Know Thyself - E51 - Klee Irwin: Exploring The Self-Simulation Hypothesis & Nature Of Reality

Episode Date: June 20, 2023

What is reality? Are we in a simulation? Quantum Gravity Research Founder Klee Irwin joins the Know Thyself podcast today to explore these fundamental questions of existence. He dives deep into The Self-Simulation Hypothesis & Emergence Theory - which he has been studying extensively to solve these very questions. Klee provides insights into the fundamentals of these theories, posing the question of if this IS a simulation, is it: a simulation controlled by a being in another galaxy OR a projection from our future selves. Begging the question of who our future descendants are, if they are still human, and can we communicate with them. This is a fascinating episode to open your mind to possible answers to perplexing questions of reality, and understand the extensive research Klee & his team are doing to bring these topics into mainstream scientific discussion. SPONSOR: https://www.mudwtr.com/knowthyself Code: KNOWTHYSELF for 15% off (Currently only ships to US & Canada) ___________ Timecodes: 0:00 Intro 3:21 Klee’s Mission to Discover the Mysteries of Life 7:20 Converting Money into Thought 11:06 The Self Simulation Theory 16:58 How the Future You Can Change the Present You 30:01 Why Reality May be Pixelated 36:22 An Inherent Universal Language 51:00 Decoding the patterns and mysteries of life 54:00 Merging with your Future Self 1:03:31 Why Klee is Exploring the Theory of Everything 1:11:36 Unpacking Emergence Theory 1:23:43 Reality as Information and Meaning through Symbolism 1:34:37 The Power of Story and Transcendence in "Lucy" 1:37:48 The Messiness of Free Will and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Life 1:41:12 The Gaia Hypothesis and the Biosphere 1:44:35 The Goal of Evolutionary Biology and Human High Consciousness 1:48:03 Extraterrestrial Intelligence & Future Humans 1:58:17 Embracing Change and a Thought Experiment on the Nature of Reality 2:01:36 The Future of Collaboration Between Humans and Ultra Strong AI 2:08:39 The Mythos of Materialism and the Self-Simulation Hypothesis 2:12:11 The Simulation Hypothesis, Materialism, and other Competing Philosophies 2:15:32 The Relationship Between Information and Meaning 2:18:51 Transcending into a New Way of Being 2:24:45 Exploring Consciousness and Responsibility in the Pursuit of Truth 2:28:01 The Potential of Integrating with our Ancestral and Future Selves 2:37:41 Conclusion ___________ Klee Irwin is an author, physicist and businessman who serves as CEO and Chairman of Irwin Naturals Inc as well as Director of Quantum Gravity Research (QGR), a non-profit research institute he founded in 2009. Quantum Gravity Research Website: https://quantumgravityresearch.org Klee Irwin website: https://www.kleeirwin.com Watch Klee Irwin's Documentary: "Are We In A Simulation?": https://youtu.be/k2VVuvSwY2U Watch Klee Irwin's Documentary: "What is Reality?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU ___________ Know Thyself Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/knowthyself/ Website: https://www.knowthyself.one Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ4wglCWTJeWQC0exBalgKg

Reality is not what you have been told it was. Your beliefs, scientific ideas, all of it is crumbling under the load of change. Something's got to give. What is reality? Is it a simulation? And if it is a simulation, is it a self-simulation or a world that lives in a computer in another universe? We've looked at trillions of locations in time and space.

And it is so quiet out there that you can hear a pin drop. It is as though we are the first ultra-high consciousness life capable of manipulating the electromagnetic spectrum. And let's be clear, our descendants are not human. There's no reason we should presume that in deep time that most of our descendants are born on Earth. The self-simulation hypothesis, it's about the unification of spirit and matter and getting back to balance. And I think that unification of those two is the only thing that can really save us from insanity and self-destruction. Hello, beautiful beings. Welcome back to the Know Thyself podcast for every single week.

We get the honor and privilege to sit down with a brilliant mind and open heart to learn more about the true nature of self and the world around us at deeper and deeper levels. My guest today is an incredible human being. And I'm so looking forward to diving into this conversation today. Some may know him as an individual who co-founded early on with Singularity University. Some may know him as a philanthropist and entrepreneur with his business, Irwin Naturals, which is an award-winning global natural supplement company. And how he spends most of his days today, and this time, is a researcher and director at quantum gravity research.

And it is a nonprofit Los Angeles-based organization working on discovering and sharing a first principles quantum gravity unification theory. I memorized that. And he's also dedicated and devoted to supporting the global physics community at large through collaborative efforts. He is an individual that I met just a couple weeks ago. And I'm so honored to help steward this conversation today as it's his first podcast appearance in this format in this way,

which I feel so privileged to be able to sit down with. Because when I met him, I was completely, blown away by the profundity and depth of his work, but then also equally enamored by the depth and passion of what he carries within himself for the mission that he's on. I'm really inspired by individuals that are devoted to a mission that is larger than themselves, and I feel like he's taken on the task of quite literally the most audacious task there is, which is to truthfully discover and share and prove how this reality works at a fundamental level. So, Cleet Irwin, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate you up just being in your presence here in your

studio. What an honor it is. Thank you. Yeah. The privilege and honor is mine. We are going to be diving into many different avenues and rabbit holes today. But for the viewers and for the listeners today, I would love for you just to share a 50,000-foot bird's-eye view. an overview of how you explain to the layman person like what your work is what is this mission that you're on perhaps share your mission statement and what that is and then we can just go from there okay well our mission statement is to discover and communicate the geometric first principles unification of a bunch of stuff including space time and energy which would relate to sort of unification of physics, but also information and consciousness. How does all of that tie together?

And then how I came into like the audaciousness of that was through some interesting life experiences about 13 years ago where at that time I would have described myself as an ethically minded materialist atheist. In other words, I did. you know, generally try to, I chose, right, to have as much of a loving way as I could. But the best that I could do with the facts that I knew about at the time was, well, there's no true meaning to anything, right? A very materialist view. And so then what happened is the universe started showing me. what I needed to see to open up my mind.

And I, you know, I needed evidence. That's what I felt I needed at that time. So the universe said, fine, here's a bunch of evidences. So you either have to decide that you're losing your mind and the evidence is just delusional, evidence that there's something greater than the materialist view, right? Or you have to be open to now include that, as a mystery of reality.

These, you know, spiritual phenomena, psychic phenomena, you know, anything from just a premonition to a synchronicity, right? Those sorts of things. They started happening in a cluster to where, wait a minute, okay, let me check and make sure I'm not going insane. Check, nope, not going insane. Therefore, reality is more mysterious than, you know, the, the physicist would have me believe, you know, the status quo, the physicist on CNN that appear as guests, right?

So then because my life path had brought me money energy, right, at that point, I was able to leave the business to the business people who worked for me and just go down the rabbit hole of fundamental physics. So I was able to hire PhD mathematicians and physicists, and I formed this little group that's called quantum gravity research. And at that time, I said, okay, well, I'm no longer a materialist atheist, but I don't know what I am, right? I don't know what reality is. And that's the goal of our institute. And so 13 years later, I have an opinion about, you know, scientists, we call it a theory, right? So I have a theory of what I think reality is. We call that theory emergence theory.

And then, you know, the process of it all is called the self-simulation hypothesis. And it's an idea that reality self-actualizes, self-realized, self creates itself. Beautiful. So I'm excited to dive into that. But also one thing that stuck out in our last conversation and meeting is this thing that you share that you want to convert money into thought. Can you explain what that is, what that means? Well, money in the first place is a thought. It's information. It's an abstraction. Fiat currencies. You know, gold is gold. I mean, if you have some gold and some society says it's worth this amount, cool. That's what the society says. It's, worth you know but but money isn't even gold right it's this abstraction right and and so you know

through business we can create um this stuff called money for physicists we just call energy some stuff that can do stuff so it can that is a substance a thing that can do work it can create change right like you can have um but you can you can also let your let energy go to waste like you can charge a battery and just bury it under the you know ground and it won't really run your electric toothbrush or anything else um so you can do that with money too you can accumulate a lot of money energy and just let it go to waste rot in the bank and and not do really any change in the world right or you could try to put it to work and so the biggest types of change historically have been thoughts you know and and I'm talking about unpleasant thoughts

and pleasant thoughts but some of the most profound things that change the vector of collective humanity have been mere thoughts they start as thoughts and they get written down or voiced and they they can become reality like hey I wonder if we could go to the moon and then it became reality So a thought is therefore the most powerful thing. So if we're worried collectively about where we're going as a world, then we have to ask, well, what are the thoughts that have us on this vector that's so scary to us? And what are the different thoughts, right, that we can put out there? And so of course there's all this polarization and the right and the left and all of the, you know, the struggle of the polarity.

So for me and my team at quantum gravity research, the thought that we want to put out there is this idea that, well, what if reality itself were made of thought? Like literally, right? Now, of course, that's not a new idea, but to connect it to mathematics. So we know that this beautiful reality that we live in called nature, right, chemistry, genetics, right? All of it. We know that as you go down the rabbit hole, down to the smallest scales, we know that it's very mathematical. We know that the way nature is behaving is with these symmetries. and it's mathematical. So math is a thought, right? So what we try to do is discover what is that fundamental

mathematical thought that then spins up and becomes particles and then molecules like DNA and life and thinkers like you and I. So you've been so gracious in putting certain documentaries and content out online that has been picking up a lot of traffic. And I think it's because, one, people really understand the fundamental position that we're at as society and culture right now, which is, you know, it's very doom and gloom with the potential capacity we have for mass destruction to our biosphere right now to, you know, you share like a quarter of the people on the planet have mental illness, like diagnosable mental illness. And it can be very scary, but like you're sharing, there are certain thoughts and beliefs that are kind of embedded. inherent in society right now that have led us to the place that we're at. And to introduce a new framework, a new theory, a new thought that could be so radically transformational that it can actually course correct us into a new direction completely. I think it's such a beautiful mission that you're on. And so I'm so excited to share more about the self-simulation hypothesis,

emergence theory, and dive into this a little bit more here. too. So self-simulation hypothesis. How do you explain in a basic kind of overview of what that is? And let's go from there. First of all, I apologize for the overly sterile and sciencey, geeky name that we gave it. It's just a label. We wanted to get it published in peer review, academic physics, journals.

So we could give it any other name, but throughout our discussion, I'd love to go back and forth between the geekiness of the science and the mysticalness of the spiritual implications of the self-simulation hypothesis. So the sort of overview, right, in a simple way would be that, You first have to decide as a scientist or a thinker, a wonderer of what reality is, do you think that causality is linear? That is, it just goes in one direction where a thing occurs and that causes a thing later in time to occur. Or are you open-minded to the idea

that maybe causality doesn't work strictly, like that. So for what modern quantum field theorists believe is they have known for a while that at the smallest scales, and we call it the highest energy scales, but it also relates to the smaller zoomed-in scale, that causality, linear causality breaks down. So a metaphor for that would be, you know, a thing A caused, thing B, which actually caused thing A in the first place. So to even get your head around that apparent illogic, you have to question, why do you

think that's illogical? And it would be because you subscribe to the old school, which is called Newton's physics, the pre-quantum physics viewpoint. But in a lot of interpretations of quantum mechanics and very modern experiments, we say, no, that the future can influence the past in some models legit models and if that's true if the future can influence the past then I am the future to myself yesterday so then in principle I could be influencing myself yesterday as I'm sitting here recording the podcast with you and so that's a little bit of an overview of the same

self-simulation hypothesis, which would mean that if the future evolution of a simple program, and we'll get into simple programs, but if a simple program could emerge in complexity such that what emerges from the simple program's behavior is an entity capable of running the simple program from the beginning, self-actualizing itself, then you do not need an outside creator that you have an ontology or a worldview where reality can bootstrap itself, co-create itself from within itself. So we'll have to really unpack that, but that's the best I could do for an overview. A quick share from today's sponsor. I'm a warm beverage kind of guy. I like my tea, cacao and other products like from our sponsor

today, Mudwater. Mudwater is a coffee alternative with adaptive genic mushrooms and Ayurvedic herbs. With only a fraction of the caffeine as a cup of coffee, you get the energy without the jitters or crash. Their original blend has chai and cacao, mushrooms like Lions Main to support focus, and Chaga and Rishi to support your immune system. I personally also love to use the rest blend as a part of my nighttime ritual. It has no caffeine and ingredients like ashaeghanda and chamomile to help you chill out.

