Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Christopher Sweat: Philosophizing in Public ​(#208)

Episode Date: January 21, 2022

Find Chris on Substack - his Writing & Podcast are not to be missed: https://christophersweat.substack.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/SweatEm LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrissweat/ Clubhouse: https://www.clubhouse.com/@sweatem?utm_source=clubhouse&utm_medium=share_profile&utm_campaign=Yca0naeOjJ7gOYHyTy3n_Q-25455 Please join my mailing list; just click here http://briankeating.com/mailing_list.php  Please contact [e-mail] to learn more about sponsoring Into the Impossible. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

to venture capitalists, their funds, they are not able to manage risk in a systematic way. So they use a hand-waving heuristic to decide where they've placed their funds. And so they're obviously going to place their funds with people that go to, you know, 10 or 12 universities and to maybe very rarely outside of that come through certain circles of friends. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. talking today with Christopher Sweat, who is a philosopher, a thinker, someone that I met online. As I've met most of my friends in contacts in the last 10 years, there are some friends I have. I haven't ever met in person. Probably never will. Some live as far away as Uganda, Egypt, whatever.

But today, Chris, it's a pleasure to be talking one-on-one again. Yeah, you too. And the internet's a powerful place, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah, it's really amazing. I have guys and gals that apply for jobs to work on different projects or internship. Never met. I actually don't know if they're male or female. I know nothing about it. And I'm sending them money.

And I'm saying, you know, they could be bots who are all I know. But Chris, you're a remarkable intellect. And I know you don't feel that word is completely free from maybe overburdensome character. So I want to talk about intellectual and being on the internet in this day and age. But I just want to point out that I have, you know, really utmost respect for you, for you, going back to school as you are now, one of my, you know, in some sense, rival institutions, because you see Boulder gets some of the best students in the world. And I'm fighting against them to get people like you and get people like my graduate students.

But anyway, man, thank you so much for coming. And thank you for the effort that you're putting into, you know, just your dreams and what you're trying to do. And we're going to talk about all your cool projects. But I wanted you to introduce yourself. What's your world line, as we say in physics? What got you to this point from where did you come? Your origin story in the science fiction sense? Tell my audience who might not be as familiar with you from your online work as I am. Yeah, 100%. I think I think I started out as a tinkerer, as a lot of thinkers or experimenters kind of started out.

And I got really lucky that my tinkering started like around the time that broadband internet was coming out, which doesn't seem like an advanced invention these days. And it probably doesn't seem that advanced for some of your young listeners. But that was a huge deal. I was like 10 or 11 years old. So my tinkering started with just like simple wireless networks and computers. and that moved into racing simulators, which is like a whole quest. We could do a whole episode talking about racing simulators,

which I feel like are still, it's still kind of an underground scene. And I think through this different kind of experimentation I was doing as a young person, I got to see how different systems interacted with other systems. And I got addicted to it. I like to be able to test things in what I guess was somewhat of a controlled space or controlled environment. And I like to push the boundaries.

I like to push the envelope. And I think my adult life has been about harnessing my need or desire to push the envelope and to take my experiments or take my perspective or understanding. and boil it into something that's useful or practical, you know, in a few different contexts. Yeah, it's a rare skill, you know, when I'm looking for interns or working for students or even graduate students sometimes, you know, they'll say,

well, I don't have any experience, you know, in the lab, but you know, my dad had a welding shop in, you know, Akron, Ohio. I'm like, that's awesome, you know, for experimental physics, which is very different from theory. theoretical physics or theoretical science and experimental science. But I think, I'm curious, do you think we're losing a lot of that? Like, I have a car that was, you know, like a Toyota city and a minivan. I don't know if you're a dad yet or have any point. Yeah. I got a bunch of kids and you got to get a minivan or else, you know, one of my friends is like, before you have kids,

if you get a minivan, you're a weirdo. But after you have kids and you don't get a minivan, you're even more weird. I try to open the hood on that thing once. And I couldn't, I couldn't do a damn thing. And I used to tinker with my first car, you know, is 1970s Volkswagen. I could do a great job. I could do. Do you think we're losing some of that because of the kind of relentless advance of technology of which you're playing a big part in? Do you think we're losing some of the ability to even get under the hood literally or figuratively? Yeah, the automation, it seems like the more automation that exists, the further we are from the basic processes. that are taking place. Like just a simple example of this, and maybe you can give us a physics

