American Alchemy with Jesse Michels - UFOs, Synchronicities & Prophetic Dreams (Ft. Eric Wargo)

Episode Date: November 30, 2024

In today's episode of American Alchemy, Jesse Michels sits down with author Eric Wargo to unravel the mysteries of time loops, precognition, and how our future selves might be influencing our present reality, weaving together insights from quantum mechanics, consciousness, and the very fabric of existence. Eric Wargo's Book "Time Loops": https://tinyurl.com/ericwargoamazon Support American Alchemy by Becoming a YouTube Member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuG2KzrIMe3qoNcuDVpwnXw/join WHOP ➤ Get access to exclusive behind the scenes episodes: https://whop.com/jessemichels/ SPOTIFY ➤ https://tinyurl.com/jessemichelsspotify DISCORD ➤ https://discord.gg/jessemichels INSTAGRAM (Personal) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichels INSTAGRAM (Show) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial TWITTER ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican EMAIL/BOOKINGS ➤ [e-mail] Timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction 00:14 - Prophecies and Self-Fulfilling Events 04:09 - Carl Jung's Scarab Beetle Story 07:28 - The Oedipus Myth and Freud's Interpretation 11:22 - Freud's Dream and Personal Precognition 15:15 - Quantum Mechanics and the Mind 19:02 - Quantum Biology and Consciousness 24:16 - Precognition and Memory Formation 28:08 - Artists and Precognition in Culture 34:11 - Prophecy in Modern Times 39:02 - Remote Viewing and Precognition 42:06 - Psychokinesis and Experimenter Effect 46:45 - Free Will and Alternative Timelines 52:05 - Survival Instincts and Precognitive Dreams 58:02 - Consciousness and Perception of Reality 01:02:04 - UFOs and Time Travel 01:09:04 - Quantum Computers and Future Communication 01:13:24 - Gravity Manipulation and Time Machines 01:19:07 - Cosmological Implications and Retrocausation 01:24:04 - Factions and Temporal Interventions 01:27:04 - Philip K. Dick's Precognitive Experiences 01:31:02 - Personal Anecdotes and Synchronicities 01:33:04 - Conclusion Original music: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6LlLRudDi60Uy4jcmOSEs1 #science #quantumphysics #syncronicity #timetravel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Study and play. Come together on a Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get the best of both worlds. Get the Unreal College deal, everything you need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft 365 premium and a year of Xbox GamePass Ultimate

with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more at Windows.com slash student offer. While supplies last, ends June 30th, turns at AKA.m.m.S. college PC. I'm here with Eric Wargo. This has been a long time coming because I think I refer to your books like in every episode that I do.

And so this is an honor. I really appreciate it. I found myself in your neck of the woods in D.C. And, you know, had to do this. And I'm really excited. You've written three books. The two that I've read are time loops and from nowhere. And they're just incredible.

In the world of kind of AI doomsdairs where that's, you know, all the rage these days, where I think people struggle to kind of separate the human mind from kind of the robotic mind that is AI. You have a new theory of mind that I think comports with a lot of people's intuitions as to how the human mind works. I want to start with a really interesting concept that you actually present at the beginning of time loops, which is this idea that often prophecies are, you get some sort of message. That message actually causes you to react in a certain way to the message. message that then manifests or causes the actual prophecy to come to fruition. And the traditional

example of this might be Oedipus. How do you explain that? What sort of model do you apply to that? If it works the way I think it works, and I think that various trends in science are converging, I think, on an actual physical explanation for how it works. If it works that way. Prophecies have to be self-fulfilling. Now, what does that mean? Events in the future are, in a sense, fixed in the same way events in the past are fixed. Now, if that's the case, any kind of time travel and precognition is really a form of time travel. It's a form of informational time travel. Cannot change history. This is a misconception. People somehow they think about precognition or they think about time travel, I think, but wait, you could go into the past and change history and

kill your grandfather and so you couldn't be born and all that. Your grandfather paradox type. That's, it's kind of faulty reasoning. And in fact, physicists in the 80s kind of did the math. I mean, they got interested in wormholes and things like that. And they did the math and found that, no, in fact, if you send a particle through a wormhole or a billiard ball through a wormhole and try to deflect it away from the wormhole, it fails. You're always going to deflect yourself into the wormhole and you're always going to be in what's called a closed time-light curve or a time loop. It means that the universe is self-consistent.

It means paradox doesn't occur. And that's the definition of paradox, something that can't occur. So any intervention in time, any backward influence, V8, information alone or via physical objects traveling through a wormhole or a time machine or something like that, that adventure in the past, whatever it is, is already part of the backstory of getting in the time machine in the future. And there's really no problem. There's really no problem with time travel or with information traveling in time. It doesn't lead to paradox.

You just have to wrap your head around the idea that, that, you now are the product of time-traveling information already. And maybe time travelers, your history, your past history includes, you know, all that time-traveling, either physical time traveling of advanced beings or, and at the very least, information in your head that's traveled back in time from your future. You now are the product of information, refluxing from your future and influence. your past and influencing your present. That's why we can say that prophecy is always self-fulfilling.

Now, that doesn't mean in a simplistic way that you have a dream and things are going to turn out exactly the way you dreamed it. There are all kinds of reasons why we don't interpret prophecies accurately. There's all kinds of reasons why the brain distorts information coming for our future. I think one of the basic things that we're precognizing is our survival. And so we're in a sort of time loop relationship to our future surviving self. And imagine that's the case for even bacteria in the primordial soup, you know, that it goes back to the beginnings of the evolution of life. It's just a new way of thinking about causation.

Yeah, it's interesting because on the one hand, I think belief in the block universe is traditionally associated with nihilism or something. It's like your future is sort of cemented in stone. And then on the other hand, what you're saying is there is sort of evolution upwards towards probably greater consciousness. And especially if artists are reaching forward into their future for kind of inspiration, you know, presumably that future is very rich and, you know, involves maybe more consciousness than is present. I do want to get into just a few examples because I think that's really powerful for kind of the average person getting into this sort of stuff because it's so trippy and not, you know, in accordance with their normal worldview. And so the example that I love is Carl Jung has this patient.

She's this kind of very inaccessible kind of hyper-rationalist patient who he can't kind of get through to. Obviously, Carl Jung is this contemporary of Freud's, but who's even trippier in many ways than Freud. And he sees her and she comes in and she says, look, I had this dream last night that I was gifted this golden scarab beetle and it was this really meaningful thing to me she doesn't quite know what to make of it and as she's telling recounting the story she sees a scarab beetle coming down off the window seal and uh he then takes the scarab beetle and gifts it to her and it's this like mind blowing super meaningful thing for her that like changes her paradigm and so it's the uh attentional patterns of actually knowing the sort of prophecy or the dream the precognitive dream

changing her reaction, her being aware of that dream actually caused the whole thing to happen, which I just find so fascinating. That's my favorite example of a time loop. That's the one I always use. When people ask me what a time loop is, that's the example. Because it's so perfect, it shows exactly how a dream changes behavior and the behavior leads to the outcome in an unforeseen way. I mean, she couldn't have known, you know, I mentioned how dreams, you know, they show us the future, but not in a very clear way and often in a not directly intentionally actionable way. But they had changed our behavior like being deflected by, you know, like billiards being deflected.

You know, it's like it's a, that was a billiard ball from her future, which deflected her to this experience in her therapist's office the next day. And lo and behold, that experience that it deflected her toward was what she dreamed about. But she couldn't have known that when she had the dream. So, yeah, that's a beautiful, beautiful example. Do you have any other examples that you love? Oh, so many. I mean, another one would be just Oedipus, which is obviously sort of mythological. But do you want to tell that story?