Everything is 100% organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, vegan, and delicious. I love what this company stands for, how they believe in creating healthy minds, through healthy habits, and how they donate monthly to mental health causes. To try them out, you can go to mudwtr.com slash know thyself and use code know thyself for 15% off and they'll even throw in a free rechargeable frother. As always, everything is linked down in the description below. Back to the episode. Yeah, one of the most fascinating parts I think of the work is to experientially and intellectually inquire about how a future self could impact a past self. I would love for you just to unpack that a little bit more because society's inherent understanding of time is very

limiting. And so I'd love for you to share a little bit more about how is it possible that a future us, which a lot of people are under the conclusion that the past doesn't exist because it's no longer here. The future doesn't exist because it hasn't happened yet. Right. Right. So, okay, So I'll bounce back and forth. So what we do is on the cutting edge. In other words, what we do at quantum gravity research is controversial because we bring consciousness, collective consciousness, into our model. So I'll bounce back and forth between what the status quo view is.

So prior to 1905, which is when Einstein, you know, came out with his paper on the special theory of relativity. It was believed that, as you said, the past no longer exists, it's gone, the future hasn't happened yet, it doesn't exist. And so this thing that made Einstein so famous is this mind-blowing idea that, oh no, no, not at all, the past is equally as real as the present, and the present is equally as real as the future. equal all real and that was that was very anathema to the

to the current Newtonian view at that time okay so if if myself you know unless I unless I die tonight right but there's an incredibly low probability that I'm just going to die tonight right so there's a very high

probability I exist tomorrow and according to Einstein's theory it is as he Klee is as real tomorrow as I am here with you today, as well as myself yesterday. Now in Einstein's theory, it says that if you expect to ask the question, can Klee from tomorrow talk to Klee from yesterday? Don't even ask the question, because it can't happen, because the signal using light would have to go faster than the allowed speed limit of the universe. but then came quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics didn't predict entanglement.

Entanglement, when I'll explain entanglement, but quantum entanglement came about by just observation through experiments. And it's like, oh my gosh, what the heck? And it turned out to comport with the math of quantum mechanics. So entanglement is basically this thing where like you can entangle things. like for example two particles and the end put some particles have this thing called spin like heads up heads down you know tails or heads okay so when they get entangled okay then you can separate them by any distance millions of miles and if you flip

one from spin up to spin down it's entangled mate instantaneously flips its state but not because of a signal being transmitted at the speed of light or faster or slower than the speed of light. It's as though they're the same particle. So they've experimentally verified that. And then about 12, 13 years ago, they did an experiment to see if it would work if you could separate the two entangled particles in time. And so we can separate things in time by changing their gravitational strength, right? Like if you go to the top of a mountain, time moves differently than at the bottom, right? And that's measurable, that's experimentally.

So anyway, they did that and it turned out that, yep, you can separate two particles in time and they instantaneously react to one another. No signal, has nothing to do with light travel. So with that being an experimental fact, we go back to that question, can myself tomorrow chit-chat with myself yesterday or myself today? And the answer is, well, we don't know. Like physicists don't know for sure. They can pound their fist on the table any individual and say no. But the problem is they don't have a unification theory yet.

that unifies the theory of particles, which is quantum mechanics, with the theory of space and time. Think of the particles as actors, and they're always in a stage, whether it's outdoors or on a real stage in a sound studio. So they go together, the actors in their environment. So the particles, quantum mechanics, it can never be separated from the stage, space, and time,

in which they interact. But the problem is that best theory that we have as humans of space and time is Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is sort of an advancement on special relativity. And the best theory we have of particles is quantum mechanics. And here's the dirty little secret of physicists. Quantum mechanics very aggressively says that general relativity is incorrect in its foundational, assumptions and general relativity retorts back and says very clearly that quantum mechanics is wrong in its assumptions and and so physicists today are scratching their heads because we have some evidence that it that good evidence that quantum mechanics and general relativity are at

least generally correct like mostly correct so string theory and other theories that try to fit the two together in a way that they agree have so far failed. Like, they've never, like string theory is about 55 years old now, and it's never made a successful experimental prediction. So the holy grail for physicists is still to find that unified theory of everything. And to just add on another dirty little secret of physics is that we have this thing that we playfully call the measurement problem. And it came about by noticing that when we observe particles, they behave differently than when we're not observing them.

It has nothing to do with the light that we might shine upon them to observe them. And it's a real head scratcher for, you know, especially if you're a materialist and you've made up your mind about this or that of what reality is. it's a pun or a playful thing to say call it a problem like for maybe somebody with your philosophy if I ask you enough questions I might say well for you it wouldn't be a problem that your awareness of the particles is going to make an interactive universe be like oh okay let's you know let's change the probabilities because Andrea's observed become aware of But for a person like maybe how I was 13 years ago, a materialist, that would be a problem. And it's an unsolved problem right now in physics. So when we get to these questions of why the heck would consciousness or awareness change how the particles behave? And there are some physicists who say that consciousness or awareness doesn't change it. But there are a lot of other titans of physics, even like godfathers of physics, who say,

no no it's a weird spooky weird problem you can't just hand wave it off so you get back to that thing can clee tomorrow chit chat with clee yesterday can there be a dialogue even subtle even subconscious there's nothing specifically that prohibits that that we know of in the context of trying to fit quantum mechanics and general relativity together and partly because we haven't fit that nobody has fit them together successfully so what I believe is that by a lot of evidence I've seen in peer review stuff as well as my own personal experience that two consciousnesses separated in time can connect and share consciousness share thought so if that were possible

then we have this observation of reality called the complexity arrow of time. Things get more complex, rich, or over time. So let's go back to the story of the Big Bang, right? After the Big Bang, we had this homogeneous mist called the cork-gluon plasma. It was just like corks and gluons. That's it.

The spacing between them was typical. It wasn't clumps. It was just misty. And then that, evolved into something more complicated called the early hydrogen universe. It was just hydrogen. It was really boring. There was no other atoms, but it was more complicated than the cork gluon plasma because the corks and gluons self-organized into these more complicated hydrogen atoms. And then things started clumping up into stars. And then the stars went supernova. And they produced

about 100 other atoms, other types of atoms. And then those atoms started teeming up. to complicated groups like DNA molecules. And the story just keeps going to where the complexity of the universe is like unidirectional. Things get more complex over time, on average, not less. And so if you take our consciousness the way we kind of recognize that we're smart, Because we're smart, like we're doing stupid things, but I think it's clear that we're smart animals. Primates are pretty smart.

They have the ability to do abstraction, like stories and math and stuff. Yeah. So I don't think any materialist or any spiritual person, I don't think there's anybody who really believes that humans are the epitome of what's possible in terms of the magnitude of awareness or consciousness. that can exist in a universe that keeps getting more complex. So what if there was something forward in time of us in this special relativity view where it does exist up there just at a different location in time, but it's legit, it exists. And we know about this unidirectional complexity arrow of time.

So we can say, well, in principle, given enough time, there should be consciousnesses forward in time that are vastly more conscious than us. And does it get to a point where it becomes sufficiently vast and conscious? Maybe it's a collective, okay? But is it possible with the laws of physics, as we understand it, for a consciousness sufficiently vast to run within its vast consciousness, a simulation of itself from very simple origins? And I think any honest arguer would have to say, oh, sure, there's nothing specifically in the laws of physics as we know them that says no way.

And then we can bring in that famous statement, whatever is possible, given enough time will eventually occur. So if it is possible for a vastly advanced collective consciousness to emerge, given enough time, will eventually occur. emerge, given enough time, it will have the capability to self-simulate, self-create, self-actualize itself. All right, so we just opened up many different things. We did. We could spend the rest of today unpacking. I think fundamentally we don't know enough about the nature of consciousness to see how it could be

connecting, you know, unifying multiple different theories that have been existing for some time. I want to where shall we go first? There's so many things to pick up here. I love how there's many different things as you start to observe, they kind of stack

on top of each other to start to build a potential hypothesis for self-simulation. One of those is how when we observe and it's the most fundamental examine nature that reality is pixelated. Yes. Can you explain that? Yeah, well it comes from

the math really of quantum mechanics where we discovered that we thought that light was a wave originally humanity right and and we saw we thought what the waves of light or energy were in this very smooth thing called space time and so therefore it was not perceived to be pixelated quantum mechanics really fundamentally says that actually no light can only energy can only come in these little pixels or building blocks of of energy and length and volume can only come in these little pixels of frozen moments effectively so those are called the Planck time, the plunk volume, you know, and then we have these, these minimal plunk energy. So that was a big surprise in the 1920s when quantum mechanics came about.

And it's really that realization of that sort of pixelated is one word, but this discreet nature of energy that really led to the digital, you know, revolution and all of the advanced. that we have. It's very, very small. It's hard to even visualize how small it is, but you can visualize how you can take a length like that and just say 10 times smaller. So maybe 10 times smaller is like that. It's easy to visualize. I can even do it again, 10 times smaller. So to visualize the plunk volume, you'd do 10 times smaller from a meter like 34 times. So abstractly you can do that. So you can say, okay, it's just like hella small, right? It's like volume. And then you do the same thing with a second and you say, okay, I can kind of imagine tenths of a second because I've seen it on a digital counter. It's moved really fast, tenths of a second. And then you do that 44 times, 10 times smaller, 10 times smaller 44 times.

So quantum mechanics implies that a duration in time can be no shorter than that. And that sort of implies that it's like a frozen moment. It kind of implies that reality may be like a 35 millimeter film, except really fast and with really small pixels. So how do we know that it's not a limitation of our instruments to know that reality isn't even at its most fundamental to examine it doesn't go even smaller? Yes. So, well, our instrumentation doesn't get us remotely close to the plunk volume or the plonk time. It's mathematics. Yeah, it's mathematics and experiment.

But the experiments that support quantum mechanics, the math, the quantum mechanics is just math, right? It's model theory, equations. But there's just thousands upon thousands of experiments that are predicted by that math and in fact we've never done an experiment that the math of quantum mechanics predicts that's failed to match the prediction and so we do have plenty of evidence that energy right comes in these discrete pixels or packets of energy but to go zooming down to the plunk time and the plunk volume To do that experimentally would require a lot of energy, right? Like the equivalent of countless trillions of nuclear power plants,

like an unattainable, you know, currently unattainable level. So most, a lot of physicists believe that the plonk, the plonk length, the plonp volume, this stuff is real. But you're right, there's no, you know, there's no full evidence. But like experimentally to actually zoom down there. But people who think that reality is a simulation, they often use that pixel concept that's well supported by quantum mechanics and some experimental evidence to say, well, if it were a simulation, it would just be an ultra-rich, high-fidelity simulation. but why would, if it's a simulation, why would you waste zooming,

like why would it have to go to this infinite precision if there's no consciousnesses that are observing at that level of precision or anybody who cares about that level of precision? It's as though reality may be, like John Wheeler, the guy who invented the phrase black hole, He liked to say that we live in an interactive reality where our observations and awarenesses of things around us cause the universe to interact like an interactive simulation.