tieback, but think about like power steering. And a lot of people don't realize this, but there are old school, like rack and pinion type steering mechanisms where the steering wheel is actually having a direct impact on the wheels that are on the ground when you do any kind of steering input but now a lot of cars have like a what's called like a hydroelectric power steering and it's actually not responding directly to the wheels there's a part of the system that is in between the steering wheel and the actual drive wheels so you can't feel the wheels on the ground in the steering wheel anymore and again obviously um you could rotate it from lock to lock with your pinky finger that's fucking sweet and you don't have to be doing 20 or 30 miles an hour

to turn comfortably, you know, and there's people that may not even understand what I'm talking about. Hopefully you're following Brian. Yeah. But it seems like the more automation that comes into these different systems, the further we, like, you know, the average human being gets away from, you know, the processes that are going on because they're not involved in them anymore. Yeah. And I think it's, it's true in the aviation industry. You know, I fly the planes around. And, you know, it's certainly true, the automation, you know, fly by wire, all these things, kind of harkens back to, you know, in the space race, there's a great book called Digital Apollo from MIT, Professor of Aerospace Engineering. He talks about, I forget the man's name, but he talks about how all the lunar

command module pilots, guys who were landing, you know, from Neil Armstrong to the last, Gene Cern or whoever, when they landed on the moon, at the, it was fully automated. Even the computer of that time, which everyone says, we could fit it in your pocket, you know, the whole, that computer could land the module completely safely. But every single time, at the last second, the pilot caught a glimpse of a boulder or a crater that had been uncharted. And oh, he had to, because what is the highest expression of a pilot? It's landing, right? You know, applaud, like, for the pilot and crews, you know, congratulations. But when they make a good landing, you applaud him or her, right? So, but I feel like we, we kind of are, as Carl Sagan said,

never has society been more dependent on technology and less, you know, kind of comprehending of that, of that technology and science. Do you feel like that's, that's kind of a positive thing or a negative thing? In other words, like, can we just remove people from having to understand? I mean, I don't understand even, you know, they say that actually, Chris, I don't know if you ever heard that. They say that there's no person on earth can do or understand all the steps needed to make a pencil, like just a yellow pencil, right? All the different. So do you think that's a good thing. I don't need to know how a pencil is made to use it. But do you think there's virtue to that or is it or is it leading us in a dangerous place? I mean, I probably have

I probably have still what's like considered an underground opinion on this, but, but I guess automation ties into labor and that I've heard people make these arguments that the more automation that is created, the more different types of processes that exist. they think that we're entering this era of like hyper specialization, which they think is potentially detrimental because it'll make it to where at some point in some distant future, everyone's job will be so specialized that, you know, it'll just be some specialized repetitious thing.

We'll all be like a janitor or a call center employee or something like that. And I don't believe that. I don't think that we're going to have a scenario where we won't still need highly specialized, high-skilled labor. But I do think that my opinion is that the technology is getting away from a lot of people. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds. That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing.

Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. And I don't like it because when I try to advance or extend thinking, there's a lot of people that are still stock in an old model that I think, like, doesn't let the technology have as much room as it needs to produce, I don't know, a more efficient future or a more

capable future. And it seems like you have these like special domains like aerospace or you have these other domains that are like super concentrated on real specific expertise. And those domains can move through these kind of waves of technological advancements in many ways. more quickly than domains that have a broader reach or maybe require more people to be involved like something silly, like some kind of enterprise software like Salesforce, for example. There's millions of people that work in and out of Salesforce. And so you have so many, such a wide variance of skills and abilities in that system and different environments that it gets deployed into.

Whereas like how many space. are, you know, flying on any given Sunday. Right. Exactly. What were you like as a kid? Were you like, you know, the kind of kid who just like wanted to play with chemistry sets and was frustrated because they stopped including radium in those chemistry sets, like when I was a kid, were you more of a digital tinkerer as you are now?

And then, you know, kind of delve into, take us back, tell the story of your kind of upbringing, what brought you to this, you know, kind of sense that I think you have the rarest trait of all upcoming guest, Ryan Holliday, is coming on the show and talk about courage. I think it takes a lot of courage to do what you're doing. I'm, you know, I don't even think, I didn't even know how old you were until you told me, but, but, you know, at any age to do it non-traditional. My mother went back to college, got her bachelor's, her master's in social work. She was in her 50s, 60s after having me and, you know, ruining her academic career. But talk us through that. where did you get that predate natural courage? Is it inborn? Is it a gift? Is it just based on hard work?