Yeah, well, I mean, there's a lot to say about Oedipus, because, I mean, If anyone, you know, if anyone knows anything about Oedipus these days, it's, they're going to be thinking about, oh, Sigmund Freud, you know, because of the Oedipus complex and all that. And he, you know, he focused, well, this Oedipus story is that this, there's this prophecy that this young prince of Thebes is going to grow up and murder his father and marry his mother. And so to evade this prophecy, when he learns about this prophecy, he flees his city. He doesn't know that he's actually been brought up in a foster or adopted family. So he flees his city, winds up killing this man at a crossroads who turns out to be his father and then winds up marrying his mother unknowingly and becoming. So he fulfills the process. It fulfills the prophecy.

exactly in his efforts to evade the prophecy. And this is, you know, this logic is, I think, crucial to how we relate to time and to our precognition, which we deny our precognition. We deny that prophecy, you know, partly because of cultural taboos and all kinds of things. the interesting thing is that Freud, I mean, he was only interested in that, that, that, that, that, that incestuous idea, like the, that part of the story. So he talked about the edifice complex and, you know, how children are sexually attracted to their, their opposite-sex parent and want to kill, because they're jealous of their same-sex parent and so on. But, you know, he, he sort of denied, he didn't believe in precognition, and he denied the, the, the rest of the story about the prophecy and all that, because, well, that's just pre-modern,

you know, superstition. The thing is, in Freud's own life, he, the dream that sort of started it all for Freud, it was a dream he had in 1895, famous dream, and he spent like 14 pages of his landmark book, interpretation of dreams, you know, interpreting this dream through free association and stuff like that. Well, like 28 years later, I think, I may be getting the number wrong. He had an, he developed an oral cancer, which like all these elements, these key elements in that dream he'd had almost three decades earlier came true in his life. And he never acknowledged that that dream was a premonition. But it's, it's like in Freud's own life, he lived out that Oedipus story.

I mean, he denied precognition. He denied prophecy. He denied, you know, the very existence and, like, patients would bring him pre-cognitive dreams all the time because people have these dreams all the time. And they would bring him their dreams and he would just explain them away in some facile way. And in his own life, he winds up denying prophecy and then developing this oral cancer, which, by the way, was caused by his smoking. And there are hints in the dream of that fact, you know. So it has been argued that, well, had he. I paid attention to this dream as a warning from his future.

You know, he might have quit smoking and all that. That gets into these problems we talked about earlier of time loops and foreclosing a foreseen future. It doesn't work as simply as that. But that, yes, so that's another way in which we fulfill a prophecy by denying it or ignoring it or shutting it aside. So I think that's a hugely important archetype for modern people because we live in a culture that denies that the future can influence us, especially in dreams. And, you know, what effect does that, what impact does that have on our mental health, on our fortunes? That's absolutely fascinating, because you think of Freud as believing that most people are sort of repressed and they're, have sort of an ego and an id, and the id is sort of this compartmentalized, savage self or something,

you know, all these repressed desires. And so maybe the id for him was in some ways realizing that, like, his own work was actually sort of somewhat autobiographical. Because I think, you know, he did have that interesting relationship with his own mother. Yeah. And so, you know, it's like, yeah, who watches the watchman or whatever? He's this like preeminent psychologist, but in fact, you know, maybe a lot of his own work and theories are actually projection of his own subconscious. Well, it's his, this is why I think Freud is so interesting and important in all this, because even though he didn't believe in precognition, per se, his theory, his what sometimes called his meta-psychology, which is that that's that kind of layered model of the consciousness where you have the tip of the iceberg, that's the conscious self, and then this buried, submerged. unconscious. That theory of the unconscious is super important, and it's a ready-made theory of precognition, because really precognition manifests in all the ways that interested Freud in his

career. So being with dreams, that's the number one way that people become aware that they are precognitive, is through having precognitive dreams, but also they manifest in waking life in these kinds of what he called the psychopathology of everyday life, which is, that was the title of his second book, which is things like slips of the tongue and what we now call synchronicities. You didn't have that word yet. That was a term introduced by Carl Jung. You know, more generally just having a random thought about an old friend and then seeing

him on the street, you know, like that. It's a very typical experience. And other like foibles, like neurotic symptoms or whatever that that, that, all these all these kind of quirks of human behavior that's how precognition that's how it gets our attention that's how we experience it and creativity

which is the subject of my most recent book and my next book that's coming so it's a ready made it's a ready made theory to understand precognition we just have to the way I always put it you know you okay you picture the iceberg

with the tip on top and the submerged base. But, you know, usually we think of time as an axis, an x-axis, you know, running from left to right. So tip the iceberg on its side and just think of that future, that big submerged part. That's just, that's the future. It's we, we don't know the future yet. We can't interpret, we can't correctly interpret all this, this information coming at us and manifesting in all these oblique, indirect, symbolic ways. But, that's where it's coming from. It's not coming from some suburbished layer of thought that we're not aware of, because that's kind of a paradoxical idea anyway. It makes much more sense to think of that

the unconscious as our future consciousness that's impacting us now. Yeah, it's interesting. It's like you get shards of it. You know, I often think when I have these sort of conversations with the AI dogmatic people, you know, I think AI is going to take over everything. I always say, well, I think the human mind works in it fundamentally distinct way. And I often cite your book, which has a really interesting model of the mind as kind of a hybrid quantum classical computer. And the very creative and interesting idea that you bring up, and Robert Lanza and biocentrism also sort of touches on that there's temporal nonlocality in quantum systems. So, you know, you can do a double slit experiment in the future. it seems like one interpretation, it's affecting one done with an entangled photon in the past.

And you can even reverse qubit positions in quantum computations. And so a lot of people even who are working on quantum computers, obviously the bottleneck is the hardware and getting the chips to work, have hypothesized that you can send information back in time on the semantic application layer in a hypothetical working quantum computer. And so if our brain is a quantum computer, system, which people as prominent as Roger Penrose has, have hypothesized, maybe we can glitch into the future and access some of this information, send it back in time. I think this is going to be, I think what you're describing, the kind of use of quantum computers as a, or Tesseract is the kind of a term I use from science fiction, as like he's four-dimensional

information processors and communication devices. I mean, I think that is really, really, really, it's kind of the link. It's going to be, it's the link that's going to lead to true time travel. I think, um, uh, because it's that informational time travel, uh, that, you know, that's already happening. You can look at biological systems as models for how it works. Uh, and yeah, in a quantum computer, you can theoretically scale up the, that causal indeterminacy that's happening on the, the quantum level. You can scale that up into a like a usable, you know, object that you can measure at two time points and get, you know, get a sort of output prior to an input in a sense. Yes. And you scale that up in a quantum computer server that you leave plugged in for many years. It really opens the doorway to actually communicating across time. This is the, this is the really cool premise of William Gibson's, the peripheral. I don't know. read the book or seen the series.

The series is actually really quite good. It's the premise is that this video gamer in the American South, you know, around now is in this, like, in this advanced sim and flying this drone in this like futuristic city. And she thinks it's a sim, whatever. And she sees this character getting murdered, like she thinks it's an NPC getting murdered. But then she gets a call via quantum computer server. from this publicist who lives in London in like the 22nd century. And he tells her that, in fact, what she witnessed, she was actually piloting a real drone in future London via a quantum computer server

and had witnessed a real murder. And so he, like, enlists her aid in solving the murder, this murder across, you know, a century, you know. It's a really cool premise. but I think William Gibson is really prescient, obviously. I mean, he foregold cyberspace, essentially. And I think this is the next, I think this is the next thing. And I think people who are thinking about quantum computing simply from the standpoint of

just speeding up number crunching or whatever, like really missing, missing the boat. I think it's absolutely the next thing. And the idea that the body is warm, wet, and noisy and not, you know, actually a good, conducive to quantum coherence. is slowly being destroyed. It's going out to wind. You have quantum biology. You have enzyme creation using quantum tunneling. You have birds navigating home using the CRY4 protein spin, which is basically a kind of a magnetometer.

It's detecting the magnetic field of the Earth and allowing them to do that. And you have other examples as well. And these things are getting proven out over and over and over again. And I think actually, have you familiar with Rupert Sheldrake by any chance? Yeah, sure. So, like, I think he doesn't have, you know, really clear mathematical models around how any of this stuff works. But he has really good experiments showing that humans in their bodies often just instinctively know when certain things are about to happen. And it's almost like we become, you know, it's like we know that, or animals know that earthquakes are about to happen.

kids know when their parents are near. And it's almost like you get overeducated. You get your elite Western liberal education or whatever, and you unlearn that. But that's, of course, like, incredibly instinctive. It makes total sense. And even prosaically, if you think about how the mind learns, it is in low sample size.

You come out of the womb with, like, you know, a fear of snakes and with a chomsky and pregrammer for certain things. And that's not how a classical computer works. You need to, you know, look at like the large length. language models that Open AI is using, you're running the internet through that thing. Like, those are two very different things. So I think we have to be open to this quantum, you know, precognizance of the future model. Absolutely.