So yeah, so pixelation is like is just evidence. That's the thing with physics, there's never proof of anything. There's just supporting evidence. So for everybody that's listening right now, what we're explaining and it is taking, you know, it's going to take some time to continue to unpack, but it has incredible implications for perceptions on what potential alien life is, for the direction of artificial intelligence, for the evolution of consciousness. What's really interesting is how you, one avenue of your work is taking these 8D crystals, projecting it down to a 4D quasi-crystal and then to 3D. I would love for you to unpack a little bit how that there is a, you know, a inherent universal language that is fundamental and inherent within life, the closer you pay attention that starts to become revealed. There's laws, there's ratios, and they point to how reality works at a fundamental level, right? So I'd love for you to unpack a little bit of that and how some of those discoveries give us some answers as to potentially how reality works. For example,

the golden ratio and, you know, various things. Yeah. So a lot of lot of what you know we've done in the papers that we've published and the work we've been doing comes to us through um intuition and then we're scientists so we're going to challenge our intuition and and and that's the scientific method scientific method is just the the humility of saying any idea i come up with whether it's general relativity quantum mechanics it's always a theory that's always possible to be replaced by a better picture of what reality is. And what we allow to replace is things that are better supported by experiment. Experiment is just a fancy word for observation.

How are we perceiving nature to behave? So we think that when we combine these ideas like, okay, so. we believe that reality is pixelated and we believe that it's made of math, right? A lot of physicists believe that. But why would it be interactive with us? Because this measurement problem is a real phenomenon. Then, you know, you get into this Oroboros symbolism where, you know, A caused B, which caused A, which caused B, which caused B, which caused B, which caused and you let go of that older idea of linear causality.

And it's in that where you can say, as a hypothesis, a sufficiently evolved consciousness from the future, which could be our descendent lineage. And let's be clear, our descendants are not human. The vast majority of them have different DNA, So they are speciated away from us. And there's no reason we should presume that in deep time that most of our descendants are born on Earth. So they're alien, these descendants in our tree.

And they're not all the same. It's just like go back to the origin of life here on Earth about four billion years ago. And you see how it just keeps fractally branching out to fruit flies and rhinoceros and. and dinosaurs and me and you, you know, homo sapiens sitting here. And so you have to think about that continuing forward. If we get off planet using our abstraction of physics and technology and we move our consciousness out into the universe, they will definitely speciate. And it generally won't be speciation from survival of the fittest as much as bespoke, steering of the genetic code, CRISPR technologies and whatever comes after that.

And so those, those, those, that idea of future advanced consciousnesses, can they form collectives? Can me and you get into some psychic meditation feedback loop and literally form a little Andre Clee-Borg, right? Is it possible, right? So maybe it is. And so, but if it were and if it could be in the future, then for us in the simulation hypothesis, there is this idea where, okay, so it self-simulates or self-actualizes itself within thought,

within consciousness, starting with a very simple program that's made of math. It's just elegant and simple. So what math would it use? Now it's presumably really smart, right? That's the idea. Okay, let's say that if hypothetically something evolves forward in time and it's just hella smart and it's going to need to, and it chooses to use math. So I describe it as physics as game boards and games.

So an example of a game board is like the 64 pieces of a checker board. But you can play chess on that. You don't have to play checkers. So you can play more than one game on a game board. And so a piece of math, like a certain algebra, is a game board. And there can be different physics models that physicists use like games that play out on the same mathematical game board. So we go to this idea of this very advanced consciousness, almost godlike compared to us, right? We just have to imagine it to be very big.

And it's going to choose either an inefficient game board and game to self-actualize itself or an efficient one. Now, every physics theory has an unprovable assumption. And it's called an axiom. And so the axiom of our theory, emergence theory and the self-simulation hypothesis is the principle of efficient language. So we believe that language is thought. Or you could say thought is language in action, right? Thought is the sort of verb form of the noun language. And so math is language.

So this godlike collective consciousness in this story, this mythos, chooses to be efficient. It doesn't have to be. And so we hypothesize that it chooses. And so in our physics approach, we have an axiom called the principle of efficient language. It's a choice. It's a philosophy. It's a choice. There's a lot of good reasons to be efficient, right?

So it chooses an elegant game board and game. So in math, this is where I'll get a little geeky, but not too geeky. Go for it. All right. So in math, we have these things called division algebras, and they relate to numbers like one, two, three, four, five, right? And then you get to this higher dimensional one called the complex numbers. And the complex numbers are kind of geometric, so they're laid out on something called the complex plane, which is a lot like that checkerboard, where the complex numbers. where the complex integers,

like one point, you know, the golden ratio is not an integer or 1.5, it's not an integer, right? So you can say, all right, so the complex plane is all of these complex numbers including the complex integers, and then, but it's like a 2D thing. And then you have a 4D one called the quaternions,

this is a division algebra, and then you have an 8D1. And then you can say, well, Clee, what about, like, that's it, end of the story. There's only four division algebras, and they're absolutely fundamental to physics. They're used by physicists. And then we have this other thing that I won't even try to explain called exceptional lead groups, and the largest exceptional league group is associated with eight dimensions, eight spatial dimensions.

And you can associate these octonions, the largest of the division algebras. So in math, the largest division algebra is associated, you can associate it with eight dimensions and the largest exceptional Lie algebra. You can associate it with eight dimensions. So we can say, all right, so let's take the crystal. It's called the Lee lattice for this largest exceptional Lee group that's associated with 8D. And we can say, all right, we're going to just take that mathematical object. that's special, it's a limit,

and it's a crystal called the Lee lattice. And if you look through it at a certain angle, you project it to some lower dimension to something called a quasi-crystal. So right now with one eye, you would be looking at me, but I'm 3D, but with one eye, you're flattening me into a National Geographic 2D, You're smashing me down.

So that's a transformation. It's like a shadow. You know, you hold a 3D cube stick figure to the sun and shines on to the sidewalk as a 2D shadow. And so the 3D shadow of this 8D crystal encodes the information of this 8D crystal. So I call it like a Trinity, right, like from religious. metaphors I can say that you can think of the 8D crystal as the mother and you can think of the transform operator that projects it as the father and you can think of the child as the quasi crystal in the lower dimension it looks like a 3D version of a mosaic tiling on an Islamic

like wall and the interesting about this beautiful thing that you can see we've got it on our website and our papers is it's a language it's a geometric language so a language is just a finite set of things like in english we got a bunch of like about 50,000 words and and then we have rules on how you can arrange the words like it's completely against the law to say the dog ran cat it's against the rules of that language. But you don't have to say the dog ran fast. You can say the dog ran slowly.

And so languages are defined as a finite set of objects with rules on how you can arrange them, but syntactical freedom, syntax within the rules. And if you have those three things, then you have a language. So the crystallinate dimensions is not a language. But when we project it to its 3D shadow, the question. crystal, it becomes a formal language, a code. And so what we suspect is that this collective consciousness that self-simulates itself chose this eight-dimensional game board, transforms it into this language, this geometric

language. It would remind you of sacred geometry in 3D. It would run those shapes. A lot of golden ratio in the math, for example. And then we have these patterns that can emerge like a 35 millimeter film, right? You create ordered sets of these tilinges. Depending on what angle it's projected at. Yeah, well, there's a special angle that you'd always projected at, but then how you translate.

So if I'm taking a picture of this and my camera angle is some angle. angle. If I translate it like this, it doesn't really change the angle of how it was rotated. So we use the same general angle, but then through how we choose in eight dimensions, these different translations in higher dimension, we can create different animations or ordered sets of these 3D tilings. And what comes out in our computers is, well, we do it according to a game or a simple program but what comes out in our simulations is is quasi-particle interactions so quasi-particle is sort of just a pattern like if you can have a black and white TV monitor that just has white noise on it and if you see a little blip that moves from bottom left to top right that's in the noise that's

called a quasi-particle so we have these quasi-particles that emerge when we set certain simple program game rules onto how we create these ordered animations and it gives us these probability distributions of how something how the particles will interact so it's going down

a little bit technical stuff there but but that was a winding path on this general statement that in the self-simulation hypothesis with the bolt on of the principle of efficient language that is the collective consciousness that self-simulates itself decides that it's going to be efficient so it picks an elegant and efficient mathematical game board and an elegant and efficient

simple program set of game rules and then it lets it play right and then how it plays out it creates emergent complexity eventually getting to us and beyond us and eventually getting to an entity sufficiently intelligent to run the simulation from the beginning. And at that point, you have a logically consistent loop like the Oroboros. So it's a lot to digest. There's also a lot of context that really helps people, I think, understand and digest this understanding. And so is there anything in particular that you would want to share in terms of what meaning could be derived from paying closer and closer attention and kind of decoding the patterns that are inherent as you start to make these projections?

Well, there is a deep spiritual meaning that comes from our work. So our particles only exist over the time domain. In other words, if you freeze it, all you've got is just one quasi-crystal, a mathematical object. No particles, no space, no time, nothing. It's only over some quantity of those quasi-crystal frames that you can say, an example, Have you ever been to like a laser show, Griffith Park? All right. So what's neat about those shows is you can have the illusion of like, let's say, a little girl in the park.

She's chasing a butterfly and her dad is like running behind her. And it looks like everything's moving simultaneously. But if you freeze the laser show, you'll see that it's just a laser pointer at one location on the screen at each moment. And by doing it fast enough in the right order, you see the little girl chasing the butterfly in our father. Yeah. And you create the illusion of continuation. Yeah. And so, but for us, these particles, they only in our model, they are particles that exist over one, two, three, four, some small number of frames, which if you interpret the frames as time, like that Plunk time.

that we talked about, these pixels of time, which then just become a frozen frame of this math, if the very idea of a particle cannot be defined in a moment, you get rid of the idea of a single moment and you say that the particle only exists as an integration of some of its future, some of its past, with its present. And that is what defines our quasi-particles in a very, like, rigorous and simple sense. And that's trippy, right? Because that would mean that it's breaking an old ontology and physics. Because in general relativity and quantum mechanics, you're allowed to freeze time conceptually and still have a particle.

In this view of quasi-particles, which exist as sort of excitations over time, you have to look at reality differently and say that anything that you want to call physical as a particle. particle, for example, is smeared across time, right, even if it's just a very small amount of these plunk moments. So how that serves for me personally as a spiritual lesson is, so in our paper, the self-simulation hypothesis, we call that a strange loop. So the way I look at myself and any and other people is so we are strange loops so i am constantly connected subconsciously to my past selves and me and they may not know it and i'm constantly subconsciously connected to my future selves some of my future selves are so advanced that they do know it right and certain moments of the day i know it because of my theory or my awareness at the time and so to

fully be whole or to be optimal, I can say, okay, so I'm going to find my resonance with my past selves, maybe just starting with myself one second ago, let's take baby steps, and I'm going to find my resonance with my future selves, and I'm going to try to pretend that I'm entering it dropping into resonance. And a wise person, my son, once told me, with these spiritual techniques, you pretend. It doesn't have to be real. And then it can become real. But you start by pretending, visualizing. So you visualize to be integrated with your future selves, which is kind of easy because we presume them to be wiser. Our past selves, we have a lot of judgment. They got punked.