Where does that come from? And what were you like? What was your kind of things that fascinated you as a 12 year old, which I assume plays no small role in who you are now? Yeah. Okay. Whatever happened to me as a young child, I don't know. Because I've always spoken outside of my pay grade or whatever expertise people think should be available to me. So like when I was running on like this hardcore simulators, everyone was in their 20s and 30s, but I was 11, 12, 13, 14. Some of these people still keep up with me two decades later because apparently they couldn't believe what we were doing because these simulators took practice. Like, you know, they took tons of iteration. And a lot of people still had to have like some physical reference point, whereas when you're in a simulator, it's all based off a visual reference point. So I was obviously like making highly sophisticated inferences with super limited information, right? Which I guess apparently is a unique skill, right?

Yeah. But I didn't have any like academic support or like I wasn't showing like any of these traditional markers of intelligence or early success. It was not in any of these gifted programs. Frankly, by the time I got to high school, I didn't care. I think I finished high school with the 1.8 GPA. And some of the classes that I got bad grades in, I'm like, that doesn't even make sense. So there was always this dual life of I had these interests that I was excelling and that were clearly advanced, right? But the school system, somehow I just slipped through the cracks.

I can't explain it. I slipped through the cracks. So if I look back to when I was young, and it's probably still like this now, but I think I've always been somewhat of a lone wolf. You know, I have friends from different circles, but I think I've always been somewhat of a lone wolf. I liked mountain biking when I was younger. You know, I listened to my disc men. I would try to get the best skip protection possible so that my CD would keep rotating. and I could hear the audio.

Yeah. And then again, I did so much on the computer that computers and the internet have been second nature to me for as long as I can remember, which is like, you know, why with COVID or like having devices anywhere, all this stuff that just feels like what I've always been accustomed to. It doesn't feel like anything new necessarily. So you weren't like that kid who drove your parents crazy, you know, trying to, trying to take the computer the router apart at home see if you could speed up the no it's wild i was

empowered to do those things so i got to think i have to thank my mom for that she she like empowered me to experiment um in the areas that i don't know she must notice i might have had some kind of strength there yeah so i was always empowered to tinker around with uh you know like wireless hardware, computers, bikes, any system that I could get my hands on. But the issue is that a lot of my friends that share some of these characteristics are introverted. And there's only one person in my life that thinks I'm introverted, but she'll figure it out one day. Everyone sees me as hardcore extroverted and as super gregarious and outgoing. So I would say I'm probably somewhere in the middle, but I've always been outspoken about what I can see or what I'm observing.

And that's the confidence and the courage I spoke about earlier with you. A lot of people wouldn't be doing this, you know, getting a bachelor's degree. You, you're doing what this guy, Austin Cleon, I think, calls, he calls, you know, showing your work. Like, you're developing stuff in public. And I think that is kind of, you know, it was interesting, and I like to get your take on this, but I've been, you know, my new book is about like the imposter syndrome, overcoming that.

And but there's like two different signs to that because it comes from insecurity. Like, I'm not good enough to do it. But then I was thinking in an interview, I was just kind of thinking out loud, which is always dangerous. But it's still, I think, has a kernel of truth that the opposite of the imposter syndrome is also based on insecurity, and that's arrogance. Like when people have like arrogant narcissistic tendencies, I think a lot of times they're really insecure.

And they're just covering up for it with bravado and bluster. But I think, yeah, this notion of creating in public, of, you know, not listening to, I don't care what you think I should do, what my friend James Altpatcher says, you know, choosing yourself, like, who needs these gatekeepers? And that's why I think, again, you know, not to like, you know, make this a love fest. But going back to school, that decision, I think, is very telling about your character, because a lot of people wait for the gatekeepers. You know, when we're in high school, you know, some of us that got, you know, maybe a 2.8 GPA, not the one, but I mean, we were, I was concerned getting into a good college. Why? So I could go to a good grad school. Why? So I could get a good post up. Why? So I could get a assistant professor. Why? Yeah. I could get a senior. Why? But, um, but you're not listening to that. So why Boulder? I mean, you may, you move, you're on the East Coast before, right? Right. No. Actually, I've been in, well, I'm in Washington right now. I'm sorry. You're in Washington. Yeah, yeah, right. Okay.

