Technology, Connected - Consciousness Is All There Is - Federico Faggin, Irreducible 12

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

In Chapter 12 of Irreducible, Mark and Jeremy confront one of the book’s hardest ideas: that consciousness can’t be explained by equations or code.They trace how probability, prediction, and mathematics fall short of describing a universe that is always becoming. Meaning comes before symbols, and knowing comes before measurement. If the physical world is only an average of quantum states, then comprehension itself is a creative act.The discussion moves from the illusion of probability to the difference between simulation and emulation, asking what it really means to know. This is not a rejection of science, it’s a reminder that consciousness might be the missing variable.The closer we get to defining reality, the less certain we are that it can ever be defined.Please enjoy the show. -- Chapters (00:00) Why consciousness vs physics matters (02:15) “Becoming”: a universe that’s still unfolding(03:03) What “live information” really means(05:51) Probability isn't real(07:43) Creativity & AI: making vs. remixing (09:24) Meaning vs. syntax: why symbols alone aren’t enough (17:13) Are you an Observer or actor? Your role in quantum reality (21:55) Reverse engineering anxiety and happiness(27:09) Flow state: the texture of the present (31:05) Simulated minds vs. emulated minds (32:12) Consider our minds blown.--Follow and support Thinking On Paper:PODCAST: https://www.thinkingonpaper.xyz/INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/thinkingonpaperpodcast/--Thank you. And we love you.

Disruptors and curious minds, CEOs, founders, book lovers, conscious entities, seities. It's book club time. It's Friday afternoon. We're reading Irreducible by Federico Fasgin. We're on Chapter 12, Consciousness Life, Computers and Human Nature. And in Chapter 12, he's taking shots. He's taking shots at everybody. Probability, probably not real. Doesn't exist. Mathematics. Nah, quantum gravity is exposed. The block universe. Nah, not going to happen. Materialistic assumptions of classical physics are just, yeah, reduced to rubble in chapter 12.

The union of quantum physics with an adequate theory of quantum gravity, as now proposed, would still not be able to explain the origin of life, consciousness and free will, and therefore would not explain everything. unless these properties were incorporated into the unified field. What we now know that Federico Fasian refers to as the one. The World of Knowing chapter 12, Jeremy, before we get into life, AI creativity, observe as actors and what it really means to be quantum conscious. First impressions.

Yeah, there's, as with many of these chapters, there's always a lot to unpack. What's Kafka's, you know, thinking on paper, tagline. line that he put if it's what if books aren't swords stabbing us in the eyes we're doing something wrong books are supposed to be like ice picks into the the matter of brain i think this book is a bit like reading it is a bit like watching the texas chainsaw massacre in that like it starts off really nice and tame and everything's great and but there's a there's an echo of something tragic and doom ridden coming and you can feel it and every chapter you think it can't get any worse and every chapter it's like when we end up on a truck screaming like, what is consciousness?

What am I? Hung upside down by your ankles. Yeah, right. No, that's a great way to put it. That's a great way to put it. One thing that I saw in here that I was that I was pretty excited about was this is a word I really love in a lot of things that I do. It always comes up.

This idea of becoming. Yes. The idea of becoming and there is there is becoming in the universe, meaning it's kind of unfolding in real time based on interaction. based on probabilities that will, you know, maybe subjective and objective. We'll talk about all of that stuff in a minute, but just the idea that it's emerging, it's becoming, it's not set out and stated as is. I love that. I love that word. When he says the universe is becoming, it seems natural to say that.

I mean, what would it be if it wasn't becoming? What's the opposite of that? What's the opposite of a universe that isn't becoming? Fully scripted. Fully scripted. Deterministic. So on becoming. However, quantum physics from which classical physics emerges as a subset tells us instead that there are neither separate parts nor particles as objects, nor does probability exist as we imagined it in classical physics.