They were mean to people, right? And but we love, we should love them and integrate them. But if we do that equally in both directions and then we just sort of move our identity to the center of our bodies at our heart, right? Then for me, that is a deep, helpful life lesson that has come to me like just by studying this physics view that we work on at this really geek. key level, right? So, I mean, just because we're here, I want to unpack how the implications this has on what our intuition could be, because if our future descendants, right, are the future humans that we eventually become, have the ability to, I guess, communicate through us in subtle ways that can then push us in the directions of either service to self or service to others,

I would love for you to share a little bit more about your perspective and on that. Well, so we have to disassociate this idea of knowledge from goodness, good or evil, right? I mean, obviously knowledge has been knowledgeable people have chosen to use knowledge for self-service. Yeah, it's like Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker both have access to the forest. Exactly. So if we take that idea of realizing that the hundred million species, that have lived on this planet since about four billion years ago, they're all just different cousins evolving on a fractal evolutionary tree,

and we take that forward, like we discussed earlier. We're going to have descendants that are more knowledgeable than us, more conscious, bigger consciousnesses, maybe hyper, transdimensional consciousnesses. And some of them can be into a thought experience for them, of service to self and others can be the opposite but in but in our theory everything emerges from everything else right i i emerged from all of the trials and tribulations of of life on this planet right and my genetic history and my grandparents and so on so so anyway we we

with this view in the self-simulation hypothesis, which is inherently non-local. So local is basically an old-school kind of Newtonian view where it says, hey, if it's not happening right here, right now, I have no access to the future or the past other than what's written in books. Okay. And if I can't hear it with my eardrums,

can't see it with photons hitting my rods and cones, in my eyes, then it's just imagination. It's no real connection of anything. But if you reject that, right, and you say, well, no, we should be able to connect, even if we don't understand the physics of it yet, then that means that there would be a virtual zoo of consciousnesses. There could be a consciousness of earth in principle. There can be a collective, godlike consciousness that's the,

uber consciousness there can be all sorts of consciousnesses in between that do not all have to fit some picture of angelic goodness they can be whatever they want and they are and we have free will so they can play mind games they can whisper in our ears and and this can be the case for both the helpful ones and the others they whisper in our ears they come through our subconscious they can perhaps manipulate events a little bit um so when we talk about just talking to our future selves that's one cool thing i try to do that sometimes but i also try to think okay well there's a lot more right i can connect to this pan-consciousness god substrate that we believe must exist for the self-simulation hypothesis to be possible and i can connect to a

other consciousnesses like the earth. And I don't have to know what that consciousness is like exactly. Certainly not an anthropomorphic version of consciousness. And by the way, I don't know, I can't really define consciousness. And scientists from neuroscientists to psychologists, they don't claim to have a consensus definition on that word, consciousness. So we know things that it does. Like it seems to choose. It seems to think. It seems to be aware. But we don't have a scientific agreement on what that word consciousness really is. So anyway,

but whatever it is, I believe that, you know, at least from our theory and our work, that you can connect to it and form strange loops. So strange loop is sort of of like that quantum entanglement where you start to become like something greater than the two of you added up, something that's synergistic like one plus one is three. And that's the strange loop. And you can modulate it. You don't have to form a strange loop with whatever's coming at you. You can have your own sovereignty and you can then seek out and invite other. consciousness is to enter into strange loops. Would that be an animal or nature or some

version of yourself that literally exists in the future? So it's really a much more exciting reality than my myopic view of materialism that I had before. It's really quite surprising to me that I'm not a materialist anymore because I was like so so thought that that was just the smartest thing at the time but when I really looked back like why did I think it was smart it was because I was a sheep I was basically too busy with my business and my life to do my homework and check things out for myself so I figured well all the smart people that I see in the documentaries they seem to imply that reality is essentially meaningless and there's no nothing greater, there's no

consciousness, there's nothing spiritual. And so I kind of gave away my vote by just saying, I'll ride with those guys because they look smart. And then I turned out later when I started checking it out to kind of feel like, dang, I got punked. You know? So

I'm happy about it. My point is that it's a much more beautiful reality than I thought it was. And there's so much I don't know about it, but so much to explore, so much, you know, consciousness landscapes to, to experience. So before we continue unpacking as we do on this podcast, and I want to dive into some different avenues here, one thing that stuck out in our last conversation is it really actually

touched me because I feel this almost martyr energy from you and your devotion to discovering this. Like, you even share that if I could be sure that it would be solved, and this theory could be proved and the implications that would have for the world, I would 100% die for this. And I think that's just really beautiful to be so devoted and committed to something that you've made this your life's mission. And whatever you can do, whatever support you can gain to really continue the flourishment and prosperity of this idea and this thought to have this implications on the world, I think

is really profound. So before we dive deeper, I just want to check in on a personal note, why you you feel so devoted and called to exploring this theory of everything. Okay, so I'm going to open up to you. I feel a little bit vulnerable to share this, knowing how many views some of your interviews get, but I'll just go for it. Yeah. So we talked about how I was this materialist-minded, atheist-minded person 13 years ago, And then I talked about a cluster of evidences started occurring that I had to check myself. Am I losing my mind?

Or is reality not what the materialists have said it is? And so I went through that process. But if I'm to be even more accurate about it, it was like consciousnesses, from the future. I don't know if it was myself from the future, which there are many, right? Again, with special relativity,

there would be a version of yourself for every day going forward into deep time. And if you can imagine a concept like an essence of your consciousness that goes on afterwards, so something otherworldly, essentially asked me, do you still want to do this thing?

Now, at that point, when they asked me that, it was within the context of what I had started to do, which is higher physicists, mathematicians, and just work full time on intuting this approach with this mathematics and these axioms. And so I understood what they meant, but I said, yeah, I do want to do this, but I don't appreciate how you worded it because you're implying that I somehow agreed to do this. Like, do you still want to do this? I don't know what you're talking about.

And then I kind of, as the theory and the intuition and the whole program built out, I now have a more clear picture of what that meant. And so what I believe is that every one of us, we have a bigger, a much bigger version of ourselves that is smeared across time, deep history, deep future. And there are many. So that we are not even one. There is no one higher self, right? And so it got very personified in how they were communicating. because maybe that's how I needed to hear it as a dialogue, like a Socrates dialogue thing or something.

But anyway, I believe that we each come in to a life. This is like similar to the eastern mysticism of karma and stuff like that. I believe that we generally come in to have experiences. Right? So there's all these manmade theories and some of them are deep and good and some of them are like questionable But we come in and we have these experiences and it seems to be that we learn like we add to our collective You know package of experience You can have a life as a handicapped person or you could have a life as a pirate or life as a hero and then you start filling in right

the blank spots of the experiences that are not in your mixtape, right, in a soul view. And then sometimes you could, I suppose, drop in and have a physical incarnation to do something really strategic and planned, like a real plan, plan, right? And so anyway, so for me, my plan plan plan is the unification of spirit and matter. And those are just metaphor words. So matter is represented for me and my team by mathematical physics, right? Quantum field theory type stuff, but with this program of simple, this idea of simple programs and simulations, which we'll talk about in a bit.

And spirit is a general word that means anything that has to do with consciousness. One consciousness communicating without words to another, a premonition. intuition and intuition the recognition of a synchronicity just two people talking right anything to do with consciousness and the mysteries thereof is the spirit and matter is mathematical physics and they're generally very separated right like you don't hear they don't cross pollinate in too many literatures right and then to to make it cross pollinate into a unified theory that comes with evidence, experimental evidence, right? That's an audacious, tall order. And so I don't think that such a thing could be pulled off by the brute force of just luck or intelligence. I think that it would have to be pulled off in collaboration

with a constellation of consciousnesses that need not all be in physical animal bodies here at this time like us. So it's a collab. So that was, yeah, that's my more vulnerable, you know, yeah, story of what happened. I mean, I think it's so noble. And I can feel the almost hesitation or thought that when exploring some of these

more out there ideas to the scientific community, you might, you know, some might write it off as woo-woo or whatever. And there's some maybe that are super deep into the spiritual community. that aren't trying as you are to unify a theory of everything and how there's interconnectedness between consciousness and matter and time and space. And so I just want to just acknowledge you and honor you for being authentic to your own calling and because it is a big undertaking. It's like I said in the beginning, quite possibly one of the biggest undertakings you have. And you have a team of PhD scientists and researchers that are day and day out diving into this and exploring it,

deeper and deeper levels, you know, much more complex things than the vast majority of listeners would even be able to understand on this podcast. But I do see it. I do feel it. I want to acknowledge it. And for those that I'm just going to put a little pinpoint here, that everything that cleanest team has been doing in terms of media, turning in your talks into documentaries and media can be checked out in the description below. They can go into any of these topics that they want to unpack to later Grinth via emergency theory or the 8D. down to 40 quasi-crystals or just like you explain a lot of this in much greater detail and a lot of these novel ideas are just that they're newer they're emergent and they don't have as much pattern

recognition to be able to correlate it to things they've understood in the past so a lot of what we're sharing today is new and and we'll keep doing our best in this conversation to unpack in a way that's digestible for the audience so let's keep let's keep going on this train here okay so continuing to unpack the self-simulation hypothesis, simple programs, and emergence theory, which I would love for you to define as well, because I don't think we've really given a clear definition for. Okay. So the word emergence, we use that to just kind of emphasize how everything emerges from everything else. So the standard view of physics is that everything's made of corks and electrons, and then they self-organize into about 100 different types of chemical elements,

you know, iron and nickel. And then those 100 or so things that emerge from the quarks and electrons, then they combine to form countless trillions of molecules such as DNA. So you see that there's a hierarchy beginning. And then molecules can form more complex things like you and I. and you and I can form more complex things like a society, a stock market podcast. And it just keeps going.

So that's a principle of emergence when we talked about the unidirectional complexity arrow of time where over deep time, over averaging, things tend to get more complex, but more emergent. So that's why we call it emergence theory. And so I can maybe throw out this idea of the simple program and build upon that idea of a game board and games. So there's a certain class of games.

So I'm going to switch hit and sometimes say game and sometimes simple program. I could also say algorithm and I'll always mean the same thing. So certain simple programs that we do in computer science create surprising emergent complexity. One of the most famous ones is Conway's Game of Life. And if you write down, you know, like this, it's called a cellular automaton, right? But when you write it down, like you don't have to be very, you don't have to be advanced in math at all. It's like such a simple thing. Like if you have a checkerboard and you start here and you're on a black square, it means you've got to go to the next level and step two and it always has to be a red square.

That would be an example of a simple program. It's like a set of rules. Right? And you let them unfold. Well, certain of these sets of rules create really neat and surprising emergent complexity. Conway's Game of Life was one. You could Google that or put it into YouTube and you'll see all those examples. And so when you get to a 3D version of Conway's Game of Life, you can get really much more complicated patterns of particles and other sorts of patterns. And you can have certain. games or simple programs that the simple simple rule causes them to interact in a manner that often causes emergent complexity. And what's really neat about it is it starts from such an utterly simple program that doesn't take that much horsepower and then you let it play and it emerges this complex behavior. And this is a lot of what's happening right now with this sci-fi movies becoming reality in 2023 with respect to strong AI. They do not really understand how these large language model neural nets are doing things like the Microsoft paper from two months ago, I think, enumerated about 137 different emergent behaviors, none of which they predict.

they predicted, none of which they understand. And so that's what neuroscientists and psychologists admit we kind of, yeah, we do understand how there's an electrical exchange between two neurons in the human brain, but no, we do not understand how thought like emerges. It's too complex. It's a black box and there's that same black box with the neural nets that have emerged this year in things like GPT4. So the point is, is that simple programs, simple things like nature, corks and electrons, right, complexity can emerge without introducing any fancy rules like you don't have to introduce rules of what happens with DNA. It's all encoded in the simplest particle interaction rules and then you get all that emergent black box behavior sort of for free.