I'll be in Boulder tomorrow because I still split the time. But actually, I, so I grew up until age 10 in the Bay Area, and then I moved to Colorado and I was very young, Colorado Springs. I actually spent 11 years in Denver Metro. So Boulder is like, I mean, my last place in Colorado before putting one in Boulder was at the edge of Boulder County. They probably hung out in Boulder like three times a week. I worked in 2014, I worked for an enterprise tech startup in Boulder.

Boulder's always been like up the street from me. I've got lots of friends in Boulder County. And for me, honestly, I was told by some mentors in the Bay Area that maybe I should be a little bit more ambitious with where I applied. And I heard that. But then I kind of also decided that Boulder is still a respected school in most parts of the country and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to take whatever I do at Boulder and transfer to top 20 as long as I perform well. But yeah, it's a community. I've spent a lot of time and I

actually love that town as nuanced as it is. There's things I hate about it, but many things that I love about it. Yeah, it's got kind of the, you know, big city adjacent, but it's got the, small town, it's got the national laboratory university. I think I could, you know, pretty much exist anywhere. There's some kind of college or university. I think you need that, you know, life of the intellectual. And there I want to pivot clumsily to intellectualism. And, you know, one of the first rooms I ever met you on Clubhouse, you're very prolific, was a rant that you were doing, which is the title of your substack,

which will put links to in the show notes and refer to. I'm subscribed actually twice under two different, you know, so, so you're, I'm inflating your sub count as you deserve. But I met you in a room on Clubhouse a long time ago. or we after I met, but I was, I was, you know, kind of just, just really curious and listening and you had a room title like, can we talk about, you know, a black public intellectuals? Yep. And again, Chris, again, this is, whatever, I'm not going to apologize, but, you know,

I was like kind of courageous because you're, you're going out there and that's like kind of a third rail in, in the public intellectual. I don't even know what a public, like, would you call me a Jewish intellectual? I mean, I know a lot of people that wouldn't say I'm an anti-intellectual, but, But the point being, you know, it's such a loaded term. And then you add another, you know, kind of loaded term on top of that black. And, you know, but you're just like, unafraid, you'll just take it on. And so I want to talk about that.

And then we'll get into your substack and specifically your most recent post, which, you know, as a paying subscribe. No, I don't know if I have to pay any day. But you haven't updated in a while, man, you got to put out a new rant. I'm early Jones in for it. But talk about what is a black intellectual. Do they exist? Are you one? You know, how does that term make you feel?

How do you react to that? Yeah, no. Actually, I've tried to be critical of the idea of a black intellectual from so many angles now. So we'll have to catch people up in a few short minutes. Yeah. But I think that black intellectual obviously served a purpose in society when there weren't many ways for groups to communicate with these certain parts of the black community, if you will. which again, black is a word that I don't even think entered like the center of the way that we referred to people in America until more recent times, like the last 40 or 50 years, 60 years, I don't know. But there's been this like big idea that like when somebody who is considered black, which is still loosely defined, speaks about something intellectual, then that person is a black intellectual. And I think where I get fired up is, you know, like in my comparative politics class at University of Colorado right now, we've got a great professor in that class. But the entire frame of why is the West so rich is about European dominance and how that extended itself with the foundation, you know, creation of the United States.

And it's basically anchored in in this kind of like, all right, white dominance. I'm not going to say supremacy because that's a whole whole. different conversation. I got different opinions on that, but it's all framed and underneath this kind of lens of white dominance. So to me, if I produce something inside of academia, you know, later in my life or, you know, in the next couple of years, or if I produce something meaningful out in society, then what I'm creating is considered second class because black indicates what people have correlated with a marginalized group. And therefore, I can only respond to people that think about something in the vein of black intellectual,

which also makes a bunch of assumptions about how I grew up and what my understanding of blackness is or isn't. And so I was just frustrated with like the fact that I feel like there are people that fit into this category of black intellectual that weaponize it. And some of them are, you know, younger than me and they've got big channels. Or I would get calls from certain people in media and they would box me in with thinkers that, you know, they thought fit a category based on race. And I honestly, I think that's bullshit. Like it's a very frustrating thing for me to accept that my thought, my thinking, where I'm coming from is basically second rate when we look at the way that our society is organized and the way

that it speaks about class and the way that it speaks about its ability to interact with political institutions if I think I'm a black intellectual. So I'm sure Brian there's a bunch of ways that we could talk about this. Yeah. Yeah, because I often find it, look, you know, as I've said on my channel many times to Neil deGrasse Tyson, my best friend, Stefan Alexander. You've probably heard it, you know, Jim Gates and I talking about it. And I'm like, you know, there's no doubt that blacks pay the black tax. I mean, you have to do stuff in academia that I'll never have to do. And, but, you know, and I think there is a burden on me, which is, which I take seriously. And that I want to find as many black, whatever, scientists and people in the technical world, A, because they have a merit,