Therefore, there is becoming in the universe which cannot be predicted in any equation or algorithm. This means that the universe could have evolved in an infinity of possible ways using exactly the same laws. And we'll get into that infinity in how actually the actors, the saity actors choose the path. He says these laws contain 25 physical constants. And I just wanted to give our listeners some homework for the summer, Jeremy, because on the 25 physical constants that need to be just did. No easy buttons. No easy buttons in book club, guys. No easy buttons.

AI tells me there's 26, not 25, whatever. I don't even know if I'm in the right place. But of these, this is your homework for the summer, Jeremy, listener, is to research some of these. So the fine structure constant, the strong. coupling constant, the quark mixing parameters, the neutrino mixing parameters, the masses of fundamental particles, the four parameters of the CKM matrix, the four parameters of the Maxi Nagawakasaka matrix, the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant, the speed of light

in a vacuum, planks constant, the elementary charge, the Boltzmann constant, the Avagadro constant, the permability of free space, the Ryberg constant, the Stefan Boltzmann constant, the column constant, the gravitational acceleration, the gas constants, the molar gas, constant, the plank constant, reduce plank constant, and the Dirac constant. There you go. Get reading. Okay, so take this. Take all of those things that you put. So imagine, I've always thought about this as like the, think about the reality machine. Think about we have a reality machine. It looks oddly enough like an Ampeg base head that

that base players would plug into. And you have these dials across the base head. You flip switches and dials and all of that stuff. Imagine there's a reality basehead that has all of those constants on it that you can just kind of tweak along and make happen. Those are your parameters instead of treble, base, gain, whatever the heck it is, you have all those constants. That's what I think of when I think of all these parameters. That's a good analogy.

And then so it seems way, way overly complex. It surely the universe isn't that complex. And surely isn't that specific. Surely there aren't that many dials. And I just imagine on yours one, Hendricks comes in and he just plugs into an amp. One pedal, distortion, no distortion. And he creates the greatest music perhaps ever made.

And maybe you don't need all of those dials. You just need one martial amp and a pedal. Nature does it better. We talk about this all the time, man. We're trying to mimic what nature does with quantum computing. Look how good photosynthesis does just by, getting there plugging its guitar into the amp and performing. All right, this idea of live information landed on me a little more clearly in this chapter,

because I think he comes out and actually says, we're live information. Like a great example of live information is us. A great example of really complicated live information is the earth. 10 to the 41, Adams working together is the earth. When he first spoke about live information, It didn't seem to be to play such an important role in this theory, but he's definitely brought it back in and turned it up, hasn't he?

So back in chapter 5, he refers to live information as matter, information, energy, inside and outside the cell. He says Earth is like the prime example of that matter, information, energy. And so what role does live information now play? Well, I think without information, as he says in this chapter quite a bit, Without information, we don't really have this idea of knowing. There's no point in knowing if we have information. And there's no point in having information in the classical physics-bound world, right? There's no point in having information if everything is determined.

If everything is predetermined, there's no additive value in information because you don't need to know anything. To know something, you have to have information. and information is living in this more quantum, the QIP theory world that he's talking about. I thought that was interesting. Yeah, we don't need information if we know everything, right? He says, what is the sense of information that is unknowable if it does not make sense at least to the system that holds that state? And I think in that sentence there is a key, the sayeties individual. or conscious actors in this, they are, it does mean something to them. Yeah, but you.

Is that why you lose to it? If what's the point in this unknowable quantum information, if it does not make sense at least to the system that holds that state, that's what it meant for me anyway, that he was referring to this idea that. So we're the state, not the system, remember, right? We're the state, not the system. Let's see, what else here? So he debunks probability.

So start with that bull quote. Do you have that pulled up? It's like right on the section of probability. So what is probability he uses a George Bull quote? Probability is expectation founded upon partial knowledge, a perfect acquaintance with all the circumstance affecting the occurrence of an event would change expectation into certainty and leave neither room nor demand for a theory of probabilities. But I prefer the quote by the famous statistician and mathematician Bruno Definente.