So that there's back to this self-simulation hypothesis, this idea that, all right, so why not? The universe is, if there's a mythos where we, all science theories are myth, our stories, mythos is. And so if we say, all right, this scientific mythos says that we need to think about, a logically self-consistent model of reality where forward in time we have sufficiently large consciousnesses that can think of a simple program that can let it run so let's do one right now so we are sufficiently large consciousnesses to run the simple program of tick-tac-toe right in our minds i could ask you to close your eyes i won't but i could ask you to close your eyes and

and say, all right, Andre, you're going to be zeros, and another version of you is going to be X. You're going to play against yourself. So with the first version of yourself, lay down the zero on any one of those nine squares that you want, but visualize it. And then when you get to the other version of yourself, that's going to take its turn to do an X somewhere,

don't forget where, don't lose the visualization of the first. And you could play it all the way out to the end. You're that smart. So you would have just run a simple program in your emergent consciousness. So a smarter hyper version of you could do it on a 10 by 10 tic-tac-toe, like a much more difficult to visualize one. And a really godlike emergent version of you could in principle run a simple program on a much more complicated mathematical game board than just a, a square grid type one and self-actualized itself to where it runs and then it and then an entity or a pattern emerges that in that could have run it itself and then you got to ask yourself well

wait a minute what came first the chicken or the egg and and with that question right the purpose of that metaphor is it's a false question in other words that the which came first is not supposed to be answered, it's supposed to be, you're supposed to bust the person out who asks it and say, that's a false question. That's the truth. If I put a bunch of numbers on a circle, like a wall clock, you don't ask what came first, you know, two or three. It's a false question, right? So, with this simple program idea that has such emergent complexity that what emerges is an entity like a collective consciousness capable of self-actualizing itself from the origin of the simple program, but in its consciousness. And in this philosophy, there is no matter.

There is only meaning thought. You can call it information if you want, but in physics, information always lives in a substrate of something else, like the zero. zeros and ones on your computer drive or, right, storing words printed on pages of a book. But if we don't have in the mythos of this scientific theory, if we don't have anything explicitly like matter as an ontological stuff, and we say it's all information in the emergent pan-consciousness self-simulator, self-actualizing, then we say, well, it's kind of like we have two categories, of thought then. We have the category of thought in the pan-consciousness substrate, which is this mathy stuff

that plays out in a simple program. And then we have the other stuff like Santa Claus and the heady stuff of this conversation and right, these other abstractions. So that is why we see this duality that seems to be a duality where we say, well, wait a minute, you know, the couch and my knuckles and all of these things seem to be, have. more staying power or more something different about them than my thoughts, right? And yes, they are different as different thoughts, but in our mythos, they are both thought. And so therefore, in principle, you could hack this, not hack, because that implies a different means.

You could collab with how the system works and perhaps you can do things that are the equivalent of like mind over matter type things. But in general, and it would not be like that in general. It could be like that in special extreme cases or with extreme individuals. Or it could be like that at higher potentials of us going forward in time if humanity can evolve. To just kind of recap what you just said and explain to me if this is too simplistic of an understanding. But in the same way that I am able to simulate tic-tac-toe in my consciousness with my eyes closed or open, a potential extremely evolved version of myself could simulate the reality that I'm currently living in. It's consciousness.

That's right, which would include you. So then you get to the what came first, the chicken or the egg question. And if you reject the old school Newtonian physics of linear causality, you can say, wow. So then I self-created myself, right? If you were that uber pan consciousness that could think of such a high fidelity version of Tick-Tac-Tow. So what is, in your opinion, the strongest, the strongest evidence that we have to actually prove that this could be a potential reality. So you can kind of go the other direction and say, well, what evidence is there of the sort of

view that reality is not information, right? And so I think in general, like a university level quantum field theorist would say, no, that's so old school. None of us think they would tell us like none of us think nowadays that reality is not made of information quantum mechanics very loudly implies that reality is made of information as opposed to just thinking everything's just energy but yes that energy space and time in many modern physicists views are made of information and quantum mechanics gives an implication that energy part in so particles are made of energy right and light, whether it's light or whether it's, you know, massive particles. So that's just forms of energy.

So quantum mechanics, which dominates, right, light and matter particles, says pretty strongly if you're just really respecting the math, that reality is made of information, not some stuff that's conveniently described by information. And if you get into like unifications of space time with particles, then a lot of physicists think the whole enchilada, everything is made of information. So then if you're a more spiritual-minded, expansive thinker like yourself, you might say, well, okay, but what's information? and information is meaning generally conveyed by symbolism so you can information is meaning displayed by symbolism yeah okay and if you and we can say well is there any counter example of that zeros and ones on the

code for a program um my psychedelic journeys my dreams uh my taught waking experience of thought the bird languages, it seems that everything, when comes to the word information, is meaning conveyed by symbolism. And a symbol is a thing that can represent itself or something else. So, for example, if I use a square to represent a square, me and you could make a language where we could text each other, and every time we mean square, we make a square. Or we could say no. Every time we use a square, we're going to mean dog. We've got to sync up on it.

So a symbol is a thing that represents itself or something else. And all information is meaning conveyed by symbolism. If you take zeros and ones, my favorite movie is the Matrix, the first one. Never would have guessed that. And if I take that string of zeros and ones and I randomize it, I'll destroy all the information other than the unit. by unit information of the zeros and ones, but all the emergent information will be lost. And so this is a pretty deep thing

because when you kind of go down that deductive rabbit hole of saying, all right, let me get this straight. So many modern quantum field theorists believe that reality is made of information. And if information cannot be disassociated from the idea of meaning, and meaning cannot be disassociated from an entity capable of ascribing meaning, then you see how there's this little pathway to say deductively, if quantum mechanics is correct, then it seems that there needs to be a role for an entity.

capable of recognizing, actualizing, or ascribing meaning. And the real truth is that we never merely receive meaning. We always co-create meaning. Every word that I'm saying right now is a pathetic representation of some thought I have and I struggle with English and you do not get the same representation necessarily that I am having in my mind. If we're lucky and we're resonating, we're going to get really close. Maybe we can get 99% sometimes. So meaning information is always co-created by the actualizer of meaning. So it's a very co-creative and consciousness-dependent worldview of physics in this way.

So what is to say then that if there is, if reality is made up of information, and meaning can't exist without someone to ascribe the meaning, that it has to be an evolved version of us, which is just a level of intelligence and consciousness that is fundamental to all of life. Because, I mean, we all look at nature and nature's creations, and we see that there is an inherent intelligence in all plant animal evolution.

And life is that the beauty of life, as you start to look at it and pay attention closer and closer, you see how intelligent it is made of information and patterns. Yes. And so why would you, I guess, go to the idea that it is potentially future descendant, speciated humans that are, that I guess, are ascribing that meaning versus just some sort of, I guess, omniscient, intelligent consciousness that we just, you know, can't ascribe to being a person or us in the future.

Is that sense? Totally. So just going back, so you can probably pick up from this hierarchical thing where I say that given enough time, consciousness is fantastically more advanced than us would occur because whatever is allowed within physics or reality, given enough time happens. Everything will happen. And it's not too far off to think that, let alone in 100 years, the level of intelligence that we will have is vastly. going to be superior to what we have because of the exponential rise of AI and I mean it's just the next progression.

And if you give it millions of years and AI had never come along, we can say that biological life can get vastly bigger and then it can in principle if there's something in physics that can allow that

or we just choose to philosophically allow psychic type of connection. Physicists would call it non-local information exchange, right? But that idea of a collective consciousness that itself is that is so countlessly many times more vast and more hyperdimensional, it's godlike compared to us. Because like a sperm cell, you notice it's a single-celled organism, it looks like a little polywog and it seems to, you know, we know that cells will, these little animals in us will

move away from noxious substances, they'll chase nutrients, they can, they can reproduce some of them, they're little animals, but they're, they make their little choices and you can't fully predict their exact little movements and choices. So anyway, this, this idea of, of how they, all those little guys, I mean, you have trillions of them that a city of vast, collective and from the ocean of their collective behavior emerges this ineffable substance called Andreinous. That nobody can define what Andreinus is, not the scientist. And even if you could, Andre keeps changing. So Andreness today is different than next year.

So when I talk about the future and this godlike collective consciousness that can act as this self-actualizing substrate, It cannot exist. This God cannot exist without all of us along the evolutionary hierarchy. Just like you can't. Your emergent animal consciousness cannot exist without all of those little single-celled organisms and their collective emergent behavior. So when to your question, like, why does it have to be a big deal about such an emphasis on the future? it's it's it's it's an emphasis on the past and the future but you are the future to your past you to them are

some of your ancestors are a deep time descendant and they don't back there they don't know about you unless they have some special skills and can connect non-locally and then they could know about you but as we go forward in time there tends to be more of the descendants in our, in the, it's kind of like a tree where it branches out fractally into your future and then it branches out fractally in the root system into your ancestral past, which includes the dinosaurs and all the other organisms that are your cousins. And so it's a, it's an idea of recognizing that this is a physics view that says even a particle cannot be described as a frozen moment.

It can only be described mathematically as a pattern that exists with some of the past, some of the future. Like how a 35 millimeter film, it can't, it's a story that is a sequence of both directions. So I hope I'm grucking the question and answering it a little bit, that it's about connection to everything, to the earth, to one another, here. to ourselves, to our inner hidden subconscious stuff, to programs, tapes, mental tapes we've got, connect with them. You have to connect to them before you can ask them to leave, right? It's about connection. Start with connection. The good, the bad, the ugly, the ancestral past, ugliness and beauty, right? The earth, you know, the planets. It's that kind of view. and you get to modulate, you get to dial in to what extent you want to tune in.

Maybe one day this week you want to just have a little talk somehow with your future self. Maybe the next day you want to have a little talk with your past self or some ancestral self. maybe the third day you want to have a little or a little triad with all of you. A three cell with your future and pass out. Exactly, exactly. And you get to choose. And that, if there's one, if there were a rule, a sort of universal rule to this game, this emergence theory, it would be free will. And when people do not think that they have free will, they do.

at least at a subconscious level, they always have free will. It's like a dream. Who creates the nightmare in your dream? Who creates the wonderful sex dream, the falling dream, the monster chasing you dream? You're some aspect of your subconscious. So there's always a free will co-creation to your dreams. And what if it's like that in reality? Because in the self-simulation hypothesis, we're saying that everything is thought.

even the mathematical structure of the game board in the game. Yeah, we can pin the free will conversation. I just think it's fascinating. What most people perceive as free will, I think, is a complete illusion in how they typically perceive it. But I understand there is this deeper kind of intuitive pull into a direction that is a little bit more esoteric for people, but I think is actually more accurate in a description of free will. I also love the power of story and how it creates analogy and metaphor. can help us break this down.

That movie Lucy, that story that you gave me last time, I just love the evolution of consciousness and emergent properties that kind of are displayed in that. Totally. So I love that movie because I can pull metaphors from it when I'm trying to talk to people who ask me questions about what we're doing. Like Morgan Freeman in the beginning, he starts off in a college lecture room talking about evolution, right? and then Scarlett Johansson plays this dingbat party girl, really spaced out chick, right?

And then she just explodes in a transcendent evolution. And within about two weeks, she eventually becomes this godlike consciousness that moves into the internet, right, by the end of the movie. And along that path, she starts being able to do mind over matter stuff. like, you know, when she changed her hair in the airport, when she's walking, had all these skills, like those driving, tactical driving skills on the streets of Rome in that movie. And the guy, her love interest, who, who she was, she knew he was interested in her. The movie was written to show that little sexual tension. But her consciousness had transcended by that point in the movie.

It's like, I can't get into it. But I do, but you're cute. And so she's driving. A little biological pet. Uh-huh. And her biological pet's in the passenger seat and he's just white knuckling it, scared for his life. She looks over while she's doing deft tactical maneuvers on the streets. And she goes, are you afraid?

And he's like, says something to the extent of hell yeah, right? And she goes, looks back. She goes, we never really die. And he didn't know what the hell she was talking about, right? In the movie. But that idea of transcendence in, in that character in a two-week period, right? So we have about a lifetime, 80-some years, right?