I mean, I think that, you know, Stuart Hammeroff, I'm sure you know his word on microtubules. I think that's going to be the, I think microtubule are probably going to be the mechanism here. I think there are many quantum, like I say in time loops, I think the brain, A lot of people simplistically say, oh, the brain is a quantum computer. It's not that simple. It's a hybrid. It's a hybrid of classical and quantum systems, you know, mesh. We understand at this point, you know, through decades of neuroimaging and, and neuroscience that we have at this point, we understand really well that classical, the classical circuit level, you know, way in which the brain takes input from the senses and controls the body and all that, you know, in a way that you can.

can liken to a, you know, a computer chip and a robot. You know, it's just way more complicated than that. But we, you know, that, that is true. That, that classical level of computation and control over a system is, is true. But what's happening inside neurons is what we're only beginning to understand. And, and behold, these things that used to be just thought of as the bones of neurons turn out to be these really interesting, highly dynamic structures that, oh, their quantum, you know, they're, it's already been shown that they are superconductors, which really suggests

that, yeah, these quantum relationships are going on. Yeah, what was that study that came out a few months ago, that they're super radiant. Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah, there's been a bunch of stuff coming out from this team that Hammeroff works with, and I don't, forgetting their names. But yeah, there's a lot of cool stuff coming out. But the thing is, I think that, you know, I almost think that Hammeroff could almost win the Nobel Prize for this work

if he wasn't focused on consciousness. I think consciousness is really kind of a red herring in all this. He's wanting to show how this generates consciousness. But I think... And just for people that don't know, the way he tries, the way he got onto this is Penrose created this theoretical model for the brain being a quantum system, which is kind of answering this age-old question

of why we see discrete macroscopic reality in kind of general relativity form when actually it's sort of probabilistic, you know, and it's, you know, underlying at least subatomic nature. Like, where does that cutoff occur? And so he writes the emperor's mind or something. And then the emperor's new mind, I think, is the one with Hamroff. Hammerov is this anesthesiologist who realizes that when you shut down the microtubules, the rest of the body is running as if it's totally alive, but consciousness shuts down. And so he thinks it's the center of consciousness.

Well, that ended up itself as an interesting point. But I think focusing on the question of consciousness, you know, it's such a fraught area. You know, it's, you know, someone on Twitter a couple of last month posted a graph of like 200 different theories of consciousness, you know. And they all, you know, I'm sympathetic to a lot of these, you know, both the hard materialist versus the, you know, even in the limb, Limitative materialist explanations and the panpsych Yeah, they're all interesting.

I think you can learn from all of them. But I don't think any physical explanation is going to satisfyingly explain consciousness. Yeah. And so it's kind of a hopeless,

hopeless task to like try and try and say, here's the answer to consciousness with this one physical process. It's a very interesting physical process, but I don't think he's going to convince people, you know, with that. But these microtubules he's studying are, I think, the basis for precognition.

Because if they're quantum computers, if they can then theoretically do what we were talking about, which is scale up this ability to sort of have a system where you're measuring at one point and then measuring the second point and then getting information refluxing from that second measurement and reading it out in the past, you know, you string a lot of those together in some system. Well, then you have a precognitive circuit. And what's fascinating about microtubules is that these control the shape of the cell. They control, they control like the dendrites and axons, you know, forming new connections. And they control the size of a synaptic connection.

Like, you know, when you have a memory forming, they will expand that synaptic connection to facilitate that memory. So they're in charge of memory formation. And if precognition is a form of memory, as I argue, and as a lot of people have argued, then right there you have a potential mechanism. You have a potential physical mechanism to explain this thing that has been rejected for centuries because, oh, it's impossible. It's, you know, has no physical basis. Well, I think we are now converging on a possible physical mechanism. I mean, that's a testable hypothesis at the very least.

When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos, work? Use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job posts the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this shell will get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. Have you heard of a Russian scientist with the last name Lieberman, L-I-B-E-R, okay. Two friends of mine,

Deneal and David Lieberman, they previously worked at Snapchat. They're absolute geniuses. They sort of resemble like Bond villains or something. They like have this mind melt going on. They use one phone. They're very eccentric. Their father, New Hamerov,

or I think New Penrose, rather, and was really interested in cytoskeletal learning. But okay, I have a different possible candidate outside of microtubules for a quantum system inside the brain. And this is not, I would say, mutually exclusive with microtubules. But are you familiar with the Codate nucleus and the potamon? So Gary Nolan studies this stuff. And, you know, that's just part of the basal ganglion and the dorsal striatum of the brain. And if you hook somebody up to an fMRI while they're playing the game Go, you know, this more complex East Asian.

version of chess, when they make a brilliant move. And what defines a brilliant move is a move that doesn't make any sense in the context of like the incremental go forward rational decision. It only makes sense in the context of an endpoint in which the person wins. So it's often based on the other person slipping up or whatever, their adversary slipping up. That part of the brain lights up in an fMRI. And so, and then that part of the brain, according to Gary Nolan, is also much more neuronally dense when you see a greater preponderance of UFOs and you have more premonition, you're a little more psychic. And so I wonder if that is not part of the quantum processing at the very least. Well, the quantum processing would be, again,

it would be going on within the cells in that brain area. But that's, that makes perfect sense. That system is part of the reward system. And so it's, it's involved in our, registration of rewards, our learning based on rewards, our predictions based on past rewards. And that system, I think, is central. You know, it's kind of central classically in that classical computer model in terms of the organism, you know, changing its behavior based on rewards and getting excited about possible future rewards and anticipated rewards and all that. So that's what that system is doing.

But all the neurons in all parts of the brain have those microtubules and have those quantum components in them. So yeah, I mean, that's, that's going to, I'm sure that's going to somehow prove to be important in, you know, in future decades when we understand this stuff better. And in time loops and from nowhere, you have so many just fascinating. examples and kind of the zeitgeist and culture of precognition. And so I don't know if you want to, you know, just cite some of those like Michael Richards, this resident artist and the Twin Towers. Do you remember that one? Yeah, yes. His story is, it's tragic, but, you know, fascinating. He was, so Michael Richards, and this is Michael Rolando Richards, not Michael Richards, the comedian,

but Michael Rolando Richards was a sculpt. A, um, a sculptor. a black sculptor in the 90s. I mean, he was sort of an up-and-coming sculptor in the New York art world in the 90s. And he did a series of, like all of his works were like obsessed with flight. And he would do these sculptural self-portraits of himself as a Tuskegee airman. And the Tuskegee Airmen were black aviators in World War II, who sort of distinguished themselves, you know, in their piloting, but then we're subject to all the racism that you might expect.

And anyway, he would portray himself as a Tuskegee airman. In some sculptures, he had crashed to the ground, or he had tried to parachute or was trying to parachute into a target that was too small. And in the sculpture that made him most famous, which he did in 1999, while he was he was in Miami, he portrayed himself as a Tuskegee Airman standing vertically erect and levitating off the ground and being impaled by airplanes, by a bunch of airplanes. And the sculpture is called Tar Baby versus St. Sebastian. And St. Sebastian was the medieval saint who, you know, was always depicted like pierced by arrows. But anyway, so he depicted himself pierced

by planes as a martyr pierced by planes. Okay. So he, you know, on the base, of the strength of his work, including, I assume, that sculpture, he, and this would be another time loop, he got a, he was awarded studio space for six months in the Twin Towers. The Lower Manhattan Cultural Council had been issuing studios to like, you know, cohorts of 15 artists like for six months, you know, so two cohorts a year. And so he was part of the summer. 2001 cohort of artists. And he, alone among those artists, had stayed in his studio the night of September 10th and was killed on the morning of September 11th. So when you know that story and then you see this sculpture that he did, where he's margared and paled by planes. But the thing is, he was, people who visited his studio said that he was working on other sculptures that were similarly, like, unbelievable. Like one of them was of him riding a burning meteor. And another one was of his torso with wings.

It was called Fallen Angel. So and his other works, you know, he did some pen and pencil stuff too, including one that had a plane crash. Like a lot of sculptures of planes crashing. So crazy. So, yeah, what do you make of that? And it's, you know, but the thing is this is so common in artists. And when you delve into the lives of artists, I mean, there are a lot of famous cases. So there's a famous case that I talk about in time loops.