Finetti, Finity, Bruno de Finetti. Defenetti probably Yeah Probability does not exist And obviously And obviously Federico I completely agree with him So

So you know Bull, Boolean math ones and zeros That guy knows some things So that guy You know knew some stuff right Defonetti

Really interesting I had to kind of dig into him a little bit But his idea That probability is subjective And doesn't exist Outside the mind That kind of blows your mind

A little bit But De Finetti His work Mark is living and breathing right now through this thing called Bayesian analysis, which is the root of recommendation engines. Like every single recommendation engine out there is built on D-Fennetti's theory. So you read that and you're like, that sounds pretty crazy. Like probability doesn't exist.

Wait, what? But then you're like, wait a minute. Well, we've all experienced how bad recommendation engines are. So that they don't deliver what you want. So if they're based on that, then okay. Okay, there's evidence for, yeah, probability is flawed. I'm following the breadcrumbs here, so in that last information that is a knowable, if it does not make sense at least to the system that holds that state, okay?

Here, he says, probability is about knowledge and only consciousness can know. Therefore, probability has relevance only if consciousness exists. The fact that quantum physics is about probability is saying that the physical universe is about knowing the white elephant in the room is this consciousness. He's getting more more solid and yeah with with his emphasis and mic drop moments on like probability doesn't make any sense if consciousness isn't around right? You're tearing down physics and maths and probability you need to be pretty steadfast in your opinions now. Right right. It does get again a little bit Monty Python in places where he looping around and the sentence kind of fragments in my mind and I'm reading

Like all these words over and over again, it's like, what? How many times I've ever read this sentence? And he's still saying deterministic in about eight million possible ways. Omniscience, you know, the all-knowing of something. The religions that are out there have a God or God up there that is supposed to be all-knowing. In this quote he has in here, omniscience would spell the end of consciousness, the end of existence, because there would be nothing else to know. And in his idea,

one is this kind of roll up of all the sadies and all the live information spun up in the vibe sphere just with the idea of trying to know more. The one doesn't know everything, which is interesting. So instead of God, all knowing, all seeing, one actually has a growth mindset. Yeah, Carol Duax should interview the one. Yeah, the one is the personification of the growth mindset. It is the ultimate growth mindset, this infinite everlasting thirst for growth and self-awareness and self-knowledge. I'm going to remember that every time I read somebody posting on social media about a growth mindset.

Do you want to know what the ultimate example of the growth mindset is? Fedico Fasgians, the one. This is a great reminder right here. Page 252, the field with consciousness and free will is a completely different entity that I have previously called the one. Self-knowing, parentheses meaning of one is represented by a pure quantum state of the field, which is the superposition of pure states of all the fields that have emanated from the one, which he's called the Cades. The excited states of the field represent the vibrational sphere. The ensemble, the vibe sphere. The ensemble of all live information used by the fields,

Saides, to communicate and explore their meaning. So the Seity is associated with the organization of ourselves as live information have put us in the vibesphere to unpack chapter 12. I feel like we're being used by the one. We're getting to, our sayities are getting to, like, plugged into their growth mindset, exploring this, trying to build new experiences and new comprehensions in our mind so that they can feed the machine of the one. We're not getting compensated for any of this, are we? We're not. That's bullshit, man.

Well, we are getting compensated, aren't we? Because the compensation is our, that is the compensation, not that the one agrees with compensation in that kind of sense. But yeah, we are. How does your interiority differ from mine in this exact moment? Well, that's something that only our inner satis can know. But I don't have the classical symbolic vocabulary to explain that to you or to anybody. Yeah, you can't turn the qualia that your saiti's experiencing into live information that I can understand. That's one of the main pillars of the book, isn't it?