have a meritocratic stance to be on my show or in my sphere of influence as minuscule or big as that might be. But I also view it as my job. And I've had, I think, more black scientists on my show than almost any other podcasts I know about. And I'm not saying that to brag. I'm saying, I think we have to do that. Just as I have a moral obligation to communicate to the public because they pay my salary, what I'm discovering. And I feel more scientists have to do that. So, too, the burden is on me, not because I think I'm, you know, supremacist or racist in any way, but I have to go and solicit you. And I have to reach out to you. And I do that. And sometimes I get rejected, by the way. I've asked, you know, black scientists, you know, no, you've had on,

you know, Ben Shapiro, why would I come on your show? Or I've had on, you know, some black intellectual that they don't lie or black scientists, whatever. But I feel it's kind of a double-edged thing. Like in academia, we're told that academia is systemically racist. And I don't like that. You know, it's like if I said, well, academia is systemically anti-Semitic. Well, what's the proof of that? Well, you know, people have to work on being anti-Semitic. No, I think that's unfalsifiable.

And so when I look at, you know, people that, you know, that are doing so much in the public sphere, and they happen to be black, I really view that as a, for me, obviously as a white person, I can't identify in the same way as you. But I view that as insignificant. Your intellect is what attracts me to you. And I'd listen to you if you were, you know, whatever or race, gender, color, whatever. So I wonder about this, this notion that you have, like, people that are spoken of as black leaders or leaders in the black community. But you don't hear that about other groups, like Jewish leaders.

Like, I don't know. First of all, you know, the old joke is, you know, two Jews. There's three opinions. And, you know, so how do you react to that statement, that phrase, you know, black leaders? or leader in the black community. Is that also kind of monolithizing you and making you define in this way that is anathema to your intellectual accomplishments?

Yeah, it's interesting because I didn't experience this way of talking about race until after George Floyd. So like, I feel like conversations about race were one way for me before George Floyd. And then after George Floyd, which is a horrendous scenario, but I think that goes without saying. But the conversations about race in America seem to change significantly. Even had friends call and like apologize crying. And I was like, holy shit.

Like we've been friends for like a decade. Right. What are we talking about? Right. So I've never seen myself as a black leader. And I think mixed race, being mixed race is complicated. I actually explore this a little bit in my substack of rant, and I hope to expand on this. I feel like mixed race identity is one that gets taken off the table by people that have more concrete conceptions of self.

And the black-white spectrum, unfortunately, is like at the forefront of political discussions in the United States. States, even though there are lots of other people that are not white necessarily and definitely aren't black. So I think I've inherited this like complicated identity that my parents didn't give me any instructions or rule books for how to manage. Right. Yeah. And so it makes me straddle this scenario where it's like when I was younger, it was like, Chris, why are you so black? And I'm like, the fuck does that mean? And then it would be like, why are you so white? And then it would be like, why are you so white and I'm like I really don't understand what you people are talking about and then as I've gotten older and not felt nearly as insecure about my ethnic racial identity whatever you want to

call it I've been able to observe it more and by the way most people don't think I'm black which is fascinating wow it's so incredible so I get to hear a lot of different viewpoints because I get treated more as a member of the in group even if I'm not in that group if you know what I'm Yeah. So I get to hear a lot of fascinating viewpoints. And I think that I work with a lot of amazing young people. And I've worked on a lot of businesses that I don't talk about just as like just volunteering, helping out in the community. And maybe some of these great young people are black, but that's certainly not the conversation that we have when we're building something. Because I think that the term black again marks this subservience or this like second tier or

this bottom class. And that is the last thing that I would want to teach young people to believe about themselves is that they are inherently less than because either society says that out loud or because there are certain structures that are in place that may be reinforced that. Because, again, I still believe that we can disrupt some of this thinking or we can shift these things in the future. And again, a lot of the rhetoric that comes out about race, it's hard to know how much of it is real or perceived. Even listening to some of the different networks on television, they bring the statistics