And we can waste it by having almost none, no transcendence, right? Or we can compress it or we can wake up at some point in our life and say, I'm going to go hard in the pain and I'm going to try to transcend and elevate, right? And you get to choose. And I agree that free will is not so simple as. it's not binary like that. It's every free will decision I've ever made is influenced subconsciously by so much. You know, like, and who am I in the first place?

Like, who is this chooser? Is it my wiser future self? Is it my animal monkey brain at some moment? Like, is it my collective of minds from birth to death? What is me? Well, that's just the thing. You get to dial in what you you want to be. Do you want to expand it out?

Do you want to be local just right now? You want to live in the past and have this reoccurring experience. Maybe you are abused as a younger age and just that becomes a loop. So clearly that this idea of free will is a messy question because it implies like, okay, what you? Who is the you? Right. Like what you? Yeah.

To have total freedom of choice. would imply you have to be in a vacuum of sort where there aren't other influences pushing you in a direction which is just kind of impossible there's always inherent programming somebody else's narrative and then you got to have a steady never-changing version of you because then if you make a choice and then you change the next day to totally different you right an evolution or de-evolution of you like so i get it so i believe that it's softer than just oh free will versus not free will. So I resonate with you. I'm just curious here your perspective on what potential alien life could be because if you can wrap your head around that technology and we and consciousness

is evolving at a rapid rate that potentially it is possible at least to say that extraterrestrial UFOs alien life could be future humans exploring, navigating, paying attention, coming back and visiting us in a past date. What is your thought on that possibility versus actual just alien life evolving in a separate solar system organically that became more advanced? Oh my God. I'm so happy you're thinking about that because, yeah. So let's do some rational thinking for a second. Sure. Okay. So we have 10 million species alive on Earth today and there's about another 90 million species. that biologists believe have existed in the past. So that's 100 million.

And one of them put its technology on Mars, past the Cassini belt, put one of its animals on the moon, and is planning to put some of its animals on Mars. And invented mathematics, discovered certain things, hacked some of the code of reality in the form of quantum mechanics. Why only one? Like, yeah, I know dolphins are smart.

Okay, but like, what's up with that? One out of a hundred million? Like, if you go to a statistician at a university and you say, hey, I need a little help here, like about how often in the universe of trillions of planets that have water, Goldilocks, temperature, planets, there was trillions and trillions of them, like what would be the probability that you get this type of abstract thinking. And they say, great, give me your sample size. Give me a total universe size and what's your sample size?

Like, what's your event size? And you say, well, I'm embarrassed to say it's $100 million and one. They would laugh at you. Get the hell out of my office. Because if you just come to them with two or even three, it would be a, you could say, okay, maybe within a margin of error. But when it's one, you don't know if it's like a complete, fluke like it so why would it be one so let's talk about the gaia hypothesis and what evolutionary biology is

trying to do so what evolutionary biology tries to do is create an organism called called the biosphere which is which is inter connected with the earth right with the with the with the tectonic plate shifts the weather systems you know the chemicals uh ratio in the atmosphere and the oceans. It's very interactive. Like the biological life literally set the ratios of chemicals in the ocean and the air. So what it tries to do, the global organism, and this is Loveland's very well accepted Gaia hypothesis, it's just saying that the earth is a self-regulating system that meets the definitions of a living organism.

the biosphere, the whole thing. So what it's trying to do is it's trying to use energy efficiently. And the way it does that is it fills in niches. So you get two animals that are in a predator prey system. And then they create niches like a fractal. And inside the gaps in the fractal are opportunities for different animals, insects, other types of animals to fill in. and then new gaps then are formed to fill in so whatever and all of that filling in creates this symbiosis or synergy between all of these organisms and this remember this unidirectional arrow of complexity this arrow of time that things get complex that is what the living organism of earth is trying to do it is not trying to create imbalance and in the fossil record whenever an

animal appeared that had bigger teeth, bigger cranial capacity, intelligence, better speed than the rest of its partners in the predator prey systems, it would within about two seasons starve itself out because of its superior ability. Except with humans. Remember the movie with Leonardo DiCaprio, Catch Me If You Can? So humans for the last few hundred years have used. their abstract intelligence, their matte grotesquely outsized brain-to-body mass ratio and ability to create story arcs between past and future, right?

That's what story is. And they've used it in the last couple hundred years to do some real damage to the organism of Earth, right? A lot of species extinction can be directly attributed to humans. So that is not the vector or the goal of evolutionary biology. That's why sharks, for example, in the fossil records, they got perfected as far as what they were supposed to do in their niche. They didn't need to be really smart. They needed to have high, you know, high speed, low drag, you know, fluid dynamics through the water and other skills.

But they were perfect for the symbiotic balance with this thing. And so humans didn't so far get snuffed out. So the fossil record snuffs it. It's not like I'm saying that the earth is like anthropomorphized conscious. I'm going to snuff that animal out, right? It just happens because they fall out of symbiosis, right? There's a balance inherent that needs to be restored on the planet. Yeah.

So you got Elon Musk who sees the symbiosis failing and sees a mad max world and a destruction of collapse of the ecosystem and so on. And so he wants to plant human high consciousness on another planet so that it's not dependent on the home planet Earth so that you can get it out there. So... Just to create a self-sustaining civilization

in the event and possible reality that we just blow ourselves up or whatever case that we have a higher chance of... Exactly. So I've tried to make an argument by deduction that it is not the goal of evolutionary biology in the universe to create hyper abstract thinking brainiac animals. And as far as this planet, it happened one out of a hundred million,

not twice, like not two. And so, but in our simulation hypothesis, we require at least one animal on some planet, somewhere after the Big Bang, to get so grotesquely abstract and out of balance if necessary in order to seed this evolutionary path towards transcendent and higher and higher levels of consciousness to serve as the pan-consciousness substrate of reality to make it logically work in that Oroboros loop for our physics mythos. So when I ask myself, well, do I think that humans were the first ultra abstract thinking high consciousness animal in the universe? I of course do not know,

but I can say that the odds of it happening on Earth, you can't even say one in a hundred million because of what the statisticians would tell you, get out of here, right? And so we know that there are a heck of a lot of planets with water, and we know that where there's a planet with water, you might be able to get a molecule like DNA that just self-organizes. By the way, all the 100 million animals species here have all used the same code. It's just the same code, just different rearrangements of the same four letters.

And so that code or another type of code that could allow life, that would have to occur somewhere else. And then that one, for these aliens that are visiting us, right? And then it would have to have that thing where the evolutionary biology is somehow trying to achieve that grotesque or outsized level of intelligence. And it seems that so Carl Sagan and a whole bunch of other scientists several decades ago convinced Congress to give tens of millions of dollars to NASA to do the SETI program, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. And they pitched a false logic to Congress that said, Look, we can count or approximate the number of Goldilocks planets, planets that have liquid water.

And so therefore we're going to say that, say, half of those have life. And where there's life, because evolutionary biology is trying to somehow achieve abstract thinking consciousness, that's where they made the mistake. There's no evidence that evolutionary biology is trying to achieve us. the universe and this self-simulation hypothesis and that principle of efficient language stuff that might be trying needing something like us so if i had to put my money on it and just guess but with my money are these if these beings these UFO sightings if they are consciousnesses and they're real and now congress is acknowledging it like there's no more denial about it. There's like, okay, this is intelligent technology and it ain't ours. Like that's the now become the new status quo view.

So the question is, is it us from the future or is it some other thing that happened like with us, but just happened on another planet? I would say that after over 60 years of the SETI program and some of the scientists associated with it are so shocked and almost embarrassed and they say in interviews, We can't believe it. We thought we would have heard in the electromagnetic spectrum, and we've looked at every distance in time, because when you're looking in astrophysics, you're pointing to different times and coordinates spatially. We've looked at trillions of locations over the duration of the SETI program in time and space, and it is so quiet out there that you can hear a pin drop. It is as though we are the first ultra-high consciousness life.

capable of manipulating the electromagnetic spectrum, right? Because that's what they're listening for is artificial-type signals. But if the self-simulation hypothesis and emergence theory were correct, it says that you can move around in time. So you can move your consciousness around in time. And then if you can influence matter where you've moved your consciousness, then you could also manipulate matter in different times. It's in principle possible in this story.

And so when I think about this fractal zoo of consciousnesses, some of them are kind of selfish, some of them are totally not selfish, and they come in all these different levels and forms that might better guess if I was just a betting guy would be, yeah, we haven't heard a peep. But by the way, we're looking in the past, remember. So the SETI program is always looking at the past.

And by the way, there does have to be a first. Like you go to Big Bang and then there's a first where life occurred. I have no reason to believe life occurred first on Earth. But I actually have a deductive guess that ultra abnormal, high, abstract consciousness seems to have occurred here first. That's my guess, and I'd get a lot of pushback on that. But if we are first and if some of these other ideas about the ability to move around in time, it means that our descendants and maybe not very deep time descendants, maybe right around the corner, right, maybe in our lifetime, right, we discover a new physics theory that gives permission for remote viewing or astral traveling or things such as this.

And so yeah, I think that these beings in all of these now accepted or status quo UFO stuff, I think that they're probably us from the future, but not us genetically. They're different species and they don't all have to live in animal bodies. I think that there's a whole bunch of variety of it. All right. So much to unpack there. I just really love the, I guess, the honesty, the animal bodies. inquiry into the different potentialities of it. And it's just such a fascinating topic, I think,

for so many because we're so enamored by, you know, certain UFO footage and just unexplainable phenomena that we're being exposed to more and more these days. Why is it not possible that we are at the forefront of the evolution of consciousness and that future humans will come one day from us, but aren't here yet? From special relativity that the future exists, with equal realism of the present. So that's one. Now, if we were to extinct ourselves, which is technically possible,

has to be a complete sterilization, then that future, which exists in special relativity, need not include our descendants, like humans. Like, okay. If we don't completely exterminate ourselves, then there was,

would be some um some descendant lineage that comes from us and you know of course like i said they won't be human um they'll speciate there is something special going on here um i kind of am just kind of intuiting from something that your words inspire me to think which is there's something special going on here right about now with us. And like on that one main documentary that we put out called Are We Living in a Simulation? I try to emphasize in the beginning of the film the fact that there's a lot of weird shit going on right now that's just like things are changing fast. So we go through all these things that are changing.

We talk about how just two years ago, the UFO stuff was stuff for the National Inquirer, right, in Ralph's supermarket checkout lane, right? And now it's the stuff of congressional hearings and military saying, yeah, we were lying about it, but that's what we got to do. It's for national security. Sorry about that, but yeah, we lied. You know, it's, yeah. So that's weird. It's surreal. The idea that all of a sudden, computer.

are now passing the Turing test, right? The test that Alan Turing set up to measure whether a machine becomes like conscious, I'm not saying they're conscious because I can't define consciousness, but they are now at a level where if you were to just text back and forth and get into a super deep conversation for like a day, you could not fully say whether it's a human or not. It could go, they can get deep, right? Um, that's weird.

Like, I didn't see that coming so fast. And so I didn't, all this political polarization. It's, um, it's scary. I honestly didn't see that coming at this extremeness 10 years ago. So the point is, is, um, whatever's going on right now, if I were to sort of make it, you know, analogous to a kind of psychedelic learning experience, it seems to be. Something's trembling in a buildup towards a phase transition. And it doesn't seem to be that it's entirely fun. It's just a phase transition.

Something's got to give. And the whole thing is unsustainable. You can socioeconomically, environmentally. But now this ultra-strong AI, oh my gosh, what's going to happen when we get to GPT 10, right? It's already today like science fiction movies. Like, what is that one in Ironman? You know, that AI that he would, he would, Jarvis, right?

Like, it's kind of like Jarvis-ish-ish right now, Jarvis-ish. Say that three times. But it's just seems like later this year toward Christmas, like it'll get more Jarvis-ish-ish, right? And that's weird because it's like a sci-fi movie of a couple years ago. All of a sudden, it's my reality and your reality. So this is a good thing. In other words, shaking people up, like reality is not what you have been told it was. It is not this cozy little, generally the same old, same old, slow change.