That very question, how we answer that question is the uniqueness of consciousness and how the classical physics can't explain it. That leads nicely into AI creativity. Is AI creative again? The question that seems to get more headline space than any other. And each week, my opinion of this changes. So we have guests on thinking on paper and they think, oh, okay, yeah, mate, you've convinced me that, yes, AI, is creative and then somebody else will come on, they'll convince me that it isn't, and then I'm back into Federico's convinced me that it isn't. So a computer cannot have ideas beyond the ones we have inserted into its algorithms. If an idea produced by a computer seems new to us, it is only because we had not completely unrolled the algorithm that we put into its program.

So he's saying that an AI cannot be creative, And any time that we think it is being creative, we are missing the point. I go back and forth on this one. And I think it depends on definition of creativity. And the one I always land on, you've heard me say it a bunch. I think our listeners have heard me say it a bunch. That creativity is the unique arrangement of found elements. So you find some things and you put them together in a unique and novel way to make something new,

whether it's a thought, whether it's an idea, whether it's a new output of some patterns. Then you start thinking about what's human creativity and how algorithmic is that based on the patterns that we that we learn. So think about it like it's let's go to a guitar reference. You and I are both guitar players. So we learn patterns. We learn a pentatonic scale. All the way up and down, we learn that. And the way we are creative with that is how we attack those notes, how long we hold them, what series those notes are in. But isn't that just a rearranging of the pattern of those notes? And couldn't a computer rearrange the pattern of those notes the same way?

Maybe there's not feeling and emotion in it? I don't know, but I go back and forth with this, Mark. I'm more from the kind of Rick Rubin, the David Hume playbook on creativity. David Hume, the beauty of things exist in the mind that contemplates them. And Rick Rubin, I refer it like creativity as like hearing and channeling the whispers of the universe channeling the ether. I think Rick Rubin calls it as well, the radio antenna where you're listening to and are you listening for patterns?

You're listening for patterns. Are the things you're picking up? Signal is patterns. Signal is things organized in a moment in time, right? So you're yanking down patterns. Rick Rubin, come on the show and talk about irreducible with us. I think this would be interesting for you to check out. I like that.

We'll get Rick Rubin on the show. Come on. Come on, Rick. I don't have, hey, I don't have shoes on either right now. I got a gray beard. Yours is way better. Nor do I. Oh, God, we just saw your dogs, man.

Wow. Good morning. Holy. I've been walking outside barefoot, Rick Rubin. There you go. Yeah. So, you know, I think, you know, come on the show and talk to us about the whispers of the universe. I wanted to reverse engineer something

so following on from that and let's get to that in a minute but basically I wanted to reverse engineer anxiety and happiness back into this model of how this model gets our what's the purpose of us feeling happy or anxious and how that gets there via Seity's. But before we get to that, I want to speak from observers to actors because I like this.

I like this a lot. Maybe I like this because it's easy, the analogy. works we're so familiar with cinema that we can picture this maybe that's why in essence I don't know where to start in this so while you're looking it up the thing thing I think about with actors and and observers so in in quantum mechanics ever since I first learned about it you picture this idea of like you know things don't really happen unless someone observes them and you picture this dude in a white coat with a clipboard that's just looking for shit to come

to life and it's just like all right I'm going to look at oh there it is. Okay, I saw it. That makes it real. But the observer has influence on the environment. The observer is part of the universe, is parts whole to this whole thing. So as you observe something, the wave collapse, the wave collapse generates a free will decision. So it's influence. It's not just sitting back there with your clipboard. You're actually participating, right? That's what I got out of that. Yeah, well, not we, but so the seities are. In other words, no one can actually know the state that will be found when we make a measurement because that state does not literally exist.