And you'll read about it in most any book on ESP was Morgan Robertson, who was the science fiction author at around the turn of the 20th century. Who wrote this famous novel? well, it was not famous at the time, but he wrote this novel called Futility about the collision of the biggest ever ocean liner called The Titan with an iceberg on an April night in the North Atlantic on its third voyage between Liverpool and New York. Okay. So, you know, 14 years later... And you have blue-blooded elite families on board.

Oh, and they all die because of not enough lifeboats. It's the Titanic. It's the Titanic, essentially. You know, stories like that. But the thing is when you delve into, and it's easy for skeptics to go, oh, well, you know, in a world of, you know, chance, yeah, that's going to happen, you know, sometimes. And then we single out those examples and you make something of them, but it's all just random. Well, no. I mean, when you study the lives of artists, you find this stuff happens all the time, not necessarily with big events in the news.

I mean, mostly, as with pre-cognitive dreams, it happens mostly with personal upheavals, upheavals in our own lives. Things that wouldn't necessarily even be significant to anybody else, but they are meaningful to us. And when we're dreaming or when we're creating art or whatever, those things come out. And it's just incredibly, incredibly common. I mean, I have so many, I filled this book with examples and I've got a million more. You know, I'm writing a second book on the same, you know, a similar subject with even more cases from writers. So it's just, it's a very, very common phenomenon. Yeah, it's fascinating.

I mean, the idea that profits aren't real is, that's a modern idea. That's a symptom of modernity. It's not, you know, that's kind of an aberration if you look at actually like the long time scale of human civilization. And you even, I don't know, this is a weird example, but, like, like Alex Jones, say what you will about the guy as far as some of his other beliefs. But are you familiar with, he had an on-air call on CNN where he goes, Osama bin Laden, if you take down the Twin Towers, I'm going to come after you or something. Like, it's just this absurd, like, you know, literally what happened in six months before.

And he's like on, he's on cable. You can't fake that. He's on, you know, CNN. I didn't know about that. Yeah. There's a million. I mean, there's a million. There's some.

Prophecies, whatever you want to call them of 9-11. I mean, there's simply by virtue of the fact that, you know, there was the internet already at that point, and, you know, people can now collect all that stuff and put it online. So it's like, it's an overwhelming mess of material prophesying that event. Yeah, it's fascinating. Yeah, there's so many. My dad actually is a, he's kind of a self-help author.

And he wrote a book called The Tools. and in it he talks about how he would always dream of an earthquake on January 17th, and that was both the day, that's my birthday, that's the day I was born, and then two years later, that was the Northridge quake. Oh, wow. And we live in L.A. And so, yeah, I don't know. Very interesting.

And I bet you the more people you pull, like it's this much higher percentage of people that can sort of pull these examples out than would meet the eye. One interesting instantiation of this that we've talked about, in our phone calls is you have this remote viewing program that the CIA ran. I think it was CIA and then DIA from 1972 to 1995, and it was a psychic spy program. And whenever I tell people this, they're like, no way. Like, that can't be real. But you have guys like Joseph McModigal who have won the Legion of Merit for over 200 instances in which he's helped, you know, add intelligence in very vital cases, finding hostages, you know, drawing up, you know, Russian nuclear sites,

like pretty, pretty intense, interesting stuff. And you even have Jessica Utz, who's a statistician out of Stanford, I believe, and Ray Hyman, who's a skeptic, I think, out of University of Oregon, coming in saying, you know, we expect this maybe to be debunked and, you know, coming in with a, you know, pretty scientific method going through the, you know, recently declassified documents for Stargate, that's the name of the program, and coming out saying, you know, we think there's some inexplicable thing here. And we actually think that there is sort of a psychic function when it comes to human beings. Utz did an analysis of a lot of evidence for psychic functioning, not just the Stargate program, I don't believe. And she found overwhelming evidence.

And she's been very, very vocal about this. I mean, she was the president of the American Statistical Society and stuff one year. And she's, you know, in her address that year, her presidential address, you know, she said, you know, this is, this is evidence that would be, nobody would question. It's so strong. The statistical, you know, the, the, the quality of the evidence is so strong that if it were in any other field, nobody would question this. Yes. But people, people reject it and they don't even want to see the evidence. They just, they reject, they don't even want to confront the evidence. It's fascinating. And every elite university from the Rhine Center at Duke, I think that was 1931 to 1960, and then you have SRI, you know, in the late 60s, early 70s, you have the Princeton anomalous research lab, you have Washington, Washington, Washington, St. Louis with McDonnell Douglas. They had a parapsychology program. You have a lot of these elite universities pretty open-minded when it comes to kind of mind over

matter effects and remote viewing. and you talk to anybody from those programs, and they all come out saying, yeah, we're pretty sure they're like weak effects. They're hard to instrumentalize. You know, that's hard to turn in, we can't turn them into math. We're in the stone age in this stuff, but it's real. It's like definitely real.

I've got some kind of contrarian opinions about why they say that the effects are small or why they think they get small. I want to hear your contrarian opinion. Well, I think they're very often using the wrong conceptual frameworks, understanding this stuff. I mean, I think as you probably know from hints in my work, you know, I suspect my hypothesis is that a lot of what gets called remote viewing is really precognition. And I think more and more, I think a lot of people in the remote viewing community push back on that strongly. But I think, you know, some of the key players in that community are open to that idea more and more. I mean, I think Russell Targ even has sort of come around to that idea that feedback may be important beyond just training remote viewers.

You know, maybe maybe that's what remote viewers are really seeing. They're seeing that feedback in the future. That's a really interesting point. And the thing is, if you went at it, if you studied this stuff with that in, mind, what kind of different results would you get? You know, I think people, you know, from the start of psychical research, you know, the, the, this was presumed to be telepathy. That was the model that was introduced by Frederick Myers in 1882 and the Society for Psychical Research, you know, collected all these amazing stories, amazing mountain of data, basically. And it was all interpreted in this

mode of telepathy. At that point, precognition was not even thinkable. And there was this new new technology, the telegraph, which provided this nice metaphor for understanding these effects, you know. And so, you know, they, uh, psychical research and then early ESP research kind of carried that forward and telepathy was the dominant model until the television age. Okay. So the television age in the second half of the, of the 20th century, oh, you know, it got reconceptualized and this kind of older vague idea of clairvoyance got turned into. to the dominant kind of framing for psychic phenomena, you know, remote viewing. That's television.

You know, that's, it's just taking another technology from the culture and applying it and using it to help understand some kind of psychic effect. But the thing is, if that's not really what's going on, then your results are only going to get you, you know, you're only going to get, you're not going to get the best results. If that paradigm is dominating your thinking, you're going to miss a lot of evidence that didn't fit within that paradigm. And you're not going to be studying it in the most effective way. So, you know, that's my, again, that's my contrary in opinion. A lot of people will throw tomatoes at the TV set or at the computer when they see me say that.

I mean, people in remote, you know, who do remote viewing, you know, very much favor the idea that. you know, their consciousness is non-local and that they are traveling across space or seeing, you know, things across space. But I think there's compelling reason to think that this is a, this is a temporal relationship. Well, I spoke to Hal Putoff, who ran the Stargate, the Psychic Spy program for the CIA for a very long time about your hypothesis that actually it's precognition. You're accessing a future knowledge state and that your feedback that the, target was right. So say you drop a Russian nuclear base, getting confirmation that that was actually correct might be essential to actually the accuracy of the remote viewing in the

first place because you're not just yet remote perceiving anything. And he seemed to open to it. So I don't know. The fact that he's open to it, I mean, he's as deep as anybody on this stuff scientifically. So that's a good sign for you. But I guess in the case of like a random event generator or like, you know, affecting a random quantum mechanical process with your mind, how would that fit in with sort of, you know, it wouldn't be like you'd have a pre-knowledge of the result or something? Well, there's two answers of that. One is, you know, P.K doesn't need to be any, doesn't need to be related to precognition.

I mean, there's a lot that we don't know about, about the mind and its abilities and effects of biological systems on things in the vicinity. You know, there are a lot of possibilities there, but I'm not a believer in this construct of psi. You know, this, it was, it was, it was, that was really originally a word that was just to denote a black box. I mean, this is what we don't know about, let's call it sigh. But like, what was originally for the, this is the Greek letter for the, for the wave

function for, well, there's that. Yeah. Yeah. But, but in parapsychology, it just sort of became this black box term. But like all black box terms, it got reified. And people like took it, oh, there's this thing called Psi and it's this force or whatever. And people treat it as a thing rather than just as an open question. And calling these different things, SIE, is itself biasing people towards thinking that they're going to find one force or something that explains all these things.