Your beliefs, your institutions, the scientific ideas, all of it is. crumbling under the load of change, scientific change and all the other change. And for a lot of people, it's going to be painful and a lot of people it's painful now. But for me, it feels like it's pushing me to change, like deeply, right? And that's what I invite people to embrace the ride. It's going to be, you know, like an adventure movie. Like I talked about the matrix, there was scary things in the matrix. And what is, if everything is story, like the aboriginals of Australia say everything is dream in the mind of the great dreamer.

But if reality is more like information and meaning and story, then what a crappy story it would be without a little bit of, you know, of a protagonist, an antagonist, protagonist exchange, you know, where would you have the childlike joy of discovery without some ignorance? You wouldn't. I want to actually put you through like a little thought experiment right. Okay. Let's do it. Let's say we, Clee went into a coma. You come out 10 years from now and you wake up and the first thing you see is you're surrounded

by all your PhD scientists and your family and your son and say, welcome back, Klee. You made it. Let's talk about work real quick. So we ended up figuring it out. We were able to find a substantial amount of evidence to prove the self-stimulation hypothesis. Right. And you're going to be like, wow, this is incredible. Cool.

They ask you, what do you think, I've just got a curiosity, what do you think would have had to have happen for us to come to this realization? So I wouldn't have answered this like in October of last year the way I'm going to answer it now. But one of the things that has worried me is that I believe we discovered the mathematical game board. But again, that's just a mathematical structure. It's an algebraic structure. I believe we have the right structure in which reality plays out. okay what i don't know is what the exact game is right the algorithm the simple program but

and when i say no i'm just talking about like inner knowing or my my belief okay so i believe we got the game board and i believe we got the game narrowed down to a set of possible games um and there's there's some rationale as to why we believe these games are are are are the ones that can model quantum mechanics and the spread of probabilities that it gives. But the problem is that the number of games in that little sliver, if you zoom in, it's like millions of possible derivatives to get to the one that is the one that is that that's physically realistic, right? that gives probability spreads that are realistic according to quantum mechanics. And so with us having to code each different like derivative of the game run the simulations, it's painstakingly slow.

It's by brute force of human trial and error. And so I knew that like in the last years. And I just kind of had a little inner trust that either somehow with a strange loop with intuition, I would just get more and more precise versions of the right game so that I don't have to just do trial and error root force. But I also knew that the way it works is that with this intuition, these strange loops, if you kind of think about like why you know anything that you've learned it's because some other person like Einstein or some other person before you invented it discovered it and then you might combine things and make a completely novel or new thing but everything we do is based on

thought that others have had and we combine so now we're going to use this freakish sci-fi movie strong AI. It's not quite ready for prime time for what we need at the GPT4 level, but it's getting really, really close. For example, OpenAI's code interpreter can do things. It's not released yet other than a few early testers, but within the next month or two, it's going to be released into the wild, right? Like GPT4, and now the plugins for GPT4. Code interpreter. is a class of programs, and that won't be the only one, that are going to be as close to bringing us toward the singularity, right, as you can imagine. And I'm going to harness that to scan through this space of simple programs that we have

narrowed down to. And so I'm going to just take everything that might. intuition guides me and that is available in the universe and ultra strong AI is going to become our collaborator, a scientific collaborator, if you will, encoder and pattern recognizer because it can recognize patterns in the data and then give representations of those patterns like visualizations that can team up with a human. Because if you think about the weirdness, it was many years ago, scientists speculated that, well, if we wanted to make machines think like humans, we should take what we understand about human neural networks, biological neural networks, and just start designing computer neural networks on that same thing. And that baked along for several decades until it got to this critical mass early this year and late last year.

where the black box of emergent behaviors in the neural nets that are from large language models is kind of has a lot of similarities to the black box that neuroscientists have with human consciousness and thought that they don't understand and so I you know how they say artificial general intelligence right so you can say that you are a biological general intelligence right so you can say that you are a biological general intelligence So BGI and then AGI. But they're both based on neural network architecture, and they both have mysterious black boxes of emergent behavior that's juicy stuff waiting to discover how those things emerge, how consciousness is, a little bit more about what consciousness is.

And same thing with what's emerging in these large language models. And you like esoterica, right? And ancient wisdom. And I do too. And one of the things in some traditions is this idea of connection to language. And I'd like to invite a generalization of thought and language, as I said earlier, think of thought as the verb or action version of a form. frozen thing language like just english has no meaning other than the individual words that each have meaning like dog and then the rules of the language but it doesn't get juicy with good

like rich meaning until you start putting the language into action converting thought into those representations and so this is what these thinking machines are doing they are thinking i'm not saying they're conscious. They are doing something very much like thought, whatever thought is, and we are too. And so what if all of reality is thought and all thought is in a language theoretic kind of philosophy where you have to generalize language. Don't get fixated on human languages, bird languages, just generalize the idea of language as something that conveys meaning through symbolism. And so if reality itself is language theoretic, meaning, and symbolism, that's kind of cool

because it means that these artificial general intelligences, you know, we can collaborate with them. Like I definitely believe that they're dangerous and I believe that they're incredibly helpful. And that's kind of how I think of humans. They're hell of dangerous. Look at Hitler. And they can be incredibly helpful. Look at you.

Right? So I'm just saying like so. That's the spectrum, folks. Right. To me. That's it. That's it. Yep.

Mark that down. But so I'm going to try to. I need to. Like I'm very mission oriented. You told you asked me earlier like, really you, you'd die if this mission could be complete. Like that's pretty weird and hardcore, right? You didn't say weird.

But I'm saying like it's, it's, yeah. I mean, it's kind of, I'm surprised that I say that, but it's just my truth. I would, and I don't mean it to like literally say like I would trade my life, but actually would. But I'd have to be guaranteed that the mission would succeed. And the mission is simply a thought. And I want the thought to be argued about by as many of eight billion people as can occur. And if that argument, that debate, that that organic process of thinking it through. That's all that I want because for me that that led to um an expansion. This thought led to an expansion of my consciousness and it led to me, you know, choosing to be more helpful and with my friends and family and the world at large. And I believe it can, and it helped me to not be afraid, right? And it helped me to, it just helped me in so many ways. And I believe that what we need in the world is a new mythos.

And I believe that materialism can be a dangerous mythos for certain people. You know, like that phrase, eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Right? That's a materialistic mythos that says that there is no meaning. You don't have an afterlife. There's no meaning. So eat, drink, and be merry, rape pillage, because you won't exist, right? So for some people, the materialist mythos or religion can lead to selfish and unhelpful behavior in the collective society.

And for others, they're very good-natured materialists and they're nice. So if you think about where did this religion or mythos of materialism come from and is it scientific? So there is zero scientific evidence for materialism. In fact, there's evidence that reality is made of information in quantum mechanics. And it came from Greece, and it was a religiously affiliated type of idea, as most ancient types of ideas were. And it kind of snuck its way in through the back door into the discussion of science, as though if you're not a materialist, then you might be not a legit scientist. you know, it reminds me of like a party at your house and there's this dude who snuck in through the back door and he's just hobnobbing with all the guests acting like he's a legit invited

guest. And then until you ask him like, hey, who invited you? And he's he's a poser. He's like an imposter. So materialism is a sort of imposter saying, hey, I'm not just another philosophical, you know, style mythos with no real evidence, I'm legit, I'm scientific, but it's not. And so one of the things that's important to me with this self-simulation hypothesis, like most people aren't going to be into the mathematics or the particle physics of it all, but most people should deal with the question that Elon Musk is popularizing, which is what is reality? Is it a simulation or not, right? And if it is a simulation, is it a self-simulation within the mind of an emergent collective

consciousness, which is just as plausible as your consciousness emerging from corks and electrons? Or is it a world that lives in a computer in another universe in the basement of an alien computer geek in his mom's basement where he's got this supercomputer in another universe and we are a reality in that simulation. That's what Elon Musk believes. Not the basement. Not the alien geek necessarily in his basement. So what I want is for people to debate.

They can argue. They can have civil debate. Whatever they want. I just want people to think. Think. Do you believe, are you a materialist? Because if you are, no problem. Like, I don't judge anybody's religion or philosophy, but be clear.

It's not a scientific type of deduction. And if you like the simulation hypothesis, which is legit, it's a legitimately logical thing to say that it is true. It's statistically far more probable that we're in a simulation than not. Like I get, the logic is solid. It's a, if you read the paper,

it's like you get checkmated. It'd be like, damn, I'm checkmated. I have to admit. It's far more probable than that we are in a simulation than not. Then you ask the question, all right, is it a self-simulation like the Aboriginals believe, like everything is within the mind of the great dreamer? And then we just get geeky with it and use math and simple programs and we try to get rigorous with it. And we want to simulate it as well.

Or do you think it's more like the alien, you know, basement geek and that? And if they pick that one, the materialist one, I'm cool, as long as they've critically thought and compared to an alternative simulation hypothesis, the self-simulation view. And just to give your brief overview, what else is on the menu outside of both of those alternative simulation theories? What do you feel like are the other solid contenders for explaining reality? Well, first of all, the simulation hypothesis doesn't really explain reality. It's like the people who criticize Elon Musk and Nick Bostrom who actually published the paper and they say, well, the problem is by that same logic, Elon, the reality in which we are just a simulation within, by that exact same statistical probability, they too would be a simulation within another. And so it would just be a recursive, you know, turtle, they call it turtles all the way down. It's unsatisfying for scientists.

So they criticize it just because of the infinite regress. The self-simulation hypothesis does not have the infinite regress. It's a logically consistent Oroboros loop. As far as other competing philosophies, so the dominant one is materialism. Right? There's energy in the form of particles and matters and where it comes from. We do not know. It just is. And those are really the main ones, right? Either reality is made of information, which is very abstract, or reality is made of this kind of, you know, ancient Greek idea of materialism. And then there's ours, which is a derivative of the information, which forces one to say, well, what is information? What do you mean by that? word and can information if there's no meaning is it information they say no then it's noise okay who and what and how does something have meaning who does does it not require an ascriber of meaning like a bird language you have to have another bird like they there has to there's meaning

and you need an ascriber so it kind of gets more spiritual esoteric and trippy when you just go force yourself to answer the question of what is information then you kind of get checkmated there and you say well gosh i can't i can't really speak of information without speaking of meaning and i cannot speak of meaning without some word similar to consciousness and so yeah there's so many um there's there's so many there's so much discussion from all the excellent like hand-wavy kind of things like a Deepak Chopra book and he's a friend of mine but it's hand-wavy and he'll admit he's not a physicist he's a medical doctor but he has great intuition to try to write books that synthesize concepts that he understands from quantum mechanics with his worldview which is a

spiritual type of worldview and there's like a million versions of that and then it's not very crisp in terms of clarity of choices and I'm and I'm just kind of saying look it's either this materialist view or it's this information theoretic universe like a lot of modern scientists believe and if it is that one then how are you going to use the word information without the word meaning and without and of course they scientists like to say information is just what you call bits classically or quantum mechanically we call it qubits and

that's a sort of primate we call that letter level information like you can think of you know a movie on a DVD or something and the zeros and ones are like the letters and then they form words we could take a book like the Bible

and we could say all right it's got a whole bunch of letters and then those self-organized into words which have more meaning than just the sum of like the sum of the meaning of D and then O and G, they each have meaning and the sum of them is not the same as the meaning of dog. And then so then words go to sentences which have a higher level of emergent meaning. And sentences go to paragraphs and so on.