The observer of a quantum system instead cannot observe without drastically disturbing what he observes and has changes it. Therefore, he is not an observer but an actor. Moreover, no observer can know the state of a quantum system even in principle since quantum information cannot be reproduced. quantum physics is therefore telling us that there are only actors the notion of observing physics has to be eliminated and replaced with the notion of quantum actors

because inside a quantum universe there can only be quantum actors and quantum actors are conscious according to QIP and interact with other quantum actors which are also conscious therefore the entities that interact within a quantum universe are like the thought forms and the say it is of so when you have an infinite number of probability of seeing zero one,

the waveform collapses, it is a conscious seity that says with free will, because they have free will, I choose this. And that's when it collapses and that's when

the becoming, the universe becomes. Trying to figure out, like, let's, like, are we... Did I just say that in public? You did, you did. So are we,

we're the sayities, kind of. Like, we're live in, information, but we're the Seities, kind of, because isn't our conscious, the consciousness of the Seity as well? Yeah, the Seity controls us. I know we're chapter 12, and I'm finally just asking that.

Well, the Seities are using us as bodies to get to know themselves. They need us to experience that qualia to know, to learn, to progress, to feel these things so that those conscious units, which are using us, they're part of the field. We're just, you know, when our body dies, the seity lives on. So we're like the drones, and they're the control pilots of the drones. We are the saiti drones. But when I do this, is it the saidi saying, yo, fleshbag, move your arms? Or is that part of my free will decision as in partnership with the Sadie?

We're in partnership with the Saidi. It's like Bucky Fuller's Phantom Captain, Sadie, Nine Chains to the Moon, read that one. It's kind of aligned with this idea. But I don't think I've ever asked that question. So it's reverse engineer a feeling of anxiety. I must have been felt feeling anxious when I wrote these notes down. So how do we reverse it? I feel anxious.

I think I choose anxious, not happiness because anxiousness represents a conflict. That's easier to explain. So my inner experience, my quantum conflicts with the symbolic structures of my life, my saity recognizes that those don't match, is anxiety a signal between. outer classical and inner quantum. Interesting. If the one is the conscious universe that always wants to know itself

and it sends out Seity's into the universe so that it can know itself, what is the purpose of something like that? What does the one get for my Seity's reporting back? Reporting back as anxious? Reporting back as anxiousness. Reporting back as anxious. So I think anxious in this instance is, misalignment with the one.

But that would say that the one knows that aspect. So how can it be a misaligned with something? No, it's when it's so that memory talks about like the further away we become from our saiti and more so associated with this us. Yeah. The more we're locked into the ego believing that we are all that is. But then you sit down and you meditate and you become. a bigger part of something else, it's a higher level of conscious experience, then we start

to think bigger and be like, hey, the little shit doesn't matter. Hey, I'm part of a bigger picture. Hey, I can, I don't need to be anxious about this particular thing because you're more connected with the bigger thing and less focused on yourself grinding up against the environment. And that makes the one happy. And so I imagine the one, one with a little checklist. Yeah, oh, Mark, Mark, Saiti, oh, he's doing well today. Tick, it would go somewhere else. What are the moths doing? What's the forest? What's the ecosystem of the planet Earth? There's a city doing. Control, there's a control panel. Picture like the biggest command control center in the world and, you know, the one is operating the Sades and the force and

the CUs and all of that. Oh my gosh, man. Maybe there's a, a, a, a, Marshall stacked somewhere with an almost infinite number of dials, which are all the sayities of the universe, all turning around, trying to make this perfect sound come out of this amp, which the one is always looking for this perfect sound. It uses all of these almost infinite saity dials to create it. So anxiety is dissonance in the sound of the sayities. All right, there you go. What about the happiness side of this fence? I don't actually like that word, and I'll tell you why, but go into the happiness piece. Well, that's what I was saying earlier. So when I'm happy, when there is a balance between the inner, symbolic and the outer classical, is that right, symbolic classical?