And I don't think that's the case at all. I mean, I think precognition has, I'm, you know, anticipating that there's going to be a pretty, not that amazing physical, you know, process mechanism that can explain it. But PK effects may be explained very differently. It may have a very different, something very different going on there. But the second answer, though, is that there is the possibility that research on PKK, effects is influenced by the experimenter's

precognition. And this is an argument that's been made by Ed May. I don't know if you've talked to him before, but he sort of took over the from hell put off. He sort of led that program or the research arm of that program in the sort of in its final decade until it was

you know, declassified and supposedly ended in 1995. Don't think that ever ended. Yeah. But The argument he has made is that, you know, he's not a believer in the PK stuff. He thinks that the micro-PK results, that is the supposed effects of consciousness on random number generators, can be explained by, I forget the term he uses, but he has a good term for, oh, decision augmentation, that the researcher's precognition is drawing them to start an experiment or start a trial at a time when the random numbers are just going to, are generating. generate the results that he wants or he or she wants. I think that is, I haven't looked at the PK data, so I can't speak to that.

But I think that decision augmentation theory is potentially hugely important across science. Because if this is an effect, then what kind of effect is this happening in any kind of biophysical experiment or in the health sciences or in psychology. It could be a hugely important factor, who knows, in the replication crisis that we're seeing. I think it's a really important question that I hope some people will start sort of, I hope some people will take that ball and run with it and really investigate that potential. But you have to accept precognition first. That's the barrier that we're up against you know. Yeah, yeah, it's a big barrier. When it comes to kind of remote viewing anything in the future or these prophecies or predictions, sometimes it feels like you're looking

at like a bunch of alternative possible timelines and, you know, you're not, you're not looking at, you know, the definite thing, you know. And so like, how would you explain that? Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll. with your goals because we're built for what you're building fit for your ambition for citizens bank i'm not a believer in alternative timelines okay you believe are you're a block universe i'm a block universe guy and i think that that giving ourselves so you don't see you know this is a you know this is its own conversation and and you know we can we can go down the rabbit hole on that yeah but um that's the hang up yes the hang up is free will that's why people don't want to

think about this stuff. Yeah. But I think we need to be brave and confront, you know, confront this idea. And that means temporarily taking your belief in free will, setting aside, and just see what, see what the data shows us. And I think that it's kind of a cop-out to resort to sort of the many worlds and the multiple timelines and all that. because in actual reality, if the Everettian many worlds interpretation were correct,

it means that there's practically infinite parallel universes. There's not just one where, you know, I got in the car accident and one where I didn't. I mean, there's a million, not annoying, there's infinite variations there. So it immediately makes kind of absurd this idea that, oh, I'm seeing an alternative timeline. I mean, how do you even constrain that? How do you make that into any kind of scientifically testable idea? And I find it implausible and not very interesting, honestly. I think it's much more interesting to think about how an actual future is inflecting

or influencing us and sending us messages. but in a way that we inevitably misinterpret so that those time loops happen. And this is back to the Freud stuff because Freud was a theorist of symbolic transformation, how events in our lives, and he thought that they were events at our past lives, not past lives, but I mean our prior history,

get transformed symbolically, and our thoughts get transformed symbolically into dreams. Well, what I argue in time loops and my second book, Precognitive Dreamwork and the Long Self, that it's actually precisely because of those time loops that have to be fulfilled that we as freely willed beings only get information from the future indirectly, obliquely, symbolically. And that's why there's this kind of ironic logic. to fate.

That's why fate has this kind of edipal logic, where we fulfill prophecies precisely by trying to evade them, where, you know, outcomes in our future, we don't see clearly, we see them symbolically transformed, we misunderstand them, and those misunderstandings get us to take the actions

that lead to them. But that doesn't mean that we're fated to, like, you know, if we have a dream about a car accident, we're going to have that car accident. Very often we, a dream about a car accident, and there are tons of examples of this, but I've collected from readers in my books, but also in the literature,

people will have a dream about a car accident, and they'll come to the intersection where they, oh my God, I dreamed about a car accident here, and they'll suddenly be put on alert, and they'll just narrowly avoid a car accident. So, yes, the obvious interpretation is that, oh, oh, my, I took a different timeline. The dream was showing me one timeline and took a different one.

The simpler explanation is that collision in your dream was kind of a what if. It was kind of like a close call and you, when we have a close call, we always imagine in our heads what would have happened. You know, that catastrophizing thinking, and especially after we have a close call, we're like, oh my God, that could have collided. I think it's those thoughts, those thoughts about near misses. Any thought that gives, that reminds you of your survival, that's the kind of stuff that refluxes back in time in your Tesseract brain. And so, yeah, we have dreams about catastrophes that we, in reality, nearly miss or avoid. But there's a way in which our brain focuses on those kinds of near misses and situations

then in one way or another, remind us of our survival. Because it makes perfect sense, right? That precognition, presentiment would arise as part of our sort of, you know, Darwinian reality of survival and our persistence in the block universe. That I think is the messages we're getting in precognition. So on the one hand, so it's not an alternative timeline you're seeing. It's a what if. Or it's a thought about a near miss or a thought about a worst case that fortunately avoided.

So that's how I interpret those kinds of examples. Are you familiar with Donald Hoffman by any chance? So he believes that your perception itself has to be fitness selected. It has to actually be kind of perceptually adapt. in a way that it's not adaptive for you to actually see the substrate of underlying reality. And then you have this other guy, I believe his name is Dean Buonomo, your brain is a time machine. And he talks about how our brains have to sort of work on life time scale. We can't work on these sort of cosmic time scales.

And you touch on this with this concept of sort of the long body or the, you know, the tesseract mind. So what does this mean? There's sort of this more primordial version of us that we're interacting with, and we interact with it when it's sort of these life and death, you know, like, yeah, of course, it makes sense that you would get the prophecy about the car crash or whatever, because that part of you doesn't want to get in the car crash or something. That's like the most adaptive, naturally selected for thing for you to know. How does this work?

Well, yeah, that's a great question. And I think there it gets to this kind of dichotomy we talked about between the classical computer of the brain that's, that's, you know, it really, the classical computer of the brain has to be, it has to be controlling our actions right in this moment and no other moment. Like, you know, you don't want to be presponding something 10 seconds from now. You know, that's, you're going to be, you know, completely dysfunctional. You know, you have to, you know, your body, your senses and actions and everything happens. happening in your body has to be coordinated to be most effective at this instant in time. So that classical computer system of the brain, you know, is really, it's doing that. But there's these probably quantum processes that are helping.

For instance, syncing it up, you know, like you have nerves that travel up the length of your body, like you step on attack. that has to be synchronized with the immediate, you know, the visual signal of the tack, which is immediate because your eyes right here. And so this is the Benjamin Libet's work back in the 70s and 80s, those landmark studies that he did showing that there's this neural syncing of all these different sensory,

all this different sensory information that has different flight times, you know, through the brain. And so it all sinks up, but it puts us like a half second in our past according to that prediction. But we're not half second in our past. So something quantum is probably going on there to readjust then these sensations and coordinate them. But then what you're asking about, though, is those longer time frame kind of precognitive or pre-sentimental signals. those have to sort of inflect us and, you know, orient us and maybe impact our decision-making, or what we think of as our free will.

So it's on that kind of level that precognition is operating. And there again, it's why it's always outside of conscious awareness, our consciousness. It's always in, it's not something we're aware of because it's not right now. It's not part of the now that the classical brain is constructing out of our experience. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's another reason why I'm impatient with people who keep throwing the word consciousness around in these contexts of psychic phenomena and also UFOs and stuff. Everyone wants to say consciousness. Conscious is all about consciousness. I think that that's a distraction,

and it doesn't help us see how these things actually work. But as you mentioned Donald Hoffman, his work is really interesting. I don't know what to make of it. I feel like it's overstated a little bit. You know, I feel like he's kind of overstated. I think a lot of scientists sort of do this when they want their ideas to have legs. I know I do it myself and my writing.