forth in a way that appeals to their base, but doesn't. doesn't necessarily appeal to the truth or the reality. So I think it's had a big impact on the way that I think about politics, but maybe not as much of an impact on how I think about some of the things that I do in the corporate setting. Yeah, very interesting. I didn't fully appreciate that it is kind of like a further imposition and whether it's systemic or not, we could debate or we could discuss, but the point of like, by just saying black, you know, whatever with any other, you know, subsequent noun after it, it's, it's, it isn't imposition by maybe a dominant culture or whatever. But I feel like, you know, it's they, you know,

we shouldn't define it, you know, or people shouldn't define it. The problem is anything in life, you know, Eric Weinstein points, anything that's like a spectrum is, it's very hard for the human mind to comprehend because it's like quantum mechanics. Like we think classically, but like no one's going to disagree that before your parents met, you didn't exist. And so you couldn't be aborted, say. And then after you're born, you know, no one's going to say, oh, well, like, he's not a, he's just a collection of cells. Like you're 30 years old, right? So the point is, you know, when there's a harmonic, you know, superposition of states, that is ambiguity. And the human mind likes to choose black or white, literally. And that's what I think is responsible for a lot of

people of mixed heritage, that they, you know, it's the hardest thing. Actually, in the, in the Old Testament, my tradition, you know, you were implored not to be a zealot, not to be too far to the left or too far the right. And why do you have to be commanded to do something that's natural? Obviously, you don't have to be commanded to love your kids or your puppy. So it must be unnatural to go down the middle. And I see that as a very interesting skill. I want to talk about the newsletter on Substack, Christopher Sweat, a rant, which I double subscribe to. One of the most fascinating post actually happens to be your last post, not to put too much pressure on you. I know you got bigger and other stuff that you're involved with. But I thought I'm in this fascinating.

You go back and you talk about what is natural law? What does that really mean? And I think you're intellectually honest enough to trace it to its roots and its heritage, both in ancient Greece, but also back to the God, you know, centered world of Europe in the 1600s, 1700s, John Locke. One thing I want to get your reaction to is the influence that, you know, the God-centered world of Europe in the 16-100, you know, that Thomas Jefferson was influenced by Euclid of all people. So Euclid in his elements famously says that, you know, such and such like two parallel lines don't meet. He says that is self-evident. Those words, those are, in other words, you don't even have to prove it. It's so obvious. And the funny thing, Chris, as you probably know, it's not true that two parallel lines don't meet. It only

happens in Euclidean flat space, right? So in the universe, it may or may not. So he was actually, you know, not completely right about that. But to say something is self-evident. but it means it's it's beneath the realm of even having to prove. And yet Thomas Jefferson, as you know, in the Declaration of Independence refers to these things. What is natural law? What is being self-evident? And do you think that like politicians should know a little more mathematics than they do now? Or at least logic and formal philosophy?

Yeah, 100%. In fact, and we'll see, I think my thoughts are still being discovered on this. But I think that natural law is like the crux of arguments that happen in American politics. Yes. If we just stop watching what's on television or in the news media, when I think about the laws of nature, like you were saying, these seem to be like really Christian conceptions of rules or constraints that are placed upon us, I guess you could say on a basic level. And I think that a lot of people that have

thought about natural law over many years make valid points in certain ways. Like maybe, maybe it is self-evident that everyone should have access to life, liberty, and justice. Like, like, maybe that, okay, fine. Like, we all assume that it's a duh that everyone, that everyone, Everyone should have access to these three basic principles of democracy, life, liberty, and justice. Duh. Okay. I think the issue is that natural law is going to exclude people that aren't capable in whatever the current state of the environment is of producing something that creates some kind of value, right? And I think this is where a lot of political conversations break down on the environment or on social justice is that you have two parties that have different interpretations of these natural constraints, these self-evident things, you know, things that are supposed to be, but maybe aren't. And you've got one side that says it's the Republicans that are preventing us from solving these really meaningful social and environmental issues.

And then you have the other side that says it's the Democrats that prevent us from addressing these important issues. And it seems like the Republican thinking in American politics is going to try to trace back. to some level of status quo, which means let's keep these things that are self-evident going. Let's not pursue any type of government intervention. Let's not try to redistribute wealth or disrupt this current structure of existing. But again, if all society have some type of inequity in them, then that way of thinking seems out of line with solving some of what people would say are the most important problems, you know, happening right now, again, around social justice or the environment.