The inner and the out, when there is a balance between the inner and the outer, they say it is happy because I have ignored my ego for a while. I don't know. Happiness is, happiness, you mentioned happiness and anxiety together. I think anxiety is driven by happiness. Anxiety is driven by happiness. anxiety is dripping dripping anxiety is driven by the desire dripping in happiness

anxiety is driven by the drive for happiness and happiness always has this oh if only when I'll be happy or once I get this I'll be happy and there are all these like if then kind of statements in that and when you're you're always

away from it it's always this thing like man I'm never going to get to that spot And then you start looking at the timeline, you start looking at things, you get anxious, I'm never going to get there. So I think happiness, happiness is a tough word. It's a tough thing because being happy is a lot of people referenced that as like a future state, a target. But last night, prime example, I told my wife this. So my two youngest kids, one's going into high school, one's going into middle school. And my wife, we were sitting in the back patio.

I was cooking wings on the smoker. So American. I had a beer. my kids were throwing a ball from my dog. It's pure like American, like, whatever. But we spent like 45 minutes out there while I was cooking the wings and we ate the wings and then we ended up watching a movie. But before we were watching the movie, I looked at my wife.

I'm like, that's all we need. Like that thing that we just did outside for 45 minutes, that's it. That's all we need to do. And that, I don't think that's happy. I don't think that feeling is happiness. That feeling is like, I don't know if joy is the right word for that. or whatever it is, but that was like, I was like, that's the thing. It's the flow state, it's the abandonment of the ego, it's the abandonment of the past and the

future. It is, to go back to the beginning of the show, becoming, happiness is becoming, the universe is becoming, life is becoming. What beer were you drinking and what movie did you watch for the audience? Just to get to know Jeremy and his family a little bit more. Oh, what was I drinking? It was a little late. Cause, was it cause?

No, it was a little lightweight beer. It was an IPA, but it was like a, what the heck was it? It was like a 4% alcohol IPA. It wasn't a big famous beer brand. No, it wasn't it. Well, I think it was Bell. Bell IPA. And then we watched, the movie we watched was Terro.

Me and my kids have been on a tear with horror movies. So we watch horror movies and we totally narrow, we're obnoxious. Like, if you watch a horror movie with us, like we narrate it like Mystery Science Theater 3,000. Like it's a blast. But that's the movie we watched. What was it called, sorry? Terro. Terro.

Terro. How do you spell that? T-A-R-O-T. So like the cards. Oh, tarot. Okay. Yeah. So basically this girl does a, you know, terror readings for everyone.

And then it all comes to life and they die. And it's like it was really crazy. But I'm going to go back to you mentioned flow state. And one of my favorite people, this is why this book is really cool. Like there's so many quotes in here from so many of my favorite people that's just from the past. Like I don't know them, but I've read their books. I've studied them. So Mihai C-Scent Mihai.

His quote in here, he's got a book. He coined flow. He coined the term flow state. I read his book. It's fantastic. I think Flow, the art of creativity or something like that. But the quote here says, I have a naive faith in the universe that at some level everything makes sense. And we get glimpses of that sense if we try.

try. So I was like, you mentioned flow. I had to call that out because if you haven't read that book by him, it's really, really pretty awesome. But flow state, absolutely. That's exactly what that experience was. Time goes away. You know, you feel like you're fully present. Like, that's the key. Guys, that's the key. Find those moments. Did you have some questions that you wanted to, like that you asked with Claude? Would they? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I had a little partner on this journey this time. I've been using Claude quite a bit to just kind of talk through stuff that, you know, you write questions in the margin, right? After the event, no. First, you read, you simulate, you do your own work first. 100%. 100%. So this is, this is an augmenting, this is augmenting

the human experience. I'm not, I'm not outsourcing the human experience to be very clear. Good differentiation. I did read, I read the chapter and then the questions that I wrote in my margin, And I started asking Claude. So he talks about, I think, on page 247, and I asked Claude if Claude could simulate a human. The response popped out that, you know, what the model can do is what Claude can do. Have human-like conversations, patterns and responses,

reproduce aspects of human reasoning, generate text that feels natural and appropriate, and respond to emotional cues, in human-like ways. That's simulation. That's simulating the human experience. And I asked, Claude, can you emulate the human?