I kind of overstate things a little bit because you want, you know, have an interesting idea and you want to see if it sticks, sticks at the wall, you know, like throwing spaghetti at the wall or whatever. I don't know if I, if I would go as far as he does and saying that we don't perceive reality at all. You know, he sort of likens our perception to icons on the computer screen, you know, that what we're seeing is the fitness, what is, I forget how he phrases it, we're seeing the fitness value of things. I don't know about that. I think he's partly right, certainly,

but whether he's completely right, I don't know. So do you believe we're in some sort of maybe platonic cave and we're seeing something that is not at all like reality and, you know, occasionally we sort of glimpse the light or do you think we're seeing something that's just perceptually adaptive, but, you know. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. I feel like it's somewhere in between. I think there's something slightly cave-like about our experience, but I wouldn't go so far as to kind of that sort of extreme kind of Gnostic view that we're in this complete bubble Truman Show kind of.

Well, where the Gnostic's, are you familiar with Riz-Verck? Yes. So he talks about kind of this simulation hypothesis, the multiverse simulation. And I do, I'm sympathetic to this idea that maybe you are, your consciousness is being ported into this sort of sensory reductive, you know, 3D time-bound world and that there is this more primordial self that the Greeks would, you know, say you experience in forms of sort of noesis. You forget yourself when you get, when you're born and, you know, this sort of anemnesis process. And then through these, you know, mystery rituals that all these guys used to perform at like a lusis,

they experience their primordial selves. And so do you think that that's a possible model where you occasionally get these sort of downloads from on high, from your sort of higher self? But mostly you just have access to the kind of sensory stuff. But the senses are actually reductive on a default state of possibly greater omniscience. They're not sort of productive,

which is, you know, Aldous Huxley, William James, they would be sort of fans of this model as well. Right. the reducing valve model, yeah. Well, yeah, what you're describing is, you know, what mystics throughout time have said that because they have these experiences of higher consciousness or whatever. And sort of there's this kind of implicit model

that what we're living on a day-to-day basis is this kind of reduced, constricted, constrained thing. I mean, I think the... But again, we have, you know, to just survive in the world, You know, if we were going through life in this mystical state, we'd immediately get eaten by a predator. You know, it's like you've got to deal with the real world and then sometimes, you know, have these expanded experiences. Those are equally important. But I think it's sort of, it sells us, sells that pragmatic reality short to say, oh, it's like living in a cave.

You know, it's like, you know, we need to. We need to have that reduced pragmatic focus a lot of the time, you know. And, yeah, we can't be living our higher self all the time. So this notion that we're evolving towards like always living a higher self kind of state, I'm not, I'm, I don't quite buy that kind of evolutionary view in that sense. How do UFOs play into all of this? I know a UFO in some sense led you into this work yourself. Do you think UFOs have anything to do with the model overall of time that you have?

Yes and no. There's a common, off-heard claim nowadays in the UFO world, and it goes along with this idea that, oh, it's really about consciousness and stuff. It's off-heard idea that somehow our precognitive experiences and synchronicities and all those things are somehow part of the, phenomenon or part of this UFO phenomenon, which I think is totally not true. I mean, precognition is intrinsic to who we are as creatures. I think it's intrinsic to all life, probably. And people sort of think that they're all part of one thing, maybe because they get interested in them together, as I did, you know, you have one remarkable experience. It's going to lead you to reading about other remarkable experiences and certainly openness to certain kinds

of experiences. You know, if you're open to seeing UFOs, you're probably open to your dreams and having pre-cognitive dreams and so on. But I don't think there's any intrinsic connection there. But the UFO question is hugely interesting to me. And I think this time loops model is... like really possibly very important. I'm a, I'm totally in agreement with Mike Masters,

who I know you've interviewed that, that the strongest hypothesis, I think, about what is underlying the real core of the UFO phenomenon. I mean, I think there's a lot of, a lot of deception and sciop stuff going on too, but at the real core there, probably involves, you know, very likely involves time traveling, humans or involves time traveling technology at the very least.

And if so, then all the things that we can start to understand about time travel just from our own experience and from, that is to say, our own precognitive experiences and all these things that we were talking about, like time loops and the ways in which stuff from the future influences stuff in the past and in a way that history is self-consistent, those same factors are going to be

really important in time travel and in our development of time-traveling technology. We already talked about the quantum computer sort of step towards that. I think that that that technology of communicating across time is going to cause an acceleration, a technological acceleration towards more advanced technology and towards probably solving these problems of physical time travel. But yeah, I think time travel is hugely important. And so, yeah, I mean, if there's a way, if there's a place to look for time travel, besides quantum time traveling information, it's probably the UFO phenomenon.

And maybe there's something about biology that is a porting of something that's a little more probabilistic or quantum, and maybe biology becomes vestigial in the future. And actually what we're interacting with is some sort of kind of quantum code or something that's unbound by biological constraints. because I think about your model of time loops, and you're kind of glitching into some, like, information layer of the future or whatever. But the Mike Masters thing is, like, you're literally seeing these, like, beings that are, like, from the future. And those are two very distinct things.

And you could find some sort of, like, you know, biological matter transporter. But maybe more likely, we just become these sort of quantum information systems or something that can, you know, I don't know, time edit at will and, you know, kind of, show up at will and almost be more information theoretic, like in a John Wheeler model of the universe or something, than, you know, us. Yeah, there's all kinds of possibilities. I mean, I'm just one of the, you know, it's like one of the premises, like we talked about the peripheral, you know, it's like at one point in the story, this, you know, guy in the future,

the user in the future sends, so it's the character in the 20th century, she happens to work at the local 3D print shop, okay? And so he sends her instructions to 3D print this, you know, future technology headset that enables her to like visit the future in an avatar and stuff like that. But that idea of trans, you know, 3D, you know, printing out information in the present based on information from the future is going to be part of this, you know, this halfway house basically to time travel, you know, in the sense that, you know, you could have. say a drone operator in the future, you know, you know, control a drone in the past and, you know, that's been built from future technology, but what, but with present capabilities of a 3D printer, you could essentially have a future, you know, time drone essentially, uh, flying around that's under the control of someone in the future, you know, via an existing, you know, 3D or the existing

quantum, uh, server, you know, so you're, we're going to, you're going to, you're going to, you're going to start seeing really interesting phenomena the moment the first quantum computers come online. And of course, the idea that maybe they're already online, you know, in deep black programs somewhere, you know, there's that, you know, it's just, it's an interesting variant of the idea of a flying saucer coming through a wormhole, you know, into the past. You could have a flying saucers that's been built in the present based on information from the future and that's maybe even controlled by someone in the future via a quantum server. There's just all kinds of possibilities that I think we need to start thinking realistically,

not just about these high strangeness UFO encounters, but think about what are the possibilities, what are the things that we're going to do when we have these technologies, you know, maybe in a few years. Yeah. You know, what are the effects that's going to have on society? What are the phenomena that we're going to start encountering in daily life because of this new relationship to our future when we have quantum computer servers that we leave plugged in, you know, for years, decades, centuries. That's going to be transformative. You know, if anything that,

you know, I think of the idea of the singularity, you know, the, you know, the sort of brink after which human history becomes unpredictable. Well, I think that, that, you know, it's not spiritual machines that are going to do it. It's, it's this time-travelling technology that comes from, or this informational time-traveling technology that comes from quantum computer servers that are going to allow this new relationship to our future. And it could be incredibly destabilizing, you know, it's like the first people to use these devices are going to get very rich by, you know, predicting stock fluctuations and all that. So I don't know. But when we talked earlier about somebody having a premonition of a car crash and that being sort of adaptive because that's

based on this really important survival mode for them. They have to be cognizant of that when the event possibly is about to occur so they swerve out or whatever. I had the thought that on a kind of a more macro scale when it comes to humanity, these UFOs seem to show up consistently around nuclear sites. And so if you were trying to find kind of the Archimedes lever, like the point of most leverage for affecting timelines when it came to humanity, he would probably go straight to nuclear sites. And so maybe that points to these things pushing us towards some teleology. Right.

Yeah. I mean, the point of time travel is, or one of the points of time travel is not going to be, you know, people think of this in terms of, again, changing timelines and stuff. I think that's not the way to think about it. I think, you know, you can go into the past and you can do stuff in the past and have effects. And you can plant the seeds for things that you will then harvest in the future. So, you know, you can go into the past and and affect things, shape things in a way that will then pay off for you. You can plant, the way I put it in my second book is you can plant seeds in the past for a better tomorrow.