But I also think, you know, the left we call it, which I think is oversimplified and maybe gives too much credit. But like American liberals are pretending that they're constrained by Republicans when in reality they're constrained by the Constitution. So I'm trying to frame this, I'm trying to frame this argument of both of these parties are constrained by this idea of natural law. And it seems like if our law doesn't account for social or environmental constraints, it's no wonder that it can't address social or environmental issues. And again, like what is when people talk about policy, what are they talking?

talking about. They're not, they're talking about the government printing money. It's obvious that the government has instituted different policies like, you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 1971, for example, 1971 was supposed to integrate schools. But in reality, all it said was that it was illegal to separate people based on race inside of these schools. But that didn't really change the way that society behaved in the environment or the way that people interacted with other groups. It didn't change as much of the thinking as I think people give it credit for. So I'm just, I'm trying to get to the root of, um, uh, kind of issues that I'm observing where the Constitution has these ideas that are ambitious and they've been taught to us as self-evident and which I

I think is similar to like if you're in the church and you're not allowed to ask questions about the scripture. And for the first time, I'm kind of looking at this and I'm like, okay, there's some real constraints banked into the way that our constitution set up. And both parties are talking around it. And there also seem to be other more complicated systems that interact with American politicians, the federal government on a regular basis that add additional complaints. And like you said earlier, I'm exploring this in near real time because I'm trying to kind of balance out like my, like how much I like to write and how much I like to express myself in that medium, but then also still bring some academic rigor, right? I don't, I'm not trying to make it just all opinion, if you will. No, it's, uh, are you night, thoroughly research has cited, uh, originally. sources. I love that you're thinking in public and you're writing in public. I think it's the hardest thing to do. But I think in this day and age, it's one of the most valuable things that we can do not only for ourselves, but for everybody. Yeah, just to reference your point, you know,

as I was reading it and thinking about this tension that you keep referring to in that piece, I was thinking about Las Vegas odds bookmakers, you know, because they don't make any money. If my kids' little league team plays the vaunted San Diego Padres or your Colorado Rockies, not doing so hot now. But anyway, but if they play, they're going to get blown out. My kids are going to get crushed, right? So what do they do? They have a point spread. And what's the analog of the point spread? Nobody makes money unless the point spread is evenly matched. So it boosts up. So what does the media do? They make the narrative equal or not like, you know, that's a tight race and it's bitterly divided and everything. They won't make any money if you're like, oh,

it's a total blow. Like American opinions, it's like totally against this opinion or this, this such in the in the last 10 minutes or so you also think and write a lot about finance future tech you know venture capital things like that i want to get first of all i can't resist because it's always in the news and i've had on guests like michael sailor and and and kind of his evil you know twin peter schiff who's kind of on the opposite side of things economically gold i don't know what to do chris so what do you think about like all these this this pace again of technology. Now it's in the currency network effect, not just in social and then online. What do you make of opportunities, you know, I can't resist asking you about blockchain and so forth. Where do you

see this going? And more provocatively, are there opportunities for people in academia like myself to somehow utilize this to the benefit of humanity? Yeah. Okay. So there are certain things that I won't be able to speak on effectively here because I've distanced myself from a lot of the blockchain hype yeah me too yeah okay like um that that aside though obviously I've been listening on a regular basis to the different arguments that people make for uh not necessarily blockchain but cryptocurrency to like replace uh fiat currency I've been listening to these arguments for four or five years now And I mean, I have friends that mine and so forth. And I have a friend that has stood up a decent mining operation in Kansas City.

Like, I mean, it's pretty legit looking at like how a mining operation works and how data analytics can play into it and how scientific it can get. So I think like if people can find ways to make money in these new technology environments, they should. Like I would always encourage that. I just don't think that it's smart to overindex. And if people are looking at it from an investment perspective, again, not giving any investment advice here, even though I don't have any licenses for that anyway. I don't think anybody should overindex on one asset class if people are making their investments. As far as blockchain goes, again, as with any kind of technology,

the more advanced it gets, the more operations it's going to require like a department of people that are able to support it and have a specific set of skills and capabilities. So I'm optimistic, you know, that will find ways to integrate these technologies, but trying to integrate the newer technologies, like that being my practice for the last like seven or eight years, like something I've been dedicated to, it's not simple. And it's hard to see through the hype. Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot. It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill,

four-burner gas grill on special buy for only $199. And entertain all season with the Hampton Bay West Grove seven-piece outdoor dining set for only $499. This Memorial Day get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. While supplies last, price invalid May 14th or May 27th, U.S. only exclusions apply. See Home Depot.com slash price match for details. Yeah. So, but I'm always, I'm always optimistic.

