. Yeah, you might be getting
Speaker 3: rid of some very important stuff. I don't want to
Speaker 3: get rid of the Department of Energy. They've got sciences
Speaker 3: that track the weapons grade uranium.
Speaker 1: It's not the Department of Energy, it's the Department of Physics.
Speaker 1: And we call it the Department of Energy because Carter
Speaker 1: I think created it out of the AEC.
Speaker 2: Pretty much a political people.
Speaker 1: Well, and then we put somebody who having you know,
Speaker 1: gender dysphoria issues in charge of our nuclear waste, which
Speaker 1: was a disaster, and that means that criminal exactly. Well,
Speaker 1: when you when you have to, you can't just go
Speaker 1: and buy women's clothes as a dude.
Speaker 2: You can't wear on the internet.
Speaker 1: You have to steal him from from baggage care yourself.
Speaker 1: But look, you know another thing that we have a
Speaker 1: friend that we mutually love in Joe, and my feeling
Speaker 1: is that it's now gotten to a point where Joe
Speaker 1: has to take responsibility for how powerful he's become. And
Speaker 1: I don't think he likes that because he still identifies
Speaker 1: as the guy who just makes fart jokes into a webcam,
Speaker 1: which is how he got his start. So he built
Speaker 1: this thing from nothing, and now he's inherited responsibility that
Speaker 1: I don't think that he wants.
Speaker 3: I feel that way about like Jack Dorsey and Zuckerberg,
Speaker 3: who we're just trying to figure out a way to
Speaker 3: get people to communicate and stuff, and all of a
Speaker 3: sudden we're saying, hey, you're causing the people in Burma,
Speaker 3: the Rohingar being massacred using your Facebook technology by spreading
Speaker 3: false stories. Well, what's your safety team going to do
Speaker 3: about any right?
Speaker 1: Same thing, same thing with Sam Altman, all of these people,
Speaker 1: and and but in our situation, you know, one of
Speaker 1: the things that I think is really important is that
Speaker 1: sometimes Joe pushes back on me slightly when I'm not around.
Speaker 1: He's always very kind, but I think that we have
Speaker 1: to figure out some better way of adjudicating what's serious
Speaker 1: and what is it. So, for example, the reason I
Speaker 1: did the Terrence Howard thing is that Terrence Howard has
Speaker 1: one incontrovertible genius level contribution to me, you know, and
Speaker 1: I was happy to take. If he didn't, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have done it right. But I was kind of just shocked,
Speaker 1: Like I said, you know in this thread, Hey, can
Speaker 1: you guys check out? Like the biggest thing in forty
Speaker 1: years has happened to me and there wasn't that much interest.
Speaker 1: Now you have a situation in which whatever Joe finds
Speaker 1: fanciful or interesting that day has an outsized influence. And
Speaker 1: I'm struggling with this myself. You know, I have focused
Speaker 1: on all sorts of ways in which heterodoxy actually has
Speaker 1: a really good point. And now I've got a bunch
Speaker 1: of people in power. Previously that I was talking to
Speaker 1: a lot my friends, I think still who are not
Speaker 1: being informed by our best understanding of the world. That effectively,
Speaker 1: this is broken into loyalty clusters. Are you loyal to MAGA?
Speaker 1: Are you loyal to DEI? And my feeling is, as
Speaker 1: an American, we're not in America until I don't have
Speaker 1: to kiss a ring and I don't have to bend
Speaker 1: to me, and I don't have to pretend that I
Speaker 1: can't see what I can see, and I'm not.
Speaker 2: You said, the strength of America is being able to
Speaker 2: give you your leaders the finger.
Speaker 1: Yes, and in my opinion, it's much better. There's no
Speaker 1: reason to give a lead to the finger who says,
Speaker 1: here's the plan, here's what I think we're going to do.
Speaker 1: We need strong leadership. I need to hear now from
Speaker 1: the dissenting voices, what do you have? I'm not seeing that.
Speaker 1: And this is terrifying to me. If dissent is not
Speaker 1: a part of MAGA, we're toast because descent cannot be
Speaker 1: allowed inside of DEI. Both of these things are in
Speaker 1: danger of becoming authority cults.
Speaker 3: Well, well, that's right, I mean loyalty. When loyalty is everything,
Speaker 3: you're not going to get your what you're going to do.
Speaker 3: If you're a ruler who demands total and complete loyalty,
Speaker 3: you're going to create a circle of liars around yourself.
Speaker 1: And partially what we're seeing is we're seeing the emergers
Speaker 1: of an idea that in order to show your freedom
Speaker 1: in the new world, you should find something taboo to
Speaker 1: do repeatedly. So the most mild form of this is
Speaker 1: to use the word retarded every four seconds. And the
Speaker 1: much more disturbing thing is that you dip into Nazi
Speaker 1: ideology and you say, you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: great stuff in there that we've forgotten, like Carl Schmidt's
Speaker 1: Friend Enemy dynamics, And the idea is that we need
Speaker 1: to keep people permanently polarized all the time, up down,
Speaker 1: friend or enemy, left, right, no gray area. This is
Speaker 1: a terrifying development, it is.
Speaker 3: And if you don't know how that repackaged terrible idea
Speaker 3: manifests itself, then you need to pick up a history book.
Speaker 3: But nobody has the attention span. And even then it's
Speaker 3: like who's history you know, and all this stuff. So
Speaker 3: it's a big problem. I wonder if you and I
Speaker 3: could figure out a way to push back on that
Speaker 3: a little.
Speaker 1: Bit, or to try to explore a different paradigm whereby,
Speaker 1: like I don't view you as highly political, I don't
Speaker 1: view myself as trying.
Speaker 2: To stay responsible to the evidence.
Speaker 1: Just I try, just try.
Speaker 2: I have my bias, but I try.
Speaker 1: And you screw up, as do I. And so my
Speaker 1: feeling is is that we need we need to model
Speaker 1: something new in podcast space, and I don't exactly know what,
Speaker 1: but i'd i'd be willing to give it a try
Speaker 1: with you. I would be so honest, I'd be honest
Speaker 1: to you.
Speaker 2: I mean, just doing this, I could do this all day.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 3: I love it, and I really appreciate you coming out
Speaker 3: and doing this. I know you have to get you
Speaker 3: to your kickboxing class, and I don't want to take
Speaker 3: time away from that.
Speaker 2: Why are you laughing?
Speaker 1: Pardon me nothing, I've given up on Muay Thai years.
Speaker 1: Oh you did? Oh? Absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 2: Now it's just jiu jitsu. Now it's just grappling or.
Speaker 1: Is it dance? Yeah, it's violent ballet.
Speaker 2: It's violent ballet. I forgot about that. You should see
Speaker 2: his touria te. It ends with a wheel kick. It's fascinating.
Speaker 1: Seventh position.
Speaker 2: I gave it away. This is we do this stuff underground.
Speaker 2: You guys are in privy to that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: Bran, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: I just want more always, and your theory of everything
Speaker 3: is well. I'm looking forward to, you know, to be continued,
Speaker 3: to be contintured, to