You know, like, so a simplistic example that, that I use. it's, you know, there's all kinds of problems with this thought of experiment, but just, you know, go with me. You know, so say you have a quantum computer server that's, that you leave plugged in from the, you know, from now until, you know, for centuries. And it's connected to, uh, 3D printers, big 3D printers, industrial 3D printers. And say, say you're working for, you're an astronomer in the 22nd century, and you discover an asteroid that's, that's on.

collision course for Earth. And it's, you know, you've detected it too late to intervene to send a rocket to deflect the asteroid. But you have a quantum nuclear that's connected to 3D printers on the moon's far side, say, and you, you know, you send an instruction to print out a rocket, you know, 30 years in your past and launch the rocket. And so it, you know, when you detect. the asteroid, but there's a rocket right there that destroys it because you launched it in

the past. That kind of scenario, there's all kinds of ways in which that kind of logic can be incredibly useful for obvious reasons, you know, not just in amassing huge wealth, but in, you know, solving problems that ordinarily take too long to solve. If you can, you can recruit the past to help you solve that problem. Or say, you know, pandemics, you know, say there's this, you know, a new, you know, virus is discovered that's, you know, super deadly. But you can, you know, it's going to be a huge pandemic unless you do something quickly. Well, you can, you know, use, you know, again, use the same setup to do kinds of all the needed

trials and drug development, you know, 10 years in the past so that the vaccine is ready by the time the virus, you know, presents itself. That kind of, you know, using the past to solve problems in the present that wouldn't be soluble otherwise because they just take too long, you know, not just because it's a computer, not just because it's a mathematical problem that requires too many years of number crunching, but because you actually need people and machines and infrastructure to deal with a problem that takes time. So that kind of thing. Again, this is why I see this kind of intermediate technology towards physical time travel being like super important in coming years with quantum computation.

There are other models of physical time travel that involve, possibly manipulation of gravity, which is very related to time in the general relativity. Well, that's the next thing. That's what will come next. And there you're not limited

to sending information back in time just to when you turned on your quantum computer. And there you're free to travel as far back as you want in time, potentially, whether you're using a wormhole or what I call a time ship, which would be some kind of...

Are you familiar with it? with de glauca, do you know what that is? No. This German, the Nazi bell, where you create a super high voltage over a short distance, and it's this bell with a ceramic internal chamber where, you know, there are two ways to change gravity, to affect gravity, enough mass, and enough energy. We think of not, you know, being able to have the capacity to have enough energy to actually affect gravity in a real way.

But if you have enough mass, you can obviously do it. If you have tons and tons of energy, you might be able to do it. with really high voltages, you know, electric plasma thrusters. So there's this rumor of this, like, Nazi Wunderwaffe program under SS officer Hans Kamler. And he had this sort of bell-shaped object. And the guys that were working on this reportedly were Ernest Growitz, who was head of the SS medical division. So that probably means, you know, would imply that there are people involved. And Walter Gerlock, who was a gravity physicist. He was a physicist very focused on gravity. And you would put somebody inside the chamber and you would pour the whole thing with so much voltage that

you'd create kind of a different inertial reference frame inside the chamber. So like every second on the outside would be a thousandth of a second on the inside. You'd slow time down, just like in a black hole in general relativity. The closer you get to a black hole, the more time slows at, you know, gravitational source. And you walk out, you know, and all of a sudden you're a thousand years in the future. So it's a sort of wacky model. But I got really interested in this, um, you know, mid-century inventor, this kind of gravity inventor named Thomas Tonson Brown. Right. And kind of the subtext of his whole story is actually that he's extremely interested in time

travel. And then he thinks that gravity manipulation leads to time travel. And so I, you know, I find that kind of a very fascinating little, you know, yeah, maybe part of the, yeah, maybe it's the next, the intermediate step before, you know, pure, pure information transfer, a la the movie the fly or something. That's cool. Yeah. Do you think, you know, like, I think about, have you read like the lectures by Schrodinger, like, what is life?

No, I haven't. I have it. I haven't read it. Yes. Because he talks about these period, these aperiodic crystals in the DNA that are somehow really important information receptacles for, it's sort of speculative. but I think he doesn't really have a really good model for this at the time. I don't even think we had the double helical structure of DNA.

No, I don't think it was in 1944, right? He's discovered, yeah. So he's talking about this. And I think what he's sort of implying is that, like, that's like the port between the sort of quantum world and the, you know, more biological world or something. Well, that's really interesting to say that because I've, you know, thinking back to this idea of, like, 3D printing something based on information from the future, I've, you know, I'm, this is totally speculative, but what if DNA is that, is that, is like a quantum server?

And that, you know, that's, DNA controls, you know, the protein, you know, the proteins and all that. So what if, what if that is essentially what we are is 3D printed, you know, drones essentially based on information from our evolutionary future, you know, it just kind of opens up. That's fascinating. Well, you know, Maxwell's equations work forwards just as they work backwards. And the more I get deep in the UFO thing, the only time the door shuts on me is around this model of what's called extended electrodynamics. It's not around like UFOs are real, like that's being pushed clearly. But there's this like secret science component of all of this. And I think it's like

this extended electrodynamics, this idea that actually a more faithful adherence to the original 21 Maxwell's equations and not the kind of compression of Oliver Heaviside into these four vector calculus equations might actually represent, you know, true reality more and actually allow for all these exotic wave types outside of the transverse herzene wave. And so it might explain some of this sort of, you know, this eye stuff that's like spooky action at a distance that's kind of, kind of weird because you don't get the typical, you know, electrons pairing off sort of thing or attenuation over space time or through material or whatever. But there's one of these wave types, I realize this is a crazy rabbit hole,

but one of these wave types is called heliacoidal, and it's shaped like DNA. And so there's this guy named Constantine Mile, and he's in the black forest of Germany, and he's studying this extended version of electrodynamics on plants, and he thinks that it can affect DNA and these sort of super, and you had this guy, Luke Montagnier, who's this French Nobel Prize winner, at the end of his life, he was saying, you know, electromagnetism is really important for

communication, information transfer within DNA, within these aquaous nanostructures and DNA. I have no idea whether any of this is true. But DNA is, it's so clearly this information receptacle. Like, and that's clearly what it's there for. I mean, you can cold store semantic information on it, like from a, use it like a computer server It just takes a while to retrieve. So that's, it's just fascinating. Yeah, I want to know, you know, I'm not, you know, I'm not a physicist, and I'm not,

certainly not a quantum physicist, and I'm not a quantum biologist, so, you know, I'm at a certain limit with my understanding, but I, you know, it's, speculatively, it's fascinating, and I would love to know more about the quantum, quantum computing processes or aspects or capabilities of DNA. Yeah, because it seems like that could be key. Totally. What do you think of John Wheeler? Because I'm a big fan of his, and I've heard you talk about him in other interviews. To me, he comes closest to my model of the world with the sort of information theoretic approach.

Yeah, totally. Yeah, I love Wheeler, and I'm particularly fond of that his U diagram. Are you familiar with his, that diagram he wrote with the U? more of a glyph, you know, of the U with, where one tip of the U is the Big Bang and the other tip is an eyeball staring back at the Big Bang. And, you know, that, I think, is right. I mean, I think he's, he's, and he was working with not quite retrocausation. He was working with that kind of model that, well, you can affect a system by deciding whether

to measure it as a particle or wave. You know, that kind of... Delayed choice. The delayed choice is sort of a... Again, it's kind of, I think, a conceptual halfway house to true retrocausation. Yep. But if you add real retrocausation in there, which I think there are some very compelling models of real retro causation, I mean, Yakir Harnov, his two-state vector formalism,

and... Kramer. is Kramer, yeah, I mean, Kramer's a bit different. It's a handshake. It's a handshake. But it doesn't, I don't think Kramer's model really allows, like, affecting the past

in the way that, that I think Aronov's model might. Anyway, if you add to Wheeler's U, a real retrocausal interpretation of quantum mechanics, uh,

plus all the time, time traveling technology and all that, those possibilities that, that become more and more potentially prevalent in the universe as the universe ages, you know, like you have the potential of, of truly retro causing, you know,

retro causing the big bang, you know, in a, in a big loop. And I, I love that model. Um, and if time travel becomes, possible at any point in the future, it's inherently always been possible. Right. Right. Which is fast. Right. Well, it's, if it becomes possible at a point of the future, then, then time travelers have always been here. Exactly. And could be present at the beginning of the universe. And it would explain the alien thing. And it would explain all this sort of like forbidden archaeology stuff. You know, you have like, um, the antique theory

mechanism and all sorts of like precociously advanced architecture from the past. And, you know, all the alien mythology and lore, you know, it would just be these sort of time editing, you know, future versions of ourselves that have figured out time travel and are maybe trying to sway things towards a specific teleology. What, you know, also interests me is the possibility that the search for dark matter and dark energy could be that this may have something to do with that,

that, you know, what if, you know, what if these trans temporal effects, what if the effects of massive, massive time-traveling technology or wormholes or something are affecting the mass of galaxies in their future and that that somehow affects things in the present that we can't detect? Oh, that's fast. I just, you know, again, I'm beyond my level of cosmological understanding, but it just seems like, you know, there's retrocausation and time travel are the missing, are the things missing from our understanding of so many phenomena right now. I feel like there's going to be a, there's going to be a paradigm shift. There's got to be a paradigm shift. I agree.