I just don't think it's smart to over index. For the people that are making money currently on these different technologies, they should keep doing that. Mm-hmm. What about, yeah, talk about venture capital and why does that appeal to you? you know, it seems to me like, again, there's so many barriers to entry, there's so many gaykeepers, you know, it's very hard. I mean, Robin Hood, what are we going to do? I mean, so, but talk about it. What is it? What does it appeal to you? Why should you turn your, you know, limited amount of time,

but vast intellectual capital towards this, this, you know, relatively challenging modality to, to at least have some degree of aspirational wealth? Yeah, no, I think I started my first business when I was 19. And I had some success. We'll talk about it some other time. But it was enough success to make me overconfident. It basically took me another eight or nine years to actually build a decent business that could turn a profit and provide for me. And that was kind of my quest of like understanding as much about business as I possibly could. And come to find out, and this is one of the reasons why I decided to go back to university, but come to find out the access to, you know, technology, the Bay Area, startups venture capital, the access to these things, the things that are

needed to start legitimate entrepreneurial ventures, especially the ones that are in the vein of technology, it's very constricted. And so I had gone in and out of enough tech companies and seen enough iterations of software and seen a lot of companies grow and become very dominant over the last decade where once they had these like really basic primitive tools that weren't that exciting and next thing you know they're like in 80% of the global 2000 and so I wanted to know like why that was happening what was the what was the trajectory and I came to learn that venture capital list venture capital list their funds, they are not able to manage risk in a systematic way. So they use a hand-waving heuristic

to decide where they place their funds. And so they're obviously going to place their funds with people that go to, you know, 10 or 12 universities and to maybe very rarely outside of that come through certain circles of friends. And because of the way that they make their investments, they need outsize returns, which means that they're only able to, you know, they're only able to, to invest in companies that have outsized total addressable market, a place that they can sell the service to. And I'm like, well, that's interesting that this venture capital that really only can invest in very specific business models and invest only in very specific types of individuals you know, is considered like this iconic form of American capitalism,

which I think couldn't be further from the truth. And so, so anyways, when I'm speaking about different things, especially being as outspoken as I can around technology or software of the Bay Area venture capital, I just like to understand, like there's a certain capital structure behind these technologies and it obviously it has a big impact on what these technologies can produce in the near term. And it has a big influence on what's possible down the road. And so, again, I can't look at one part of the system and not try to look at a few other parts of the system to understand what's going on. Well, Christopher Sweat, we've had a fascinating conversation.

I could certainly talk to you. for many more hours. I'm looking forward to Sunday meeting in person. I don't think all relationships should stay online. And I hope to meet you maybe when I'm out at NIST, my colleagues at Boulder. Yes. And for now,

I just want to encourage everybody to read Chris's substack, which is phenomenal. And I'd like to get some advice on myself someday about doing a substack. I haven't started that. I have a newsletter, but not a substack. So please subscribe to that. Show notes will contain the link information.

Follow them on Twitter, Clubhouse, Instagram, LinkedIn, everywhere that social media profiles can be seen. I follow him religiously. And Chris, it's just such a pleasure. I'm so glad you accepted my invitation. And I hope we can have many more conversations online and off. And I just want to congratulate you again. Courage is a rare commodity.

And I really, whenever I see kind of you light up on Clubhouse or whatever, it's a must tune in. So keep up the awesome work, my friend. Thank you so much, Brian. This was fun. I appreciate it. Have a great rest of your day. I hope again, see you soon, Chris. See you soon, Brian. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Hey, y'all, just a simple request before you head out to the rest of your day or night.

And that's to sign up for my Monday Magic messages. These are simple, sweet, short conversations that I want to have with you. And they entail the following subjects. One is a memory. One is an appearance that I have had. One is a genius idea from around the universe of ideas that I explore. One is an image or an idea. And the last is a conversation, my podcast or my videos with the guest of Douceman, the guest of the week.

So if you'd like to do that, please go to Brian Keating.com. and there's a pop-up and you'll get to subscribe to my mailing list. And I make it very easy to subscribe to, very easy to leave if you should want to leave. And I hope that you'll find these Monday magic messages quite interesting. Because as Sir Arthur C. Clark said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I like to bring you a new perspective from the universe into the impossible and do so with an eye towards the things. that are most interesting. So I hope you'll subscribe. Again, Briancating.com, sign up and your money back if you don't like it. Of course, it doesn't cost anything. Thanks, y'all. 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 Yamava Theater. Only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. UN must be 21 to enter.