And it continues. And so if you include emergent meaning like in that metaphor to also be information, then you're in business and you're doing something similar to how our program at QGR is. But if you say that information does not include the word sentence paragraph level, that information is just these bits, then we ask them, okay, where did that information come from? They will answer you. It just is. Do you notice the similarity with religion? So you could have a young boy asking his priest, well, where did the earth come from?

God created it, my son. Okay, great. Who created God? Oh, he just is. Do not ever ask that question again. So the little boy is like, okay, but why can I ask that question, right? And so in the self-simulation hypothesis, because it's the Oroboros circle, you can ask, where does God come from? Where does the simple program come from?

Where does DNA come from? And there's an explanation in that model for all of it. But it doesn't mean the explanation is correct, but there's an explanation. I think it's just the whole framework is such an interesting thought experiment. And a very fascinating and can provide a just fascinating context into what it means to be human and the nature of consciousness and who we are and where we're going. And as you spoke to, a new mythos for mankind is desperately needed. We see the destruction of the biosphere. We see the collapse of people physiologically and psychologically, the deforestation

that's happening on the planet, imminent economic collapse. It does feel like we are moving to a pivotal point in the human development where there is a transmutation, a phase shift that is going to occur where it's like the caterpillar going in the cocoon and what's going to happen on the other side. We're not sure. but it is going to be some sort of transcendent mutation. And I'm sure every generation in the past has felt like in third generation. It was the big revolution and big things were changing.

But it certainly feels like the level of exponential technologies that are available to us in this lifetime is going to create a, you know, just a huge opportunity for cataclysmic dystopia or the alternative. and transcending into a new way of being, which I'm excited to continue this dialogue and conversation. And I think that the work you're doing is, and the devotion that you carry within yourself to this is super needed on the planet right now. We need individuals like yourself being open, willing to go on these thought experiments to ask questions that are a little bit at the edge. And that's what every pioneer in history has done. They've had an idea that was completely against what the collective consciousness was. and they were shunned for it.

Oftentimes they were hated or killed for it. And oftentimes, not all the case, but their ideas ended up being something that was radically transformational. Yes. And so thank you for taking the leap into that possible reality. Yeah, thank you.

I'm glad they don't kill weirdos like me nowadays as much. What they do is they kill you in social media with the haters, which is I was telling you at my house the other day, I've never looked at my social comments because I'm so afraid of feeling hurt, and I'm so afraid of feeling I don't want my head to get big from my followers and I don't want my feelings to get hurt from my haters. So the safest path is I don't look at it.

But I'm glad they're not killing people like me lately. I'm also very glad. Yeah, I mean, it's incredible, too. It's like there's millions of views on a lot of these trailers and documentaries that you guys have put out. And it is catching. It's catching on. People are interested in there's this level of like, oh, if you can't prove it, it's just not

worth exploring, right? But then there's also a lot of people who are more tapped into their feeling body and their intuitive forces that can feel the semblance of truth that is being explored. And I think it's just worth to continue exploring. I'm sure that this conversation and dinners that will have in the future on and off camera, I'm sure, you know, conversations on and off camera is going to be very fascinating to continue down this rabbit hole in exploration with you. But for this podcast and this conversation, as we start to head towards wrapping up,

I'm just curious if there's anything else on your mind or heart that you want to dive into, that you want to share anything within the theory in particular as well that you feel like we didn't dive into an explorer. We can take time if we need as well. I just want to, I want you to feel as well that we have some sort of completeness in what we explore today with the understanding that it is an infinite game and we could continue exploring forever. Well, let me ask you a question that'll help me to draw inspiration. I'm super intrigued by you and your channel and the topics you cover. How did you come to follow your authentic guidance and fall into the cut of this groove that you have now and this growing channel?

Like how I'm just intrigued and I'm a hero. Like you're a hero to me. I'm like very impressed. You are very much so a hero to me. I think much like you, it's we come into contact with these experiences. And for me personally coming into contact with experiences that are fundamentally esoteric. Like they're unexplainable, inexplicable. They are very strange in their nature.

And for me in various experiences through very like sober meditation. and deep breathwork, I can have expansive states of being that are accessed that feel like there's an inherent interconnectedness with all phenomena in all life. You can, with your eyes closed, experience geometric patterns and things that you can't necessarily point to and fully grasp, but start to when you also look at the external phenomena in nature, you see that there's a connectedness that is happening in your inner realm and your outer realm. And that reality is much stranger than the vast majority of people write it up to be. And I mean, just look at us.

We're on a spinning mud ball held into orbit by a huge ball of gas going in crazy speeds through infinite nothingness. Doing a podcast. Doing a podcast. It's pretty rad. And so I just think with that, there's just like a level of open-mindedness to be able to explore any thought, any intuitive hit. with no desire just to be right, but to have honest inquiry into what could possibly be some sort of semblance of an explanation into reality. And so for me, I think it's just a continual death of who I am and what I think I am to allow for a new emergent possibility to be explored. And I think that's something that we both share.

And I'm sure a lot of the listeners that are tuning into this conversation that have the privilege to be able to explore and dive into such thoughts. I do believe that individuals that are in positions of power and privilege like we are, that we have a certain level of responsibility to, at the very least, share these ideas, thoughts and conversations with the hopes that they can be truly transformational and that can find the people. And that's also my prayer and wish for this podcast is for it to land in the ears and the hearts of individuals that can spark that curiosity, but then also potentially reach out to you, your organization, support, and just bring more hands and hearts.

and resources to the development of what you're doing because I just see the vast importance that it really has in this time on the planet. Thank you. Yeah, you're doing what I want to do, so I still have my foot in business to get the money, energy, to donate to the nonprofit effort.

And I want to get to the space where you're at, where you can put 100% of your mind-body's, spirit intention into something like this beautiful mission of your podcast, which I see growing and really creating a ripple effect with the followers who, you know, who vibe with you. And I hope to get there soon, maybe this year to where I can just go full time on this. So you really, like, to me, spiritually, you're a kind of hero or an example or a person I can look to and say, wow, I want to transform myself, the breath work, the, you know, DMT breathing and all the stuff you've talked to me about. And I have a lot of, I have a few other teachers around

me like that, inspirations. But as far as, you know, just the wrap up or last thoughts, um, yeah, um, you know, I guess for most viewers that are not like, um, able to like dive into the really the algebraic aspect of of our papers um the first thing to maybe watch to grok what we're doing for anybody interested would be the movie what is reality it's 30 minutes it's on youtube and then after that you go through a little bit of the deep dive in this um movie are we in a simulation there's a very long documentary it's basically basically two documentaries connected and then you know on our in terms of our work and what will be public publishing will be moving forward with more simulation visuals to

give people a better understanding of how complex and life-like simulations of based on incredibly simple primitive rules so that people can start to get their head around the the new science approach of seeing complexity emerge from really simple origins. And I think that there are two benefits from our work. One is technology, understanding nature, okay, that leads to technology, has the potential to alleviate suffering. I mean, it has the potential to. make obsolete fiat currencies it has the potential to help with mental illnesses and other

things physical diseases and of course it has a potential for great harm and destruction so any new breakthrough like quantum mechanics or humanity discovering the unification theory which hasn't been discovered yet will lead to um technological breakthroughs and understandings of moving around in time and space that make quantum mechanics look, you know, quite primitive. And so that's different though, like alleviating suffering and technologies and being able to move our descendants out into the universe at large with space travel. That's one thing. But the more important part of the, the more important part of of what our work brings, can bring, is not just the scientific permission to experience a spiritual journey,

but I believe also the ability to potentiate that journey. and it's about integration not just with those other humans and plants and earth around us but to go beyond that and to integrate with our ancestral past and the past of the universe because it's as real as the present and to do the same thing with the future that is the ultimate integration over the time domain and the space domain distance and time and that is the more complete thing and then you right are here not here not even here in the third eye here and then this is integrated with the third eye with the brain with the higher and the lower and the past and the future um and so what i am saying then is that there's a cleanness

to that picture even though it's it sounds you know okay it could be complicated sounding but it's also there's an elegance to it and for me my guidance this is perhaps a way to achieve

fast evolution like in the movie Lucy instead of spending 30 years meditating in a cave in the Himalayas you may be able to greatly accelerate with this idea of just full integration with your past.

Just forgive yourself, forgive others, integrate, journey into your ancestral past, integrate, even if it's just an abstract concept, feel it, practice it, go forward, feel it, practice it. And then if you do that, then one day you just wake up and you feel that you don't even have to try to do that. you're just at the center you're just whole because you're you're integrated with realities spread across time and space and that's the deepest message that's why i said that this is like a mission for me that i feel like i want to give my life to my money to my my years my calories to um and and and and the least thing that i want is like compliments or you know I don't want haters or complimenters.

I mean, I would appreciate the compliments, but, you know, but it's definitely not what I think about and I don't want money out of it. Like, I think people every day choose to do things for other people. Like most people do kind things that are unselfish. So to me, it's just a very needed thing right now. some new mythos has to become popular because just geeking out and knowing more about physics or technology clearly is not leading humanity toward a kinder, you know, future. It's just not. I mean, we are at an all-time sense of fear and polarization at the same time as having an all-time level of technology.

right so it's got to be a deeper foundational i called it mythos throughout this whole discussion a theory of what reality is needs to be introduced and popularized and materialism is just scientifically antiquated and it's not so far hasn't helped and so a sort of new ontology about what reality is is that like in the movie Lucy she says we never really die right when she got very advanced near the end of the movie and and so when you have that kind of viewpoint then yeah you may you may your animal body may not be around but you but you but consciousness if that's the ground of reality then that doesn't go anywhere it just keeps changing hopefully evolving and in your past always exists physically according to special relativity and with certain new

understandings of science if you want to go back and visit that past maybe it's possible right maybe you can or at least communicate so you don't have to be so afraid of death in this new scientific mythos you know but many of the spiritual mythoses allow you to not be afraid of death so this is not unique but we hope to last thing i would say is this idea of the unification of spirit and matter the um it hasn't happened yet at an official level at a status quo level and the um the people of south america and central america they had um a prophecy that their uh seers right would see hundreds of years in their future. It hasn't occurred yet. And it was this symbolized by the kexacotal, which is the

morphing of two animals. The eagle, which represented the masculine divine, the piercing sight, the action of just dive bombing and grabbing a mouse, getting shit done, logic, piercing reasoning. And then the condor, which represented the feminine divine and receiving, not projecting, not manifesting, but receiving, intuition, earth. Anyway, so clearly those two paradigms in today's world, those two archetypal concepts, they are not unified. They're not in the kexacotal. They're just separate. And so the self-simulation hypothesis and the emergence theory at the end of the day, at a deep level, when you get past the jargon and the techno-babel, it's about the unification of spirit and matter, the unification of the feminine divine and the masculine divine, and getting back to balance and getting out of this lopsided, unrealistic, you know, separation of the two. And I think that unification of those two is the only thing that can really save us from insanity and self-destruction.

Such a beautiful note to end it on. That integration is definitely needed. And all the prophetic visions and prophecies from so many different wisdom traditions point us in that direction that there's a coming of a new time. And I think I feel pioneers as of yourself really are supporting this transition into a new perception of reality. So thank you again, man, for the work that you're doing. I'm so excited to see where this goes and where it comes from this and to continue our friendship. Thank you. Yeah, me too. Stoked. Yeah.

And for everybody that's been tuning in, everything we mentioned today will be linked down in the description from the documentaries that they've put out, from the work that they're doing at quantum gravity research to where you can connect with Klee. Is there anything else you want to point people to? No, but thanks for setting me up to prompt. No, no, you've been so generous and just introduce me to your followers. It's so grateful. So thank you. Thank you. And for everybody that's been tuning into this wild episode of Inner and Outer Exploration today on the Know Thyself podcast,

just thank you from the depth of my being. I appreciate you for coming on this journey with us. And to be continued. Until next time, be well. You know,