And the response was, this is much more uncertain. True emulation requires replicating the actual neural architecture of human brains, reproducing the biological processes, and having that same internal mechanisms that we have.

And it's impossible to understand those internal mechanisms because we don't know them. And if we don't know them, we can't teach a computer what they are to make the same. decisions by them. So basically, yeah, yes on simulation, no on emulation. And the note that I put, the note that I put down after that, so simulation is basically achieving similar results. In emulation, you're actually replicating the inner workings of something, which is impossible because my inner workings in my brain are, are private, not private in like a weird, but just like private, my quality, the experience of my quality. He uses the word private to define what you're defined. So I thought that was pretty cool. That helped me land on the difference with that.

I like that. Using Claude in the right way there. Did you ask him any other questions? I said there. Did you ask it any other questions? Look at you personifying, Claude. Yeah, but I was, I corrected my error. Toot sweet. Tell that to the one, Sayatee. Mark Seity, quick. Toot sweet. The Matrix has been updated. The anxiety level on Mark Seity is down. Is that going to be a new mental illness with like talking to Sayety? Can I talk to my sayities? Holy, wow.

Shouts to Claude. Dario Amadee, come on the show. We unpacked your machines of love and grace. We're using Claude as an adjunct participant to book club after we read the book, after we make our notes. Yeah, we're using a non-saity to augment our seities. Let's leave with a finisher here. Too long didn't read.

Mic drop moment. I think the deep message of quantum physics is that. physics is that one, quantum information is the representation of the inner experience of quantum systems, some without, and others with free will. That experience can only be privately known by each quantum system and is the creative source of outer reality. Two, live information represents the symbolic, shareable information that can directly communicate a portion of the private experience of quantum systems to other quantum systems. Life information can also be organized as living organisms. Three, classical information is the symbolic, shareable information

representable by statistical significant ensembles of uncorrelated live symbols that behave deterministically. Classical information cannot be organized as living organisms. It can only be used to create virtual worlds. That's a lot of stuff. That's a lot of stuff packed in there. I think that's a summary of the chapter. I love the last line of this.

The last part of the chapter, we're going back to the observer and actor in quantum systems. The observer of a quantum system instead cannot observe without drastically disturbing what he observes and thus changes it. Therefore, he's not an observer but an actor. Therefore, and then he speaks about... Obviously, obviously. I love here to just dump it obviously. Obviously, there may be many other types of quantum actors. unexplored since the notion of quantum actor has not been fully explored.

Whoop. No shit. Hey, here's my, let me see if this pulls up. I did a little drawing here. What have you written? No shit. No. I don't know if you can see that. So quantum system one, QS1, quantum system one, quantum system two, live information exchange in between. What's underneath it? That's a cell representing. Yes. Drawings. All right.

There you have it. Chapter 12. We're coming to the end of Irreducible. This has been a crazy but awesome journey, mind experiment. Hopefully you're enjoying the same. We need another book. We need some recommendations. Pop it in the chat.

Pop it in the comments here. And let us know where we should head next. Yep. We have one chapter left, lived knowing. We're still trying hard, sending out our saties to find Federative. Federico Fasgin, Saiti, we're having a bit of difficulty with that. So if anyone listening to this knows of Federico Fasgians' whereabouts and over the next 14 days, please. Drop us a message.

Well, actually, just have your Sadi find his Sedi and we'll meet in the vibes sphere. Yeah, we'll do listen to Vivesphere, Federico if you want. We'll do it in the Metaverse, even if you want. The last chapter, it starts, rationality is not enough. So he's not done with taking down mathematics, quantum gravity and probability. rationality is going to take down a new interpretation of physical reality. I mean, join us next week. Be curious. Stay disruptive.

Keep thinking on paper. Keep reading books.