That, that, where people wake up and go. So, oh. Well, I think, you know, Stephen Spielberg, who I think is very clued into all the UFO stuff, has, you know, since he was, I think, a kid, he was super into UFO. Obviously, he made E.T. He made, you know, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He's told this guy, Robert Lee Field, who I think created Deadpool that, you know, UFOs are, like, what do you think is more likely that these are like, you know, from Zeta reticuli, Proxima Centauri, or that there are future selves sort of guarding our, you know, our present and making sure that sort of. timelines get sustained. And I just think that is the clearest, you know, kind of Occam's razor explanation. And it is, it is paradigm shifting, and it's bizarre to kind of conceive of. And yet it's very interesting. And it would also involve factions. It would involve maybe

different version, depending on which type of university you believe in. It might involve different versions of the future trying to sustain themselves or something. Well, or just different, you know, if you, yeah, different future faction, you know, there doesn't need to be a unified,

sure, you know, civilization in our future. I mean, we're very divided now and we, and we, you know, we fight amongst ourselves and,

and countries are at war with each other. You know, that could happen across time too. You know, you could have, you know, I don't, just to take some example,

you know, Russian time travelers in, in, in 50 years going back in time to the United States and meddling, in ways that will benefit them in the future. And just as we might have American time travelers,

you know, doing, you know, we'd have like multiple factions, you know, intervening in each other's histories. And what do you think of Philip K. Dick? You write about him from nowhere. And you kind of talk about him and you talk about Jacques de lait, who's a massive fan of his. And I'm a big fan of both.

But I also think their worldview is just so fascinating. and specifically Philip K. Dick, you know, I think people don't fully realize how real he thought a lot of this stuff was and how autobiographical a lot of his stories are. You bring up Valis. But I think he even gave a speech in Mets in France in like 1976 or seven where he goes, no, like the man in the high castle was actually a real timeline where, you know, there are these simulators and they simulated this version of World War II where the Japanese and the Germans won and they, you know, cut America and how. half and then they decided to rewind the clock because that, you know, didn't quite work out. And they had these, the simulators were rewinding the JFK assassination multiple times, trying to make it work out. Yeah, it's fascinating. Yeah, no, he was a fascinating character and definitely troubled. I mean, he had a million different versions of reality going on and was, you know, pretty

fucked up guy in other ways. But brilliant. And, and probably of, you know, he was the only, artist that I've, like, studied in my, you know, work on artists and writers who really understood and basically accepted what I'm arguing, which is that artists are influenced by their future. I mean, he knew he was a precog. He knew he was precognitive, and it wasn't just, these weren't just empty claims. I mean, he, you know, it's very clear in his writing, sometimes writing about his own future experiences. And you can see, actually, you can go.

back to his letters. I mean, he was very open at writing about his dreams and stuff in letters. And you can see even examples of precognition that he didn't detect. That's wild. Like, what's an example of that? So that shows it's not all this crazy signaling where he's just trying to act like...

There's an example that I write about in my new book that he in... So I'm saying, but my argument in one of the chapters of my new book is that, you know, he and Jacques Belay were kind of precognizing each other's work. And that, in fact, Velaus is Valle.

Because they both read each other's work. They were both writing in 1974, 1975. That's when Valet was writing The Invisible College, and that's when Dick was writing the first draft of what became Vailas. It was at that point, I mean, they published, fortunately, they published that first draft posthumously. It's Radio Free Albamuth. But he already had this word had come to him, Valis.

And this story that he wrote around this idea is all to be found in Jacques Lelais' book, the idea of a teaching like satellite and the idea of people receiving, you know, awakened people receiving signals from some distant star that are designed to, you know, save us from some peril or whatever. There's so many parallels between these two books, but neither of them could have read each other at that point. So the argument is a little complex, but, but yeah, there's a convergence there, a precognitive convergence, I think.

But one of the examples of Phil Dick's many precognitive dreams was that around, I think, I think this was in 1974, he had a dream where there are a lot of details of this dream, but there was these diminutive, these small alien creatures, I think came out of a spaceship, gave him some piece of technology, but there was another part of the dream where he was, he was shown a brownie, I think, or a, or a, you know, that had been scored by a fork around its edges. And it was somehow a relief map, okay? But it was to do with this.

Oh, and someone told him, oh, don't take that. It belongs to Betty Fields. He misremembered the name Betty Hill as Betty Field. He thought, oh, this is a reference to the UFO abductee. So three years later, he's, like, super excited when he sees close encounters. And he doesn't make a connection to that dream. But a dream of like diminutive childlike creatures coming out of a spaceship, a piece of food that's scored by a fork around the edges. I mean, that's like, that's the scene in close encounters where he fork scores, you know, mashed potatoes around the edge, you know, when it's a relief map.

Turns out to be a relief map, essentially of, of devil's tower. And the idea and that all being linked to a UFO, someone who's had a UFO encounter, I think it's, it worked. That's the way pre-cognitive dreams work. work on associations, you know. They don't present something literally, but they present, you know, a set of associations around this core thing. I think he was precognizing Spielberg's movie.

That's fascinating. But people precognize movies that way all the time. Yeah, so, yeah, he was, but there's so many examples like that. A lot of them he was aware of, you know, he'd have this dream and then, oh, my God, the next day, you know, this thing happens. It was just like in his dream.

And, you know, he's not making this stuff up. I have a really weird, actually, personal example that just came out. I'll figure out whether I'm going to cut this or not. But I was hanging out with a friend, and he was like, man, like, you should go to France. You just said it out of nowhere. And I was like, why should I go to France, man? And he was like, I don't know. I kind of see you dating a French girl or something.

And I was like, interesting. Okay. And he was like, my last girlfriend, he knew her. And he was like, yeah, she was British, but she kind of had like this American mentality. Like, I think you need like a true European mentality, whatever. And he's like, I'm convinced of this because I just saw this movie before sunset made by Richard Linklater. And the main character's name is Jesse. And I'm like, man, I love that movie.

I love Richard Linkley. He's amazing. I'm like, that movie's incredible. And he's like, yeah, I kind of see you with this, like, you know, the character, like Julie Delpy or whatever. I'm like, she's awesome. She's beautiful. I wouldn't be down for that. And so the next day on a whim, I book a trip to France.

And I end up being there for the whole summer. And in Paris, I end up dating a girl. And then I come back and her name is Celine. Her name, I come back and I watched the movie before sunset. And her name was Julie Delpy's character's name. Isn't that weird? That's incredible. It's nuts.

Well, there's a time loop. That's a time loop. Because he told you this and then it affected your actions. And I was thinking about it in the back of my head where I'm like, that's kind of why I made the decision, which is crazy to make a decision based on that. But it felt like, you know, the right synchronicity or something to act on. People, that synchronicity is sort of the go-to term that people use when this. this kind of stuff happens. Yeah.

Because they don't have a concept of precognition for the most part. Yeah. So, you know, synchronistic will work, you know. Yeah. Maybe precognition. Yeah. Yeah. But and then jock valet is how I learned of Valis because I was at his apartment.

He was like, this is my favorite book. So maybe you're on to something. But Eric, I appreciate your time. Man. This was awesome. We could probably go much longer. But this was fantastic. And everybody go out and buy from nowhere to,

It's a really fantastic book and time loops. Thank you very much. It's been fun. Finally getting to sit down and talk. We made it happen. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th.

Tickets on sale now at Yamavatheater.com. Only a Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. UN must be 21 to enter.